Yoreh Deah 252:8 Save A Woman First.

I have decided to blog a post of mine at http://forums.torah.org/viewtopic.php?p=73796#73796.

There the discussion on Yoreh Deah 252:8 paraphrased states that if a woman and man are drowing in a river, one must save the man first.

The standard answer given is that a Man knows and learns Torah, and or a Man has more mitzvot to do therefore, he should be saved first in honour of the Torah and or to accomplish more mitzvot. Ironically enough though the first part of the answer may give honour to man indirectly through the Torah, the second part gives honour to Women (as having fewer mitzvot means they are less deficient) as they are closer to a tikkun (a repaired state) then men.

I offer an additional insight though: this might be a simple matter of logic.

We know that one person's blood is not redder then another (ie: one is not more deserving of death or life then another (as we know)) so how can we choose man over women?


Simple. Let us consider those a man/woman leave behind. They both might have children/parents/relatives. However a man would leave a widow behind, and a woman would leave a widower behind.

The widow might have true problems in remarrying and continuing life supporting children. However, the widower would have a much easier time to remarry.

Furthermore, if the man dies, a wife might need to do yibbum/chalitzah; where if the woman dies this does not need to occur.

Therefore, two simple reasons why the man practically might need to be saved first.



The above logic is complicated as follows:

1). If there are two eidim then there is no issue, as either could remarry as the death of the spouse is assured. This would explain why the Mishna chose a river (an ocean even with eidim is a machlokes and we pasken that the wife cannot remarry even with eidim). Thus the mishna may be teaching a case where everything is paralleled for both except there are not two eidim. Otherwise, why not choose any other case? Why davka a river? why not simply mention drowning in general. Therefore I would supposit that there not being eidim is a major foundation for my argument on the meaning of the mishnah as imo that is what is particular about a river.

2). Of course the mishnah is also holding where a man could remarry with ease (ie: multiple wives etc...).

3). Pragmatically (sadly in such a situation) when following the mishna 3/4 people can continue doing mitzvos in the regular fashion. If one saved the woman only 2/4 could (the husband and wife (saved), but not the husband (drowned) and his wife))....


Finally R'Moshe Feinstein zt"l offers an interesting psak stating if all things of the outcome are equally likely then and only then is there preferrential treatment. This makes sense of the above as the mishna's logic that it is better for 3/4 then 2/4 to be saved, would not be true if one attempted to save a wounded drowning man over the drowning woman as then all the logic of above no longer applies in the same way!

I saw on another site (I have not looked it up myself - so I can't authenticate it) http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html:
R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat vol. 4 [I don't have the book in front of me right now so I can't name the exact responsum]) writes that the rule of the Mishnah only applies when all other things are equal. Thus, if both emergency calls are of equal distance, and both diseases are equally treatable, etc. Only then, in the rare case in which all things are equal, does the rule of the Mishnah apply.

I realize that my logic doesn't have a great deal of support (if any) and therefore, though I think the Pshat answer is that the Man knowing Torah and having more mitzvot is the reason (as others have mentioned) I only mention the above as an additional consequence that FOLLOWS the pshat answer.

Btw, it is only logical the mishna with all things being equal would need to tell a person who to save as they might be paralyzed not being able to know which to save? This mishnah may have saved 2 lives (men and women) where without it both might have died. Another thing to consider.