Q&A: An Interesting Question about Human Dignity
An Interesting Question about Human Dignity
Question
Hello Rabbi. The case is as follows: a person is out on the street and urgently needs to relieve himself, to the point that he can no longer hold it in. The options before him are either to enter a hotel where it is explicitly stated that use of the restrooms is only for hotel guests, or to go in the street.
The proposed solution: I thought to discuss this based on the halakhic decisors who say that in monetary matters even positive action is permitted because of human dignity (see the Talmudic Encyclopedia), and therefore he may enter the hotel.
But now to the more interesting case: if he does not need to go quite so urgently and can wait a little, but is still violating the prohibition of “do not make yourselves detestable,” then the solution seemingly is that he may wait because human dignity overrides “do not make yourselves detestable”; but human dignity would also allow him to enter the hotel, whereas entering the hotel would apparently be ruled out because he can wait. So there seems to be a loop here— is there a way to resolve it?
Answer
Do you mean human dignity overriding monetary prohibitions through positive action? Where are these halakhic decisors? That sounds implausible to me. Is it really permitted to steal because of human dignity? Perhaps this is about refraining from returning a lost object, but not a monetary prohibition through positive action.
By the way, why does human dignity override “do not make yourselves detestable”? Holding it in is a prohibition through positive action, not passive omission. Especially according to those halakhic decisors who hold that violating any prohibition is considered a transgression through positive action.
Discussion on Answer
I remembered—the source cited in the Talmudic Encyclopedia is Tosafot, who derive it from “and you may hide yourself,” and since you refrain, someone else will come and take it for himself; therefore they regard it as positive action (I don’t fully understand the logic), but only in monetary matters is it permitted, since that is what the verse is dealing with..
Correction: the Mishnah Berurah indeed said that the prohibition of “do not make yourselves detestable” is overridden because of human dignity, but his source is the Pri Megadim, and there he writes explicitly that this applies only to the rabbinic prohibition of “do not make yourselves detestable”..
With God’s help, 15 Tammuz 5781
There is seemingly a simple solution: buy something in the hotel’s café, and then, as a customer of the hotel, he is entitled to use its restroom..
Best regards, Yafa’ur
As for the substance of the question, there is a line of reasoning that the hotel owner is obligated to allow a Jew who needs to relieve himself and has no alternative to use the restroom in his hotel, so that he will not be forced to humiliate himself. If so, one may assume that when he forbade non-guests from using the hotel restrooms, he meant in a case where the person has another option. But since there is a solution—namely, to buy something at the hotel—it is proper to do that.
Actually, I was thinking of a simple line of reasoning: just as they permit stealing in a life-threatening situation, based on the reasoning that the person being stolen from is obligated to save the life of the thief, and therefore his money is subjugated to that purpose, so too with human dignity—the person being stolen from is obligated to act kindly and save his fellow’s dignity, and therefore the other person can use his money to prevent his own humiliation..
As for “do not make yourselves detestable,” if I’m not mistaken, it is the Mishnah Berurah that says not to relieve oneself in a public place even though one is violating “do not make yourselves detestable,” because of human dignity.