My body, my choice(My halakhah, my choice)(Ohalah 5782/2022)

My body, my choice (My halakhah, my choice) (Ohalah 5782/2022)

"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." - J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
"We are our choices." - Jean-Paul Sartre
"People pay for what they do, and still more for what they have allowed themselves to become. And they pay for it very simply; by the lives they lead." - James Baldwin

דברים כ״ט:י״ז-י״ט

(יז) פֶּן־יֵ֣שׁ בָּ֠כֶ֠ם אִ֣ישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁ֞ה א֧וֹ מִשְׁפָּחָ֣ה אוֹ־שֵׁ֗בֶט אֲשֶׁר֩ לְבָב֨וֹ פֹנֶ֤ה הַיּוֹם֙ מֵעִם֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֔ינוּ לָלֶ֣כֶת לַעֲבֹ֔ד אֶת־אֱלֹהֵ֖י הַגּוֹיִ֣ם הָהֵ֑ם פֶּן־יֵ֣שׁ בָּכֶ֗ם שֹׁ֛רֶשׁ פֹּרֶ֥ה רֹ֖אשׁ וְלַעֲנָֽה׃ (יח) וְהָיָ֡ה בְּשׇׁמְעוֹ֩ אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֨י הָאָלָ֜ה הַזֹּ֗את וְהִתְבָּרֵ֨ךְ בִּלְבָב֤וֹ לֵאמֹר֙ שָׁל֣וֹם יִֽהְיֶה־לִּ֔י כִּ֛י בִּשְׁרִר֥וּת לִבִּ֖י אֵלֵ֑ךְ לְמַ֛עַן סְפ֥וֹת הָרָוָ֖ה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָֽה׃ (יט) לֹא־יֹאבֶ֣ה יְהֹוָה֮ סְלֹ֣חַֽ לוֹ֒ כִּ֣י אָ֠ז יֶעְשַׁ֨ן אַף־יְהֹוָ֤ה וְקִנְאָתוֹ֙ בָּאִ֣ישׁ הַה֔וּא וְרָ֤בְצָה בּוֹ֙ כׇּל־הָ֣אָלָ֔ה הַכְּתוּבָ֖ה בַּסֵּ֣פֶר הַזֶּ֑ה וּמָחָ֤ה יְהֹוָה֙ אֶת־שְׁמ֔וֹ מִתַּ֖חַת הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃

Deuteronomy 29:17-19

(17) Perchance there is among you some man or woman, or some clan or tribe, whose heart is even now turning away from the LORD our God to go and worship the gods of those nations—perchance there is among you a stock sprouting poison weed and wormwood. (18) When such a one hears the words of these sanctions, he may fancy himself immune, thinking, “I shall be safe, though I follow my own willful heart”—to the utter ruin of moist and dry alike. (19) The LORD will never forgive him; rather will the LORD’s anger and passion rage against that man, till every sanction recorded in this book comes down upon him, and the LORD blots out his name from under heaven.

שמואל א א׳:ט׳-י״ד

(ט) וַתָּ֣קׇם חַנָּ֔ה אַחֲרֵ֛י אׇכְלָ֥ה בְשִׁלֹ֖ה וְאַחֲרֵ֣י שָׁתֹ֑ה וְעֵלִ֣י הַכֹּהֵ֗ן יֹשֵׁב֙ עַל־הַכִּסֵּ֔א עַל־מְזוּזַ֖ת הֵיכַ֥ל יְהֹוָֽה׃ (י) וְהִ֖יא מָ֣רַת נָ֑פֶשׁ וַתִּתְפַּלֵּ֥ל עַל־יְהֹוָ֖ה וּבָכֹ֥ה תִבְכֶּֽה׃ (יא) וַתִּדֹּ֨ר נֶ֜דֶר וַתֹּאמַ֗ר יְהֹוָ֨ה צְבָא֜וֹת אִם־רָאֹ֥ה תִרְאֶ֣ה ׀ בׇּעֳנִ֣י אֲמָתֶ֗ךָ וּזְכַרְתַּ֙נִי֙ וְלֹֽא־תִשְׁכַּ֣ח אֶת־אֲמָתֶ֔ךָ וְנָתַתָּ֥ה לַאֲמָתְךָ֖ זֶ֣רַע אֲנָשִׁ֑ים וּנְתַתִּ֤יו לַֽיהֹוָה֙ כׇּל־יְמֵ֣י חַיָּ֔יו וּמוֹרָ֖ה לֹא־יַעֲלֶ֥ה עַל־רֹאשֽׁוֹ׃ (יב) וְהָיָה֙ כִּ֣י הִרְבְּתָ֔ה לְהִתְפַּלֵּ֖ל לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה וְעֵלִ֖י שֹׁמֵ֥ר אֶת־פִּֽיהָ׃ (יג) וְחַנָּ֗ה הִ֚יא מְדַבֶּ֣רֶת עַל־לִבָּ֔הּ רַ֚ק שְׂפָתֶ֣יהָ נָּע֔וֹת וְקוֹלָ֖הּ לֹ֣א יִשָּׁמֵ֑עַ וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ עֵלִ֖י לְשִׁכֹּרָֽה׃ (יד) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלֶ֙יהָ֙ עֵלִ֔י עַד־מָתַ֖י תִּשְׁתַּכָּרִ֑ין הָסִ֥ירִי אֶת־יֵינֵ֖ךְ מֵֽעָלָֽיִךְ׃

I Samuel 1:9-14

(9) After they had eaten and drunk at Shiloh, Hannah rose.—The priest Eli was sitting on the seat near the doorpost of the temple of the LORD.— (10) In her wretchedness, she prayed to the LORD, weeping all the while. (11) And she made this vow: “O LORD of Hosts, if You will look upon the suffering of Your maidservant and will remember me and not forget Your maidservant, and if You will grant Your maidservant a male child, I will dedicate him to the LORD for all the days of his life; and no razor shall ever touch his head.” (12) As she kept on praying before the LORD, Eli watched her mouth. (13) Now Hannah was praying in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard. So Eli thought she was drunk. (14) Eli said to her, “How long will you make a drunken spectacle of yourself? Sober up!”

במדבר כ״ט:ז׳

וּבֶעָשׂוֹר֩ לַחֹ֨דֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֜י הַזֶּ֗ה מִֽקְרָא־קֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֔ם וְעִנִּיתֶ֖ם אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶ֑ם כׇּל־מְלָאכָ֖ה לֹ֥א תַעֲשֽׂוּ׃

Numbers 29:7

On the tenth day of this seventh month you shall have a holy assembly. You shall repress your desires by fasting. You shall do no work. It is Yom Kippur, the Day of Forgiveness.

יומא פ״ג א:ב׳-י׳

חולה מאכילין אותו על פי בקיאין אמר ר' ינאי חולה אומר צריך ורופא אומר אינו צריך שומעין לחולה מ"ט (משלי יד, י) לב יודע מרת נפשו פשיטא מהו דתימא רופא קים ליה טפי קמ"ל רופא אומר צריך וחולה אומר אינו צריך שומעין לרופא מ"ט תונבא הוא דנקיט ליה תנן חולה מאכילין אותו ע"פ בקיאין ע"פ בקיאין אין ע"פ עצמו לא ע"פ בקיאין אין על פי בקי אחד לא הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר לא צריכנא וליספו ליה ע"פ בקי לא צריכא דאיכא אחרינא בהדיה דאמר לא צריך מאכילין אותו ע"פ בקיאין ספק נפשות הוא וספק נפשות להקל לא צריכא דאיכא תרי אחריני בהדיה דאמרי לא צריך ואע"ג דאמר רב ספרא תרי כמאה ומאה כתרי ה"מ לענין עדות אבל לענין אומדנא בתר דעות אזלינן וה"מ לענין אומדנא דממונא אבל הכא ספק נפשות הוא והא מדקתני סיפא ואם אין שם בקיאין מאכילין אותו על פי עצמו מכלל דרישא דאמר צריך חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני בד"א דאמר לא צריך אני אבל אמר צריך אני אין שם בקיאין תרי אלא חד דאמר לא צריך מאכילין אותו על פי עצמו מר בר רב אשי אמר כל היכא דאמר צריך אני אפי' איכא מאה דאמרי לא צריך לדידיה שמעינן שנאמר לב יודע מרת נפשו תנן אם אין שם בקיאין מאכילין אותו ע"פ עצמו טעמא דליכא בקיאין הא איכא בקיאין לא ה"ק בד"א דאמר לא צריך אני אבל אמר צריך אני אין שם בקיאין כלל מאכילין אותו ע"פ עצמו שנאמר לב יודע מרת נפשו

Yoma 83a:2-10

§ It was taught in the mishna: If a person is ill and requires food due to potential danger, one feeds him according to the advice of medical experts. Rabbi Yannai said: If an ill person says he needs to eat, and a doctor says he does not need to eat, one listens to the ill person.What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the verse states: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul” (Proverbs 14:10), meaning an ill person knows the intensity of his pain and weakness, and doctors cannot say otherwise. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that a person knows himself better than anyone else does. Why does this need to be stated explicitly? The Gemara answers: It is lest you say that the doctor is more certain because he has had more experience with this condition. Therefore, the verse teaches us that even so, it is the ill person who knows his own suffering better than anyone else. However, in the opposite case, if a doctor says that the ill person needs food, but the ill person himself says he does not need to eat, one listens to the doctor. What is the reason for this halakha? It is because confusion [tunba] has taken hold of the ill person on account of his illness, and his judgment is impaired. Consequently, he himself does not know how much he needs food. § We learned in the mishna: If a person is ill, one feeds him according to the advice of medical experts. This implies that if there are experts present, then according to the advice of experts, yes, one feeds the ill person; but at his own instructions, no, one does not feed him, contrary to Rabbi Yannai’s opinion. It further implies that according to the advice of several experts, yes, one feeds an ill person; however, according to the advice of only one expert, no, one does not feed him. There appears to be a requirement for at least two doctors, which also contradicts Rabbi Yannai’s opinion that the opinion of one expert is sufficient to override the opinion of the ill person. The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a unique circumstance: The ill person says I do not need food, and the consultation of experts is required. The Gemara suggests: But let them feed him according to the advice of one expert, as Rabbi Yannai said that in such a circumstance one feeds the ill person based on the advice of one doctor. The Gemara answers: No, the requirement of two experts is necessary in a case where there is another, third expert with him who says that the ill person does not need to eat. In such a case, one feeds the ill person according to the advice of two experts who agree that he requires it. The Gemara asks: If so, this is obvious, since it is a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, and in all cases of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, the halakha is lenient. The Gemara answers: No, this halakha is necessary in a case where there are two other doctors who, along with the ill person, say that he does not need food. And although Rav Safra said that two witnesses are like one hundred witnesses, and one hundred witnesses are like two witnesses, that rule applies specifically to the matter of testimony; however, in the matter of assessing a situation, we follow the majority of opinions. Therefore, one might think in this case that the ill person should not be fed because the opinion of two doctors plus the ill person should override the opposing opinion of two other doctors. Generally speaking, two or more witnesses constitute complete testimony, and there is no difference between the testimony of two and the testimony of a large number of people. However, this principle of following the majority applies specifically to assessing monetary issues, but here it is a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation. Therefore, although it is the opinion of two doctors against the opinion of two doctors and the ill person, the ill person must eat. The Gemara asks: But from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna that if there are no experts present one feeds him according to his own opinion, by inference, the first clause of the mishna is referring to a case where the ill person said he needs to eat. In that case, the mishna states that one follows the experts’ opinion, not his own, and feeds him. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement that he may eat only based on the advice of experts said? It is when the ill person said: I do not need to eat. But if he said: I do need to eat, and instead of two experts there is only one who says that he does not need to eat, one feeds him according to his own opinion. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Any instance where an ill person says: I need to eat, even if there are one hundred expert doctors who say that he does not need to eat, we listen to his own opinion and feed him, as it is stated: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul” (Proverbs 14:10). We learned in the mishna: If an ill person himself says he needs to eat and there are no experts present, one feeds him according to his own opinion. This implies that the reason one feeds him is because there are no experts present. One may infer from this that if there were experts present, no, one would not feed the ill person based on his own opinion but would instead listen to the advice of the experts. The Gemara rejects this: This is what the mishna is saying: In what case is this statement that one follows the opinion of the experts said? It is when the ill person said: I do not need to eat. However, if he said: I do need to eat, it is considered as if there were no experts there at all; we feed him based on his opinion, as it is stated: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul” (Proverbs 14:10). All the experts are ignored in the face of the ill person’s own sensitivities.

סנהדרין ע״ב ב:י״ד

איתיביה רב חסדא לרב הונא יצא ראשו אין נוגעין בו לפי שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש ואמאי רודף הוא שאני התם דמשמיא קא רדפי לה

Sanhedrin 72b:14

Rav Ḥisda raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: If a woman was giving birth and her life was being endangered by the fetus, the life of the fetus may be sacrificed in order to save the mother. But once his head has emerged during the birthing process, he may not be harmed in order to save the mother, because one life may not be pushed aside to save another life. If one is permitted to save the pursued party by killing the minor who is pursuing him, why is this so? The fetus is a pursuer who is endangering his mother’s life. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is different there, with regard to the woman giving birth, since she is being pursued by Heaven. Since the fetus is not acting of his own volition and endangering his mother of his own will, his life may not be taken in order to save his mother.

ויקרא רבה ד׳:ו׳

(ו) תָּנֵי חִזְקִיָּה (ירמיה נ, יז): שֶׂה פְזוּרָה יִשְׂרָאֵל, נִמְשְׁלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְשֶׂה, מַה שֶּׂה הַזֶּה לוֹקֶה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ אוֹ בְּאֶחָד מֵאֵבָרָיו וְכָל אֵבָרָיו מַרְגִּישִׁין, כָּךְ הֵן יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶחָד מֵהֶן חוֹטֵא וְכֻלָּן מַרְגִּישִׁין, (במדבר טז, כב): הָאִישׁ אֶחָד יֶחֱטָא, תָּנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹחָאי, מָשָׁל לִבְנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין בִּסְפִינָה נָטַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַקְדֵּחַ וְהִתְחִיל קוֹדֵחַ תַּחְתָּיו, אָמְרוּ לוֹ חֲבֵרָיו מַה אַתָּה יוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹשֶׂה, אָמַר לָהֶם מָה אִכְפַּת לָכֶם לֹא תַחְתִּי אֲנִי קוֹדֵחַ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ שֶׁהַמַּיִם עוֹלִין וּמְצִיפִין עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַסְּפִינָה. כָּךְ אָמַר אִיּוֹב (איוב יט, ד): וְאַף אָמְנָם שָׁגִיתִי אִתִּי תָּלִין מְשׁוּגָתִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ חֲבֵרָיו (איוב לד, לז): כִּי יֹסִיף עַל חַטָּאתוֹ פֶשַׁע בֵּינֵינוּ יִשְׂפּוֹק, אַתָּה מַסְפִּיק בֵּינֵינוּ אֶת עֲוֹנוֹתֶיךָ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָשֵׂא גּוֹי אֶחָד שָׁאַל אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, כְּתִיב בְּתוֹרַתְכֶם (שמות כג, ב): אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת, אָנוּ מְרֻבִּים מִכֶּם מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין אַתֶּם מַשְׁוִין עִמָּנוּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אָמַר לוֹ, יֵשׁ לְךָ בָּנִים, אָמַר לוֹ הִזְכַּרְתַּנִּי צָרָתִי, אָמַר לוֹ לָמָּה, אָמַר לוֹ הַרְבֵּה בָּנִים יֵשׁ לִי, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהֵן יוֹשְׁבִין עַל שֻׁלְחָנִי זֶה מְבָרֵךְ לֵאלוֹהֵי פְּלוֹנִי וְזֶה מְבָרֵךְ לֵאלוֹהֵי פְּלוֹנִי, וְאֵינָם עוֹמְדִים מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁמְפַצְּעִין אֶת מֹחָן אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ. אָמַר לוֹ וּמַשְׁוֶה אַתָּה עִמָּהֶן, אָמַר לוֹ, לֹא. אָמַר לוֹ, עַד שֶׁאַתָּה מַשְׁוֶה אוֹתָנוּ, לֵךְ הַשְׁוֵה אֶת בָּנֶיךָ, נִדְחַף וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו, רַבִּי, לָזֶה דָּחִיתָ בְּקָנֶה רָצוּץ, לָנוּ מָה אַתָּה מֵשִׁיב, אָמַר לָהֶם בְּעֵשָׂו כְּתִיב בֵּיה שֵׁשׁ נְפָשׁוֹת וּכְתִיב בּוֹ נְפָשׁוֹת הַרְבֵּה, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית לו, ו): וַיִּקַח עֵשָׂו אֶת נָשָׁיו וְאֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנֹתָיו וְאֶת כָּל נַפְשׁוֹת בֵּיתוֹ, וּבְיַעֲקֹב שִׁבְעִים נָפֶשׁ וּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ נֶפֶשׁ אֶחָת, דִּכְתִיב (שמות א, ה): וַיְהִי כָּל נֶפֶשׁ יֹצְאֵי יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב שִׁבְעִים נָפֶשׁ, אֶלָּא עֵשָׂו שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵד לֶאֱלֹהוֹת הַרְבֵּה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ נְפָשׁוֹת הַרְבֵּה, אֲבָל יַעֲקֹב שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵד לֶאֱלוֹהַּ אֶחָד כְּתִיב בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת, וַיְהִי כָּל נֶפֶשׁ וגו'.

Vayikra Rabbah 4:6

(6) Hezkiya taught (Jeremiah 50:17): "Israel are scattered sheep" - why are Israel likened to a sheep? Just as a sheep, when hurt on its head or some other body part, all of its body parts feel it. So it is with Israel when one of them sins and everyone feels it. (Numbers 16:22): "When one man sins [will You be wrathful with the whole community]." Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai taught a parable: Men were on a ship. One of them took a drill and started drilling underneath him. The others said to him: What are sitting and doing?! He replied: What do you care. Is this not underneath my area that I am drilling?! They said to him: But the water will rise and flood us all on this ship. This is as Iyob said (Job 19:4): "If indeed I have erred, my error remains with me." But his friends said to him (Job 34:37): "He adds transgression to his sin; he extends it among us." [The men on the ship said]: You extend your sins among us.

סנהדרין ק״א א:י״א-י״ב

אמר רבה בר בר חנה כשחלה ר' אליעזר נכנסו תלמידיו לבקרו אמר להן חמה עזה יש בעולם התחילו הן בוכין ורבי עקיבא משחק אמרו לו למה אתה משחק אמר להן וכי מפני מה אתם בוכים אמרו לו אפשר ספר תורה שרוי בצער ולא נבכה אמר להן לכך אני משחק כל זמן שאני רואה רבי שאין יינו מחמיץ ואין פשתנו לוקה ואין שמנו מבאיש ואין דובשנו מדביש אמרתי שמא חס ושלום קיבל רבי עולמו ועכשיו שאני רואה רבי בצער אני שמח אמר לו עקיבא כלום חיסרתי מן התורה כולה אמר לו לימדתנו רבינו (קהלת ז, כ) כי אדם אין צדיק בארץ אשר יעשה טוב ולא יחטא

Sanhedrin 101a:11-12

§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: When Rabbi Eliezer fell ill, his students entered to visit him. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: There is intense wrath in the world, and it is due to that wrath of the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who is angry at His world, that I am suffering from these afflictions. His students began to cry due to their teacher’s suffering, and Rabbi Akiva was laughing. They said to him: Why are you laughing? Rabbi Akiva said to them: And for what reason are you crying? They said to him: Is it possible that Rabbi Eliezer, who is as much an exemplar of Torah as a Torah scroll, is afflicted with pain and we will not cry? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is for that reason that I am laughing. As long as I would see for my teacher that neither does his wine ferment and spoil, nor is his flax stricken, nor does his oil spoil, nor does his honey turn rancid, I would say to myself: Perhaps, Heaven forfend, my teacher has already received his world in reward for the mitzvot that he fulfilled, and will not receive a reward in the World-to-Come. But now that I see my teacher overcome with suffering, I am happy. He is receiving punishment in this world for the few transgressions that he might have committed, ensuring that he will receive a complete reward in the World-to-Come. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, have I failed to fulfill any portion of the entire Torah? Rabbi Akiva said to him, you taught us, our teacher: “For there is not a righteous man upon earth who does good and sins not” (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

Legal interpretation' takes place in a field of pain and death. This is true in several senses. Legal interpretive acts signal and occasion the imposition of violence upon others: A judge articulates her understanding of a text, and as a result, somebody loses his freedom, his property, his children, even his life. Interpretations in law also constitute justifications for violence which has already occurred or which is about to occur. When interpreters have finished their work, they frequently leave behind victims whose lives have been torn apart by these organized, social practices of violence. Neither legal interpretation nor the violence it occasions may be properly understood apart from one another. This much is obvious, though the growing literature that argues for the centrality of interpretive practices in law blithely ignores it. "Violence and the Word" Robert Cover 1986 Yale Law School.

Are an individual's actions efficacious apart from community? Praying on one's own? Fasting by one's own choice?

ישעיהו נ״ח:ד׳

הֵ֣ן לְרִ֤יב וּמַצָּה֙ תָּצ֔וּמוּ וּלְהַכּ֖וֹת בְּאֶגְרֹ֣ף רֶ֑שַׁע לֹֽא־תָצ֣וּמוּ כַיּ֔וֹם לְהַשְׁמִ֥יעַ בַּמָּר֖וֹם קֽוֹלְכֶֽם׃

Isaiah 58:4

Because you fast in strife and contention, And you strike with a wicked fist! Your fasting today is not such As to make your voice heard on high.

תענית ט״ז א:י׳

אַחֵינוּ לֹא שַׂק וְתַעֲנִית גּוֹרְמִים אֶלָּא תְּשׁוּבָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים גּוֹרְמִים שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּאַנְשֵׁי נִינְוֵה שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶם וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת שַׂקָּם וְאֶת תַּעֲנִיתָם אֶלָּא וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם כִּי שָׁבוּ מִדַּרְכָּם הָרָעָה

Taanit 16a:10

What does he say? Our brothers, it is not sackcloth and fasting that cause atonement for our sins. Rather, repentance and good deeds will cause our atonement. This is as we find with regard to the people of Nineveh, that it is not stated about them: And God saw their sackcloth and their fasting. Rather, the verse states: “And God saw their deeds, that they had turned from their evil way” (Jonah 3:10).

תענית כ״ב ב:י׳

עַל אֵלּוּ מַתְרִיעִין בְּשַׁבָּת כּוּ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן עִיר שֶׁהִקִּיפוּהָ נׇכְרִים אוֹ נָהָר וְאֶחָד סְפִינָה הַמִּיטָּרֶפֶת בַּיָּם וְאֶחָד יָחִיד שֶׁנִּרְדָּף מִפְּנֵי נׇכְרִים אוֹ מִפְּנֵי לִסְטִין וּמִפְּנֵי רוּחַ רָעָה מַתְרִיעִין בְּשַׁבָּת וְעַל כּוּלָּן יָחִיד רַשַּׁאי לְסַגֵּף אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּתַעֲנִית

Taanit 22b:10

§ The mishna further taught: For the following calamities they sound the alarm even on Shabbat: For a city that is surrounded by gentile troops, for a place in danger of being flooded by a river that has swelled its banks, or for a ship tossed about at sea. The Sages taught: In the case of a city that is surrounded by gentile troops or a river that has swelled beyond its banks, and this also applies to both a ship tossed about at sea and an individual who is being pursued by gentiles, or by thieves, or by an evil spirit, which may lead him to harm himself, they sound the alarm even on Shabbat. And in all these cases, an individual is permitted to afflict himself by fasting to annul the evil decrees against him.

פדיון הרלוונטיות על שמות, פרק שלישי כ״ב

...

Redeeming Relevance; Exodus, CHAPTER 3 Exile, Alienation and the Jewish Mission 22

Hence it could be said that Ya’akov’s and Moshe’s exiles made them into proto-modern men. Moreover, if our modern personal state of autonomy is, indeed, largely a result of our lack of cultural roots, then the more uprooted a person, the more autonomous we can expect him to be. In that case, the extreme nature of Ya’akov’s and Moshe’s exiles likely led them to a heightened level of deliberation and thoughtfulness, such as would rarely be found in even the most modern of men.

In the case, Does v. D.C., three intellectually-disabled women who lived in an MRDDA-administered group home filed suit claiming they had been forced to undergo elective procedures they did not want: One had an eye surgery, while two underwent unwanted abortions. They claimed they weren’t consulted in the decision-making process as stakeholders in choices about their own bodies, saying their due process rights were violated. They brought the case to court, challenging the district’s policy regarding obtaining consent for medical conditions. The lower court found a constitutional violation
"Before granting, refusing, or withdrawing consent for any elective surgery on any MRDDA consumer, the District of Columbia must attempt to ascertain the known wishes of the patient; an inquiry which is not limited to but which must include documented reasonable efforts to communicate with that person regarding her wishes. If after such an inquiry the wishes of the patient are unknown and cannot be ascertained, the District of Columbia must then make a good faith determination of the best interests of the patient, a determination that requires consideration of the totality of that person’s circumstances …"
The principle of self-determination holds that people with disabilities must have the freedom and authority to exercise control over their own lives. The Doe plaintiffs were subjected to elective surgeries based on the consent of DC officials. D.C. circuit judge Brett Kavanaugh overturned a lower court decision that enjoined Washington, D.C.'s disability services officials from authorizing elective medical procedures without first making an attempt to ascertain the wishes of the patient. The decision was based upon constitutional law arguments.