Is it allowed to murder (any human from anywhere with any race and any belief) to fulfill the prophecy of relocation of all Jews to Israel, gathered from the four corners of the earth (Deut. 30:3-4; Isa. 11:12, 27:12-13) ?

Details regarding different Jewish movements (especially Chabad) would be also very interesting.

I believe the Sixth Commandment is more important than anything else.

Edit: I'd like to know what is more important to believers. Do adherents of Judaism place more value on the Sixth Commandment, or do they place more value on the prophecy of relocation of Jews to Israel?

Maybe movements like Chabad weigh this differently. I'd like to know how movements emphasize this. So any information regarding movements would be appreciated.

Imagine a totally made up situation in which you have to make a choice: You could relocate all Jews to Israel by murdering one human being (who didn't attack you, and didn't do anything). What would you have to do in this imaginary situation according to Judaism in general, or according to any movement?

Edit2: I have changed 'kill ... to fulfill the prophecy ...' to 'murder ... to fulfill the prophecy ...'

  • 1
    If the sixth commandment is most important, why is it sixth? – Double AA Jan 31 '15 at 23:31
  • 2
    You might find your answer in the Book of Joshua, which covers the original conquest of Canaan. – psdsph Jan 31 '15 at 23:47
  • What does details about Jewish movements have to do with the question? – Y     e     z Feb 1 '15 at 2:18
  • This question would make a lot more sense if it would explain how the "sixth commandment" seems to contradict the fulfillment of those prophecies. – msh210 Feb 1 '15 at 3:02
  • 1
    @sabbahillel Done. But I think it was pretty clear, that this question is not about self-defense as the word 'kill' was followed by a 'to' as 'in order to'. – Andromeda Feb 1 '15 at 16:38

The question is based on the wrong premise. The actual commandment is "Do not Murder" not "Do not Kill". Your question implies that one may not even kill in sef-defense which is untrue.

That is, you start the question "Is it allowed to kill" which implies under any circumstances and connect it with the settling of the land. This makes it sound as if causing any death (of any human being) for any reason is forbidden. You also do not show my you ask about "settling the land" with respect to this alleged violation of the sixth commandment. Are you saying that because the Israeli army must fight and kill during a war, they are violating the sixth commandment?

UPDATE The question has been changed to now address the question of "Mitzvah Haba Ba'aveirah" This will require a different answer.

Given that one is attempting to fulfill a prophesy and not actually obeying the command of a Navi (such as Eliyahu on Har Carmel) , it is forbidden to violate halacha in order to do so. For example, if one thought fulfilling a prophesy to resettle in Eretz Yisrael by taking an airplane on shabbos, then one would be forbidden to do so (unless an actual navi came and made a one time prophesy). If someone claimed to be a navi and attempted to claim that one no longer had to keep shabbos to fly to Eretz Yisrael (or to drive to shul on shabbos) then he would be a navi sheker.

It is not a matter of the fact that the isur of murder is in the Aseres Hadibros (I prefer Ten Statements to Ten Commandments) but that it is one of the 613 Mitzvos. The made up situation would not apply as unless there was a direct revelation from Hashem (and a person would not get such a revelation unless he was already at the level of Moshe Rabbeinu) there is no way to allow such a violation.

In any case, such a necessity is only when someone is faced with a direct and immediate problem such as Yael seducing Sisra in order to be able to kill him or Shmuel mandating that all of Amalek be killed (and killing Agag at the direct command of Hashem). It would not be allowed in the situation that you specify.

| improve this answer | |
  • This doesn't seem to answer the question? – Double AA Feb 1 '15 at 0:48
  • 1
    This would better answer the question if it would explain what part of the question depends on the "kill" translation. I don't see anything in the question about self-defense, not even by implication. – msh210 Feb 1 '15 at 3:01
  • @msh210 I added why I see the connection – sabbahillel Feb 1 '15 at 3:40
  • @sabbahillel I added an edit underneath the question, that explains it. It's a question about emphasis and weighting. I don't make any political implications. – Andromeda Feb 1 '15 at 5:33
  • This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. – Scimonster Feb 1 '15 at 20:35

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .