Q&A: Provoking a Murderer: Is Someone Who Does Not Save Considered to Be "Standing Idly By Your Neighbor’s Blood"?
Provoking a Murderer: Is Someone Who Does Not Save Considered to Be "Standing Idly By Your Neighbor’s Blood"?
Question
"Do not stand idly by your neighbor’s blood," and therefore one is obligated to save a person being pursued.
Maimonides, in chapter 1 of the laws of Murder and Preservation of Life, writes that the mother is saved even at the cost of the fetus’s life, because it is a pursuer. However, if its head has emerged, then not. Why? Because that is the way of the world. [And he did not say, as the Talmud says, that "from Heaven they are pursuing her"—or is that how he explained "from Heaven they are pursuing her"?]
Is the exemption from saving only in a case of the biological way of the world? Or also in the behavioral way of the world? That is, if someone provokes a group of armed, hotheaded murderers, and they pull out their weapons, cock them, and aim them—does someone who does not frighten them off [and is not putting himself at risk] count as standing idly by his neighbor’s blood? Or perhaps this too is the way of the world—that one who provokes them will end up being killed—and there is no need to intervene in the way of the world?
And similarly, if a nation does foolish things and brings destruction upon itself in all kinds of ways such that it is natural that it would be wiped out, is someone who stands by [they did, do, and will do this to themselves in their stupidity] included in the category of standing idly by your neighbor’s blood?
And one who sees an animal dragging someone away to kill him and does not save him is considered to be standing idly by his neighbor’s blood—why don’t we say that we do not intervene because this is the way of the world?
Or in a place where strict justice dictates that someone should be punished for his actions, but another person is able to persuade the judge [not through a legal argument, and not in court, not something that would stand up under ordinary legal scrutiny, but through personal friendship with the judge and a general statement like: I know the situation there personally and it is more complicated, etc.—and because the judge values his friend/neighbor, he is inclined to be lenient, since the judge assumes that perhaps he knows something that I, the judge, cannot see or understand]—if someone avoids doing this, is he at all in the category of standing idly by your neighbor’s blood? Or is he neglecting the return of a lost object?
I feel that I’m missing clarity on this topic.
I would be glad if the Rabbi could straighten out the mess.
Answer
I did not understand the question. If someone is in danger, he should be saved. Why should I care whether the murderer is acting naturally or not? If someone angers another person, he gets heated up and might murder. So because of that he is not a pursuer?
I also did not understand the question about the judge. What does it mean to persuade him? To lie? To manipulate him? If the defendant is liable for death, then he is liable for death. Why would one save him through various pretexts?
Discussion on Answer
As in every case where the pursuer threatens someone, the law of a pursuer applies, and one may kill him in order to save the one being pursued. Only in a case where the pursuer did not pursue but merely found himself in that situation. If someone angers another person, he still must restrain himself and not murder. After all, in a religious court he would be liable to punishment if he did so, meaning this is not a natural compulsion and not compulsion at all.
As for the judge, I asked what it means to influence the judge. Is it a valid argument or not? If you have a valid argument, you should make it. If it is not valid, then it is forbidden (unless it is clear to you that it will not influence the judge, but then there is no point).
Forgive me, but I do not understand this whole strange discussion. It sounds to me like mere hair-splitting.
Since once its head has emerged we do not say it has the status of a pursuer, but rather that this is the way of the world, we see that we do take the circumstances into account and do not automatically say: this one is a pursuer, that one is being pursued, let’s save him.
Maybe the same can be said of someone who creates an almost natural situation in which he will be killed—that this too is the way of the world?
Regarding the judge: the defendant brought this trouble upon himself, and a kind of natural (and justified) reaction is that he will get it from the judge.
And there is a possibility of influencing the judge (without lying) in the direction of judging him favorably.
(The judge is open to other opinions, certainly from people he respects…)
Is one obligated to approach the judge and promote judging him favorably, or perhaps since there is a natural situation that the defendant brought upon himself, I am allowed to sit on the side and I will not be considered to be standing idly by his blood?