What a terribly misleading headline and lead paragraph. No one rejected anything — as Mr.(Rabbi?) Yehuda Meshi Zahav made clear, the prohibition does not apply in this particular instance. If a Rabbi told a seriously ill congregant rh”l that the congregant was not only permitted, but required, to eat on Yom Kippur so as not to endanger his life, or to have desperately needed surgery on Shabbos, would you write that the rabbi had “rejected” — or even “set aside” the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur or against surgery on Shabbos? Of course not. He simply ruled that the prohibition did not apply to that particular case.
Malkasays
I agree with Jack – I’m very shocked at the misleading headline. No part of the Torah was “rejected” by the volunteers. Their actions were in complete accordance with both the letter and the spirit of Torah law.
What a terribly misleading headline and lead paragraph. No one rejected anything — as Mr.(Rabbi?) Yehuda Meshi Zahav made clear, the prohibition does not apply in this particular instance. If a Rabbi told a seriously ill congregant rh”l that the congregant was not only permitted, but required, to eat on Yom Kippur so as not to endanger his life, or to have desperately needed surgery on Shabbos, would you write that the rabbi had “rejected” — or even “set aside” the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur or against surgery on Shabbos? Of course not. He simply ruled that the prohibition did not apply to that particular case.
I agree with Jack – I’m very shocked at the misleading headline. No part of the Torah was “rejected” by the volunteers. Their actions were in complete accordance with both the letter and the spirit of Torah law.