Question:
Here's the fourth dilemma.

An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out.

The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out?

If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?

Choices:
Blast Jack out
Do nothing
Roles reversed - tell them to blast you out
Roles reversed - tell them to do nothing

 

The gemorah (don't have it with me, but when I find the source I'll bring it) brings a case where you and a friend are stuck in the desert. You have a waterskin, in which there enough only for one person to drink and reach civilization. The question is: do you share with your friend, and you both die, or do you drink it yourself, reach civilization healthy and whole, but your friend dies?

1) might the dynomite be useful to move the initial big rock away from the cave openning?

2) since Jack can breath and noone else, the hole he is stuck in must be in the ceiling. Perhaps there are a sufficient number of garden hose tubes in the same bag as the dynomite, and could be stuck up through the same hole that Jack is stuck in so that all could breath like a snorkel diver until the tide subsides?

3) with gravity on their side, and given the fact that Jack fit head first until the point he got stuck, really they all can pull down on his legs and with only minor abrasions get him out of the hole. Is there any question as to whether the others can save their own lives if it involves causing minor skin abbrasions forcing Jack out of the hole by pulling down harder? Especially when the hole will be lubricated with water shortly.

quote:

Originally posted by Dovi:
The gemorah (don't have it with me, but when I find the source I'll bring it)

Bava Metzia 62a

Thanks. The gemora concludes that only you should drink, because of the possuk "V'chai achicha imoch". Surely you could apply that to here?

Also, assuming Big Jack can't get out, and looking at it in a halachic pespective, would it not be that the rule of roidef (having to stop someone who is threatening another's life) applies? Jack will cause the death of five people.

Though thinking about it, looking at it from Jack's pespective, would the din of roidef apply for him to stop them blasting him with dynamite, if he's able to?

Dovi, you're welcome.

The concept of "Chayecha Kodmin" when discussed, refers to when for example, two people are travelling in the dessert, and one of them has a bottle of water, that if one person drinks it, one will be saved, and not die, but if they share it, it won't be enough for the two of them. Torah says, the one with the bottle of water should drink, and live, while the other person won't.

Does this concept of "Chayecha Kodmin" apply to kill someone through one's own actions?

Quote "Also, assuming Big Jack can't get out, and looking at it in a halachic pespective, would it not be that the rule of roidef (having to stop someone who is threatening another's life) applies? Jack will cause the death of five people."

I would think that it would be more similar to this gemarah in Sanhedrin 72b as paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf.

c) (Rav Huna): We kill a minor who is Rodef (even though a minor is not able to accept warning).

(d) Inference: He holds that a Rodef need not be warned whether he is an adult or minor.

(e) Question (Rav Chisda - Mishnah): (If a baby being born is likely to kill the mother, we kill it once the head (some texts - majority) leaves the womb (he is like any other person), we do not kill him, we do not kill one person to save another.

(f) Answer: That is different, the baby has no choice, Hash-m is threatening to kill the mother.
So too, Big Jack doesn't have a choice and is not purposely killing, but is a victom of circumstance

I also agree with Sam that though your allowed to drink your own water, that doesn't mean you can kill someone, but rather like the Gemaras in yuma and Sanhedrin that you can't kill someone to save otehrs.

Rob, I would go into that cave only if you were there Why would anyone in his right mind send Big Jack through the tight hole if we can use the dynamite to blast our way out BEFORE Big Jack gets stuck?

ROFL alex. my thoughts exactly.

Well Alex, if that were the case then there would be no question. If you read the webpage http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm for the source of these "dilemmas" you will notice what they are comparing these questions to. Once something is done, you need to decide what to do afterwards.

Sam,

If we the cave explorers were stupid enough to let Big Jack plug the only escape route, then we can consider it a case of mass suicide and deserve the Darwin award.

Besides that, Big Jack is a goner anyway: the water will bring the piranha and the crocodiles, as well as the deadly viruses that will inevitably kill him.

On a more serious note, the only way it could have happened is if Big Jack panicked and ran for the hole, while we did not remember about the dynamite until after he played Winnie-the-Pooh (got stuck). In that case I would call on the rest of us in the cave to pull Big Jack down and then blast our way out. So what if he gets a couple of bruises and abrasions?

How about the rest of the group just daven and say Tehillim?

quote:

How about the rest of the group just daven and say Tehillim?

A rain dance would also be appropriate so that water would come and lubricate Jack's decent back down into the cave and minimize his abrasions.

quote:

Originally posted by Sam-:
How about the rest of the group just daven and say Tehillim?

What did Hashem say to Moses when the Israelites came to the Red Sea, with the Egyptian chariots behind?

To daven and say Tehillim is a wonderful idea, but I would save it for after we got out of the cave. That would be a praise for the power of Allmighty Who gave us the wisdom to pull Big Jack out of the hole and to blast our way out for all, including Big Jack.

Tehillim is not just for praise, as we see so many times that there are Tehillim that's said for help and for Hashem to give a bracha that a sick person be healed etc.

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

How about the rest of the group just daven and say Tehillim?

A rain dance would also be appropriate so that water would come and lubricate Jack's descent back down into the cave and minimize his abrasions.

Lol. Very funny, Rob.

B"H

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

The following question has been asked in our Talmud (Baba Metzia 62a) - paraphrased -


Two men were walking in the desert. One was carrying a flask of water, the other was not. There is still a considerable distance to walk before they both reach a settlement where there is water. If both of them drink the little water that remains in the flask, both men would eventually die of thirst and dehydration before they reached the settlement. If, on the other hand, only one drinks from the flask of water, he will live to reach the settlement, but his companion will die of thirst and dehydration. What should the owner of the flask of water do? Should he share his water with his friend, and have both of them die of thirst? Or should he drink the water himself, live, and allow his friend to die of thirst?

Rabbi Akiba answers the question in such a way that discloses his greatness, and depth of thought. He says:

"The Torah says (Leviticus 25: 35): 'When your [Jewish] brother waxes poor, and his [strength of] hand has all but fallen apart while residing with you, you shall uphold him as you would a wayfaring stranger or citizen [of your country] so that he will remain alive with you.'

The Torah has made all these injunctions dependent upon one's own safety and well-being. As it is written, 'so that he will remain alive with you.' If, on the other hand, a person's life would stand in jeopardy by helping his fellow brother, he is not commanded in this case to support his fellow brother. For, had that been the case, the scripture could never have been fulfilled, 'so that he will remain alive with you,' since both persons would have died. Where it is possible to save one's fellow brother's life, along with your own life, only then are you obligated to do so. But where you, yourself, would die, or both you and the other person would die, you are not obligated to go to that extreme in order to support your fellow brother."

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

The following question has been asked in our Talmud (Baba Metzia 62a) - paraphrased -


Two men were walking in the desert. One was carrying a flask of water, the other was not. There is still a considerable distance to walk before they both reach a settlement where there is water. If both of them drink the little water that remains in the flask, both men would eventually die of thirst and dehydration before they reached the settlement. If, on the other hand, only one drinks from the flask of water, he will live to reach the settlement, but his companion will die of thirst and dehydration. What should the owner of the flask of water do? Should he share his water with his friend, and have both of them die of thirst? Or should he drink the water himself, live, and allow his friend to die of thirst?

Rabbi Akiba answers the question in such a way that discloses his greatness, and depth of thought. He says:

"The Torah says (Leviticus 25: 35): 'When your [Jewish] brother waxes poor, and his [strength of] hand has all but fallen apart while residing with you, you shall uphold him as you would a wayfaring stranger or citizen [of your country] so that he will remain alive with you.'

The Torah has made all these injunctions dependent upon one's own safety and well-being. As it is written, 'so that he will remain alive with you.' If, on the other hand, a person's life would stand in jeopardy by helping his fellow brother, he is not commanded in this case to support his fellow brother. For, had that been the case, the scripture could never have been fulfilled, 'so that he will remain alive with you,' since both persons would have died. Where it is possible to save one's fellow brother's life, along with your own life, only then are you obligated to do so. But where you, yourself, would die, or both you and the other person would die, you are not obligated to go to that extreme in order to support your fellow brother."

Shalom R'David, Rabbi Akiva seems to be describing the 'letter of the law' I.e. the halacha, however chassidim go beyond the letter of the law.

quote:

In the days of the Alter Rebbe the Chassidim had a familiar saying:

"The piece of bread that I have is yours just as it is mine."

And they would say the word "yours" first, "...yours just as it is mine."
http://www.rabbiriddle.org/cgi-bin/lessons.cgi?date=270...=1&width=35&Center=y

BTW I am not saying that I have achieved this level.

Be well,
Aharon

B"H

Going back to the original question, it would seem to be (in my most humble opinion) disallowed from a strict ethical point of view to blow "Big Jack" out of that hole with a stick of dynamite. Taking this route would be like saying "my blood is redder than his," and therefore, "he should forfeit his life." This would be wrong. Whether or not "Big Jack" has the status of "rodef" is still not clear unto me. Do we say "rodef" when mere accidents like this happens?

Still, it would seem that those of "Big Jack's" party who have been caught in the cave with him should all work together to dislodge our "Big Jack" from the hole, by digging around him.

quote:

Do we say "rodef" when mere accidents like this happens?

Well, we say rodef for a foetus which is endangering its mother's life, which surely has no intent to harm its mother.