Violating Torah to Save Your Life: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
Violating Torah to Save Your Life (view source)
Revision as of 14:13, 22 December 2020
, 22 December 2020→Political Persecution
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
===Political Persecution=== | ===Political Persecution=== | ||
# If a regime outlaws observing Torah or mitzvot a person must give up his life to observe Torah and mitzvot, even for minor mitzvot. This unfortunate state is called ''shaat hashmad'' (Heb. שעת השמד; lit. time of destruction) in halacha.<ref>Gemara Sanhedrin 74b</ref> | # If a regime outlaws observing Torah or mitzvot a person must give up his life to observe Torah and mitzvot, even for minor mitzvot. This unfortunate state is called ''shaat hashmad'' (Heb. שעת השמד; lit. time of destruction) in halacha.<ref>Gemara Sanhedrin 74b</ref> | ||
# If the government forbids Jews from observing mitzvot for their own benefit and not in order to destroy Judaism it is not considered a reason to give up one's life, instead one should violate the prohibition.<ref>Shach 157:7 cites the Bach who thinks that whereas in public if the terrorist is threatening a Jew's life for his own benefit the Jew should violate the halacha, because there is no kiddush Hashem when the Jew is doing it for his own benefit, that doesn't apply to ''shaat hashmad''. When there is a ''shaat hashmad'' the reason that a Jew has to give up his life is because the regime is destroying Judaism and it is incumbent for Jews to stand up for Torah even by giving up their life. Even if the government is doing it for their own benefit it is still necessary to give up one's life since it isn't a question of Kiddush Hashem. However, the Shach 157:7 disagrees based on Rashi and the Hagahot Ashri Ketubot ch. 1 who is unsure about this point. Since there is a doubt about this case, the Shach concludes that it is better to violate the Torah to save your life. Ran Sanhedrin 74a s.v. aval also assumes that when the government is doing it for their benefit one shouldn't give up one's life and quotes Rabbenu Dovid who agrees, but concludes that the Rambam Yesodei Hatorah 5 implies that it isn't the case. Taz 157:3 agrees with the Shach based on Rashi, Ran, and Nemukei Yosef. See Igeret Taiman and Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot.</ref> | # If the government forbids Jews from observing mitzvot for their own benefit and not in order to destroy Judaism<ref>Taz 157:3 clarifies that any intent other than to destroy Judaism is considered intending for their own benefit.</ref> it is not considered a reason to give up one's life, instead one should violate the prohibition.<ref>Shach 157:7 cites the Bach who thinks that whereas in public if the terrorist is threatening a Jew's life for his own benefit the Jew should violate the halacha, because there is no kiddush Hashem when the Jew is doing it for his own benefit, that doesn't apply to ''shaat hashmad''. When there is a ''shaat hashmad'' the reason that a Jew has to give up his life is because the regime is destroying Judaism and it is incumbent for Jews to stand up for Torah even by giving up their life. Even if the government is doing it for their own benefit it is still necessary to give up one's life since it isn't a question of Kiddush Hashem. However, the Shach 157:7 disagrees based on Rashi and the Hagahot Ashri Ketubot ch. 1 who is unsure about this point. Since there is a doubt about this case, the Shach concludes that it is better to violate the Torah to save your life. Ran Sanhedrin 74a s.v. aval also assumes that when the government is doing it for their benefit one shouldn't give up one's life and quotes Rabbenu Dovid who agrees, but concludes that the Rambam Yesodei Hatorah 5 implies that it isn't the case. Taz 157:3 agrees with the Shach based on Rashi, Ran, and Nemukei Yosef. See Igeret Taiman and Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot.</ref> | ||
# Persecution that applies to Jews and other nationalities as well is not considered a ''shaat hashmad''.<ref>Shach 157:6 based on Nemukei Yosef</ref> | # Persecution that applies to Jews and other nationalities as well is not considered a ''shaat hashmad''.<ref>Shach 157:6 based on Nemukei Yosef</ref> | ||
# Even at times of a ''shaat hashmad'' a person does not give up his life for a positive mitzvah.<Ref>The Ran Shabbat 22b s.v. vmakshu and Nemukei Yosef Sanhedrin 17b cited by Bet Yosef 157:1 explain that one does not give up his life for a positive mitzvah since one is only passively not fulfilling it. Furthermore, the terrorist could forcibly stop him from doing the mitzvah and keep him alive, so there is no reason to give up your life. Whereas for a prohibition the terrorist can't forcibly cause him to violate the prohibition in most cases and it is better to give up your life than violate it. Rama 157:1 and Taz 157:4 codify this approach.</ref> | |||
===''Sakanat Ever''=== | ===''Sakanat Ever''=== | ||
# If one's limb is in danger (Heb. סכנת אבר; trans. ''sakanat ever'') is it permissible to violate a prohibition? If a loss of limb is considered like a loss of money then it is necessary to upkeep the Torah even at the expense of the health of one's limb. If a loss of limb is considered like a loss of life then it is permitted to violate the prohibition to save one's limb. The conclusion of the poskim regarding other prohibitions, besides Shabbat, is to judge loss of limb like loss and life and it is permitted to violate a prohibition.<ref>Shach 157:3 citing Rivash 387 and O.C. 328:17. See Radvaz 3:627 who seems to hold a similar position.</ref> | # If one's limb is in danger (Heb. סכנת אבר; trans. ''sakanat ever'') is it permissible to violate a prohibition? If a loss of limb is considered like a loss of money then it is necessary to upkeep the Torah even at the expense of the health of one's limb. If a loss of limb is considered like a loss of life then it is permitted to violate the prohibition to save one's limb. The conclusion of the poskim regarding other prohibitions, besides Shabbat, is to judge loss of limb like loss and life and it is permitted to violate a prohibition.<ref>Shach 157:3 citing Rivash 387 and O.C. 328:17. See Radvaz 3:627 who seems to hold a similar position.</ref> | ||
