By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com

Before we begin, let’s start with two thoughts about Hatzolah people.  They are there for us, through thick and thin.  They are selfless.  They give up their precious family time.  That’s the first thought.

The second thought is that they relieve our anxieties.  We know that they are there.  We know that they look out for us.  And just that very thought itself is so very heart-warming. When we have a sick or loved one whose very life is at stake – there are some very serious anxieties that family members undergo.   Their very existence causes three reactions:  It helps fortify our Emunah bashem, It causes us to say and think, “mi ka’amcha Yisroel” and it also helps us get through some very difficult times.

And now, shortly, the somewhat controversial halachic discussion.  [For those who just want to hear the gist of this article, the conclusion is that this article is strongly advocating the purchase of electric vehicles for Hatzolah volunteers and that we, the public, should offer assistance to them in doing so.  The prohibitions in using electric vehicles are much less severe than a regular vehicle.]

Most everyone knows that what the sages tells us regarding the verse (VaYikra 18:5), “v’Chai Bahem” and you shall live by these laws.”  The Gemorah in Yuma 85a tells us that these words teach us that the obligation to save human life overrides the other obligations of Judaism.  True, there are the three exceptions enumerated in Sanhedrin 74a, but saving a life overrides the laws of observing the Shabbos.

No one is debating this point.  Indeed, even if we are unsure if it is a life-threatening emergency, we must still violate Shabbos.  No one is debating this either.

The issue at stake here is when it is a case of Pikuach Nefesh, a  life- threatening matter, but it is not exactly an emergency – in other words there is plenty of time to deal with the situation and no one is in a state of panic or chaos.  Do we attempt to minimize the Shabbos violation in such a case?  Should we try to perform what needs to be done in a manner that only involves a Rabbinic violation?

The short answer is yes.  When there is plenty of time, and there is no concern of danger of any sort if there is a delay, the Ramah rules (OC 328:12) that we do attempt to minimize the Shabbos violations.  While the other view (that of the Bais Yoseph and the Rambam 2:11) is that no minimization is required, Ashkenazic Jewry has followed the custom that we do minimize Shabbos violation when no delay or confusion will be incurred on account of the minimization.    This is the view of the Raavya cited in the Ohr Zaruah, the Shiltei Gibborim, and the Maggid Mishna (Hilchos Shabbos 2:11 citing the Ramban) and is cited by the Ramah as the authoritative halacha.   This also seems to be how the Mishna Brurah rules.

CONTEMPORARY POSKIM WHO ARE LENIENT

But wait.  Some Poskim qualify this Sabbath stringency – even for Ashkenazic Jews.  They reason that when dealing with numerous people, things can sometimes go very wrong.  People might erroneously think that a matter which is an emergency is really not an emergency.  People are not are not always able to distinguish between time-is-of- the- essence emergencies and time is not of the essence emergencies.  Precisely because of the possibility of error, these Poskim reason that, generally speaking, when dealing with organizations, all cases of Pikuach nefesh whether they are time-is-of- the-essence or not, should be treated as if they truly are time-is-of-the-essence.

Practically, this means that these Poskim hold not to minimize Shabbos violation and not to obtain a gentile – even in cases where there is no pressing time issue involved – even though the matter is life-threatening or potentially life-threatening.

This view is attributed to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l in numerous manuals of ambulance organizations, but I have not found it in Rav Moshe’s writings. Years ago, I did speak to Rav Dovid Cohen shlita who confirmed to me that this is also his view.   Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l (Minchas Shlomo #7:3) seems to question the view of the Mishna Brurah on this issue but ultimately does not disagree, writing that it requires further investigation.

To be clear, the Ramah seems to state quite the opposite, that the custom is to follow the view that says that we do minimize malacha when the underlying issues have no constraints of time.

ACHRONIM WHO DISAGREED WITH RAMAH

Aside from some of the contemporary Poskim were there others that qualified this Ramah?  The first Lubavitcher Rebbe (the GRaZ,  end of sima 328:13) write that one should not follow the Ramah’s stringency because people that are present and see that it was done through a gentile may erroneously think that it is forbidden for it to be done through a Jew even in life-threatening circumstances.  The GraZ suggests that if he wants to do it through a gentile, then the person who asks the gentile should inform everyone present that they are only doing so because the gentile is readily available. The TaZ writes that it is not an old custom to follow the stringent view and that, “hayisroel yaasenah bzrizus tfei –  it will be done with more alacrity when following the first view.”  The Tasbatz, Chida, Nahar Shalom, and Eliyahu Rabba cite the first view.

But the purchase of an electric vehicle will not cause this problem.

RAV MOSHE’S VIEW

It is interesting to note that Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler ob”m cites his father-in-law Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (See Torah Sh’b’al peh p. 58, Mossad HaRav Kook, 1983) as distinguishing between the minimization of a shinui and minimization of using a gentile.  He writes that a malacha performed with a shinui is not that same malacha at all, and therefore, why should one perform a biblically forbidden act when another more permitted act is available?  Thus Rav Moshe’s view is cited in apparent agreement with the Ramah that a shinui form of minimization should be implemented.

OTHERS

Rabbi Rephoel Yitzchok Halpern in Maaseh Chosev Vol. III #12 rules that one should minimize in regard to these situations.  Indeed, he goes so far as to write that the ambulances and cars should be previously retrofitted so that the systems inside them become only Rabbinic violations.

REASON FOR THE INITIAL DEBATE

What is the reason for the debate between the Rambam (who requires no minimization) and the Ramban (who requires minimization)?  Some authorities (GraZ and others) wish to associate the debate with the final disposition of the Talmud’s question as to how the interplay between Pikuach Nefesh (saving a life) and Shabbos actually works.  Is Shabbos merely set aside (Hudchah) when faced with Pikuach Nefesh, or is Shabbos non-existent (Hutrah) when it comes to Pikuach Nefesh?  However, other authorities (including the Mishna Brurah 328:35) dismiss this association and write that the Ramban would hold to his view of minimization even according to the view of Hutrah.

Others understand the debate in terms of whether or not we are concerned for two factors.  1] Will others derive incorrect halacha from here and in some future case not save a life?  2] In this very situation will the use of someone else cause a lack of alacrity in how the saving action is performed?  The Rambam would be of the view that these factors or at least one of them is a concern.  The Ramban would be of the view that these factors should not play a role in minimizing malacha.

IF THE BATTERY IS TOO PROBLEMATIC

Someone mentioned that at times a person will be unable to have a sufficient charge on his battery and this can be a difficulty when it comes to an emergency worker.  Others disagreed and said that the modern EVs have sufficient range and incredible acceleration.  This, of course, should be determined by the EMTs themselves.

OTHER BENEFITS

This year, if you buy a new plug-in electric vehicle (EV) or fuel cell vehicle (FCV) in 2023 or after, you can easily qualify for a clean vehicle tax credit of up to $7,500 under Internal Revenue Code Section 30D. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 changed the rules for this credit for vehicles purchased from 2023 to 2032.  Overall, it’s already cheaper for 90 percent of Americans to operate an EV.  The difference between gas costs and electric cars varies between states, but some people believe they save some $300 each month.  The benefit of EVs  to the environment is also a game-changer.

There are some rules for the tax credits, however.

• You must buy it for your own use, not for resale
• It must be a new purchase (with some exceptions).
• You must use it primarily in the U.S.
• Your modified adjusted gross income (AGI) may not be more than $300,000 for married couples filing jointly, or $225,000 for heads of households, or $150,000 for all other filers
• The price can’t be more than $80,000 for vans, sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks or $55,000 for other vehicles.

BUT IT IS SO EXPENSIVE!

Before we get to the expenses involves, let us examine another halachic topic.  Seemingly, there is a contradiction between two different rulings of the Rema that pertain to this issue. The first one is in Orech Chaim. The second one is in Yoreh Deah.

Orach Chaim Rema: The Rema in Orach Chaim (end of Siman 656) states that a person is obligated to spend all of his money in order to avoid violating a lo sa’aseh from the Torah. This is in contrast to the obligation of fulfilling a positive mitzvah from the Torah where the obligation is only to spend one-fifth of one’s money. In other words, if someone is threatening to kill you, chas v’shalom, unless you violate a Torah prohibition, if you can get out of it by giving up all of your money, you have to do so. In such circumstances, we do not apply the principle of “oness d’rachmana patrei — the Torah exempted you when you are forced to do so.” It seems having to pay money would not be considered grounds for an exemption.

Yoreh Deah Rema: Yet in Yoreh Deah (232:12), the Rema discusses a neder one made to pay money and subsequently an unforeseeable event occurred that one could circumvent by paying a lot of money. The Rema rules that this is considered an oness and one may avoid fulfilling the neder. Here, the Rema seems to rule that having to pay a lot of money is grounds for an exemption.

How The Acharonim Deal With The Rema: In understanding this apparent contradiction, there is a debate between the Bach on one hand, and the Shach and TaZ on the other hand. The Bach understands this Rema stating that paying out significant money is an exemption. The Bach disagrees with this ruling based upon the Orach Chaim Rema.

The Shach and TaZ rule that there is no contradiction and the Rema’s ruling is specific to the parameters of the laws of nedarim, which has nothing to do with an obligation to fulfill mitzvos in general.

YET A THIRD REMA

There is yet a third Rema in Yoreh Deah (157:1) that rules explicitly that one is obligated to give up all of one’s money in order to avoid violating a lo sa’aseh in the Torah.  The conclusion? There is one Acharon, the Bach, who understands this Rema to hold that a large monetary expense is grounds for an exemption of a lo sa’aseh in the Torah. Yet even the Bach disagrees with this implication.

SOURCES THAT WE SHOULD HELP OUT

Rav Moshe Yehudah Leib Zilverberg (1794–1865) was a member of the beis din of Rav Shmuel Salant and Rav Meir Auerbach and one of the founders of the Etz Chaim Yeshiva in Yerushalayim.  In his responsa sefer Zayis Ra’anan (Vol. I O.C. 2:2), he discusses a case of an ill person with virtually no hope who must travel on Shabbos to see expert doctors. He asks whether there is an obligation for a distant community to support him. Parenthetically, he notes that even for a Shabbos violation, the parameters of oness still do not apply to a choleh on Shabbos if he can avoid the violation by paying significant money.  This responsum indicates that we should all be helping out the Hatzalah people with the expense.

WHAT POSKIM HAVE SAID REGARDING THIS TOPIC

This author reached out to a number of Poskim regarding this topic, and received the following responses:

• Rav Shmuel Fuerst shlita and Rav Hershel Ausch shlita ruled that, if possible, Hatzolah members should try to purchase an EV if they are in the market for a new vehicle, but there is no obligation.
• Rav Yisroel Dovid Harfenes shlita stated that if a Hatzolah volunteer is buying a new vehicle anyway, then he is obligated to purchase an EV.
• The Debreciner Rav, Rav Shmuel Stern shlita, stated that it is nice and proper for Hatzolah volunteers to purchase such a vehicle, but it should never come to a situation where a person would ever hesitate to use a gasoline vehicle, heaven forbid. He was hesitant to state categorically that one would be obligated to do so for fear of causing someone to heaven forbid delay a Pikuach Nefesh response.

WHAT POSKIM HAVE SAID REGARDING OTHER SHABBOS-VIOLATION-REDUCING EXPENSES

Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky: One would be obligated to purchase such a machine if it would mean one will avoid having to perform malacha on Shabbos even for pikuach nefesh. He stated this would be true if the device was affordable, but was unsure whether one would be obligated to go out and collect money in order to purchase it.

Rav Dovid Feinstein zt”l: He did not wish to rule on any purchase per se, but stated that in general one should always minimize the Shabbos violations for medical treatment, and if this device did that, then it is clear that it should be purchased.

Rav Moshe Heinemann: It is not obligatory, but may constitute a hiddur mitzvah. There are views that the melachos mentioned here are actually d’rabbanan violations (there are a number of controversies involved), and under such circumstances we should not give the impression that diabetics who test on Shabbos are doing something wrong. He further added that there may be an additional mitzvah of listening to the Torah leaders mentioned above -– and that might be a reason to purchase the device.

It is clear that electric cars and electric trucks are the future of driving and this question will certainly begin to be addressed by our Gedolei HaPoskim.  This author predicts that within a decade or two, EV vehicles will be so prevalent that most Poskim will rule that there would be an obligation to purchase an EV vehicle for someone who regularly saves lives on Shabbos.

The author can be reached at [email protected]