Interesting quote on jewish law...

But Jewish law, just like secular legal theory, is filled with judicial loopholes. A major one is that for the sake of saving a life, a Jew is allowed to break just about any commandment. For example, if a Jew is injured on the Sabbath, he is certainly allowed to go to the hospital even though he normally doesn't drive on Saturday. Life or death matters trump all but a handful of commandments. And as far as organ donation goes, two biblical verses are trotted out to quell the uneasiness among Jewish donors. "You shall surely heal" (Exodus 21:19) and "You shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:16).

Interesting... 

Where did you get the quote?

Jews are dummies. 

The JWS have misinterpreted many of the Mosaic laws, particularly since the giving of ones blood to save

a life of anther of the flock should be allowed since it may be a matter of life or death.

This just one of many screw ups the JWS have come out with over the years.

Power in the hands of the incompetent is not a good thing.

Look at our own laws.  Say, our driving laws.  Sign says "55".  Who can go ov.er "55"?  Ambulances, police, fire?  Yes.  Why?  To save a life.

Very few laws are absolute.  The Watchtower Society tries to convince it's followers that "no blood" is an absolute ultimatum.  They are full of it.  They say "no blood" all the while allowing fractions and "current therapy."

Back to Jewish law discussion.

Judaism has long understood Leviticus 18:5 to mean that those who keep God's decrees and laws will live by them [not die by them].1  

The Jewish faith strictly exempts people on "the [health] danger list" from compliance with God's laws necessary to preserve their life or health.2  

This principle can be seen throughout the Jewish religion in:

1) the Talmud's (oral tradition and judicial decisions, first written down in about 200 AD) allowing sick or pregnant people to violate the dietary laws if necessary to preserve their health or life;3

2) exempting the sick from Yom Kippur's fasting requirements;4

3) the Jewish saying "pikkiah nefesh doheh Shabbot - [rescuing a] life in danger takes precedence over the Sabbath";5 and

4) the Talmud's account that King David was permitted to violate the Sabbath's laws in order to help his ill child.6

Islamic interpretation of the Biblical passages against eating blood is similar to Judaism.

Many scholars theorize that the Muslim people started in the 22nd century BC when Isaac and Ishmael, Abraham's sons, parted.7

In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses also recognize the common history between Judaism and Islam.8

Interestingly, the Islamic religion also forbids eating blood9 but recognizes exceptions to food laws for those unable to comply.10

Like the Jewish Talmud, the Islamic Sunnah in Chapter 5, verse 4 says that the prohibited food may be eaten in cases of extreme hunger, but if any is forced by hunger with no inclination to transgression, God is indeed oft-forgiving and most merciful.

Thus, both Judaism and Islam permit the breaking of God's dietary laws to save a life.

Is it a coincidence that these two distinct religions, originated by the same ancestor 22 millennia before Christ, would share similar beliefs?

In answering the Jehovah's Witness 1 Samuel argument, a Jew or Muslim might state that these soldiers were hungry, not ill or starving-to-death, when they broke the commandment.   In either event, Jehovah God was, as Islam says (supra), "most merciful and kind" as none were sanctioned.

Since both of these ancient religions contain an "in order to save a life" exception, this is not an argument that originated in modern times like the Jehovah's Witnesses want to try to state..

Here are some good resources if you want...

Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits, JEWISH MEDICAL ETHICS - A COMPARATIVE AND HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE JEWISH RELIGIOUS ATTITUDE TO MEDICINE AND ITS PRACTICE 45 (Block Publishing Company 1959) (Preservation of human life takes precedence over God's laws with the exception of idolatry, murder, and incest).

Daniel Eisenburg, M.D., Mandate to Heal: What is the Role of the Physician in Jewish Law?, available at http://www.aish.com/societyWork/work/The_Mandate_to_Heal.asp

The Holy Quron, S.5 A.3, 278-279, (Printing rights reserved for King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing Complex) ( "Forbidden to you (for food) Are: dead meat, blood, The flesh of swine, and that On which has been invoked The name of other than Allah, That which hath been Killed by stangling, Or a violent blow, Or by headlong fall, Or being gored to death; That which has been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; Unless you were able to slaughter it (in due form) That which has been sacrificed on stone (alters); (Forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling With arrows; that is impiety.")

The Holy Quron, (Printing rights reserved for King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing Complex) ("O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you As it was prescribed To those before you, That ye may (learn) Self-restraint. (Fasting) for a fixed Number of days; But if any of you is ill, Or on a journey, The prescribed number (Should be made up) From days later. For those who can do it.")

The basic principle (which even the Synoptic Gospels allude to with the argument of the sheep falling into a pit on the sabbath) is best known in rabbinical casuistics as piquach nephesh (or pikuach nefesh; if you use the different transliterations you will find more references in a google search); and yes the equivalent exists in Islamic shari'a. The WT extrapolations on the banning of blood tragically misunderstand the cultural context.

For instance: http://www.jtsa.edu/Conservative_Judaism/JTS_Torah_Commentary/Ki_Tissa_Tze_Ulmad_.xml

Interesting information Skeeter1

The leaders of the WTS. should have read the bible completely and throughly.

Jews are dummies

Wow, you're a clever one.  Your dazzling wit has blinded me. 

Wow, you're a clever one.  Your dazzling wit has blinded me. 

I am, aren't I. 

skeeter, your posts on the subject are impressive!

~sticks out tongue at John Doe~

A major one is that for the sake of saving a life, a Jew is allowed to break just about any commandment.

Technically not true. Pikuach nephesh may render the Sabbath either hutra (abrogated) or dechuya (suspended)  but in either event the Sabbath is not broken.

Flash of light;)  So basically, jesus' illustration of rescuing the sheep fallen into a pit on the sabbath nullifies the wt antiblood transfusion doctrine.  That is because, in every case where the docs want to do a transfusion, it's to save a life.  Of course, the bible never meant to prohibit blood transfusions.  But still, if it did, this would abrogate it.

S

Satanus said: 

Flash of light;)  So basically, jesus' illustration of rescuing the sheep fallen into a pit on the sabbath nullifies the wt antiblood transfusion doctrine.  That is because, in every case where the docs want to do a transfusion, it's to save a life.  Of course, the bible never meant to prohibit blood transfusions.  But still, if it did, this would abrogate it.

Nice.

The exact argument varies in the Synoptics; it always echoes the basic principle later known as piquach nephesh, but never refers to it explicitly. "Jesus" is pictured as referring to no tradition, only arguing from Jewish practice as if it had not yet been theorised: hence the conclusions are his own entirely: he has the authority or 'right' (exousia) to tell what is "allowed," or 'one has the right' (exestin) to do. Actually many of Jesus' "original" statements (e.g. the first two commandments) are commonplace in Pharisaic-Rabbinical tradition but the Gospels make them appear as "new" and often controversial.

Mark 3:1ff:

Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come forward." Then he said to them, "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

Here the piquach nephesh principle seems to be "hijacked" into an artificial dilemma and thus absolutised: either you do good or you do harm, either you save life or you kill. Doing nothing (what the sabbath was literally about, unless it was "suspended" in case of emergency) is not an option. The either/or radicalism destroys any possibility of actual (or literal) Torah observance (cf. also 2:23ff). Even more bluntly so if the questions in the dialogue were to be read as affirmations (which is a possibility).

Mathew 12:9ff:

He left that place and entered their synagogue; a man was there with a withered hand, and they asked him, "Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?" so that they might accuse him. He said to them, "Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath." Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and it was restored, as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him. 

Here Jesus is portrayed more like a rabbi, answering questions (with questions ;)). The Markan dilemma is lost, Jesus comes up (all alone) with a general allowance to do good on the sabbath; the sense of emergency which is essential to piquach nephesh is lost, but the principle of literal Sabbath observance is maintained; Jesus doesn't posture as an exception. but as the ultimate teacher who shows how it can be really fulfilled.

Luke 6:6ff

 On another sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught, and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. The scribes and the Pharisees watched him to see whether he would cure on the sabbath, so that they might find an accusation against him. Even though he knew what they were thinking, he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come and stand here." He got up and stood there. Then Jesus said to them, "I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?" After looking around at all of them, he said to him, "Stretch out your hand." He did so, and his hand was restored. But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus. 

Luke here basically follows Mark 3, smoothening it a bit (according to the usual conclusions of textual criticism); making the interrogative form explicit and "spiritualising" the issue of life and death by opposing sôsai to apolesai ("lose") rather than apokteinai ("kill"). But the "sheep" argument from Matthew 12 is echoed in two other contexts:

13:10ff:

Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight. When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, "Woman, you are set free from your ailment." When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God. But the leader of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had cured on the sabbath, kept saying to the crowd, "There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured, and not on the sabbath day." But the Lord answered him and said, "You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the sabbath day?" When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing.

This interestingly deals with the "fallacy" involved in the use of piquach nephesh to justify a healing (which doesn't imply life emergency); the rabbinical objection is correctly stated by the leader of the synagogue. And then the answer is much more subtle: it's not "saving" but "loosing," "untying" -- stopping Satan's "work" of keeping her bound. Reminiscent of Isaiah 58 about the spirit of fasting and sabbath as well.

14:1ff:

On one occasion when Jesus was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the sabbath, they were watching him closely.  Just then, in front of him, there was a man who had dropsy. And Jesus asked the lawyers and Pharisees, "Is it lawful to cure people on the sabbath, or not?"  But they were silent. So Jesus took him and healed him, and sent him away. Then he said to them, "If one of you has a child or an ox that has fallen into a well, will you not immediately pull it out on a sabbath day?" And they could not reply to this. 

Here the argument seems more superficial and formal (less logically constraining), apparently drawing from known casuistics about the "well" and applying it to dropsy (hudrôpikos, from hudôr, "water").

So it seems to me that the Synoptics do presuppose the basic principle of piquach nephesh, but they neither refer to it explicitly as a common Pharisaic rule (because Jesus has to be original), nor state it as a "Christian" principle of practical exception to the Torah because that would not make any sense to the audience. Either Torah observance is dismissed altogether in favor of another way of "salvation," hence the point is not anymore about "saving lives" literally (Mark, Luke) or radically reinterpreted (doing good is always in order, Matthew).

Btw, my revelation started from nark's previous comment.

S

During the World Wars and after, European Jews ate whatever vermin they could find, unbled too.  Jewish law considered it better to eat vermin than to die.

Satanus

The relationship between the possible (and diverse) Gospel reflections of piquach nephesh (as I tried to review quickly above) and the WT doctrine and policy is, of necessity, indirect.

First, "Jesus" never directly acknowledges the Jewish principle as such (although his arguments imply it is regarded as relatively "good" rather than  "bad"). Second, he doesn't establish it as a "Christian" principle either, because to the Christian Gospel audience, there is no law to which such a principle could possibly apply: either the Torah is radically questioned (Mark) or no longer valid (Luke), or it is interpreted in such a way that its observance cannot possibly harm anybody -- to the contrary, doing good is always the thing to do, even in the absence of life emergency (Matthew).

But stepping back it also shows how far away the WT policy is from the Gospel perspective, as well as from the Pharisaic-rabbinical tradition: it still considers a law valid (against Mark & Luke) which is potentially harmful to man (against Matthew) and doesn't know any suspensive principle in case of life emergency (against piquach nephesh).

Narkissos said: 

to the Christian Gospel audience, there is no law to which such a principle could possibly apply

Interesting!  Never thought of that before.  Of course, these are all Mosaic Laws! 

Odd to think that JW's really seem to be an odd amalgamation of traditional Judaism and traditional Catholicism.  What a mix!  Frustratingly, they seemed to have just picked the worst of both worlds.

Regardless, I think these scriptures and illustrations could possibly be another seed for thought.

Skeeter said:

Like the Jewish Talmud, the Islamic Sunnah in Chapter 5, verse 4 says that the prohibited food may be eaten in cases of extreme hunger, but if any is forced by hunger with no inclination to transgression, God is indeed oft-forgiving and most merciful.

Thus, both Judaism and Islam permit the breaking of God's dietary laws to save a life.

Yes.

An Islamic friend of ours told us this when he was appalled that my Dad was dying for need of a blood transfusion.  My husband was trying to explain to him, "Well, it's like the meat that you can't eat..." and he excitedly said, "No!  It's not like that at all!  You can eat to save your life!"

So.  There it is. 

And my Dad is gone.

Narkissos, thanks for explaining that.  It's a real eye opener.