He will kill and he will not pass – a public facing many details
In previous columns, it was mentioned that public life supposedly rejects the prohibition of “murder” in certain ways [the Lod massacre], even though in “Give us one of you…” one does not reject one soul for the sake of many souls.
And let’s say that there is a difference between “the public” and “many individuals”
I have two questions about this.
- Among the slain of Lydda, were Paphos and Lelanus permitted to hand over someone else in their place?
- Why is the case with Sheva Ben Bakri not called “public” when “Lod” is called public?
Public life does not negate the prohibition of murder. A person is permitted to surrender himself in order to save a public (although the Jerusalemite hagiographers have cited a passage from the Law of Moses that murder is also permissible for a private person). The question of whether it is permissible to harm someone in order to save a public is a different question.
In the painting of Sheva ben Bakri (cited in Yerushalmi and Tosefta Terumot), it is said that he would have been killed anyway, even if they had not handed him over. Because the threat was that the entire city would be killed along with him. Therefore, all the poskim assumed that it was permissible to hand him over (because there is no such thing as “who would dare”). And so I wrote that what they forbade was only the law of blasphemy and sanctification of the Lord, which is forbidden to submit to existence. Therefore, it is not a matter for discussion. In principle, it was permissible to hand him over, and all the seriousness is only due to blasphemy. Therefore, this is an act of contradiction.
Excellent, that's how I understand it too
So we don't have a source to divide many details from the public??
Or is there another source?
Divide into what? I lost you. You are again returning to that discussion that I do not know what you were talking about. I answered here what was asked here.
The distinction between an individual and a public has a source, even if not direct (there are many differences between a public and an individual, and it is not unreasonable to apply them here as well). Therefore, there is room for explanation for the division between a public and an individual also in the matter of harming an individual for the sake of saving the public. However, as I wrote, this is a different question from the question of giving oneself up to death to save the public (such was the case with the Lod victims). One can learn from that in the explanation, but of course it is not necessary.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
