Q&A: Political Murder
Political Murder
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Usually Rabin’s murder is considered a red line, but is that really so? Isn’t handing over land and leading irresponsible moves that brought about the deaths of thousands, based on a messianic delusion of peace, also a red line? Rabin’s murder only caused damage, but still, what is the problem with killing one person in order to save the majority?
In short, usually the right-wing camp completely disowns the murder, but I’m not sure whether I’m for it or against it. What do you think?
Because of fear of the Jewish Division in the Shin Bet, or any scandals whatsoever, I’ll completely understand if you choose not to answer.
Answer
There is no principled problem with killing one person in order to save many, at least if he has the status of a pursuer; in that case it is even a commandment. The question is whether that was the situation here. After all, there is a public dispute over whether his moves were correct or not (to this day), and therefore it is hard to accept applying the law of a pursuer in such a situation. All the more so since the murder did not help Yigal Amir’s goals, and when killing the pursuer does not save the pursued, there is no permission to kill him.
But it is true that in my view this murder is less severe than any other ordinary murder, and the hysterical condemnation of it is a result of political correctness. In my opinion, any other murderer, acting for money, self-interest, or just out of anger, is twice as reprehensible as someone who murders on an ideological basis. As for the degree of damage caused by the two types of murder, that is open to discussion, especially in light of the above-mentioned hysteria. But on the substantive level, it is clear that there is far less wickedness here.
Discussion on Answer
Obviously. Where is there permission to kill a pursuer without saving the pursued? Saving him by injuring one of his limbs is the opposite case—the killing really would save him, it’s just not necessary (because he can be saved without killing). But killing when it is not needed for rescue—what is the source for permitting that?
As for saving him by injuring one of his limbs, as you mentioned, the halakhic decisors disagreed whether that qualification also applies to the pursued person himself or only to a third party (because the pursued person is not expected to assess the situation due to the pressure). But as stated, that is not relevant here.
Interesting what you’re saying about the laws of a pursuer:
If there are two people pursuing one person, is it forbidden to kill one of them because in any case the second one will kill him?
And does the pursued person himself have the same rule? (Assuming there is no essential distinction between the pursued person and others, and that the rule of “he can save him by injuring one of his limbs,” as explained by some of the medieval authorities (Rishonim), applies to him as well.)