[Avodah] Hypocrisy in halakhah

[Zev Sero]

kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> We owe them only the basic duty that every person owes
>> every other: not to harm them, not to steal from them,
>> not to defraud them.  But we have no positive obligation
>> to help them in any way; we do have such a duty to our
>> brothers, precisely because they are our brothers.
> 
> So, theoretically, if we see someone in a sakanah on Shabbos, doing a
> melacha to rescue him is *not* among the basic duties which we owe to
> people in general, but is only something which we'd do for a brother.

Not just on Shabbos.  At no time do people have a positive duty to
rescue each other -- that's why the pasuk says "lo taamod al dam *re`echa*.
A non-rea` has no claim on one, that would compel one to rescue him.
This is also reflected in the common law, which does not recognise any
duty to rescue a person in danger, unless one is in some way responsible
for that person, or for his danger.



> In practice, of course, we *would* rescue even a non-brother, but only
> to insure that he'd rescue us if the situation were reversed, *not*
> because it is a "basic duty". Is that what you're saying?

No, I'm saying there's no duty at all.  That we *would* rescue someone,
all else being equal, comes from our natural benevolence, not from any
moral or legal duty.

 
> If so, I can accept it as a halacha, because we understand how
> important Shabbos is.

Nothing to do with Shabbos.  The difference on Shabbos is that one is
not *allowed* to break Shabbos merely out of a wish to do good.


> But it seems to me that the goal of this "basic duty / brothers"
> explanation is to explain things in a manner which would sound fair to
> the non-brother. But it won't. He will not accept it as fair unless his
> religion is similarly discriminatory against us.

No, it isn't intended as apologetics.  I believe it's the real reason
for the distinction (not on Shabbos, during the week).  But it should
also be accepted by any fair-minded stranger, because it makes sense.
Of course we can't guarantee that anyone will be fair-minded, and
sometimes we have to do things because of fear of a unfair-minded mob,
but I will point out that when it comes to medical care it seems that
through most of the ages, right down to the beginning of the modern
era, the einam-yehudim were expected to accept that we only break
shabbos to heal our own and not them.  The modern heter mishum eiva
is not mentioned in the SA, or even in the MA, and the ChS seems to
deal with it as a new question that had never come up before.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas