מי שנתן עיניו באשה וחלה ונטה למות ואמרו הרופאים אין לו רפואה עד שתבעל לו. ימות ואל תבעל לו אפילו היתה פנויה. ואפילו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר אין מורין לו בכך וימות ולא יורו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר שלא יהו בנות ישראל הפקר ויבואו בדברים אלו לפרוץ בעריות:
Someone that sees a woman and becomes sick and is on the verge of death and the doctors say, "There is no cure for him except to have relations [with this woman that he saw]," he should die and not have relations with this woman even if she is unmarried. We don't even allow him to speak with her from behind a partition, rather he should die and we should not allow him to speak with her from behind a partition because it should not be that the daughters of Israel will be "loose" (harlot) and they will become, through these things, promiscuous in the city.
Obviously, this law has no connection to modern day. Why? Because there is no doctor, a real doctor, that would prescribe relations with a specific woman as a cure to a DEATHLY illness. There is just no way this would be a plausible situation that would occur today with modern medicine. However, there are a few ideas the Rambam brings up that CAN relate to us nowadays.
The first thing the Rambam says here is that the DOCTOR says this guy needs a specific cure. If there was no worry about the Jewish girls being treated as harlots then the Rambam would have said we listen to the doctor. This shows us that the word of the doctor, in a life threatening situation, can override halacha in almost every case. As we have shown before, if the doctor tells you to do something that will save your life you do it (unless it is a violation of one of the three big sins: illicit relations, killing and idol worship). Rambam gave so much authority to doctors, it is absolutely amazing.
The second idea here is a little bit more hidden. Rambam reveals that a Jewish girl being modest is so important that we would prefer that the man die rather than force the girl to discard her modesty, or do we? It seems to me that the logic behind the Rambam (or the Gemora) is that if we allowed anyone who was "deathly ill" to have relations with the woman that he desires, there are going to be a lot of "deathly ill" people and thereby the daughters of Israel would become harlots. Therefore, the Rambam's idea here protects women from sinister men that would try to abuse them. That is why the Rambam does not even allow the man to speak with them, because the Rambam is weary of those that are "deathly ill."
4 comments:
Why is this not in the category of ilicit relations?
She is an unmarried woman. The Torah never says a man can't have relations with an unmarried woman. So, it is not in the category of illicit relations in the same way a married woman is.
Interesting side note: I guess this means a man would be allowed to have relations with an unmarried woman if someone was holding a gun to his head and gave the ultimatum of sleep with this woman or die. Maybe there is a gemorah that talks about this, but I can't recall right now. I do remember a Tosfos in Kesubos that deals with even a non-married woman being in the category of illicit relations, but I don't remember to what extent.
One proof to this, that an unmarried woman is not in the category of illicit relations that one must die before doing, is that in yevamos 76a and Temura 29b say that an unmarried woman that has relations with an unmarried man (Tosfos in Yevamos 61b adds also a married man) with no intention to get married is considered a Zonah. However, there is no punishment mentioned other than the classification as a Zoneh and that it is an issur (A lav that does not carry the death penalty). So we can see from here or maybe someone can find a better source, that having relations with an unmarried woman would not fall under the category of the big three sins. Therefore, it is not considered illicit relations to the extent that one would need to die for it.
This is why the Rambam and the Gemara have to come up with this idea of "We don;t want Jewish girls to be Hefker" in order to prohibit this man from having relations with an unmarried woman.
"The first thing the Rambam says here is that the DOCTOR says this guy needs a specific cure. If there was no worry about the Jewish girls being treated as harlots then the Rambam would have said we listen to the doctor."
He says רופאים in the plural. Maybe you needed at least one concurring medical opinion for the idea to even be put to a posek for consideration?
"Rambam gave so much authority to doctors, it is absolutely amazing."
Only to be expected: he was one.
Maybe we could overhear him in this case: "What this young man needs is to get his heart's desire -- as his doctor, I know it, and my colleagues concur. But as a rav I can't permit it."
Post a Comment