Parshat Mishpatim: The Sneaky Thief
Save
Copy
Add to Collection
Export to Google Docs
Share(א) אִם־בַּמַּחְתֶּ֛רֶת יִמָּצֵ֥א הַגַּנָּ֖ב וְהֻכָּ֣ה וָמֵ֑ת אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ דָּמִֽים׃ (ב) אִם־זָרְחָ֥ה הַשֶּׁ֛מֶשׁ עָלָ֖יו דָּמִ֣ים ל֑וֹ שַׁלֵּ֣ם יְשַׁלֵּ֔ם אִם־אֵ֣ין ל֔וֹ וְנִמְכַּ֖ר בִּגְנֵבָתֽוֹ׃ (ג) אִֽם־הִמָּצֵא֩ תִמָּצֵ֨א בְיָד֜וֹ הַגְּנֵבָ֗ה מִשּׁ֧וֹר עַד־חֲמ֛וֹר עַד־שֶׂ֖ה חַיִּ֑ים שְׁנַ֖יִם יְשַׁלֵּֽם׃ {ס}
(1) If the thief is seized while tunneling [i.e., under a wall for housebreaking] 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. (3) But if what was stolen—whether ox or ass or sheep—is found alive and in hand, that person shall pay double.
Comprehension Questions:
- What does it mean when the text says there is or is not bloodguilt?
- Why does the bloodguilt liability change depending on time of day?
- Why is it important that the thief is tunneling his way into the house?
- Why does the thief pay double if a stolen animal is found alive and in hand?
הַבָּא בַמַּחְתֶּרֶת נִדּוֹן עַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ. הָיָה בָא בַמַּחְתֶּרֶת וְשָׁבַר אֶת הֶחָבִית, אִם יֶשׁ לוֹ דָמִים, חַיָּב. אִם אֵין לוֹ דָמִים, פָּטוּר:
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. If there is no blood-guiltiness for killing him, he is exempt from paying for the value of the barrel.
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
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
ת"ר (שמות כב, א) אין לו דמים אם זרחה השמש עליו וכי השמש עליו בלבד זרחה אלא אם ברור לך הדבר כשמש שאין לו שלום עמך הרגהו ואם לאו אל תהרגהו
The Sages taught: The verses state: “If a burglar is found breaking in, and is smitten and dies, there shall not be blood shed on his account. If the sun is risen upon him, there shall be blood shed on his account” (Exodus 22:1–2). A question may be raised: But did the sun rise only upon him? 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.
תנו רבנן (שמות כב, א) מחתרת אין לי אלא מחתרת גגו חצירו וקרפיפו מנין ת"ל (שמות כב, א) ימצא הגנב מ"מ אם כן מה ת"ל מחתרת מפני שרוב גנבים מצויין במחתרת
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: From the words: “If a burglar is found breaking in” (Exodus 22:1), I have derived only that this halakha applies to a burglar who came breaking in through a wall. But from where do I derive that the same halakha applies if he was found on his roof, in his yard, or in the enclosed area behind his house? Therefore, the verse states: “If a burglar is found,” which teaches that the halakha applies in any case. If that is so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Breaking in”? Because the Torah speaks of a common case, and most thieves are found breaking in.
אמר רב כל דאתי עלאי במחתרתא קטילנא ליה לבר מרב חנינא בר שילא מאי טעמא אילימא משום דצדיק הוא הא קאתי במחתרתא אלא משום דקים לי בגוויה דמרחם עלי כרחם אב על הבן
Rav says: With regard to anyone who breaks into my house, I would kill him, as I would presume that he is ready to kill me, except for Rav Ḥanina bar Sheila, whom I would not kill. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav excludes Rabbi Ḥanina bar Sheila? If we say that Rav trusts him because he is a righteous person, this is difficult, as the case is one where he broke into his house, which indicates that he is not a righteous person. Rather, it is because he would say: I am certain that he would have mercy upon me just like a father would have mercy on a son.
The Law of the Rodef (Pursuer)
קמ"ל דרודף הוא ואפילו אחר נמי אלא ומת בכל מיתה שאתה יכול להמיתו
Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this burglar is considered a pursuer, and he is subject to the same halakha as anyone who pursues another in order to kill him, namely, that anyone may kill the pursuer in order to rescue the one being pursued. Therefore, even another person is permitted to kill the burglar in order to save the homeowner.
As applied to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin:
First of all, the law of the pursuer only applies to a spontaneous act, whereas Yigal Amir planned this assassination for two years. Secondly, the law of the pursuer is only intended to save a potential victim from imminent death. There is absolutely no proof that withdrawing from certain territories will directly lead to the death of any Jews. On the contrary, Prime Minister Rabin, over half the members of the Knesset, and over half the population of Israel believe exactly the opposite – that it will save Jewish lives. Lastly, this law does not refer to elected representatives, for if Yitzhak Rabin was really a pursuer, then so are all his followers, and that would mean that Amir should have killed over half the population of Israel! In other words, even according to the law of the pursuer, this act was totally futile and senseless, since the peace process will continue.
"Rabbinic response: Jewish Law on the Killing of Yitzhak Rabin," by Rabbi Arthur Waskow, The Shalom Center, 11/14/2005
