LEV474 [Many] sources point to the legitimacy of self-defense in Jewish thought and affirm the general concept of "if someone comes to slay you, you should slay him first" (Sanhedrin 72a). The concept of self-defense is extended even further in Judaism. Not only is a threatened person permitted to "take the law into his own hands" and kill the intruder or person threatening his life, but onlookers are also given permission to do the same, especially when the threatened person is unable to do it himself. Jewish law not only allows an onlooker to kill the attacker but commands the onlooker to take action (Sanhedrin 73a), based on [this] verse that a person may not stand by while his brother's blood is being spilled. Therefore, it is clear that the person whose life is threatened with attack must be protected, either by the person himself or by anyone who is in a position to prevent the loss of life.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV479 If a senile parent, living in his or her own home or in a child's home, tends to wander outside in the streets alone and get lost easily, what is a child to do? Similarly, if the senile individual begins to light or cause fires in the kitchen, how should a child or other relative react? The answer is found in another important concept in Judaism, the concept of relating to danger. It is a biblical mitzvah (Deuteronomy 4:9 and 4:15) to protect oneself from any possible danger. Therefore, a person is not permitted to risk his or her life or the life of anyone else with a likely or even a potential fire in the house. Similarly, one is not permitted by standing by and doing nothing to allow someone else to risk his or her life by wandering the neighborhood or lighting fires, especially someone who has no understanding [this verse]. Therefore, it is clear that when there is potential danger to the household, any responsible person cannot permit the situation to continue. The senile person must be removed from the house and put in the place or situation where the risk of danger has been eliminated. When it comes to danger or even potential danger, Judaism is very strict, and, therefore, the Talmud says (Chullin 10a) that a situation of danger is more strict than Jewish law itself. Therefore, a Jew must be especially careful in removing or eliminating any possible dangerous situation.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV486 The political systems in today's societies are most usually described in terms of the rights of every individual vis-à-vis the other individuals in the society, as well as the individual's rights vis-à-vis the government. Judaism, on the other hand, in addition to rights, also discusses the obligations of the individual to other individuals in this society and the obligations of the individual to the government. ... Regrettable as it might be, there is no law by which someone who stands by and does nothing can be prosecuted when he or she witnesses a crime or an injustice. But Jewish law and Judaism take an entirely different view. A Jew has legal responsibility to help someone in trouble, and it is a Torah violation if he or she stands by and does nothing. The Bible clearly states that one shall not stand idly while his brother's blood is being shed [this verse]. One may not allow a person to drown if one has the ability to save the person drowning. ... Even [a] non-swimming onlooker would be obligated to call someone to help. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 73a) discusses the entire issue, based on [this] Biblical verse, and concludes that it is an obligation to help someone in any kind of trouble, even to the point of preventing his death by killing the potential killer. Maimonides has codified this obligation (Hilchot Rotze'ach 1:15) ... According to the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 426:1), even a person who withholds information that could help someone else violates Jewish law. ... A person may not even pass by a lost object and refuse to pick it up. Judaism obligates the Jew to pick up the object and try to return it to its owner (see chapter "Returning Lost Objects") (Deuteronomy 22:1-3).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV480 In survey after survey, individuals are asked if he or she is "a good person," and more than ninety-five percent of the respondents respond that they think of themselves as basically good. Even though they may regularly lie and not help others in need, they still believe they are good. How is that possible? This phenomenon occurs because most people tend to believe that as long as they do not do anything truly evil and do not commit a major crime, they are good. Does that concur with the Jewish definition of goodness? King David outlines the formula for Jewish goodness, saying that it is a two-step process. First a person has to reject and desist for doing all evil actions, but that is not enough. After rejecting evil, the person must actively do moral acts and help others. Only then is that individual considered to be a good person (Psalms 34:13,15). This is also reflected in the Mishna, which says that if the person does nothing to help or hurt others ("What is mine is mine, what is yours is yours"), at most he is considered a mediocre person, but certainly not a good person (Mishna Avot 5:10). Another opinion equates this person with the evil values of Sodom. Thus, doing no evil is certainly not enough to be considered good in Judaism. In actuality, doing nothing is more than just being "neutral" in Jewish thought. In the twentieth century, Edmund Burke stated that, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that a few good men do nothing." But long before Burke, the Torah and Jewish law considered it a sin to do nothing when anyone in need can be helped (this verse; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 426:1). In fact, Judaism is the only legal system in the world in which a person can be punished and it is considered a crime if he or she does nothing when in a situation to stop evil actions. Thus, from the Jewish perspective, not being a bad person does not render an individual a good human being.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV481 In the United States, there are laws directing a person's reaction to the sexual abuse of a child. Every state has a law mandating "professionals"--including doctors, nurses, therapists, welfare personnel, and teachers--to report such abuse, but only in three states is failure to report considered a felony. In thirty-nine states, not reporting the sexual abuse of children is only a misdemeanor. Eighteen states have a law requiring non-professionals to report such an act, with no specification for those failing to report. In contradistinction, the attitude and ruling about this crime in Judaism is very definitive. Not acting and/or not reporting is a clear sin, and reporting the molestation of a child fulfills one of the 613 Commandments in the Torah, as Judaism forbids any person, not only professionals, from standing by and doing nothing [this verse]. Maimonides records this law with specific examples, including any sexual acts against a person's will (Maimonides, Hilchot Rotze'ach 1:15). In addition to reporting, a Jew's first obligation is to prevent an imminent act from occurring, or stopping an act that he or she witnesses. The Code of Jewish Law goes one step further and even requires a Jew to hire others to stop the act if the witness cannot do it by himself (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 426:1). This applies to any situation in which one person is harming another person, but certainly when the victim is a defenseless child.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV482 It is a negative commandment not to refrain from rescuing one's fellow-man from danger for Scripture says, neither shall you stand idly by the blood of your brother [this verse]. For example, if someone sees another person drowning in the river, or in any other perils, he is duty-bound to save him in any way possible. Included in this is the duty to save one's fellow-man from a monetary loss: for example, if he knows that a heathen or a bandit wishes to attack his fellow, and it lies in his ability to pacify him [the outlaw], he has a duty to pacify him.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV478 God's ownership of our bodies is also behind every Jew's obligation to help other people escape sickness, injury, and death. (Leviticus 19:16). This duty does not rest on some general (and vague) humanitarian reason or on anticipated reciprocity; it rather grows out of our role in helping God preserve what is His. Specialized training makes physicians especially able and, therefore, especially obligated to aid people in overcoming illness (S.A. Yoreh De'ah 336:1), but we all share in that duty. On the basis of (this verse, "Nor shall you stand idly by the blood of your fellow"), the Talmud proclaims that obligation to provide medical aid encompasses expenditure of the community's financial resources for this purpose. And Nahmanides understood the community's obligation to provide medical care as one of many applications of the Torah's principle "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18). Conversely, the individual Jew, when ill, has the reciprocal obligation to seek medical care.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV484 See [[LEV39]] Leviticus 5:1 testify DORFFLOV 181-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV488 Witnesses to the Act or Results of Abuse. As I mentioned earlier, the Talmud interprets the Torah's command not to stand idly by the blood of our neighbor [this verse] to mean that we must take positive steps to save people's lives. Furthermore, the Torah's command to come forward with testimony (Leviticus 5:1-6) would make it seem obvious that Jews who witness abuse or its results must testify to it and help people extricate themselves from it. The following four commands within Judaism, though, are sometimes misinterpreted to prevent witnesses to abuse from testifying to government officials or to others in authority about an abusive situation: • The prohibition against defaming another human being (lashon ha-ra) • The prohibition against shaming someone else (boshet) • The prohibition against handing a Jew over to non-Jewish authorities (mesirah) • The prohibition against desecrating God (hillul ha-Shem). In addition, in the specific case of child abuse, some Jews worry that informing the authorities will violate the prerogatives of parents and make it impossible for them to carry out their biblical duties to educate their children. I shall examine each of these concerns in turn.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV485 The claim to privacy is set aside when it is necessary to protect an individual, family, or group. So for example the Torah imposes a duty to testify in court when one knows relevant facts, even though they may be incriminating. (Leviticus 5:1. see also B. Bava Kamma 56a; Tucker (1984), 105; and Cohen (1949), 307. This may be parallel to the U.S. Supreme Court's concept, quoted earlier, of rights having effect only within a context of "ordered liberty.") In private settings as well, Jewish law insists on breaking confidentiality when keeping the secret would harm someone. This is based, in part, on the balance that the tradition strikes between the Torah's command, "Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (this verse) with its prohibition of lashon ha-ra, "speaking of the bad " or "evil speech." Under the first law, we have a positive duty to come to the rescue of another person's life or property, and that would argue for divulging whatever is necessary to accomplish those aims. Under the second law, though, one may not slander someone else –– that is, tell truths about someone that will cast a negative light on that person. That would apparently argue for never saying anything negative about anyone else. The tradition balances these two rules by limiting the latter rule. Specifically, the prohibition of defamation is not violated, according to the Rabbis, when there is a practical need for the hearer to know the negative truth. So, for example, under the Torah's rule, "Reprove your kinsman," [Leviticus 19:17], later Jewish sources specify that leaders' sins should be revealed when that is necessary to dissuade people from following their example in committing those sins.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT