Halakhah su Esodo 31:16

The Tur (Orach Chaim 561) writes that one must rend his garments upon seeing “cities of Israel” in ruins. Rav Yosef Karo (Beit Yosef ad loc.) notes, however, that the Gemara mentions only cities in Judea, so the Tur’s reference to cities from anywhere in the Land of Israel is not specific.⁴¹. The Gemara derives this principle from the verse “And the Jewish people shall guard Shabbat” (Shemot 31:16). Rashi (s.v. Veshamru) explains that “guarding” any particular Shabbat includes ensuring that future Shabbatot will also be observed. (The same Hebrew word - “lishmor” - means both “to guard” and “to observe.”)

The Gemara (Yoma 82a) asserts that piku’ach nefesh overrides every Torah law except for the prohibitions of idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder. A few pages later (85a-85b), it offers numerous sources for why piku’ach nefesh overrides Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah reasons that if circumcision overrides Shabbat despite affecting only one organ of the body, so the vital needs of the entire human body surely override Shabbat.²The Gemara thoroughly discusses the laws of circumcision on Shabbat in the nineteenth chapter of Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon Ben Menasya presents the famous principle, "Violate one Shabbat for [the endangered individual’s] sake so that he will observe many future Shabbatot.”³The Gemara derives this principle from the verse “And the Jewish people shall guard Shabbat” (Shemot 31:16). Rashi (s.v. Veshamru) explains that “guarding” any particular Shabbat includes ensuring that future Shabbatot will also be observed. (The same Hebrew word - “lishmor” - means both “to guard” and “to observe.”)
Although this reason implies that we may save only a Jew’s life on Shabbat in order that he will observe future Shabbatot, the Biur Halachah (329 s.v. Ela) writes that in practice one should violate Shabbat even to save a Jew who clearly will not observe Shabbat in the future (see, also, Halichot Olam 4:226 and Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:39 and 40). Shmuel adds that the Torah (Vayikra 18:5) urges us to “live” by its laws (“Vachai bahem”), implying that observing the Torah should not cause death (“Velo sheyamut bahem”).

However, Tosafot, Eruvin 44b, speak of the dispensation regarding the carrying of arms on the return journey as an instance of invocation of the principle of hittiru sofan mishum teḥillatan.⁴Teshuvot Adnei Neḥoshet, no. 72, sec. 2, suggest a minor emendation in the caption of Tosafot with the effect that Tosafot’s statement is limited to travel within 2,000 cubits. See also Teshuvot Adnei Neḥoshet, no. 72, sec. 5. A literal reading of Rashba, Beizah 11b (rather than as understood by Shitah Mekubezet), yields a similar impression. If this analysis of the position of Tosafot and Rashba is correct, it would appear that, according to those authorities, all persons engaging in life-saving activities may ignore even biblical proscriptions on their return journey. This is indeed the position of R. Moses Sofer, Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 203, Hoshen Mishpat, no. 194, and VI, no. 99 and apparently also of R. Jacob Emden, She 'ilat Ya'avez, I, no. 132, s.v. u-de-kashya. In Hoshen Mishpat, no. 194, Hatam Sofer implies that a physician called on Shabbat to the bedside of a gravely ill patient may disregard biblical prohibitions if it is necessary for him to do so in order to return to his home. Responding to the argument that the Sages do not have the power to sanction overt suspension of biblical law, Hatam Sofer, VI, no. 99, s.v. de-ika, responds that authority to do so is limited to infractions of Sabbath laws which may be suspended solely to encourage life-saving activity. The Gemara, Yoma 85b, apparently understanding the word "ve-shameru" which occurs in Exodus 31:16 as connoting "The children of Israel shall preserve the Sabbath," formulates the dictum "Better to violate one Sabbath in order to observe many Sabbaths" as justification for the violation of Sabbath restrictions for the sake of preserving life. Hatam Sofer argues that the same rationale may be employed in the context of hittiru sofan mishum teḥillatan in order to assure that "many Sabbaths" be observed.⁵In the context of ignoring Sabbath restrictions Ḥatam Sofer’s explanation must be understood as meaning that it is necessary to permit such acts in order to encourage life-saving activity so that those whose lives are saved may “observe many Sabbaths.” Cf., R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Ẓiẓ Eli ‘ezer, XI, no. 39, sec. 6, who apparently misses the thrust of Ḥatam Sofer’s point. See also Kiryat Sefer, Hilkhot Shabbat 2:23.