שבת, the Value of Life, and Troubling Texts

The issue of violating שבת to save the life of a non-Jew is not new to Why-aanot.  It has been a favorite tidbit of anti-Semites for generations, and has kept many Rabbis busy explaining the rationale by which it is permitted, encouraged and required.  In fact, just a few years ago it was all over the news, when Noah Feldman, a lawyer, diplomat and sometimes journalist published "Orthodox Paradox" in the New York Times Magazine.  While much of the substance of the essay - which detailed him being ostracized by the Modern Orthodox world in which he grew up following his intermarriage - turned out to be fabricated, he took the occasion to air what he considered to be some dirty laundry of his former community.  Included in his attacks, was a bizarre anecdote from his high school years in which a tragically misguided (or worse) Rabbi erroneously claimed that fundamentally, the rule is to allow the non-Jew to die, and that one who saves him for universal or altruistic reasons about the value of his life, is considered to have been מחלל שבת.  Whether the story is true or not, the rule is nonsense, with no basis in any Torah sources.  Once that Gemara hit the open press, a major uproar ensued, with responses from many diverse sources.

Previous posters have addressed most of the significant approaches to making sense of the Gemara.  Ms. Schwartz (in her last point) mentioned the position of the Meiri, which was restated at that time by Rabbi Shmuely Boteach in the Jerusalem Post.

Rabbi Lamm published a response that basically argued that what mattered was the end result, not the legalistic minutiae that led to that result.  This piece of his response was very controversial.  (

He also called Feldman out for publicizing the controversial Gemara so publicly.  He quoted a letter he recieved:
"You apparently were equally unaware of the damage your words have caused to innocent bystanders. Example: Daniel _____, a recent graduate of Yeshiva University, wrote this letter to me that broke my heart:

Like most Yeshiva University graduates, I interact on a daily basis with gentiles for most of my day. My Orthodox Jewish identity has never become an issue or conflict. However, following last week’s New York Times article by Noah Feldman… I have frequently been getting questions like, ‘Is it true that according to your law you wouldn’t save my life on the Sabbath’ or, ‘Do you really believe that Jewish life is more important than gentile life?’ How does a young Modern Orthodox professional answer these questions in a respectful and diplomatic way so as not to demonize others and at the same time be true to his faith?

My dear Noah Feldman, it is your duty to answer him, because you are the cause of his discomfiture and perhaps his possible inability to find employment."

This argument was attacked here. I am ambivalent, and hear both sides of the argument, though I wonder what expectations of responsibility we can reasonably expect from someone as obviously bitter and alienated as Feldman.

Another approach, mentions by Ms. Schwartz, and highlighted by Rabbi Prince is expanded upon by Rabbi Sholom Carmy.  Here is a passage:

In settling his scores with his alma mater, Feldman ascribes to his high school rebbi the claim that a doctor who treats a Gentile on Shabbat violates the day unless his explicit intention is to do so only in order to avoid animus. Though this sounds like nonsense, I am informed that a high school teacher actually said it.
The insinuation that religious Jewish doctors cannot be entrusted with the care of non-Jewish patients was, as we all know, part of the arsenal of 19th century European anti-Semitism. It was not meant in earnest: as an Orthodox deputy once remarked, during a debate on the licensing of physicians in the Austrian Parliament, several of the most outspoken leaders of the anti-Semitic party used Jewish doctors.
An honest understanding of the Halakha about saving a Gentile on Shabbat is grounded in the fact that not all mitsvot can be violated to save life. Idolatry, sexual offenses and murder may not be allowed even to save life, however this flies in the face of our utilitarian mentality. Shabbat has much in common with the so-called “big three.” [Note R. Shimon’s view in Yerushalmi that a bystander may intervene to prevent Shabbat violation even at the cost of the transgressor’s life.] For Jews Shabbat may be violated to save life, but only on the basis of a special limmud (inference)—“desecrate one Shabbat so that he may observe many Shabbatot.” Where this principle does not apply, Shabbat is inviolable.
Where people understand that religion may on occasion make life and death demands, the law that Shabbat is so important that it is overridden only for those who are members of the community that observes it is difficult but not scandalous. In our culture this understanding is lacking; thus the failure to treat Jews and Gentiles identically will be interpreted as indifference to the fate of the non-Jew, and will be perceived as tantamount to connivance in his death. It will provoke hatred, and understandably so. In this case, the theoretical gulf separating secularists from halakhists is not universalism vs. particularism but the recognition that Shabbat is, in principle, worth the sacrifice. It is common to stress that Judaism, compared, let us say, with Hinduism, affirms the value of human life and eschews such sacrifices. That the value of human life is overridden only in exceptional circumstances is a significant element in generalizing about Jewish ethics. But an almost absolute principle is not the same as an absolute one.

After all of these authorities, there is little to add, except to reiterate something that I have discussed with most of you before.   Anyone who learns Torah on a serious basis will occasionally encounter texts and sources that make her uncomfortable - be it on the subject of slavery, women, non-Jews, homosexuality etc.  Sometimes this is a result of the influence of Western culture, which we would not expect to be identical to the Torah world-view.  More often, we misinterpret the sources, and if we're lucky, are eventually corrected.  Most common though, we don't know which of these is true, and are left with a difficult, sometimes even painful clash between what we read in the Torah and what feels right to us.

I heard from my Rebbe an idea from the חובות הלבבות on this subject.  He noted that our conscious was also created by Hashem, and therefore it too is a valid means of determining His will.  However, just as if we were to (in theory, of course) have a contradiction between תורה שבכתב and תורה שבעל פה, we would follow the written תורה, because it is a more direct pipeline of the 'רצון ד, with less risk of the message being corrupted, our conscious is subject to influence from all kinds of places that could corrupt God's original message, so it is overruled when it conflicts with the תורה.

In the end, when confronted with these kinds of sources, I think we can safely discuss them on a forum like this, air our struggles, exchange ideas etc.  But most important is that the conversation take place within a context of intellectual humility.  The fact that I don't understand something now, doesn't mean I won't next week or next year or 10 years from now.  Maybe my daughter or great-grandson will figure it out, or maybe he won't.  To draw broad and definitive conclusions implies breadth of knowledge and depth of insight that most of us would be hard pressed to claim.  Patience, and a certain willingness to at least temporarily subordinate our own thought process to the broader Divine command is a core element of emuna (נעשה ונשמע), and one that we would do well to keep in mind (though again, one need not be a מאמין to try to avoid the pitfalls of intellectual hubris). 

No, I haven't graded your tests yet.