Self Defence in Jewish Law

(1) אם במחתרת means when they are directly breaking in into the house (i. e. ino other moment).

MISHNA: One who comes in a tunnel is judged according to their end. They are coming in in a tunnel and break a barrel, if there was blood-guilt then liable. If no blood-guilt then exempt.

There is no blood-guilt , [But] If the sun shines on him, there is blood-guilt.

Is the sun only going to shine on them?

Rather, If the matter is as clear to you as the sun that they don't wish you peace kill them. But if not, don't kill them.

'They are struck' - by anyone.

It's fine to include the term, “they are struck,” and say that this means struck by anyone since you might (erroneously) think that only an owner of a house who the burglar is certain will resist them - that person won't restrain themselves facing losing their money, but another person the burglar is not sure.

Rabbi Yishmael said: “If a thief is found breaking in ... " Now, if this where there is uncertainty whether he comes to take money or to take lives and you are still permitted to save yourself at the cost of the burglar's life, even when bloodshed renders the land impure and causes the Divine Presence to depart from the Jewish people, then how much the more so the saving of life should push off Shabbat.

(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 .

(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.

When a person breaks into a home - whether at night or during the day - license is granted to kill him. If either the homeowner or another person kills him, they are not liable. The license to kill him 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 literally reads: "He has no blood."

Why did the Torah permit the blood of such a thief to be shed, although he is 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 him. And thus the thief entering his colleague's house to steal is in effect a pursuer seeking to kill his colleague. Therefore, he should be killed, whether he is an adult or a minor, or a man or a woman.

If it is clear to the house-owner that the thief who breaks in will not kill him and instead is only seeking financial gain, it is forbidden to kill the thief. If the house-owner kills him, the house-owner is considered to be a murderer. This is alluded to by Exodus 22:2, which states: "If the sun shines upon him..." - i.e., if it is as clear to you as the sun that he is at peace with you, do not kill him. Therefore, a father who breaks into his son's home should not be killed. But a son who breaks into his father's home may be killed.

MISHNA: And these are the ones who are saved even at the cost of their lives; One who pursues another to kill him, or a male or a betrothed young woman [to rape them]. But one who pursues an animal or one who desecrates Shabbat, or engages in idol worship, are not saved at their lives.

Gemara: The Rabbis taught: “From where do we know that, if someone pursues his fellow to kill him, that he should be saved at the cost of his life? Scripture teaches: “Do not stand [idly] by the blood of your fellow (Lev. 19:16).” But does the verse really come to teach this? We need this verse to teach that which was taught in a Baraita: “From where do we know that if one sees his fellow drowning in a river, or a wild beast ravaging or bandits coming upon him, that he is obligated to save him? Scripture teaches: ‘Do not stand [idly] by the blood of your fellow.” Indeed it is so. But from where do we derive that he should be saved at the cost of his [the attacker’s] life?

A Baraita of the academy of Rabbi taught: “It is derived from a Scriptural analogy: ‘For like a man who rises up against his fellow and murders him, [so is this thing, the rape of a betrothed na‘arah]’ (Deut. 22:26). Just as a betrothed na’arah should be saved from rape at the cost of his life, so, too, a murderer should be saved at the cost of his life.” And from where do we know this very law about the betrothed na‘arah? As the Baraita of the academy of R. Yishmael taught, for a Baraita of the academy of R. Yishmael taught: “But she had no rescuer’(Deut. 22: 27)” The implication is that, if there was someone to rescue her, he could rescue her in whatever way possible.

(2) It is a commandment for the redeemer of blood [to kill the murderer] as it says, "The redeemer of blood shall kill the murderer (Numbers 35:19)." And everyone who is worthy to inherit, he is the redeemer of blood. If he does not want to be the redeemer of blood or if he is unable to kill him or if there is no redeemer of blood, the court kills the murderer by decapitation.

(5) When a murderer kills willfully, he should not be killed by witnesses or observers until he is brought to court and sentenced to death, as implied by Numbers 35:12 "A murderer should not be put to death until he stands 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 he is liable to be executed by the court. When, however, a person is pursuing a colleague with the intention of killing him - 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 was warned and continues to pursue his intended victim, even though he did not acknowledge the warning, since he continues his pursuit he 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 him with an arrow, a stone or a sword, and cut off his hand, break his leg, blind him or in another way prevent him from achieving his 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 him, even though he has not yet killed his 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."

(8) There is no difference whether she grabs "his private parts" or any other organ that imperils his life. Similarly, the rodef may be a man or a woman. The intent of the verse is that whenever a person intends to strike a colleague with a blow that could kill him, the pursued should be saved by "cutting off the hand" of the rodef. If this cannot be done, the victim should be saved by taking the rodef's life, as the verse continues: "you may not show pity."(9) This, indeed, is one of the negative mitzvot - not to take pity on the life of a rodef. On this basis, our Sages ruled that when complications arise and a pregnant woman cannot give birth, it is permitted to abort the fetus in her womb, whether with a knife or with drugs. For the fetus is considered a rodef of its mother. If the head of the fetus emerges, it should not be touched, because one life should not be sacrificed for another. Although the mother may die, this is the nature of the world.

13 Anyone who could save with a limb of his limbs and did not make an effort to do so, but saved the attacked person by taking the life of the pursuer, killing them, this is a murderer and such a person is deserving of death, even though the court does not kill them.

Two people who were traveling along the way, and one of them has in his possession a flask of water. If both drink from it, they will both die; however, if one of them drinks, he will reach a settlement. Ben Petura taught, it is better that both should drink and die than that one should see the death of his fellow. Whereupon R. Akiva came along and taught: “That your brother may live with you” (Lev. 25:36)—your own life takes precedence over your fellow’s life.

It is possible to learn a young betrothed woman from the case of a murderer. Just as with a potential murderer the halakha is that if one is being forced to murder someone else, he should allow himself to be killed and not transgress so too, with regard to a betrothed young woman the halakha is that she should allow herself to be killed and not transgress the prohibition of forbidden relations. But from where do we derive this halakha with regard to murder itself?

The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning. This is similar to a certain man who came before Rava and said to him: A local official said to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you. Rava said to him: It is preferable that he should kill you and you should not kill. Why did you think, your blood is redder Perhaps that man’s blood is redder.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the one came not near the other all the night” (Exodus 14:20)? The ministering angels wanted to sing their song, for the angels would sing songs to each other, as it states: “And they called out to each other and said” (Isaiah 6:3), but the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The work of My hands, the Egyptians, are drowning at sea, and you wish to say songs?