Gun Violence Prevention through Jewish Text

But if an ox is entirely forewarned [Heb: mu'ad, the term used for an ox that has attacked another animal, person, or property 3 or more times], you do not find an element of innocuousness [Heb: tamut. Tam is the term for a non-dangerous or docile ox] with regard to it at all.

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: There is no sufficient safeguarding at all for an ox other than slaughtering it with a knife. Rabba said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? It is as the verse states with regard to a forewarned ox: “And the owner has not secured it” (Exodus 21:36), the owner no longer has any sufficient manner of safeguarding this animal, and the owner is responsible for all damage it causes...

Rather, Abaye said that this is Rabbi Eliezer's reason: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and that one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? As it is written: “You shall not bring blood into your house” (Deuteronomy 22:8).

MISHNA: One may neither go out on Shabbat with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a shield, nor with a club, nor with a spear. And if someone unwittingly went out with one of these weapons to the public domain one is liable to acknowledge their sin. Rabbi Eliezer says: These weapons are ornaments for the person; just as a one is permitted to go out into the public domain with other ornaments, they are permitted to go out with weapons. And the Rabbis say: They are nothing other than reprehensible and in the future they will be eliminated, as it is written: “And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not raise sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4).

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: One may not sell weapons to them [gentiles] or the auxiliary equipment of weapons, and one may not sharpen weapons for them. And one may not sell them stocks used for fastening the feet of prisoners, or iron neck chains , or foot chains, or iron chains. This prohibition applies to both a gentile [Heb: aved cochavim. Idol worshipper] and a Samaritan. [Heb: Cuti/ Cuthean. Samaritans were a religious sect that diverged from ancient Israelite society several centuries earlier. Their status is often understood by the rabbis of the Talmud as somewhere in between Jewish and gentile, as their practice is neither idolatrous nor Jewish]...

Rav Dimi bar Abba says: In a likewise manner, that which it is forbidden to sell to an idolater, it is also forbidden to sell to an armed bandit who is a Jew. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this prohibition? If the thief is suspected of killing, isn’t it obvious!? In both cases one violates the prohibition: Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.

MISHNA: A burglar who is found breaking into a house may be killed by the owner of the house with impunity... [But] if a father broke into his son’s house, in which case it is presumed that even if the son resists his father, his father would never kill him, and therefore the son may not kill his father, and if he does so he is liable. If it is a regular burglar, there is no bloodguilt for killing him.

GEMARA: Rava says: What is the reason for this halakha concerning a burglar who breaks into a house? He explains: There is a presumption that a person does not restrain himself when faced with losing his money, and therefore this burglar must have said to himself: If I go in and the owner sees me, he will rise against me and not allow me to steal from him, and if he rises against me, I will kill him. And the Torah stated a principle: If someone comes to kill you, rise and kill him first.

(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.