A daughter's dilemma | מקורות

Your Honor’s question is:

“In the story about Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyon, how did he permit the executioner to increase the fire and bring his death nearer, and even to promise him the Coming World for doing so? While we have found Chazal permitting in a passive manner, as in the matter of the elderly woman who came before R. Yose ben Chalafta, but in an active manner there is no permission. I find even more difficult Talmud Sotah 46b, which says that the elders of Luz, when their mind is oppressive to them, they go out beyond the wall and they die. How could this be done actively?!

You asked and you answered

I thought perhaps that in the story of R. Chanina ben Tradyon the executioner’s action was in fact forbidden, as we do not find that R. Chanina explicitly permitted him to do so, rather that he did not object and say to him “Don’t do this”, and perhaps in such a manner it is considered passive and permitted. Similarly regarding the elders of Luz, even though they actively went beyond the wall in order to die, perhaps this was only in the category of indirect causation and the removal of the prevention of natural death. But with all this my mind was not at rest, and so I ask your exalted opinion, as I am afraid to say something new on my own recognizance.

This is my reply:

The difficulty from R. Chanina ben Tradyon seems great, and your answer as it stands is weak in my opinion, as R. Chanina did not only not oppose him but rather answered him positively “Yes!”, and not only this, but he also responded positively to his additional request for an oath that he would thereby bring him to the Coming World, and swore to him about this, and should this not be considered as if he explicitly permitted him to do so? How can one call this passive?!

Therefore I see a purpose in adding spice to this answer of yours, saying that the executioner suggested to him that he would do two actions to bring his death nearer, a) adding to the flame b) removing the tufts of wool from over his heart.

Now the second action of removing the water-soaked tufts of wool from over his heart is certainly permitted, and this is similar to the ruling in RAMO Yoreh Deah 339:1 (see source #14 ADK) that if there is salt on the tongue of a goses (literally: one who is death-rattling; a live person in the process of dying. ADK) that prevents the departure of the soul one may remove it because this is not action at all but rather the removal of an obstacle, and so here he was just removing the obstacle namely the water-soaked tufts of wool, and it is permitted, and if so we can say that when Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyon responded “yes” and swore to him, he was intending only that he would remove the tufts of wool that were essentially blocking the rapid departure of the soul, which is permitted.

_________

1 The major Jewish legal work by Rabbi Solomon Luria (1510-1575) (also referred to as the Maharshal), a 16th century Polish rabbi who was one of the great Ashkenazic decisors of Jewish law of his time.

2 Rabbi Eliezer Wallenberg (1915-2006) was a leading rabbi and judge of the Supreme Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem and considered an authority on medical halakha. He was the rabbi of Shaarei Tzedek Medical Center.

Hebrew>