Q&A: The Value of Life in Judaism According to Its Holiness
The Value of Life in Judaism According to Its Holiness
Question
The Mishnah in Horayot, chapter 3, mishnah 7, says that a man takes precedence over a woman for being kept alive, and Maimonides likewise rules:
“You already know that all the commandments are obligatory for males, and only some for females, as explained in Kiddushin, so he is holier than she is, and therefore takes precedence in being kept alive. And when it says that both are in a state of degradation, it means that both were in captivity and both were solicited for sexual use; then the man is redeemed before the woman, because this is not his usual way, and he is being demanded for something unnatural to him.”
And it seems this is because of their holiness, as the previous mishnah says:
Mishnah, tractate Horayot, chapter 3, mishnah 6
Whoever is more frequent than another takes precedence over the other, and whoever is holier than another takes precedence over the other. If the anointed priest’s bull and the congregation’s bull are both standing ready, the anointed priest’s bull takes precedence over the congregation’s bull in all its procedures.
And it seems that the commentators take this in the direction that since the verse says, “You shall perform My commandments and be holy,” therefore whoever is obligated in more commandments takes precedence in being kept alive, and so men take precedence over women.
Can the Rabbi refer us to an article on the subject (preferably one of yours if there is one 🙂 ) about how nowadays this issue is treated given its clash with the morality of most people today (and whether there are sources that point otherwise)?
Answer
I don’t see any clash with morality at all. It’s a clash with people’s gut feelings, and nothing more. When there is a possibility of saving only one of two people, it’s obvious that the criterion should be whose life is worth more. Young versus old, sick versus healthy. And from a halakhic perspective, one who fulfills more commandments has a life worth more. I don’t see the slightest problem here.
Discussion on Answer
This has nothing to do with the case at hand. “Whose blood is redder” in the context of “be killed rather than transgress” is talking about a situation where I am required to kill in order to save myself or to save someone else. But here we’re dealing with a situation where two people are in danger that did not come from me, and I can save only one of them. Here the simple logic says that you save the one whose blood is redder, so to speak. As far as I know, that’s also how things are done in the world and in hospitals and by Magen David Adom, even if they don’t say so explicitly (and maybe some of them do say it explicitly).
3 attached files
Program 1.pdf
58K
Program 2.pdf
57K
Program 3.pdf
63K
With God’s help, 26 Cheshvan 5781
To No. — greetings,
Regarding the value of life, it is explained in the Talmud that one person’s blood is no redder than another’s, and therefore “one life is not set aside for another life.” That is to say, there is no room at all to evaluate “whose life is worth more.”
Even regarding saving life, Ben Petura’s opinion is that there is no place to give one person precedence over another if there is only one flask of water. By contrast, Rabbi Akiva holds that “your life takes precedence over your fellow’s life.” Obviously, the owner of the flask’s life is not worth more than his fellow’s; rather, his obligation to save himself takes precedence over his obligation to his fellow.
According to Rabbi Akiva, there is room to discuss what to do when it is possible to save only one person. To whom is the rescuer more strongly obligated? In that context, there is room to say that one’s father, one’s rabbi, a Torah scholar, and a priest have precedence, because the rescuer is obligated in honoring them beyond the general commandment of rescue that applies to every person. Likewise, there is room to discuss on the basis of the laws of precedence in commandment-performance that perhaps a man precedes a woman, and a Levite an Israelite, because in priorities of commandment-performance the “holier” precedes the less holy. (This is where Maimonides’ words in his Commentary on the Mishnah fit in—that a man, who is obligated in more commandments, precedes a woman under the rule that “the holier takes precedence.”)
However, Maimonides’ ruling in chapter 7 of the laws of Gifts to the Poor, where he brings the distinctions in the Mishnah, indicates that “to keep alive” means “to support financially.” The laws of precedence in the Mishnah are brought by Maimonides regarding “feeding, clothing, and redeeming from captivity,” and in Maimonides there is not a word about precedence in saving lives.
As for giving men precedence over women in sustenance (= keeping alive), Maimonides does not rule like the Mishnah in Horayot, but rather: “the woman takes precedence over the man for feeding, clothing, and redeeming from captivity.” The reason Maimonides gives—”because it is a man’s way to go about [seeking support], not a woman’s, and her shame is greater”—leads us to the source of his ruling in the Mishnah in Ketubot.
In Ketubot, the Tannaim disagree regarding someone who left few assets and has sons and daughters. One tanna says that the sons take precedence over the daughters because they engage in Torah study, whereas Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: “the daughters should be supported and the sons should go begging at the doors,” and the halakhah there follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
Maimonides understands that the Mishnah in Horayot, which says that a man precedes a woman, follows the view of the first tanna in Ketubot, that the sons take precedence in being supported from the father’s estate because they engage in Torah study. But in the conclusion, since the halakhah follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the Mishnah in Horayot is set aside, and the woman should be given precedence even “to keep alive,” meaning “to provide sustenance,” so that she not have to be shamed and go begging from door to door.
My remarks are based on Professor Hanokh Albeck’s comments in the “Additions and Supplements” to his commentary on the Mishnah in Horayot.
With blessings, S.Z.
Tosafot wanted to reconcile the Mishnah in Horayot with the halakhah that daughters take precedence for support, and therefore explained that “to keep alive” means “to save,” but for sustenance the woman takes precedence just as she does for clothing. There is a certain strain in reading the Mishnah in Horayot this way, since it should then have stated explicitly that for sustenance too the woman takes precedence, just as she does for clothing.