DEUT856 See [[LEV770]] Leviticus 19:32 aged TELVOL2 402

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT944 The Talmud teaches: "From where do we know that if someone pursues another [that is, an innocent person] to kill him that the pursued should be saved at the cost of the pursuer's life? The Bible teaches, 'Do not stand idly by while your brother's blood is shed'" (Sanhedrin 73a). In other words, if we have great strength, fighting ability, or possess a weapon, we should use it to save an endangered person's life even if it means killing the pursuer. [When a person sees a pursuer pursuing a colleague to kill him… and he has the potential to save the pursued from the pursuer and does not do so... such a person violates two negative commandments, 'You must show him [in this case, the pursuer] no pity' [this verse], and 'Do not stand by while your brother's blood is shed'" (Maimonides," Laws of Murder and Preservation of Life" 1:15). If the threat can be averted by injuring the assailant in the leg or arm, we should do so. Jewish law regards it as murder if one intentionally kills the assailants (See Sanhedrin 74a and Maimonides, "Laws of Murder and Preservation of Life" 1:13). However, if the pursuer seems intent on killing or seriously hurting his victim, then you should stop the attacker by any means necessary, including killing. Your goal should be to use the minimum force necessary to prevent a criminal act. However, when the pursuer's intent cannot be ascertained, the primary goal, according to Jewish law, it is to protect the pursued (see Sefer HaChinnuch, commandment 600). ... Similarly, when police confront an assailant who has a weapon and is threatening them, they should try to preserve his life by disabling him. But they are not required to put their own lives at risk. In the words of an ancient biblical expression, damo b'rosho ("his blood is on his head"; see, for example, Joshua 2:19 and Ezekiel 33:4).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1002 See [[LEV259]] Leviticus 18:24 those TELVOL2 265-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1029 While Jewish laws overwhelmingly mandate sensitive treatment of animals, there are a few laws that fall into the category of what Rabbi Natan Slifkin terms "commandments of insensitivity to animals." Generally, these laws permit brutal treatment of animals in order to convey spiritual lessons to human beings. For example, the Torah rules that when the body of a homicide victim is found in the open country and the identity of the killer is unknown, the elders of the town nearest to the corpse are obliged to take a heifer to an overflowing wadi, and break its neck. After doing so, they make a declaration: "Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done" (Deuteronomy 21:1-9). In this case, the heifer was sacrificed as a form of atonement, to underscore that the elders, although not guilty of murder, bore a certain measure of responsibility for not maintaining a safe environment in their city and its environs. Rabbi Slifkin asks: "How can the same Torah that contains so many commandments teaching us sensitivity to animals, also contain commandments that involve such brutality? The answer is that that this is the whole point. These procedures are supposed to be horrific in order to have the desired effect upon the people performing them. When a murder takes place and justice cannot be performed, then the calf having its neck brutally axed impresses upon the elders of the city that they were negligent in their leadership. The…slaughter of animal sacrifices impresses upon us that we may be worthy of such a fate if we do not improve our ways.… these brutal rituals are the exceptions that prove the rule--that the Torah, in general, commands us to treat animals with great sensitivity." Slifkin, Man and Beast, 150. Do I find this explanation fully satisfying? No. Perhaps no explanation is adequate. But what is important to emphasize is that part of reason these laws disturb us is because the Bible itself has sensitized us to high standards of respect for animal life. In large measure, it is only because of the biblical laws commanding us to let our animals rest on the Sabbath, not muzzle an animal working for us, and not slaughter an animal and its young on the same day (laws that are still observed, which is not the case, for example, with the law concerning the breaking of the heifer's neck) that the idea took root in the Western world that animals should be treated with compassion; that is why these laws bother us. But, as Princeton philosopher Walter Kaufmann wrote about the bloody wars waged by Joshua against the ancient Canaanites, "to find the [distinctive] spirit of the religion of the Old Testament in Joshua is like finding the distinctive genius of America in the men who slaughtered the Indians." (Kaufmann, Faith of a Heretic, 193, 260-1).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1056 See [[DEUT574]] Deuteronomy 12:20 meat TELVOL2 332-3

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1081 K'vod ha'meit [the honor due to the dead] also dictates that burial occur as quickly as possible, ideally within a day of the death. To leave a body unburied and exposed for longer than that is regarded as an affront both to God (in whose image human beings are created) and to the dignity of the deceased. This ruling is based on the biblical law that even a person executed because of a capital offence must be buried on the day of his death [this verse]. If the Torah regards it as an affront to leave the body of a person who committed a capital crime unburied, how much more so, Jewish law reasons, should one not allow the body of a regular person to remain unburied. … although burial within a day (or at least on the day following death; a person might die at 8 a.m. and the funeral take place the following morning at eleven) is generally adhered to, Jewish law permits a delay in certain circumstances, these also dictated by k'vod ha-meit. The most common reason is to allow for the arrival of close relatives coming from a distance. Since it is assumed that the dead person would have wanted these people present, delaying the funeral in effect honors his or her wishes. Such a situation happens, for example, when relatives must fly in from another country. [The reason, though, has to be substantial. David Zinner notes that families will sometimes ask to delay a funeral for inappropriate reasons, such as to allow a grandchild time to finish a research paper for school.] There are other reasons for delaying a funeral. For example, funerals are not generally conducted on mid-to-late Friday afternoons, since this can lead to extreme time pressure or even to desecration of the Sabbath. Therefore, if somebody dies on Friday, the funeral usually takes place on Sunday.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1107 It should be noted that in the idolatrous societies in which Jews lived during the time of the Bible and the Talmud, non-Jews were not required to return lost objects to Jews. Even so, the Talmud records the view of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair that "in a place where a desecration of God's name might result [which would probably be the case if the idolater knew that a Jew had found his possession] it is forbidden to keep a lost article" (Bava Kamma 113b). Such views influenced later codifiers of Jewish law. Although ruling that Jews should keep lost objects of idolaters, Maimonides also teaches that a Jew who returns a lost object so as to sanctify God's name is to be praised ("Laws of Robbery and Lost Objects" 11:3). For centuries after Maimonides, Rabbi Moshe Rivkes (seventeenth century), author of the previously cited Be'er HaGolah commentary on the Shulchan Arukh, taught that Rav's permission to keep a Gentile's lost object was no longer applicable: "Rav made this remark with reference to actual idolaters ... but not to non-Jews today who accept the Creator and whose moral code includes returning lost property" (see his commentary to Choshen Mishpat 266:1). In the early twentieth century, Rabbi Baruch Ha-Levi Epstein (1860 – 1941), author of the classic work Torah Temimah, wrote that since contemporary non-Jews observe the "Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah" (see page 405n), then," without any doubt the law [regarding how to act towards them in monetary and other matters of justice] is identical in all respects to that which applies to a Jew" (commentary on [this verse], note 22).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1129 Although Jewish law permits eating animals and birds, the Torah specifically forbids taking away fledglings or eggs in the presence of the mother bird [this and next verse]. This is one of only three laws--along with honoring one's parents (Exodus 20:12), and acting honestly in business (Deuteronomy 25:15)--for which the Torah promises long life. Maimonides (The Guide for the Perplexed 3:48) notes that the "pain of the animals under such circumstances is very great" (one would hope that most people would simply forgo taking either the eggs or the young birds).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1149 It is forbidden to put it another person's life or well-being needlessly at risk. Thus, we may not keep a vicious dog or an unstable ladder in our home. If we do and they cause injury, guilt rests on our head (Ketubot 41b). Therefore, if we possess a broken or hazardous object, we should fix it or get rid of it. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair would not enter Rabbi Judah's home : "The Angel of Death is in this man's house, and I should accept his hospitality?" (Chullin 7b). Today, such an attitude should prompt us to avoid attending parties at which drinking a great deal of liquor (or using prohibited drugs, which is, of course, also illegal) is encouraged, so that departing guests are at risk of being killed, or killing others, in driving accidents.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1170 Several Biblical laws deal with the treatment of animals for agricultural work [This verse] prohibits plowing one's field with an ox and a donkey harnessed together. Being of unequal size and strength, both animals, particularly the weaker one, will suffer; the donkey will experience strain, and the ox frustration. By implication, although the Torah speaks only of a donkey and ox, one should not yoke together any animals of significantly equal unequal strength.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT