- This topic has 116 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Dear Joseph,
1 See above #1876354
1a I do not know a practical application. Same
1b There is no reason to assume the Mishna or the SA have a practical application in mind. It is teaching concepts and principles. Not fundamentalist rituals. #1876721
1c It is possible that before industrialism, to rescue a life required setting out to fetch help. Which would entail a decision of whom to get and who to treat. Which is similar to what I made up in #1876356
2 #1876757N0m: You’re going out on a huge limb to avoid acknowledging that the Halacha is a practical one that’s in effect in the normal course of life. I dare speculate that the reason you’re going so far out of your way to avoid acknowledging the practical effects of this mitzvah is a result of being ashamed of it when having to explain and justify it to non-Jews and secular Jews who, with their 20th/21st century Western mindset cannot conceive of such a law set by G-d.
It’s the same thing other people do regarding kaparos, mezitza b’peh and even plain ‘ole Bris Milah itself, among other “archaic” Mitzvos and obligations.
The facts of the matter are that on the Titanic you had masses of people congregating on the deck angling and pushing to get in to the limited number of lifeboats. They were all there together, many masses of people, that the crew had to select from right in front of their noses. As such, this is certainly a very clear case of were this Halacha we’re discussing in the Mishna and Shulchan Aruch would certainly apply.
Dear Joseph,
The crew was wrong to waste time selecting. The first person they grab, would be helped into the boat. And they should immediately move on to the next one. Any extra milliseconds should be used to think of a solution for the people in the back of the crowd. Who could imagine thinking about a hierarchy in such an urgent situation?Dear Joseph,
No, I am on solid ground. Saving lives is critical to life centric Judaism. You cannot push away a life, regardless of gender.
I have never defended this to a non-jew. None ever brought it up to me. Some Yidden have mentioned it to me. Sometimes I corrected them, sometimes not. If I can divulge some personal information here, I am a terrible apologist. If someone has a moral question on halacha which I cannot answer, I like to say I am not gifted with Divine Intuition.N0m: The Titanic is a textbook case as described in the Mishna and Shulchan Aruch. It directly describes the situation. There’s no ambiguity. You are avoiding this fact by trying to twist like a pretzel what the Halacha is and how it directly describes such a situation. You’re being intellectually dishonest by taking a virtual carbon copy of the situation in trying to fardrey it somehow differently.
Dear Joseph,
Intellectual dishonesty is when debunked theories are put out, sources are not examined, proofs ignored, and so on. You mean I am being dishonest, or plain old lying to you. Well, you could just settle it by answering the questions on your position. Perhaps you do not see any inconsistency between putting the man first, and pushing away the woman’s life for someone else’s life.
So go ahead and paint a picture of what you would have done on the Titanic. Suppose you are the sailor lifting the passengers into the lifeboats. The Captain calls out women and children first! The crowds oblige and the mothers come to the front, with their kids about them. What do you do next?I would simply follow the Halacha, as is, as written in the Mishna and Shulchan Aruch. No ifs, ands or buts or variances or excuses or trying to twist what the Halacha says to fardrey an excuse why it doesn’t apply when it is a clear-cut textbook case directly fitting into the aforementioned Halacha. I would have no compunctions whatsoever following the law that the Ribono Shel Olam created and enacted as explained by Chazal, the Rishonim, Achronim and poskim.
That’s all in a Jewish controlled environment, which the Titanic obviously was not thereby precluding following Halacha.
As an aside, do you find it objectionable to how, during the actual emergency, the Titanic crew gender-based triaged who would be saved and who would not?
Dear Joseph,
“..as explained by…….” I have asked for sources. Please let me know if you find any.
If we keep this up, maybe I could get used to yeshivah again. “……precluding following Halacha.” You said it yourself. As we approach real life situations, the idea of the Mishna fades into the realm of the hypothetical. And the rule of never pushing away one life for another takes precedence.
About the gender-based triage, I have vague feelings about it. But the vanity that was displayed while facing death was quite reprehensible. If they would have only thought about saving people……….N0m: Mishna Horayos 3:7 (13a in the Gemora), Rambam (on that Mishna), Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 252:8.
The Halacha most certainly does not “fade away”. The Titanic is a textbook case fitting perfectly into that Halacha. Obviously if goyim are running the show you’re not going to expect them to follow Halacha while we’re in golus. But Yidden most certainly must and will.
The Rashba says the reason a man is saved first is based on the pasuk in Vayikra 25:36, where the pasuk tells us the “brother shall live” with you. The Rambam says the reason is because men have more mitzvos so they have a more important function in life, as a man is more “mekudash” than a woman which gives him precedence להחיות. The Shach (Y.D. 251:11) explains that the definition of להחיות is to save them from a life threatening situation. Also see Rama YD 252:8 and Taz YD 252:6 saying the same precedence is applicable.
The Ya’avetz (quoted in Pischei Teshuva YD 252:7) asks what would be if the threat is not physical but rather spiritual and the community has a choice to redeem either a boy or a girl, but not both, from the spiritual danger. The Ya’avetz concludes that since the precedence is given to the boy for physical danger, it should certainly be given to him for spiritual danger.
The Igros Moshe 7 CM 75 also rules this halacha is applicable. In fact, there’s virtually no disagreement whatsoever among the poskim that this is a valid and applicable halacha. Rav Moshe writes that “that it should be obvious and clear to every Ben Torah and Yirei Shamayim that one is obligated to cure and save every person without regard to their wisdom or knowledge and one should only triage on the basis of the order in the Mishna in Horayos”. (Igros Moshe CM2 74:1). Rav Chaim Rapoport in “The Halachic Hierarchy for Triage” (Le’eyla, June 2001, pp. 27-38) writes “Rabbi Feinstein’s statement clearly reconfirms the unchallenged halachic system: the criteria in the Mishna in Horayos remains binding in contemporary times and have not been displaced by any ‘custom’.” The reluctance by some to use this system, Rav Rapoport says, is an aversion to this politically incorrect and non-egalitarian halachic ideology.
While the Titanic was a clear-cut textbook example of when this Halacha applies it is just one example of many contemporary possible scenarios. Another recent example is if what happened in Italy and Spain two or three months ago during the coronovirus, where they ran out of hospital beds and the hospitals were therefore rejecting sick patients who required hospitalization were to c’v occur in a Jewish controlled environment, we would be required to follow the triage order outlined in Horayos, as per Rav Moshe is the Igros Moshe based on the Mishna, Rambam, Rama, Rashba, Ya’avetz, etc.
In his teshuva in the Igros Moshe, Rav Moshe also writes that in a contemporary case where it becomes necessary to follow the triage order given in Horayos in a situation where only one can be saved, or where you must choose who to save first, if two people come in with the same precedence under the order given in the Mishna in Horayos, the doctor should make a lottery to choose which patient to take.
Dear Joseph,
I am not sure of your stance, let me see if I could get that article. Maybe it would clarify what you are trying to say. I do not recall any real proofs against my stance from your sources. Let me double check, I will get back.Two quick points.
‘Fades away’ was a misquote. I wrote the reverse of the ‘hypothetical does not materialize’.
The Titanic cannot serve as a textbook case. Time was off essence. There is (almost) no triage. Calmly save as many as possible.N0m: The Titanic crew, in fact, at the the of the emergency knowing they were short of space on the lifeboats, believed they had time and DID triage. It turned out they released their last lifeboat just prior to sinking.
In any event, regardless of what occurred in that situation, consider a similar future situation where there is time to triage but not enough facilities.
Which article are you referring to? I provided above numerous sources, all independently reaching the same conclusion I’ve described.
Dear Joseph,
The Le’eyla article.The Chazon Ish (Bava Metziah 62a as well as in Yoreh Deah) also paskens we follow the order in Horayos. Rav Vozner in Shevet HaLeivi siman 342 says the same, as well.
Dear Joseph,
Those are new for me. I will look soon. Meanwhile, can you clarify your position? If a couple would come to your ER with the same symptoms. You are treating the man first. Suddenly, the woman collapses. You switch to the woman. Why?Why are you making assumptions? Your scenario is also lacking granular details. The Titanic scenario was a simpler discussion to make the overall point, as many people were standing shoulder to shoulder waiting to disembark. My position is to follow Horayos. Just as Chazal paskened. And as affirmed by all the above Rishonim and Achronim.
Dear Catch,
My understanding is, that The Titanic crew should have focused on saving as many lives in a calm and efficient manner. When time is of essence, there can be no hierarchy at the risk of losing an extra life.N0m: If a ship is sinking and there aren’t sufficient lifeboats, the crew MUST regulate who gets on the lifeboats and who does not. Otherwise everyone (i.e. too many people than the lifeboat can handle, causing it to sink) will jump in.
In fact, on the Titanic itself that’s exactly what happened. Some men jumped into the lifeboats even though the crew said women and children only. The crew had to, more than once, pull out their revolver and (in some cases) shoot into the air to order those guys out so they could give the slot to a woman.
(Obviously had it been a Jewish controlled boat, they’d have regulated it for the men to board first.)
Totally off topic but this topic veered from racism to halacha of saving lives, I was in Halifax NS and in the Jewish Steerage victims are buried in the Jewish Cemetery there.
Dear Joseph,
I apologize for wasting time. I have not looked at any of your sources yet. I will reply soon based on what I think now. First let me address The Titanic one more time. The lack of lifeboats is what I had in mind when I wrote calmly. It is the obligation of the crew, to find as many solutions as possible. Such as makeshift rafts, and inflatable devices. Not to wander around the boat calling, Kohen, Kohen… is there a kohen here? Like, really?!?!?
But these are random points, that do not address the central issue. If there would be a single file line to get into the boats, no woman would be obligated to allow a man to go before her. Who would have that obligation? Nobody. Ain dochen nefesh mipnei nefesh. And, when they crowded on the edge of the deck, the obligation of the one who is helping people into the boat, is to focus on the closest one. Again, ain dochen nefesh mipnei nefesh. Once the boat is full, the man who jumped in is a rodef. It doesn’t matter that they did not follow a hierarchy. Please clarify your stance on not pushing away any life. I already understand my own position.
The scenario in the ER is without details. You do not know what they have. All we know is that the woman collapsed, and needs immediate care. You would let the woman die, because maybe the man might collapse also?!?N0m: On the Titanic there simply were no other available rafts or inflatable anything to utilize in the high seas. And there were no neatly formed lines waiting to enter lifeboats. Passengers simply amassed on the deck where the lifeboats were being launched. The crew also believed they had sufficient time to organize a triage of who would disembark first unto the lifeboats.
Asking to form a line, itself, is a form of triage. But that isn’t the method of triage Halacha gives. Asking to form a line of men on the right and of women on the left could be requested just as easily as asking for a single line. All the Halachic sources say to triage — and tell us how to triage. There’s no reason to be reluctant to triage when there isn’t resources for all. You can’t have a free for all where everyone tries to jump into the lifeboat simultaneously before space runs out and then fight afterwards which 30 people were the last in putting it 30 over capacity.
Dear Joseph,
You keep saying what happened to keep out the halachah of ein dochen nefesh mipnei nefesh, but insisting that the hierarchy of the Mishna be followed. Why does only one halacha apply? And that is the halachah that is/was not codified anywhere, as I will demonstrate in my next post.N0m: You’re going in circles. You’re misapplying “Ain dochen nefesh mipnei nefesh.” A) You’re using it to claim that the Halacha (and it is undisputed that it is Halacha as I cited above from numerous Halachic sources) in Horayos doesn’t apply. How can you claim to erase Horayos? How can you disregard the Halacha from Horayos?
And B) Ain dochen nefesh mipnei nefesh isn’t applicable since the crew, by mathematical fact, MUST choose who are the few that can be saved, since there isn’t enough to save all. Each individual passenger has no claim to a seat in the still unoccupied lifeboats. The crew has the right to decide who can enter. (Otherwise they’ll be chaos and everyone will sink.) Just as an Emergency Room with insufficient space must choose who to admit. You can’t just walk into the hospital and jump into an unused hospital bed and yell Ain dochen nefesh mipnei nefesh.
That’s why Horayos comes in and determines the triage order.
Mishna on Horayos 13 ‘A man comes before a woman to enable life and to return a lost article. A woman comes before a man for clothing and to remove from captivity. If they are to suffer indignity, the man comes before the woman.’ The Mishna listed two concepts for each gender. The next Mishna (the last in the tractate) list the hierarchy of Kohen, Levi, Yisroel, Mamzer, Nissin, Etc. But the Talmid Chacham would precede them all.
There are two points to define, what is “enable life” and why is a man first. Rambam on the Mishna: “You already know that thenitrety of mitzvos obligate men and only some obligate women, as was clarified in Meseches Kiddushin. And he is sanctified more than her. Hence, he is preceded to ‘enable life’.” Rambam hilchos Matnos Aniyim 8:15 “The woman comes before the man to feed, to clothe, and to remove from captivity. Because it is for the man to dispense (necessities) not the woman, and her shame is great.” The Rambam codifies the second concept of the Mishna, but not the first. Also, the Rambam does not explain what it means to ‘enable life’. Though the Rambam famously codifies that we do not give preference to one life over another in Hilchos Rotzeach 1:9. I would be very happy if you can point me to a Rambam that I am unaware of.
The gemara in Kesubos (67) states that an orphaned girl is provided for before an orphaned boy. Rashi clarifies ‘providing’ charity for food. However, the Rashba explains it to mean clothing in line with second concept of our Mishna. But for food the orphaned boy precedes her as the first concept of the Mishna. Rashba concludes from the verse, “and your brother shall live from you” that, ‘your brother precedes your sister’. This last line seems to be based on Rebbi Akiva’s (BM 62) statement that, “your life precedes your brother’s life.’ This is in regard to two travelers in the dessert, and one of them runs out of water. He may keep his own water to himself, in order to survive. But Rebbi Akiva is not stating that one may cause injury to a fellow Jew to prolong his own life. This is a solid source for the Rashba because it refers to food supply as life. It follows that the Rashba is not reading the Mishna as triage. Rather as ownership of the food supply. Therefore, this would not be applicable to hospitals or sinking ships. Moreover, it is known that a woman is not appointed over charity funds (see BB 8). then, it is possible, that a man receiving charity first, is only because he is receiving from other men. But if a woman had a private charity fund, then she would be required to feed woman first. The reson to understand the Rashba like this, is that the Gemara in Kesubos clearly states the reasomn of the Rambam that is the way of a man to provide for himself. Which applies to food just as much as clothes. The only reason to separate the two, is based on the verse ‘live with you’. Additionally, we would have to contend with a difference between the Rambam and The Rashba if a woman provides food for herself.
Dear Joseph, it is a bit long but the point is that life saving triage being done through a hierarchy is not found from either the Rambam or the Rashba. I will continue with Tur and SA in my next post.Isn’t it something that none of the other posters set aside any time in the last month to dig up this post? Surely, this is an issue that must be resolved immediately!
The Mishnayos are listing matters that take precedence over others. The Bull Offering of the Kohen Gadol comes before the Bull Offering of the Community. Next Mishna. Man precedes woman to sustain life. (What does that mean?) To my scant knowledge, not codified anywhere by the RAMBAM Matters of shame the women comes first. But if both are facing indignities the man comes first. Codified by RAMBAM M”A 8:15 Last mishna. Kohwn before Levi et cetera ….. This when they are equal. ….. talmid chacham precedes kohen gadol am haaretz.
Nowhere does the Mishna discuss life and death. At most it can be stretched to preserving a life. But nowhere is there even a shred of thinking that people should die just to prove a point about hierarchy. In almost all scenarios triage exists to create the highest possible efficacy of saving as many lives as possible. How many cases are there that insisting on a hierarchy will not hinder in saving lives?
All right. This is an absolute travesty. Just to think how many mamzeirem did not die in the last week to save a kohen.
I’m confused on why the titanic is part of the topic. They did what they did. Either it was standard practice, or they decided it on the spot. I really doubt they were completely dedicated to saving as many lives as possible. The titanic is an all around example of getting low priorities of the value of a single life.
Does the concept of a hierarchy apply to non-Jews who are saving lives? And if they can save whatever way they believe will help the most, are Jews working alongside them obligated to object and insist on following a specific order? If they cannot do that, do they cease cooperating with non-Jews?
In my understanding this is all irrelevant. But what does everyone else have to say on this crucial topic?
N0m: After the Titanic sunk, the U.S. Congress held hearings on why any men (other than those needed to row the lifeboats) were saved, when there were still women on board who did not make it to a lifeboat and went down with the ship. In other words, the august body of lawmakers in Washington were angry that any men were saved before every woman could be saved.
Getting back to the original point, if a ship is sinking but it is very clear that there is sufficient time to organize a triage of prioritizing certain passengers to be saved first, and still save the maximum number of passengers possible given the fact that there are insufficient space in the lifeboats for everyone, do you then still insist on disagreeing with following halachic priority of who to save first (i.e. the men before the women, etc.) and would you still insist, despite the clarity that there’s time to triage in the halachic order and still save the maximum number of lives, that the halachic order of saving lives be disregarded?
ujm > maximum number of passengers possible given the fact that there are insufficient space
ujm, in practical situation, there are additional factors that will be used:
sort everyone by weight and size (lowest to highest), although one could argue that a fatter person have higher chance of survival (both food and buoyancy)
more important – skills that will help everyone to survive – rowing, doctors, radio amateurs
most important – those whose survival will be important in a longer term – when they land on an island, or even when they come back home. See Teshuva by R Grozdensky in Vilno, 1940 a month before it was occupied. They asked who should get Sugihara visas – older Rabbis who will be first to be arrested and killed, or the younger ones who will lose their children to shmad. He answered older ones – because (1) they’ll be able to help remaining ones better when they come to America, and (2) they are more important for American JewsAAQ: The Torah/Halacha already gives an order of triage in prioritizing whose lives you save first. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel and offer your own order (i.e. weight, size, etc.)
ujm, I just quoted a psak by R Grodzinsky that uses profound (long term, for others) priorities that evaded the Rabbis who were asking the question (who looked at short-term risk to the people themselves). This should make you think and research what else is out there.
You need to be careful evaluating halakha in some cases. If it was looking at an abstract case dealing with just one parameter – status of people involved – then it does not mean that decision might not be different in other cases. I just brought a psak, there may be more complexities here. Feel free to expand.
So according to halacha, if there is a threat to all humans on earth, and only, say, 10 people can be saved, they should all be men, and thus, the human species would be extinct after those 10 men die.
Right.
Why not ask it in the form of a question, instead of being cynical and disrespectful?
Happens to be a good question in theory, but not in practice because Hashem promised not to destroy the world again. You might not be familiar with gemara(i hope this is this the case) but we ask probing questions all the time which seem to destroy all of our understanding in a mishnah etc… But the gemara doesn’t dismiss the mishnah because of a question. It answers it! Your question deserves an answer, but your attitude doesn’t
I said it in the way I did specifically to show how that cannot possibly be the halacha. The mere suggestion of such a notion in the first place doesn’t deserve a respectful response.
And yes, I am very familiar with gemara and how often theoretical questions arise that would never occur in reality, but are rather expressed to support a point. Now go and cry about the fact that I know gemara.
quoting from a secondary source Rationing During a Pandemic Flu Aryeh Dienstag (this is pre-covid article!). There are multiple reference to value of people to society
Horiyot 13: men over women (in saving, but not in ransom), kohen over israel over mamzer, but Talmid Chacham before Am Haaretz, even if a King [T’Ch is irreplacable, King not]
Mishnah Berurah (OC: 547:22) – there are no Talmidei Chachamim at our times [AAQ: this might have changed 🙂 seems not to be the current opinion, though]
Rambam on Mishna Haroyot 3:8 – we do save King before Talmid Chacham because people need him
R Tendler: human life is infi nite and therefore cannot be prioritized objectively. Practically, however, society may need certain persons more than others and therefore prioritization can be used
R Oshry (Shoah, selecting people to send to die): duty of community leaders to take courage and operate in any way they saw fit to save as many people as possible
R Auerbach: age does not go into the equation of whom one saves first. What one should only look into is the level of danger and the chance to save the most people
private communication with Rabbi Daichovsky he told the author that there is a value in saving people whom society needs in order to preserve a functional society
From the same article on pandemics, fascinating references:
Tzitz Eliezer vol. 9 28:3 – if you can spend same amount of vaccine on 100 old OR 1000 young patients saving, on average, same number of lives. for older people, you reduce chance of dying, for young – eliminate completely. We give vaccine to younger – claim for certain saving is higher than uncertain.
based on Pri Megadim Siman 328 in the Mishbatzot ZahavTzitz Eliezer 9:17 a physician should put himself in danger in order to stop an epidemic and save
more lives, as opposed to the regular situation where a physician is prohibited from placing his life in dangerRabbi Daichovsky told the author, we must vaccinate the super-vectors, a.k.a. young children, because they are considered Rodfi m, one who pursues another individual to kill him. we vaccinate health care workers before anyone else. This is because health care workers are needed to fight the epidemic
same article on applicability of the Harayot priorities:
Rabbi Auerbach states it is impossible to apply these rules in our times.Rabbi Feinstein seconds this approach.
Minchat Shlomo, 86:60
Iggrot Moshe Choshen Mishpat 2 73:2, 75:2
Along these lines the Mishnah Berurah states that we have no Torah Scholars in our time and this cannot be used as a way to decide, which person should be saved fi rst (547:12), the Magen Avraham states this as well.Yehudis, halacha doesn’t change because we don’t understand it lr have a kashya on it. What I meant was that gemara and meforshim routinely ask earth shattering questions which undermine initial understandings or raise clear contradiction – women are generally more “nispa’al” from this because they’re not hsed to it from learning gemara.
I don’t believe you have the ability to read through an entire piece in reb akiva aiger; nor do the vast majority of male posters here.
I’m not going to cry over others’ misbehaviors; if I were a tzadik I would, but I’m more concerned with my own issues.
someone saying that they “know gemara” is usually a pretty clear indication that their concept of it is “something about two guys holding on to a talis which they divide” or “something about an egg being laid on yom tov”
Add that to the above inability to distinguish between a kashya and halachik jurisprudence, and….
Avira > I’m not going to cry over others’ misbehaviors;
Do we have a source that condemns women who learned Gemorah properly? R Eliezer says it is like teaching them shtus, but b’deavad – if they did not learn shus, would it be OK? R Yehuda talks favorably about Beruriah – not for learning Gemorah, but for learning Gemorah well – and from multiple teachers. Or, would you say, if someone did something risky and survived – she did an aveirah? Even with this, R Eliezer’s position seems to apply to the teacher, not to the student.
I once went through a book of “women’s halacha issues by women” who are self styled talmudists
It contained material that would get one laughed out of a 1st year beis medrash
Avira, why are you questioning someone’s ability based on a klal and a book you read. This is unbecoming.
תפלות doesn’t mean shtus… It means immorality, and if it weren’t a big deal, the rambam wouldn’t use the expression “tzivu chachamim”.
The bedieved applies to torah shebichsav, which the rambam says is not keilu melamda tiflus – but lechatchila even that he says not to. We’re in a bedieved situation, so the gedolim held that torah she bichsav is alright and even important in our times.
This distinction, in an open rambam, is somehow lost on the many discussions that are had about this issue
I’m basing it mainly on the dismissal of a halachik concept because she had a kasha on it; that’s not something one would do if they had even a rudimentary training in basic 7th grade gemara.
I’ve yet to see a “shtikel torah” by a female author that isn’t divrei havai – i actually have to mention that i realize that that’s what you’re referring to when you said shtus…
Creating a situation where torah will be made into divrei havai is assur because of kovod hatorah; men might do the same, but they’re obligated, so they’re onsim if they do so
The Mishna Berurah is in 547:12, not 22.
Additionally, that opinion of the Mishna Berurah is not relevant to this discussion.
Dear Yehudis,
In your case, since there is a threat to everyone, each person is entitled and possibly obligated to put their own safety first. And once someone gets ahold of the life saver, it would be forbidden to take it away from them.
Dear Avirah,
I have laughed at more shticklach Torah from men it the past year, than you have read from women in your whole life.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.