Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:
Case
Mr. Polsky was walking on the street and saw a friend of his being mugged. He knew of a Jewish law that states that one must save someone who is in danger. But he thought that by trying to save this person’s life, he might be putting his own life in danger.
Answer
The questions are: should a person help a friend who is being attacked? And does the potential danger outweigh the duty, if there is one, to help that friend?
[a] It certainly is a mitzvah to save a person in danger of dying, as it says, “You shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:16 and Sanhedrin 73a).
[b] But there is also a mitzvah to preserve one’s own life, as it says “And you shall live by them (The Commandments)” (Leviticus 18:5). The Talmud expands on this and explains “You shall live by them (the mitzvot) and not die by them” (Sanhedrin 74a). Therefore, one may not sacrifice one’s life to save someone else.
The real dilemma comes into play, then, when there is definite danger to someone else and only possible danger to you. Is the obligation to save the person or to keep yourself out of harm’s way?
[c] The proofs from the stories in the Bible are inconclusive. On the one hand, in the Book of Exodus, the midwives put themselves in possible danger to save Jewish babies in definitive danger (Exodus 1:16-17) when Pharaoh decrees that Jewish babies should be killed. Similarly, Esther puts herself in possible danger to save the Jewish people from definite danger (Esther 4:8-5:1).
[d] On the other hand, God specifically tells Moses to wait until he is out of danger before returning to Egypt to save the Jewish people, who are in definite danger: “God said to Moses, ‘Go, return to Egypt, all the people who demand your life have died’” (Exodus 4:19).
[e] The Hagahot Maymaniyot, quoted by the Beth Yosef commentary on the Tur, a Jewish Law code (Choshen Mishpat 426) quotes the Jerusalem Talmud which says that in every case a person must try to save a person in danger because his danger is only a possibility while the danger of the person in distress is definite.
[f] However, the Beit Yosef is also the author of the Code of Jewish Law, the Shulchan Aruch, and never codifies this statement as a law which must be followed. Thus, he rejects this opinion, as does Mishnah Berurah (Orach Hayyim 329), and says that one may not put him/herself in possible danger to save someone in definite danger.
[g] Based on the above, Rabbi David Ben Zimrah (Egypt, 16th century) concludes that if there is definite danger, one may not even try to save someone. If it is possible danger, one may try if one wishes, but is not obligated. If there is no danger, then one is obligated to save a person in danger. Our only problem now is defining definite, possible, and no danger. Even if a lifeguard is fully trained and experienced, there always is some danger in trying to save a drowning person. Does this Halacha imply that the lifeguard should never try to save someone else? It has been concluded that if the odds of putting oneself in danger are 1 in 10, then this is called a definite danger, and one may not even attempt the rescue. If the odds are 1 in 100, then this is considered possible danger and one may try to save the person, but need not do so. Less than 1 in 1000 odds, are not even called possible danger, and one would be obligated to save a person in danger.
Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 28-30
Used with permission from Joel Grishaver
