[Avodah] Violate Shabbat to Save a Jentile

[Michael Makovi]

In the thread [Avodah] R' Berkovits = Conservative halacha??, Rabbi
Unterman's teshuva (Kol Torah, Nisan 5726) to violate Shabbat to save
a jentile (the j is to avoid showing up on antisemitic Google
searches), was raised. Here, the merits of Rabbi Unterman's own shitah
(irrespective of Rabbi Berkovits's) are worth discussing; also, of
course, saving a jentil on Shabbat in and of itself.

In short, Rabbi Unterman said that "mishum eiva" to justify saving a
jentile's life on Shabbat, does not mean avoiding their animosity by
pragmatic means, but rather, it is synonymous with "darkei shalom" a
positive moral goal in and of itself which can be used to modify would
what otherwise be the valid halacha, from a legal-logical standpoint,
were it not for this moral consideration. I made the other post
recently, pointing out the parallel to Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits's
philosophy.

The topic was discussed on Rabbi Student's Hirhurim.blogspot.com,
"Don't turn Your Back On Your Community VIII: Treating a Non-Gew"
(Jew; http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/search?q=unterman, second article)

Rabbi Student brings a letter of Rabbi Riskin who recalls Rabbi
Unterman speaking at YU on the topic. Rabbi Riskin says that Rav
Soloveitchik disagreed with Rabbi Unterman's approach, but it turns
out (in the comments section, according to Rabbi Lawrence Kaplan, and
in the URL above in the first article) that
Rabbi Riskin flipped the shitot of the two ravs.

It turns out that Rav Soloveitchik found mishum eiva to be morally
troubling, but that was what the authorities all say, and it cannot be
pidgeon-holed to be synonymous with darkei shalom, however pleasing
that would be morally. Rabbi Saul Lieberman was once asked by someone
about this, and he answered "darkei shalom" or something to that
effect. A student asked him, "But isn't the primary answer mishum
eiva?", and Rabbi Lieberman answered, "That's what my answer did".

Rabbi Riskin himself brought the RambaN to Sefer haMitzvot that one
can violate Shabbat to save a ger toshav ( = ben Noach according to
Rabbi Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch and many of those who follow heter
mechira, so says Rabbi Student) (although RambaM does disagree with
RambaN on this). This would fit well with haMeiri's approach (to Yoma
84b-85a) that one can violate Shabbat for any jentile today, because
the Gemara was speaking of davka immoral heathens of yore. (Rabbi
Jakobovits's article about Rabbi Unterman's teshuva also brings this Meiri.)

One commenter opined that since the Gemara offers many opinions on how
to save a life on Shabbat, it appears to be an ancient undisputed
halacha whose rationale is irrelevant - sometimes we save him so that
he'll keep Shabbat in the future, and sometimes because Shabbat was
given to us not vice versa. He further said that since Ben Azzai says
descent from Adam and the resulting universal tzelem elokim
is a klal gadol, we cannot exclude jentiles from the obligation to
save a life. He brings the Meiri - his point seems to be that if the
person is moral (Meiri) then we can him, regardless of any rationale
we might bring that might or might not seem to exclude jentiles.

Personally, it seems to me that if we can say that Shabbat was given
to us and not us to Shabbat, kal vachomer jentiles were not given to
Shabbat (to lose their lives on its account).

Is there any more to be said on this machloket?

Mikha'el Makovi