Assumptions are made about a rebellious child regarding the course his future will take and therefore he is killed to prevent him from sinning further. Assumptions are also made regarding a robber – the assumption is that a robber will come to kill if the owner of the house stands up to him and therefore it is permitted to kill him. The gemara discusses the circumstances in which one can assume the robber is coming to kill. Since at the time of the robbery, there is a “death penalty” on the robber, the robber is exempt from damages caused to the property because of the law that if one incurs two punishments at the same come, one is exempt from the more lenient one. Rav takes this even further to say he is exempt from returning the stolen items. Rava disagrees. Does one who breaks into another’s house need to be warned? Rav Huna says no. The gemara raises questions and also potential proofs to Rav Huna’s statement, including a mishna in Ohalot that discusses aborting a fetus to save the mother’s life.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.