Q&A: Territorial Considerations
Territorial Considerations
Question
Hello Rabbi,
You’ve argued several times, in the context of territorial considerations, that if someone points a gun at me and demands a shekel in exchange for not killing me, I’m allowed to kill him and I don’t have to give him the shekel. You explained that this is because he invaded my territory, and I’m allowed to defend it even at the cost of killing him.
If so, why is it actually forbidden to run over a protester who is blocking my road? Seemingly the cases are similar—I have the ability to get my territory back (by running over the protester), and the protester is demanding that I refrain from violence and submit to his demand.
Answer
In principle it is permitted, but only if you truly warned him and there is no other way to solve the problem. That’s what the police are for. Beyond that, the protester is not threatening your life, so there is no simple justification for killing him. He does not have the status of a pursuer, unlike someone who threatens me unless I give him a shekel. That person is killed under the law of a pursuer. Still, in my opinion it is also permitted to kill someone who breaks into my home to steal, if there is no other way to deal with him. I explained this in detail in my article about killing a thief. That is already more similar. In the end, there are accepted norms and there are authorities that deal with this kind of problem.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t understand. The protester is preventing me from traveling on a road that I have permission to travel on. You’re right that this’s not like breaking into my private home, but there is still room for territorial considerations even in such a situation. By the way, even in Jewish law, the four cubits around me in the public domain are considered my courtyard.
I seem to remember that somewhere you said that the owner of the road (the public) allows protesters to demonstrate on it in that way, and therefore there is no right to pass in such a case (something along those lines).
We’re not talking about a licensed demonstration. Obviously, if they have permission, there is no discussion.
You’re right about the difference regarding the law of a pursuer, I accept that.
But you wrote that even without that I have permission (like in the case of a thief), and what you think prevents it is that there is police who can deal with it. The police maybe can deal with it, but practically speaking, obviously it will take a very long time (otherwise clearly there would be no permission at all). That is to say—even if there is a remedy, but it’s one that isn’t good enough == still harms my territory, I should still have permission.
Very unlikely. What about someone who is just daydreaming at a traffic light? He’s also delaying me. There is common sense and proportionality. Also, the owner of the road (the public) does not allow it to be cleared in such a way.
You should remember that this is also not similar to a thief, because he is taking something that is mine, whereas the protester is only passively preventing me from using the road (which is not really mine).
Daydreaming at a traffic light is not relevant to the discussion, because that is unintentional, and therefore by definition is not considered an infringement of territory.
Of course I’m applying common sense and proportionality—if the police arrive after two hours to clear the road, then the blocker caused me damage equal to two hours’ wages—that’s the shekel from the original example, but as actual damage. And if you’re already demanding common sense and proportionality—what about a thief who comes to steal only a shekel from me?
I don’t understand the distinction between active and passive damage—what matters for our discussion is the infringement of territory.
As for the owner of the road not allowing it—what if the blockage is in ownerless territory?
But here we’re talking about public property, not an individual’s territory. Isn’t that a different case?