Page 393 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 393 - 13-Front 21-10-31

in stealthily” can be killed – as opposed to our expecting the home-
owner to avoid a violent confrontation by foregoing his belongings
and letting the thief take them in order to save the thief ’s life – is
readily understandable, despite the obligation incumbent on every
Jew to spend all his money in order to save the life of a fellow Jew.

The reason for this is that the robber’s fate is in his own hands and
he can help save himself by refraining from stealing; if he refuses to
avoid this danger we are under no obligation to come to his rescue
and save him. He is considered to be knowingly forfeiting his life and
as such, his situation is not one of piku’ach nefesh.

Going even further than the rulings of the Etz Chaim and the
Melemed Leho’il, we find that extinguishing a fire [that poses no dan-
ger to life] on Shabbos is nevertheless forbidden even when the owner
of the burning property is liable to die of grief and anguish upon see-
ing all he has toiled over going up in flames. The Aderes writes that
a certain great Torah scholar suffered the calamity of the destruction
of his manuscripts and did not live long thereafter. In such a situation
why didn’t the Sages allow the fire to be put out because of piku’ach
nefesh? Rav S.Z. Auerbach zt”l, writes that since the actual fire poses
no danger, rather the danger results from the victim taking his loss to
heart instead of bolstering his trust in Hashem yisbarach, it is consid-
ered tantamount to his committing suicide.

See also the Mishneh Halachos (7, 278), who was asked whether,
when Reuven upset Shimon and Shimon subsequently died from
distress and anguish, Reuven needs atonement for having caused his
friend’s death. He responded that Shimon should not have become so
upset to the point where he died, [thereby essentially] taking his own
life, for our Sages have said,“Whoever becomes angry it is as though
he worships idols” (Zohar, Bereishis) and that “all types of Gehinom
dominate him” (Nedarim 22a). Reuven is therefore not regarded as
having [indirectly] killed his friend.2

The Chasam Sofer (Even Ha’ezer 2, 83) employs similar logic in re-

2. This topic is discussed fully earlier, siman 276,‘Response to Question One.’

Lying to Prevent Suicide 2 377