Commentaire sur L’Exode 22:1

אם במחתרת means when he was breaking in into the house (i. e. in the very act of forcing an entry, but at no other moment).

אם במחתרת, as well as at night, prepared to either kill or be killed in the pursuit of his quest. This is why there is no demand to account for his blood which has been shed. אין לו דמים, the killer does not even have to make financial restitution to the slain thief’s next of kin.

אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב, “If the thief is found while in hiding.” The word מחתרת suggests that he was tunneling his way into the house in the dark of night.
אין לו דמים, “there is no blood-guilt on his account.” If the owner killed the thief believing his life to be in danger he is not accused of manslaughter. The Torah presumes that if someone breaks into a house at night he is also prepared to kill if discovered by the owner who would defend his property.

He was actually in the act of breaking in. This is as opposed to explaining: the thief was found in the place of breaking in. [That cannot be the meaning,] because “breaking in” is not a place, about which we could say that the thief was “found” there. Therefore, Rashi explains that he was found “in the act” of breaking in.

אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב, the expression במחתרת reflects the activity of the thief, i.e. that he makes a practice of digging or undermining houses in the dark of night. והוכה ומת אין לו דמים, the person who killed him is not guilty of murder. The fact that the thief operated at night is prima facie evidence that he posed a death threat to his potential victim.

(Exodus 22:1) "If the thief be found breaking in": This speaks of a doubt (in the owner's mind) as to whether he is breaking in to steal or to kill. You say this, but perhaps the doubt is as to whether he is breaking in to steal or not to steal. Would you say that? If he (broke in) to steal of a certainty and he killed him, he would be liable (for murder), how much more so if there is a doubt as to whether he came to steal! We must thus perforce accept not the second supposition, but the first. From here it follows that a doubt (i.e., a possibility) of saving a life overrides the Sabbath. For if (the sin of) killing, (in this instance, the thief,) (— killing,) which defiles the land and causes the Shechinah to depart (from Israel) — is overridden by the possibility (of saving one's life, how much more so does it follow that the possibility of saving life overrides the Sabbath.)

Kap. 22. V. 1 u. 2. מחתרת, Einbruch, von חתר, dem spezifischen Ausdruck für Eindringen in geschlossene Räume durch Einbruch, חתר בחשך בתים (Job 24, 16 u. f.) ist der gerade Gegensatz zu dem vorhergehenden Ochsen- und Schafdiebstahl. Diese waren völlig frei, der öffentlichen Rechtsachtung anvertraut, aus deren Höhnung die erhöhte Pön resultiert. מחתרת setzt den Verschluss des Eigentums zunächst für eine solche Zeit voraus, für welche das Auge der öffentlichen Rechtsvertretung nicht hinreicht, und daher ein Zustand der Selbsthilfe gegeben ist, der, wenn das Recht nicht in der Gesellschaft Schutz und Vertretung fände, überhaupt der allgemeine wäre. Es ist dies die Zeit der Nacht. Daher an der zitierten Stelle Job das Problem zur Lösung gibt, warum die Weltordnung durch das völlige Dunkel der Nacht selbst Verbrechen begünstige. Ein bisschen Morgenröte würde die meisten Verbrecher verscheuchen. Da heißt es denn auch vom Diebe: חתר בחשך בתים יומס חתמו למו לא ידעו אור, "im Finstern bricht er in Häuser ein, Tags tragen sie ihnen ein heiliges Siegel, Licht ist nicht ihr Freund". Daher heißt es (Sanhedrin 72 a) הבא במחתרת נידון על שם סופו, "dem nächtlich einbrechenden Diebe wird nach seinem Endvorsatz begegnet". Er weiß, dass der auf Selbsthilfe angewiesene Besitzer nötigenfalls mit tödlichen Waffen sein Eigentum verteidigt, bei ihm selbst ist also im Einbruch der Vorsatz eines eventuellen Mordes vorauszusetzen, dem der Besitzer durch eventuelle Tötung des Diebes aus dem Grundsatz der Selbstverteidigung zuvorkommen darf: אם בא להרגך השכם להרגו.

אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב, “if the thief is discovered while tunneling, underground, etc.;” the scenario described here where the owner of the house being burgled kills the intruder, and the Torah exonerates him, applies only when the thief had made an effort to remain undiscovered. If he broke in the front door and the owner harms or kills him, he is liable for damages or even murder, seeing that his life had not been endangered. The thief had obviously decided that if discovered he would flee the way he had entered, and not become violent.

אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב, “if the thief was discovered while tunneling” (acting so as not to be discovered); according to Rashi he had left behind evidence of forcible entry into the victim’s house;

אין לו דמים THERE SHALL NO GUILT OF BLOOD BE INCURRED FOR HIM — This is not regarded as a murder; it is as though he (the thief) has been dead from the beginning of his criminal act (אין לו דמים is taken to mean: he, the thief, had no blood — no vitality). Here the Torah teaches you the rule: “If one comes with the intention of killing you, be quick and kill him”. — And this burglar actually came with the intention of killing you, for he knew full well that no one can hold himself in check, looking on whilst people are stealing his property before his eyes and doing nothing. He (the thief) therefore obviously came with this purpose in view — that in case the owner of the property would resist him, he would kill him (Sanhedrin 72a).

Beim Diebe am Tage sind aber in der Regel keine Mordgedanken vorauszusetzen. Siehe ראב׳׳ד zu רמב׳׳ם הל׳ גנבה ט׳ ח׳. Daher in der Regel: Nachts: אין לו דמים, Tags: דמים לו. Indem es aber im Texte nicht: ואם זרחה השמש, sondern: ואם זרחה השמש עליו heißt, so ist damit die Erweiterung gegeben: Wenn es auch allgemein nicht Tag ist, wenn es nur über ihm, dem Diebe, tagt, d. h. wenn die Umstände der Art sind, wenn namentlich der Dieb in einem solchen persönlichen Verhältnisse zu dem Besitzer steht, dass dieser zuversichtlich selbst bei einem nächtlichen Einbruch nur "Tagesgedanken", keine Mordgedanken, voraussetzen muss, so: דמים לו, so trägt der Besitzer Blutschuld, wenn er, ihm zuvorkommend, ihn tötet. So אם זרחה השמש עליו וכי השמש :מכילתא עליו בלבד זרחה והלא על כל העולם כלו זרחה אלא מה שמש שלום בעולם אף זה אם ידוע הוא שבשלום עמו והרגו חייב und Sanhedrin 72 a: אם ברור לך כשמש שיש לו שלום עמך אל תהרגהו ואם לאו הרגהו.

אין לו דמים, “the owner is not guilty of having shed the blood of that thief.” The thief had made it plain that he was afraid of a potentially fatal confrontation with the owner of that house who would physically protect his belongings.

שלם ישלם: der nicht nächtliche Dieb hat nicht sein Leben verwirkt, wohl aber hat er die volle Ersatzpflicht und steht dafür aber insoweit mit seiner Persönlichkeit ein, dass im Falle des Unvermögens, אם אין לו, er zum Ersatz des Gestohlenen in Knechtesdienst sich verkaufen lassen muss (siehe zu Kap. 21, 2 f.).

And that is that He commanded us to redeem the firstborn man, that we should give the money to the priest. And that is His saying, "you shall give me your firstborn sons" (Exodus 22:28). And He explained to us how this giving should be: And it is that we redeem him from the priest; and it is as if [the priest] already acquired him, and we purchase him from him for five sela - and that is His saying, "but surely redeem the firstborn man" (Numbers 18:15). And this commandment is the commandment of redeeming the son. And women are not obligated in it - indeed it is one of the commandments of the son that is upon the father, as it is explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 29a). And all of the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Bekhorot. However Levites are not obligated in it. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings.)