The public debate on the issue of the abductees raises complex dilemmas, and has many aspects. There are questions here of reason versus emotion. The pain of well-known families versus the future pain of many families whose names we still don't know. A strong desire to bring an end to a current predicament versus future dangers, which at the moment it may be convenient not to think about.
Unfortunately, the heated debate also involves irrelevant political motives, causing parts of the public to adopt positions based on political or social affiliation. This also makes it difficult to truly and honestly investigate the difficult questions.
''Future life support''
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
But there is something that is unacceptable even in the midst of the storm of debate – the raising of slogans in the name of Judaism, so to speak, when they are completely contrary to the position of the Torah and Halacha. Such is the statement that the Torah refers only to present-day pikuach nefesh and "there is no concept in Judaism of future pikuach nefesh.".
Indeed, the halakhic concept of 'pikuach nefesh' has clear boundaries and rules. A medical student is not permitted to desecrate Shabbat for the sake of his studies, on the grounds that when he qualifies as a doctor sooner, he will be able to save a life. This situation is not considered 'pikuach nefesh' that justifies desecrating Shabbat. But isn't there a concept of future 'pikuach nefesh' in halakhic law? Of course there is!
For example, the halakhah states that a doctor or rescue personnel who were called out on Shabbat to treat a patient are permitted to return to their homes by car, even though they do not currently have a patient in a state of 'pikuach nefesh'. The Mishnah teaches us this (Eruvin 4:3): "All who go out to rescue, return to their place." The halakhah reasoning is - 'future pikuach nefesh'.
An even clearer example of the recognition of the concept of 'future protection of life' is the halacha in the laws of Shabbat (Siman Shecht), which discusses the question of whether it is permissible to violate Shabbat in a situation where there is a danger of a gentile invasion of a Jewish settlement. The halacha states that we must assess the degree of danger to human life – if it is clear to us that the gentiles’ goal is only to steal property, we do not violate Shabbat on that account; but if there is any doubt that the invasion may endanger lives, we must go ahead and confront them with weapons, and we must not even wait for them to arrive, but must prepare for them even when they are just preparing to invade.
Future danger
However, "in the city near Sephar" (the city near the border) - "they do not even want to come except for the business of straw and chaff - they desecrate the Sabbath for them." And all this for what? - "lest they capture the city, and from there the land will be easy to conquer before them.".
After all, we are facing a clear situation of 'future pikuach nefesh', because at the moment there is no threat to life, since the Gentiles claim that they only have 'hay and straw business' with us, and yet the law commands the desecration of the Sabbath, out of concern that this situation could develop into 'pikuach nefesh' in the future.
In light of this, it is quite clear that the statements that "there is no concept of future life care in Judaism" are completely baseless. Halacha considers with all seriousness the degree of danger of 'future life care', and it is not correct to claim that the Halacha refers only to the current situation. However, as mentioned, this too is defined in clear halachic definitions, as stipulated in the books of Halacha.
