לזכות מו"ר כ"ק אד"ש
Reb Elchonon wanted to prove that one may not place oneself in a situation where he will do an aveirah באונס from the gemara that proves that mitzvos will be nullified in the future [מצוות בטלות לעתיד לבוא]. The proof is from the fact that we make burial shrouds from shatnez because the dead will rise in their shrouds. But wait - what is the problem?? They are אנוס!! So maybe the mitzos won't be nullified but we still aren't bothered by the fact that they will be wearing shatnez because they are אנוס?!!
But no!! We prove from this that mitzvos will be nullified. So we see that one may not cause his fellow to sin באונס and the reason that we can dress the dead in shatnez garments is because mitzvos will be nullified.
Then Reb Elchonon says that really one MAY place his friend a state where he will sin באונס and what the gemara meant was that if מצוות are going to be kept in the future, these people will have to immediately strip, and it is not plausible that we would place them in such a situation because it robs them of their personal dignity [Kavod Habriyos]. Darf men zuggin ["we have to say" in Sankrist] that מצוות won't be kept and they won't have to strip.
Rav Shimon Moshe Diskin questioned this understanding for the following reason: Why is it that they would have to strip? What about Kavod Habriyos? Kavod Habriyos overrides aveiros where the person is passive [שב ואל תעשה]? The Tosfos Shantz at the end of Makkos explains that wearing shatnez is not considered שב ואל תעשה because there was a מעשה done when he donned the garments at the outset. But in our case where it was the chevre kadisha who dressed him that logic would not apply and thus he would be absolved from the obligation to remove his garments. So he is not keeping the shrouds on because there is no problem of shatnez [because מצוות בטלות] but because of כבוד הבריות and then the gemara has no proof that mitzvos will be nullified.
We must therefore resort back to the original explanation that the proof that מצוות will be nullified is from the fact that one can't place his friend in a state where he will do aveiros באונס and if we dress the dead in shatnez it must be because they are no longer obligated in mitzvos.
But wait!! Maybe the issue really IS כבוד הבריות and the proof is that if mitzvos will be kept in the future then this former מת will have to rely on the היתר of כבוד הבריות and it is unlikely that we would place him in a state that he would have to rely on this היתר. Kumpt ois ["it comes out" in Latin] that there is no need for the היתר because mitzvos will be nullified in the future.
One more point - there are two questions: May one place oneself in a מצב where he will have to be מחלל שבת for פיקוח נפש and another question if he may do an act that will require him to sin באונס. Are they related? Seemingly - YES!!! Both are questions of doing a permitted act now that will necessitate a later aveirah!
But no - we can be מחלק and say ....
Isn't the Torah sweeet????!!!