SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA
The Talmud discusses this Mishnah in two places: Horayot 13bff and Nazir 47b. In both passages the Talmud gives the reasons for the various priorities. There is, however, a further development in the passage in Nazir. Mar Ukba says that the priority(of the Battlepriest over the Segan) means that he has precedence in our duty to keep him alive. The Tosafot are still more specific, saying that if a heap has fallen on both, it is he who must be rescued first. Rabbi Untermann(HaTorah Vehamedinah TV, 22-29) takes this as the meaning of the discussion in the Mishnah and applies it in the case of a pharmacist having a limited supply of penicillin, etc.
This, then, is a halakhic discussion which points to an order of precedence in the saving of lives(a man before a woman, a Priest before a Levite, etc.). However, it seems to me that the discussion, in spite of the Tosafot, does not necessarily refer to the rescue of endangered lives. The Mishna uses the word lehahayot. If the Mishnah meant"to rescue from danger," we would have expected it to use the word lehatzil. In fact, the Shach (Yoreh Deah 351.14) says that the word does mean lehatzil and interprets accordingly. But the Mishnah uses this word in precisely the same way in which it is used in Psalm 33:19. The Psalm makes use of both words, lehatzil and lehahayot, each for a specific thought. It says"to rescue(lehatzil) thee from death, and to sustain thee (lehahayot) in famine." So our Mishnah here uses the word lehahayot precisely in connection with providing clothing and ransoming from captivity. If our Mishnah had actually meant“to rescue from death," then We would expect that the codifiers, when giving the laws of rescue, Would refer to this priority. But neither Maimonides , nor the Tur, nor the Shulhan Arukh mention any of these priorities in the laws of rescue o* Yad, Hilchot Rotzeach 1 14; Tur and Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat
).