Talk:Pikuach nefesh

Perhaps In light of the recent Noah Feldman article in the NYT, an explanation about saving the lives of non-jews should be added to this article. The tone should be less particularist and more in keeping with talmudic ethics.

Jaytee181818 05:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)jaytee181818

I don't know the Feldman article, but the wiki article on saving a life mentions it: "The Shabbat rules have been criticized because they have sometimes been interpreted to mean that Jews should not violate the Sabbath in order to save non-Jews that are dying. Some critics point to the fact that the Talmud includes the maxim "[non-Jews] are neither to be lifted out of a well nor hauled down into it." Critics also cite the writings of Maimonides (1137–1204), an important Rabbinical commentator, who wrote "as for gentiles [non-Jews], the basic Talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright."

"One widely debated verse from the Talmud reads "If any man saves alive a single soul in Israel, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved a whole world" (emphasis added). Many authorities interpret the words "in Israel" as limiting the verse to saving only Jews. The words "in Israel" appear in most versions of the Talmud, but not in others. A widely published commentary on this verse, by Rabbi Samuel Eliezer Eidels (1555–1631), reads: "This [verse] is intended to teach you that any man who saves one soul in Israel, and it is intentionally specified 'one soul in Israel', in the singular form, as this is the image of God, the Singular one of the world, and Jacob's [Israel's] form is His likeness ... but Kuttim [Samaritans] do not have the form of man, only the form of other creatures, and whoever brings about the loss of a soul among them does not lose the world, and whoever saves a soul among them neither adds nor diminishes anything in this world." Critics claim Eidels' commentary is significant because it is included in most published editions of the Talmud.

"The topic continues to be debated in modern times, and the issue was brought before Israel's Chief Rabbi Untermann for judgment in 1966." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activities_prohibited_on_Shabbat#Saving_of_human_life--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

This article is an almost uncited essay. It needs to be properly cited to reliable sources. It would also be good to have a historical section; a start would be the chapter by Edward Breuer in "Formulating responses in an egalitarian age" by Marc D. Stern. Zero^talk 12:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Top-importance?

After thinking about it, I've assessed this article as a Top-importance Judaism article. It's not possible to truly understand what Judaism is all about without understanding this concept. It's so important that it overrides nearly all of Halakha, also rated as Top importance in WP Judaism. --AFriedman (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions

The section about "exceptions" needs to be cleaned up because in general, it seems to give WP:Undue weight to more stringent views. Examples of more lenient views would include:

• I believe that Conservative Judaism and Masorti Judaism permit entering a church during services, even in non-life-threatening situations. They consider Christianity to be monotheistic.
• The article says that "pikuach nefesh" is only applicable in situations where specific people are immediately threatened. To me, this seems inconsistent with the Book of Esther. Esther willingly concealed her identity and married a Gentile monarch, King Ahasuerus, when there were no immediate and tangible threats to the Jewish people at that time. The threats would not appear until later. The article says that a "sexual relationship between a Jew and a Gentile" is forbidden even when this would save a life. Yet Esther, and her cousin Mordecai who arranged for her to marry the king, are still considered righteous. To me, the Book of Esther supports a more expansive view of "pikuach nefesh" than is described in the article. I'm guessing that we could find sources that support a similar position.
• Any others?

--AFriedman (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC) there was a life immediately at risk, esther's, the kings servants found esther and took her to the pageant, the king seected her, saying no would have meant probable death for defying the king g.j.g (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How come the third exception (giluy aroyos, forbidden relations) is not mentioned here?