EXOD568 One of the 613 Torah commandments incumbent upon every Jew is to be healthy and protect oneself from harm. That Torah tells us to guard ourselves from sickness and anything that may bring harm to the body, and the Talmud equates sustaining even a single human life with the infinite value of an entire world. Deuteronomy 4:15, Sanhedrin 27a Therefore, every Jew has a special obligation to do whatever it takes to remain healthy. This appears to include taking any medications that would bring someone back to health as well as protect the body from becoming ill in the first place. The Talmud understands this principle to be the logical way to live one's life and even asks why a verse is necessary. Bava Kama 46b. When a person is sick, he or she should call a doctor, says the Talmud. The Torah specifically tells us that a sick person should be healed by a doctor (this verse). Maimonides seems to indicate that just as a doctor has an obligation to heal a patient, so too, a patient has an obligation to try to protect his or her health and prevent sickness. Maimonides commentary on Mishna Nedarim 4:4. In a different context, Maimonides emphasizes a Jew's obligation you strive to be healthy, explaining that someone who is not healthy cannot fulfill his mission on earth to serve God properly. Maimonides, Hilchot De'ot 3:3, 4:23. Furthermore, in building a Jewish community, there are certain rudimentary elements that must be present, even in the case of the smallest Jewish population living together. In addition to a synagogue and a teacher, every Jewish community must have at least one doctor.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD569 See [[EXOD233]] Exodus 15:26 healer AMJV 98

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD580 The Talmud clearly states that causing someone else bodily harm is forbidden, just as causing bodily harm to oneself, is forbidden. Bava Kama 91b. If harming another human being intentionally is forbidden, then all wrestling and certainly all boxing should be forbidden for a Jew. And yet we see that these sports are permitted in certain circumstances. How can this be? Maimonides helps to provide an answer to this question. Although he rules it is forbidden to harm one's own body and certainly someone else's body, the prohibition is only if it is done between two people so angry at each other that they come to blows. Maimonides, Hilchot Chovel U'Mazik 5:1. The wording of Maimonides, "Derech Nitzayon" -- "In a manner of arguing," is based on the Torah word in the verse describing two people arguing that and then coming to blows (and accidentally striking a pregnant woman). (This verse with Rashi commentary). Therefore, only if people were arguing with each other and intending to cause bodily harm out of anger would a person be forbidden from striking another person. But a blow to the body in the course of a sporting match apparently would be permitted.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD586 There are numerous sources that seemed to be in conflict with regard to answering the question of whether or not the fetus is considered a human life and, therefore, if an abortion is the equivalent of murder. A simple reading of the Torah verse involving a pregnant woman whose fetus is accidentally killed in a dispute between two people shows that a fetus is considered to be personal property rather than human life. In that case, when the loss of the fetus was caused accidentally, the Torah merely tells the culpable person to pay damages based on a certain formula of the value of the fetus. There is not even any hint of murder or immoral behavior, and payment for damages is all that is required. If the fetus were considered mere property of the mother, it certainly would be permitted to get pregnant in order to save the life of the father of the fetus. However, other sources make the status of that fetus much more complicated. (See. e.g. Genesis 9:6; Sanhedrin 40b; Maimonides, Hilchot Melachim 1:4; Mishna Ohalot 7:6)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD622 If the thief is found breaking into a house at night, the Torah says that if a Jew kills that thief, he or she is blameless. This seems to give legal authority for purchasing a weapon in advance in order to kill an intruder who may break into a home. But why is this so? By what legal authority can the owner of the home become both judge and jury in one fell swoop and kill this thief, without the legal system for determining that this man is a (potential) murderer who maybe stopped with the gun? Rashi, in his commentary on this verse, gives us a clear explanation. Killing this intruder, says Rashi, is not considered murder because the Torah creates a special ruling in this case. This person, intent on murdering the occupants of the house, already has the legal status of a "dead man" (equal to a legally convicted murderer). Thus, it is lawful to kill such a person by any means necessary. But how do we know that this person is indeed a murderer, even in potential? Maybe he came only to steal some objects, but if he were to be challenged by the residents of the home, he would run away? The Talmud responds to this question by explaining that a typical thief knows that most homeowners, if the owners face him, will not simply give up their possessions. Thus, the thief who knows this in advance generally comes armed and is prepared to kill the inhabitants if confronted. Sanhedrin 72a Based on this verse and Talmudic discussion, the Talmud establishes the legality of the principle of self-defense-if someone is coming to kill you, you may kill him first. Yoma 85b In addition, God's command to the Jews to attack the Midianites who attacked the Jewish people in the desert Numbers 25:16–18 is also a basis for the concept of self defense. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 3 (continued at [[EXOD626]] Exodus 22:2 sun AMJV 119)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD626 (Continued from [[EXOD622]] Exodus 22:1 bloodguilt AMJV 119) However, this principle of self-defense and the right to kill an intruder are predicated on the assumption that the thief is indeed a potential and likely murderer and will kill the inhabitants if confronted. What happens when the homeowner knows that the thief is not at all interested in confrontation and has absolutely no desire to harm the inhabitants, but only wants to steal, and will run out of the house if someone wakes up? The continuation of the Torah in the next verse speaks of the situation. It says that if "the sun shines" on the homeowner and he then kills the intruder, then the homeowner is guilty of murder. What does the sun shining signify? The Talmud discusses the subject by framing the question: "Does the sun only shine on the homeowner? It shines on everyone!" Sanhedrin 72a. It answers that the phrase about the sun shining means that it is "as clear as day" to the homeowner. What is so clear? If it is evident that the thief will not kill or harm the people in the house, then the owner who pulls out a gun and kills the thief is indeed guilty of murder. Therefore, use of a gun or any weapon to harm or kill the intruder must be justified. Similarly, the Midrash says that the sun is the symbol of warmth and peace. Thus, if the sun is shining and it is clear that the thief is no threat to life, it is forbidden to kill that thief, and the resident of the home who does so is considered a murderer. Midrash, Mechilta, Nezikin 6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD633 Why such a severe punishment for obvious chicanery? The Talmud explains that the concept of a witch, by definition, attributes all actions and successes to a power other than God. Sanhedrin 67b Thus, according to the Torah, witchcraft is of abhorrent to the Jews, for the same reason that idol worship is so objectionable in Judaism: it gives ultimate power in the universe to something other than God.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD645 See [[EXOD172]] Exodus 12:49 one AMJV 352

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD734 Maimonides (sic) (Nachmanides commentary to this verse) reminds us that the Torah forbids Jews to curse a sitting Nasi, or king. Even if the person who holds the title is deplorable and miserable at his job (a moral sinner), this person may still not be cursed due to his current position. Cursing a man is equivalent to cursing the office, and respect for the office must be retained, no matter who has the post. But once the Nasi is removed, no such prohibition exists.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD783 The very first reference to the concept of following a majority opinion in deciding a Jewish law comes from the Torah. This refers to a majority of judges who decide the guilt or innocence of an accused criminal. But the very fact that a minority can speak up and try to convince the majority it has the correct view, shows that Judaism tolerates minority opinions, even in cases that they do not rule that way. This was further demonstrated by how the highest Jewish Court, the Sanhedrin, deliberated capital crimes and other issues that affected the entire Jewish nation. The physical setup of the Sanhedrin was that of a semicircle, which is imitated today by the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. The Talmud states that the younger and less experienced members of the deliberative body would sit on the sides, while the more prominent members sat towards the middle. But when they begin deliberations, the first members who spoke were those that sat on the sides, the newest members, who gave their opinions first. This was the intentional order, so that the less experienced judges would not be influenced or intimidated by the opinion of the veterans. Sanhedrin 32b, 36a Thus, we see that Judaism not only tolerated different views, but actually encouraged and wanted different viewpoints on each subject that was judged.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT