[updated with Mishna] Rav Sternbuch(Teshuvos v’Hanhagos 4:217): In the Mishna at the end of Horios it is taught, A man take priority over a woman in regard to returning lost objects. The reason for this is because the man has a greater obligation to do mitzvos than a woman. We also find in Shulchan Aruch concerning tzedaka that a man comes before a woman. This is very strange. I can understand that a Torah scholar takes precedence to a woman because it is showing respect for the Torah. However there is no obligation to honor every man because of the mitzvos that he fulfills. I can understand that in saving of life that a man comes before a woman because he can serve G‑d more since he has much more mitvos and thus is sanctified more. However what does that have to do with returning him his lost objects before returning a woman her lost objects – there simply isn’t a general obligation of honoring each man? I could not find this din in the Shulcha Aruch or the Rambam, but it is explicit and clear in the Mishna. This question requires additional study. Perhaps you can answer that since the man is obligated in more mitzvos, when you give priority to the man you show with this the importance of mitzvos. Therefore even though there is no requirement to honor him, but in a situation where you have both a man a woman that you need to returnsomething, we give priority to him because he is obligated in more mitzvos. With this we cherish and show the importance of mitzvos. Therefore the Sages required in such a case to give preference to the man. However this still requires clarification.
==========================
Horious(13a): Mishna: A man takes precedence over a woman in life and death matters and the return of lost objects [ because of greater holiness resulting from having more mitzvos]. A woman takes precedence over a man regarding being clothed [because she suffers more from embarrassment and shame of being naked] and redemption from captivity. If they are both faced with rape then a man takes precedence over a woman [because rape is unnatural for a man and thus more degrading than for a woman].
Fascinating given that most poskim treat the horiyot priorities as a tertiary tie breaker at best.
ReplyDeleteKT
Joel Rich
Whatever gave you that misconception?
Deletetzitz eliezer 18:1
Deleteiggrot moshe c"m 2:73,75
for starters
KT
Joel Rich
How did you misread those teshuvos to come to that erroneous conclusion?
DeleteNo doubt you may be correct (although you might think about a nicer way to say you disagree, but I leave that to your judgement) - how do you read "vayein bsof mesechet horiyot bmishneh ubgemara seder shel adifut binyan hatzalah vchein linyan tzedaka vchidomeh, ach choshvani shebizmaneinu kasheh m'od lhitnaheig lfi zeh"?
DeleteKT
Joel Rich
First please share how you originally read that passage. And why you interpreted it such.
DeleteJust as you need life to perform any mitzvos, you need money to perform many mitzvos. To start off what I am sure would be a long list of financial obligations that fall on men but not women: Obligations of a husband to wife and children as outlined in kesuba, obligation to give a son a bris, ditto pidyon haben, ditto a Torah education... (Technically you could do all of the latter things yourself and save a lot of money, but that isn't what usually happens.) Also: machtzis hashekel. Well, that is all I can think of for the moment.
ReplyDeleteThe whole subject seems upside down. A woman produces Jewish children. An man does not. True, his mitzvos will be good the rest of his life, but if you don't save the woman, there are no generations. In a time of pogram/geneocide which poses a real threat to the community, it seems quite short-sighted to save the men and not the woman. It dooms the nation to extinction.
ReplyDeleteAlso, any mitzva from which women are exempt which involves something you have to own. So lulav for sure (forgetting about the matana option). Again, a poor individual could get away with borrowing tefilin, sukka, etc., but you need to have a certain critical mass of tefilin and sukka owners for the whole system to work.
ReplyDeleteI would think that a poor woman would have tzedaka priority over a poor man because (at least in the olden days) a poor man was always expected to go out and work even a demeaning job to eke out a living, whereas a woman was expected to care for her family at home, and had less opportunity to earn income for herself.
ReplyDeleteAlthough men come first in many instances when a choice must be made, there are exception to these guidelines especially in some tzedakah scenarios. So Women, you are not really second class citizins in spite of the fact that in some circles (in Israel specifically) they promote that falsehood.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I was quite appalled when I read that Rav Sternbuch advocated saving men's lives first...
DeleteImagine the new chareidi triage guidelines for medical emergencies: first, you look at the men. Deal with women later...
Jewish Law, as codified in Shulchan Aruch, clearly and unambiguously states to save men's lives first.
DeleteAre you equally opposed to the type of philosophy practiced on the Titanic where they save women's lives first? Or are you only appalled if it is men they first save? Or simply non Jewish values don't appall you while Jewish Law does?
Well at least I hope that Magen david adom does not go according to these priorities...
DeleteAnd yes: women and children first makes sense to maximise reproduction & survival...
DeleteCome to think of it: yes, I find it very disturbing to picture a sinking Titanic full of hareidim in black garb shouting: "men first, men first, women and girls: don't board the life boats!"
DeleteBut somehow it fits the pictures of hareidim in Ramat beith shemesh shouting "pritze, pritze", sounding like sheep...
And I perfectly picture those good hareidi ladies and girls remaining on the sinking ship without a world, resigned to their fate, as always.
I see. So you have no problem with "women first, men sink with the boat", but you have a problem in the reverse. Your values are not Jewish values. They are Christian values.
DeleteThe question is how things get added up to determine the relative value of a life. The idea that men are obligated to more mitzvot is judging the matter through a vary limited QUANTITATIVE lens where every mitzvah is of equal value and men have (I think it is 12) more than women so their lives are consequently MORE G-d serving. Yet the fact is that that there are all kinds of QUALITATIVE factors that just get ignored. The fact of producing Jewish children for one. This quantitative assessment that concludes that men's lives are more important than women's is simply and obviously flawed and I, for one, do not feel obligated to uphold it.
ReplyDeleteYour problem is that you don't agree with the Torah. It is equivalent to saying that you don't like the law of gravity and therefore you are going to walk out of a 100th floor window because you don't think it is fair that you fall down.
DeleteWould you be able to accept it if the Torah said that women are saved before men? If you don't have a rule one way or the other then both would probably die while you are debated what to do in each case.
Is it true that on a sinking titanic full of g-d fearing jews, women and girls would not be allowed to board the lifeboats, or are there other factors than men's blood beinf redder come into play?
DeleteThe case in Shulchan Aruch is when both a man and woman are drowning - and you can only save one. I assume it would also apply if faced with two people who are dying and a doctor can only save one of them. Another scenario is that a man and a woman have been sentenced to death and you can save one of them.
DeleteThis rule is not about preventing a person from trying to save their life by getting into a rowboat. I also couldn't find any refers to a woman voluntarily giving up her place in a rowboat so that a man could live.
Furthermore if a group of Jews is told that they must surrender one of their members or they will all get killed - they can not sacrifice a random person - which includes women and children.
In other words it is simply a rule of triage - but not of suicide or actively sacrificing a woman for the sake of man
do you think thaat a properly organised hareidi emergency service should apply this rule of triage?
DeleteDo you think that a fru doctor who works in emergencies should apply this rule of triage?
Do you think that a frum health minister (in a frum country) should instruct all the emergency workers to apply his rule for triage?
In the case of the Titanic, where there were insufficient lifeboats to save every passenger, and the crew was deciding who could board a lifeboat (or board first) and who could not board a lifeboat (or had to wait until essentially there were no more lifeboats to board), the crew, per Jewish Law as codified in Shulchan Aruch would have to allow all the men to board a lifeboat prior to allowing any woman.
DeleteIf anyone has a problem with that, there problem is with the Law. And, as yourself, did you ever strenuously object to how the Titanic crew allowed woman to be save before men? If that didn't bother you, why should the reverse bother you? And it is law.
las - I am not sure what the possibility of implementing this halacha in contemporary society has to do with the fact that that is in fact the halacha.
DeleteHowever it seems to be that this halacha does not have any consequences. In other words if it is ignored what aveira has been done?
Are you saying "it is jewish law, but no-one says it should be followed?"
DeleteIf it is written in the shulhan aruch, hatzoloh workers and jewish doctors should know about it and be instructed to follow it. If it is abolished, someone should clearly state it is abolished. Which is it?
Is Abe right in his assessment that if the evacuation of a sinking ship is done in an orderly way according to the shulchan aruch, only men would be saved, if there are insuffiant places on the life boats, as was the case in the Titanic?
no i am not saying that it is abolished. the mishna makes a simple statement and this is clearly halacha. Not aware of any halacha that says one should do anything active to prevent a woman from being saved in order to save a man.Thus the Titanic life boat would not happen. In other words I don't see that if the lifeboat was being loaded that a woman would be told she can't get in. It is more the case where they are both drowning that the float would be thrown to the man rather than the woman if only one can live.
DeleteAgain the case is that only one can be saved and the other must be left to die.
A related case is that two people are in the desert and there is not sufficient water for both to live unless one gives his water to the other. Rav Moshe says you can not give your water to the other person.
I was simply noting that there doesn't seem to be any sin involved if this directive of the mishna is not followed.
The next mishna states
MISHNAH. A PRIEST TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER A LEVITE, A LEVITE OVER AN ISRAELITE, AN ISRAELITE OVER A BASTARD, A BASTARD OVER A NATHIN,39 A NATHIN OVER A PROSELYTE, AND A PROSELYTE OVER AN EMANCIPATED SLAVE. THIS ORDER OF PRECEDENCE APPLIES ONLY WHEN40 ALL THESE WERE IN OTHER RESPECTS EQUAL. IF THE BASTARD, HOWEVER, WAS A SCHOLAR AND THE HIGH PRIEST AN IGNORAMUS,41 THE LEARNED BASTARD TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE IGNORANT HIGH PRIEST.
I don't see any difference between the crew loading the lifeboats with passengers on the sinking Titanic than people already in the water getting a float thrown to them. Both situations involve a third party actively assisting people whose life is in imminent danger of death. The Titanic crew would be obligated, per the Mishna and Shulchan Aruch, to first load the men unto the lifeboats. It is in fact the classical case mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch of saving men's lives first, when you can only save one (i.e. insufficient lifeboats.)
Deleteneither do I - daas torah, do you have any valid argument to refute abe?
DeleteYou are saying that preventing woman getting in the boat is the same as saving a man before a woman - I don't agree.
DeleteI don't see anything in any source which says one can do an action to prevent a person from being saved in order to save another. All it says is to chose to save the man before the woman.
A woman is already in the life boat - are you claiming that you can take her off or kill her to allow a man to be saved?
If you are then I assume you would hold that it is permissible to take out a kidney or a heart from a woman in order to save a man's life?!
This type of argument is specifically rejected when it says that you can not sacrifice one of your group to save the group.
Rules of precedence don't allow one to harm another person or to prevent the person from being rescued.
Absolutely not, I am not and haven't said that at all.
DeleteWhat I have said is that on the Titanic the ship's officers and seamen directed which passengers may board a lifeboat. (And assisted them with boarding the lifeboat.) Passengers couldn't push their way unto a lifeboat first, before another passenger. They had to be authorized by the crew. And the crew, on the Titanic, used sex based discrimination in determining who could or could not board a lifeboat. (And also allowed people with rowing or sea experience priority as well.)
According to Jewish Law, the crew would be required to first allow the men to board prior to the women. If a woman jumped unto a lifeboat without authorization, I don't believe Jewish Law would allow the crew to remove her once she was there.
So you are taking two different cases:
DeleteWe learn from Rabbi Eidensohn that a woman, who, for some reason, is already in a life boat cannot be removed.
But what happens in the case Abe describes: Is he right that, assuming the evacuation takes place in an orderly way, with the assistence of the crew, only men would be saved if it were a jewish orthodox boat with a jewish orthodox crew, and only jewish orthodox passengers (for argument's sake)?
What about the "law" that a husband must honor his wife over his own guf. That seems to be a directive that he must sacrifice his own life to save hers. How does he fulfill that directive while leaving her on the boat while he saves his own skin.
ReplyDeleteNever heard that kavod includes sacrificing ones life. Haven't seen this in regards to honoring parents or rebbe either. If you have a source that says what you are claiming - please let me know.
DeleteLet me restate that for all practical purposes current day authorities make this a tertiary tie breaker (e.g. if the doctor can only treat one patient and they are equidistant to him....). The tzitz eliezer posits that a woman who does all her mitzvot would come before a man who doesn't! I have a very long pdf of sources if anyone is interested in doing further research.
ReplyDeleteKT
Joel Rich
yes I would like a copy.
DeleteRegarding the case - the issue is not simple. If she is the wife a major talmid chachom she takes precedence over the average Jew. If she is observant and he isn't - she takes precedence.
I can' imagine that as the Titanic is sinking that each passenger is being examined to see how frum he/she is and the zechus from husband or children etc etc. It would result in everyone dying. In additon since women study Torah - it is not clear that a frum seminary girl wouldn't take precedence over a frum am haaretz.
An additional issue is whether they are in equal health. If the male is weak or sick - then it would be likely the woman would take predence over him. Who is going to do a physical on the passengers before allowing them in to row boats.
Bottom line the issue is not that relevant on a practical level. I think it is just a dramatic way of saying the a person's importance is dependent upon keeping mitzvos.
They can't check out each passengers level of observance, perhaps, but they immediately know whether a passenger is male or female. So the law as recorded in Shulchan Aruch (which no contemporary posek argues on S"A) would come into play, and the men on the Titanic would be first saved and if space allowed then women.
ReplyDeleteI find it despicable that the women on the Titanic were given priority in being saved. I understand they weren't bound by Jewish Law to save the men first, but there is no goyish law to save women first. They should have done first come first serve.
The Tzitz Elieazar below disagrees with your understanding
DeleteWhich part of my understanding does the Tzitz Eliezer disagree with and what is his understanding of the psak in Shulchan Aruch?
Deleteשו"ת ציץ אליעזר חלק יח סימן א
ReplyDeleteבעזהי"ת. אייר תשמ"ח.
בדיני קדימה להצלה ונימוקיהם
א. בירור נרחב לזה שברמב"ם וטור ושו"ע נשמט דין המשנה של האיש קודם לאשה להחיות.
ב. הישנה עדיפות להצלה במקום פיקוח נפש.
ג. אם יש חיוב על היחיד למסור את נפשו למען הצלת הכלל ואם עכ"פ רשאי לעשות זאת, וכן להצלת רבים.
ד. אם רשאי אדם להכניס את עצמו בספק סכנה כדי להציל את חבירו מודאי סכנה, וכן אם יש ענין להדיוט לבקש שיהרגוהו במקום גדול בישראל.
במסכת הוריות דף י"ג ע"א קובעת המשנה כללים בדיני קדימה בהצלה ואומרת: האיש קודם לאשה להחיות ולהשב אבידה, והאשה קודמת לאיש לכסות ולהוציא מבית השבי, בזמן ששניהם עומדים בקלקלה האיש קודם לאשה.
ובמשנה שלאחריה ממשיכה וקובעת: כהן קודם ללוי, לוי לישראל, ישראל לממזר. וממזר לנתין, ונתין לגר, וגר לעבד משוחרר, אימתי בזמן שכולם שוים אבל אם היה ממזר תלמיד חכם וכהן גדול עם הארץ ממזר תלמיד חכם קודם לכהן גדול עם הארץ.
עדיפיות הקדימה הוא בגלל יחוס, וזה שאיש קודם לאשה מסביר הרמב"ם בפיהמ"ש, וכן הרע"ב, דהטעם בזה מפני שהוא מקודש ממנה שחייב בכל המצוות, והאשה אינה חייבת במ"ע שהזמן גרמא, לפיכך הוא קודם להחיות.
דיני הקדימות האמורים נפסקו להלכה ברמב"ם בפ"ח מה' מתנות עניים הלכות י"ז י"ח, ובשו"ע יו"ד סימן רנ"א סעיפים ח' ט' עיין שם.
Translation, please?
ReplyDeleteI'll try mentioning the Tzitz Eliezar's main points
ReplyDelete1) The Rambam, Tur and the Shulchan Aruch don't mention the din that men's life takes precedence over women. The Rambam does mention the other issues of precedence in the Mishna of Horious 13b and the one after it dealing with cohen levi etc.
2) this din is mentioned in Rema Y.D. 252:8 concerning if a man and woman are drowning - Shach and Taz understand this to mean in life-saving man takes precedence over woman. However the Levush - a student of the Rema - understands it to be referring that a man and woman are faced with rape are going to drown themselves to avoid rape. And therefore the man is redeemed before the woman because his anguish is greater for rape. Thus the Levush understands this to be specific and not a general rule of saving the life of a man over that of a woman.
3) He also says that the Mishna is not dealing with a case of actual pikuach nefesh - but rather a lack of food - and therefore Chazal decided that a man get preference in sustanance - but say nothing about life-saving. He says that Rambam understands Horious 13a is also only dealing with non pikuach nefesh situations. he says this is also the understanding of the Meiri.
4) He understands the Rambam as saying the precedence is only when both the man and the woman are equaly frum - but if the woman is frummer Rambam would say she comes first. Because there are so many variable - that is possibly why the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch didn't mention this din.
5) Brings from Sefer Chasidim regarding someone willing to give life to save talmid chachom. But concludes he doesn't sin if he does not volunteer. It is midos chassidus only Relates this to literature of endangering yourself to save another.
In short there is no scenario of the Titantic according to the Rambam, Tur and Shulchan Aruch and possibly Rema
Daas Torah:
DeleteYour most recent comment seems to contradict with everything you posted in the comment section above. Particularly your comments on June 24 at 12:53 AM and 2:02AM and 10:09 AM 12:29 PM. In those four comments of yours, you clearly say the current halacha is that you save a man's life before you save a woman's life when there isn't the possibility of saving both.
Yes according to the understanding of the Shach and Taz according to the simple understanding of the Mishna in Horious 13b.
DeleteHowever after reading the Tzitz Eliezar it really isn't clear whether that there is a general principle. There even seems to be a problem with the Rambam between his clear statement in his commentary to the Mishna and what he states in the Mishna Torah.
Bottom line - the actual halacha is not clear
IOW, going with the pashtus of the Mishna and the Shach and Taz explanation thereof, it would be reasonable to pasken in a contemporary Titanic situation to save the men first.
Delete"the Shulchan Aruch don't mention the din that men's life takes precedence over women."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about? The Beis Yosef (YD 251) explains that when the Mishnah mentions “sustaining”, it refers to saving lives and in this a man comes before a woman (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 252:8, "And if they both [a man and a woman] are going to drown in a river, one should save the man first").
Yes the Beis Yosef mentions it but not in the Shulchan Aruch. What you are citing here is the Rema. - Which if you accept the Levush's understanding is not a general principle but is limited to suicide in the case of rape.
DeleteSo according to these sources (Beis Yosef, Rama, Shach and Taz), the case of the Titanic would indeed mean to save the men first.
ReplyDeleteYes - but according to the Tzitz Elieazar's understand the Rambam, Tur Shulchan Aruch and Rema don't have a general rule in pikuach nefesh cases.
DeleteHow the Shach and Taz explain Shulchan Aruch and Rama, that is.
DeleteGoing by the Shach and Taz we can conclude that men come first, correct?
ReplyDeleteIt would seem so - the question is whether there are actual teshuvos that say this is what should be done. - Do you know of a single teshuva that follows this approach?
DeleteAbe Said:
ReplyDelete"Jewish Law, as codified in Shulchan Aruch, clearly and unambiguously states to save men's lives first."
Daas Torah, in a translation of Tzitz Eliez said:
"The Rambam, Tur and the Shulchan Aruch don't mention the din that men's life takes precedence over women."
So this would mean that Abe was wrong?
Daas Torah said (referring to someone who did not agree that men should be saved first)
ReplyDelete"Your problem is that you don't agree with the Torah. It is equivalent to saying that you don't like the law of gravity and therefore you are going to walk out of a 100th floor window because you don't think it is fair that you fall down."
Daas torah said:
"Yes - but according to the Tzitz Elieazar's understand the Rambam, Tur Shulchan Aruch and Rema don't have a general rule in pikuach nefesh cases."
So the problem would really be that no-one knows what the torah says, not that "Perplexed" does not agree that such a rule should be followed...???
no - the issue is that there are sometimes a variety of interpretations of how to read the sources. If someone says - I have seen the different views - but I don't like what any of them say. That is saying I don't like the law of gravity.
DeleteHowever if someone says - I am following what the understanding of the Tzitz Eliezar or Rebe Moshe - Or the majority of rabbis understand it this way - there is no problem.
Where (and what) does Rav Moshe take a position on this issue? And what is the majority position?
DeleteI don't think the comparison with the laws of gravity was adequate.
DeleteThe statement was "men take precedence over women in life-saving"
Perplexed answered "my gut-feeling tells me this is wrong".
"daas torah" shot at her "well, this means your gut-feeling is wrong".
and in the subsequent comments, whne probed, "daas torah" backpedaled all the way to "we do not know, there is no general rule".
Therefore, the indictment of "perplexed"s gut feeling clarly was inadequate.
To las: Thank you! The way you presented the matter reminds me of an article I recently read about Benot Tslafchad that brought the Sifri which said: "When the Benot Tslafchd convened to discuss the matter. They said, "G-d's mercy and compassion is not like the compassion of mankind. Mankind favors men over women. G-d is not that way. His compassion is on men and women alike..."
DeleteThe author elaborated on the Sifri: "They identified the underlying principle that was being violated. Deep inside something did not feel right and they named it. Now they were working for truth and a higher good. This gave them the strength to persist despite inner and outer resistance.
I'm happy my comment gave you some satisfaction, even though I could not get the blog owner to admit that that his reaction was inadequate...
Delete