Halakhah sur L’Exode 2:25

Rav Hershel Schachter (B’ikvei Hatzon p. 105)⁴⁴. It is important to note that despite Rav Shlomo Zalman’s position, Rav Neuwirth nonetheless concedes that one should call the non-observant Jewish doctor if he is a bigger expert in the case at hand (32:45). Also see Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:35, where Rav Shlomo Zalman rules that an observant doctor may not switch a Shabbat shift with a non-observant Jewish colleague, as the latter violates Shabbat due to his apathy towards it rather than violating Shabbat for the express purpose of saving a life. Presumably, one who does not accept Rav Shlomo Zalman’s position would actually prefer to have non-observant Jews take the Shabbat shifts, since they would otherwise violate Shabbat for no valid reason. As we discuss later in this chapter, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:79) adopts such a position. Also see Teshuvot Vehanhagot (3:309). discusses whether the Halachah requires keri’ah only upon seeing Judean cities, as opposed to other Israeli cities, due to Judea’s political stature or her religious sanctity. The Bach (O.C. 561) writes that Judean cities are more “important” than the rest of Israel. He further comments that Judean cities are considered “destroyed” even when Jews continue to live in them, so long as non-Jews govern them.⁴⁵. As support for his view, Rav Shlomo Zalman cites the Beit Halevi’s commentary to Shemot 2:25. The Beit Halevi claims that one who commits a sin accidentally or under coercion, such as desecrating Shabbat, receives gentler treatment than a deliberate sinner only if one would not have willingly committed the same sin. However, one who would have committed the same act without any duress is viewed as a sinner regardless of the circumstances under which he actually does it. Rav Hershel Schachter (personal communication to Rav Ezra Frazer) questioned whether the Beit Halevi’s idea applies in the case of a non-observant doctor. Rav Schachter argued that the Beit Halevi's concern applies when one would have done this specific act anyway, such as a non-observant Jew who planned to drive to a specific place on Shabbat, and someone then forced him at gunpoint to drive to that same place. In such a case, the non-observant Jew would be considered a deliberate sinner, despite the fact that he was coerced to drive, because he intended to do the very same act of driving even before he was threatened. By contrast, a non-observant doctor is driving to a particular emergency only for the purpose of saving a life. Thus, even if the doctor might have driven elsewhere on Shabbat had he not been called to this emergency, the driving that he now does to the patient’s home or to the hospital is for the purpose of piku’ach nefesh. Rav Schachter thus interprets the special “importance” that the Bach attributes to Judean cities as their political significance. Since Judea includes Jerusalem, which served as the capital city during the First and Second Temple Periods, tearing upon seeing Judea’s ruins mourns the loss of Jewish political sovereignty.

"And He saw our affliction" - this [refers to] the separation from the way of the world, as it is stated (Exodus 2:25); "And God saw the Children of Israel and God knew."

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited by Rav Yehoshua Neuwirth, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah, Chapter 32 note 125) rules that it is preferable to call an observant doctor to a medical emergency on Shabbat rather than a non-observant one.⁶It is important to note that despite Rav Shlomo Zalman’s position, Rav Neuwirth nonetheless concedes that one should call the non-observant Jewish doctor if he is a bigger expert in the case at hand (32:45). Also see Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:35, where Rav Shlomo Zalman rules that an observant doctor may not switch a Shabbat shift with a non-observant Jewish colleague, as the latter violates Shabbat due to his apathy towards it rather than violating Shabbat for the express purpose of saving a life. Presumably, one who does not accept Rav Shlomo Zalman’s position would actually prefer to have non-observant Jews take the Shabbat shifts, since they would otherwise violate Shabbat for no valid reason. As we discuss later in this chapter, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:79) adopts such a position. Also see Teshuvot Vehanhagot (3:309). He argues that the non-observant doctor drives on Shabbat in any event, so his driving to an emergency desecrates Shabbat.⁷As support for his view, Rav Shlomo Zalman cites the Beit Halevi’s commentary to Shemot 2:25. The Beit Halevi claims that one who commits a sin accidentally or under coercion, such as desecrating Shabbat, receives gentler treatment than a deliberate sinner only if one would not have willingly committed the same sin. However, one who would have committed the same act without any duress is viewed as a sinner regardless of the circumstances under which he actually does it. Rav Hershel Schachter (personal communication to Rav Ezra Frazer) questioned whether the Beit Halevi’s idea applies in the case of a non-observant doctor. Rav Schachter argued that the Beit Halevi's concern applies when one would have done this specific act anyway, such as a non-observant Jew who planned to drive to a specific place on Shabbat, and someone then forced him at gunpoint to drive to that same place. In such a case, the non-observant Jew would be considered a deliberate sinner, despite the fact that he was coerced to drive, because he intended to do the very same act of driving even before he was threatened. By contrast, a non-observant doctor is driving to a particular emergency only for the purpose of saving a life. Thus, even if the doctor might have driven elsewhere on Shabbat had he not been called to this emergency, the driving that he now does to the patient’s home or to the hospital is for the purpose of piku’ach nefesh. According to this logic, summoning a non-observant doctor to an emergency situation on Shabbat violates lifnei iver (causing another to sin; see Pesachim 22b). Nevertheless, Rav Shlomo Zalman elsewhere writes that one may call a non-observant doctor, if necessary, for just as one may violate Shabbat in order to save a life, so too may he violate lifnei iver (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:41).