Halakhah do Przysłów 3:42

Bar Kappara expounded: Which is the small section upon which all substantive principles of Torah are contingent? "In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths " (Proverbs 3:6).

And it is necessary that you know that human eating is nothing but an illusion, that it is not a true thing or a real activity, that it is something deceptive, something that keeps changing as it goes through the internal organs in a sequence of causes and effects. But ideas refined through wisdom, and by the attachment of one’s thought to the light of the intellect to the Upper Wisdom is itself “real and lasting eating,” as in the way that our Sages of blessed memory interpreted the verse: “‘And they envisioned God, and they ate and drank.’¹²Ex 24:11. R. Yohanan says, ‘real eating,’ [akhilah vada’it], as it is said, ‘In the light of the face of the King – life!’¹³Prov.16:15. And it is necessary for you to think hard about this verse, why it was necessary to say, ‘they envisioned,’ and why wasn’t it written as it was just before, ‘they saw?¹⁴Ex. 24:10. But rather because it specified ‘they saw’ so you would not understand [what happened next] as actual seeing with the sense of your eye, it follows that it was necessary to say ‘they envisioned’ immediately afterward to teach you that this wasn’t this prior kind of ‘seeing’ [re’iyah], but rather seeing by means of prophecy, and that is why it said, ‘And they envisioned [va-yehezu] God, and they ate and drank,’ from the term for prophetic “vision” [mahzeh]. And the explanation of the Scripture ‘And they envisioned God, and they ate and drank,’ is that the leaders merited to see with the prophecy of ‘a glass that does not reflect,’ without a barrier, while the rest of Israel had a barrier, and Moses really “saw” directly.¹⁵That is, the leaders’ prophetic vision was better than the Israelites’, but not as direct as Moses.’ “And they ate and drank,” that is to say that their eating and drinking by this vision was indeed “real eating.” And it is also possible to interpret “And they ate and drank” as that they saw by prophecy the very attribute from which they “ate and drank,” that is, from the very same attribute from which the manna came to them, which is the principle behind all their material support, about which matter it is written, “She rises while it is still night,”¹⁶Prov. 31:15. and it is written “Here I am causing it to rain down.”¹⁷Ex 16:4. And you already knew that this was material support that occurred at night, for this is to what ‘She rises while is still night’ is referring. And thus the manna used to come down during the third watch of the night, when the Israelites were sleeping in their beds in the desert. And on the next day they would get up early in the morning and find their sustenance ready for them. This is the meaning of what is written: “So they gathered it every morning.”¹⁸Ex 16:21. And thus you will find in First Temple that the rains used to fall on Wednesday and Shabbat nights, and on the next day they would get up early in the morning to do their work, without wasting any time. And so you also find with King Hezekiah, who said, “Master of the World, I myself don’t have the power in me to pursue enemies, or to sing a victory song, but I sleep on my bed, and you do it.” And the Holy One Blessed be He replied to him, “You sleep in your bed while I do it,” as it is said, “That night, an angel of the Lord struck down 185,000 in the Assyrian camp.”¹⁹2 Kings 19:35. This story about Hezekiah is a midrash from Lam. R. 30. It was about him (or this) David spoke when he said, “In vain do you rise up early and stay up late…He provides as much for His loved ones while they sleep.”²⁰Ps 127:2. The meaning of the Scripture is that what the other peoples achieve through hard work, by getting up early and staying up late to eat the bread for which they toil,²¹An allusion to Ps 127:2. R. Bahya hints here that food “served” to Israelites without any toil, that is, good things God prepares for them while they are asleep, is angelic food. As R. Bahya put in his preface, “Our food is not their food. Their [the angelic beings’] food is conceived in their mind, when they see the face of their Maker. Our food is meager bread, water, and tears, gotten by hard work and toil.” It is like the food Adam ate before the Fall.God provides to His loved ones while they sleep! This is the thing the Holy One provides to the one He loves, at the hour when he’s asleep, with no need to bother about it at all. And from now on any reference to “they ate and drank” means nothing other than a reference to “real eating,” or to eating the manna that was the offspring of the Upper Light – which is “real eating.”

Therefore the reverent person ought to have his intention connected to the higher things, and have his eating be to sustain his body alone and not to be drawn to physical pleasures, for being drawn to physical pleasures is the cause for the loss of both body and soul, and the cause for forgetting the point, for out of eating and drinking he will become full of himself [lit., lift up his heart] and stumble into great pitfalls and sins, and do things which should not be done. See how Joseph’s brothers sold him only in the middle of eating and drinking, as it is said, “They sat down to a meal, and looking up…”²²Gen 37:28. While eating the brothers looked up and saw the Ishmaelites to who they sold Joseph. R. Bahya expands upon this more fully in his commentary to the Torah on this verse. And for this reason the Torah said not to eat on Yom Kippur, which is the day of judgment for criminal cases involving people, because one’s eating might cause his soul to sin. And they even said in civil cases dealing with monetary compensation: “akhal ve-shatah al yorah” – “Don’t instruct right after eating and drinking!”²³A rhyming proverb in the Hebrew. Yorah, which means to instruct or teach, is the same verb used in the Biblical passage from Lev. 10:11 that R. Bahya cites. It is from the same Hebrew root as the word Torah. R. Bahya subtly makes another point here besides the obvious one that people are inclined to make bad judgments right after they’ve eaten and drunk. Namely, with this wordplay and the analogy to the Biblical priests, he’s reiterating his general contention that engaging in torah is a sacramental priest-likeactivity, even when done by non-priests – i.e., rabbinical torah scholars, or even ordinary Jews fasting on Yom Kippur. Why is this so? From what is written, “Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons,”²⁴Lev 10:9, addressed to Aaron and his sons, that is, the priests. and connected to it, “to instruct [le-horot] the Israelites.”²⁵Ibid., 10:11. When they were commanded to instruct [le-horot], they were warned to avoid wine, because wine confuses the mind, and it does not distinguish between the holy and the profane, which is why it is written “to distinguish.”²⁶Ibid., 10:10. All this is proof that eating and drinking causes human beings to move themselves away off the track of Torah and worship, and to cast aside all the statutes of Ha-Shem, may He be Blessed. All this is caused when one has eaten and is satisfied, and therefore the Torah commanded, “And you shall eat and be satisfied, and you shall bless” (Deut 8:10). That is to say, after you will have eaten and have been satisfied, and you are close to throwing off the yoke of the commandments, “You shall bless YHWH your God” at the very moment you need to bless Him, so that you will take upon yourself the yoke of His rule and bless His name. And this in my opinion is the meaning of the Scripture, “In all your ways, know Him;”²⁷Prov 3:6. it means even at the time of eating when you are close to forgetting Him and to severing your reason from your mind, at that very moment, “know Him” and cleave to Him. And if you do this, “He will straighten your paths,”²⁸Prov 3:6. He will straighten your ways on the paths of life, namely, the soul’s successful attainment of the world to come. If so, then a person ought to eat only for the sustenance of his body alone, and it is forbidden for him to pursue any sort of pleasure unless it is to make his body healthy and make the eyes of his intellect clear-sighted. In order for his body to be healthy and strong, he should pursue what pleases [his intellect] and his Creator, for his organs are combined and possess the capacity exactly in the measure that enables him to bear the yoke of the Torah and its commandments, which is the point of the verse written about the tribe of Issachar, “he bent his shoulder to bear the burden” (Gen 49:15), which is the same language used to refer to the giving of the Torah, “He [God] bent the sky and came down” (2 Sam 22:10). And anyone whose intention is this, is an angel of the Lord of Hosts, but whoever does not direct their intention to this end, is “likened to the beasts that perish.” (Ps 49:13,21). “You can see for yourself”²⁹1 Sam 24:12: Re-eh gam re-eh – “you can see for yourself” (JSB). Joseph the righteous, who was noted for his quality of reverence [yir’ah], from what is written, “I am a God-fearing man”³⁰Gen 42:18. and “Am I a substitute for God?”³¹Ibid. 50:19. hinted at this point when he said, “take something for the hunger of your houses and be off.”³²Ibid. 42:33. He comes to instruct and to teach people to know that they should only eat to break their hunger, not to fill their belly and be drawn by the taste, which is base and to be scorned, because that is a disgrace to us, utter waste, and a thing which has no point to it. And do not say that this because it was a time of famine, because when Joseph was “a prince and commander of peoples,”³³Is 55:4.and the treasuries of the king were under his control, he had the power to supply bread and food to his father and brothers, as in the other the years of plenty. However, instead he made it known to us that this is the way of Torah and fear of Ha-Shem (may He be blessed!), that a person should only eat, satisfy himself, and fill his belly to satisfy his soul.

And know indeed that what kind of person one is, is determined at the table, for there his qualities are revealed and made known. And thus our rabbis z”l said, “By three things a person is known: through his purse, through his cup, and through his anger.”³⁴B. Erubin 68b. The clever wordplay of be-kiso, be-koso, be-ka’aso of the saying is lost in the translation. For being drawn to wine and other pleasures – surely these are “the drippings of the honeycomb”³⁵Psalm 19:11, that is, the flowing “honey, the drippings of the honeycomb” than which the “fear of the Lord” and “judgments of the Lord” (19:10) “are sweeter.” – is one drawn to the drug of death, and by his grasping this path he will die an everlasting death. But whoever wants to live ought to keep far from this path; “he will eat and live forever.”³⁶Gen 3:22, an allusion to the immortality that would have come from eating from the Tree of Life. In other words, unlike the way Adam and Eve chose, there is another way one can and should eat to gain eternal life. And thus our rabbis z”l said in tractate Gittin of the Talmud, “A meal for your own enjoyment – pull your hand away from it,”³⁷B.Gittin 70a. and similarly said, “‘You shall be holy,’ that is, ‘you shall be abstemious (perushim),'”³⁸Sifra on Lev. 19:2. and “Make yourself holy through what is appropriate for you.”³⁹B. Yebamot 20a: “Make yourself holy through what is permitted to you.” And the author of Ecclesiastes said, “I said to myself, ‘Come, I will treat you to merriment. Taste mirth!’ That too, I found was futile.”⁴⁰Eccl. 2:1. And after that, he said, “I ventured to tempt [limshokh] my flesh with wine.”⁴¹Ibid. 2:3. Limshokh here is from the root of the same verb R. Bahya used above to refer to being drawn to wine, i.e., “being drawn [he-hamshekh] to wine and other pleasures…is one drawn [nemshakh] to the drug of death.” Thus, R. Bahya is using Eccl. 2:3 as a sort of prooftext for his point about wine. And in tractate Sanhedrin of the Talmud:⁴²B.Sanhedrin 70a. “Thirteen woes are said about wine, and they are specified in Parshat Noah. It is written, ‘Noah, the tiller of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard,’⁴³Gen 9:20. which means from the moment he began to plant, he made his holiness profane. That is the point of the expression va-yahel – “he began”- which includes both the connotations of “beginning” (tehilah) and “profanation” (hillul). And because of wine, one third of the world was cursed.⁴⁴That is, the descendents of Ham were condemned to serve the descendents of his brothers Shem and Japhet, because when Noah, after drinking his wine, fell asleep in a drunken stupor, Ham “saw his nakedness.” Normally this is a Biblical euphemism for having sexual relations, hence the severity of the curse. The curse was actually directed at Ham’s son Canaan, most likely to justify morally the Israelites’ subsequent subjugation of the Canaanites and their land. However, the whole account is ambiguous and full of apparent non-sequiturs, prompting a quite a fruitful growth of midrashic attempts to explain the story. One unfortunate stream of interpretation, that Ham’s curse not only involved eternal servitude but also the blackening of his skin color, was later adopted in Christian and Muslim traditions, and used to justify the enslavement of Black Africans well into the 19th century – the so-called “Curse of Ham.” And they also taught in a midrash, “Don’t eye the wine, as it reddens…,”⁴⁵Prov. 23:31. that is, it yearns for blood.⁴⁶B. Sanhedrin 70a. And likewise Bathsheba warned King Solomon not to tempt his flesh with wine,⁴⁷B. Sanhedrin 70b.when she said to him, “Wine is not for kings, O Lemuel; not for kings to drink, nor any beer for princes.”⁴⁸Prov. 31:4. The midrash above identifies “Lemuel’s mother” (Prov. 31:1) with Bathsheba, the mother of King Solomon. And so he said, “I ventured to tempt my flesh with wine,”⁴⁹Eccl. 2:3. and “for who eats, and who feels the pleasures of the senses but me?”⁵⁰Ibid., 2:25. and then remarks after that, “That too is futile.”⁵¹Ibid., 2:26. For it is well known that someone in whose heart reverence for HaShem and fear of Him is strong, will reject and separate himself from the pleasures of the world, and will scorn them to the utmost, for he knows and is familiar with their consequences, while others who are lesser or worthless will fill their bellies with what delights them, and their vessels will return empty; they’re empty because they lack sense “They neither know nor understand; they walk about in darkness.”⁵²Ps. 82:5. About this, Solomon said, “When you sit down to dine with a ruler, consider well who is before you.”⁵³Prov. 23:1. He said, “If the wrath of the ruler rises up against you”⁵⁴Eccl. 10:4. and you go out to eat “the king’s food or the wine he drank”⁵⁵Dan. 1:8. in the house of the king who rules the land, understand well and look at those who were before you who chose this way- “what they saw in that matter and what had befallen them.”⁵⁶Esth. 9:26. Doesn’t the high status and greatness of most of them end up in humiliation and submission, “wholly swept away by terrors”?⁵⁷Ps. 73:19. Just what is written right afterwards in Proverbs, “Thrust a knife in your gullet!”⁵⁸Prov. 23:2.And our rabbis z”l said, “Do not yearn for the tables of kings, for your table is greater than their table, your crown greater than their crown.”⁵⁹M. Avot 6:5. Therefore, a person should not seek excessive gains and pursue them, for if he does, his days will be painful and he will never be satisfied, because there is no end to these gains, and whoever pursues things that have no end – is he not sick, blinded by his stupidity? For “every fool is embroiled.”⁶⁰Prov. 20:3. It goes without saying that he has no share in the Torah, because if he were rich and used to eating and drinking with silver dishes, he would be liable to think little of them and become unsatisfied until he had utensils of “turquoise, sapphire, and diamond,”⁶¹Ex 28:18. and as soon as he obtained one of them, he’d want two or three, and this would go on without out end. And therefore a person with good qualities must not in his heart crave for excessive gains, and should be satisfied with a little.

Therefore, they used to come to Him three times a year for the pilgrimage festivals: Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot – on the holiday of Passover because it is the month of Aviv, the time for the barley harvest; on the holiday of Shavuot because it is the time for the wheat harvest, and on the holiday of Sukkot because it is the time of gathering when all the fruits were gathered into the home. And this is why it is written, “[three time a year all your males shall see] the face of the lord YHWH, the God of Israel,”⁷⁵Ex 34:23. and it is written, “none shall see My face,”⁷⁶Ex 23:15. that is to say, without a sacrifice, because they would need to bring in any case the olah and shlemim offerings, and through this the world would be blessed with its meals and sustenance from the flow of blessing from the source to the well, and from the well to the garden, and from the garden to the four rivers of the garden of Eden of the lower world, whose inhabitants are blessed from there throughout the four corners of the world. So you find yourself learning that when a person stands over his table and eats with this thought in mind, see! This eating is indeed physical and a natural activity, but see! It also revolves into a higher, intellectual form of worship, and this is the reason why it is written, ‘In all your ways know Him,’⁷⁷Prov 3:6. as I discussed above. And if so, you see how one’s eating is thought to be a perfect act of worship like one of the forms of divine service [i.e., the sacrifices], and the like quintessential commandment of all the commandments. And this is the point of having the right intention at a meal at the table – that the body be nourished by it and take its bodily portion from the bodily eating, and the soul by this act of thought is filled, fed, and satisfied as if from the choicest parts of “real eating” of the ways of Ha-Shem and His pleasantness, and regarding this it is said, ‘Your table is laid out with rich food.’⁷⁸Job 36:16.

Truly the graces of G-d will support me and stand me up upon my high places. Indeed they are my consolation. For I placed to my heart the adage of King Solomon, praise be upon him, "My son, let them not depart from thy eyes; keep sound wisdom and discretion; so shall they be life to thy soul, and grace to thy neck. Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shalt not stumble, etc. For the Lord shall be thy confidence and shall keep thy foot from being caught." For the lain foundation in the words of Torah should not be turned aside from the eyes of man, even the lowest of the low. For even the lowest of the low has a place in the words of the Torah, and can merit within it even more than what is in accordance with the boundaries and formations of the elements of his soul. And it is an inheritance to all the congregation of Yakov. And I too, the poor and lowly as dust and ashes, am included among them. As is written in the Midrash Vayikrah Rabbah (chapter 9), "'Moses commanded to us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yakov', (Deuteronomy 33). The inheritance of the congregation of Yanai is not written here, rather the congregation of Yakov". See there for yourself. May it be the pleasure of the Great Mother, that my words be accepted and that I dwell in His everlasting universal tent and that the merit of my Holy fathers who conducted themselves before Him shall stand and merit for me to be among those, who make the masses meritorious in the words of His commandments.

It is well known that the majority of the children of Adam have sleeping hearts and theyslumber; they eat with the blood and they spill blood themselves.³¹This whole paragraph, which in Hebrew is all rhymed prose, is a remarkable pastiche of Biblical allusions; nearly every phrase has a Biblical source. See Chavel, who lists as sources Is 11:7; Hos 4:18; Prov 23:30; Ez 48:20; Prov 16:28; Nah 2:5; and Ps 37:4. There are others, including Prov 15:17 (see next note). Like an ox eats straw they eat their bread, and their souls are wasted and devastated, drunk from the wine of lust and not of the wine of intellect; their drink turns on them.³²Hos 4:18. In their quest for more intense stimulation of their senses, their souls are far from the way of truth. There are some, witless and ignorant, or capricious, who enjoy without blessing or neglect blessings. There are some fools who spit the good of the world into their vessels; if they drink from their bowl, they will forget the point of their eating at their tables, and the light of their calm will flash away like lightning. But unique is the one who fears and delights in the Lord even over a dinner of vegetables.³³An allusion to Prov 15:17: “Better a meal of vegetables where there is love, than a fattened bull where there is hate;” and Midrash Mishlei 15:1 (on it), which R. Bahya quotes and discusses at length in his commentary on the Torah (Be’ur, 2:376-7). The midrash’s point is to teach derekh eretz – “good manners.” Even a poor host, who invokes the blessings of God, can make his “meal of vegetables” more palatable to his guest, than a rich host who says the wrong thing, though serving his guest a sumptuous meal. It is worth quoting the whole midrash:
“BETTER A MEAL OF VEGETABLES WHERE THERE IS LOVE, THAN A FATTENED BULL WHERE THERE IS HATE.” (Prov. 15:17) R. Levi said, “About whom did Solomon say this verse? About two men who met him after he had lost his kingdom and was wandering from door to door looking for a job. Two men met him, who recognized him. One of them came up, prostrated himself before him, and said to him, “My lord the king, if it pleases you, take a meal with me today.” Immediately he went with him. He had him go up to the best seat, slaughtered a bull, had many delicacies brought to him, and began to recite to him all the things having to do with his kingdom. He said to him, “Remember how you did such and such a thing on such and such a day when you were king.” But as soon as he reminded him of the days of his kingdom, he began to cry and moan. And so it was for the whole meal until he got up and left having cried himself out. The next day, his host’s companion met him. He began to prostrate himself before him, and said to him, “My lord the king, if it pleases you, take a meal with me today.” He said to him, “Perhaps you seek to do for me as your friend did yesterday?” He said, “My lord, the king, I am a poor man, but if it pleases you, take a meal with me today of the little bit of vegetables I have.” At that very moment he went to his house. The man washed his hands and feet, brought him a little bit of vegetables, and began to console him. He said to him, “My Lord the king, the Holy One Blessed Be He surely swore to your father that the monarchy will never cease from your line, as it is said, “The Lord swore to David a firm oath the He will not renounce, ‘One of your own issue I will set upon your throne’” (Ps. 132:11). It’s just the way of the Holy One Blessed Be He to rebuke and then repent from rebuking, as it said, “For whom the Lord loves, He rebukes, as a father the son he favors.” (Prov. 3:12). But He will restore your kingdom to you.
R. Hiyya said…when Solomon got his kingdom back, he wrote in his wisdom, “’BETTER A MEAL OF VEGETABLES WHERE THERE IS LOVE’ which I ate at the poor man’s home, ‘THAN A FATTENED BULL WHERE THERE IS HATE’ which the rich man who reminded me of my sorrow fed me.”

To the latter question Radbaz responds that the Torah, "whose ways are ways of pleasantness" (Proverbs 3:17), could not possibly demand the sacrifice of a limb even for such a noble purpose.¹⁹Radbaz’ interlocutor informed him that he had “found it written” that sacrifice of a limb is obligatory in order to save the life of another person. That view is espoused by R. Menachem Recanati, Piskei Recanati, no. 470, and is cited by R. Yehudah Ashkenazi of Tiktin, Be’er Heiteiv, Yoreh De‘ah (Amsterdam, 5529), 157:13, who declares that “some say” that it is indeed obligatory to sacrifice a limb in order to preserve the life of another person; cf., Naḥal Eitan, Hilkhot Ishut 21:11. See also Hagahot Mordekhai, Sanhedrin, sec. 718, who states that a person may cut off the limb of another in order to save his own life. Nevertheless, a person who is willing voluntarily to make such a sacrifice without endangering his own life acts in accordance with the highest traits of piety and merits approbation. If, however, the procedure involves self-endangerment, Radbaz dismisses the act as that of a "pious fool."²⁰The term “pious fool” would appear to denote a person who is foolhardy in his pursuit of pious deeds and assignment of this appellation certainly implies that such acts should not be encouraged. However, in context, the term does appear to connote that the act performed by the individual is forbidden. Although the verse “and your brother shall live with you” (Leviticus 25:36) is cited by R. Akiva, Baba Meẓi‘a 62a, as establishing that one dare not give preference to the life of another over one’s own life, that discussion serves only to prohibit the sacrifice of one’s own life on behalf of another but not to prohibit acceptance of a measure of danger in order to save the life of another. To be sure, as explicitly stated by Teshuvot Radbaz, III, no. 1,052, the principle expressed in the dictum formulated by the Gemara, Sanhedrin 74a, “Why do you think that your blood is sweeter than the blood of your fellow?” is valid in the converse as well, viz., “Why do you think that the blood of your fellow is sweeter than your own blood?” However, application of that principle would require passive nonintervention only when the danger to one’s own life is greater or equal to the danger to the person in need of rescue. In a situation in which the danger to the endangered person is significantly greater than the danger to the rescuer that consideration does not appear to be applicable. Hence, although the Torah does not demand self-endangerment even under such circumstances, the act of rescue, when posing a hazard to the rescuer, should be regarded as discretionary, albeit foolhardy, rather than as prohibited.
Nevertheless, Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, IX, no. 45, sec. 13, cites Radbaz’ use of the term “pious fool” in ruling that self-endangerment is forbidden even for the purpose of preserving the life of another. That position is reiterated in Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, X, no. 25, chap. 7, secs. 5 and 12 and no. 25, chap. 28. See also R. Chaim David Halevi, Sefer Assia, IV (5743), 256–257, and R. Shemayah Dikhovski, Ne’ot Deshe, II, 155–156. An identical view is also espoused by R. Moshe Hershler, Halakhah u-Refu’ah, II, 123. However, in the course of resolving the contradiction between Teshuvot Radbaz, III, no. 1,052 and Teshuvot Radbaz, V, no. 1,582 (see supra, note 10), Rabbi Hershler limits the prohibition to situations in which the potential danger to the rescuer is equal to, or greater than, the danger to the person to be rescued since he regards Radbaz as requiring intervention when the danger to the victim is disproportionate to that of the intervenor. Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer’s discussion is rather confusing since he also resolves the contradiction in a manner similar to the resolution presented by Rabbi Hershler (see supra, note 10), but in his definitive rulings does not seem to apply the principle that arises therefrom. Most striking is his ruling in Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, XIII, no. 101, to the effect that blood donations cannot be compelled because of the attendant danger. See infra, note 28. As will be shown shortly, Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer’s rulings with regard to kidney transplants are also inconsistent with this principle. Moreover, Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, IX, no. 45, sec. 5, himself states that Resh Lakish’s self-endangerment did not reflect a controversy with Rav Yonatan but represented an act of piety. That statement is inconsistent with the view that self-endangerment is prohibited.
A number of authorities explicitly declare that, under such circumstances, self-endangerment is discretionary but permissible. Teshuvot Minḥat Yiẓḥak, VI, no. 103, declares that the controversy between Hagahot Maimuniyot and Radbaz is limited to whether or not there is an obligation of rescue when there is a hazard to the rescuer but that all agree that “it is permissible if he so desires.” Minḥat Yiẓḥak, however, qualifies that statement with the caveat that self-endangerment is permitted only if such self-endangerment will “with certainty” lead to the rescue of the victim. See supra, note 8. R. Moses Feinstein, Iggerot
Mosheh, Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 174, anaf 4, explicitly permits a person to risk his own life in order to save the life of another provided that he does not expose himself to “certain death.” Similarly, R. Samuel ha-Levi Woszner, Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, V, no. 119, reprinted in Halakhah u-Refu’ah, IV, 139–142, finds no transgression in endangering oneself in order to preserve the life of another provided that the probability of survival is more than fifty percent. R. Moshe Dov Welner, Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, VII–VIII (5715–5719), 311, also regards self-endangerment for purposes of rescuing another person to be permissible. See also Jacob Levy, No‘am, XIV (5731), 319.
The hazards involved in donation of a kidney are not insignificant. See infra, note 109. Accordingly, the propriety of transplantation of a kidney from a living donor is directly related to the resolution of the issue of whether or not a person may risk his own life in order to preserve the life of another. Despite his earlier cited comments in resolving the contradiction found in Radbaz’ responsa, in Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, IX, no. 45, sec. 13 and Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, X, no. 25, chap. 7, secs. 5 and 12, Rabbi Waldenberg asserts that, pursuant to the opinion of Radbaz, such donations are prohibited. Although in Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, IX, no. 45, sec. 13, Rabbi Waldenberg concludes that such transplants cannot be sanctioned unless it is medically determined that “the matter does not entail possible danger to the life of the donor,” in Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, X, no. 25, chap. 7, he incongruously cites his earlier discussion of this topic and rules that such transplants may be permitted “where the danger is not certain and medical science states that it is reasonable [to assume that as a result both will remain alive.” That conclusion is inconsistent not only with his earlier ruling but also with his discussions in the same chapter. R. Pinchas Baruch Toledano, Barka’i, III, 26 and 32, similarly understands Radbaz as prohibiting self-endangerment and rules that donation of a kidney by a living person is forbidden. R. Saul Israeli, Barka’i, III, 35, notes 1 and 2, takes no definitive stand with regard to whether self-endangerment constitutes a transgression but opines that Radbaz’ negative view regarding self-endangerment is limited to situations involving a significant immediate danger. He also suggests that Radbaz’ comments are limited to the danger experienced in the loss of an external organ that would render the donor a cripple. However, neither qualification of Radbaz’ position is supported either by the text of the responsum or by an analysis of the underlying position.
The earlier cited authorities who permit self-endangerment for the purpose of preserving the life of another would certainly sanction transplantation of a kidney from a live donor. Such procedures are also permitted, at least under usual conditions, by R. Ovadiah Yosef, Dinei Yisra’el, VII, 41–43; idem, Yeḥaveh Da‘at, III, no. 84 and Halakhah u-Refu’ah, III, 61–63; R. Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach, as cited by Nishmat Avraham, II, Yoreh De‘ah 157:4 (sec. 2), s.v. akh katav li; R. Moshe Hershler, Halakhah u-Refu’ah, II, 124; R. Saul Israeli, Barka’i, III, p. 35, note 1 (cf., however, idem, p. 36, note 2); R. Moshe Meiselman, Halakhah u-Refu’ah, II, 119–125; R. Chaim David Halevi, Sefer Assia, IV, 257; and Ne’ot Deshe, II, 156.
It is certainly clear that Radbaz himself not only permitted amputation of a limb in order to preserve the life of another but also lauded such a sacrifice as an act of inordinate piety and voiced such approbation despite his observation that loss of blood resulting from perforation of an earlobe has been known to result in loss of life. Radbaz explicitly maintained that even the relatively high risk associated with amputation of a limb, particularly in his day, did not rise to the threshold of risk acceptable only to a “pious fool.” The comment of Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, IX, chap. 45, sec. 11, stating that, “since the multitude has trodden thereupon,” the surgical amputation of a limb does not rise to the halakhically significant threshold of danger is both empirically incorrect and contradicted by Radbaz’ comments concerning perforation of an earlobe. See Jacob Levy, No‘am, XIV, 322. Accordingly, contrary to the comments of Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer and others, prohibition of a kidney transplant from a living donor cannot be sustained even according to their understanding of Radbaz. Cf., Ne’ot Deshe, II, 156.

Among other reasons, Radbaz writes that the Torah is by definition “pleasant and peaceful” (“deracheihah darchei noam v’chol netivoteha shalom,” Mishlei 3:17) and would not compel a person to sacrifice a limb. However, one who sacrifices a limb to save another’s life fulfills a great mitzvah, as long as it does not involve a fifty percent or higher risk of death. Our bodies belong to Hashem and we have no right to place our lives at such great risk.

A person should be careful not to do anything which might cause [people] to suspect that he committed a sin, (even though he is not [actually] committing a sin), as we find⁶³Shekalim 3:2. that the kohein who removed the coins from the chamber⁶⁴The coins of machatzis hashekel, the half shekel which every Jew is obligated to give once each year, were deposited in large collection boxes. These boxes were placed in a chamber in the Bais Hamikdash, designated for this purpose. Three times annually a kohein would enter this chamber to withdraw coins with which sacrifices and other necessities were bought.
The garment he wore had no pockets, so as not to arouse suspicion that he had taken some coins for himself. (Rambam, Hilchos Shekalim 2:4, 5, 10) did not enter [the chamber] in a garment that was fashioned in a way that something could be hidden in it, for a person must answer for his actions to his fellow man as he must answer to the Almighty, blessed is He, as it is said: "You will be innocent before God and Israel"⁶⁵Numbers 32:22. And it is also said: "And find favor and good understanding in the eyes of God and man."⁶⁶Proverbs 3:4.

Our Rabbis of blessed memory said,¹Berachos 63a. "Upon which short verse are all the principles of the Torah" predicated? [It is] "In all your ways acknowledge Him."²Proverbs 3:6. It means that even in those things that you do for your personal needs, you should acknowledge God, and do those things for the sake of His Name, blessed is He. For example, eating, drinking, walking, sitting, lying down, getting up, sexual intercourse, and talking—all these physical needs should be done for the sake of serving your Creator, or for the sake of [doing] something that will be conducive to the service of Him.

“Honor the Lord with thy substance” (Prov. 3:9). You buy a box to safeguard your silver and gold, better that you buy a lovely box to safekeep your books and phylacteries. “Honor the Lord with thy substance,” from that which He provides for your pleasure.¹Rashi, Proverbs 3:9. If you possess a sweet voice it is meritorious to lead in prayer. “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exod. 15:2). Make yourself pleasing to Him with deeds i.e., a beautiful citron (ethrog), a beautiful palm branch, a beautiful booth, a beautiful prayer shawl,²Shabbath 133b. and so shall you do for all of God’s requirements.

“In all thy ways acknowledge Him” (Prov. 3:6). Let every God-fearing man, when angered because of transgressors, weigh his anger, so that his mind is (remains) settled. Let him learn from Moses, our teacher, when he became angry with the children of Reuben he said, “a brood of simple men” (Num. 32:14). Therefore, his grandson became a servant to the idol of Micah,¹J. T. Berakoth 9:2. even though he became angry for the sake of heaven, nevertheless, everything requires a balance. And so with festivities that involve the performance of a (religious) command, let him not remove anger completely. (This refers to) those who perform a command with overmuch gaiety, let his anger not be distant.²Berakoth 30b.

And [also] the law of an agent who hired wage workers, who [is it that] transgresses on account of 'do not lay over' - he or the owner - that everything goes according to the expression that he [used] with the workers. And that which they said (Bava Metzia 110a) that the employer only transgresses at the time that the wage worker claims [the wage from] him and he does not give it to him, but if he does not claim [it from] him, he does not transgress. [(Scribal) emendation: Or if he claimed (it from) him and he did not have with what to pay, and he does not find someone who will lend to him, he does not transgress. To here (is the emendation).] And so [too,] if he assigned to the worker that someone else pay him and the worker accepted, the employer is exempt, even though the other one did not pay him later. And that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 110b), that one who delays the wage of a wage worker until after its time - even though he has already transgressed a positive commandment and a negative commandment - he is obligated to give [it] to him as soon as he demands it. And all the time that he delays his payment - even after the time - he transgresses a negative commandment from the rabbis, may their memory be blessed; and they based it on this verse, that is written (Proverbs 3:28), "Do not say to your fellow, 'Go, and come back, etc.'" And [also] the law of the wage worker, that he makes an oath (that the money is still owed) and takes [it], so long as he claims his wages within its time - and even if the wage worker was a minor, he too makes an oath and takes - and they, may their memory be blessed, gave a reason for this (Bava Metzia 112b): since the [employer] is preoccupied with his workers. [These] and the rest of its details are elucidated in the ninth chapter of [Bava] Metzia (see Tur, Choshen Mishpat 339).

That all of one's intentions be for the sake of Heaven. And there is one paragraph in it.
If it is impossible for him to study without sleeping in the afternoon, he should sleep. Gloss: And when he wakes from his sleep, he does not need to recite the blessing, "My Lord, the soul..." (Beit Yosef). And some say that he should read, "May the pleasantness..." before he sleeps (Kol Bo). [And this is] so long as he does not make it long; as it is forbidden to sleep during the day more than the sleep of a horse, which is sixty breaths. And even in this little, his intent should not be for the pleasure of his body, but rather to strengthen his body for the service of God, may He be blessed. And likewise with anything that is pleasant for him in this world, his intent should not be for his pleasure, but rather for the service of the Creator, may He be blessed; as it is written (Proverbs 3:6), "In all of your ways, know Him." And the Sages said, "Let all of your actions be for the sake of Heaven." As even optional things – such as eating, drinking, walking, sitting, getting up, sexual relations and conversation – all of them should be for the service of your Creator or for something that enables serving Him. For even if one was thirsty or hungry – if he ate or drank for his pleasure, it is not praiseworthy. Rather he should intend to eat and drink for his sustenance, to serve his Creator. And likewise even to sit in the council of the righteous, to stand in the place of the saintly and to go in the path of the straight – if he does it for his own pleasure and to fulfill his desire, it is not praiseworthy; only when he does it for the sake of Heaven. And likewise with laying down: There is no need to say that at a time when he is able to be in involved with Torah study or with commandments, he should not entice himself with sleep to enjoy himself. Rather even at a time when he is weary and needs to sleep in order to rest from his weariness – if he does [so] for the pleasure of his body, it is not praiseworthy. Rather he should intend to give sleep to his eyes and rest to his body for the requirements of health, so that his mind not get jumbled during Torah study on account of sleep deprivation. And likewise with sexual relations: Even at the time [prescribed] by the Torah, if he does [it] for the pleasure of his body, it is disgraceful. And even if his intent is in order that he will [produce] children that will serve him and take his place, it is not praiseworthy. Rather he should intend that he will [produce] children for the service of his Creator; or he should intend to fulfill the commandment of the [prescribed] time, like someone who is paying his debt. And likewise with conversation: Even to recount words of wisdom, his intent must be for the service of the Creator or for something that leads to serving Him. The principle of the matter [is that] one is obligated to put his eyes and his heart to his ways and evaluate all of his actions on the scales of his intellect: So when he sees something that will bring him to serving the Creator, may He be blessed, he should do it. But if not, he should not do it. And one who acts like this will be serving his Creator constantly.

Laws of Honoring Father and Mother It is a positive commandment that a person should honor his father and his mother and fear them. And he must be very careful about their honor and about their fear, since their honor is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent: As it is written (Exodus 20:11), "Honor your father and your mother"; and it is written (Proverbs 3:9), "Honor the Lord with your wealth." And regarding their fear, it is written (Leviticus 19:3), "A man shall fear his mother and his father"; and regarding the fear of the Omnipresent, it is stated (Deuteronomy 6:13), "You shall fear the Lord, your God." And the Sages said (Kiddushin 30b), "There are three partners in a person: The Holy One, blessed be He, his father and his mother [...] When a person honors his father and mother, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says, 'I ascribe credit to them as if I dwelt between them and they honored Me as well.'" With honor, He had the father precede the mother, as it is written, "Honor your father and your mother'; but with fear, He had the mother precede the father, as it is written, "A man shall fear his mother and his father" - to teach that both of them are the same, both for honor and for fear. And what is fear and what is honor? Fear: One may not stand in his place and one may not sit in his place - the explanation is in his particular place to stand amidst the council of elders with his colleagues in counsel. But the Ramah (R. Meir HaLevi Abulafia) wrote that the same is the law regarding his particular place to sit in his house. And he may not contradict his words, nor may he determine his words. And Rashi explained [that] if [his father] was disagreeing about a matter of law with someone else, he may not say, "The words of x appear [correct]." But the Ramah wrote that this is not necessary [to say], as that is contradicting his words. Rather even if the words of his father appear [correct] to him, he may not say, "The words of my father appear [correct]" - as it appears as if he is determining [the correctness of] the words of his father. However, if he has an answer to answer those that are arguing [with his father], he may answer [them]. And the Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:3): He should not call him by his name - not in his lifetime and not in his death - but he should rather say, "Father, my teacher." If his name is the same as the name of others, he should [also] change their names. And it appears to me that one only needs to be careful about this with a name that is unusual, such that not everyone uses it. But with names that all of the people call [their offspring], such as Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, Moshe and Aharon and that which is similar to them, one can use them to call others in any language and at any time and there is no [problem] with this. To here [are his words]. And that which he wrote that he should not call others whose names are the same as his father with their names is a wonder! And up to where (how extensive) is their fear? Even if one was dressed in fine clothing and sitting at the head of the community, and his father and mother came and tore his clothes, struck him on his head and spit in front of him - he should not embarrass them but rather be quiet and fear the King of the kings of kings, who commanded him about this. As if flesh and blood had decreed something that is more distressing than this upon him, he would not have [even] twitched about the matter; all the mores so, with the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. And what is honor? One gives [his parent] food and he gives him drink, and he gives it with a pleasant countenance, and he does not show him an angry face. As even if he feeds him fattened fowl every day, but he shows him an angry face, he is punished for it. And that which he gives him food and he gives him drink - that is from [the resources of] the father, if he has; but the son is not obligated to give him from his [own resources]. However if the father does not have and the son does have, we force him and he sustains the father according to what he can [afford]. But if the son does not have, he is not obligated to [knock on] doors to feed his father. But he is obligated to honor him with his body, even though through this, he [becomes] idle from his work and [then] become required to [knock on] doors. And the Ramah wrote [that this is] specifically when the son has sustenance that will sustain [himself] that day. But if he does not have [it], he is not obligated to be idle from his work and to [knock] on doors. And he should serve him in other things with which a servant serves his master. And he is obligated to honor him in the rest of his ways - in his buying and selling, and the doing of his wants. How is this? If he needs to request anything in the city and he knows that they would fulfill his request for the sake of his father - even though he knows that they would also fulfill the thing for his sake, nevertheless, he should not say, "Do this one thing for my sake," but rather, "for the sake of Father," in order to attach the honor to his father. And likewise with anything that is like this, he should include [him] in all of his words, such that he is concerned about the honor of his father and his fear. However if he knows that they will not fulfill his [request] for the sake of his father, he should request [it] for his own sake and not for the sake of his father, as it would only be a disgrace for him - since they will not do it for his sake. And one is obligated to stand before him. The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:3) [that] a father who is the student of his son - the father does not stand before the son. And not only that, but the son must stand before his father, even though he is his student. And my master, my father the Rosh, may his memory blessed, wrote that each one must stand before the other. And up to where (how extensive) is honor? Even if [the parent] takes his purse full of coins and throws it to the sea in front of him, he should not embarrass him. And the Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:7) [that it is] even if he threw the purse of the son to the sea. But RI explained that according to that which we decide that he need not honor him from his [own resources], if he throws the son's purse, he may prevent him. Rather [the Talmud's case] is saying with the purse of his father, he may not embarrass him in order to prevent him, even though he will inherit it. The Ramah wrote that which the son can embarrass the father with his [own] purse is only before he threw it to the sea, as it is possible that he will be prevented and not throw it. But after he throws it, it is forbidden to embarrass him; as what has happened, has happened. So now when he is silent, it is honor that does not involve financial loss, so he is obligated about it. But it is permissible to make a claim against him in court. He is obligated to honor him even after his death. How is that? If he says a matter he heard from his mouth, he should not say, "So said Father, my teacher." Rather, he should say, "So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting." To what does this apply? Within twelve months [of his death]. But after twelve months, when he mentions him, he says: May his memory be for a blessing." The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:10), "If one's father or mother has become mentally insane, he should make an effort to behave toward them according to their state of mind until they will be shown mercy. But if it is impossible for him to stand [it], because they have become utterly insane, he may leave them and go away, charging others to take proper care of them." But the Ravaad wrote, "This is not a correct ruling - if he leaves them and goes away, who will he command to watch them?" If one saw that his father was transgressing a Torah matter, he should not say to him, "You transgressed a Torah matter." Rather, he should say to him, "Father, such and such is written in the Torah." And from his reminding him, he will understand on his own and will not be embarrassed. If his father said to him, "Give me water to drink," and there was another commandment before him to do: If it is possible for the commandment to be done by others, he leaves it for others to do and occupies himself with the honor of his father. But if there are not others there to do it, he should occupy himself with the commandment and leave the honor of his father, since he and his father are obligated by the commandment. Torah study is greater than honoring father and mother. If his father said to him, "Give me water to drink"; and his mother said to him, "Give me water to drink," he leaves the honor of his mother and occupies himself with the honor of his father, since his mother is also obligated in honoring his father. But if they are divorced - such that she is not obligated in his honor - then both of them are the same, to honor them one like the other. If his father said to him to transgress a Torah matter - whether he says to him to transgress a negative commandment or he says to him to negate (not do) a positive commandment, even a [rabbinic] commandment - he should not listen to him. And my master, my father the Rosh wrote in a responsum [that] if the father commands his son not to speak with x, such the he should not forgive him for what he did to him until a set time; whereas the son wants to appease him, except that he is concerned about his father's command, he should not be concerned about his father's command. As it is forbidden to hate any person unless he saw him sinning. And [that] the father commanded him to hate; it is not in his power to make him transgress a Torah matter! And it is the same with a man or a woman - they are the same regarding the honor and fear of father and mother. However a man has [the wherewithal] in his hands to do [it], whereas a woman does not have [the wherewithal] in her hands to do [it], since the authority of others (her husband) is upon her. Therefore if she is divorced or widowed, they are both the same. The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:11) [that] a mamzer (someone born of a forbidden union) is obligated in honoring his father and his mother and in their fear, even though he is exempt about hitting them and cursing them until they repent. Even if one's father is wicked and sinful, he must honor him and fear him. But it appears to me that since he is wicked, he is not obligated to honor him. [It is] as we say (Bava Kamma 94b) concerning [those] whose father left them a stolen cow, [that] they are obligated to return [it] for the honor of their father. And it asked, "Behold, he does not do the deeds of your people" - its explanation is, so they are [for that reason] not obligated to honor him. And it answers, "When he repented." Therefore the whole time he has not repented, they are not obligated to honor him. Even though a person is obligated to fear his father and his mother greatly, it is forbidden [for the parent] to make his yoke heavy upon his children and to be exacting with them about his honor, so as not to bring them to an obstacle. Rather he should forgive and avert his eyes from them; since when a father foregoes his honor, his honor is forgiven. And they would excommunicate someone who strikes his adult son; as behold, he is transgressing, "you shall not put an obstacle in front of the blind" (Leviticus 19:14). A person is obligated to honor the wife of his father - even though she is not his mother - so long as his father is alive; and he is obligated to honor his mother's wife, so long as his mother is alive. But after [the blood relative's death], he is not obligated in their honor. Nevertheless, it is a commandment to honor them, even after the death. A person is obligated in the honor of his older brother like the honor of his father. And he is obligated to honor his father in law, as it is written (that David said to Shaul in I Samuel 24:12), "My father, my father, see and see."

Ramban, may his memory be blessed, also wrote that when the father gives the money to the priest he should first give the child into the priest's hand, and the priest should say, "Which is more beloved to you, your son or these five sela?" And the father responds, "My son is more beloved to me." The priest immediately takes the silver coins and passes them over the head of the son and says, "This is in the place of this, traded for this, this is rendered no longer sacred through this. This goes out to the priest and this child should come to life and Torah and fear of heaven. May it be His will that as this one came to redemption, may he also come to Torah, marriage and good deeds, and let us say amen." The priest places his hands on the son's head and blesses him, according to how he knows to bless him, such as "May the Lord guard you, etc." (Psalms 121:5), or "As length of days and years of life, etc." (Proverbs 3:2) or "The Lord shall protect you from all evil and guard your soul, etc." (Psalms 121:7). And [the father] takes him out for all of his will. [This] and the rest of its details are elucidated in Tractate Bekhorot (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 308).

If a person was walking along the road close to which there was mud, and he encountered a man under a burden - he should step back and let the man under a burden pass. And even if the man carrying a burden was a gentile, for it is written: "And find favor and good apprehension in the eyes of G-d and man" (Mishlei 3, 4). And it is better that you acquiesce to another person than he will acquiesce to you.