Tosfot asks ("Mitoj", 44a) why in monetary matters the rule is that we don't allow the person from saving their properties to avoid that, worried about it, they can put out the fire and transgress.
In the case of our sugya, on the contrary, we allow the person to save the dead (even though he is muktze), because if we do not allow it, the person will end up putting out the fire on Shabbat himself and will violate a greater prohibition ("kibui").
Tosfot replies that in the case of the dead the person's concern is greater than in the case of money and if we finally do not allow him to save him, in the end he will put out the "bemezid" fire herself. To avoid it, chachamim gives the permission to the person to transgress muktze derabanan and not kibui, that is like Oraita. While in the case of money, it is not so much concern, and if he transgresses it will be because he is busy saving everything and if he extinguishes the fire he will be considered "beshogueg" and not "mezid".
My question: following this logic, we could say that in the case of the dead, in the case of putting out the fire, it would also be considered shogueg. He is so concerned with saving him that he will forget that he is Shabbat and put out the Beshogueg fire!
It is precisely the great suffering and concern of the person to see the dead who can burn, which motivates him to put out the fire. The person is moved by a feeling much greater than the worry of money, this could be considered even more "shogueg", or even "ones"!
It is a kind of "kal vajomer". If the "normal" concern in monetary matters can lead to putting out the fire and we consider it "shogueg", how much and more can the great concern and feeling for a dead person be considered, at least, also shogueg.
Thank you,
Yosef, Madrid (Spain)
1) I think the answer to this question is given by Rashi, on page 117b below, in DH v'Iy Sharis. Rashi writes that if a person starts saving his property, then in the course of his rescue work he will forget that it is Shabbos and extinguish the fire. The difference is that with the dead body, the person will not forget that it is Shabbos. He remembers that it is Shabbos but he says to himself that he does not care about the Halachah that Shabbos is more important than the honor of the deceased. Therefore, his action is considered as Mezid.
2) I found that the Tosfos Yeshanim in Maseches Yoma 85a has the same way of thinking as you. On the last line of the Tosfos Yeshanim on 85a, he writes, "If you will not permit him [to carry the body] because of his 'Tirda' and sorrow, he will come to extinguish the fire."
The Tosfos Yeshanim mentions two reasons for why he may come to extinguish:
(a) "Tirda" -- he is "Tarud," busy dealing with the body.
(b) "Tza'ar" -- he is distressed at what happened.
Both of these reasons suggest that he is not in full control of his actions. So this suggests that what he is doing is not Mezid.
This way of understanding the Tosfos Yeshanim is in fact stated by the Pri Megadim. We start from the Taz on Shulchan Aruch (Hilchos Shabbos 334:1) who cites our Tosfos. However, the Pri Megadim on the Taz, in Mishbetzos Zahav, cites the Tosfos Yeshanim and writes: "Concerning money, as long as he does not [start to] save it, he is not 'Tarud' and will not forget and extinguish 'b'Shogeg.' However, concerning the corpse, before he [starts] saving it, he is 'Tarud' [preoccupied] with his sorrow and 'Bahul' [anxious] about the dead body, and will forget [that today is Shabbos] and extinguish the fire b'Shogeg."
(I saw in a Sefer called Pri ha'Gan (on Otzar ha'Chochmah) that the author writes that the source of the Pri Megadim that it is Shogeg is the words of the Tosfos Yeshanim, "Tirdei v'Tza'arei.")
3) Reply about "Ones":
You mentioned the possibility that the person who extinguished the fire in order to save the dead may even be considered "Ones," forced.
a) The way that I think it may be possible to say this would be if a person made a mistake about the Halachah. Then we could describe this as "Omer Mutar" -- he mistakenly thinks that it is permitted to extinguish a fire on Shabbos in order to protect the honor of the deceased.
b) Rashi writes in Shabbos 68b (DH Patur) that the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is that if someone wrongly says that such and such a thing is permitted, this is considered as Ones. It seems that they hold that if a person did not receive a sufficient Torah education, we look at this as if he was forced into making wrong decisions.
c) Rashi in Maseches Kerisus, end of 2a (DH Pesach), also seems to say that "Omer Mutar" is considered Ones.
Yosef, wishing you and your family lots of health and strength, and we should hear good news soon, especially about your stricken country!
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom