Q&A: Be Killed Rather Than Transgress — The Public vs. Many Individuals
Be Killed Rather Than Transgress — The Public vs. Many Individuals
Question
In the previous columns it was mentioned that saving public life supposedly overrides the prohibition of "murder" in certain cases [the martyrs of Lod], even though in the case of "Give us one of you…" one life is not set aside for the sake of many lives.
And it was said about this that there is a difference between "the public" and "many individuals."
I have two questions about this:
- In the case of the martyrs of Lod, would it have been permitted for Pappos and Lulianus to hand over someone else in their place?
- Why is the case of Sheva son of Bichri not called "the public," whereas "Lod" is called the public?
Answer
Saving public life does not override the prohibition of murder. A person is permitted to give himself up in order to save the public (even though we do not rule in accordance with the Jerusalem Talmud, the Hagahot Maimoniot at the beginning of the laws of murder brought that even for a private individual this is permitted). The question whether it is permitted to harm one person in order to save the public is a different question.
In the scenario of Sheva son of Bichri (brought in the Jerusalem Talmud and the Tosefta, Terumot), he would have been killed in any case, even if they had not handed him over. For the threat was that they would kill the entire city together with him. Therefore there, from the standpoint of the laws of murder and preserving life, all the halakhic decisors assumed that it is permitted to hand him over (because the reasoning of "who says [your blood is redder]?" does not apply there). And about that I wrote that what they prohibited was only from the standpoint of desecration and sanctification of God's name, since one may not submit to such a demand. So that is not relevant to our discussion here. In principle it was permitted to hand him over, and the whole stringency is only because of desecration of God's name. Therefore this is a counterexample.
Discussion on Answer
A distinction with respect to what? You lost me. You're going back again to that discussion, and I don't know what it was about. Here I answered what was asked here.
The distinction between an individual and the public does have a source, even if not a direct one (there are many differences between the public and an individual, and it is not far-fetched to apply them here as well). So there is room, as a matter of reasoning, to distinguish between the public and an individual also with respect to harming an individual for the sake of saving the public. But as I wrote, that is a different question from the question of giving oneself over to death in order to save the public (as in the case of the martyrs of Lod). One can infer from there by reasoning, but of course it is not necessary.
Excellent, that's how I understand it too.
So then we have no source for distinguishing between many individuals and the public??
Or is there another source?