The Rambam (Hilchot Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh 5:11) writes
If the [unintentional] killer is slain within the Sabbath limits of the city of
refuge, the one who slayed him should be executed.
see also end of 5:12
Thus, if a person kills unintentionally and takes refuge at the altar,
and the blood redeemer kills him there, he should be executed as if ...
Mishna in Makoth 2:7
וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהָרַג , אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם
A Kohain Gadol who kills goes to the Ir Miklat forever.
They would have to appoint another one, to do the Avoda on Yom Kippur, as the first one loses his job as Kohain Gadol, as the Rambam הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש at (7:14) says about all those sentenced to Ir Miklat, after they ...
Commentaries available here:
Rashi (verse 16) - Pharaoh's stargazers had told him that a boy who would lead the Jews out of Egypt was being born.
Chizkuni (verse 16) - men were generally those involved in warfare, and Pharaoh was worried about the Jews joining in a war against Egypt. Note that in verse 22, he adopts the "Rashi approach", based on the ...
Rashi to Exodus (1:16) quotes a Midrash that the Pharaoh decreed to specifically kill males since his astrologers predicted that a male would save the Jews. This Midrash is pretty old, and is present in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (2:9:2).
Hizkuni (1:16) and Hadar Z'kenim (1:22) suggest that Pharaoh was worried that males in particular would do battle ...
He stays in his Ir Miklat, in all cases even to save a life, as the Rambam explains in Hilchot Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh 7:8
A person who was exiled to a city of refuge should never leave his
city of refuge, not even to perform a mitzvah or to deliver testimony
- neither testimony involving monetary matters, nor testimony involving a capital case. He ...
This is the matter of a Tannaic dispute recorded in the Mishna (Makkot 2:7), Makkot (11a):
רוצח שיצא חוץ לתחום, ומצאו גואל הדם--רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר, מצוה ביד גואל הדם, ורשות ביד כל אדם; רבי עקיבה אומר, רשות ביד גואל הדם, וכל אדם אין חייבין עליו.
A murderer who left the bounds [of the city of refuge] R. Jose the Galilean says: it is a mitsvah for ...
The Rambam writes that the death of the High Priest distracts the mourners from seeking vengeance on the possible killer in the city of refuge:
The chance of returning from the exile depends on the death of [the high-priest], the most honoured of men, and the friend of all Israel. By his death the relative of the slain person becomes reconciled; for it is a ...
The Midrash Raba 1:28 says it was justifiable:
One time, an Egyptian taskmaster went to a Israelite kapo and looked at his wife, who was beautiful without blemish. He got up at cockcrow and removed him from his house and (the Egyptian) returned and bedded his wife, who thought he was her husband…. Once the taskmaster knew that [the husband] knew ...
A Medrash states that G-d offered the Torah to the children of Eisau. They rejected it, saying they could not accept this very commandment against murder. This begs the question: Eisau's descendants also have a law against murder! Why couldn't they accept G-d's law if it was already illegal by their own standard?
Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg ZT"L answers as ...
Yes. Jews killed many prophets. And here is a proof from 1 Kings 19 (14).
Then the Lord spoke his word to him: “Elijah! Why are you here?”
10 He answered, “Lord God All-Powerful, I have always served you as
well as I could. But the people of Israel have broken their agreement
with you, destroyed your altars, and killed your prophets with swords.
Rabbi Yonason Eibushutz answered humorously that disposing of two evil doers ( Bigsan and Teresh) is better than one ( Ahashverosh)
The midrash (footnote 73) and Sefarim Chitzonum writes that Bigsan and Teresh were in cohoots with Haman. If Ahasverish was killed Haman would have taken his place. In that case it is clear that Ahasverosh is better than Haman. ...
Ohr Someach clearly states:
Jewish law forbids euthanasia in all forms, and is considered an act
of homicide. The life of a person is not "his" - rather, it belongs to
the One Who granted that life. It may be therefore be reclaimed only
by the true Owner of that life. Despite one's noble intentions, an act
of mercy-killing is flagrant intervention ...
The Sefer HaChinuch writes as follows:
Sefer HaChinuch Mitzvah # 410
ונוהגת מצוה זו בזמן שישראל על אדמתן וסנהדרין של שבעים ואחד יושבין
במקומן המוכן להם בירושלם לדין דיני נפשות
And this commandment is operative during the time that Israel is on their land and the
Sanhedrin of 71 is sitting in their place that is prepared for them in
Rambam Rotzeah 7:9 (English)
אחד כוהן גדול המשוח בשמן המשחה, ואחד המרובה בבגדים; ואחד כוהן גדול העובד, ואחד הכוהן שעבר: כל אחד מארבעתן שמת, מחזיר את הרוצח.
If any of the current or former Kohanim Gedolim die, he goes free. As the Mishna (Megillah 1:9) states: the only difference between a current and former Kohein Gadol is that the bull offered on ...
Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488 - 1575)states in Shulchan Aruch, (The Code of Jewish Law) that if a physician is able to heal a patient and refrains from doing so, this is considered murder. Yoreh Deah, 336:1
Rabbi Moshe Isserles (The Rema 1520 - 1572), writes on the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law), that any act involving touching or moving a "gossess" (a term ...
If not for the prohibition, murder would carry no defined penalty in civil courts. The Torah prohibition makes murder always a capital crime. Same with stealing - if there was no explicit mitzvah, there would not be a set punishment entrusted to earthly courts.
Tosfos (Sanhedrin 74b s.v. והא אסתר) says:
ורוצח גופיה כי מיחייב למסור עצמו ה"מ קודם שיהרג בידים אבל היכא דלא עביד מעשה כגון שמשליכין אותו על התינוק ומתמעך מסתברא שאין חייב למסור עצמו דמצי אמר אדרבה מאי חזית דדמא דחבראי סומקי טפי דילמא דמא דידי סומק טפי כיון דלא עביד מעשה
The case of murder itself, he is obligated to sacrifice himself before he kills ...
First, the concept of killing a non-guilty party in self defense is learned from the Gemara in Sanhedrin 82a. (See also the commentary of the Rosh to this Gemara; 9:4) When Pinchas was (doing the right thing; hence not guilty; see Numbers ch. 24) chasing after Zimri, to kill him with a spear, the Gemara explains that Zimri was allowed to kill Pinchas in self ...
Mishna Sanhedrin 8.6
[A thief] who comes through a tunnel [into one's house] is judged on the basis of his end. If he came through a tunnel and broke a jug: if he has blood-guilt, he is liable; if he does not have blood-guilt, he is exempt.
הבא במחתרת נדון על שם סופו היה בא כו': וכן הבא במחתרת ידוע הוא שכונתו שאם יעמוד בעל הבית להציל ...
The basic answer is that because the king was sleeping with Esther so often he became thirsty very often so they were constantly having to bring him water and then later bring him his lavatory. See Rashi's comments on Megillah 13b.
It was their job to both guard the door and supply any of his needs during the night. When he wasn't sleeping with Esther they ...
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),...
Regarding your second bullet point, as to whether he would be punished if he kills the Goel Hadom, this is dealt with by the Mishneh Lamelech, Hilchot Rotzeach, 1:15 who says he will not be punished.
This is based on the Gemara on Sanhedrin 82a:
and it appears that he is not punished for this, as Chazal have mentioned that if Zimri would have killed ...
David Rosen of Emory University School of Law writes as follows on page 44.
Regarding destruction of homes of living terrorists these actions seem
easy to justify under Jewish Law. Ezra
confiscation of property as a criminal sanction when one disobeys
lawful orders. The court, under the biblical commandment, may
Summary: The Gemara says that a zealot may kill various sinners including one who has relations with a non-Jewess. The sinner may defend himself. But the Rosh writes that bystanders may not kill the zealot and would be considered murderers if they do.
The Mishna in Sanhedrin (9:6) writes that there are three sins for which zealots kill the offender: ...
Madanei Asher page 168 discusses this question and answers as follows.
Shaalos U'Tshuvis Radbaz - Volume 2 #772 says that a Jewish king is not judged and therefore would not go to exile. Regarding prior to the time of Yanai Hamelech when Jewish kings were judged he says even there a Jewish king would not be exiled based on the Gemara - Makos 10a that a ...
The Beis Yosef Y.D 158, followed by the Rema (Darkei Moshe 158:2) and the Shach (158:2) understand, based on Tosefos to Avoda Zara 26a s.v. ולא מורידים, that when the Mishna says אין מורידים, it means that even though your average gentile violates the 7 Noahide laws, there is no mitzvah to kill them, but there is no prohibition. (In fact, Tosefos there feels ...
Pirkei Avos says: "Hevei mispallel b'shloma shel malchus" - Pray for the peace of the government.
Even though there is no concept of lo ta'amod for Mordechai to adhere to, the assassination of the King would lead to severe sociopolitical upheaval. As subjects to the kingdom, it is our obligation to maintain, or at the very least pray for, the general order. ...
From the moment the bride receives the ring (or anything else of value) from the groom after he declares הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לִי in the presence of 2 Kosher witnesses, they are married, and the families are Halachically united:
She now requires a Get to get married to anybody else
Their families may no longer marry each other's close relatives
The law is exactly in accordance with the literal meaning of the verse in this case.
"ונתנו אותו ביד גואל הדם"
The Rambam codified this ruling in the halacha immediately following the halacha cited in @Danny Schoemann's now deleted response:
רמב"ם הלכות רוצח ושמירת הנפש א:ב
מִצְוָה בְּיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם [לַהֲרֹג אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ] שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ...