BEING A GOOD SAMARITAN A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE

BEING A GOOD SAMARITAN A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE

Setting the Stage Revisiting the murder of Kitty Genovese by Martin Gansberg, March 27, 1964 For more than half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens. Twice their chatter and the sudden glow of their bedroom lights interrupted him and frightened him off. Each time he returned, sought her out, and stabbed her again. Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead. That was two weeks ago today. Still shocked is Assistant Chief Inspector Frederick M. Lussen, in charge of the borough s detectives and a veteran of 25 years of homicide investigations. He can give a matter-of-fact recitation on many murders. But the Kew Gardens slaying baffles him--not because it is a murder, but because the good people failed to call the police. As we have reconstructed the crime, he said, the assailant had three chances to kill this woman during a 35-minute period. He returned twice to complete the job. If we had been called when he first attacked, the woman might not be dead now. This is what the police say happened at 3:20 A.M. in the staid, middle-class, tree-lined Austin Street area: Twenty-eight-year-old Catherine Genovese, who was called Kitty by almost everyone in the neighborhood, was returning home from her job as manager of a bar in Hollis. She parked her red Fiat in a lot adjacent to the Kew Gardens Long Island Railroad Station, facing Mowbray Place. Like many residents of the neighborhood, she had parked there day after day since her arrival from Connecticut a year ago, although the railroad frowns on the practice. She turned off the lights of her car, locked the door, and started to walk the 100 feet to the entrance of her apartment at 82-70 Austin Street, which is in a Tudor building, with stores in the first floor and apartments on the second. The entrance to the apartment is in the rear of the building because the front is rented to retail stores. At night the quiet neigborhood is shrouded in the slumbering darkness that marks most residential areas. Miss Genovese noticed a man at the far end of the lot, near a seven-story apartment house at 82-40 Austin Street. She halted. Then, nervously, she headed up Austin Street toward Lefferts Boulevard, where there is a call box to the 102nd Police Precinct in nearby Richmond Hill. She got as far as a street light in front of a bookstore before the man grabbed her. She screamed. Lights went on in the 10-story apartment house at 82-67 Austin Street, which faces the bookstore. Windows slid open and voices punctuated the early-morning stillness. Miss Genovese screamed: Oh, my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me! From one of the upper windows in the apartment house, a man called down: Let that girl alone! 2 Being a Good Samaritan: A Jewish Perspective

The assailant looked up at him, shrugged, and walked down Austin Street toward a white sedan parked a short distance away. Miss Genovese struggled to her feet. Lights went out. The killer returned to Miss Genovese, now trying to make her way around the side of the building by the parking lot to get to her apartment. The assailant stabbed her again. I m dying! she shrieked. I m dying! Windows were opened again, and lights went on in many apartments. The assailant got into his car and drove away. Miss Genovese staggered to her feet. A city bus, 0-10, the Lefferts Boulevard line to Kennedy International Airport, passed. It was 3:35 A.M. The assailant returned. By then, Miss Genovese had crawled to the back of the building, where the freshly painted browndoors to the apartment house held out hope for safety. The killer tried the first door; she wasn t there. At the second door, 82-62 Austin Street, he saw her slumped on the floor at the foot of the stairs. He stabbed her a third time--fatally. It was 3:50 by the time the police received their first call, from a man who was a neighbor of Miss Genovese. In two minutes they were at the scene. The neighbor, a 70-year-old woman, and another woman were the only persons on the street. Nobody else came forward. The man explained that he had called the police after much deliberation. He had phoned a friend in Nassau County for advice and then he had crossed the roof of the building to the apartment of the elderly woman to get her to make the call. I didn t want to get involved, he sheepishly told police. Six days later, the police arrested Winston Moseley, The police stressed how simple it would have been to have gotten in touch with them. A phone call, said one of the detectives, would have done it. a 29-year-old business machine operator, and charged him with homicide. Moseley had no previous record. He is married, has two children and owns a home at 133-19 Sutter Avenue, South Ozone Park, Queens. On Wednesday, a court committed him to Kings County Hospital for psychiatric observation. When questioned by the police, Moseley also said he had slain Mrs. Annie May Johnson, 24, of 146-12 133d Avenue, Jamaica, on Feb. 29 and Barbara Kralik, 15, of 174-17 140th Avenue, Springfield Gardens, last July. In the Kralik case, the police are holding Alvin L. Mitchell, who is said to have confessed to that slaying. The police stressed how simple it would have been to have gotten in touch with them. A phone call, said one of the detectives, would have done it. The police may be reached by dialing 0 for operator or SPring 7-3100. Today witnesses from the neighborhood, which is made up of one-family homes in the $35,000 to $60,000 range with the exception of the two apartment houses near the railroad station, find it difficult to explain why they didn t call the police. A housewife, knowingly if quite casually, said, We thought it was a lovers quarrel. A husband and wife both said, Frankly, we were afraid. They seemed aware of the fact that events might have been different. A distraught woman, wiping her hands in her apron, said, I didn t want my husband to get involved. One couple, now willing to talk about that night, said they heard the first screams. The husband looked thoughtfully at the bookstore where the killer first grabbed Miss Genovese. We went to the window to see what was happening, he said, but the light from our bedroom made it 3 Being a Good Samaritan: A Jewish Perspective

difficult to see the street. The wife, still apprehensive, added: I put out the light and we were able to see better. Asked why they hadn t called the police, she shrugged and replied: I don t know. A man peeked out from a slight opening in the doorway to his apartment and rattled off an account of the killer s second attack. Why hadn t he called the police at the time? I was tired, he said without emotion. I went back to bed. It was 4:25 A.M. when the ambulance arrived to take the body of Miss Genovese. It drove off. Then, a solemn police detective said, the people came out.? Questions to Consider Were the bystanders who saw the murder guilty of a crime? What would prevent so many witnesses to such a heinous crime from intervening? What is a citizen s obligation to prevent a crime he witnesses? ENGAGING THE TEXT The Crime of Passivity ויקרא יט טו ל א-ת ע ש ו ע ו ל, ב מ ש פ ט--ל א-ת ש א פ נ י-ד ל, ו ל א ת ה ד ר פ נ י ג דו ל: ב צ ד ק, ת ש פ ט ע מ ית ך. טז ל א-ת ל ך ר כ יל ב ע מ יך, ל א ת ע מ ד ע ל-ד ם ר ע ך : א נ י, ה. Leviticus: Chapter 19 15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. 16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 4 Being a Good Samaritan: A Jewish Perspective

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף עג עמוד א גופא: מנין לרואה את חברו שהוא טובע בנהר או חיה גוררתו או לסטין באין עליו שהוא חייב להצילו תלמוד לומר לא תעמד על דם רעך. והא מהכא נפקא? מהתם נפקא: אבדת גופו מניין - תלמוד לומר והשבתו לו! - אי מהתם הוה אמינא: הני מילי - בנפשיה, אבל מיטרח ומיגר אגורי - אימא לא, קא משמע לן. Talmud Sanhedrin 73a From where do we know that if a man sees his fellow drowning, mauled by beasts, or attached by robbers, he is bound to save him? From the verse, Thou shall not stand by the blood of thy neighbor. But is it derived from this verse? Is it not rather from elsewhere? Namely, The Torah clearly states that a lost object must be returned to its, but from where do we know that one must return a lost body (i.e. that is a life of someone is in danger, there is an obligation to save him? The verse therefore teaches a superfluous phrase: And you shall return it to him. Now, if this verse teaches that one must save his fellow s life, then why would the verse do not stand by the blood etc. be teaching the same thing? So why are both verses necessary? If we would derive the obligation from there (i.e. the verse that you must return a lost object) I would have said that this obligation applies only when a person himself has the opportunity to save a fellow s life. But with regard to bothering to hire a rescuer, I would say that one is not required to do so. The verse of you shall not stand idly by your brother therefore informs us that he is required even to hire someone to rescue the fellow. 5 Being a Good Samaritan: A Jewish Perspective

רמב ם הלכות רוצח ושמירת הנפש פרק א יד כ ל ה י כו ל ל ה צ יל, ו ל א ה צ יל--עו ב ר ע ל ל א ת ע מ ד ע ל-ד ם ר ע ך (ויקרא יט,טז). ו כ ן ה רו א ה א ת ח ב רו טו ב ע ב י ם, או ל ס ט ים ב א ים ע ל יו, או ח י ה ר ע ה ב א ה ע ל יו, ו י כו ל ל ה צ ילו הו א ב ע צ מו, או ש י ש כ ר א ח ר ים ל ה צ ילו, ו ל א ה צ יל, או ש ש מ ע ג ו י ים או מו ס ר ים מ ח ש ב ים ע ל יו ר ע ה או טו מ נ ין לו פ ח, ו ל א ג ל ה א ז ן ח ב רו ו הו ד יעו, ש י ד ע או ב גו י או ב א נ ס ש הו א קו ב ל ע ל ח ב רו, ו י כו ל ל פ י סו ב ג ל ל ח ב רו ו ל ה ס יר מ ה ב ל ב ו ו ל א פ י סו, ו כ ל כ י ו צ א ב ד ב ר ים א ל ו --ה עו ש ה או ת ם עו ב ר ע ל ל א ת ע מ ד ע ל-ד ם ר ע ך. טז א ף ע ל פ י ש א ין לו ק ין ע ל ל או ין א ל ו, מ פ נ י ש א ין ב ה ן מ ע ש ה, ח מו ר ים ה ם: ש כ ל ה מ א ב ד נ פ ש א ח ת מ י ש ר א ל, כ א ל ו א ב ד כ ל ה עו ל ם כ ל ו ; ו כ ל ה מ ק י ם נ פ ש א ח ת מ י ש ר א ל, כ א ל ו ק י ם כ ל ה עו ל ם כ ל ו. Maimonides: Laws of Murder and Guarding the Soul: Chapter 1 Anyone who is able to save and does not save is guilty of the sin of Do not stand idly by over the blood of your friend (Leviticus 19 : 16) And so too he who sees his friend drowning at sea or robbers are attacking him or a wild animal is attacking him and he is able to save his friend or he is able to hire others to save him and he does not save his friend or if he hears that non Jews or evildoers are plotting against him or setting a trap against him and he does not inform his friend or if he knows that a non Jew or a tough person is plotting against his friend in some way and he is able to convince the plotters to stop their plan and he does not stop the plan or any other similar case he who does any one of these things is guilty of the sin of Do not stand idly by over the blood of your friend. Even though we do not administer lashes for these sins because they include no action nevertheless they are severe, for anyone who causes the loss of one Jewish life is as if he has destroyed the entire world and anyone who saves one Jewish life is as if he has saved the entire world.? Questions to Consider What are instances where you can save someone s life with money? Why was a special verse necessary to tell us that you need to even hire people to help someone? 6 Being a Good Samaritan: A Jewish Perspective

ENGAGING THE TEXT Does the Good Samaritan Get Paid? And If So - How Much? As far as the amount of pay that a Good Samaritan receives, we must consider the following quote from the Talmud (Bava Kama 27a) before proceeding. The Talmud discusses the case of a Good Samaritan type of person, who is walking along with a barrel of expensive wine. Another man walks by with his own barrel filled with expensive honey. When the Good Samaritan notices that the other man s barrel of honey has begun to spill, he heroically spills out his own barrel of expensive wine and catches the honey in his now-empty barrel, hoping to receive a hefty reward for his action. תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא קמא דף כז עמוד א זה בא בחביתו של יין וזה בא בחביתו של דבש נסדקה חבית של דבש ושפך זה יינו והציל את הדבש לתוכו אין לו אלא שכרו. Talmud Bava Kama 27a If this one was coming with his barrel of wine and this one was coming with his barrel of honey, the honey barrel cracked and the fellow poured out his wine and saved the honey, all he gets is his pay. Now, of course it will be very important for us to figure out exactly what the Talmud means when it says those cryptic words: his pay. I mean, after all, what if the fellow who spilled the wine was a brain surgeon and was usually paid $10,000 per hour? Can he ask the other man for that pay? In order to reach clarification, let s read the words of Rashi, an early Talmudic commentator, who clarifies this phrase. Rashi, ibid. רש י שם - כשאר פועל ואין בעל הדבש משלם דמי היין. ( He is paid ) like any other worker, and the honey-owner will not have to pay the value of the lost wine to the Good Samaritan. 7 Being a Good Samaritan: A Jewish Perspective

It seems from Rashi s words that the hero in our story does not receive high levels of compensation for his work, nor does he receive compensation for the losses that he incurred while doing his heroic work. We must, of course, also consider the instance where the Good Samaritan is expecting to be paid for his losses because perhaps he was promised that! Then he probably should be paid but other horrible complications can arise when the rescued party is bankrupted by the disaster at hand and is totally incapable of paying! This is not an uncommon occurrence when you consider the nature of some disaster scenarios. Do you think the rescued party must pay up years later when he is back on his feet with ability to pay? Please read the following quote from the Code of Jewish Law regarding a similar issue. יורה דעה רנג:ד בעל הבית ההולך ממקום למקום וכלו מעותיו בדרך ואין לו מה יאכל, יטול צדקה, וכשיחזור לביתו אינו חייב לשלם [דהוה ליה כעני והעשיר דאינו חייב לשלם (טור)]. The Code of Jewish Law: Yoreh De ah 253:4 If an ordinary person was going from place to place, and ran out of money and had no food to eat, then he may receive charitable donations, and when he returns to his home he does not have to pay (because he is like a poor person who has become rich later and is not required to pay). Now, granted, our situation is a little bit different, but if that charity-receiver is free from paying up for what he received when he was technically poor, then maybe - just maybe - our rescued person is free from paying up for what he received when he was in a desperate financial situation after the rescue. What do YOU think? If you do decide that he does not have to pay back the rescuer, do you still think that it would be a nice idea if he tried to pay back the rescuer?? Questions to Consider Should the Good Samaritan be held guilty if he messes up? Can the Good Samaritan choose to not administer CPR mouth to mouth if the patient seems possibly ill with unknown diseases? Can the Good Samaritan be held responsible for taking too long? 8 Being a Good Samaritan: A Jewish Perspective