Halakhah su II Samuele 20:21
לֹא־כֵ֣ן הַדָּבָ֗ר כִּ֡י אִישׁ֩ מֵהַ֨ר אֶפְרַ֜יִם שֶׁ֧בַע בֶּן־בִּכְרִ֣י שְׁמ֗וֹ נָשָׂ֤א יָדוֹ֙ בַּמֶּ֣לֶךְ בְּדָוִ֔ד תְּנֽוּ־אֹת֣וֹ לְבַדּ֔וֹ וְאֵלְכָ֖ה מֵעַ֣ל הָעִ֑יר וַתֹּ֤אמֶר הָֽאִשָּׁה֙ אֶל־יוֹאָ֔ב הִנֵּ֥ה רֹאשׁ֛וֹ מֻשְׁלָ֥ךְ אֵלֶ֖יךָ בְּעַ֥ד הַחוֹמָֽה׃
La questione non è così; ma un uomo della regione montuosa di Efraim, di nome Saba figlio di Bichri, ha alzato la mano contro il re, perfino contro Davide; liberalo solo e io partirò dalla città.' E la donna disse a Joab: 'Ecco, la sua testa ti sarà gettata sul muro.'
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol VI
Rambam's ruling is based upon the explication of the narrative of II Samuel 20:4-22 found in the Palestinian Talmud, Terumot 8:12. Joab, commander of King David's troops, had pursued Sheba the son of Bichri and besieged the town of Abel in which Sheba sought refuge. Thereupon Joab demanded that Sheba be delivered to the king's forces; otherwise, Joab threatened to destroy the entire city. On the basis of the verse, "Sheba the son of Bichri has lifted up his hand against the king, against David" (II Samuel 20:21), Resh Lakish infers that acquiescence with a demand of such nature can be sanctioned only in instances in which the victim's life is lawfully forfeit, as was the case with regard to Sheba the son of Bichri who is described as being guilty of lèse majesté. However, in instances in which the designated victim is guiltless, all must suffer death rather than become accomplices to murder. R. Yoḥanan maintains that the question of guilt is irrelevant; rather, the crucial factor is the singling out of a specific individual by the oppressor. Members of a group have no right to select one of their number and deliver him to death in order to save their own lives. Since the life of each individual is of inestimable value there is no basis for preferring one life over another. However, once a specific person has been marked for death in any event, either alone if surrendered by his companions or together with the entire group if they refuse to comply, those who deliver him are not to be regarded as accessories. Rambam's ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Resh Lakish. Both opinions are cited by Rema, Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 157:1.2In the case of the hijacked airplane the passengers may be regarded as specified because, in the absence of intervention, they would all die. If intervention were sanctioned, sacrificing their lives would save others but there was no possibility of sacrificing others in order to save them. Nevertheless, even if victims are specified, R. Yoḥanan does not sanction actively hastening death in order to save others.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy