|
Question:
May it be explained
whether it is permissible to save oneself, and thereby cause
another to be killed.
I
was asked the following in the Kovno ghetto, on 23 Elul 5701
(September 15, 1941): Jordan, accursed be his name, Commander
for Ghetto Affairs in Kovno, had given the Altestenrat
(Council of Elders) 5,000 white cards ("Jordan
permits"), which were to be distributed among the
craftsmen and their families, and only those who had cards
would remain. At that time there were almost 30,000 Jewish
souls in the ghetto, and among them about 10,000 craftsmen and
their families. There was a great tumult, and those who were
strongest snatched the cards from the Altestenrat.
And
now the first question is whether it is permissible for the Altestenrat
to take the cards and distribute them among the craftsmen in
accordance with the orders of Jordan, accursed be his name?
The second question is whether it is permissible for the
craftsmen to snatch these cards and to push away their
comrades among the craftsmen who will remain over and above
the number of 5,000 cards, and what will be with them?
[Answer:]
...It is possible to say that in this case all the craftsmen
are in a sense partners in all the cards, for it is conceded
that they were given for all of them, and therefore all have a
share in them. And if so, then each one may snatch who has a
share in them. And later, when I came to write, I was shown by
my distinguished friend, our Rabbi and teacher Israel Gostman,
may he live good days, Amen, the head of the Torah School at
the Yeshiva of Lubavitch, that the commentary of Rabbi Eliezer
Edels (Maharsha) on the Tractate Baba Metzia [of the Talmud]
62 states: "If a flask of water (which can sustain but
one person) belongs to two (men), then Rabbi Akiva accepts the
position of Ben Petora, that in this case both should die
rather than one drink and witness the death of his friend.
This, therefore, represents a position opposite to the one we
proposed, for if we consider them partners then they may not
snatch [the permits], for that would make them as one who
takes a thing from his fellow and saves himself by means of a
thing that belongs to the other.
But
while all this must be considered, it may be said that in this
case the ruling does not apply, for it is not a matter of a
specific person; it had been the intention of the evil ones,
may they be accursed, to destroy all, but now there is a way
to save a few by means of the permits that have been issued,
and thus acceptance of the cards and their distribution
becomes a matter of saving [persons]. Later I heard from the
revered and learned Rabbi A.D. Schapira, may he be remembered
as a just man and blessed, the head of the Rabbinical Court of
Kovno, that when the order went out on 6 Heshvan 5702 from the
evil ones, accursed be their names, to the Altestenrat
that it should post a notice on 8 Heshvan 5702 (October 26,
1941) that all the occupants of the ghetto -- men, women and
children -- be assembled at the Demokraten Platz,
the Altestenrat came to ask the head of the Rabbinical
Court what they should do in accordance with the laws of the
Torah, for it was known that a great part of those who
assembled would be doomed to die. After he had considered the
matter, the head of the Rabbinical Court ruled as follows: if
the order was made that a community in Israel be destroyed,
and if by some means it was possible to save a small part of
the people, then the heads of the community must gather up
courage in their souls, and it is their responsibility to act
and to save who may be saved. And therefore in this case it
appears that taking and distributing the permits is also a
matter of rescue and it is not appropriate to rule in this
case according to the law for an individual and therefore the Altestenrat
is required to accept the permits and to distribute them.
*
* *
Question:
Are infants subject to
the commandment to sanctify the Name of God by martyrdom?
I
was asked on 3 and 4 Nisan 5704 [March 27-28, 1944] in the
Kovno Ghetto, in the days of the killing and loss and terrible
fate for the glory of our offspring, concerning our children
and infants, the children of Israel.
In
their desire to save their children, the parents devised a
way: they bought birth certificates from the unbelievers and
abandoned the children at the orphanage of the unbelievers in
order that the unbelievers might think that the abandoned
child was also an unbeliever. The parents also gave the
children to priests and wrote to the priests that the children
had been converted from their faith. Is this permissible?
2.
Is it permissible to give the children to the unbelievers to
hide until after the war and the fall of Hitler, may his name
be accursed, where there is doubt that the parents will remain
alive and therefore the children will be bound to remain among
the unbelievers and live in their faith and their ways?
[Answer:]
...If the child is not given to the unbelievers it is certain
that it will die, and if they are among the unbelievers they
will live, and it is possible that the parents may remain
alive and take the child back and return it to Judaism, and it
is possible that the unbelievers themselves may return the
child to a Jewish institution, and there are many
possibilities in favor. And the Almighty in His goodness will
have mercy on the remnants of His oppressed people and not add
further to their suffering, and we shall witness the
consolation of Zion and of Jerusalem.
E.
Oshry, Sefer Divre Ephraim ("The Sayings of
Ephraim"), New York, 1949, pp. 95-96, 101-102. |
