Unit 3: The Responsibility to Intervene (לא תעמוד)

2022 Collegiate Moot Court Competition: Shortened Sourcebook

In our case, some students feel the need to intervene in response to perceived threats on campus. In the sources below we will explore this responsibility through the mitzvah of “do not stand by the blood of your fellow” (Vayikra 19:16). This verse appears in the same context as two other mitzvot we have explored: the obligation to judge favorably, and the obligation to rebuke.
In addition, we will explore whether this obligation applies in a situation when the full details are not known, and a person must make a decision whether or not to intervene after hearing a rumor.

I. The Obligation to Intervene

ויקרא י״ט:ט״ו-י״ח

15לֹא־תַעֲשׂ֥וּ עָ֙וֶל֙ בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֔ט לֹא־תִשָּׂ֣א פְנֵי־דָ֔ל וְלֹ֥א תֶהְדַּ֖ר פְּנֵ֣י גָד֑וֹל בְּצֶ֖דֶק תִּשְׁפֹּ֥ט עֲמִיתֶֽךָ׃ לֹא־תֵלֵ֤ךְ רָכִיל֙ בְּעַמֶּ֔יךָ לֹ֥א תַעֲמֹ֖ד עַל־דַּ֣ם רֵעֶ֑ךָ אֲנִ֖י ה'׃ 17לֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֙יחַ֙ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֥א עָלָ֖יו חֵֽטְא׃ 18לֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י ה'.

Leviticus 19:15-18

15 You shall not perform injustice in judgement: do not favor the poor or show deference to the powerful; with righteousness shall you judge your kinsman. 16 Do not gossip among your people; do not stand by the blood of your fellow: I am God. 17 You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your kinsman, and you shall not bear a sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance, and you shall not bear a grudge against your people. You shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am God.

Verse 17 contains two transgressions: (1) not to gossip (2) not to stand by the blood of one’s fellow. How do these mitzvot relate to each other?
From the context of this verse, how would you interpret the phrase: “do not stand by the blood of your fellow”?

An early midrash (as well as the Talmud in Sanhedrin 73a) understand this verse as a broad mitzvah obligating one to intervene to save the life of somebody in danger:

Sifra is a midrash on the book of Vayikra. It is midrash halakhah, which is a focused on expounding the parameters of the mitzvot. It is also known as Torat Kohanim ("The Torah of the Priests"). It was composed in the 2nd-3rd century CE and is cited in many talmudic passages.

ספרא, קדושים, פרק ד ח׳

ומנין שאם אתה יודע לו עדות שאין אתה רשאי לשתוק עליו? תלמוד לומר "לא תעמוד על דם רעך". ומנין אם ראית טובע בנהר או לסטים באים עליו או חיה רעה באה עליו, חייב אתה להצילו בנפשו? תלמוד לומר "לא תעמוד על דם רעך"

Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 8

From where is it derived that if you have information to testify on behalf of someone, that you are not permitted to remain silent? The verse teaches: “Do not stand by the blood of your fellow.” From where is it derived that if you see someone drowning in the river or threatened by robbers or attacked by a wild animal, that one is obligated to rescue them? The verse teaches: “Do not stand by the blood of your fellow.”

This midrash understands the transgression of “standing by the blood of one’s fellow” to be a broad mitzvah about the need to intervene to save someone if one has the ability to do so.

Why is failing to speak up included in the prohibition of “do not stand by the blood of your fellow?”
Are these examples relevant to the decision facing students in our case? Why or why not?

The Talmud makes clear that, not only is there an obligation to intervene, but that if one does not intervene, then one is held responsible on some level for the harm that ensues.

שבת נ״ד ב

כל מי שאפשר למחות לאנשי ביתו ולא מיחה נתפס על אנשי ביתו באנשי עירו נתפס על אנשי עירו בכל העולם כולו נתפס על כל העולם כולו

Shabbat 54b

Whoever can protest their household but does not protest, is seized for [the actions of] their household. From the people of their city—they are seized for [the actions of] the people of their city; if the whole world—the person is seized for [the actions of] the whole world.

In this striking passage, the Talmud suggests that whoever has the ability to protest—and doesn’t—is complicit in the offense and ultimately held responsible. It is not sufficient to stand on the sidelines; if one is able to help prevent a harmful action from occurring, then one must do everything in their power to do so.

What type of situation do you think this passage is referring to? Does it matter whether the protest would be effective or not?
Why is one held responsible for the actions of others?
Given the circumstances of our case, is this passage applicable? Why or why not?

II. Responding to Unconfirmed Dangers

While the sources above articulate a clear obligation to intervene in a case where the individual faces clear harm, they do not address what to do in a situation where there is ambiguity about whether the other person is in danger or not.
A passage from the Talmud below explores this question. In order to understand the biblical reference, we must first explore a narrative from the book of Jeremiah, in which Gedaliah is warned by Yohanan of a deadly threat.

Gedaliah was appointed governor of Judah, after the Babylonians destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. As we will see below, Gedaliah and those with him were killed, and the remaining people scattered. A communal fast (Tzom Gedaliah) is observed on the day after Rosh Hashanah, commemorating this tragedy.

ירמיהו מ׳:י״ג-ט״ז

וְיֽוֹחָנָן֙ בֶּן־קָרֵ֔חַ וְכָל־שָׂרֵ֥י הַחֲיָלִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֑ה בָּ֥אוּ אֶל־גְּדַלְיָ֖הוּ הַמִּצְפָּֽתָה׃ וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ אֵלָ֗יו הֲיָדֹ֤עַ תֵּדַע֙ כִּ֞י בַּעֲלִ֣יס ׀ מֶ֣לֶךְ בְּנֵֽי־עַמּ֗וֹן שָׁלַח֙ אֶת־יִשְׁמָעֵ֣אל בֶּן־נְתַנְיָ֔ה לְהַכֹּתְךָ֖ נָ֑פֶשׁ וְלֹא־הֶאֱמִ֣ין לָהֶ֔ם גְּדַלְיָ֖הוּ בֶּן־אֲחִיקָֽם׃ וְיוֹחָנָ֣ן בֶּן־קָרֵ֡חַ אָמַ֣ר אֶל־גְּדַלְיָהוּ֩ בַסֵּ֨תֶר בַּמִּצְפָּ֜ה לֵאמֹ֗ר אֵ֤לְכָה נָּא֙ וְאַכֶּה֙ אֶת־יִשְׁמָעֵ֣אל בֶּן־נְתַנְיָ֔ה וְאִ֖ישׁ לֹ֣א יֵדָ֑ע לָ֧מָּה יַכֶּ֣כָּה נֶּ֗פֶשׁ וְנָפֹ֙צוּ֙ כָּל־יְהוּדָה֙ הַנִּקְבָּצִ֣ים אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְאָבְדָ֖ה שְׁאֵרִ֥ית יְהוּדָֽה׃ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר גְּדַלְיָ֤הוּ בֶן־אֲחִיקָם֙ אֶל־יוֹחָנָ֣ן בֶּן־קָרֵ֔חַ אַֽל־[תַּעֲשֵׂ֖ה] אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה כִּי־שֶׁ֛קֶר אַתָּ֥ה דֹבֵ֖ר אֶל־יִשְׁמָעֵֽאל׃

Jeremiah 40:13-16

13 And Yohanan the son of Kareah and all the officers of the armies who were in the field, came to Gedaliah in Mizpah. 14 And they said to him, “Do you know that Baalis the king of the children of Ammon sent Ishmael the son of Nethaniah to assassinate you?” But Gedaliah the son of Ahikam did not believe them. 15 And Yohanan the son of Kareah said to Gedaliah secretly, in Mizpah, saying, “Let me go now and I will slay Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and no one shall know. Why should he put you to death, and all the Judahites gathered around you will be scattered, and the remnant of Judah be lost?” 16 Gedaliah the son of Ahikam said to Yohanan the son of Kareah, “Do not do this thing for you speak falsely about Ishmael.”

Gedaliah is warned by Yohanan about the threat from Ishmael, but refuses to believe that it is true. In the next chapter, we learn that Yohanan was correct to warn Gedaliah: Ishmael arrives and assassinates Gedaliah and the people who were with him. Ishmael and his men throw the dead bodies into a pit.

ירמיהו מ״א:ט׳

וְהַבּ֗וֹר אֲשֶׁר֩ הִשְׁלִ֨יךְ שָׁ֤ם יִשְׁמָעֵאל֙ אֵ֣ת ׀ כָּל־פִּגְרֵ֣י הָאֲנָשִׁ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֤ר הִכָּה֙ בְּיַד־גְּדַלְיָ֔ה...

Jeremiah 41:9

The pit into which shmael had cast all the corpses of the men whom he had slain by the hand of Gedaliah...

The passage below from Niddah 61a notes the bolded phrase in the verse above. What does it mean that the people Ishmael killed were “slain by the hand of Gedaliah?”

נדה ס״א א:י״ד-י״ז

תנא הוא הבור שמילא ישמעאל בן נתניה חללים דכתיב (ירמיהו מא, ט) והבור אשר השליך שם ישמעאל את כל פגרי אנשים אשר הכה ביד גדליה וכי גדליה הרגן והלא ישמעאל הרגן אלא מתוך שהיה לו לחוש לעצת יוחנן בן קרח ולא חש מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו הרגן.

אמר רבא האי לישנא בישא אע"פ דלקבולי לא מבעי מיחש ליה מבעי

Niddah 61a:14-17

That was the pit which Ishmael ben Nethaniah filled with corpses, as it is written “The pit into which Ishmael threw all the corpses of the men killed by the hand of Gedaliah.” But did Gedaliah kill them? Ishmael killed them! Rather since he (Gedaliah) should have been concerned by advice of Yohanan ben Kareah and he was not concerned, Scripture considers it as though he had killed them. Rava says: This type of malicious speech, although one should not accept it, one should be concerned by it.

The Talmud derives from the language of the verse that Gedaliah bore some responsibility for the murders of his men, since he did not heed the warning given to him. As Rava explains, although one should not be quick to accept malicious speech, one should heed it.

What distinction do you think Rava is making here? What is the difference between “accepting” malicious speech and being “concerned” by it?
How does this relate to Gedaliah’s obligation to have intervened in this narrative?
Does this relate to the sources on “judging favorably” explored in an earlier section? How so?

III. The Consequences of Believing Rumors

The final text adds an important dimension to the conversation of believing rumors. It describes the harmful consequences for a person who believes all of the negative things that they hear about other people.

חיבור התשובה למאירי - משיב נפש מאמר א פרק ד

החושד בכשרים... היא מדה תביאהו להיות הצדיקים כרשעים אצלו ומצדיקים הרבים לא זכו בו, ויהיו כל בני אדם שוים אצלו כצדיק כרשע אחר שהוא חושד בפעלת הצדיק כמו שראוי לחשוד בפעל אדם רשע, ועם זאת המחשבה לא יכריח טבעו להיותו שומע למצות חכמים כי יחשדם גם כן בדבריהם, וכן לא ישמע לתוכחתם אחר שהוא חושדם שהם יכשלו בהם במה שמוכיחים בני האדם

Responsa R. Menahem Ha-Meiri, Meishiv Nefesh 1:4

Suspecting righteous individuals... is a character trait that will cause one to view the righteous as if they are wicked, and from many righteous people the individual will not benefit at all. All people will be seen as identical, whether righteous or wicked, after one unjustly suspects righteous people. With this, a person will not be inclined to listen to the counsel of the sages, since he will be suspicious about their words, and likewise he will not listen to their rebuke, since he will say that they are stumbling over the same matters about which they rebuke others.

The Talmud above articulated a distinction between “accepting” malicious speech and being “concerned” by it. Here, Meiri warns of the negative consequences which can take place if one suspects innocent people of wicked behavior. It can eventually lead to a person viewing all people as wicked and being suspicious of everyone in society. Ultimately, such a person would not be able to learn from anyone, since they would suspect everyone of guilty behavior.

According to Meiri, what would the world look like if we believed all of the negative things we heard?
Is this concern applicable to our case? If so, how?

Take a step back

Based on the sources above, is there an obligation to intervene in our case? If so, what type of intervention is warranted?
How can these texts on assessing risk inform the students’ decision making?