Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2-4

Hook

Welcome, my friends, to a journey into the heart of Jewish thought, where we grapple with questions that touch the very essence of what it means to be human. Take a moment to think about justice. When someone commits a terrible act, like taking a life, what does "justice" truly mean? Who is held responsible? Is it just the person who pulls the trigger, or is it also the one who ordered it? What if the victim was already sick? What if the act was accidental, or indirect? These aren't easy questions, and different societies throughout history have answered them in various ways.

Jewish law, known as Halakha, delves into these complex issues with astounding depth and precision. It’s a legal system, yes, but it’s also a profound ethical and moral framework. Today, we're going to explore a section of a foundational text that grapples with the ultimate crime: murder. As we unpack these ancient words, we'll discover how Judaism defines responsibility, how it seeks to protect life, and what it considers the proper response to its desecration. Prepare to be challenged, to ponder, and to gain a deeper appreciation for the meticulous care with which Jewish tradition approaches the sanctity of every human soul.

Context

Our guide for this exploration is one of the most towering figures in Jewish history: Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, often known as Maimonides or the Rambam (1138-1204 CE). A brilliant philosopher, physician, and legal scholar, the Rambam undertook the monumental task of codifying the entirety of Jewish law in his magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah. This work, written in clear, accessible Hebrew, organizes thousands of years of Jewish legal tradition, spanning everything from prayer and festivals to civil law and, as we'll see today, criminal justice.

The Mishneh Torah is not merely a dry legal text; it’s a systematic presentation of how Jewish life is to be lived according to Halakha. The section we are studying, Hilchot Rotze'ach u'Shmirat Nefesh (Laws of Murderer and the Preservation of Life), is particularly illustrative of the Rambam's methodology. It takes the biblical commandments concerning murder and the sanctity of life, extrapolates from them through Talmudic reasoning, and presents a coherent, practical legal framework. This section underscores a fundamental principle of Judaism: the infinite value of every single human life, created in the image of God. The intricate details we will encounter are not meant to complicate; rather, they serve to ensure that justice is applied with the utmost precision, that no life is taken lightly, and that the profound moral weight of murder is never underestimated. It's a testament to a legal system that strives for both rigorous truth and compassionate understanding.

Text Snapshot

https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2-4

Whenever a person kills a colleague with his hands - e.g., he strikes him with a sword or with a stone that can cause death, strangles him until he dies or burns him in fire - he should be executed by the court, for he himself has killed him.,But a person who hires a murderer to kill a colleague, one who sends his servants and they kill him, one who binds a colleague and leaves him before a lion or the like and the beast kills him, and a person who commits suicide are all considered to be shedders of blood; the sin of bloodshed is upon their hands, and they are liable for death at the hands of God. They are not, however, liable for execution by the court.,Which source indicates that this is the law? Genesis 9:6 states: "When a person sheds the blood of a man, by a man his blood shall be shed." This refers to a person who kills a colleague by himself, without employing an agent.
The verse continues: "Of the blood of your own lives I will demand an account." This refers to a person who commits suicide.⁶
"From the hand of every wild beast will I demand an account" Ibid. 9:5 This refers to a person who places a person before a wild beast so that he will devour him.
"From the hand of a man, from the hand of one's brother, will I demand an account for the soul of a man" ibid. . This refers to a person who hires others to kill a colleague. In all of the three last instances, the verse uses the expression "will I demand an account," indicating that their judgment is in heaven's hands.,When a Jewish king desires to slay any of these murderers and the like - who are not liable for execution by the court - by virtue of his regal authority, in order to perfect society, he has the license.
Similarly, if the court desires to execute them as a result of a immediate fiat, because this was required at the time, they have the license to do as they see fit.,If the king did not execute them, nor did the court deem the time as such to require strengthening the strictures against murder, it should nevertheless have the murderer beaten with severe blows - so that he is on the verge of death - and imprisoned, deprived and afflicted with all types of discomfort in order to strike fear and awe into the hearts of other wicked men, so that this death should not be a stumbling block and a snag for them, causing them to say: "Let me arrange to have my enemies killed the way so-and-so did, and I will not suffer the consequences.",Whether a person kills an adult or an infant that is one day old, a male or a female, he should be executed if he killed him intentionally, or exiled if he killed him unintentionally.
With regard to an infant, the above applies provided it was born after a full term pregnancy. If, however, it was born before nine months passed, it is considered to be an inviable birth until it lives for 30 days. If it is killed within those 30 days, the killer should not be executed.,Whether a person kills a healthy person, a sick person who is on the verge of dying, or even a person in his actual death throes, the killer should be executed. If, however, one kills a person in his death throes because of wounds inflicted upon him by others - i.e., he was stricken until he was on the verge of death, and he is in his death throes, the killer should not be executed by the court.,When, by contrast, a person is considered trefah, even though he eats, drinks and walks in the market place, one is not held liable by an earthly court for killing him.
Every person is presumed to be physically sound, and a person who kills him should be executed unless it is certainly known that he is a trefah, and the physicians say that his infirmity does not have any remedy for humans and it will surely cause his death, if no other factor does first.,When a person who is a trefah kills another man, he should be killed, as reflected by Deuteronomy 19:19, which states: "And you shall destroy the evil from among your midst."
When does this apply? When he committed the murder in the presence of a court. If, however, he committed the murder in the presence of witnesses, he is not liable. The rationale is that the witnesses may be disqualified through hazamah. And if they are disqualified through hazamah, they will not be punished by execution, for they intended merely to have a person who was trefah executed. And whenever the laws of hazamah cannot be applied to testimony, it is not considered to be valid testimony in capital cases.,If a person kills either a Jew or a Canaanite servant, he should be executed. If he kills inadvertently, he should be exiled.,At first, a person who killed a resident alien should not be executed by the court, as implied by Exodus 21:14, which introduces the laws regarding the punishment for murder, by stating: "When a man acts intentionally against his colleague, killing him...." Needless to say, this ruling applies with regard to a gentile.
Whether a person kills his own Canaanite servant or a servant belonging to someone else, he should be executed. For a servant has accepted the yoke of mitzvot and has been added to "the heritage of God.",What is the difference between killing one's own Canaanite servant and a servant belonging to someone else? With regard to one's own servant, one has the right to strike him. Thus, if one strikes him with a blow that is sufficient to cause death, and he is on the verge of dying, but survives for 24 hours and dies afterwards, the owner should not be executed, although the servant died because of the blow, as Exodus 21:21 states: "But if he survives for a day or two, he shall not be avenged, for he is his property."
What is the intent of the phrase "for a day or two"? A day that is like two days - i.e., a full 24-hour cycle.,Different rules apply when, by contrast, one strikes a Canaanite servant who belongs to another person. If one strikes him with a blow sufficient to kill, one may be executed for killing him, as one would be executed for killing any free Jew, even if he does not die because of the blow until several days have passed.,It appears to me that when a person strikes his servant with a knife, a sword, a stone, a fist or the like, and it was assessed that he would die, and he did die, the leniency granted if the servant survives more than 24 hours does not apply. Instead, even if the servant dies a year later, the owner should be executed because of the servant's death.
To underscore this point, Exodus 21:20 mentions striking the servant "with a rod." For the Torah has granted the owner permission to beat his servant only with a rod, a staff, a strap or the like, and he may not strike him with murderous blows.,The following rules apply when a person sells his servant and stipulates that the servant must continue to serve him for 30 days - and in those 30 days, either the seller or the purchaser strikes the servant - the leniency granted if the servant survives more than 24 hours does not apply, neither to the seller nor to the purchaser, and the killer should be executed.
The rationale is that the servant no longer is the personal "property" of the seller, nor has he entered the domain of the purchaser.,Similarly, if a person is half servant and half free, or there is a servant belonging to two partners, and the owner or one of the owners strikes and kills the servant, the leniency granted if the servant survives more than 24 hours does not apply. For in these cases, there is not an owner who owns the servant as his personal "property." Therefore, the owner should be executed, as would any other person. The following rule applies when a person strikes a colleague intentionally with a stone or a piece of wood and causes his death. We assess the object with which he was struck, and the place where he was struck, and determine whether or not it is likely that such an article would cause death when used to give a blow in such a place.
This is implied by Numbers 35:17-18, which states: "If he struck him with a fist-sized stone that could cause death... or if he struck him with a fist-sized wooden article that could cause death." "That could cause death" teaches that the murder weapon must be such that would likely cause him to die.
Striking a person on his heart cannot be compared to striking him on his thigh.,Since the verse states "That could cause death," this phrase also implies that we assess the place where the victim was struck.
Just as we assess the object with which he was struck, and the place where he was struck, we also assess the force of the blow. This is implied by the phrase (Ibid.): "a fist-sized stone," from which we infer that we evaluate the force of the hand. For one cannot compare a person who throws a stone at his colleague from a distance of two cubits to one who throws a stone from a distance of ten cubits. At ten cubits, the stone will have more force. Nor can one compare a person who throws a stone at his colleague from a distance of ten cubits to one who throws a stone from a distance of 100 cubits. For over an extended distance, the force of the blow will be diminished.,Similarly, the blow itself and the power of the killer and the victim should be assessed: Is he large or small? Is he strong or weak? Is he healthy or sickly? These and all similar questions should be investigated. This is all implied by the phrase: "That could cause death." It teaches that all the factors involved in the person's death should be assessed.,The Torah did not mention a minimum size with regard to an iron object, as Numbers 35:16 states: "If he struck him with an iron utensil and he dies, he is a murderer." This applies even to a needle, provided the object is pointed like a needle, a spit, a knife or the like.
If, however, a person strikes a colleague with a hunk of metal or the like, we evaluate the blow as we would evaluate it if it had been dealt with a piece of wood or a stone.,When a person strikes a colleague without an object and kills him - e.g., he strikes him with his hand or foot or butts him with his head and kills him - we should assess the force of the blow, the strength of the victim and the place where the blow was given. One cannot compare a person poking at a colleague with his finger to one who kicks his colleague with all his strength. Nor can one compare a blow given on the heart to a blow given in the groin. Nor can one compare a weak person who strikes a healthy, strong person to a healthy, strong person who strikes a weak or sickly person.,What is the source that teaches that an assessment must be made in such an instance? Numbers 35:21 states: "Or if he maliciously strikes him with his hand and he dies, the one who strikes him shall certainly die." Although it mentions "with his hand," the verse also states that the blow must be given "maliciously." Implied is that we assess the force of the blow.,Similarly, when a person pushes a colleague from a rooftop, causing him to fall and die, we assess the height of the place from which he pushed him and the strength of the person who was pushed. For an infant who fell cannot be compared to an adult who fell.
What is the source that teaches that we must assess the height from which the victim fell? Numbers 35:20 states: "If he pushes him down with hatred."
It appears to me that any place that is not more than ten handbreadths high is not considered of sufficient height to kill, as explained with regard to an animal that fell into a cistern.,The same laws apply if a person strikes a colleague with a stone, a block of wood, a clod of earth, a block of salt or sulfur, or a basket full of dust or pebbles, or even if he strikes him with a cake of dried figs. This is implied by the phrase "That could cause death" - i.e., anything that may cause death. And it is the weight of the object that makes it fit to cause death.,When a person pushes a colleague into water or into a fire, an assessment should be made. If the person could ascend, the one who pushed him is not liable for execution. If he could not ascend, the one who pushed him is liable.
Similarly, if one held a colleague in water or in fire until he did not have any strength to ascend, and the colleague died, the one who held him is liable, even if he did not push him there at the outset.,Similarly, a person is liable for execution in all of the following instances: he held his hand over a colleague's mouth and nose until he left him in his death throes, unable to live; he bound a colleague and left him in the sun or the cold until he died; he built an airtight construction over him that prevented air from coming in; he placed a colleague in a house or a cave and filled it with smoke until he died; or he placed a colleague in an airtight marble building and lit a candle, causing the colleague to die because of the lack of air. In all of these instances, the person who caused the victim's death is executed; it is as if he had strangled him by hand.,Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed.,Similarly execution is not required in the following instances. A person pushed his colleague into a cistern and there was a ladder that he could have used to climb out, or he shot an arrow at him, but he was holding a shield with which he could protect himself - and another person came and took away the ladder or the shield. Neither of the two is executed by the court.
Moreover, even if the person who pushed the victim is himself the one who takes away the ladder, he is not liable for execution. God will, however, seek him out and avenge the bloodshed.,When a person throws a stone against a wall, and the stone rebounds and kills a person, the thrower of the stone is liable for execution by the court. For it was propelled by the power of the person who threw it.
A similar principle applies with regard to a person playing with a ball, who was given a warning and caused death by throwing it. If the victim was within four cubits of the wall, he is not liable. If the victim was beyond four cubits away, even if he was standing at the end of a distance of 100 cubits, the thrower is liable, provided the ball is of sufficient weight to kill, as explained.,If a person threw a stone upward and it went to the side and caused death, the one who threw it is liable.
If a person binds a colleague and puts him in a place where he cannot flee, and then turns a current of water on him, causing him to die, the killer should be executed. This law applies provided the victim dies from the first burst of water that flows because of his deeds. A person who intended to kill one person and instead killed another is not liable - neither for execution by the court, nor for financial liability, nor for exile.
He is not liable for exile because the cities of refuge will not serve as protection for him, as will be explained.
Therefore, a person who throws a stone into a group of Jews without the intent of killing any specific person is not liable for execution by the court, even though he in fact kills a person.,Similarly, a killer is not held liable for execution in the following instances. He intended to strike a colleague on his loins, and the utensil was not sufficient to kill if it struck a person on his loins, but it instead struck him on his heart and he died. Or a person intended to strike a colleague on his heart, and the blow was sufficient to kill had it struck him on the heart, but instead it struck the victim on his loins and it was not sufficient to kill an ordinary person if it struck him on his loins, but this person died. In these instances, the killer is not liable for execution by the court, nor is he exiled, because a person who kills intentionally is never exiled.
If, however, he intended to strike him on his loins, and the blow was sufficient to kill him if it struck him on his loins, but it struck him on his heart, killing him, the killer should be executed. Similar principles apply in all analogous instances.,When a person strikes a colleague with a stone or a fist in a manner that could cause his death, but he does not die immediately, an assessment should be made.
If the judges assess that the victim would live, the person who struck the blow is liable only to pay the five damages awarded to a person who is injured, and he is released. Even if the victim falls ill, and his situation becomes more serious and ultimately he dies, the person who struck the blow is not held liable.
If the judges assess that the victim would die, they should imprison the person who struck the blow immediately and wait to see the outcome. If the victim does die, the person who struck the blow should be executed. If, however, the victim's condition improves, and he becomes healed entirely to the extent that he walks in the marketplace on his feet like other healthy people, the person who struck the blow should pay the damages and should be released.,The Torah's expression על משענתו does not mean that he should walk while supported by a staff or by another person. For even a person who is on the verge of dying can walk leaning on a support. Instead, the intent in this verse is that he walk supported by his own power, without relying on any other factor for support.,If it was assessed that the victim would die, and afterwards his condition improved, but then deteriorated, and ultimately he died, the killer should be executed. We do not make a second assessment after the victim's condition improves, for there is a basis for the assumption that he died because of the original blow.,If ten people strike a person with ten different sticks and he dies, they are all not held liable for execution by the court. This law applies regardless of whether they struck him one after the other or they struck him at the same time.
These concepts are derived from Leviticus 24:17: "If he strikes any person mortally he should be put to death." כל translated as "any" also means "all." Implied is that death is not required unless one person alone is entirely accountable for the person's death.
The same law applies if two people push a colleague into water or hold him there, or several people are sitting together and an arrow emerges from their company and kills; none is held liable for execution.,A different ruling is rendered in the following instance. Ten people threw stones at a person one after the other, and none of the stones was of sufficient weight to cause death. Afterwards, another person cast a stone that was of sufficient weight to cause death and the victim died. The last person who threw the stone should be executed.,If a murderer who was sentenced to execution becomes intermingled with other people, they are all absolved. Similarly, when a murderer who was not convicted becomes intermingled with other murderers who were sentenced to execution, none should be executed. The rationale is that judgment can be passed on a person only in his presence. All the killers should, however, be imprisoned.,The following laws apply when a person kills people, but the witnesses did not observe his act together - instead one saw him after the other did: a person killed in the presence of witnesses, but a warning was not given; or the witnesses to a murder contradicted each other with regard to the fine points of the testimony, but not with regard to the fundamental questions.
All those murderers should be forced to enter a kipah. There they are fed parched bread and small amounts of water until their digestive tract contracts. Then they are fed barley until their bellies burst because of the extent of the sickness and they die.,This measure is not taken with regard to other crimes punishable by execution by the court. If a defendant is liable for execution, he should be executed. If he is not liable for execution, he should be released.
Although there are other sins that are more serious than murder, they do not present as serious a danger to society as murder does. Even idol worship - and needless to say, incest or the violation of the Sabbath - are not considered as severe as murder. For these sins involve man's relationship with God, while murder also involves man's relationship with his fellow man.
Whoever commits this sin is an utterly wicked person. All the mitzvot that he performs throughout his lifetime cannot outweigh this sin and save him from judgment. Thus, Proverbs 28:17 states: "A man weighed down with life's blood will flee to the pit."
Come and learn from the example of Ach'av King of Israel. He was an idolater so debased in his paganism that I Kings 21:25 says: "There was none like Ach'av who gave himself over to the performance of wickedness in the eyes of God." And yet when his merits and sins were weighed in the presence of the Lord of spirits, there was no sin that warranted his destruction and was not counterbalanced by a positive quality, except the blood of Navot.
Thus, it is written Ibid. 22:21, in the description of the prophecy of Ach'av's death in battle: "And the spirit came and stood before God." Our Sages commented:: "This is the spirit of Navot." And God told the spirit (Ibid.:2): "You will persuade him and prevail."
Now this wicked man Ach'av did not actually kill his victim with his own hands; he merely brought about his death. How much more so this condemnation should apply when a person kills another with his own hands.,It is a mitzvah to kill minim and apikorsim.
The term minim refers to Jewish idolaters or those who perform transgressions for the sake of angering God, even if one eats non-kosher meat for the sake of angering God or wears sha'atnez for the sake of angering God.
The term apikorsim refers to Jews who deny the Torah and the concept of prophecy.
If there is the possibility, one should kill them with a sword in public view. If that is not possible, one should develop a plan so that one can cause their deaths.
What is implied? If one sees such a person descend to a cistern, and there is a ladder in the cistern, one should take the ladder, and excuse oneself, saying: "I must hurry to take my son down from the roof. I shall return the ladder to you soon." Similarly, one should devise other analogous plans to cause the death of such people.,With regard to a gentile idolater with whom we are not at war, a Jewish shepherd of small livestock, and the like, by contrast, we should not try to cause their deaths. It is, however, forbidden to save their lives if their lives are threatened. For example, if such a person fell into the sea, one should not rescue him. Leviticus 19:16] states: "Do not stand idly by while your brother's blood is at stake." This does not apply with regard to such individuals, because they are not "your brothers.",When does the above apply? With regard to a Jew who sins and perseveres in his wickedness, continually repeating it - e.g., shepherds of small livestock who show no consideration for the prohibition against robbery and continue in their perversity.
When, by contrast, a Jew commits transgressions, but does not maintain his wickedness continually, merely occasionally sinning for his own personal satisfaction - e.g., one who eats non-kosher food for pleasure - it is a mitzvah to save his life, and it is forbidden to stand idly by when his life is threatened.

The Big Question

Our journey through this intricate section of the Mishneh Torah will center around a profound question: How does Jewish law differentiate between various forms of killing, and what does this reveal about responsibility, justice, and the sanctity of life?

At first glance, one might assume that "murder is murder," and the perpetrator should always face the same consequences. However, the Rambam's detailed exposition quickly disabuses us of this simplistic notion. He meticulously distinguishes between direct and indirect killing, laying out different levels of accountability that hinge on the perpetrator's intent, the means used, the circumstances surrounding the act, and even the status of the victim. This granular approach isn't a legal technicality designed to let people off the hook; rather, it's a deep philosophical and ethical exploration of moral culpability and the precise nature of justice.

Consider the stark difference between someone who personally strikes another with a sword, directly causing their death, versus someone who hires an assassin or binds a person and leaves them before a wild animal. In the former case, the Rambam asserts, the killer "should be executed by the court." This is the realm of human justice, where earthly courts administer capital punishment as a direct consequence for a direct act. But for the indirect killer, the Rambam states they are "liable for death at the hands of God" and "not liable for execution by the court." Why this crucial distinction between earthly and divine judgment? What does it teach us about free will, causality, and the limits of human judicial power? This is a core tension we will explore.

Furthermore, the text reveals that justice isn't a static concept but one that can be adapted for the greater good of society. We'll encounter the extraordinary authority granted to a Jewish king or court to execute indirect murderers, not through standard legal procedure, but "by virtue of his regal authority, in order to perfect society" or "as a result of an immediate fiat." This highlights a tension between strict adherence to legal precedent and the pragmatic need to maintain public order and deter crime. It forces us to ask: when does the letter of the law give way to the spirit of justice, especially when the very fabric of society is threatened?

The Rambam also delves into the nuances of defining a "life" for legal purposes. Is an infant born prematurely considered the same as an adult? What about a person who is already gravely ill and on the verge of death? And perhaps most strikingly, what is the legal status of a trefah – a person with an incurable, mortal illness – in the context of murder? These distinctions challenge our intuitive understanding of life and death, forcing us to confront the legal definitions that underpin capital jurisprudence.

Moreover, the status of the victim plays a significant role. Is killing a Jew the same as killing a Canaanite servant, a resident alien (Ger Toshav), or a gentile? The Rambam's text reveals a complex hierarchy of legal protection, rooted in covenantal relationships and societal integration. While all human life is inherently valuable, the legal penalties for taking a life can differ based on these categories, prompting us to examine the historical and theological underpinnings of these distinctions.

Finally, the sheer detail with which the Rambam analyzes the mechanics of killing—the type of weapon, the force of the blow, the location on the body, intervening factors, and even the killer's precise intent—demonstrates an unparalleled commitment to justice. It's not enough to know that someone died; the court must determine how they died, and whether the perpetrator's actions were the direct, sufficient, and intended cause. This meticulousness underscores the gravity of taking a life and the extreme caution required before imposing the ultimate penalty.

By dissecting these intricate laws, we aim to uncover the profound ethical bedrock upon which Jewish law stands. It's a system that balances strict justice with a deep understanding of human agency, divine judgment, and the paramount sanctity of every soul.

One Core Concept

The Principle of "Ein Shliach L'Dvar Aveirah" (There is No Agent for a Transgression)

At the heart of the distinction between direct and indirect killing in Jewish law lies a fundamental principle: Ein Shliach L'Dvar Aveirah. This Aramaic phrase translates to "There is no agent for a transgression." What does this mean? It signifies that when one person sends another to commit a sin, the person who physically performs the act is held responsible by the earthly court, not the one who sent them.

Think of it this way: an agent, unlike a tool, possesses free will. If I ask you to pick up a pen, you are my agent. If I then tell you to use that pen to stab someone, and you do it, you are making an independent moral choice. The pen itself has no choice, it’s merely an extension of my hand. But a human being, even when acting on someone else's instruction, retains their own agency. They could have refused. Because they chose to perform the prohibited act, the transgression is ultimately attributed to them, not to the one who initiated the command.

This principle is crucial for understanding Halakha 1 of Chapter 2, where the Rambam states that someone who "hires a murderer to kill a colleague, one who sends his servants and they kill him, one who binds a colleague and leaves him before a lion or the like" is "liable for death at the hands of God," but "not... for execution by the court." The hired killer, the servant, the lion (which is not a moral agent but an indirect tool)—these are the "physical" causes. But the human agent who carries out the murder, or who could have prevented it, is the one the court holds accountable. The one who orchestrated the act, while profoundly guilty morally, is beyond the direct punitive reach of the earthly court because their action lacked the direct, unmediated physical component. God, however, sees the intent and the full chain of causation, and holds them accountable in the divine court. This principle highlights the Jewish legal system's precise understanding of individual responsibility and the limits of human judgment, reserving the ultimate accountability for indirect but intentional harm to the divine realm.

Breaking It Down

Direct vs. Indirect Killing: Earthly vs. Heavenly Courts

The Rambam begins his treatise on murder with a stark and foundational distinction: the difference between a direct killer and an indirect killer, and the corresponding jurisdiction of earthly courts versus divine judgment.

Rambam's Distinction (Chapter 2, Halakha 1)

The Rambam states that "Whenever a person kills a colleague with his hands - e.g., he strikes him with a sword or with a stone that can cause death, strangles him until he dies or burns him in fire - he should be executed by the court, for he himself has killed him." This clearly defines a direct murder: the perpetrator is the one who physically performs the lethal act. The examples provided are forceful and immediate, leaving no doubt about the directness of the action. The Ohr Sameach commentary on this halakha (Ohr Sameach on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:1:1) notes that the typical method of execution by the court for murder is by the sword, a direct and decisive act, reflecting the directness of the crime itself.

In stark contrast, the Rambam then describes the indirect killer: "But a person who hires a murderer to kill a colleague, one who sends his servants and they kill him, one who binds a colleague and leaves him before a lion or the like and the beast kills him, and a person who commits suicide are all considered to be shedders of blood; the sin of bloodshed is upon their hands, and they are liable for death at the hands of God. They are not, however, liable for execution by the court." Here, the perpetrator orchestrates the death, but does not physically carry it out themselves. The key phrase is "liable for death at the hands of God," indicating that while they are morally culpable and will face divine retribution, the earthly Beit Din (court) does not execute them.

Biblical Source (Genesis 9:6)

The Rambam meticulously grounds this distinction in the biblical text of Genesis 9:6. He explains:

• "When a person sheds the blood of a man, by a man his blood shall be shed." This phrase, with its emphasis on "by a man," refers to a direct killing, where the perpetrator acts "by himself, without employing an agent." This is the basis for earthly court execution.
• The verse continues: "Of the blood of your own lives I will demand an account." This refers to suicide, an act where one is their own killer, making the accountability solely divine.
• "From the hand of every wild beast will I demand an account" (Ibid. 9:5) refers to a person who places another before a wild beast. The animal is the direct cause, but the orchestrator is divinely accountable.
• "From the hand of a man, from the hand of one's brother, will I demand an account for the soul of a man" (Ibid. 9:6) refers to one who hires others to kill. Again, the phrase "will I demand an account" signals divine rather than human judgment.

The consistent use of "will I demand an account" for indirect killings is the textual proof that their judgment is "in heaven's hands," highlighting the limits of the human court's jurisdiction.

Commentary Layer: "Ein Shliach L'Dvar Aveirah"

The Shorshei HaYam commentary (Shorshei HaYam on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:1:1) profoundly elaborates on the underlying principle for this distinction: Ein Shliach L'Dvar Aveirah (there is no agent for a transgression). As we discussed, this means that a human agent, possessing free will, is ultimately responsible for their own sinful actions, even if ordered by another.

• Example 1: The Hired Assassin. Imagine a powerful crime lord who hires a hitman to eliminate a rival. According to this principle, the hitman, because he chose to pull the trigger, is the one directly liable to the earthly court for murder. The crime lord, though the mastermind, is not executed by the court because he did not perform the physical act. His moral culpability is immense, but the Halakha assigns direct legal responsibility to the one who made the final, independent choice to transgress. This doesn't mean the crime lord gets off lightly; he faces "death at the hands of God," a punishment far more certain and inescapable than any human court can deliver. This is also reflected in the story of King Ahab and Naboth (1 Kings 21), where Ahab orchestrates Naboth's death by having him falsely accused and stoned. While others carry out the stoning, God holds Ahab accountable, as Rambam mentions in Chapter 4, Halakha 11: "Now this wicked man Ach'av did not actually kill his victim with his own hands; he merely brought about his death. How much more so this condemnation should apply when a person kills another with his own hands." This reinforces the divine accountability for indirect killing.

• Example 2: The Coerced Employee. A corrupt CEO orders an employee to sabotage a competitor's product, knowing it could cause severe injury or death. If the employee, despite their misgivings, complies, they are the one who actively commits the act. The employee, by making the choice to follow the illicit order, becomes the primary transgressor in the eyes of the earthly court. The CEO, while morally reprehensible, would again be liable to divine judgment. This highlights the Halakha's profound emphasis on individual moral agency, even in situations of pressure or coercion.

• Counterpoint & Nuance: Noahide Laws. The Shorshei HaYam commentary introduces a fascinating nuance derived from the Midrash Rabbah (Noah 34): for Noahides (non-Jews who are obligated by the Seven Noahide Laws, including the prohibition of murder), the rules are different. Rabbi Chanina in the Midrash suggests that Noahide courts do execute for indirect murder (e.g., hiring an assassin), even with only one witness or without prior warning. This is a critical distinction, implying that the principle of "no agent for a transgression" applies differently, or with different legal consequences, to Jews and Noahides in the context of human courts. For Jews, the standard of proof and directness required for capital punishment is exceptionally high, leading to divine accountability for indirect acts. For Noahides, however, their courts are expected to enforce justice more broadly for the preservation of society, even for indirect murder, reflecting a different legal framework for their societal order. This reveals the layered nature of Halakha, with distinct applications depending on the covenantal status.

The King's/Court's Prerogative: Justice Beyond Formal Law

Halakha 2-3: Extraordinary Powers for Societal Welfare

Even though Jewish law typically reserves judgment for indirect murderers to God, there are extraordinary circumstances where human authority can intervene. The Rambam explains this in Halakha 2: "When a Jewish king desires to slay any of these murderers and the like - who are not liable for execution by the court - by virtue of his regal authority, in order to perfect society, he has the license." Similarly, "if the court desires to execute them as a result of an immediate fiat, because this was required at the time, they have the license to do as they see fit."

This is a critical concept known as hora'at sha'ah (a temporary decree for the hour) or tikkun ha'olam (perfecting the world/societal order). It acknowledges that while formal Halakha has strict rules, sometimes the needs of the community – to maintain order, deter crime, and prevent anarchy – necessitate actions that go beyond the usual legal framework.

• Example 1: The Corrupt Syndicate. Imagine a powerful criminal syndicate operating within a Jewish society, where the ringleader consistently hires others to commit murders, manipulating loopholes in the law to avoid direct culpability. The public is terrified, and the system appears impotent. In such a scenario, a Jewish king, seeing the unraveling of societal order, could use his regal authority to execute the ringleader, even though under normal circumstances, the court would not. This is not about individual retribution but about sending a clear message to "perfect society" and restore public trust in justice.

• Example 2: A Wave of Incitement. During a period of intense social unrest, an individual repeatedly incites others to commit acts of violence, leading to several deaths. While the inciter might not be directly liable to the court for murder under the principle of Ein Shliach L'Dvar Aveirah, the court, recognizing the immediate danger to the community, could issue a special decree (hora'at sha'ah) to execute this instigator. This is a rare and extreme measure, invoked only when society's foundations are threatened, to "strengthen the strictures against murder" and prevent further bloodshed.

• Nuance: Deterrence and Non-Capital Punishment. Halakha 3 clarifies that even if a king or court doesn't resort to execution, severe measures are still mandated: "it should nevertheless have the murderer beaten with severe blows - so that he is on the verge of death - and imprisoned, deprived and afflicted with all types of discomfort in order to strike fear and awe into the hearts of other wicked men, so that this death should not be a stumbling block and a snag for them, causing them to say: 'Let me arrange to have my enemies killed the way so-and-so did, and I will not suffer the consequences.'" This demonstrates that even when formal execution is not possible, the Jewish legal system is deeply committed to deterrence and ensuring that indirect murderers do not feel they can act with impunity. The punishment is tailored to instill "fear and awe" and prevent others from being emboldened.

Defining a Life: Nuances of the Victim

The value of human life is paramount in Judaism, but the legal definitions surrounding it can be complex. The Rambam meticulously outlines various scenarios concerning the victim's status.

Halakha 4-7: The Human Status

• Adult/Infant (Halakha 4): "Whether a person kills an adult or an infant that is one day old, a male or a female, he should be executed if he killed him intentionally, or exiled if he killed him unintentionally." This firmly establishes the equal value of all human life, regardless of age (from one day post full-term birth) or gender, in terms of capital punishment.

• Pre-term Infant (Halakha 5): "With regard to an infant, the above applies provided it was born after a full term pregnancy. If, however, it was born before nine months passed, it is considered to be an inviable birth until it lives for 30 days. If it is killed within those 30 days, the killer should not be executed." This is a profound legal distinction. An infant born prematurely is not considered fully "viable" for the purposes of capital murder until it survives for 30 days.

  • Example: A baby is born at seven months, tragically killed by an assailant when it is just two weeks old. While the act is heinous, the killer would not be executed by the court, as the law considers the infant in a transitional, "inviable" state during that initial 30-day period. This doesn't diminish the moral gravity but reflects a specific legal definition for capital cases.

• Sick/Dying Person (Halakha 6): "Whether a person kills a healthy person, a sick person who is on the verge of dying, or even a person in his actual death throes, the killer should be executed." This powerfully asserts that actively taking a life, even one that is already fading, is murder. Every moment of life is sacred. "If, however, one kills a person in his death throes because of wounds inflicted upon him by others - i.e., he was stricken until he was on the verge of death, and he is in his death throes, the killer should not be executed by the court." This highlights the importance of direct causation.

  • Example 1: A terminally ill patient, with only hours to live, is intentionally suffocated by a caregiver. That caregiver is guilty of murder and would be executed by the court.
  • Example 2: A person is mortally wounded in a mugging by Attacker A. As they lie dying, Attacker B comes by and delivers another blow that hastens their death by minutes. Attacker B would not be executed by the court because the victim was already in their death throes from the wounds inflicted by Attacker A. Attacker B is still morally culpable, but the direct chain of causation for capital punishment is broken.

• Trefah (Halakha 7-8): "When, by contrast, a person is considered trefah, even though he eats, drinks and walks in the market place, one is not held liable by an earthly court for killing him." A trefah is an individual with a specific, mortal injury or illness from which they cannot recover and is expected to die within 12 months. This is perhaps the most counter-intuitive aspect. The law legally considers such a life as not "whole" for the purposes of capital murder. However, "When a person who is a trefah kills another man, he should be killed, as reflected by Deuteronomy 19:19, which states: 'And you shall destroy the evil from among your midst.'" This means a trefah is still fully responsible for their own actions.

  • Example: A person suffers a severe, incurable head injury that, according to physicians, will certainly lead to death within a year. If someone intentionally kills this trefah, the killer is not executed by the court.
  • Counterpoint: This seems to devalue the life of a trefah. However, the Halakha's focus for capital punishment is on shortening a viable life. A trefah's life, while precious, is legally understood to be on an irreversible trajectory towards death. Yet, the trefah remains a full moral agent, capable of committing murder and therefore subject to capital punishment themselves. This distinction underscores the legal system's focus on the type of life being taken in relation to the specific punishment.

Status of the Victim: Jew, Convert, Alien, Servant

The legal status of the victim significantly impacts the ruling on murder, highlighting the covenantal framework of Jewish law.

Halakha 9-16: Expanding the Definition of "Colleague"

• Jew or Canaanite Servant (Halakha 9): "If a person kills either a Jew or a Canaanite servant, he should be executed. If he kills inadvertently, he should be exiled." This establishes parity between a free Jew and a Canaanite servant for the purpose of capital murder.

• Ger Toshav/Gentile (Halakha 10): "At first, a person who killed a resident alien should not be executed by the court... Needless to say, this ruling applies with regard to a gentile." A Ger Toshav (resident alien) is a non-Jew who has formally accepted the Seven Noahide Laws and lives among Jews. The Steinsaltz commentary (Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:11:1) defines them as such. According to Exodus 21:14 ("When a man acts intentionally against his colleague, killing him..."), the term "colleague" is understood to refer to a specific covenantal relationship, not extending to a Ger Toshav or a gentile.

  • Example: A non-Jewish individual who respects the basic laws of society but has not converted to Judaism nor entered the specific status of a Canaanite servant is murdered by a Jew. The Jewish murderer is not executed by the earthly court. This does not imply that the life is less valuable, but that the specific legal framework for capital punishment by the Beit Din has defined boundaries.

• Why Canaanite Servant is Different (Halakha 11): "Whether a person kills his own Canaanite servant or a servant belonging to someone else, he should be executed. For a servant has accepted the yoke of mitzvot and has been added to 'the heritage of God.'" The Steinsaltz commentary (Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:11:3) explains that a Canaanite servant is obligated in Mitzvot like a Jewish woman, and is therefore not considered a gentile for this law. They are integrated into the Jewish legal-spiritual community.

• Owner's Servant vs. Another's Servant (Halakha 12-14):

  • Owner's Servant (Halakha 12): A unique leniency exists for an owner who strikes their own Canaanite servant. If the blow is "sufficient to cause death," but the servant "survives for 24 hours and dies afterwards, the owner should not be executed." This is based on Exodus 21:21: "But if he survives for a day or two, he shall not be avenged, for he is his property." This is a remarkable legal distinction, rooted in the concept of ownership and the historical context of slavery. The 24-hour period (a "day that is like two days") acts as a critical buffer.
    • Example 1: An owner, in a fit of rage, strikes their servant with a permissible "rod" (as defined in Halakha 14). The servant is severely injured and is expected to die, but miraculously clings to life for 25 hours before succumbing. The owner is not executed. This leniency is due to the "property" status, suggesting the primary intent may have been punishment rather than outright murder, and the delayed death indicates a less direct causation.
    • Example 2 (Halakha 14): However, this leniency does not apply if the owner strikes the servant with a "knife, a sword, a stone, a fist or the like," which are considered "murderous blows." In such cases, the owner is executed even if the servant dies a year later. The Torah's specific mention of a "rod" (Exodus 21:20) implies a limitation on permissible force. This is a crucial line: abuse of power is tolerated to a degree within the "property" framework, but outright murderous intent with lethal means is not.
  • Another's Servant (Halakha 13): If one strikes and kills a Canaanite servant belonging to someone else, there is no 24-hour leniency. The killer "may be executed... as one would be executed for killing any free Jew." This underscores that the leniency is tied specifically to the owner-property relationship, not to the inherent status of the servant.

• Non-Exclusive Ownership (Halakha 15-16):

  • Sold Servant with Stipulation (Halakha 15): If a servant is sold but must continue serving the seller for 30 days, and either the seller or buyer kills them, the 24-hour leniency does not apply. The killer is executed. The rationale: "the servant no longer is the personal 'property' of the seller, nor has he entered the domain of the purchaser." Without clear, absolute ownership, the unique leniency is removed.
  • Half-Servant/Half-Free or Partners' Servant (Halakha 16): Similarly, if a person is "half servant and half free" or belongs to "two partners," and an owner kills them, the 24-hour leniency does not apply. The owner is executed. Again, the absence of singular, absolute ownership removes the specific legal protection. This highlights the intricate legal dance around status and property rights in ancient Jewish law.

The Mechanics of Killing: Assessing Intent and Causation

Chapter 3 of the Mishneh Torah delves into the meticulous assessment required to determine if an act of killing warrants capital punishment, focusing on the "how" of murder.

Chapter 3: The "How" of Murder

• Object, Place, Force (Halakha 1-3): The court must meticulously examine the circumstances:

  • Object: "We assess the object with which he was struck... determine whether or not it is likely that such an article would cause death."
  • Place: "...and the place where he was struck." "Striking a person on his heart cannot be compared to striking him on his thigh."
  • Force: "...we also assess the force of the blow... One cannot compare a person who throws a stone at his colleague from a distance of two cubits to one who throws a stone from a distance of ten cubits."
  • Victim/Killer Factors: "the power of the killer and the victim should be assessed: Is he large or small? Is he strong or weak? Is he healthy or sickly?"
  • Textual Layer: Numbers 35:17-18, "that could cause death," is the guiding principle, implying that all these factors must be considered to establish a lethal intent and causation. The Steinsaltz commentary (Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:1:1) reinforces this, pointing to the need to determine the object's power to kill.
    • Example 1: A strong man throws a small, non-lethal pebble at a healthy person's arm from a great distance, and by some freak accident, the person dies. Even though death occurred, the killer would likely not be executed because the object, force, and place were not "likely to cause death."
    • Example 2: A weak person throws a heavy, jagged rock at a sick, frail person's head from close range. Even if the rock wasn't "fist-sized," the combination of object, force, place, and victim's vulnerability would likely lead to an assessment of lethal intent.
  • Iron Objects (Halakha 3): Any pointed iron object, "even to a needle," is considered lethal because of its penetrating power (Numbers 35:16). A blunt hunk of metal, however, is evaluated like wood or stone. This distinction highlights the inherent danger of certain materials.

• Body Parts as Weapons (Halakha 4): "When a person strikes a colleague without an object and kills him - e.g., he strikes him with his hand or foot or butts him with his head and kills him - we should assess the force of the blow, the strength of the victim and the place where the blow was given." Even bare hands can be lethal. Numbers 35:21 ("maliciously strikes him with his hand") implies the need to assess force.

• Gravity (Halakha 5): "Similarly, when a person pushes a colleague from a rooftop, causing him to fall and die, we assess the height... and the strength of the person who was pushed. For an infant who fell cannot be compared to an adult who fell." Heights less than "ten handbreadths high is not considered of sufficient height to kill." This sets a legal threshold for lethality based on physical principles.

• Indirect Physical Causation (Halakha 7-8):

  • Water/Fire (Halakha 7): Pushing into water or fire: liable only "If the person could not ascend." If they could escape, the pusher is not executed. Holding someone until they die is liable. This focuses on the direct and inescapable nature of the threat.
  • Deprivation/Suffocation (Halakha 8): Holding mouth/nose, binding in sun/cold, airtight construction, smoke, lack of air from a candle in a sealed room – all these are considered "as if he had strangled him by hand" and warrant execution.
    • Example: A person locks an enemy in a freezer truck, knowing they will die of hypothermia. This would be considered a direct enough form of causing death through environmental deprivation to warrant execution.
  • Nuance/Counterpoint (Halakha 9): "Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death... or he causes a snake to bite him... In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and 'the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed' will seek vengeance for the blood he shed." Why the distinction? The text implies that starvation or a snake bite are considered less direct and immediate than suffocation or immediate extreme exposure. There might be a longer chain of events, or a more prolonged period where intervention could theoretically occur. This again highlights the meticulous definition of "directness" for capital punishment.

• Intervening Factors (Halakha 10): "A person pushed his colleague into a cistern and there was a ladder that he could have used to climb out... and another person came and took away the ladder... Neither of the two is executed by the court." Even if the pusher himself removes the ladder, he's not executed. This is crucial: the presence of an intervening factor (the ladder's removal, even by the killer) breaks the direct chain of causation required for court execution. God, however, "will, however, seek him out and avenge the bloodshed."

• Rebounding/Indirect Projectiles (Halakha 11-14):

  • Stone off Wall (Halakha 11): "When a person throws a stone against a wall, and the stone rebounds and kills a person, the thrower of the stone is liable for execution by the court. For it was propelled by the power of the person who threw it." The rebound is still considered an extension of the thrower's direct action.
  • Ball (Halakha 12): If warned, and the victim is killed beyond four cubits from the wall, the thrower is liable, provided the ball is lethal. This implies a certain distance is needed for the force to be considered lethal, making the act more deliberate.
  • Water Current (Halakha 14): Binding someone and turning on a water current, causing death from the "first burst of water," results in execution. This is a direct, inescapable act.

Intent and Outcome: Specificity of Murder

Chapter 4 further refines the understanding of murder by focusing on the killer's intent and the precise outcome.

Chapter 4: The Mind and the Result

• Wrong Victim/Wrong Spot (Halakha 1-2):

  • Intended X, Killed Y (Halakha 1): "A person who intended to kill one person and instead killed another is not liable - neither for execution by the court, nor for financial liability, nor for exile." This is a powerful statement: specific intent matters. Throwing a stone into a crowd without intending to kill any specific person, even if someone dies, does not result in court execution.
    • Example: An assassin aims at Target A but misses, and the bullet strikes and kills innocent Bystander B. The assassin is not executed by the court for Bystander B's death, because the specific intent was for Target A.
  • Wrong Spot/Wrong Force (Halakha 2): If one intended to strike a non-lethal spot with non-lethal force, but accidentally hit a lethal spot and killed, they are not liable. Similarly, if they intended a lethal spot with lethal force, but hit a non-lethal spot and the victim unusually died, they are not liable.
    • Example: A person intends to lightly tap someone on the arm with a small stick (non-lethal intent/means). The stick slips, hits the person's temple, and they die. No execution.
    • Example: A person intends to stab someone in the heart (lethal intent/means). They miss, hitting the thigh. The victim, due to an unknown, rare medical condition, bleeds out from the thigh wound and dies. No execution, because the intended lethal outcome at the intended lethal spot did not materialize.

• Exception (Halakha 3): "If, however, he intended to strike him on his loins, and the blow was sufficient to kill him if it struck him on his loins, but it struck him on his heart, killing him, the killer should be executed." Here, the intent was lethal, the means were lethal, and a lethal outcome occurred, even if the exact point of impact shifted. The overarching intent to kill with lethal means is what matters.

• Delayed Death (Halakha 4-6):

  • Assessment (Halakha 4): If a person is struck with lethal force but doesn't die immediately, judges must assess. If they "assess that the victim would live," the striker pays damages and is released, even if the victim later dies. If they "assess that the victim would die," the striker is imprisoned. If the victim dies, the killer is executed. If the victim recovers "entirely to the extent that he walks in the marketplace on his feet like other healthy people," the striker pays damages and is released.
  • "On his own power" (Halakha 5): "The Torah's expression על משענתו does not mean that he should walk while supported by a staff or by another person... Instead, the intent... is that he walk supported by his own power." This sets a high bar for full recovery.
  • Deterioration (Halakha 6): If assessed to die, improved, then deteriorated and died, the killer is executed. The initial assessment of lethality stands.
  • Nuance: This complex process demonstrates the court's attempt to pinpoint causation and culpability when death is not immediate. The initial judicial assessment of the likelihood of death is paramount.

• Multiple Perpetrators (Halakha 7-8):

  • Many Contributors (Halakha 7): "If ten people strike a person with ten different sticks and he dies, they are all not held liable for execution by the court." This applies whether they struck simultaneously or consecutively. The reasoning comes from Leviticus 24:17 ("If he strikes any person mortally he should be put to death"), which is understood to mean "death is not required unless one person alone is entirely accountable for the person's death."
    • Example: A group of five individuals gang up on someone, each delivering a blow that, on its own, would not be fatal. The victim dies from the cumulative trauma. No single individual is executed by the court because no one person was the sole, sufficient cause of death.
  • Exception (Halakha 8): "Ten people threw stones at a person one after the other, and none of the stones was of sufficient weight to cause death. Afterwards, another person cast a stone that was of sufficient weight to cause death and the victim died. The last person who threw the stone should be executed." Here, the final, lethal act is clearly attributable to one individual.
  • Nuance: This is one of the highest bars for capital punishment in Jewish law, emphasizing that the court requires singular, direct, and sufficient causation for execution. This extreme caution reflects the irreversible nature of the punishment.

Societal Protection and Moral Culpability

The Rambam concludes this section with an emphasis on the profound gravity of murder and society's role in its prevention and punishment, even when formal capital punishment isn't applicable.

Halakha 9-11: Procedural Safeguards and the Gravity of Murder

• Procedural Issues (Halakha 9): "If a murderer who was sentenced to execution becomes intermingled with other people, they are all absolved... All the killers should, however, be imprisoned." This illustrates the strict procedural requirements for execution (judgment in the person's presence). If identity becomes uncertain, execution is forgone, but imprisonment is still mandated.

• The "Kipah" (Halakha 10): For cases where murderers cannot be formally executed by the court due to technicalities (e.g., witnesses not observing together, no warning, minor contradictions), they are subjected to the kipah. This is a special, sealed prison where they are starved and then overfed barley until they burst.

  • Nuance: The kipah is an extreme, extra-judicial punishment, again for hora'at sha'ah or tikkun ha'olam. It is a testament to the profound societal threat murder poses, necessitating severe measures even when formal capital punishment cannot be applied. It is a form of divine-like judgment administered by the court when strictly legal avenues are closed.

• Murder's Unique Severity (Halakha 11): "Although there are other sins that are more serious than murder, they do not present as serious a danger to society as murder does... For these sins involve man's relationship with God, while murder also involves man's relationship with his fellow man." Murder is presented as an attack on the very fabric of human society. "Whoever commits this sin is an utterly wicked person. All the mitzvot that he performs throughout his lifetime cannot outweigh this sin and save him from judgment."

  • Textual Layer (Proverbs 28:17, 1 Kings 21:25, 22:21): The Rambam cites Proverbs 28:17 ("A man weighed down with life's blood will flee to the pit") and the story of King Ahab. Ahab, despite being one of Israel's most idolatrous kings, was ultimately condemned by God not for his idolatry, but for the "blood of Navot," which he orchestrated indirectly. This underscores that even indirect murder carries immense divine weight, reinforcing the Halakha's initial distinction between earthly and divine judgment. The story powerfully illustrates that while human courts may be limited, divine justice for murder is absolute.

The Murky Line: When Killing is a Mitzvah or Not Saving a Life

The final halakhot introduce highly sensitive and controversial topics that illustrate the complex ethical landscape of Jewish law, particularly concerning the boundaries of communal protection and individual obligation.

Halakha 12-14: Exceptions and Ethical Dilemmas

• Killing Minim and Apikorsim (Halakha 12): "It is a mitzvah to kill minim and apikorsim." Minim are defined as Jewish idolaters or those who transgress to anger God; apikorsim are Jews who deny the Torah and prophecy. If possible, they should be killed "with a sword in public view. If that is not possible, one should develop a plan so that one can cause their deaths." The example given is removing a ladder from a cistern.

  • Example: A Jewish individual actively and publicly campaigns against the foundational tenets of Judaism, seeking to convert other Jews away from their faith, or mocks the very idea of God and Torah. In a historical context where Jewish communities had self-governing power and were fighting for their spiritual survival against internal threats, this halakha permitted the elimination of such individuals.
  • Nuance: This is one of the most challenging halakhot for modern sensibilities. It originates in a period when the spiritual and physical integrity of the Jewish community was under existential threat from within. Most contemporary Jewish legal authorities do not apply this halakha literally in modern contexts, understanding it as a reflection of extreme measures to protect core communal beliefs, or interpreting it metaphorically as spiritual combat. It speaks to the profound perceived danger of those who actively seek to undermine the very foundation of the Jewish people's spiritual existence.

• Not Saving Lives (Halakha 13): "With regard to a gentile idolater with whom we are not at war, a Jewish shepherd of small livestock, and the like, by contrast, we should not try to cause their deaths. It is, however, forbidden to save their lives if their lives are threatened. For example, if such a person fell into the sea, one should not rescue him." This is based on Leviticus 19:16: "Do not stand idly by while your brother's blood is at stake." This verse, the Rambam implies, applies only to "your brothers," a category that excludes those who actively reject foundational Jewish principles or habitually engage in severe transgressions like robbery.

  • Example: A Jewish individual is known to be a habitual robber, preying on others within the community. If this individual falls into a dangerous situation (e.g., a pit), you are not permitted to actively cause their death, but you are also not obligated to save them. The moral imperative of "do not stand idly by" is legally suspended for those who have placed themselves outside the communal bond through persistent, severe wrongdoing.
  • Nuance: This is another halakha that challenges modern ethical frameworks. It distinguishes between actively causing harm (forbidden) and the obligation to rescue. It reflects a legal boundary for reciprocal communal responsibility. It is crucial to understand that this is not a license to harm, but a legal definition of the limits of a positive obligation to rescue in specific, defined circumstances.

• Saving Occasional Sinners (Halakha 14): "When, by contrast, a Jew commits transgressions, but does not maintain his wickedness continually, merely occasionally sinning for his own personal satisfaction - e.g., one who eats non-kosher food for pleasure - it is a mitzvah to save his life, and it is forbidden to stand idly by when his life is threatened."

  • Example: A Jew who, like many in modern society, enjoys eating non-kosher food when dining out. If this person is in danger, you are absolutely obligated to save their life.
  • Nuance: This final halakha provides critical balance. It clarifies that the previous, harsh rulings apply only to the most extreme cases of persistent, intentional wickedness or denial of fundamental beliefs. An "ordinary" sinner, even one who transgresses regularly for personal pleasure, remains fully within the category of "your brother," and the mitzvah to save their life remains paramount. This underscores that Jewish law always seeks to embrace and protect its members, with exceptions only for the gravest and most persistent forms of rebellion or societal threat.

How We Live This

The intricate legal distinctions and ethical considerations found in the Rambam's Laws of Murder and the Preservation of Life may seem far removed from our daily lives. After all, most of us will never sit on a Sanhedrin court, nor will we face decisions about executing a trefah or a masit. However, the foundational principles embedded in these laws are profoundly relevant to how we approach life, responsibility, and justice in the modern world. They inform core Jewish values that shape our interactions, our ethical choices, and our understanding of what it means to be a moral human being.

The Sanctity of Life (Pikuach Nefesh)

The meticulous detail surrounding murder in the Rambam's text, while dealing with the ultimate desecration of life, paradoxically underscores Judaism's overriding principle: the infinite value of every human life. This is encapsulated in the concept of Pikuach Nefesh – the preservation of life – which overrides almost all other Mitzvot.

Application 1: Medical Ethics and Pikuach Nefesh

• Detailed Description: In Jewish law, the imperative to save a life is so powerful that it overrides nearly all other commandments, including the Sabbath, Yom Kippur fast, Kashrut (dietary laws), and prayer times. When a life is at stake, time is of the essence, and any action necessary to preserve it becomes a mitzvah itself. This principle dictates that even a slight doubt about a life being in danger is enough to suspend prohibitions.
• Example 1: Driving on Shabbat for Emergency Care. A person suffers a heart attack on Shabbat. Jewish law not only permits, but requires, that they be driven to the hospital, even if it means violating the prohibition against driving. The act of saving a life takes precedence over the Sabbath laws. A Jewish ambulance driver, for instance, would be lauded for their actions, not condemned.
• Example 2: Administering Non-Kosher Medicine or Food. A patient requires a life-saving medication that contains non-kosher ingredients, or needs nourishment that is not kosher, and no kosher alternative is available in time. Jewish law mandates that the non-kosher substance be given. The preservation of life is more important than the observance of Kashrut in that moment.
• Connection to Text: While the Rambam discusses the legal definitions of life and death for murder (e.g., the one-day-old infant, the trefah), the spirit of these laws is to protect existing life. The severity of murder laws is a mirror image of the boundless value placed on life itself. Pikuach Nefesh affirms that every moment of existence is precious, echoing Halakha 6, which states that killing a person "even in his actual death throes" is murder.

Application 2: "Lo Ta'amod al Dam Rei'acha" (Do Not Stand Idly By)

• Detailed Description: This biblical commandment (Leviticus 19:16) translates to a positive obligation to intervene and rescue someone whose life is in danger. This extends beyond physical rescue to include testifying in court to save an innocent person, providing medical assistance, or seeking professional help. The obligation is not just to avoid causing harm, but actively to prevent it when one has the capacity.
• Example 1: Witnessing an Accident. If you witness a car accident and someone is injured, you are obligated to call emergency services, and if you have medical training, to offer assistance within the bounds of your ability and safety. You cannot simply walk away, rationalizing that it is "not your problem."
• Example 2: Reporting Abuse or Danger. If you are aware that a child is being abused, or an elderly person is being neglected, you have a moral and halakhic obligation to report it to the appropriate authorities. Your inaction would constitute "standing idly by" while a "brother's blood is at stake."
• Connection to Text: Halakha 13-14 discuss the controversial exceptions to this rule (e.g., for minim or habitual robbers), but the default and overriding principle is to save life. The exceptions, though difficult, underscore that the norm is active preservation of life, with specific legal boundaries defining who constitutes "your brother" for this positive obligation in extreme circumstances. For the vast majority of people, the obligation to save is absolute.

Personal Responsibility and Moral Culpability

The Rambam's detailed legal framework for murder, especially the distinction between direct and indirect killing and the concept of "no agent for a transgression," provides profound insights into personal responsibility and the nuances of moral culpability.

Application 1: Ethical Leadership and Delegation

• Detailed Description: The principle of Ein Shliach L'Dvar Aveirah (Chapter 2, Halakha 1 commentary) teaches that an individual always retains moral agency. For leaders, managers, or anyone in a position of authority, this means that while you can delegate tasks, you cannot fully delegate moral responsibility for the actions taken by your subordinates. If you instruct someone to do something unethical or harmful, and they choose to do it, they are culpable, but you, as the instigator, bear significant moral weight, often facing divine judgment even if earthly courts don't directly punish you for the agent's act.
• Example 1: Corporate Malpractice. A CEO instructs their employees to engage in deceptive accounting practices that defraud customers. If the employees knowingly carry out these instructions, they are directly responsible for their fraudulent acts. However, the CEO, as the orchestrator of the scheme, is morally culpable for the immense harm caused, and would face divine judgment, even if secular law might also hold them liable. The Rambam's distinction reminds us that even if human courts can't always perfectly trace culpability to the "mastermind" due to the agent's free will, divine justice certainly can.
• Example 2: The Ahab-Navot Narrative (Chapter 4, Halakha 11). King Ahab desired Naboth's vineyard and, through his wife Jezebel, orchestrated Naboth's false accusation and death. Others carried out the stoning. The Rambam highlights that God held Ahab accountable for "the blood of Navot" because he "merely brought about his death." This story serves as a powerful reminder that orchestrating harm, even without physically committing the act, carries immense moral and divine consequences. Leaders must understand that their directives, even if indirect, shape the ethical landscape of their organizations and communities.

Application 2: Avoiding "Lashon Hara" (Evil Speech) and Incitement

• Detailed Description: While not physical murder, Jewish tradition equates Lashon Hara (evil speech, gossip, slander) with bloodshed due to its destructive power. It can ruin reputations, relationships, and livelihoods, effectively "killing" a person socially and emotionally. The commentary on Masit (inciter) in Shorshei HaYam, though complex, highlights the moral culpability of those who instigate harm, even if they don't perform the physical act. This connects directly to the idea that words, like actions, have consequences.
• Example 1: Spreading False Rumors. Spreading unverified or malicious rumors about a colleague can lead to their dismissal, social ostracization, and severe emotional distress. Even though no physical blow was struck, the damage caused by the words can be devastating, akin to a form of indirect "bloodshed" in Jewish thought.
• Example 2: Online Harassment or Cyberbullying. In the digital age, inciting hatred or spreading defamatory content online can lead to real-world consequences, including mental health crises, job loss, and even physical harm. The person who posts the inflammatory material is directly responsible, but those who create an environment of hatred or provide the platform for such incitement also bear significant moral culpability. The Rambam's laws, by meticulously tracing causality, encourage us to consider the full ripple effect of our words and actions.

The Pursuit of Justice and Deterrence

The exhaustive detail in the Rambam's laws of murder reveals a profound commitment to both justice and societal deterrence. The system aims to ensure that no life is taken lightly and that those who commit such a heinous act face appropriate consequences, or at least that society is protected from them.

Application 1: Judicial Prudence and Deliberation

• Detailed Description: The stringent requirements for conviction in capital cases, as seen in the need to assess the weapon, the force, the location, the intent (Chapter 3), and the rule that "one person alone is entirely accountable" (Chapter 4, Halakha 7), illustrate an extreme degree of judicial caution. This meticulousness is designed to prevent miscarriages of justice, ensuring that capital punishment is applied only when guilt is unequivocally established. It sets a standard for due process that prioritizes protecting the innocent above securing a conviction at all costs.
• Example: In a modern courtroom, the Jewish legal emphasis on "singular, direct, and sufficient causation" would translate into a rigorous examination of forensic evidence, witness testimony, and the defendant's state of mind. If a group of individuals attacked a victim, and it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that one specific individual delivered the fatal blow, then under the Rambam's strict rules, no one would be executed for murder, even if all were clearly involved in the assault. This teaches us the importance of precision in judicial processes, especially when a life is at stake.
• Connection to Text: The rules regarding multiple perpetrators (Chapter 4, Halakha 7) and the detailed assessments of lethal force (Chapter 3) are powerful examples. Even the kipah (Chapter 4, Halakha 10) is only for those where guilt is clear but procedural requirements for execution are not met, again demonstrating that due process, even if it prevents execution, is paramount.

Application 2: Societal Responsibility for Order

• Detailed Description: The provisions for a king or court to act "by virtue of his regal authority, in order to perfect society" (Chapter 2, Halakha 2) or to impose the kipah (Chapter 4, Halakha 10) for murderers who cannot be formally executed, reveal a deep understanding that murder is not just an individual crime but an assault on the entire community. Society has a responsibility to maintain order and deter such grave offenses, even if it requires extra-judicial measures in extreme circumstances.
• Example 1: Anti-Crime Initiatives. A city faces a surge in violent crime. The local government, inspired by the principle of tikkun ha'olam, implements innovative, perhaps even stringent, community policing strategies, rehabilitation programs, and educational initiatives. While these might go beyond traditional legal enforcement, their purpose is to "perfect society" by addressing the root causes of crime and deterring future acts, thus ensuring public safety.
• Example 2: Dealing with Repeat Offenders. For individuals who repeatedly commit violent acts but escape formal capital punishment due to legal technicalities, the concept behind the kipah suggests that society must still find ways to remove them from the general population and prevent further harm. This translates to modern justice systems imposing lengthy prison sentences, even for those whose direct culpability for a specific death may be difficult to prove conclusively. The overarching goal is the "preservation of life" for the community.
• Connection to Text: The Rambam explicitly states that murder "present[s] as serious a danger to society as murder does. Even idol worship... are not considered as severe as murder. For these sins involve man's relationship with God, while murder also involves man's relationship with his fellow man" (Chapter 4, Halakha 11). This highlights the unique corrosive effect of murder on human society and justifies extraordinary measures to combat it.

One Thing to Remember

If there is one overarching lesson to carry from the Rambam's profound discussion on murder, it is this: Jewish law, in its meticulous detail regarding the taking of a human life, ultimately underscores the infinite sanctity and value of every individual soul, and demands an equally infinite sense of responsibility from each of us. While the distinctions between earthly and divine judgment, direct and indirect causation, or even the varying legal statuses of victims might seem complex, they all converge on a single, unwavering truth: life is a sacred gift, and its intentional destruction is the gravest of sins. This intricate legal tapestry challenges us to be acutely aware of our actions, our words, and our influence, for the moral culpability for causing death, directly or indirectly, remains absolute in the eyes of Heaven, even when human courts reach their limits. To truly live this, we must strive to cultivate a society that not only condemns murder but actively cherishes and protects life in all its forms, pursuing justice with both rigorous precision and profound compassion, always remembering the divine spark within every human being.

Citations

• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:1:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:1:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:1:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:1:2
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:2:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:2:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:3:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:3:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:4:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:4:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:5:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:5:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:6:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:6:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:7:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:7:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:8:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:8:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:9:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:9:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:10:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:10:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:10:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:10:2
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:11:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:11:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:11:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:11:2
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:12:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:12:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:13:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:13:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:14:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:14:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:15:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:15:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:16:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_2:16:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:1:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:1:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:2:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:2:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:3:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:3:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:4:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:4:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:5:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:5:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:6:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:6:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:7:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:7:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:8:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:8:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:9:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:9:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:10:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:10:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:11:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:11:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:12:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:12:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:13:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:13:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 3:14:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_3:14:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:1:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:1:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:2:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:2:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:3:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:3:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:4:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:4:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:5:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:5:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:6:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:6:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:7:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:7:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:8:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:8:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:9:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:9:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:10:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:10:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:11:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:11:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:12:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:12:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:13:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:13:1
• Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4:14:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life_4:14:1
• Ohr Sameach on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:1:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Ohr_Sameach_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life.2.1.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Shorshei HaYam on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:1:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Shorshei_HaYam_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life.2.1.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:1:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life.2.1.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:10:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life.2.10.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:10:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life.2.10.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:11:1: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life.2.11.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:11:2: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life.2.11.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 2:11:3: https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Mishneh_Torah%2C_Murderer_and_the_Preservation_of_Life.2.11.3?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Genesis 9:6: https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.9.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Numbers 35:17-18: https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.35.17-18?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Numbers 35:16: https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.35.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Numbers 35:21: https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.35.21?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Numbers 35:20: https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.35.20?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Deuteronomy 19:19: https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.19.19?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Exodus 21:14: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.21.14?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Exodus 21:21: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.21.21?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Exodus 21:20: https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.21.20?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Leviticus 24:17: https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.24.17?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Proverbs 28:17: https://www.sefaria.org/Proverbs.28.17?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• 1 Kings 21:25: https://www.sefaria.org/I_Kings.21.25?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• 1 Kings 22:21-22: https://www.sefaria.org/I_Kings.22.21-22?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
• Leviticus 19:16: https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.19.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en