In Samuel I chapter 11, David commands Yo'av to place Uriah the Hittite in the middle of a battle so that, inevitably, the enemy would kill him while he is unprotected. Yo'av carries out the command.
Is Yo'av considered a murderer, halachically?
Considerations / Questions:
Yo'av himself did not kill Uriah, but he intentionally placed him in danger so that it was highly likely that he would have been killed. It was also clear, that Yoav's intent was to have him killed, but by someone else. In general, if someone intentionally places another in a place where death to that person is certain, does that make him liable for murder?
David was the king. If the king commands you to kill someone and you disobey the king, the king has a right to kill you for being a rebel against the kingdom. Yo'av did not know why David wanted Uriah killed. He was just a messaneger. So, even if Yo'av had killed Uriah himself, would that excuse him from being a murderer, because he is carrying out the king's command?
Answer
Kiddushin 43a:
האומר לשלוחו צא הרוג את הנפש הוא חייב ושולחיו פטור שמאי הזקן אומר משום חגי הנביא שולחיו חייב שנא' (שמואל ב יב, ט) אותו הרגת בחרב בני עמון
One who says to his agent: "Go and kill someone" - he is liable, but his sender is not. Shamai the Elder said in the name of Chagai the prophet that his sender is liable, as it says (Shmuel 2:12:9), "[Uriah] you (David) have killed with the sword of the Children of Amon."
The Gemara proceeds to do a technical analysis of the two opinions based on the preceding daf regarding the general principle that one is not liable for his agent's sins performed on his behalf (ein shliach l'devar aveirah). It presents several such expositions; I will quote just the last one, which is relevant to the passuk quoted above:
ואיבעית אימא שאני התם דגלי רחמנא אותו הרגת בחרב בני עמון
ואידך הרי לך כחרב בני עמון מה חרב בני עמון אין אתה נענש עליו אף אוריה החתי אי אתה נענש עליו
מאי טעמא מורד במלכות הוה דקאמר ליה (שמואל ב יא, יא) ואדוני יואב וכל עבדי אדוני על פני השדה חונים
If you rather, I can say [to explain Shamai's opinion] that the passuk specifies "he you have killed with the sword of the Children of Amon."
And [the Tanna Kama]? [Uriah's murder] is to you like the sword of the Children of Amon - just as you are not liable for the sword of the Children of Amon, so, too, for Uriah the Chiti you are not liable.
Why not? He rebelled against the kingdom, as it says (Shmuel 2:11:11): "My master, Yoav, and all the servants of my master [are] encamped on the face of the field." [Uriah is speaking to David in this passuk - the second reference to "my master" is David, not Yoav. As he referred to Yoav as his master before David, it was considered an affront to the kingdom and was tantamount to rebelling. Thus explains Rashi.]
In short: everyone holds Yoav was liable. For further reading on David's liability, see Avodah Zarah 5a and Shabbos 56a. For practical halacha in case you want to hire a mercenary yourself, see the full Gemara in Kiddushin, 42b through the above Gemaras, then see Rambam, Hilchos Rotzeiach 2:2-3.
No comments:
Post a Comment