Star Wars Torah: Han Shot First

(1) Whenever a person kills a human being, they transgress a negative commandment, as Exodus 20:13 states: "Do not murder." If a person kills a Jew intentionally in the presence of witnesses, they should be executed by decapitation. This is implied by Exodus 21:20, which states that when a person kills a servant, "vengeance will certainly be executed." The Oral Tradition explains that this refers to decapitation. Whether thye kill the victim with an iron weapon or burns them with fire, the murderer should be executed by decapitation...

(4) The court is enjoined not to accept ransom from the murderer to save them from execution. Even if they gave all the money in the world, and even if the blood redeemer was willing to forgive them, they should be executed. The rationale is that the soul of the victim is not the property of the blood redeemer, but the property of the Holy One of Blessing. And God commanded, "Do not accept ransom for the soul of a murderer." (Numbers 35:31) There is nothing that the Torah warned so strongly against as murder, as Numbers 35:33 states: "Do not pollute the land in which you live, for blood will pollute the land."

Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes them blame as if they destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes them credit as if they sustained an entire world.

(5) When a murderer kills willfully, they should not be killed by witnesses or observers until they are brought to court and sentenced to death, as implied by Numbers 35:12 "A murderer should not be put to death until they stand before the congregation in judgment." This law applies to all those liable for execution by the court, who transgressed and performed the forbidden act. They should not be executed until their trial is completed by the court.

(6) When does the above apply? When the person has already transgressed and performed the transgression for which they are liable to be executed by the court. When, however, a person is pursuing a colleague with the intention of killing them - even if the pursuer is a minor - every Jewish person is commanded to attempt to save the person being pursued, even if it is necessary to kill the pursuer.

(7) What is implied? If the rodef (pursuer) was warned and continues to pursue their intended victim, even though they did not acknowledge the warning, since they continue their pursuit they should be killed. If it is possible to save the pursued by damaging one of the limbs of the rodef, one should. Thus, if one can strike them with an arrow, a stone or a sword, and cut off their hand, break their leg, blind them or in another way prevent them from achieving their objective, one should do so. If there is no way to be precise in one's aim and save the person being pursued without killing the rodef, one should kill them, even though they have not yet killed their victim. This is implied by Deuteronomy 25:11-12, which states: "If a man is fighting with his brother, and the wife of one... grabs the attacker by his private parts, you must cut off her hand; you may not show pity."

(4) “Assail the Midianites and defeat them” (Numbers 25:17): Why? [As it says in the following verse “For they assailed you.” Hence the sages have said, “If someone comes to kill you, act first to kill them.”

Apropos a burglar who breaks into a house, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verses state: “If a burglar is found breaking in, and is smitten and dies, there shall not be bloodguilt on his account. If the sun is risen upon him, there shall be bloodguilt on his account” (Exodus 22:1–2). A question may be raised: But did the sun rise only upon him? (And not on anyone else?) Rather, these words must be understood in a metaphoric sense: If the matter is as clear to you as the sun that the burglar is not coming to you in peace, but rather his intention is to kill you, arise and kill him first. But if you are not sure about his intentions, do not kill him.

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “If the sun is risen upon him, there shall be blood shed on his account.” A question may be raised: But did the sun rise only upon him? Rather, these words must be understood as follows: If the matter is as clear to you as the sun that the burglar is coming to you in peace, do not kill him. But if you are not sure about his intentions, arise and kill him.

The Gemara notes a difficulty: The halakha in the undetermined case as stated in the first baraita contradicts the halakha in the undetermined case as stated in the second baraita. The first baraita indicates that if the homeowner is unsure about the burglar’s intentions, he is prohibited from killing the burglar, whereas the second baraita indicates that in such a case, he is permitted to kill the burglar.

(7) When a person breaks into a home - whether at night or during the day - license is granted to kill them. If either the homeowner or another person kills them, they are not liable. The license to kill them applies both on the Sabbath and during the week; one may kill in any possible manner. This is all implied by Exodus 22:1, which reads: "There shall not be bloodguilt on his account."

(9) Why did the Torah permit the blood of such a thief to be shed, although they are only attempting to steal money? Because it is an accepted presumption that if the house-owner arises and attempts to prevent the thief from stealing, the thief will slay them. And thus the thief entering their colleague's house to steal is in effect a pursuer seeking to kill their colleague. Therefore, they should be killed, whether they are an adult or a minor, or a man or a woman.

(10) If it is clear to the house-owner that the thief who breaks in will not kill them and instead is only seeking financial gain, it is forbidden to kill the thief. If the house-owner kills them, the house-owner is considered to be a murderer.

And even with someone pursued who is fleeing the pursuer and breaks vessels, [he is] liable [to pay for this damage] - and even though he did not break them intentionally, but rather unintentionally, and at the time that he was fleeing from the pursuer to save himself - all the more so is he liable for repayment, when he gave and took with [his] hand.