להתחברות

Kivunim Beit-Midrash

פתיחה

Rabbi Akiva

Rabbi Akiva

If you cannot save him without sacrificing yourself – save yourself.

there is no obligation for a person to save another's life at the expense of his own. As it is written:      " Your brother should live with you' " your life comes first.



to the full story

Ben Petura

Ben Petura

"Your brother should live with you"
you cannot abandon your brother: even if both of you  die than that one see his friend's death.




to the full story

sources

תמצית

In Jewish law, there is a biblical obligation to save lives.
The Biblical verse "You may not stand idly by your neighbours blood"
(Leviticus 19:15) is understood by the Talmud to be an obligation to save people from danger (Sanhedrin 73a).

However, it is necessary to define the parameters of this obligation. Does the bystander have to endanger himself to save the victim? Does the bystander have to spend money to save the victim's life?

The Discussion

  • Answer
    Alana Spellman

    While the logic of Rabbi Akiva makes sense that one should take care of oneself and at least let one…

    While the logic of Rabbi Akiva makes sense that one should take care of oneself and at least let one person live, Ben Petura's argument is also clear here. If you use the loving that the Torah states, then one cannot value your own life above your friends. Ben Petura is using this logic because how can you choose your life above someone else's if you have to value both yourself and your friend all the same.2

    (צפיה בדעה במקור)
  • Joshua Silverman

    In defense of Petura's point, I think that there's something very noble in dying alongside another person. The conscious decision… In defense of Petura's point, I think that there's something very noble in dying alongside another person. The conscious decision to have both men drink from the water symbolizes that no life is more important than another. Ultimately, no human should have to/ is fully capable of making the decision of whose existence is more valuable; simply put, it is better for both men to die than to take on the role of God. (צפיה בדעה במקור)
  • Tamar Willis

    Ben Petura would say to Rabbi Akiva that it is not prudent or appropriate to put your life above someone… Ben Petura would say to Rabbi Akiva that it is not prudent or appropriate to put your life above someone else's, and he would probably also say that by not even trying to save the other person's life, you are consciously making the choice to let them die, which is essentially murder. I think he would say that intention plays a huge role and making the effort to try to save both people counts for more than actually saving one of the lives at the expense of the other. (צפיה בדעה במקור)
  • עדינה גוטליב

    Ben Petura's logic comes from the notion that no one life is more valuable nor important than another human being's… Ben Petura's logic comes from the notion that no one life is more valuable nor important than another human being's life. Therefore, one cannot choose between which life to save, and both people should treat each other with mutual respect. In upholding the morality of "ve'ahavta lere'echa camocha," both humans in this situation are acting in a just way; they are treating each other the way they would treat themselves. (צפיה בדעה במקור)
  • Talia Weiner

    Ben Petura's reasoning could be that it is not right for one to play god and decide who should live… Ben Petura's reasoning could be that it is not right for one to play god and decide who should live and who should die. By keeping the water to yourself you are sentencing the other man to death. Ben Peutrah could feel that it is better to instead leave that decision to god and let both men die together. This could be based off of what Rabbi Akiva said, to love your fellow as yourself is 'the great principle of the torah' (צפיה בדעה במקור)
  • Disprove
    Ari Spellman

    Rabbi Akiva's logic makes a lot of sense. Two men are in a dessert, and only one can survive if… Rabbi Akiva's logic makes a lot of sense. Two men are in a dessert, and only one can survive if he drinks the rest. Rabbi Avika assumes that the man possessing the water would drink it, thereby not taking the water from the other man and actively killing him. It is better that one man live rather than both die. However, Rabbi Akiva himself claims that one should love his neighbor as himself. Rabbi Akiva once said that you should not wish unto others that which you would hate. It is assumed, then, that since they both do not want to die, the man with the water should not drink the water and watch his friend die, just as he did not wish would happen to himself. Therefore, it is better that both drink and die instead of one man watching his fellow die.4 (צפיה בדעה במקור)
  • אלכס רויזמן

    I think that the Ben Petura would respond to Rabbi Akiva that you cannot sit idly by and watch as… I think that the Ben Petura would respond to Rabbi Akiva that you cannot sit idly by and watch as your fellow dies. You must share your drink with him even though doing so may lead to both of your deaths. If you were to just drink the drink without sharing as Rabbi Akiva suggests, you would be contributing to your fellow's death, though you are not physically killing him yourself. B (צפיה בדעה במקור)
  • אלכס רויזמן

    I think that the Ben Petura would respond to Rabbi Akiva that you cannot sit idly by and watch as… I think that the Ben Petura would respond to Rabbi Akiva that you cannot sit idly by and watch as your fellow dies. You must share your drink with him even though doing so may lead to both of your deaths. If you were to just drink the drink without sharing as Rabbi Akiva suggests, you would be contributing to your fellow's death, though you are not physically killing him yourself. B (צפיה בדעה במקור)
  • אלכס רויזמן

    I think that the Ben Petura would respond to Rabbi Akiva that you cannot sit idly by and watch as… I think that the Ben Petura would respond to Rabbi Akiva that you cannot sit idly by and watch as your fellow dies. You must share your drink with him even though doing so may lead to both of your deaths. If you were to just drink the drink without sharing as Rabbi Akiva suggests, you would be contributing to your fellow's death, though you are not physically killing him yourself. B (צפיה בדעה במקור)
  • Tamar Willis

    Ben Petura would probably say that it is better for them all to die than to kill one of their… Ben Petura would probably say that it is better for them all to die than to kill one of their own. I also think that rabbi Akiva would say that it is okay to kill someone to save your own life here, because as I said earlier, pikuach nefesh trumps veahavta learecha kamocha. (צפיה בדעה במקור)
  • Alana Spellman

    The case of "Kanibalizm" relates to the mahloket between Rabbi Akiva and Ben Petura because in this clip, there are four… The case of "Kanibalizm" relates to the mahloket between Rabbi Akiva and Ben Petura because in this clip, there are four people lost at sea, and if they do not have something to eat, they will all die. So, they choose to eat one person, who tastes yummy of course. This supports the argument of Rabbi Akiva. However, Ben Petura's argument is also present in this case because when they return to land, the men are charged with murder. If a man eats another man, or if a person drinks all the water for himself, there is a guilt that the person must live with. (צפיה בדעה במקור)

מקורות עיקריים