The Origins of the Precept "To Save A Life"
Was the “Whoever saves a life” precept originally a universalistic one stressing the unity of the entire human race, and was it then narrowed by later tradition to include only Jews? Or was it originally a particularistic one referring only to Jews that was subsequently expanded to include all of humanity?
Read more at...
Thought Question: Is every life of equal value? Or are certain lives more valuable than others?
_____________________________________________________________________
(ד) וְאֶל־פֶּ֜תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵד֮ לֹ֣א הֱבִיאוֹ֒ לְהַקְרִ֤יב קָרְבָּן֙ לַֽה' לִפְנֵ֖י מִשְׁכַּ֣ן ה' דָּ֣ם יֵחָשֵׁ֞ב לָאִ֤ישׁ הַהוּא֙ דָּ֣ם שָׁפָ֔ךְ וְנִכְרַ֛ת הָאִ֥ישׁ הַה֖וּא מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמּֽוֹ׃
(4) and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD, before the LORD’s Tabernacle, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood; that man shall be cut off from among his people.
Thought Question: Why is the punishment so severe for killing an animal outside of the sacrificial altar? What can we learn from this punishment about the value of life - human or animal - in general?
______________________________________________________________________________
דם יחשב BLOOD SHALL BE IMPUTED [UNTO THAN MAN] — As though he had shed the blood of a human being, who is guilty of a deadly sin. דם שפך HE HATH SHED BLOOD — These apparently redundant words are intended to include in the penalty of כרת him who sprinkles outside the fore-court the blood of a sacrifice which has been slaughtered within it as is here commanded (Sanhedrin 34b; Zevachim 107a).
דם שפך ונכרת, “such a man has shed blood and he will be erased, etc.” The reason why this would be considered at least as serious an offence as murder, is that if that animal were not used for his own food, it should only have been killed as an offering to its Creator.
. דם יחשב לאיש ההוא, דם שפך, “it will be considered as bloodshed for that man, he has shed (innocent) blood.” The severity of this legislation must be viewed against a background of ante-diluvial times. Before the deluge the lives of the animals were sacrosanct, i.e. man was not allowed to eat meat, only fruit and vegetables; we know this from Genesis 1,29: “here I have given you all herbage yielding seed that is on the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed-yielding fruit; it shall be yours for food.” When, in the wake of man’s general corruption, the animals became corrupt also, and were saved from the deluge by Noach, man acquired the right to eat meat. This is why we need a prohibition here that such animals unless they had first been designated as sacrifices and been slaughtered as such, are prohibited to the Jewish people on pain of the karet penalty. Seeing that animal sacrifice substitutes for man’s dying for his sins, if such an animal has been killed for secular consumption, it is considered as if the killer had killed a human being. The status of the Israelites in the desert had much in common with the status of Adam in Gan Eden before the sin so that slaughtering an ox was similar to killing a human being (Isaiah 66,3, and Nachmanides on verse 11 in our chapter).
דם יחשב לאיש ההוא: במלת "ההוא" דקדק להוציא שלא יחשב זה לשולחיו, כי בכל הקרבנות הכהנים הם שלוחי הבעלים ועומדים במקומם, ולא כן בשחוטי חוץ שאין שליח לדבר עבירה.
...Bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: The word "that man" (hahu) comes to exclude a messenger, because with all of the sacrifices the priests were the messengers for the ones making the sacrifices, but this is not the case when slaughter occurs outside of Jerusalem for there is no messenger for a matter of sin"
דם יחשב כשופך דם האדם שמתחייב בנפשו. כאילו אמר דם אדם יחשב לאיש ההוא שפירושו הדם ששפך מהבהמה ההיא יחשב לדם האדם
...Bloodguilt is like one who sheds blood. As if the Torah said "the blood of a person is bloodguilt for that person" which is interpreted to mean that the spilled blood of an animal is bloodguilt for the person.
דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך ונכרת האיש ההוא כ' רמב"ן לקמן היכא דכתיב כרת לנפש יש רשע מאריך ברשעתו אלא שנפשו נכרתת מעוה"ב והכא דכתיב ונכרת האיש ולא הנפש אין נפשו נכרתת אלא גופו כי ימות בנוער ולא יאריך ימים
Bloodguilt of that person is blood spilled and he is cut off. Ramban wrote earlier that when the text reads "his soul is cut off" (karet lanefesh) there is evil that extends beyond his individual evil, thus his soul is cut off from the next world (olam haba).
And here it is written "and the person is cut off" (venikhrat ha-adam) and not his soul since his soul is not cut off but rather his body, that is to say he will die in his youth and his days will not be long.