Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

The Jewish View on Weapons

As we debate gun policy in the wake of Newtown, we should heed the wisdom of the Jewish sages

Print Email
(Photoillustration Tablet Magazine; original images Shutterstock and Wikimedia Commons)

The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School has sparked passionate debate about whether or not we need stricter gun-control laws in this country—and the Jewish community is no exception. For every organization like the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, which aggressively advocates for strict gun control, there are others like Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, who call gun control “code words for disarming innocent people.” Both camps, of course, claim that Judaism is on their side.

Who’s telling the truth? What does Judaism actually have to say about guns? The question can’t be answered with the perfect passage from the Torah or the Talmud, in part because the rabbis could never have fathomed the destructive nature of modern guns, like the ones that took the lives of 27 people in Newtown last Friday. To understand what our sages would have thought about our modern problems of unlimited ammunition and semiautomatic weapons, we have to examine their perspective on the dangers of their time—such as swords, dogs, stumbling blocks, and snakes. Their wisdom remains eerily relevant.

Swords and Other Weapons

There is little doubt that our rabbinic forebears lived in a violent world: The Talmud is full of stories and rules regarding ropes, chains, stocks, swords, and shields. Yet their views on these implements were not monolithic. On the one hand, the 13th-century Spanish commentator Nachmanides says that when Lemach, Adam’s great-great grandson (mentioned in the fourth chapter of Genesis) taught his son to smelt metal, his wives protested. They worried that through this simple act, Lemach was bringing death into the world since now humans would be able to make swords. However, Lemach, according to Nachmanides’ interpretation, replied to the wives that murder existed well before weapons. After all, his great-grandfather Cain killed his brother Abel with his bare hands. The story is perhaps the oldest variation on the phrase made famous on so many bumper stickers: Swords don’t kill people. People kill people.

But the story of Lemach is not even close to the Jewish tradition’s last word on the matter. The Mishnah, in Tractate Shabbat, records a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and a group of rabbis called the sages about whether one may carry weapons on Shabbat. According to Eliezer, weapons like swords, bows, or cudgels were considered “adornments” like jewelry or hair ribbons. Since these items are essentially like one’s clothing we don’t have to worry about them violating the prohibition against carrying on Shabbat, he argues.

The sages disagree. They call these weapons a “disgrace” and point to the most famous prophetic text from the book of Isaiah to show that humanity’s goal is to someday make these weapons disappear: “And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” The sages ultimately win this debate; later authorities rely more heavily on their opinion.

For most of our ancient ancestors their view of weapons fell somewhere between these two extremes. In ancient days, the sale of weapons was heavily regulated. Selling weapons to enemies was strictly forbidden since they might use them against you (Avodah Zarah 15b). Where these laws become interesting is over the question of who is worthy to buy weapons. Jewish law permits one to sell weapons to friendly neighbors and even to allied nations (Avodah Zarah 16a). However one cannot sell weapons of any kind to someone who has committed murder or to a “cowardly thief.” While the former limitation is obvious, it is less clear why selling weapons to a coward is condemned. The answer, our tradition teaches, is that it is a coward’s nature to panic when caught in a stressful situation. Weapons may not inherently be dangerous, but in the wrong hands they are uncontrollable.

The Dangerous Dog

While swords and spears featured heavily in the world of our forefathers, it was not uncommon for a person in the fifth or sixth century to keep a dangerous animal, usually a wild dog, on his property to protect himself from robbers. However, the owner of such a dog was not given full freedom to do as he wished with his animal. It is written in the Shulchan Aruch, the preeminent 16th-century Jewish law code, that in a normal city it is forbidden to raise a dangerous dog unless he is tied up with a metal chain (Choshen Mishpat 409:3). The thinking behind this ruling is that while a barking dog can deter robbers, the liability of letting the dog go free is too much since we don’t know whom the dog might attack.

This ruling differs starkly, however, in the outskirts of a village. Here, the Shulchan Aruch says, one may keep the dog untied at night as long as he is tied up by day. Here, because the nights were dark, help was far away, and danger was more prevalent, your dog could keep watch despite the risk.

In a way, the example of the village dog follows the general Jewish view that people have a right to defend themselves despite the risks to others. Classical Jewish law permits killing for self-defense: The Talmud teaches that if someone breaks into your house, you have a right to defend yourself, even if it is not clear that they mean to kill you (Sanhedrin 72a). However, the principle of self-defense isn’t limitless. The village dog still must be tied up by day because of the liability associated with letting it roam free. When danger is not at its most acute, societal accountability trumps personal protection.

The Snake

Although the case of the dog lends itself to pragmatism, the case of the snake does not. According to classical Jewish law, there are a number of animals that are considered too dangerous to keep. In Mishnah Bava Kamma 1:4, the sages list these animals as wolves, lions, bears, leopards, panthers, and snakes. Falling into a legal category called mu’ad, these animals are known as dangerous by nature. If they attack someone, their owner can’t claim that it was in any way an accident. He is assumed liable because he shouldn’t have them in the first place. And yet, in the discussion of these animals, Rabbi Eliezer, our pro-weapon enthusiast from above, jumps in. He argues that all these animals are trainable except one, the snake.

At issue in this debate is the effectiveness of safeguards. Eliezer believes that we can train dangerous animals to be less dangerous. The sages do not. Yet both agree that there are some creatures that are just too much of a liability. It is not clear whether these animals were used for defense or play, but either way it dovetails with the gun debate. There is no doubt that guns are dangerous, and the rabid misuse of guns brings into question whether good training of people or society could quell gun violence. Perhaps it’s a lost cause and, as is the case with a snake, you just don’t know what will happen when they are around.

The Blood Avenger

If these animal analogies seem too strained, there is one important human parallel the sages provide: the blood avenger. According to the Bible (Numbers 25, Deuteronomy 19), if a person commits manslaughter, he may flee to one of six cities of refuge to avoid vengeance from a member of his victim’s family, called the blood avenger. He would wait in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest, at which point he would go free, forever immune from retribution. This esoteric law fits in with the gun debate when it comes to the rabbis’ ruling over what people were forbidden to bring into the city. Talmud, Makkot 10a, reads:

No weapons—not even a hunter’s gear—should be sold [in a city of refuge]. Such is the opinion of Rabbi Nehemiah, but the sages permit such sales. However, both agree that no traps are to be set, nor are nooses to be knotted in these towns, so that the blood avenger may not be tempted to acquire these weapons while visiting a city of refuge.

More than anything, limiting the weapons in these cities of refuge was meant to deter the blood avenger from breaking the law and killing the now immune murderer in a fit of rage. True, the city, like any city, deserves to protect itself. But the risk of allowing weapons to fall into the hands of unstable people who may actually use them outweighs any consideration of defense.

The Stumbling Block

The final analogy appears in the command in Leviticus 19:14 to avoid putting “a stumbling block in front of the blind.” The rule is understood as speaking not only of a physical barrier, and the rabbis broadened this definition to include anything that adds undue danger or harm to someone who is unable to expect it. Gun-control groups often cite this text as a touchstone to their argument for why gun access should be limited. Since guns might be found by children who don’t understand their power, or acquired by unstable individuals who do not have the adequate means to keep their emotions in check, guns can often become a dangerous stumbling block. Jewish law teaches that “it is a positive commandment to remove and be vigilant about any stumbling block where there is a danger to someone’s life … and if you do not remove it or leave the stumbling block and it brings about danger you have failed in your mission to fulfill the commandment and [you] may have been responsible for spilling another’s blood” (S.A Choshen Mishpat 427:8). In another words, if you sell a stumbling block or leave it in the open you are responsible if someone dies even though you did not pull the trigger.


Jewish denominations have plenty to say about gun control. The Reform and Conservative movements have both issued statements about the need for steeper gun-control measures. However, in the Reform movement’s multiple resolutions on the matter, dating back to the 1970s, and the Conservative movement’s to 1993 and 2012, make almost no mention of Jewish texts in justification for their positions.

Perhaps liberal Jews who support gun control are reluctant to draw on our classical texts because guns are so different from swords, dogs, snakes, or any other items. After all, a single sword can’t kill dozens of people in seconds. Guns don’t have minds of their own, like dogs. Lions aren’t easily concealed. Yet, when taken as a whole, I believe these texts provide us with a clear ethic.

All these analogies weigh individual interests with societal good. The rabbis understood the liability that an owner of weapons or animals faced and did their best to safeguard against anything that might cause their misuse. You can certainly protect yourself, says the tradition, but not at all costs. Furthermore, the rabbis were not uniform in who could own dangerous things. Unstable individuals shouldn’t own swords. Neither should those who did not understand how to use them. Anyone who might panic can’t buy weapons, nor should someone who can’t control their animals.

Jewish law has never worked in a vacuum, and so it is impossible to totally divorce our modern values from our ancient texts. Nevertheless, I believe that the ethics displayed in these texts teach us that we are not doing enough to safeguard our society and keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of those who might misuse them. I have little doubt that were I unfamiliar with these texts, I would still support background checks, waiting periods, and bans on assault weapons. But I’m proud to be a part of a religion that contains legal ethics and values that fall in line with why I support these positions: a desire to safeguard against accidents, a vision of keeping weapons out of the hands of those who may misuse them, and an emphasis on societal good.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, a third-century Jewish sage, once taught: Great is peace … if the Holy One had not given peace to the world, sword and beast would devour up the whole world. Let us all hope that through our discourse we silence the “swords and beasts” of our day, bringing about a world one step closer to peace.


Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

jouesdeveau says:

Katz’s useful discussion of traditional sources can just as easily support ensuring that law-biding responsible citizens should have access to fireams in order to help protect and defend those who cannot protect themselves. Yet, his conclusions, however different from mine, can also be supported by the same traditional arguments. It seems to me that citizens who have similar values can wind up backing entirely different policies because of the difference in knowledge about modern firearms, their use, as well as the history of attempts to control them. I have found in discussions on this topic, the difference in knowledge about firearms is the yawning chasm that separates the sides, not a difference in values.

    I appreciate this collection of arguments/positions very much. Kudos, Tablet!

    I’m a Jewish gun owner, but one who supports broad and stringent regulations on firearm ownership; I land where the author does. Still, as Jouesdeveau aptly points out, the same texts can lead one to a very different conclusion. (Two Jews, three opinions, so to speak.) The challenge, one I’m not sure our forbears mastered any better than we have today, is maintaining respect for the Jew (or Gentile) with the opposing opinion.

Fascinating articles. Thanks for sharing.

ajweberman says:

First of all this guy ain’t a Rabbi, he’s a REFORMED Rabbi which makes him as much of a Rabbi as I am a Rabbi. If you think Jew hatred has disappeared in America look at the candidacy of Ron Paul. Look at Louis Farrakhan. Look at Chuck Hagel. Islamists are constantly planning assault of Jews and Jewish institutions. Jews were unarmed for so many years and as a result were the victims of mass murder and pogroms. Think of what the cossacks would have thought had my maternal grandmother opened up on them with a semi-automatic assault rife when they came around to beat on her.

    oaklandj says:

    Coughing up GOP talking points doesn’t make you clever. Neither does disparaging Reform (not “Reformed”) Judaism, the largest stream in the US.

      jacques Borek says:

      Oaklandi, what is the point of your fancy answer to ajweberman? As a French, I didn’t catch it…I suppose it was idiotic but I doubt…..
      Thanks for explaining it better?

      ajweberman says:

      All reformed Rabbis have to go to reformed school where they are fed nothing but lobster, non kosher wine, and spend all Shabbos turning lights on and off.

        I know you’re being sarcastic, but your comment verges on lashon hara; at the very least you’re bearing false witness. Many Reform Jews, especially in the rabbinate, keep kosher (or are strict vegetarians or vegans) and care deeply about sanctifying Shabbat. And, just as an aside, most Jews (including the Orthodox) used to turn incandescent lights on and off on Shabbat because it wasn’t widely seen as a violation (with different reasons) until the 1950s; halacha evolves.

          ajweberman says:

          You call organ music in shul keeping the Shabbos? Much vegan food has no heksher. Reformed Rabbis are for gay marriage. They are like liberal protestant clergy not Rabbis. Your mother is a lashon whora.

          oaklandj says:

          Wow. Glad to be a part of a Judaism you don’t recognize, because I don’t recognize the type of behavior you’ve displayed in just a few comments here.

          Natan79 says:


          ajweberman says:

          Je suis un umbecile – French imbeciles are smarter than American ones.

          bigkhuna says:

          It isn’t lashon hara since it is about rishus.

      bigkhuna says:

      Christinanity is a larger stream of Judasim. It doesn’t matter how large your group is if you are right.

PhillipNagle says:

When the Messiah comes (which is what Isaiah is all about) I will joyously give up my arms, until then Jews, specially those living in Israel, must be prepared to defend themselves.

gwhepner says:


Tubal-Cain,the first man to forge implements of iron and of copper,

was the son of Lamech, the first singer of a song.

WhatTubal-Cain did was regarded by the wives of Lamech as improper,

since Lamech killed a man because he thought he’d done him wrong.

Killing didn’t start with Lamech due to Tubail-Cain’s great invention:

for Cain killed Abel using his bare hands. That’s why some say

it isn’t guns that kill, it’s people, although turning swords to plowshare, the
of Isaiah would make major problems go away.

Eliezer Ramon says:

“Sages” were when Jews were under non-Jewish rule
(Roman, Babylonian,Persian , etc.) , however , even then , rabbis, in the Mishna ( in Israel , under Roman rulers , state (my translation from Hebrew):
‘If somebody intends to kill you – kill h i m first’ ( “הקם להורגך – השכם להורגו”).
So – if you don’t have any weapon – how can you defend yourself when you are attacked by a murderer ?! —> have some weapon available , f o r d e f e n c e !!!

fred capio says:

“The question can’t be answered with the perfect passage from the Torah or the Talmud” (line # 8 of the article) This is where Katz should have stopped writing

bigkhuna says:

Reform and Conservative Judaism are different religions than Judaism. They is why they did not look in the Torah for answers.

Shelshari Bryson says:

No amount of laws will stop a criminal from breaking LAWS. We always but always stand on the side of life preservation and peace. I think protecting life and liberty fall in these categories.

Silence Dogood says:

I am at a loss how dogs and snakes can be connected to the murder spree perpetrated by a known wack-job last December at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Be that as it may, I have never seen my Temple take a social-action
stand against dogs or snakes. However, they are very vocal on the issue of, so-called, “gun violence.”

Let me say, we can have a rational conversation balancing rights, risks and rewards without the color of hysteria, demonizing characterizations, pumped up propaganda or media hype. To that end, at least twelve independent real-world studies on the effects of anti-gun legislation, along with three federal government studies (each commissioned by a Democratic administration) have all concluded that so-called “sensible gun legislation” have only increased violent crime by shifting the balance of power in favor of violent criminals while it disarms helpless victims.

In the book of Genesis, Abraham “arms his 318 servants” to rescue his nephew Lot and others kidnapped by Mesopotamians. In Exodus 2:12, Moses slays the cruel Egyptian slave master who was about to murder an innocent Jew. It is written in Joel 4:10, “Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning-hooks into spears; let the weak say: ‘I am strong’.” In the biblical verse, “Neither shall you stand by the blood of your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:16), Rabbis teach us that
the law of pikuach nefesh (saving innocent lives) takes precedence over all other laws. Modern “Good Samaritan Laws” derive from this Levitical precept. Furthermore, Rabbis recognize the obligation to defend our own lives (Exodus 22:1). The Talmud states, “[I]f someone comes to kill you, get up early in the morning to kill him first” (Sanhedrin 72a). Additionally, the Talmud compels bystanders to kill if necessary to prevent murder or other horrendous crimes (Sanhedrin 73a). The story of Hanukkah is not about candles and Sufganiyot, but one about a desperate armed struggle defending Jews and rescuing Judaism. These Judaic Principles are thoroughly embedded within the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Here, in Los Angeles, the LAPD motto (stenciled on the side of every patrol car) is “to protect and to serve.” Don’t bet your life on it. Section 845, California Government Code, grants near-universal immunity from prosecution when government fails to provide personal Police protection. You are on your own; ask Reginald Denny (LA Riots). Ask Congresswomen Giffords how long it took the Police to arrive; –seven agonizing minutes! The Para-medics took even longer. In
most situations we are the first responders. Remember, when seconds count…police are minutes away.

Some say, “Gun control is worth it if it saves one life.” But, what if it costs one life…or the 361 (2011) killed in Chicago? What do you say to those 361 families? A dozen national studies of crime have all shown gun control laws don’t work and result in more crime deaths. The Jewish Philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, 2,000 years ago, thought it foolish to blame arms rather than criminals for crime. What’s changed? Tikkun olam, a Kabbalistic construct, embraces improvement or repair.
“Sensible gun legislation” isn’t sensible because it is the antithesis of Tikkun olam. Prohibition against alcohol; how well did that work? War on drugs; how’s that going? I think it’s time to have that honest dialogue about what does works and ignore the dogs and snakes.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

The Jewish View on Weapons

As we debate gun policy in the wake of Newtown, we should heed the wisdom of the Jewish sages