גריי מאטר ד, ישראל, דין רודף ורצח רביןGray Matter IV, Israel, The Halachah of Rodeif and the Rabin Shooting
א׳
1Introduction
ב׳
2In 1995, a Jew assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin. His defense was that
ג׳
3Rabin was a rodeif, one who threatens the lives of others and therefore may be put to death. We shall seek to demonstrate that Prime Minister Rabin was not a Rodeif and that the Jew who assassinated Rabin had no Halachic basis for his actions. Our discussion is based on a responsum of Rav Yehuda Henkin (Teshuvot Bnai Banim 3:33) and an essay authored by Professor Eliav Schochetman that appears inTechumin 19.61Both Rav Henkin and Professor Schochetman have been outspoken critics of the Oslo process and are cited as spokesmen for the Israeli Right. Nevertheless, they are adamant that Prime Minister Rabin did not have the status of a rodeif.
ד׳
4The Halachah of rodeif is similar to the Halachah of ba b'machteret that is presented in Shemot 22:1. The Torah teaches that one may kill a thief who is tunneling into one's house, since one may assume that the thief is armed and constitutes a danger to life. The Torah permits the householder to kill the thief in self-defense. Chazal (Sanhedrin 72a) phrase this rule accordingly, "If someone comes to kill you, act first and kill him." The Gemara (Sanhedrin 73a), in turn, presents the sources in the Torah that teach that one must kill someone who is attempting to kill another person. This rule applies not only to self-defense but also to defending the lives of others. It applies even to someone who engages in sexual assault (Sanhedrin 73a). Thus, if no other option is available, one must kill someone who is attempting to murder or rape.62For a discussion of the subtle distinctions between the cases of rodeif and one who tunnels into a house, see my Peninei Torah (Sanhedrin pp. 7-8).
ה׳
5In the absence of a Sanhedrin sitting in proximity to the Beit Hamikdash, Halachah does not permit a beit din to impose capital punishment. The rules of rodeif, however, apply even in the absence of a Sanhedrin (Rambam Hilchot Rotzei'ach 1:6-13 and Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425). In fact, the Rama applies the Halachah of rodeif to one who engages in forgeries, because government authorities in the past imposed severe collective punishments (including executions) upon the Jewish communities in which a Jewish forger resided. Thus, the forger endangers the community and is treated with the severity of a rodeif.
ו׳
6Yitzchak Rabin's assassin claimed that Prime Minister Rabin was a rodeif because the latter's policies regarding the Oslo process endangered the Jewish community. We seek to demonstrate that this was a mistaken assertion even if one believes that Yitzchak Rabin's policies did in fact endanger the entire Jewish community. One cannot draw a legitimate analogy between the late Prime Minister and the forger discussed by the Rama.
ז׳
7Chazal Never Referred to a Jewish Government as a Rodeif
ח׳
8Chazal criticize a variety of Jewish leaders and hold them responsible for the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. Nevertheless, Chazal never classified any of these leaders as a rodeif. For example, the Gemara (Shabbat 56b) states that King Solomon's marriage to the daughter of Paroh initiated the process of the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. Similarly, the Gemara states that King Yeravam's introduction of two golden calves to Beit El and Dan accelerated the process of the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. Chazal, however, do not define either Shlomo or Yeravam as a rodeif despite the serious damage to the Jewish community caused by these kings63Avi Levinson comments: These examples are rather indirect – and how exactly was anyone supposed to know that these would lead to the destruction o the Beit Hamikdash? How could anyone have acted on them assuming they are a rodeif? Moreover, can rodeif be applied to committing sins – every sin technically contributes to the death of someone somewhere (Nefesh Hachaim chapter 1 discusses this at length) - so is everyone who commits a sin classified as a rodeif? . In addition, Rav Shlomo Aviner notes (Rosh Hamemshalah, Beit El 5756 p.131) that a careful examination of Tanach reveals that King David never uttered a critical word (and most certainly never acted) against King Shaul despite the enormous danger and hardship Shaul caused him.
ט׳
9A reason for this, explains Professor Schochetman, is that killing (or even verbally abusing) a king who is recognized as the communal ruler is an extremely disruptive act that causes chaos and anarchy in society. This, in turn, leads to the disintegration of the society and to the death of countless innocent individuals. For example, if the government reduced the age at which one is eligible for a driver's license from seventeen to sixteen and experts determined that this would lead to increased road fatalities, would any sane person regard the government as a rodeif? Although the government errs, one would cause much greater harm by killing the government ministers than by leaving them unharmed. Of course, this does not exclude acting within legal means to replace a Prime Minister or government that acts recklessly.
י׳
10Moreover, the Gemara (Shavuot 35b) cites Shmuel, who states that a king who causes the death of up to one-sixth of his subjects is not punished. Tosafot (s.v. D’katla) explains that the context of Shmuel's statement is a king who leads his country to a milchemet reshut (a discretionary war). Accordingly, the legitimate ruler of the country is authorized to enact policies that endanger the population if the ruler feels that it is in the best interest of the country to do so. Accordingly, it is absurd to regard the ruler as a Rodeif for placing the community in danger if Halachah specifically permits the ruler to endanger the community.
י״א
11Rav Henkin cites Rav Kook (Teshuvot Mishpat Kohen 144) and Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 10:1:14) who rule that in the absence of a king appointed by Hashem, the right to elect a leader reverts to the country's populace. Thus, Halachah recognizes the results of a democratic election. Rav Henkin notes that Rav Kook and Rav Waldenberg did not state that only halachically observant Jews are eligible participants in the elections. These authorities believe that even non-observant Jews enjoy the right to choose a leader. Accordingly, Yitzchak Rabin was the legitimate political leader of the Jewish nation in Israel, even though most observant Jews voted for his opponents in the election. Thus, Prime Minister Rabin had the right to enact a policy that would endanger the country since he felt that it was in the best interest of the country to do so. Consequently, it is a grievous error to categorize Yitzchak Rabin as a rodeif.
י״ב
12Halachic Support of Prime Minister Rabin's Policy
י״ג
13Even if one believes that Prime Minister Rabin's policy violated Halachah, one must concede the fact that some noted halachic authorities, such as Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Yehuda Amital, supported the Oslo process as Yitzchak Rabin conducted it. Moreover, some military and diplomatic experts believed that it was prudent government policy to engage in the Oslo process. Accordingly, even though it appears that most halachic authorities oppose the Oslo process, Prime Minister Rabin had the halachic right to follow the minority opinion. How can one define Yitzchak Rabin as a rodeif if he had the halachic right to engage in the Oslo process? Again, we emphasize that this approach does not exclude using any and all legal means to remove an Oslo supporter from office and replace him with a leader who will conform to the majority rabbinic opinion that rejects the Oslo process.
י״ד
14Procedural Issues
ט״ו
15Dayan Yitzchak Weiss (Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 8:148) notes that only responsible Jewish leadership (i.e. a recognized beit din) may determine that an individual constitutes a danger to the community and is classified as a rodeif on those grounds.
ט״ז
16Rav Avraham Shapira (an outspoken critic of the Oslo process) has stated that it is absolutely forbidden to kill another Jew based on disagreements concerning governmental policy. Rav Shapira attributes the Rabin shooting to a lack of halachic discipline. He asserts, "Youths who decide Halachic matters for themselves have learned from those who disrespect rabbis and leading Halachic authorities. Had these youths been educated to submit to rabbinic authority and to recognize the appropriate rabbinic hierarchy, they would not have engaged in verbal violence, much less physical violence" against the Prime Minister.
י״ז
17Conclusion
י״ח
18Rabin's assassin had no halachic basis for his actions. Professor Schochetman notes that the shooting caused grave damage to the opposition to the Oslo process. Moreover, it caused a profound chillul Hashem whose impact we experience to this day. Professor Schochetman (paraphrasing Teshuvot Chavot Yair 138) correctly describes the shooting of Yitzchak Rabin as "a foreign, evil, and bitter act." It is foreign to the Jewish people, it has no halachic basis, it is morally reprehensible, and it has had bitter ramifications for Israeli society.