GEN676 [This verse] relates [the] legal principle [for pouring the blood out on the ground] to Noah and his sons; intrinsically, it seems as if the laws respecting life-blood were intended to hold for all humanity. (By Seth M. Limmer, "On Kashrut")  SACTAB 93 ft. 17

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN677 Although human beings were now permitted to eat meat, they were still forbidden to consume blood, either by itself or with animal meat. [Few, if any, biblical laws are repeated as often as this one.  First enunciated in [this verse], the prohibition is reiterated in Leviticus 3:17, 7:26-27; 17:10-12, 14, 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23; 15:23.  Professor Jacob Milgrom [“The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System,” Interpretation, July 1963] has noted that “none of Israel’s neighbors possessed this absolute and universally binding blood prohibition.  Perhaps at the very moment the Bible was granting man the right to kill animals for food, it wished to ensure that this permission would not lead to widespread bloodletting and savagery.  Indeed, based on this commandment, the laws regarding kosher slaughter ordain that after an animal is slaughtered, its blood must be fully drained.  What eventually became a Jewish obsession with not eating any blood (for example, salting the meat so that every drop of blood is removed) helped to produce, I believe, a general Jewish abhorrence of blood-shed. Thus, Jews have committed fewer violent crimes than their non-Jewish neighbors in every society with which we are familiar.  TELVOL 2:331-332

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN684 In some instances the Pentateuch prescribes the death sentence for animals. Thus we read: “If an ox gore a man or a woman that they die, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten.” Exodus 21:28  This, of course, should not be interpreted as retribution or punishment, but as the removal of a man-killer so as to prevent a recurrence of the tragedy. Indeed, rabbinic interpretation held that the animal could be executed only where it could be shown before a duly constituted court that the animal had killed intentionally. Sanhedrin 1:4, Baba Kamma 24a; see also Ramban on this verse. Thus Judaism insisted that animals be treated with justice as well as with compassion. SPERO 156

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN687 See [[LEV1075]] Leviticus 25:38 live HURWITZ 70 ft. 6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN685 Jewish teaching with regard to [prolongation of the life of the terminally ill] is shaped by the principle not only that human life in general is of infinite and inestimable value, but that every moment of life is of infinite value as well.  Accordingly, obligations with regard to treatment and cure are one and the same regardless of whether the patient’s life is likely to be prolonged for a matter of years or merely for a few seconds. Thus, on the Sabbath, no less than on a weekday, efforts to free a victim buried under a collapsed building must be continued even if the victim is found in circumstances such that survival for longer than a brief time is impossible. See Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 329:4 Life with suffering is regarded, in many cases, as preferable to cessation of life and with it the elimination of suffering.  The Gemara in Sotah 22a, followed by Rambam, Hilkhot Sotah 3:20, indicates that the woman required to drink “the bitter waters” (Numbers 6:11 – 31) did not always die immediately. If she was guilty of the offense with which she was charged but had some other merit, the waters did not cause her to perish immediately, but instead produced a debilitating and degenerative state which led to a protracted termination of life. The added longevity, although accompanied by pain and suffering, is deemed a privilege bestowed in recognition of meritorious actions. Life accompanied by pain is thus viewed as preferable to death.  See also Tosefot Yom Tov, Sotah 1:9.  This sentiment is reflected in the words of the Psalmist, “The Lord has indeed chastised me, but He has not left me to die” (Psalms 118:18). The practice of euthanasia, whether active or passive, is contrary to the teachings of Judaism. Any positive act designed to hasten the death of the patient is equated with murder in Jewish law, even if death is hastened by only a matter of moments. No matter how laudable the intentions of the person performing an act of mercy killing maybe, the deed constitutes an act of homicide. One nineteenth-century commentator finds this principle reflected in [this verse].  Fratricide is certainly no less heinous a crime than ordinary homicide. Why then, having already prohibited homicide, is it necessary for Scripture to prohibit fratricide as well? R. Jacob Zevi Mecklenburg, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, Ha-Ketav ve-ha-Kabbalah, astutely comments that, while murder is the antithesis of brotherly love, in some circumstances the taking of the life of one’s fellow man may be perceived as an act of love par excellence.  Euthanasia, designed to put an end to unbearable suffering, is born not of hatred or anger, but of concern and compassion. It is precisely the taking of life and circumstances in which it is manifestly obvious that the perpetrator is motivated by feelings of love and brotherly compassion that the Torah finds necessary to brand as murder pure and simple.  Despite the noble intent that prompts such action, mercy killing is proscribed as an unwarranted intervention in an area which must be governed by God alone. The life of man may be reclaimed only by the Author of life. So long as man is yet endowed with the spark of life, as defined by God’s eternal law, man dare not presume to hasten death, no matter how hopeless or meaningless continued existence may appear to be in the eyes of a mortal. Hurwitz 58-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN686 Judaism regards human life as of infinite and inestimable value. The quality of the life that is preserved is thus never a factor to be taken into consideration. Nor is the length of the patient’s life expectancy a controlling factor. Since Judaism regards every moment of life as sacred, the patient is obliged to seek treatment, and religious laws are suspended for the sake of such treatment even if there is no medical guarantee of a cure. Similarly, the physician’s duty does not end when it is no longer possible to restore the lost health of the patient. The obligation “and you shall restore it to him” Deuteronomy 22:2 refers, in its medical context, not simply to the restoration of health, but to the restoration of even a single moment of life. Again, Sabbath restrictions and other laws are suspended even when it is known with certainty that human medicine offers no hope of a cure or restoration to health. Ritual obligations and restrictions are suspended so long as there is the possibility that life may be prolonged even for a matter of moments.  Hurwitz 62-3

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN688 This [this verse’s] earliest and most detailed Biblical prohibition against homicide contains one phrase which is an apparent redundancy. Since the phrase “from the hand of man” pronounces man culpable for the murder of his fellow-man, to what point is it necessary for Scripture to reiterate “from the hand of a person’s’ brother will I require the life of man?” Fratricide is certainly no less heinous a crime than ordinary homicide.  R. Jacob Zevi Mecklenburg, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, Ha-Ketav ve-ha-Kabbalah, astutely comments that while murder is the antithesis of brotherly love, in some circumstances the taking of the life of one’s fellow man may be perceived as indeed being an act of love par excellence. Euthanasia, designed to put an end to unbearable suffering, is born not of hatred or anger, but of concern and compassion. It is precisely the taking of life even under circumstances in which it is manifestly obvious that the perpetrator is motivated by feelings of love and brotherly compassion which the Torah finds necessary to brand as murder, pure and simple. Despite the noble intent which prompts such an action, mercy killing is proscribed as an unwarranted intervention in an area which must be governed only by God Himself. The life of man may be reclaimed only by the Author of life. As long as man is yet endowed with a spark of life – as defined by God’s eternal Law – man dare not presume to hasten death, no matter how hopeless or meaningless continued existence may appear to be in the eyes of a mortal perceiver. ROSNER 303

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN689 … is [] it Halachically prohibited for one people to wage war against another people[?] The prohibition against murder is one of the seven Noachide laws; and Jews are obligated to coerce all of mankind to accept these laws if they have the power to do so. The Chasam Sofer … maintains that because of this prohibition against murder, it is not permitted for one nation to wage war against another. However, many authorities disagree with this position. Rav Yehuda Loewe of Prague, the Maharal, in his supercommentary to Rashi, considers the question of why Shimon and Levi annihilated the males of the city of Shechem when only Shechem ben Chamor had sinned (The translation is approximate): The above question is not difficult to answer since they (i.e., Israel and the people of Shechem) are two nations, as it is written: “And we shall be as one nation.” The implication is that until then they were not considered one nation. They were, therefore, permitted to make war, as the Torah permits one nation to battle with another. And although the Torah states, “When you will approach a city to make war against her, first call to her to make peace,” this is so only where they had not done anything against Israel. But, where they had, as in this case, committed a crime even though only one individual of them had done so – since he is of this nation and has instigated the action, it is permitted to take revenge. The same is true of all wars. Similarly, in the war against the Midianites, although there were many that had not sinned against Israel this was immaterial. Since they were of the nation that had harmed them, they were permitted to wage war against them. The same applies to all wars. Rav Naftoli Zvi Yehuda Berlin of Volozhin, the “N’tziv” in his classical commentary on Torah, states concerning the verse which prohibits murder [this verse] that the phrase “From the hand of man against his brother” connotes that “in the midst of war, when it is time to hate, it is permissible to kill.” This idea might be employed in exoneration of Lieutenant Calley and his men – although one can hardly nominate them for an award for exceptional humanitarian behavior [the reference is to the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war -- AJL] – for even a King of Israel is permitted to wage an optional war (Milchemess Hor’shus) although may Jews will be killed. The “N’tziv” also permits one to volunteer for active duty during wartime although he endangers his life in doing so. One of the seven Noachide commandments is known as Dinim, “Laws,” the Rambam, in his mishnah Torah, defines this as the obligation of a gentile to enforce the Noachide Laws, stating that a gentile who fails to mete out capital punishment to one who transgresses any of the seven Noachide Laws is himself liable to such punishment. The action of Shimon and Levi against the city of Shechem was justified in that the men of that city, by not punishing Shechem ben Chamor for abducting Dinah, were guilty of transgressing the law of Dinim. The Rambam, although agreeing that gentiles are required to enforce these laws, maintains that failure to do so is not grounds for capital punishment. BUILD 49-51

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN690 Maimonides (12th-cent.) addressed a warning to those who allege that their state of health should be of no concern to other people.  “There are many things which the rabbis have prohibited because they endanger human life. He who says: ‘I am only endangering myself, and no others have a right to interfere,’ the rabbis may administer to them disciplinary flogging” Hilchot Rotzeach 11:5  Man has a right to put himself to shame, if he is indifferent to public opinion, but no one may lawfully injure himself Baba Kama 91b It is also prohibited to curse oneself (curses may be self-fulfilling) Shavuot 35a  No man may degrade himself by eating things which are universally deemed nauseating and repugnant. The biblical source of this prohibition is … Leviticus 11:43: “You shall not make yourself detestable with swarming things that swarm.” The rabbis interpreted this prohibition to include the eating the food contaminated with dirt, the eating of food with slimy hands, and the drinking of fluids from vessels which were used previously as urinals. Maimonides, Maachalot Asurot 17:29. Self-degradation insults the body, which was made in the image of God. Suicide is a transgression which by its very nature can never be atoned for. The biblical verse “But for your own life-blood I will require [an accounting]” [This verse] was interpreted by Rabbi Elazar (2nd cent.) as meaning: “I will require your blood if shed by your own hands” Baba Kama 91b. Judaism denies all religious burial rights to people who commit suicide. There is no doubt that these stringent sanctions kept the number of suicides low, despite the tragic conditions under which Jews were forced to live in the Diaspora. When forcible apostasies became common occurrences during and after the era of the Crusades, many Jews sought an escape in martyrdom. Those who committed suicide were accorded full honors by the medieval rabbis, and their deaths regarded as a “sanctification of the name of God.” Tosofot, veal, Avodah Zarah 18a. BLOCH 242-3

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN691 … abortion is one issue on which we find the roots of a genuine Judeo-Christian consensus, an outlook that led to critiques of both religions by ancient pagan authors.  Among the rabbis, the Noahidic law against bloodshed was traditionally interpreted as forbidding abortion.  A fortiori, it was argued, should abortion be restricted for Jews, lest the Torah seem more lax than the general laws of civilized humanity B. Sanhedrin 58b, citing [this verse]; and Tosafot ad 59a, s.v. leika). R. Bacharach urged that a common Judeo-Christian morality should inform halakhic decisions in such areas as this, and David Novak argues today that the common moral commitment to humane and humanizing norms that is exemplified in a shared repugnance for abortion offers a valid staring place in common concerns for the ongoing dialogue among Christians and Jews.  JHRHV 94

SHOW FULL EXCERPT