by Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Sefas Tamim Foundation

QUESTION:  I have some very expensive medications even after my health insurance kicks in.  My Brilinta costs $418.54 for 30 days worth of pills.  I can get my American doctor to call the prescription in to a Canadian pharmacy and the pharmacy can ask a Canadian doctor to look it over and they can ship it to the USA.  The price for buying Brilinta this way is only $122.89.  My Farxiga is $365 per month as a co-pay, but in Canada the whole bill is only $99.76. My Entresto copay in the United States is $639.45. In Canada, the entire cost of it is $139.94.   Is this enabling a lie, because I am sure that both AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP who manufactures the first two and Novartis who manufactures Entresto probably made Canada promise that they wouldn’t sell to Americans?

ANSWER:  There are three issues here.  Firstly, is it a violation of American law? Our research shows that it is not.  Secondly, is it a violation of US Customs law? Our research shows that it depends on the class of drugs – these three drugs are legal to mail because they are not considered a narcotic.  The third issue is are you allowed to purchase something from a gentile who may be in violation of his initial agreement?  The answer to the third question is further broken up into two sections and is somewhat complex – the first part involves defining what is called a clear and defined mekach ta’us in the first sale.  If that would be the case, then it would be forbidden to do so because the Brilinta and the Farxiga would not belong to the pharmacy.  It would seem, however, that in this case – the first party would be fine with the sale because of two factors 1] They know about it anyway and 2] It would be too much of a pain in the neck to stop those sales.  The second part involves the issue of Lifnei Iver on lying.

WHY NOT SUBSCRIBE? Each week the Sefas Tamim Foundation publishes a parsha sheet with four columns.  To subscribe please send an email to the author at [email protected]

Although there is a prohibition of lifnei Iver regarding non-Jews as well, here there are two mitigating factors:  1] We are not sure if these companies made this arrangement with Canada in the first place, thus rendering it a safaik and thus permissible (see the author’s sefer, “Misguiding the Perplexed”) and also there is a three way debate as to how we understand this pasuk of MiDvar Sheker Tirchak. The Chofetz Chaim rules in his ahavas chessed that there is an out and out prohibition to lie. This is in accordance with the view of many Rishonim. Other Rishonim hold that the verse is merely good advice, but not halacha. A third opinion holds that it is applicable to judges adjudicating law. Generally speaking, the view of the Chofetz Chaim is normative halacha but for gentiles this may not be the case.  It would therefore be entirely permitted.

There is also a Mitzvah in saving money, when you can.  Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, author of the Tur, in the Choshen Mishpat section of Shulchan Aruch, chapter 35) discusses a person who does not care about Jewish money, and he writes that such a person will, in the future, surely answer for it.

Halacha is filled with illustrations of great Torah leaders who were concerned about the rising costs that Klal Yisroel faced.

The Origin of Plain Tachrichim

The Gemara in Moed Katan 27b tells us that when Jews were burying their dead in the finest clothing, Rabban Gamliel HaZakain arose and declared that enough was enough. The rising pressures, the “keeping up with the Joneses” in how to dress the deceased was causing enormous economic pressure on the living. “It must stop,” declared the rabbi, and the tachrichim, burial shrouds, we now use became the norm.

Boycotting Fish

The great Tzemach Tzedek (of 17th century Poland), cited by the Magen Avrohom in the beginning of hilchos Shabbos, once ruled (Responsa #28) that when local fishermen collude and raise the price of fish excessively, a prohibition can be levied upon the consumption of fish on Shabbos. It may take a week or two or even three, but eventually the collective buying power of ordinary people would force the price back down.

Obligation Upon Everyone

We will see, however, that it is not just great Torah leaders who have saved and are concerned for the financial well-being of their fellow Jews. It seems that this is what is expected by the Torah of everyone. The Gemara (Menachos 76a) tells us that Hashem commanded Moshe to also feed the nation’s livestock from the water that He had caused to emanate from the rock at Mei Merivah. Also, Rashi (Rosh Hashanah 27a) points out that the Kohen first removes the vessels from the house before declaring a house impure. So we see examples of the Torah being concerned with the financial well-being of the Jewish nation.  The difference between the two cases is that the former is for the entire nation, while the latter demonstrates that the Torah is concerned even for the individual’s finances.

Social Norm and Torah Obligation

The Chasam Sofer on Bava Basra (54b) states that, generally speaking, one can make the assumption that fellow Jews are concerned with the monetary well-being of their fellow man, and that this assumption has legal ramifications. So we see that it is the normal behavior expected of all Jews. The Minchas Chinuch writes that one who is concerned about the preservation of his fellow Jew’s money fulfills the biblical commandment of v’ahavta l’rei’acha kamocha, love thy neighbor as yourself (see his commentary on that mitzvah). The clear indication from all these sources is that demonstrating concern for the financial well-being of others is not just a mitzvah, it is an expected social norm with reward for those who do it and punishment for those who do not.

Save your money and also spread the idea to others.

Each week the Sefas Tamim Foundation publishes a parsha sheet with four columns.  To subscribe please send an email to the author at [email protected] (or to get more information on how to best purchase the prescription drugs)