(16) Do not go gossiping with your countrymen. Do not stand idly by the blood of your fellow: I am the LORD.
~ How do you understand this source? What does it mean to "love your neighbor as yourself"?
~ Can you find a tension between the first verse and this one?
~ How do you understand "and your sibling shall live with you"?
(ויקרא יט) ואהבת לרעך כמוך. רבי עקיבה אומר זהו כלל גדול בתורה. בן עזאי אומר (בראשית ה) זה ספר תולדות אדם זה כלל גדול מזה. שמא יעני לא כנולד הוא. אמר רבי זעירא עניות מצויה. כהדא חד בר נש הוה בעל דיניה עתיד אתא בעי מידון קומי רב. שלח רב בתריה אמר עם ההוא אנא בעי מיתי מידון כך אין אתון גמלייא דערבייא לא טענין קורקסייא דאפותיקי דידי שמע ומר מהו מתגאה דלא ליה תהא פחתה בה. מן יד נפקת קלווסים מן מלכותא דייעול הוא ומדליה לטימיון אתא גבי רב א"ל צילי עלי דו נפשי תחזור. צלי עלוי וחזר עלה:
(Leviticus 19:18) "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Rabbi Akiva says: This is the great principal of the Torah. Ben Azzai says: (Genesis 5:1) "This is the book of the generations of Adam" is the great principal of the Torah. (Mishnah Nedarim 9:4) "Maybe he will become poor and you will not be able to support him?" Rabbi Zeira said: Poverty is frequent. There was once a man with a case against a wealthy man, which came before Rav for judgment. Rav sent after him [the wealthy man]. He said, "For him I am asked to come for judgment? Even if all the camels of Arabia came together, they could not carry the bolts of my treasures." Rav heard this and said, "Is he so proud of what is not his? May his wealth be reduced." Just then an order was issued by the king that he and whatever belonged to him should be relinquished to the treasury. He came to Rav and said to him, "Pray for me, that he will return my soul [i.e., let me live]." He prayed for him and he gave him back his life.
~ What tension does this source highlight in the idea of "love your neighbor as yourself"?
~ This is one of the basic sources for self-preservation: not everything goes. One does not "own" their life to do whatever they want, not even to save it.
~ In thinking of triage, what type of triage process or guide does this piece in the Talmud supports?
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what does he do with this verse: “And your brother shall live with you”? The Gemara answers: He requires the verse for that which is taught in a baraita: If two people were walking on a desolate path and there was a jug [kiton] of water in the possession of one of them, and the situation was such that if both drink from the jug, both will die, as there is not enough water, but if only one of them drinks, he will reach a settled area, there is a dispute as to the halakha. Ben Petora taught: It is preferable that both of them drink and die, and let neither one of them see the death of the other. This was the accepted opinion until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that the verse states: “And your brother shall live with you,” indicating that your life takes precedence over the life of the other.
~ What are the two opinions in the Baba Metzia source?
~ There are two important values to think about: the value of the life of a person who can only live a short time (chayei sha’ah) and the value of the life of a person who can definitely be saved (chayei olam).
~ Defend each opinion: why could you say that both rabbi Akiva and Ben Petura "have on which to stand"?
~ Why does Ben Petura not agree with the seemingly straightforward conclusion that it is better to save one life for an extended period than save two lives for only a short period of time? Does ownership even matter in the case of saving a life? [Ben Petura does not think that hogging resources and seeing the other die is a moral position]
~ What does Ben Petura seem to favor, in terms of quality of discrete actions? What does Rabbi Akiva seem to favor, in terms of maximizing positive outcomes? [Those two positions can be called "deontological" and "consequentialist". The consequentialist position focuses on the final outcome, and the deontological focuses on the moral aspect of each action, for their final decisions.]
~ Knowing that Jewish law follows Rabbi Akiva, what is the basic difference in "your blood is not redder" and "you brought the jug"? [Ownership is fundamental. You are not actively killing your friend, you're merely holding on to your own resources.]
~ If the water jug was dropped from the sky, and no one had remembered to bring a jug, what does this source affirm, even following the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? [They have to share]
~ Can the owner of the jug decide to give it to his friend? [In the words of R. Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg: “if one desires to die in order to save his friend he is called holy and pious.” This position is based on an ethic that highly values the character and motivation of the agents that carry out these actions. This is called "virtue-based ethics" and readily accepts acts of altruistic self-sacrifice. Ethics solely based on evaluating the morality of a specific act has a harder time with altruistic self-sacrifice.]
~ Who was Sheva Ben Bichri? How does his story end? [see below, come back]
~ Thinking about triage, what does this source appear to say?
Learn about the conjoined twins and the "meadia-procured heart" and come back to this source.
~ How can you apply these sources to the case of the conjoined twins?
~ What problems could you see with applying these sources to the case of the conjoined twins?
~ How can you apply these sources with the case of the media procured heart?
~ What does this source comes to problematize, regarding the previous two sources?
~ This is the case of the pursuer, or "rodef" in Hebrew.
~ How can you apply this source to the case of the conjoined twins?
~ What problems can you see with applying this source with the conjoined twins?
תני סיעות בני אדם שהיו מהלכין בדרך פגעו להן גוים ואמרו תנו לנו אחד מכם ונהרוג אותו ואם לאו הרי אנו הורגים את כולכם אפי' כולן נהרגים לא ימסרו נפש אחת מישראל ייחדו להן אחד כגון שבע בן בכרי ימסרו אותו ואל ייהרגו א"ר שמעון בן לקיש והוא שיהא חייב מיתה כשבע בן בכרי ורבי יוחנן אמר אע"פ שאינו חייב מיתה כשבע בן בכרי עולא בר קושב תבעתיה מלכותא ערק ואזיל ליה ללוד גבי ריב"ל אתון ואקפון מדינתא אמרו להן אין לית אתון יהבון ליה לן אנן מחרבין מדינתא סלק גביה ריב"ל ופייסיה ויהביה לון והוה אליהו זכור לטוב יליף מתגלי עלוי ולא אתגלי וצם כמה צומין ואיתגלי עלוי אמר ליה ולמסורות אני נגלה א"ל ולא משנה עשיתי א"ל וזו משנת החסידים רבי אימי איתצד בסיפסיפה אמר ר' יונתן יכרך המת בסדינו אמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש עד דאנא קטיל אנא מתקטיל אנא איזיל ומשיזיב ליה בחיילא אזל ופייסון ויהבוניה ליה אמר לון ואתון גבי סבון והוא מצלי עליכון אתון גבי ר' יוחנן אמר לון מה דהוה בלבכון איעבד ליה יתעבוד לון ימטא לההוא עמא לא מטון אפיפסירוס עד דאזלון כולהון
It is taught: caravans of [Jewish] people that were on a journey and met idol worshipers who said "Give us one of your group so that we may kill him otherwise we will kill all of you!" Even if the entire group of Jews will be killed it is forbidden to give up a single Jew to be killed. But if they demand a specific Jew by name, such as Sheva Ben Bichri they give that person up and are not killed. Says Rabbi Shimeon Ben Lakish: this only applies if the person specified had a death penalty upon him, like Sheva Ben Bichri. And Rabbi Yochanan [disagrees and] says even if he does not have the death penalty upon him [they give the specified individual up].
Ullah bar Koshev was wanted by the [Roman] Kingdom. He fled and went to Lod, to Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's. They came and surrounded the city, and they said: if you don't give him to us, we will destroy de city. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi went to him [Ullah] and appeased him, and gave him [to the Roman authorities]. And Eliahu [Hanavi], may he be remembered for good, would teach him [RYBL] and reveal himself to him, and he did not reveal himself [anymore]. He fasted several fasts, and he [Eliahu] revealed himself. He said: "And I reveal myself to informers?!" He [RYBL] responded: "And didn't I do [according to] a rabbinic teaching?" And [Eliahu] answered: "And is this a teaching for the pious?!"
Rabbi Imi was captured in a riot. Said Rabbi Yochanan: "Should the dead man prepare his shrouds?" Said Rabbi Shimeon Ben Lakish: "Even if I am killed or I kill someone, I will go and I will save him with strength." He went and appeased them and brought him back. He said to them: Come to our elder and he will pray for you. They came to Rabbi Yochanan, who said to them: "what was in your hearts to do to him, will be done to you." It happened to that same people: they had almost reached Palmyra and were all taken [captives].
~ What does the Jerusalem Talmud appears to say? How does it relate to the source in Tosefta Terumot?
~ Try to apply this source to the case of the conjoined twins and the case of the media-procured heart.
~ This is the day that David is crowned king. What are the tensions in the story? How is Sheva ben Bichri described? What does he do? What is his political position? Why is he a slated to die? [Go back to the two Talmudic sources dealing with this case]
(ו) כָּל הַתָּדִיר מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ. וְכָל הַמְקֻדָּשׁ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ. פַּר הַמָּשִׁיחַ וּפַר הָעֵדָה עוֹמְדִים, פַּר הַמָּשִׁיחַ קוֹדֵם לְפַר הָעֵדָה בְּכָל מַעֲשָׂיו:
(ז) הָאִישׁ קוֹדֵם לָאִשָּׁה לְהַחֲיוֹת וּלְהָשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה. וְהָאִשָּׁה קוֹדֶמֶת לָאִישׁ לִכְסוּת, וּלְהוֹצִיאָהּ מִבֵּית הַשֶּׁבִי. בִּזְמַן שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִים לְקַלְקָלָה, הָאִישׁ קוֹדֵם לָאִשָּׁה:
(ח) כֹּהֵן קוֹדֵם לְלֵוִי, לֵוִי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַמְזֵר, וּמַמְזֵר לְנָתִין, וְנָתִין לְגֵר, וְגֵר לְעֶבֶד מְשֻׁחְרָר. אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁכֻּלָּן שָׁוִין. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מַמְזֵר תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַם הָאָרֶץ, מַמְזֵר תַּלְמִיד חָכָם קוֹדֵם לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַם הָאָרֶץ:
(6) Anything that is more common than its peer supersedes its peer. Anything that is holier than its peer supersedes its peer. If the bull of the anointed and the bull of the community are [both] standing [to be sacrificed], the bull of the anointed supersedes the bull of the community in all its processes.
(7) A man supersedes a woman to keep alive and to return a lost object. A woman supersedes a man to clothe and to free from captivity. If they both stand to be disgraced, the man supersedes the woman.
(8) A priest supersedes a Levite, a Levite supersedes an Israelite, an Israelite supersedes a Mamzer [product of a forbidden relation], a Mamzer supersedes a Natin [member of a caste of Temple servants, historically descended from the Gibeonites], a Natin supersedes a convert, and a convert supersedes a freed slave. When? When they are all equal. But if the Mamzer is a Sage and the high priest is an Am Ha'Aretz [one who is lax in observing laws], the product of a forbidden relation who is a sage supersedes the high priest who is an Am Ha'Aretz.
~ This is a very difficult source to understand and accept. But let's try.
~ Given the highly stratified society of Second Temple period, how can you understand it? What value seems to be in play here, in terms of gender, and what value seems to be in play, in terms of male genealogy? How is that value upended at the end of the chapter?
~ In egalitarian societies like ours, how can you re-read these mishnayot?
~ In terms of allocating resources, if one takes this mishnah at face value, what is it saying?
~ What triage process does this mishnah appear to support?
~ Apply this to the case of the media-procured heart.
In the eighteenth century, R. Yaakov Emden also discussed these mishnayot with the issue of prioritization. In a lengthy teshuvah he makes the following points:
1. He is not sure if the traditional preference given to kohanim is applicable because of the uncertainty surrounding the genealogy of all kohanim.
2. Lower down on the list of priorities are the deaf, children, and the mentally impaired person (presumably because they are not obligated in mitzvot)
3. The young person takes precedence over the old person.
4. The healthy take precedence over the sick.
5. The sick person takes precedence over the castrated one.
6. The castrated person takes precedence over the person who is in danger.
7. A person who is in danger takes precedence over the tereifa (a person with less than a year to live)
8. He is not sure if someone with two arms takes precedence over one with one arm because of his inability to wear tefillin.
9. A woman takes precedence over a castrated man (presumably because she has the potential to bear children).
10. A woman who is God-fearing takes precedence over one who is not.
11. All the priorities for inheritance take precedence over this list. [Migdal Oz, Even Bohen I]
~ NOTE that R. Emden limits the practical applicability of the prioritization scheme based on genealogy because of doubt over a person’s biological roots. Presumably, this limitation would also apply to all other categories that are based on genealogical purity. But more importantly, he creates new prioritization schemes that apparently have no prior basis in the text.
R. Eliezer Waldenberg, whose main work, Tzitz Eliezer, deals with Jewish Law after the Shoah, and whose approach is more egalitarian, even though he is Orthodox, is very uncomfortable with these Mishnayot. He explains it not as applying to a "life-saving case" but as applying to a case in which people are handing out food: ie, it establishes only the order in which people receive food, not "if" they receive food. Then he proceeds to say: Based on the explanation of Rambam that the reason a man is preferred is because he is obligated in more mitzvot “this law is only applicable in relation to a man who keeps all the mitzvot; but in a situation where a woman keeps the mitzvot that she is commanded in and the man does not, then the woman receives preference in life-saving... this ruling [is not brought in many codes] because it is not consistent but dependent on the relative mitzva observance of the man and woman and according to the information available to the lifesavers at that moment... And thus it seems appropriate not to give fixed guidelines but instead leave it to the discretion of the rescuers.” [Tzitz Eliezer, 18 #1]
A dilemma was raised before the Sages. For which of these two is it preferable that he remain ritually pure: A priest anointed for war, who was anointed with oil and appointed to admonish the troops before battle (see Deuteronomy 20:2) or the deputy [segan] High Priest? Is it preferable that the priest anointed for war remain ritually pure, as he is fit for war? Or, perhaps it is preferable that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure, as he is fit for service in the Temple in place of the High Priest. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between a priest anointed for war and a deputy High Priest is only that if they were walking along the way and found a met mitzva, the ruling is: Let the one anointed for war become impure, and do not let the deputy become impure. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a different baraita: A priest anointed for war takes precedence over the deputy High Priest? Mar Zutra said: This is not difficult. With regard to preserving his life and rescuing him from captivity or from a dangerous situation, it is preferable to preserve the one anointed for war. What is the reason for this? The reason is that the public depends on him in a time of war.
~ What triage process does these sources seem to uphold? Why?
~ How can you use these sources to understand the second case, of the media procured heart?
~ How do you feel about this principle? What are the strengths and the weaknesses of a "social value" based approach to triage?
(ו) כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁאָמְרוּ בָּאֳנָסִין כָּךְ אָמְרוּ בָּחֳלָאִים. כֵּיצַד. מִי שֶׁחָלָה וְנָטָה לָמוּת וְאָמְרוּ הָרוֹפְאִים שֶׁרְפוּאָתוֹ בְּדָבָר פְּלוֹנִי מֵאִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה עוֹשִׂין. וּמִתְרַפְּאִין בְּכָל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בִּמְקוֹם סַכָּנָה חוּץ מֵעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְגִלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁפִיכַת דָּמִים שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בִּמְקוֹם סַכָּנָה אֵין מִתְרַפְּאִין בָּהֶן. וְאִם עָבַר וְנִתְרַפֵּא עוֹנְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ בֵּית דִּין עֹנֶשׁ הָרָאוּי לוֹ:
(ז) וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בִּמְקוֹם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת אֵין עוֹבְרִין עַל אַחַת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ עֲבֵרוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו ה) "וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל מְאֹדֶךָ" אֲפִלּוּ הוּא נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשְׁךָ. וַהֲרִיגַת נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְרַפְּאוֹת נֶפֶשׁ אַחֶרֶת אוֹ לְהַצִּיל אָדָם מִיַּד אַנָּס דָּבָר שֶׁהַדַּעַת נוֹטָה לוֹ הוּא שֶׁאֵין מְאַבְּדִין נֶפֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי נֶפֶשׁ. וַעֲרָיוֹת הֻקְּשׁוּ לִנְפָשׁוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב כו) "כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָקוּם אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ וּרְצָחוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כֵּן הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה":
(ח) בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁאֵין מִתְרַפְּאִין בִּשְׁאָר אִסּוּרִים אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם סַכָּנָה. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן דֶּרֶךְ הֲנָאָתָן כְּגוֹן שֶׁמַּאֲכִילִין אֶת הַחוֹלֶה שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים אוֹ חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח אוֹ שֶׁמַּאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא דֶּרֶךְ הֲנָאָתָן כְּגוֹן שֶׁעוֹשִׂין לוֹ רְטִיָּה אוֹ מְלוּגְמָא מֵחָמֵץ אוֹ מֵעָרְלָה. אוֹ שֶׁמַּשְׁקִין אוֹתוֹ דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מַר מְעֹרָב עִם אִסּוּרֵי מַאֲכָל שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בָּהֶן הֲנָאָה לַחֵךְ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וַאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם סַכָּנָה. חוּץ מִכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב שֵׁהֵן אֲסוּרִים אֲפִלּוּ שֵׁלֹּא דֵּרֵךְ הֲנָאָתָן. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין מִתְרַפְּאִין מֵהֶן אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא דֶּרֵךְ הֲנָאָתָן אֵלָּא בִּמִקוֹם סַכָּנָה:
(6) As they said on the subject of duress, so they said of sickness. How so? For example: One who takes sick and his life is despaired of, and doctors prescribe a remedy for him consisting of a certain thing which is forbidden, the doctor's orders are followed. Healing is effected by everything that the Torah forbids, where there is danger of death6Pesahim, 25a. C., save only idolatry, adultery and murder, which even in case of danger, must not be employed as means of healing. If he transgress and be cured by such means, the tribunal may visit upon him due punishment.
(7) Whence do we know that even when life is in danger, none of these prohibitive commandments may be violated? From what it is said: "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Deut. 6.5), even though He taketh thy life.7Berakot 65b. G. And, the taking of one life in Israel to give healing to another life, or to save a man from an assassin is a thing which reason dictates not to do, for one life must not be sacrificed for another life. As for adultery, it is likened unto life itself, as it is said: "For as when a man riseth against his neighbor and slayeth him, even so is this matter" (Ibid. 22.26).
(8) Whereat are these words against using other forbidden things as remedies, save where there is danger of life, directed? When given in a manner to enjoy it, as for example, feeding a sick person oysters or frogs, or leavened bread on Passover, or any food on the Day of Atonement; but when administered not in a manner to enjoy it, as, for example, to apply a plaster or poultice of leaven on Passover, or of uncircumcized fruit,8Fruit of a tree before the fourth year after it was planted. G. or a drink containing a mixture of forbidden ingredients of food, which is not at all palatable, is permissible, even when there is no danger, save only of grafted fruit from a vineyard, and milk together with meat, which are forbidden even when not enjoying them. Therefore, healing therewith is forbidden even in a manner not to enjoy it, unless there is danger of death.