Q&A: Rabin and the Law of the Pursuer
Rabin and the Law of the Pursuer
Question
A serious question, and truly not with any intention to incite or justify murder: from a halakhic standpoint, did Rabin have the status of a pursuer, given that it has been shown that more Jews died because of Oslo; and even if so, did that permit Yigal Amir to kill him?
Answer
This is an entirely serious question, and it is clear that there is no agenda of incitement here, only a desire to clarify the issue.
In principle, there is room to say that the law of a pursuer applies here. The problem is that there are disagreements within the public even regarding the assessment of the facts. A broad public supported him. Therefore, in my opinion, in such a situation it is forbidden to go by your own assessment. The law of a pursuer is so extreme that in order to apply it, a consensus is required such that every reasonable person would understand that this is the situation. That did not exist here.
By the way, the claim that Rabin acted in good faith and is therefore not guilty is irrelevant. The law of a pursuer applies even to a pursuer without intent, as with a fetus and as with a minor who is a pursuer.
On the other hand, the claim that many Jews died because of Oslo is also not decisive. Besides the agreement, there were other factors too, such as our policy in defense and attack, our attitude toward the Palestinians, and so on. It is difficult to determine a causal relationship even after the fact, and certainly not in the way Yigal Amir determined it in advance.
Discussion on Answer
The people accept upon themselves to follow the chief of staff in battle, and the commander in the field, and the prime minister in decisions that will prevent or bring about bloodshed,
and decisions are made according to the majority.
That is the understanding on which we live here.
It necessarily follows that we waive the law of a pursuer in advance, otherwise there could be no commander, chief of staff, or prime minister, because he would immediately be murdered.
For there is no situation in which the entire people will agree that every given decision prevents bloodshed; on the contrary, it is known in advance that some think one way and some the opposite, in almost every decision. And if the law is that it is permitted to kill them, we will not be able to go together to fight or to make alliances.
This is true even in a monarchy, all the more so in a democracy,
because otherwise there is no possibility at all of "you shall surely set a king over yourself," nor in general of the life of a nation and its leadership.
It necessarily follows that the law of a pursuer is inherently limited to some ordinary murderer chasing after someone to kill him, and cannot be connected to matters of leadership, monarchy, and the other frameworks by which Homo sapiens organizes individuals into some protective collective, whether fighting or making non-aggression pacts and the like, whatever the decision may be.
You've gone too far. If the king begins murdering his own people as a matter of policy, would it be forbidden to kill him under the law of a pursuer?
And of course there is another argument here: even if Rabin was a pursuer, the question is whether murdering him would save us. That is unlikely, and therefore even if he was indeed a pursuer, it would still have been forbidden to kill him.