Looking at the story a bit, one reason why the priest and the scribe would avoid the man left for dead would be, besides becoming ritually unclean, the great danger they would have placed themselves in. Could the thieves still be around? Not so unusual to leave a person for dead as bait for another attack. The priest and scribe probably had more money on them than the man they had attacked.
However, the Samaritan doesn't seem so concerned about his own safety. He is willing to put everything at risk to help the man at the side of the road. I get the impression he was wealthy enough to have paid for the man's keep at the end, and the innkeeper seems to know his word is as good as gold.
I'd have thought it would have fallen into the category of
פיקוח נפש
"pikuach nefesh"
ie where Ordinary Rules and Restrictions are suspended by the seriousness of the situation
The man was very foolish to be on that road alone. It was notorious for bandits and people were discouraged from going along there on their own, so it could be said that he got himself into that predicament.
Even though it was his own fault, the Samaritan still took it upon himself to help the man. This is an indication that everyone deserves help or sympathy, however they got into a particular situation.
The man was very foolish to be on that road alone. It was notorious for bandits and people were discouraged from going along there on their own, so it could be said that he got himself into that predicament.
Even though it was his own fault, the Samaritan still took it upon himself to help the man. This is an indication that everyone deserves help or sympathy, however they got into a particular situation.
Surprised no-one has picked up on this. I think it's an excellent observation and a challenging one at that.
The man was very foolish to be on that road alone. It was notorious for bandits and people were discouraged from going along there on their own, so it could be said that he got himself into that predicament.
Even though it was his own fault, the Samaritan still took it upon himself to help the man. This is an indication that everyone deserves help or sympathy, however they got into a particular situation.
This is a story created to make a particular point in response to the question. So we are not told the reason why the dangerous journey was being made. For the purpose of the story it is not important. The other travellers were making the same dangerous journey.
You are correct about everyone should be helped, regardless. From the story we can also conclude that the common temptation to blame the victim is wrong.
Comments
However, the Samaritan doesn't seem so concerned about his own safety. He is willing to put everything at risk to help the man at the side of the road. I get the impression he was wealthy enough to have paid for the man's keep at the end, and the innkeeper seems to know his word is as good as gold.
פיקוח נפש
"pikuach nefesh"
ie where Ordinary Rules and Restrictions are suspended by the seriousness of the situation
Even though it was his own fault, the Samaritan still took it upon himself to help the man. This is an indication that everyone deserves help or sympathy, however they got into a particular situation.
Surprised no-one has picked up on this. I think it's an excellent observation and a challenging one at that.
This is a story created to make a particular point in response to the question. So we are not told the reason why the dangerous journey was being made. For the purpose of the story it is not important. The other travellers were making the same dangerous journey.
You are correct about everyone should be helped, regardless. From the story we can also conclude that the common temptation to blame the victim is wrong.
They were not the intended audience of the story for the writer of the Luke's Gospel.