Q&A: Territorial Considerations in Laundry
Territorial Considerations in Laundry
Question
The Talmud in Nedarim discusses a situation in which a spring belongs to a town and people use it for laundry and for drinking:
"A spring belonging to the people of a town… the lives of others and their laundry — the lives of others take precedence over their laundry. Rabbi Yose says: their laundry takes precedence over the lives of others." (Nedarim 80b)
Seemingly, doesn’t this show that the right to life of the people of the other town overrides the ownership of the townspeople and their use of it for laundry? (The Ran there says that even Rabbi Yose, who says that their laundry takes precedence, says this only regarding laundry insofar as it is an aspect of vital need.)
Answer
Is this a general question? I assume your intention is to bring a proof from here against territorial considerations in the Talmud, since the lives of others are preferred over my ownership. This is indeed a complicated topic, and many interpretations have been offered. Let me make a few comments.
- This is difficult for Rashi on Bava Kamma 60b, regardless of me.
- It is not clear whether this is talking about what is proper to do or about something that can be enforced. Rashi also agrees that it is proper to give up my money in order to save others; he only argues that if I do not agree, the other person cannot take it.
- Rashi is speaking about individuals, whereas here it is a community. A community operates differently.
- From several commentators it emerges that the discussion is about how public resources are allocated. In other words, this baraita is addressed to the government, which is to divide the water between the towns, and it does not say that Town A is obligated to give to Town B.
- On the other hand, it is not clear whether the drinking involved here is a case of danger to life. And if they are compelled to give even when it is not a life-threatening case, that strengthens even further what I wrote in section 4.