|
|
/Tza•diq•ūtꞋ)B.C.E. 1st century — RabꞋi Hi•leilꞋ, when asked by a gentile to be converted while the RabꞋi stood on one foot, replied: "That which you eschew, don’t inflict on your fellow! That's the entirety of Tōr•âhꞋ. What remains is pei•rush•âhꞋ. Now, go-weave
South From Rᵊphid•imꞋ To Har Sin•aiꞋ
á øÆöÇç
Manslaughter (e.g., fatal accident) Both assault
Note that the A•sërꞋët ha-Dᵊvâr•imꞋ explicitly prohibits øÆöÇç, not "kill". To the contrary, the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ of pi•quꞋakh nëphꞋësh commands one to risk killing (not murder) if unavoidable for self-defense; including self-defense of Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ (i.e. the IDF).
Hence, the crucial difference, in all cases, between "Shoot to stop" assailant(s) by aiming at the center of their torso to maximize probability of hitting and stopping the assailant (maximizing self-defense) v the prohibited "Shoot to kill" (i.e. sniper head shot or heart shot, raising the likelihood of a complete miss – not the highest probability of stopping an assailant and maintaining pi•quꞋakh nëphꞋësh).
á 1. Manslaughter, Result Of Self-Defense
Self-defense manslaughter (home defense against imminent threat with firearm)
When a person wasn't hunting for trouble,
The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. If there is intent to kill, then it is murder,
á 2. General Manslaughter
Manslaughter is the unintentional killing of any person.
(Murder – not manslaughter – is forbidden in the A•sërꞋët ha-Dᵊvâr•imꞋ.)
Optional parental preparation:
You have the difficult job of explaining to your child(ren) the difference between using whatever force is reasonable to defend themselves (even if it does result in the death of the assailant(s), without regard to the injury or death inflicted) — but they can never deliberately attempt to kill a person except as a soldier in the military, in combat, and under orders and proper training to do so. The distinction is use of "reasonable force" to "stop", not explicitly kill, any assailant(s). Check any doubts with an attorney.
(21.13) – "When a person wasn't hunting [for trouble], but he was, rather, beset-by-a-happenstance of ha-ël•oh•imꞋ, so I will establish a place [of refuge] where he may flee [from the deceased family's âÌÒàÅì äÇãÌÈí, until the case be heard in the Beit Din]."
The provision of a place to flee implies that this refers to a victim who has survived an assault. The necessity to flee to a place of refuge, therefore, implies the death of the perpetrator of the assault, as the result of self-defense exercised by the victim who was "beset by the happenstance" (i.e. assault). The death implies the altercation, which, in turn, implies the causal assault and battery. That the subject lacked intention (i.e. "not hunting" for trouble) implies that (s)he was the victim, not the perpetrator, of the assault. Therefore, the deceased was, a priori, the perpetrator of the assault and battery. Hence, this refers to self-defense. Constraint to reasonable force is axiomatic to tza•diq•ūtꞋ. 
What was a âÌÒàÅì äÇãÌÈí.? Was a âÌÒàÅì äÇãÌÈí. a vigilante? (Ans: No, the whole point of "places of refuge" was to afford protection to a suspect until a Beit Din was convened to adjudicate the case.
Which is prohibited in the A•sërꞋët ha-Dᵊvâr•imꞋ, øÆöÇç or äÂøÄéâÈä?
Questions you might anticipate that your child might raise and be prepared to discuss:
What do "intent" and "intentional" mean?
What is the torso?
Where does "self-defense" end and unreasonable force begin? (Arguing this in individual cases occupies much of the time spent in criminal courtrooms. Key word is "reasonable." No substitute for common sense.)
What does "capital offense" mean?
 |
|
 |
