"Ask the Rabbi" by R. Mermelstein
QUESTION:
B"H
Rabbi, Shalom.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my query about Rabbi Kahane.
My question here is really a request for halachic sources validating our right (perhaps injunction) to keep and bear weapons.
All the best.
Shabbat Shalom,
Bob
16 Jun 1999
ANSWER: Dear Bob,
(1) The Talmud: Self-Defense Against an Attacker is Required
The legal wisdom in the Talmud was written down between 200 and 500
C.E., during the final phases of the Roman Empire, before Jewish
psychology had been much distorted by the ensuing centuries of
persecution. In the Talmud, generations of sages properly interpret and
apply the Laws set forth in the Five Books of Moses, the Torah.
The Talmud repeatedly mandates self-defense against an attacker. For
example, in Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin -- which deals with Legal
Judgments - The Rabbis explain Exodus 22:1, which states, "If a burglar
is caught in the act of breaking in, and is struck and killed, it is
not considered an act of murder." The next sentence explains, "However,
if he robs in broad daylight, then it is an act of murder [to kill
him]."
The first sentence clearly refers to a burglar who works at night.
This burglar may be killed, presumably because he enters covertly,
knowing that people could be present. He is deemed to have lethal
intent. By contrast, the burglar who works by day -- when people are
not normally around -- presumably tries to avoid people in order to
avoid confrontations, and so is not deemed likely to have lethal intent.
On this text, the Rabbis base a general proposition: "If someone comes
to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." The Rabbis explain that a
thief who enters a building covertly, must know that people: are likely
to be in the building; will likely try to defend their property. Thus,
the Rabbis presume such an intruder to be ready for a confrontation.
They conclude that any person confronting such a thief must be ready to
use deadly force against him, if necessary. Use of such force is not
required - one does not have to kill the intruder -- but one must do so
if that is the only way to save one's own life.
In Talmud Tractate Berachos -- which deals with Blessings -- the same
general proposition found in Tractate Sanhedrin is found. The first
context concerns apolitical persecutor, for whom financial gain was not
an issue. A man planned to denounce a Rabbi to the secular authorities,
because the Rabbi had punished a Jewish criminal. The secular
authorities later approved of the punishment. The would-be informer
then planned to tell the authorities that the Rabbi had lied to them
and had spoken disrespectfully about them. The Rabbi concluded the
informer was implacably hostile to him, and was preparing to denounce
him once again. That would have put the Rabbi's life in direct peril.
As a result, the Rabbi killed the would-be informer, in order to save
his own life.
The second context refers to a statement David made to King Saul,
"According to the Law, you deserve to be slain, since you are a
pursuer, and the Torah has said, 'If one comes to kill you, rise and
kill him first.'" However, David was not required to kill Saul because
of special circumstances then prevailing.
Thus, rather than glorifying victimization -- whether by common
criminals or by political adversaries -- Jewish law mandates
self-defense. This is entirely consistent with the core of Jewish
identity as set forth in the Torah: Protection of Life and Enjoyment of
Freedom. A Jew -- like anyone else -- must live to be Free. And Freedom
mean the ability fully to obey the Commandments set forth in the Torah.
(2) The Torah, which the Talmud explains and amplifies, is clear in the
matter of self-defense and the obligation of individuals to protect
their lives. This is the foundation. A fire poke or a pipe wrench may
well serve in some instances to defend life and limb. Obviously, they
were not designed for that task. Firearms are more efficient. If the
aggressor is armed with a firearm, using a like implement in defense is
merely evening the odds.
Jewish law, perhaps unlike civil laws regarding use of lethal
force, does not place the onus on the victim to prove that the use of a
firearm was justifiable, only that the attack was unlawful and
unprovoked. The Sages of the Talmud did not conceive of firearms.
Self-defense and personal preservation have been necessary from day
one. There are numerous references in the Talmud to the use of weapons
by Jews to defend lives. (See on this website an article I wrote
entitled "Carrying Weapons on the Sabbath"). If the Talmud condoned the
sword as an appropriate tool for a Jew to defend lives, the firearm is
simply the modern equivalent. I find no contradiction between a
religious Jew and firearms ownership. To the contrary, in spite of many
who may disagree, I am firm in my position that piety encompasses
upholding the Torah's obligation upon Jews to protect their lives. If
it takes a firearm to obey this requirement, I'm at a loss to
comprehend any arguments that guns are "un-Jewish". A firearm may very
well be the tool by which one will stay Jewish for many more healthy
years.
Sincerely,
R. Mermelstein
Click
here to write Rabbi Mermelstein your questions!
[Back to "Ask
the
Rabbi"]