The past few weeks have seen a number of similar incidents, where members of the public have defended themselves and their homes against intruders. These have been well publicised, as on at least two recent occasions householders have killed intruders that had come onto their premises with unknown intent. Within the sedra there are two verses which look specifically at how far a person may go in defence of their property. The first of these is: "If a thief is found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dies, there shall be no blood guiltiness for him" - Exodus 22:1.

This verse says then that if an intruder comes into your house at night and is killed by you, you carry no guilt for your action. However the next verse states; "If the Sun is risen upon him (the intruder), there shall be blood guiltiness for him...".

What is so different about a burglary during the day or during the night? I offer my explanation.

If the thief is found breaking in at night, they must be aware that someone is in the house and therefore they must be prepared to cause harm or kill if they are disturbed. The occupant would in this case seem to be justified in killing the intruder. During the day-time the crime is more likely to be opportunist and it is less likely that any residents will be at home. Various bliblical commentators agree if the burglar is killed, after daybreak, it is murder as it is not absolutely necessary to take their life. I find this point highly contentious. What if the intruder is coming with an intent to harm and they calculate that they will not be killed during the day? Is it because of the daylight that the resident can see more clearly what the intruder's intentions are and can make a more rational decision, while the night-time would really only allow for a reflex reaction?

In recent weeks the spotlight has fallen again on justifiable self-defence and the various legal and moral problems it creates. Under British law a person who is threatened may do what is 'necessary' to protect themselves from injury, but no more. If you floor your attacker you are not allowed to carry on kicking them, this would transcend the law and you would lay open to prosecution. This seems to fit quite well with the two verses we have looked at. They seem to indicate that what is 'necessary' depends on the ability of the resident to make a rational decision.