- This topic has 87 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Joseph: Source please.
Check the Halacha on rodef/nirdaf and you see it is referring to the Halacha between Yehudim. Which sources are you using when you earlier cited Halacha regarding rodef/nirdaf?
Check the Halacha
That Rodef is only when he is in the act of killing? Offen a Mishna, and Rambam Rotzach 1:7
???? ?????? ??? ????
You want to say there is a different din (not Rodef) by an Eino Yehudei? Prove that such a thing exists. I’m unaware of it, but am willing to learn.
Joe -“Sam, you’re correctly describing rodef/nirdaf as applicable between yehudim. Only. If an aino yehudi is planning to kill a yehudi he has a different status than a yehudi who is planning (but not actively running after) to kill another yehudi”
“I have to disagree with your analysis. Unless the Rambam tells us what the din would be in the case of an Eino Yehudi, how could you assume they are different?”
The problem here is who says he didn’t have a Din of Rodef?!?
It’s typical that many posters here are defending the Medina!
Just like a Habomacteres is a Din Rodef – so here. How do you know he didn’t have an explosive device?!?
That Rodef is only when he is in the act of killing? Offen a Mishna, and Rambam Rotzach 1:7
???? ?????? ??? ????
What kind of raya is that? We are discussing whether or not he is in fact ????? ????.
Unless the Rambam tells us what the din would be in the case of an Eino Yehudi, how could you assume they are different?
The Rambam spells out who he is referring to in hilchos rotzeach, right in halachah aleph. The burden is on you if you want to assert otherwise.
Just like a Habomacteres is a Din Rodef – so here. How do you know he didn’t have an explosive device?!?
How do you know that anyone doesn’t have such a device? How do I know that you do not intend to kill me? Does that justify me treating you as a Rodef?
By default, halacha refers to situations between Jews unless otherwise specified.
It’s typical that many posters here are defending the Medina!
I think there’s some truth to that. I doubt anyone would consider a terrorist “neutralized” if he was in Palestinian custody. Not to equate the two, but the Israeli government has its own political motivations, and we can’t consider terrorists in their custody to be safe and no longer a rodef.
The bigger issue is, why was this soldier serving in an army controlled by Hellenists that hate Yahadus, it is assur medeorisa to serve in the IDF.
By default, halacha refers to situations between Jews unless otherwise specified.
See Rambam Rotzaiach 1:1
Karlbenmarx, probably a tinok shenishba.
Gavra: “How do you know that anyone doesn’t have such a device? How do I know that you do not intend to kill me?”
Don’t be ridiculous. This was a terrorist who had JUST stabbed a soldier. He is not some neutral person strolling down the street whose motivations we can’t fathom. He has just actively demonstrated himself to be a terrorist! And he is wearing a thick leather coat on a warm day. If those two things together do not add up to a reasonable halachic suspicion of someone being dangerous, then I give up.
And Karlbenmarx, don’t sit in your comfy house in America and pass judgment on people who are in the IDF whose situations you don’t understand. Go troll somewhere else. This is not a game. People’s lives are at stake.
See Rambam Rotzaiach 1:1
Are you supporting my point? The Rambam specifies who he is referring to.
Joseph, who says that the halacha refers to relations between Jews unless otherwise stated? One could say the opposite. Unless it says “???”,”?????” or something similar it refers to everybody.
What kind of raya is that? We are discussing whether or not he is in fact ????? ????.
So what makes someone ????? ?????
Just note there are two different discussions going on which I don’t want to confuse.
The first is if the standard dinim of Rotzaiach, Rodef and other relevant laws apply to an Eino Yehudei, or are there other applicable laws (which no one has cited as of yet).
The second is if the terrorist in question was still a Rodef. For the purposes of our discussion, imagine it was in the USA, middle of Boro Park, and the attacker is a Bernie Sanders (Yehudei Tinok SheNishba) type member of Weather Underground.
Which are you responding to? I was responding to the second discussion.
I was responding to the second discussion.
So was I (to you).
Pashut p’shat in not being adayan rodef is that he is no longer a threat. I am maintaining that under the circumstances he still is (aside from possibly being currently armed).
Are you supporting my point? The Rambam specifies who he is referring to.
Your specific point here. I don’t know about “default”, it depends on the specific din/case.
I was responding to the second discussion.
So was I (to you).
Pashut p’shat in not being adayan rodef is that he is no longer a threat. I am maintaining that under the circumstances he still is (aside from possibly being currently armed).
As I pointed out originally in this thread, if those who were there had considered him a real threat to be a suicide bomb (or other weapon), then no one would have been allowed to be near him (which IMHO (and I don’t get a say) should be SOP).
So what “threat” are you talking about?
Don’t be ridiculous. This was a terrorist who had JUST stabbed a soldier. He is not some neutral person strolling down the street whose motivations we can’t fathom. He has just actively demonstrated himself to be a terrorist! And he is wearing a thick leather coat on a warm day. If those two things together do not add up to a reasonable halachic suspicion of someone being dangerous, then I give up.
So? I have a reasonable halachic suspicion that Health will try to kill me as someone who may be a closet supporter of the Medinah (I’m on the fence). 🙂
Even if you are correct (and you would have to bring a source), the Mishnaos in the second perek of Avoda Zara prove that you can only take personal protections, not harm the other party.
So what “threat” are you talking about?
That he’ll do it again when released.
I have a reasonable halachic suspicion that Health will try to kill me
On paper, you can try to rationalize anything as reasonable, but that doesnt make it so.
So what “threat” are you talking about?
That he’ll do it again when released.
1: Meheichei Teisi he will, and that is a reason to kill a person?!
2: Since when are we “Nidon Al Shem Sofo? The Yodaiah Machashavos said about Yishmael (an Arab!!) B’Asher Hu Sham.
3: Where do you draw the line? Those already in jail? Stone-throwers? Gazans? Arabs?
As mentioned above, Chazal require us to take personal protections against those who are ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????. Never to be pro-active.
Also note:
1. Meihecha teisi he won’t? Why assume he’ll do TESHUVA?
2. We’re not. Ba’asher hu shom, he’s a rotzeiach rasha who would kill a Yid in a second if given the opportunity.
3. Known terorists
Also noted: we are in agreement that he should be incarcerated for life optimally, and that’s sufficient. If not for the fact that the Israeli government is chasud meod to release him, I would agree that it would be assur to kill him.
“Jerusalem reader” if lives are at stake you KILL those that come to KILL you not free them like the Zionists do at every chance they have as a “goodwill gesture”. It is the Zionists in power who don’t understand the value of Yiddisha lives.
karlbenmarx: I am precisely advocating killing the terrorists and I can’t believe anyone on the planet has the gall to call this soldier a murderer. Just be aware that serving in the army is not a personal choice here. Many are forced into it. To call it an aveirah d’oraisah is plain ignorant.
1. Meihecha teisi he won’t? Why assume he’ll do TESHUVA?
2. We’re not. Ba’asher hu shom, he’s a rotzeiach rasha who would kill a Yid in a second if given the opportunity.
3. Known terrorists
Would you say the same for a Jew? And careful, because there have been.
He should be incarcerated until they are certain he will not act again, and if that is never, then so be it. Just because the Medinah may release people before then doesn’t mean that a Yochid should kill someone.
Simcha613
1) Why should we assume that will change?
2) I’m not assuming that he definitely will, but it has happened, so why should I assume he won’t? You definitely can’t call him “neutralized”, although (assuming currently unarmed) he should be, if not for prisoner exchanges.
Would you say the same for a Jew?
In theory, sure, but why would they release him?
Just because the Medinah may release people before then doesn’t mean that a Yochid should kill someone.
It means he’s still a threat, so it does mean that.
Would you say the same for a Jew?
In theory, sure, but why would they release him?
Parole. Note that the Rambam disagrees. Roztach 2:4 & 2:5.
? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ???–?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????, ????? ????. ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???–?? ????? ???? ????? ???, ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????.
? ??? ??? ???? ????, ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????–??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????, ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????, ?????? ??? ???? ???: ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???, ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????, ??????.
So an individual has no right to mete out his own punishment in any of these scenarios.
It means he’s still a threat, so it does mean that.
If someone (Jewish) is hypothetically a threat to kill someone (unknown and not specific) 20 (or more, or less) years down the road, even 50/50, you would execute them today?
Jerusalem reader, the charedim don’t serve, the Israeli Arabs don’t serve and still get benefits and probably more benefits than others, so there is no true 100% draft like you make sound. Plus many Yidden who came to America 100 years ago said they were “forced” to work on Shabbos and now their eneklach are like Bernie Sanders while those who fought the “force” are erlich. Why don’t your fellow Israeli Arab CITIZENS also serve?
I would assume that the status quo of a person is that they are not a rodeif unless you have a valid assumption why they should be.
We have not just an assumption, we know he is a murderer who would kill again if given the chance, and he has not been vaday neutralized.
Parole
Another poor analogy. Parole is granted only if it’s reasonable to assume he’s no longer dangerous.
The Rambam you quoted is also irrelevant. Permanently imprisoned, he is not dangerous, so an individual can’t kill him. We are talking about a killer who is not necessarily permanently imprisoned.
- The topic ‘Soldier who killed the "neutralized" terrorist’ is closed to new replies.