When we build a new house, God says to make a battlement for the roof so we’ll not be guilty of manslaughter if someone falls from the rooftop and dies. (De 22:8) This certainly makes sense in the context in which it is given, where houses are constructed with a flat roof used as a living space; in such cases providing a barrier around the edge to keep people from harm is consistent with charity.
Yet how do we respond to such a law for steep rooftops, upon which only trained professionals are ever allowed? Do we violate this law because we think we understand its context and spirit, presuming it’s not applicable or obsolete in our case? or do we build completely useless barriers around rooftops which ultimately protect no one?
If sin is the transgression or violation of the law (1Jn 3:4), in either the letter or the spirit, it seems we should not ignore the law, or violate it at any level for any reason. Yet it also seems inappropriate to build useless fences around our rooftops – making us appear foolish to the world and positioning Torah itself as ridiculous and burdensome. Neither approach seems reasonable.
If we look at the text carefully, it says to build a parapet, or a barrier or wall for our roof. To serve the intended function this battlement must prevent anyone from ever accidentally falling off. If we create a barrier that prevents people from accessing the roof at all, is not this equivalent, or even better?
For houses with steeply pitched roofs the exterior wall of the home itself serves as such a battlement or barrier: when there is no rooftop access from within or around the home, if one must go to considerable trouble to climb up and over the exterior wall to access the roof, it seems this law in Torah is being respected both in spirit and in letter, in truth at every level.
However, for any home which provides convenient access to the rooftop, surrounding the accessible portion of the roof with a sturdy, waist-high fence to prevent anyone from accidental injury is clearly the Law of Love. (Ro 13:10)
And when a trained professional is planning to access our roof to inspect it and make repairs, offering them a securely anchored restraining device, and recommending they use it to protect themselves, evidently serves the purpose of a battlement in spirit.
The principle is to make reasonable efforts to promote the safety and well-being of everyone at all times, to prevent accidental injury. It is evidently not intended make it impossible for those who are grossly careless, reckless or foolish, intentionally taking extreme and unnecessary risks, to injure themselves. (Pr 22:3) Damage from such behavior is not accidental, it is expected.
God treats us all with a basic level of respect for our free agency in the sense that He expects us all to use common sense or suffer the consequences; He has structured all of reality like this. Expecting us to prevent fools from destroying themselves is thus disrespectful to basic human dignity, inconsistent with the Law of Love (Ro 13:10) – a burden too grievous to bear. (Mt 23:4)
Spurgeon’s Notes here are helpful: The Spurgeon Library | Battlements
It is not necessary to inform this audience that the roofs of Eastern dwellings were flat, and that the inhabitants were accustomed to spend much of their time upon the tops of their houses, not only conversing there during the day, but sleeping there at night. If the roofs were without any fencing or protection around their edge, it might often happen that little children might fall over, and not unfrequently grown-up persons might inadvertently make a false step, and suffer serious injury, if not death itself. Where there were no railings or low walls around the roof, accidents frequently occurred; but God commanded his people, while they were yet in the wilderness, that, when they came into the promised land, and proceeded to build houses, they should take care in every case to build a sufficient battlement that life might not be lost through preventable casualty.
This careful command clearly shows us that God holds life to be very valuable, and that, as he would not permit us to kill by malice, so he would not allow us to kill by negligence, but would have us most tender of human lives. Such rules as the one before us are precedents for sanitary laws, and give the weight of divine sanction to every wise sanitary arrangement. No man has a right to be filthy in his person, or his house, or his brace; for, even if he himself may flourish amid unhealthy accumulations of dirt, he has no right, by his unclean habits to foster a deadly typhus, or afford a nest for cholera. Those whose houses are foul, whose rooms are unventilated, whose persons are disgusting, cannot be said to love their neighbor; and those who create nuisances in our crowded cities are guilty of wholesale murder. No man has a right to do anything which must inevitably lead to the death or to the injury of those by whom he is surrounded, but he is bound to do all in his power to prevent any harm coming to his fellow-men. That seems to be the moral teaching of this ordinance of making battlements around the housetops, — teaching, mark you, which I should like all housewives, working-men, manufacturers, and vestrymen, to take practical note of.
This law requiring rooftop battlements is evidently part of our basis for “duty of care” law.
ChatGPT: “The legal term for laws that require proactive steps to protect people from accidental injury is ‘duty of care.’ This principle is a fundamental aspect of tort law, which governs civil wrongs that cause harm or loss to others. Duty of care imposes an obligation on individuals or entities to act in a manner that avoids foreseeable harm to others. It is often applied in cases involving negligence, where failure to fulfill the duty of care may result in legal liability for any resulting injuries or damages.”
When I was six years old, I lived in a multi-unit, two-story apartment complex and was given strict orders from my father to never climb up on the roofs. However, a tall pine tree on the far side the building across from us provided easy access for a young, adventurous climber. If I stayed on the far side of the roof, my father would not be able to see me. I did climb up, but forgot to stay on the other side, and was caught by my father. I was punished appropriately, with no one giving any thought to negligence on the part of the apartment complex. God was merciful to me that day; I was being negligent and foolish, and no one else. Had I fallen and injured myself, it would have been no one’s fault but my own.