Getting Your Priorities Straight (II)

There are many reasons given.  The first has to do with the concepts of hutrah and hudchah.  When saving a life allows one to violate shabbos, do we say that as far as this situation is concerned, we look at it like a regular week day (hutrah)?  Or do we say that it is shabbos, but we permit a violation (hudchah).  This opinion says that shabbos is hutrah, but non-kosher meat is only hudchah.  Therefore by slaughtering an animal, there is no violation of any mitzvah in that situation.  But if he eats the meat, he violates the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat, even though he is permitted to do so under those circumstances.

Many Rishonim rule that even shabbos is only hudchah.  If so, why can one slaughter an animal?  They give a much more basic reason.  We are worried that the sick person will be disgusted by eating non-kosher meat, and will refuse to eat it.  Because this will endanger his life, we provide kosher meat to prevent this from happening.  According to this reason, if the sick person is willing to eat it, it is possibly preferable to give non-kosher meat to him.  The Mishna Brurah (328:39) rules that for a minor, it is better to give him non-kosher meat.

The Ran gives another reason.  He says that even though shabbos is a very severe prohibition, each k’zayis (olive sized portion) of non-kosher meat is a separate prohibition.  These will add up to be worse than the violation of shabbos.  According to this, if the person just has to eat a small amount, it would be better to eat the non-kosher meat.

Getting Your Priorities Straight (I)

I have discussed to what extent one should avoid violating shabbos by using a non-Jew or a shinui.  (See the last two posts.)  But what happens when violating a mitzvah is inevitable?  Sometimes one must violate a prohibition, but there still is a choice which one to violate.  What has priority?

Many of the Rishonim discuss a case in which a sick person needs to eat meat on shabbos and there is non-kosher meat readily available.  Is it better to eat the non-kosher meat, or is it better to slaughter an animal (which violates the prohibition of killing an animal on shabbos) to have kosher meat?

All of the Rishonim that I saw agree that it is preferable to slaughter an animal so the person can eat kosher meat.  On the face, this is very hard to understand.  Shabbos is one of the most severe prohibitions.  Even though eating non-kosher meat is Biblically prohibited, its prohibition is non nearly as severe as violating shabbos.  Hopefully next week I will discuss the rationales behind this ruling, and some of the practical differences between them.

A Matter of Life or Death (IV) – How?

The next issue that must be discussed is how to violate shabbos.  As we said before, it is permitted to violate even a Biblical prohibition to save a life; however, it is often not necessary to do so.  If it is possible to save the life by only violating a Rabbinic prohibition, one is obligated to do so.  In such a case it is prohibited to violate a Biblical prohibition.

Sometime, however, one must violate a Biblical prohibition.  Even so, there is often a way to make it less severe.  The Rama (O”Ch 328:12) rules that, when possible, it is best to violate the prohibition with a shinui.  This means that it is best to be done in an unusual manner, something that downgrades a Biblical prohibition to a Rabbinic one.  The Rama has a caveat, that this is only if doing so will not result in a [significant] delay in the procedure.  If it will, one is permitted and obligated to violate the prohibition in the standard way.

A Matter of Life or Death (III) – Who?

If a person has a heart attack at the synagogue, who should call 911?  Normally, in addition to all of the men, there will also be children, women, and possibly even a non-Jewish worker.  Is it better to get one of these people to call?  On the surface, it would seem obvious that it is best if the non-Jew calls.  For him, it isn’t shabbos and it is possible to save the person’s life with out the violation of shabbos.  Failing that, it should be best if a child, who is not Biblically required to observe shabbos, should call.

In fact, this is the ruling of the Rema (O”Ch 328:12); however, even he agrees that if it would lead to a delay in saving the person’s life, it is better that a Jew violate shabbos.  Even so, many authorities argue.  The Taz (§ 5) says that the custom to get a non-Jew is not well established, and therefore it is better to get a Jew.  There are two reasons for this.  The first is that we are always concerned that the non-Jew will not do it with the same alacrity as a Jew.  The second is that we are worried that the next time such a situation arises, people will not want to violate shabbos and there will be a delay until a non-Jew is found.  For this reason, it is best if a scholar be the one to violate shabbos, so that everyone learns from him.  The Mishna B’rurah rules in accordance with the Taz, but in any case in which it is not clear that a Jew may violate the shabbos—even though in practice he may—the Mishna B’rurah rules that it is preferable to use a non-Jew if one is readily available.

A Matter of Life or Death (II)

What is considered a life threatening illness?  Firstly, anything that current medical science considers to be life threatening is considered to be so according to halacha, and even if it just could lead to such a situation.  A Jew, even one who is not a doctor, is believed to says that he recognizes this illness as life threatening.  In addition, anything that the gemara records as being life threatening is considered to be so, even if contradicted by current medical science.  The only exception is where there is a clear change in the disease since the time of the gemara or we have a treatment today that was not available then.

The gemara says that any internal injury, from the teeth and inwards, is considered to be life threatening, unless one knows otherwise.  The mishna brura says that this includes a very severe internal pain, that leads one to believe that there is an internal wound.  In addition, a wound on the back of the hand or foot is considered life threatening, as is wound from metal, or a very high fever.  A serious eye infection is also considered life threatening.