Law and Morals – Rights

Hello Nir. From the wording of your first sentences I understand that you have read my words on this subject. There I also explained your questions. Or maybe you just heard or read in a secondary source. So first read here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%98%D7%95% D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%98%D7% 95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%96%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%A2/ The obligation to help another person when they are about to drown is not the other person's right, but rather an obligation on you. Incidentally, both halachically, legally, and morally. An exception to this is the Rashba in his reply, who writes that what is permissible for a person to save himself with his friend's money is only because the friend is obligated to save him, and there is no theft here. This means that the friend's obligation is by virtue of my right (because the other person's debts do not justify my taking them on. A poor person cannot take money from me because I am obligated to give him charity. The obligation to give charity is not by virtue of the poor person's right, but is an obligation on me). Rashi in BK 60b truly writes that it is forbidden to steal even if you pay with your life (unless the owner of the money agrees or you estimate that he agrees). But most of the Rishonim disagree with him on this. And he estimated this in the responsa Nein Zion (Teshuvah Kepu-Katsav, approx.). A legislator has no legal obligations, because he establishes the law. Only after the law is created does a legal obligation arise. The state has a moral obligation to care for the disabled, which it translated (voluntarily) into a legal obligation. Now it has a legal obligation. But as long as it is not legislated, there is no legal obligation (only a moral one), and the disabled have no rights either.