Q&A: One Who Is Walking in the Desert
One Who Is Walking in the Desert
Question
Regarding one who is walking in the desert and does not know when it is Sabbath, it seems straightforward to the medieval authorities (Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Ran on Shabbat 69b) that he is permitted to walk beyond the boundary at least on the days that he is not observing as Sabbath. The Ran brings two reasons for this: (a) so that he should not desecrate Sabbath all his life; (b) so that he should not die in a land of desolation. In the Ran, these reasons are written according to the view that boundary-limits are rabbinic, and then these are reasons to qualify the boundary prohibition in such a case. However, the Ritva here writes that even according to the view that boundary-limits are of Torah origin, "it is preferable that he walk every single day as far as he can in order to emerge from doubt and from danger."
I have a few questions for the honorable Rabbi on this matter:
(a) Has the Rabbi written or given a lecture (recorded) on this topic?
(b) How can one permit a doubtful Torah prohibition of labor in order to enable a person to get out of that doubt? Is this a meta-halakhic principle? A sin for the sake of Heaven?
(c) Here the discussion is about a case in which there is no concrete danger, since actual life-danger certainly overrides all Sabbath prohibitions. Why then does the Ritva write that one may walk beyond the boundary in order to escape danger?
Answer
A. No.
B. There are several possibilities here. I’ll write two: 1. The permission is based on the reasoning, "Desecrate one Sabbath for him so that he may keep many Sabbaths." 2. There is a concern for danger to life here. True, it is not immediate or tangible, but when it extends over a long period of time one may desecrate Sabbath for it. Similar to the Talmud in Ketubot 33a: "Had they flogged Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, they would have worshipped the idol."
C. See B2.
Discussion on Answer
1. And if we leave a person to die and do not desecrate Sabbath for him, which many Sabbaths have we lost? He dies and does not keep them. Isn’t that no worse than coercion? (That is, less severe, less of a loss.)
2. Indeed.
If he dies, he will not keep any Sabbaths at all; if he remains in the desert, he will keep Sabbaths, except that he will perform labors for the sake of life-danger. Perhaps this is a practical difference between "permitted in full" and "overridden"; recently you wrote here that you do not recognize this conceptual distinction regarding Sabbath.
On second thought, even if we say that Sabbath is only overridden in the face of life-danger, there is still observance of the remainder of the Sabbath here, since at every moment of the Sabbath there exists an independent obligation of observance (as is evident from the Talmud in Yevamot 33 regarding a minor who grew two pubic hairs on Sabbath).
The Rabbi wrote: "Isn’t that no worse than coercion?" Meaning: the assumption is that a Sabbath that is desecrated (partially, as above) because of life-danger has a degree of loss and deficiency equivalent to a Sabbath that is not observed at all [1 commandment + a violation under permission = 0 commandment + 0 violation]. From where do we know this?
Someone already raised this practical difference (I think Tirgitz). And still, it is obvious that the non-observance of Sabbath by a dead person is certainly worse.
The non-observance of Sabbaths by a dead person is not 0, for otherwise there would be no permission to desecrate Sabbath on that account.
A. The Rabbi wrote: "1. The permission is based on the reasoning, 'Desecrate one Sabbath for him so that he may keep many Sabbaths.'"
Seemingly, here there is no actual Sabbath desecration, because he is doing what he does under the real permission of life-danger. In other words, he can keep many Sabbaths even without reaching civilization.
B. The Rabbi wrote: "2. There is a concern for danger to life here. True, it is not immediate or tangible, but when it extends over a long period of time one may desecrate Sabbath for it."
I would be happy for a sharper explanation. After all, one desecrates Sabbath even for a concern of danger to life, so it is clear that the discussion here is about a case where there is not even a concern of danger to life. If I understand correctly, your intention is to say that if we do not allow him to violate the boundary prohibition, we are sentencing him to remain in the desert for a prolonged time, and if so the equation is violation of the boundary prohibition versus prolonged (or infinite) stay in the desert, which is defined as danger to life, or at least possible danger to life, because statistically over the years it is likely that he will encounter mortal danger. I would appreciate confirmation that this is the correct understanding.