Sanhedrin 144

כאן באב על הבן כאן בבן על האב

the first [Baraitha] refers to a father [robbing] his son, the second to a son [robbing] his father.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A father has more compassion for his son than a son for his father. Hence, if a father robs his son, the latter must assume that he will not go to extremes if he defends his property. Consequently, he may kill him only if he is certain thereof. But if a son robs his father (and even more so, when he robs a stranger), he may assume that he is prepared to kill him, unless certain that he will not. Therefore, if he has any doubt, he may take his life. ');">¹</span>

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

Rab said: 'Any man that broke into my house, I would kill, excepting R. Hanina b. Shila.' Why? Shall we say because he is righteous [and therefore certain not to kill me]? Surely he has broken in!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which disposes of his righteousness. ');">²</span>

תנו רבנן (שמות כב, ב) דמים לו בין בחול בין בשבת אין לו דמים בין בחול בין בשבת

— But because I am assured that he would have pity upon me, like a father for his son.

בשלמא אין לו דמים בין בחול בין בשבת איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא מידי דהוה אהרוגי בית דין דבשבת לא קטלינן קמ"ל דקטלינן אלא דמים לו בין בחול בין בשבת השתא בחול לא קטלינן ליה בשבת מבעיא

Our Rabbis taught: [If the sun be risen upon him,] there shall be blood [damim] shed for him: both on a week day, and on the Sabbath. [If the thief be found breaking up,&nbsp;…] there shall no blood [damim] be shed for him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 1-2. Damim is plural, teaching that this law holds good on more than one occasion and is therefore interpreted as referring to Sabbaths and week days. ');">³</span>

אמר רב ששת לא נצרכא אלא לפקח עליו את הגל

neither on week days, nor on the Sabbath. Now, granted that the exegesis of 'there shall no blood be shed for him', as including both week days and the Sabbath, is necessary, for I might think that this case is similar to that of those who are executed by <i>Beth din</i>, who may not be executed on the Sabbath:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this is really execution, the house owner standing in lieu of Beth din: hence, just as the latter may not execute on the Sabbath, so the former too. ');">⁴</span>

תנו רבנן (שמות כב, א) והוכה בכל אדם ומת בכל מיתה שאתה יכול להמיתו בשלמא והוכה בכל אדם איצטריך סד"א בעל הבית הוא דקים (להו) דאין אדם מעמיד עצמו על ממונו אבל אחר לא

we are therefore told that [the thief] may be slain [even on the Sabbath].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is self-defence. ');">⁵</span>

קמ"ל דרודף הוא ואפילו אחר נמי אלא ומת בכל מיתה שאתה יכול להמיתו למה לי

But why deduce 'there shall be blood shed for him', neither on a week day nor on the Sabbath? If he may not be slain on a week day, he may surely not be slain on the Sabbath? — R. Shesheth replied: This is necessary only to teach that a pile [of debris] must be removed for his sake.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, in burrowing his way in, he dislodged a pile of masonry, which fell upon him, it must be removed even on the Sabbath, and if the owner does not, he is guilty of bloodshed. ');">⁶</span>

מרוצח נפקא דתניא (במדבר לה, כא) מות יומת המכה רוצח הוא אין לי אלא במיתה האמורה בו ומנין שאם אי אתה יכול להמיתו במיתה הכתובה בו שאתה רשאי להמיתו בכל מיתה שאתה יכול להמיתו ת"ל מות יומת מ"מ

Our Rabbis taught: [If a thief be found breaking up,] and be smitten, — by any man; that he die, — by any death wherewith you can slay him. Now, [the exegesis] 'And be smitten, — by any man' is rightly necessary; for I might think that only the owner may be assumed not to remain passive. Whilst his money is being stolen, but not a stranger:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is only because of that assumption that his death is regarded as self-defence. But a stranger might not be assumed (by the thief) actively to interfere; therefore the thief is not likely to slay him, and hence his death at the hands of a stranger is not in self-defence. ');">⁷</span>

שאני התם דאמר קרא מות יומת

it is therefore taught that he is regarded as a potential murderer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'pursuer'. ');">⁸</span>

וניגמר מיניה משום דהוה רוצח וגואל הדם שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

whom even a stranger may kill [in defence of the owner]. But what need of 'that he die', — by any death wherewith you can slay him'; can this not be deduced from a murderer? For it has been taught: He that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 21. ');">⁹</span>

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

I only know that he may be executed with the death that is decreed for him; whence do I know that if you cannot execute him with that death, that you may execute him with any other death? From the verse: He that smote him shall surely be put to death, implying in any manner possible!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 358, n. 2. ');">¹⁰</span>

תניא אידך מחתרת אין לי אלא מחתרת גגו חצירו וקרפיפו מנין תלמוד לומר ימצא הגנב מ"מ א"כ מה תלמוד לומר מחתרת מחתרתו זו היא התראתו

— There it is different, because Scripture writes, He shall surely be put to death. Then why not derive this from it? Because the murderer and the avenging kinsman are two verses with the same object, and the teaching of such two verses does not extend to anything else.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 45b. Hence the need of a special verse here. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב הונא קטן הרודף ניתן להצילו בנפשו קסבר רודף אינו צריך התראה לא שנא גדול ולא שנא קטן

Our Rabbis taught: If a thief be found breaking in:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 1. ');">¹²</span>

איתיביה רב חסדא לרב הונא יצא ראשו אין נוגעין בו לפי שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש ואמאי רודף הוא שאני התם דמשמיא קא רדפי לה

from this I know that law only for breaking in [through the wall]: whence do we know it if he be found on the roof, in the court, or in an enclosure [attached to the house]? — From the verse, If the thief be found, implying, wherever he is [found as thief].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the writ does not state, If he be found, etc., but if the thief be found, which is superfluous, being understood from the context, it shows that if he is at all seen to be a thief, no matter what his position, the law applies. ');">¹³</span>

נימא מסייעא ליה רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו אומר לו ראה שישראל הוא ובן ברית הוא והתורה אמרה (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך אמרה תורה הצל דמו של זה בדמו של זה

If so, why state 'breaking in'? — Because most thieves enter by breaking in.

ההיא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה היא דתניא רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר חבר אין צריך התראה לפי שלא ניתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד

Another [Baraitha] taught: if a thief be found breaking in: from this I know the law only for breaking in: whence do I know it if he be found on the roof, in the court, or an enclosure? From the verse, 'If the thief be found,' implying. Wherever he is found as thief. If so, why state 'breaking in'? — Because his breaking in constitutes a formal warning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner need not warn him before killing him, as in the case elsewhere. ');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ש רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו אמר לו ראה שישראל הוא ובן ברית הוא והתורה אמרה שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך אם אמר יודע אני שהוא כן פטור ע"מ כן אני עושה חייב

R. Huna said: A minor in pursuit may be slain to save the pursued.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the pursued is to be saved by his (the pursuer's) blood'. ');">¹⁵</span>

לא צריכא דקאי בתרי עיברי דנהרא דלא מצי אצוליה מאי איכא דבעי איתויי לבי דינא בי דינא בעי התראה

Thus he maintains that a pursuer, whether an adult or a minor, need not be formally warned. R. Hisda asked R. Huna: we learnt: Once his head has come forth, he may not be harmed, because one life may not be taken to save another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to a woman giving birth, whose life is endangered. Now, if the fetus put forth any limb but the head, it may be cut off, so as to facilitate delivery, and save the mother. But if his head issued, it is regarded as alive, and the mother may not be saved at his expense. ');">¹⁶</span>

איבעית אימא אמר לך רב הונא אנא דאמרי כתנא דמחתרת דאמר מחתרתו זו היא התראתו:

But why so? Is he not a pursuer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in seeking to be born, he is as a pursuer. endangering his mother's life. ');">¹⁷</span> — There it is different, for she is pursued by heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. it is an 'act of God'. ');">¹⁸</span> Shall we say that the following supports him? [Viz.,] If a man was pursuing after his fellow to slay him, he (observer) says to him, 'See, he is an Israelite, and a son of the covenant, whilst the Torah hath said, Whosoever would shed the blood of a man, [to save] that man shall his own blood be shed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen, IX, 6. ');">¹⁹</span> meaning, save the blood of the pursued by the blood of the pursuer'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the pursuer did not accept the warning, as is normally necessary in a formal admonition, he may be slain, which proves that a warning is unnecessary in his case. ');">²⁰</span> — That is based on the ruling of R. Jose son of R. Judah. For it has been taught; R. Jose son of R. Judah said: A haber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'associate', fellow student; it was also a scholar's title (Fellow), and is employed in this sense here. ');">²¹</span> need not be warned, because a warning is necessary only to distinguish between ignorance and presumption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence a scholar who knows what is forbidden need not be warned, even if his crime is punished by Beth din. Likewise, the above Baraitha is on the same basis. But on the opposing view that all transgressors, including scholars, must be formally warned, and the warning accepted, it may be that the same applies to a pursuer. Therefore this does not support R. Huna. ');">²²</span> Come and hear: If a man was pursuing his neighbour to slay him, the observer says to him 'See he is an Israelite, and a son of the Covenant, whilst the Torah hath taught, Whosoever would shed the blood of a man, to save that man, shall his blood be shed'. If he [the pursuer] replied. 'I know that it is so', he is not liable to be slain; but if he replied. 'I do it even on such a condition',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if I am to be slain for it. ');">²³</span> he is liable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter formula is the acceptance of a warning. This proves that the pursuer must be formally warned, and thus refutes R. Huna. ');">²⁴</span> — This is only if they are standing on two opposite sides of the river, so that he cannot save him. Hence what is [to be done]? To bring him before <i>Beth din</i>! But [punishment] by <i>Beth din</i> must be preceded by a warning. An alternative answer if you wish is this: R. Huna can tell you: My ruling agrees with the Tanna of 'breaking in', who held that his breaking in constitutes a formal warning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 494, n. 1. Because by breaking in he is really a pursuer, needing no warning. ');">²⁵</span>