Last week, in Parshaht Yitro, the Israelites received the Ten Commandments. This week's parshah, according to Nachmanides, is an expansion of the 10th commandment: "Thou shalt not covet," laying down laws that govern civil society. Today we will look at one law in particular, as it pertains to self-defense in the face of a burglar, in order to consider the constellation of principles surrounding the value of human life as it is articulated in the Torah and the Talmud.
(ה) וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֤ם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי֙ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה אֹתָ֛ם הָאָדָ֖ם וָחַ֣י בָּהֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה׃ {ס}
(5) You shall keep My laws and My rules, by the pursuit of which human beings shall live: I am יהוה.
ומאי ה"ל למימר (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם
The Gemara asks: And what would ben Dama have said? What verse did he intend to cite as proof that it was permitted for him to be healed by a heretic? The verse: “You shall therefore keep My statutes, and My ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). This teaches that one should live by God’s mitzvot, and not that he should die by them. This verse serves as a source for the halakha that one may violate a prohibition in order to save a life.
אֲבָל לְהַחֲיוֹת — אֲפִילּוּ מֵעַל מִזְבְּחִי. וּמָה זֶה, שֶׁסָּפֵק יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו סָפֵק אֵין מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו, וַעֲבוֹדָה דּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת — קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְפִקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. נַעֲנָה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְאָמַר: וּמָה מִילָה שֶׁהִיא אֶחָד מִמָּאתַיִם וְאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה אֵיבָרִים שֶׁבָּאָדָם דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת — קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְכׇל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
but to preserve a life, e.g., if the priest can testify to the innocence of one who is sentenced to death, one removes him even from on top of My altar, even while he is sacrificing an offering. Just as this priest, about whom there is uncertainty whether there is substance to his words of testimony or whether there is no substance to his words, is taken from the Temple service in order to save a life, and Temple service overrides Shabbat, so too, a fortiori, saving a life overrides Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya answered and said: Just as the mitzva of circumcision, which rectifies only one of the 248 limbs of the body, overrides Shabbat, so too, a fortiori, saving one’s whole body, which is entirely involved in mitzvot, overrides Shabbat.
(א) אִם־בַּמַּחְתֶּ֛רֶת יִמָּצֵ֥א הַגַּנָּ֖ב וְהֻכָּ֣ה וָמֵ֑ת אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ דָּמִֽים׃ (ב) אִם־זָרְחָ֥ה הַשֶּׁ֛מֶשׁ עָלָ֖יו דָּמִ֣ים ל֑וֹ שַׁלֵּ֣ם יְשַׁלֵּ֔ם אִם־אֵ֣ין ל֔וֹ וְנִמְכַּ֖ר בִּגְנֵבָתֽוֹ׃
(1) If the thief is seized while tunneling and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt in that case. (2) If the sun had already risen, there is bloodguilt in that case.—[The thief] must make restitution, and if lacking the means, shall be sold for the theft.
(א) אם במחתרת. כְּשֶׁהָיָה חוֹתֵר אֶת הַבַּיִת: (ב) אין לו דמים. אֵין זוֹ רְצִיחָה, הֲרֵי הוּא כְמֵת מֵעִקָּרוֹ; כָּאן לִמְּדַתְךָ תוֹרָה "אִם בָּא לְהָרְגְּךָ, הַשְׁכֵּם לְהָרְגוֹ" וְזֶה לְהָרְגְּךָ בָּא, שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹדֵעַ הוּא שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַעֲמִיד עַצְמוֹ וְרוֹאֶה שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין מָמוֹנוֹ בְּפָנָיו וְשׁוֹתֵק, לְפִיכָךְ עַל מְנָת כֵּן בָּא שֶׁאִם יַעֲמֹד בַּעַל הַמָּמוֹן כְּנֶגְדוֹ יַהַרְגֶנּוּ (סנהדרין ע"ב):
(1) אם במחתרת means when he was breaking in into the house (i. e. in the very act of forcing an entry, but at no other moment). (2) אין לו דמים THERE SHALL NO GUILT OF BLOOD BE INCURRED FOR HIM — This is not regarded as a murder; it is as though he (the thief) has been dead from the beginning of his criminal act (אין לו דמים is taken to mean: he, the thief, had no blood — no vitality). Here the Torah teaches you the rule: “If one comes with the intention of killing you, be quick and kill him”. — And this burglar actually came with the intention of killing you, for he knew full well that no one can hold himself in check, looking on whilst people are stealing his property before his eyes and doing nothing. He (the thief) therefore obviously came with this purpose in view — that in case the owner of the property would resist him, he would kill him (Sanhedrin 72a).
(א) אם זרחה השמש עליו. אֵין זֶה אֶלָּא כְמִין מָשָׁל: אִם בָּרוּר לְךָ הַדָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׁלוֹם עִמְּךָ, כַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ הַזֶּה שֶׁהוּא שָׁלוֹם בָּעוֹלָם, כָּךְ פָּשׁוּט לְךָ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא לַהֲרֹג אֲפִלּוּ יַעֲמֹד בַּעַל הַמָּמוֹן כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, כְּגוֹן אָב הַחוֹתֵר לִגְנֹב מָמוֹן הַבֵּן, בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁרַחֲמֵי הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן וְאֵינוֹ בָא עַל עִסְקֵי נְפָשׁוֹת (שם): (ב) דמים לו. כְּחַי הוּא חָשׁוּב, וּרְצִיחָה הִיא אִם יַהַרְגֶנוּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת: (ג) שלם ישלם. הַגַּנָּב מָמוֹן שֶׁגָּנַב וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב מִיתָה; וְאֻנְקְלוֹס שֶׁתִּרְגֵּם אִם עֵינָא דְּסַהֲדַיָּא נְפָלַת עֲלוֹהִי, לָקַח לוֹ שִׁטָּה אַחֶרֶת, לוֹמַר, שֶׁאִם מְצָאוּהוּ עֵדִים קֹדֶם שֶׁבָּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וּכְשֶׁבָּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נֶגְדּוֹ הִתְרוּ בוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַהַרְגֵהוּ, דמים לו – חַיָּב עָלָיו אִם הֲרָגוֹ, שֶׁמֵּאַחַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ רוֹאִים לוֹ, אֵין הַגַּנָּב הַזֶּה בָא עַל עִסְקֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, וְלֹא יַהֲרֹג אֶת בַּעַל הַמָּמוֹן:
(1) אם זרחה השמש עליו IF THE SUN SHONE UPON HIM — This is only a metaphorical expression signifying: if the fact is clear to you that he is peaceably disposed towards you. The simile is: just as the sun brings peace (happiness) to the world so if it is evident to you that he did not come with the intention of killing, even if the owner of the property would resist him (Sanhedrin 72a), as, for instance, when a father breaks in to steal the money of his son, for it is certain that the father cherishes feelings of pity for his child and the matter of taking human life is not in his thoughts at all, — then (2) דמים לו, then he is to be regarded as a living man (cf. Rashi’s explanation of אין לו דמים v. 1.), and it is murder if the householder kills him. (3) שלם ישלם means the thief shall only restore the money he has stolen but is not subject to the death penalty. Onkelos who renders אם זרחה השמש עליו by, “If the eye of witnesses fall upon him” chose a different way of explaining the verse, namely, that if witnesses surprise him before the householder appears, and when the householder is going towards him they warn him not to kill him (the thief), then דמים לו, he is punishable if he kills him; for since there are people watching him the thief surely has no thought of taking human life and will not kill the owner of the property.
מתני׳ הבא במחתרת נידון על שם סופו היה בא במחתרת ושבר את החבית אם יש לו דמים חייב אם אין לו דמים פטור: גמ׳ אמר רבא מאי טעמא דמחתרת חזקה אין אדם מעמיד עצמו על ממונו והאי מימר אמר אי אזילנא קאי לאפאי ולא שביק לי ואי קאי לאפאי קטילנא ליה והתורה אמרה אם בא להורגך השכם להורגו
MISHNA: A burglar who is found breaking into a house may be killed by the owner of the house with impunity (see Exodus 22:1). He too is sentenced on account of his ultimate end, as it is presumed that if the owner of the house would resist the burglar, the burglar would kill the owner of the house. If the burglar was breaking into a house, and in the course of doing so he broke a barrel, if there is blood-guiltiness for killing him, i.e., if the homeowner would be liable for killing him, the burglar is liable to pay for the value of the barrel. An example of this is 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 there is no blood-guiltiness for killing him, i.e., if the homeowner would be exempt from punishment for killing him, the burglar is exempt from paying for the barrel. 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.