CANNIBALISM

QUESTION:

The newspaper reports that the survivors of a plane wreck in the Andes Mountains were not found for a number of weeks after the accident. Those who survived admitted that they survived by cannibalism. Is there anything in Jewish legal literature which would be relevant to this situation? (Asked by Rabbi Daniel Syme, New York, New York.)

ANSWER:

THIS TRAGIC circumstance has indeed occurred a number of times in the past. One, at least, occurred in American history. The survivors of an immigrant train toward the Pacific Coast survived by cannibalism in the sadly famous Donner Pass.

Of course, if certain weak members of the expedition or the group of survivors were put to death in order to provide sustenance for the stronger and more violent members, this would be an unforgivable sin. There is a famous anecdote in the Talmud, the concluding line of which applies here. A man came to Rava saying that the governor of the province had told him that if he did not kill X, the governor would take his (the inquirer’s) life. The man came to the rabbi with the question, therefore: May he save his own life at the expense of another man’s life? To which the rabbi responded: “No! Why do you think your blood is redder than his?” In other words, we have absolutely no right to save our own life at the expense of another man’s life, except, of course, in a clear case of self-defense (Pesachim 25b).

Now assuming that certain members died (of starvation or exposure), and it was the flesh of these bodies which sustained the rest, did they do right in sustaining their own lives this way? Of course the body of a human being in no sense constitutes permitted meat, although it must be stated here that human blood is not absolutely prohibited, as is animal blood. Thus, for example, if human blood were completely prohibited, and a person had a bleeding gum and swallowed some of his own blood, he would be committing a sin, which in fact he is not committing (b. Ketubos 60a). However, human flesh is certainly forbidden for food (cf. Yore Deah 66:10).

Nevertheless, it must be remembered that this was a case of pikuach nefesh, absolute danger to life, and the law is clear, especially as stated by Maimonides, that in a case of pikuach nefesh, if, for example, a doctor orders you to eat something which is absolutely trefe, you must obey the doctor and sustain life ( Yore Deah 155:2, 3; Yesode Torah V:6). Of course what Mai monides had in mind was nonkosher animals, but the same thing must apply to cannibalism.

As a matter of fact, the following related question came up during wartime: If soldiers were in a position where it was absolutely impossible to get kosher food, and they simply had to eat trefe food to sustain life, were they required to make a b’rocha over the trefe food? The answer is clear: they certainly must, since they benefit from the food, and the blessings of food are called the blessings of benefit (ha-nehenin). The law is clearly stated in Orah Hayyim 204:9 as follows: One who because of danger has eaten food or drink which is forbidden must pronounce a blessing before and after (see, also, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 50:8).

To sum up: In those tragic circumstances in the Andes, if nobody was put to death in order to sustain the others, then forbidden flesh of the dead was permitted because of the supreme duty of sustaining life (pekuach nefesh), and a blessing must be recited over that horrible food.