Page 425 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 425 - 14-Front 21-10-31

him rather die but she should not have relations with him!” [It was
then suggested that] she should stand before him unclothed, to which
the Sages said, “Let him rather die but she should not stand before
him unclothed!” [It was then suggested that] she should converse
with him from behind a partition, to which the Sages said, “Let him
rather die but she should not converse with him.”’ Rav Yaakov bar
Idi and Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani argued about the case. One said
that it involved a married woman and the other said that the woman
involved was single. According to the one who said she was a married
woman it is clear [why they would not allow him to have any contact
with her] it for this would have been a forbidden relationship. But
according to the one who said she was single, what occasioned such
stringency? Rav Papa said, “Because of the stain on the family [the
woman’s family would be harmed, owing to the embarrassment].”
Rav Acha brei D’Rav Ika said, “So that promiscuity should not be
rampant among daughters of Yisrael.”’”

The Mirkeves Hamishneh writes about this gemara in Hilchos
Yesodei Hatorah (5:9) that since the man is responsible for his own
dangerous situation, his wish should not be granted. Commenting on
this, the Even Ha’ezel writes, “This is insufficient [reason], for [irre-
spective of how he reached this situation] he is in danger at present
and why should we let him die? Apparently we must say that even
now he is perpetuating his condition for he ought to calm himself, as
they say in Sukkah (25b) regarding a person in distress”1.

1. See earlier, siman 106, where we cite the view of Shem Aryeh forbidding yichud
[seclusion with a member of the opposite gender] even in a situation of piku’ach
nefesh , e.g. a nurse being driven to hospital for her Friday night shift. He dis-
cusses whether this gemara furnishes proof supporting this position, for the
gemara forbids even conversation between the man and the woman. However
he dismisses this proof by differentiating between the situations. The gemara
says that the positive commandment mandating setting other mitzvos aside in
situations of piku’ach nefesh, is not applicable when it is only required to begin
with because of negligence i.e. the man is blameworthy for having taken a fancy
to the woman. By contrast, a nurse traveling to work is on a mission to save
lives, so there may be grounds for arguing that the prohibition of yichud is set
aside by the positive commandment to “restore it [i.e. lost property or health] to

Forbidden Relations to Prevent Suicide 2 409