(Note: Despite the implication of this title, this author believes that Donald Trump is not an evil and is extremely fit for the presidency of the U.S.)
There is an interesting Midrash on this week’s parshah that is in need of explanation. The Torah tells us that as Avraham and Sarah were approaching Mitzrayim, Avraham asked his wife to say that she was his sister so that the Egyptians not kill him as her husband. The Midrash says that we derive from this story that we are permitted to shecht an animal on Shabbos for a deathly ill person who needs to eat meat.
The question is obvious: How do we derive this halacha from this episode?
First, we need to explain the episode itself. Why was Avraham afraid that the Egyptians would kill him to take Sarah? If the Egyptians wouldn’t violate the aveirah of living with a married woman, wouldn’t they be mindful of the aveirah of murder as well?
Tosfos argues that murdering is a one-time offence while living with a married woman is an ongoing aveirah. The Egyptians preferred violating one prohibition instead of multiple ones. Rav Yonason Eibshitz suggests that this explanation can help us understand the Midrash’s comment.
The Ran (on Yoma) asks the following question regarding one who is deathly ill on Shabbos and requires meat for his health: Why do we permit a Jew to shecht an animal on Shabbos – an issur d’Oraisa – when we could have a non-Jew shecht the animal? Alternatively, why don’t we just give him non-kosher meat? Why do we allow a Jew to shecht on Shabbos when there are other ways of providing the ill person with meat?
The Ran answers that shechting on Shabbos is a one-time violation while eating non-kosher meat consists of many violations since every bite amounts to another aveirah. The Ran writes that violating one issur, even a severe one, is better than violating several small issurim – the same logic that explains the story of Avraham fearing the Egyptians would murder even though they wouldn’t commit adultery. Thus, we learn the former from the latter.
However, there is one problem with this explanation. The Ran’s chiddush is that even though the prohibition of Shabbos is far more stringent than eating nevailah, still it is preferable to violate a more stringent issur one time rather than multiple smaller issurim. The Egyptians, however, faced two aveiros of equal severity. How, then, does one learn from the story of Avraham, Sarah, and the Egyptians that one may violate a severe aveirah – shechting on Shabbos – for an ill person (rather than the less severe ones of having a non-Jew shecht for him or giving him non-kosher meat)?
As a side note, Rashi (on Yoma 83a) seemingly disagrees with the Ran. The Gemara discusses a deathly ill person who must eat something quickly and the only food available to him are two piles of fruit – one tevel and one terumah. The Tannaim dispute which issur is more stringent but agree that whichever is more stringent should be avoided. He should eat the other pile.
Now, the pile of tevel can easily be separated into terumah and chullin. If there were five apples in each pile, for example, and the ill person needed to eat all of them, he could separate terumah and thus eat four apples of chullin and one apple of terumah. Yet, the one who says eating terumah is a more severe issur maintains that it is better to eat five apples of tevel rather than eat one apple of terumah and four of chullin.
It is clear from this understanding of the Gemara – which is Rashi’s – that it is not better to violate one stringent issur instead of multiple smaller ones. Commentators suggest that the Ran has a different understanding of this Gemara which coincides with his view.