There was a Rav who lived in Yerushalayim 50 years ago named Rav Dov Beirush Weidenfeld [d. 10th of cheshvan 1965] and known as the "Chebiner Rov". He was called the שר התורה - a title only given to the top of the top. He wrote a set of sfarim called the דובב מישרים [he originally wrote ten volumes but most of them were lost. They recently republished what we have in four volumes - please buy yourself a set]. He was not only a giant of Torah but a geshmake mentsch. There are numerous great stories about him. I am not aware of any biographies of him in English but I hope someone writes one [there is one in Hebrew].
He asks [ח"ג סי' פב] what the halacha would be in a case where there is a case of pikuach nefesh and one must do a melacha. He has two options: One melacha he needs to do is explicit in the Torah while the other one is אסור מדאורייתא but not explicit. Or one is an אב מלאכה and the other a תולדה.
He says that one should do the melacha that is NOT explicit in the Torah. He writes as follows:
הארכתי בזה ונשכח ממני מה שכתבתי, אולם ראיה אחת אזכור שהערתי מתוספות יבמות דף ז ע"ב ד"ה ואמר עולא שכתבו דלא ניחא שידחה ביאת כולו דכתיב בהדיא אבל ביאה במקצת לא כתיב בהדיא עיי"ש אם כן מוכח מדברי התוס' דמאי דכתיב מפורש בתורה אין לדחות היכא דאפשר לבחור במה שאינו מפורש בתורה
Explanation: A Metzora is not allowed to go into the the עזרה until after he brings his korbanos and therefore he stands outside and just puts his fingers and toes inside in order to be purified with the blood applications, because partial entry is permitted. Asks Tosfos: Since ביאה במקצת שמיה ביאה - a partial entry is called entering, then why don't we just permit him to go completely inside? Tosfos answers that a complete entance is explicit in the Torah and therefore we prefer he only go in partially which, although also from the Torah, it is not explicit.
This is seemingly a clear proof that one must prefer the non-explicit איסור over the explicit one.
Cool!:-)
Not so fast....
He then brings a question on this from his son ישראל הי"ד - The gemara [128b] talks about a woman who gave birth and is in need of oil which she doesn't have at home. We want to bring it to her it in the least אסור manner. The first choice is that her friend bring the oil in the palm of her hand [which is a shinui]. If that is not enough then she should soak her hair in oil [and then wring it out]. If that is not enough she should bring it in the normal way in a כלי. Asks the gemara - What do we accomplish by having her bring it in her hair in order to avoid carrying it in the normal manner in a כלי, since she will still transgress the melacha of סחיטה when she wrings it out of her hair??! עד כאן דברי הגמרא
According to the principle we established [that non-explicit is preferable over explicit] the gemara is difficult to understand. סחיטה is a תולדה while הוצאה is an אב מלאכה. It should be self-evident then that we would prefer that the woman who gave birth should be brought the oil in a way that would necessitate סחיטה and not הוצאה. So why does the gemara assume that we gain nothing by having her do סחיטה instead of הוצאה?
From this sugya it appears that it is no worse to do an אב than it is to do a תולדה. But before we proved that non-explicit [similar to a תולדה] is "less אסור" than explicit? And according to the Rambam - הוצאה is explicit in the Torah while סחיטה is not.
We are in a quandry - aren't we?
What do you think?
