Maimonides, Shabbat, and the Karaites – a Persuasive Critique

An interesting argument is brought by Maimonides in his Hilchot Shabbat, which he uses as an interesting critique of his Karaite rivals.

The question is concerning the suspension of Shabbat laws in the case of a danger to life or illness.

The Rabbis generally give dispensation to violate the regular shabbat laws to save a life or even to reduce the risk of death. Apparently this was frowned upon by Karaites of the time.

We see in Hilchot Shabbat ch 2:

Halacha 1

The [laws of] the Sabbath are suspended1 in the face of a danger to life,2 as are [the obligations of] the other mitzvot. Therefore, we may perform - according to the directives of a professional physician3 of that locale4 - everything that is necessary for the benefit of a sick person whose life is in danger.

When there is a doubt whether or not the Sabbath laws must be violated on a person's behalf, one should violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf, for the Sabbath laws are suspended even when there is merely a question of danger to a person's life. [The same principles apply] when one physician says the Sabbath laws should be violated on a person's behalf and another physician states that this is not necessary.5

Halacha 2

[The following laws apply when physicians] determine on the Sabbath that a person needs [a treatment to be administered] for eight days. We do not say that we should wait until the evening so that it will not be necessary to violate two Sabbaths on his behalf.6 Instead, the treatment is begun immediately, on the Sabbath, and even one hundred Sabbaths may be violated on his behalf.

As long as a person is dangerously [ill] - or even if there is a question whether or not he is dangerously [ill] - and requires treatment, [the Sabbath] should be violated [on his behalf]. A lamp may be lit on his behalf and extinguished on his behalf.7 [Animals] may be slaughtered on his behalf, [food] baked and cooked on his behalf, and water heated for him, whether to drink or to use for bathing.

The general principle for a person who is dangerously ill is that the Sabbath should be considered as a weekday regarding all his needs.8

Halacha 3

When such treatment is administered, it should not be administered by gentiles,9 by children,10 by servants, or by women,11 so that they will not view the Sabbath flippantly.12 Instead, the treatment should be administered by the leaders of Israel13 and the wise.

It is forbidden to hesitate before transgressing the Sabbath [laws] on behalf of a person who is dangerously ill,14 as [reflected in the interpretation in the phrase of Leviticus 18:5,] "which a person shall perform to live through them," as "['to live through them'] and not to die through them."

This teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not [bring] vengeance to the world, but rather bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world. Concerning those non-believers who say that [administering such treatment] constitutes a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden,15 one may apply the verse [Ezekiel 20:25]: "[As punishment,] I gave them harmful laws and judgments through which they cannot live."16

Source: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/935201/jewish/Shabbos-Chapter-Two.htm#footnote16a935201

The argument is that saving a life overrides the observance of strict Shabbat rules, and that one is fulfilling a mitzvah in violating the Sabbath by saving a life. His critique of the Karaites is that they did not allow such a dispensation. Whether this is factually correct or not, is a matter of historical research. The implication is that without the “oral law”, we would be unable to determine whether we can override shabbat in such cases. This is an interesting and somewhat persuasive argument. However, through historical and textual research, we can find evidence that would blunt Rambam's claim.

Firstly, throughout the TNK, we see that Israel was engaged in warfare with our brutal enemies. This includes even Moses, who would lead us in war. The siege of Jericho was at least 7 days long. Thus warfare was carried out on Shabbat, whether it is mentioned explicitly or not. This is not something that we need to refer to oral law to verify. Furthermore, the first book of Maccabees shows that the Maccabee priests, who were opposed by the Pharisees, also faced such a dilemma. When they refrained form fighting on shabbat, they were killed, and hence decided to violate the Shabbat in order to defend themselves. The Maccabees were not known to be adherents of oral law. Had they been, then such experimentation would not have been necessary, since they would have already received the tradition.

Thus, what Maimonides states about Shabbat is certainly humane, and can be derived from the texts, without resorting to oral law. It may also be true the historic Karaites were very strict on such matters. But this in itself is not a proof or disproof of oral law vs. TNK only. Rather it shows lack of imagination of some Karaite scholars during a certain period.