I teach Ethics at Framingham State University, and every
year I place the following rabbinic moral dilemma before my students:
Judaism places a high value on life. On the one hand, the
ancient Rabbis teach us that the saving of life must be placed at the top of all
the commandments, superseding even the laws of the Sabbath (Yoma 84b). On the
other hand, however, Satan in the Bible reminds us that “all that a man has, he
will give up for his life.” (Job. 2:4). In other words, it is good to be
altruistic but physiological egoism reminds us that ultimately all human beings
are motivated by self-interest. So, if your life conflicts with someone else’s
life, whose life should come first?
The Rabbis discuss this tension in a remarkable talmudic
passage (BM 62a):
Two people, A and B, are on a
deserted road, presumably far from civilization. They have only one bottle of
water; if both drink, both will die; however, if A drinks, B will die, but A
can reach a place where water is available and will survive. What should they
do?
One scholar,
ben Petura, otherwise unknown in the rabbinic literature, argued that ‘it is
better that both should drink and die, rather than one cause the death of the
other.’ He based his reasoning on a biblical text that states that “your
brother may live with you” (Lev. 25:
35). However, Rabbi Akiba, a 2nd
cent. CE scholar, perhaps a contemporary of this ben Petura, going against his colleagues
maintained that “your life takes precedence over his.” That is, you should
drink and let the other one die. His argument is based on his reading of the
biblical text that highlights “with you.”
Your life comes first.
Rabbinic
scholars “use” biblical verses for their convenience, often quoting them out of
context. In our case, the original verse dealt with an Israelite whose kinsman,
most likely another Israelite, has financial problems and cannot pay his rent.
The law states (in Lev. 25: 35-38) that you must be kind to him, i.e., not
evict him, and, on the contrary, allow him to remain at your side (“live with you”) as a member of the
community. But the ancient Rabbis quote this text to bolster their respective positions
in the ethical dilemma mentioned above, assuming that the text is divine and
therefore providing guidance for all occasions.
Even though
the Talmud never resolves the ethical problem as to what is the proper behavior
in our dilemma, later commentators have overwhelmingly sided with Rabbi Akiba,
with three exceptions: your life comes first, yes, except in cases of murder,
idolatry and incest. In these cases, you should prefer death rather than commit
a heinous crime.
Ben Petura’s
view is highly altruistic, but Rabbi Akiba’s position, though more self-centered,
is more realistic. Isn’t this the way we have to act today when we are on a plane and the airbag comes down because of a drop in pressure?
The stewardess tells us, “please put your seat belt on first, and then, attach
it to your child.” The rationale is this: Your life comes first; if you can take
care of yourself, you can then help others. Not the other way around.
Two caveats: 1)
From the reading of the rabbinic text in the Talmud we can deduce that the
position of ben Petura was dominant, “until Rabbi Akiba came and taught.”
Often, there is more than one way to resolve an ethical dilemma. In this case, with
the Rabbi Akiba, we see a major change in attitude.
2) The Rabbis do not
“obligate” A to drink, letting B to die. They only say that your life comes
first. And you should not feel guilty about it. But you may decide to sacrifice
your life for another, depending on the circumstances. For example, if B is
your child, most people would willingly give the bottle to the child, thus
allowing the youngster to live. But what if B is your older parent? What if B is a total stranger? (In both cases, I would stay with Akiba). What
if A has an acute case of cancer, and B is healthy and has a chance to survive,
would B be acting morally if he /she were to take the bottle away by force? (I
would say B has the right to do that).
I do not
believe in absolute morality but in situational ethics. The German philosopher
Kant (d. 1808) talked about “categorical imperatives;” that is, you should act
in such a way so that your deed be viewed as praiseworthy and universal. I believe
in this basic principle, but still allow for deviations when appropriate.
What do you think?
Rabbi Rifat
Sonsino, Ph.D.
Framingham
State University
Sept. 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Books by Rifat Sonsino:
FINDING GOD
(URJ; Behrman House)
THE MANY
FACES OF GOD (URJ; Behrman House)
WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN I DIE? (URJ; Behrman House)
DID MOSES
REALLY HAVE HORNS? (URJ; Behrman House)
SIX JEWISH
SPIRITUAL PATHS (Jewish Lights; Turner))
THE MANY
FACES OF GOD (URJ; Behrman House)
AND GOD
SPOKE THESE WORDS (Commentary on the Decalogue; URJ; Behrman House)
VIVIR COMO JUDIO (Palibrio)
MODERN JUDAISM (Cognella)
MOTIVE
CLAUSES IN HEBREW LAW (Scholars Press)