A very common issue faced by emergency workers is what to do after taking someone to the hospital.
Everyone agrees that whenever there is a chance of danger to life, one may desecrate shabbos in whatever way necessary to try and save that life.
As such, it is obvious that taking a person whose life might be in danger to the hospital is not only permitted, but obligatory.
On the other hand, once the immediate danger has passed and the person has been taken to hospital, those who took him there could land up being stuck at the hospital for the rest of shabbos, unable to drive home, or even to walk home if the hospital is not within the techum of his house, assuming walking home is even safe.
Those who do this for a living or as a labor of love on a regular basis could thus land up being almost every shabbos in a hospital reception area.
Whereas halacha is halacha, and במקום שיש חלול ה אין חולקין כבוד לרב (in the place of Chillul Hashem, such as when a Torah prohibition is about to be broken, we do not consider a person’s honor or dignity, no matter how great he is- Brachos 19b ,) it would obviously be very useful to find a halachik way for him to return home.
There is also the very real concern that if a halachik way to return home is not found, people will be more hesitant in cases of doubt to take people to hospital, itself causing more danger to life.
At the bottom of Eruvin 44a, the Mishna tells that anyone who leaves the techum under permitted circumstances and while on his journey, is told that he is no longer needed, is allowed to walk within a 2000 amah radius from where he is at the end of his mission.
This is despite the usual rule that one who has left his techum, even by force, has to stay within his 4 amos.
At the end of the Mishna, we are told that anyone who left in order to “save” may return to his original place- this seems to mean that he may travel home even more than 2000 amos.
In order to reconcile this apparent contradiction, the Gemara on 45a attempts to distinguish between leaving for regular permitted reasons, and “to save,” the later being treated even more leniently.
Though neither the Mishna nor the Gemara has yet defined what either “with permission” or “to save” means, it seems likely that “with permission” means for certain approved mitzvos, whereas “to save” means for purposes of saving lives.
Yet as examples of leaving ברשות (with permission,) Rashi on the Mishna lists leaving in order to testify about the new moon, saving from invading troops or from a flooding river, and a midwife coming to assist with a birth.
Whereas the first example is not a matter of life and death, and the second might be referring to saving property which is also not a matter of life and death, the third example certainly seems like it could be .
Rashi on the Gemara, however, while explaining the possible distinction, seems to consider the birth not to be a life and death matter but saving one’s property from invaders to have the potential to become one (or at least a danger of injury) , should he fail to return home and be chased by them.
As such, the permission to return home would not be because he left for permitted purposes or even life and death purposes, but because his current situation is one of life and death.
However we explain the distinction, the Gemara rejects the distinction, seeing as there is an explicit Mishna (Rosh haShana 2/5 ) that includes one who left the techum to save from troops in the list of people who may only travel 2000 amos from the place where their mission ends.
It thus concludes that there is no blanket permission even for one who left “to save” to travel more than 2000 amos to return home, and 2 different opinions are brought as to what exactly the permission is, both based on current danger and not the fact that he left due to danger.
Based on this sugya, it seems that someone who travelled outside the techum on a life-saving mission, would be permitted to walk no more than 2000 amos back..
It seems that this is despite the concern that without permission to return home, people would be reluctant to return.
If even travelling more than 2000 amos, a rabbinical prohibition, was not permitted after such a mission, it seems to go without saying based on this sugya alone, that transgressing a biblical prohibition in order to return home would not be permitted.
It is, of course, still possible, that the phrase להציל in this sugya is referring to saving property, and that one who left in order to save lives might be treated more leniently.
If this was the fact, though, the Gemara’s suggestion that “to save” should be different to other permitted reasons seems to make little sense- after all, why should saving property be more important that testifying about the new moon, something the entire calendar is dependant on, and that even breaking shabbos on a biblical level is sometimes permitted for (see Mishna Rosh haShana )
However, this is not the only word on the subject.
There is a debate in the Mishna (Beitza 11b) between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel regarding whether it is permitted to open and close shutters on Yom Tov . Beis Shamai rule that both are forbidden whereas Beis Hillel rule that both are permitted.
Ullah explains that the Mishna is referring to the shutters of shops(assuming one is selling for yom-tov needs in a permitted way.)
He also understands that this is an example of 3 things that are permitted סופן משום תחילתן (the end because of the beginning.)
He understands that Beis Hillel permit opening them in order to supply the Yom-Tov pilgrims, which is considered a bona fide Yom-Tov food need, and close the windows afterwards because if one is not permitted to close it, he might refrain from opening it.
As such, we view closing it as a permitted need of Yom-Tov too!
The other examples that Ullah brings are:
1. putting out the skin of a freshly slaughtered animal for people to step on, thus helping to preserve it. Even though this would normally be forbidden on Yom-Tov, if we do not permit it, the owner of the animal might refrain from slaughtering it for Yom-Tov, and thus this is also considered a need of Yom-Tov
2. A Kohain who has a bandage on his hand and needs to remove it in order to perform the Avoda (Temple service,) may also put it back, as if we do not permit him to do so, he might refuse to remove it and the Avoda will not be done. This is thus also considered “part” of the Avoda and permitted.
What we seem to learn from these cases is that when an otherwise forbidden action is permitted for a certain essential purpose, “undoing” that action might also be permitted if failure to permit doing so will result in the essential purpose not being fulfilled- Essentially, the “undoing” action is viewed as a need of that essential purpose as well.
It is not clear from the sugya whether these 3 (and another 2 that some in the sugya add) are meant to be the only such examples, or examples of a general rule- how such lists are generally viewed is beyond the scope of this post.
While based on the way we interpreted our sugya back in Eruvin, it is understandable why returning from a permitted journey outside the techum is not included in this list, given that there seemed to be no such blanket permission to do so, we need to understand why.
Making things more complex, Tosfos on our daf, as well as the Rashba (on the sugya in Beitza) asks why Ullah did not include this in his list, seeing as it seems clear that this is the reason for the Mishna’s leniency here, and answers that it is because in the case of the Eruv, it is so clear from the Mishna that the reason for leniency is סופן משום תחילתן that there us no need for Ullah to mention it.
How these Rishonim understands the conclusion of our sugya which seems to have rejected a blanket permission to return home, requires further analysis.
What is clear is that they indeed view the permission in our Mishna to return to one’s place as permission to return home, and even if they would admit that it is limited to 2000 amos, they certainly hold that the reason for the leniency is סופן משום תחילתן . It also seems that they hold that Ullah’s list is not exhaustive and that he only mentions things that we might have thought were not permitted or were permitted for other reasons.
In fact, The Ritva indeed quotes the Ramban who takes issue with this Rashba based on the conclusion of our Gemara!
Once we have established the scope of this principle and whether it applies to one who left the techum or not, we also need to examine each example given and establish whether the principle only applies to rabbinical transgressions or even to biblical ones.
At that point, we might be closer to being able to work out whether someone who has left his home for a permitted purpose like saving a life on shabbos should be permitted to return home, and whether he may transgress only rabbinical or even biblical transgressions to do so.
As usual, much more to analyze and discuss, but hopefully this is a good start.
These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf. They are not intended as psak halacha.