<HTML>I remember being deeply troubled by this issue when learning about it for
the first time in high school. Even though in practical terms "darkei
shalom" clear means that we must save the non-Jew's life, the thrust of
what I was taught was that this is clearly bedi'avad. Thank God, since
then I have learned that the issue is not nearly so simple, and can be
taught with much greater sensitivity.
Here is the relevant material I am aware of on the topic:
1. There was a furor in the Israeli press about this in the
1960s. In response, Rav Unterman published a pesak arguing that "darkei
shalom" is an ethical principle central to the Torah (lehatehilla). It
was published in "Kol Torah" volume 37 [20] issue 6, Adar 5726. (It took
me a long time until I found a library with this journal in order to copy
it!) In the English language, this was followed by two articles in the
journal Tradition by Immanuel Jacobowitz ("A Modern Blood Libel -
L'Affaire Shahak", 8:2, Summer 1966) and Nachum Rabinovitch ("A Halakhic
View of the Non-Jew" 8:3, Fall 1966).
The same issue came up again this past summer (August 11, 1998) when the
Hamodia newspaper accused the IDF of "violating Shabbat to save goyim" by
sending a rescue mission to Nairobi. Thus, a major Kiddush Hashem was
transformed into a major Hillul Hashem. Rav Lau, like his predecessor,
responded that pikuah nefesh applies to non-Jews.
A brave teacher can take these real-life issues and discuss them with a
high school class, and even have them read the articles.
2. The major issue here is whether darkei shalom is, for lack of better
terms, lehatehilla or bedi'avad. Walter Wurzburger published a brief
article in Gesher years ago, showing that both interpretations are well
represented among the rishonim and fully compatible with the source
material in rabbinic literature. He promised a larger study on the topic
with full documentation, but I don't know if he ever published it.
3. Also very important is the opinion of the Meiri on Yoma: The
prohibition to violate Shabbat to save a non-Jew applies only to
"Idolators... for whom we are not obliged to violate Shabbat because they
have no religion." Supplement this with Rav Kuk's unequivocal statement
that the Meiri's opinion is the accepted one (Iggerot volume 1, no. 99).
Finally, this is only one of many varied issues where an area of halakha
contradicts our moral instincts. (Other examples: Mamzerut and Agunot;
Amalek.) All of these are tremendously hard to teach without guidance,
yet *must* be taught with sensitivity and a wide-ranging appreciation of
the variety of trends in Jewish thought (in this case, especially on
univeralism vs. particularism). For a wonderful new book dealing with all
these kinds of conflicts and providing a huge wealth of source materials,
read Avi Sagi, Yahadut: Bein Dat le-Musar (Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1998).
Since Shabbat Zakhor and Purim are around the corner, some teachers may
find it useful to read Sagi's chapter on Amalek, which originally appeared
in an English version: "The Punishment of Amalek in Jewish Tradition -
Coping with the Moral Problem," Harvard Theological Review 87:3 (1994),
pp. 323-346. Based on Sagi's article and meant specifically for teachers
is Ronen Lubitz's article on how to teach Amalek with a deep awareness of
its moral implications. It appeared in Shematin (or Bisdei Hemed?) a
couple of years ago (I don't have access to the exact reference at the
moment).
Good luck teaching Yoma!
Seth (Avi) Kadish
Amit Karmiel Torah & Science High School</HTML>
