Medical prescription on Shabbat (Semmanin abrasion)
Hello Rabbi Michael,
I wanted to ask about the ruling on medicine on Shabbat (erosion of semen), why is the ruling not nullified in our day or at least not limited to home remedies? After all, nowadays it is not possible to prepare a paracetamol pill or a stomach ache pill at home by erosion of semen?
There are other decrees on Shabbat that have been repealed, such as the decree on women wearing jewelry on Shabbat, or the decree on selling an unclean animal to a Gentile. So, why shouldn’t this decree also be repealed? How is it different from the previous ones?
Best regards,
In principle, it is accepted in law that a decree is not invalid even if its reason is invalid, until it is invalidated by a court of law greater in wisdom and by a greater number than the one who issued it.
Although there are quite a few examples in which they do cancel for various reasons (sometimes just because of the damage and the problems that arise. You can see this in the last chapter of Neriah Gotel’s book “The Variation of Nature in Halacha”). Some of the poskim claim that today there is no concern about the erosion of symbols and therefore it should be permitted. The bottom line is that it is acceptable to make allowances for this today, but not to permit it completely. This is just a branch of additional mitigating circumstances.
I do not know what the decree on women’s jewelry was that was abrogated. And regarding the sale of an animal to a Gentile, it is a Toss who claims that in his day it is difficult to live like that. Although in our day things have changed and I doubt whether the decree is indeed abrogated. It is true that today Gentiles do not work in the temple, and therefore the purpose of the decree is null and void, and I assume that this is why they adopted the abrogation of the Toss, even though today the situation is different.
Regarding women's jewelry on Shabbat, I meant this rule:
A woman who goes out with a pierced earring is obligated; and the man is exempt. And a man who goes out with a non-pierced earring is obligated; and the woman is exempt - because it is part of her jewelry, and it is not forbidden, but a decree, lest she be seen by her friends. This is the rule: Anything that goes out that is not part of her jewelry, and is not part of her clothing, and she takes it out in the same way that she takes it out - is obligated; and anything that goes out that is part of her jewelry, and it is loose and could fall off quickly, and she comes to bring it in public, and likewise a woman who goes out with jewelry that she uses to pull it out and show it - these are exempt; and anything that is part of her jewelry, and it does not fall off and she does not use to show it - it is permissible to go out in it. Therefore, a bracelet that is placed on the arm or leg, one goes out with it on Shabbat, provided that it is attached to the flesh, and does not slip off. And so on.
And the Shulchan Aruch wrote: Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim Laws of Shabbat, Section 63, Section 18
And indeed, the women of Didan (Sabbath) used to go out with all their jewelry. Some said that it is forbidden, but since they will not listen, it is better for them to be careless and not to be mischievous. Some taught them the right to say that they do so according to a recent explanation that I wrote that they did not forbid going out with their jewelry into a courtyard that is not mixed, * and the Dalit is the complete public domain, and all our public domain is Carmelite, and we judge it as a courtyard that is not mixed, and it is permitted. Haga: And there is another reason to permit that now they are accustomed to wearing their jewelry and going out in it even on weekdays, and here is a reason to live and breathe like in their days when they were not accustomed to wearing it only on Shabbat, and it is not customary to wear it (Toss, Chapter 2222 /Bama Aisha/ and Glosses of Al-Pasi Chapter 23, Bama Aisha). (33) And what is a ring that has a seal on it for a woman and that does not have a seal on it for a man, that they are obligated to sin with it, (67) even in Carmel, it is forbidden even for them. And the same is the rule for all who do not have a seal on it, which is obligated to sin. And there are those who say that at that time, when people were accustomed to going out in a ring that does not have a seal on it, (77) it was considered to them as jewelry, and they were happy. And according to this, it is possible that since women are now accustomed to going out in a ring that has a seal on it (68), it is considered to them as jewelry, and they are happy. (67) And the M should warn women not to go out except with needles that they should put their links and nothing more, * because in that they have no benefit in it they will listen to us.
Regarding the permission to sell an animal to a Gentile, the text of the 16th chapter states: 16 Yoreh Deah Siman Kana Sec. 5
(5) They practiced the permission in everything. – The reason in the 16th chapter does not belong to our experience, because we are not so familiar with the law, and we do not have the means to lend and rent to a worshiper of idols
That is, it seems that in both cases the ruling is lenient because the reasons are less relevant to reality, and therefore I ask why we are not also lenient in the ruling on the erosion of symbols in our day.
I don't have a good answer to that, and certainly not a general one. As I wrote to you, in principle, even when the reason is nullified, the decree is not nullified. But there are many exceptions. See the discussion in Gottel's book above.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
