Philosophers and criminologists have long debated whether it is the mob boss or the actual hit man who is the more culpable in the murder of a rival gang leader. Though both are certainly morally guilty, the question as to which one bears the legal onus for the crime, absent statutory law on the matter, has generated much discussion and differing opinions.
In Judaism there is a concept that “there is no excuse of
agency when a sin or crime is being committed.” This means that, when a hit man
pulls the trigger or plants the explosive on the order of his boss, it is he
who is certainly the more guilty party. In the words of the Talmud, “regarding
the instructions from the master and contrary instructions from the student—to
whom should one listen?” Thus in this week’s parsha, even though it is the
malevolent Balak who engages Bilaam in a nefarious scheme to curse the Jewish people,
it is Bilaam who actually intends and agrees to do the cursing, so it is he and
not Balak who emerges as the ultimate villain of the event.
There is much discussion in the Talmud and in rabbinic
sources as to whether any of the laws of agency, and this law in particular,
exist outside of Jewish society generally. If there is no agency outside of
Jewish society it appears that, generally speaking, in circumstances such as
these, both the instigator and the agent would be liable. In any event, it is inherently
wrong to engage an agent to perform an illegal act or a sinful one (they are no
longer the same today) whether in Jewish terms or in society at large, whatever
the technical legal liabilities may be. The instigator of a crime is deemed in contemporary
society to be as guilty as the criminal who perpetrated the crime. Thus Osama
bin Laden was as guilty of the World Trade Center assassinations as were the
murderous suicide-pilots he sent forth to do the deed. Balak is as responsible
for Bilaam’s curses as he is.
Heaven, in its exquisite way, administers justice to all
concerned as it pleases and in its own time frame. Balak will pay the penalty
for his unwarranted hatred and enmity of Israel, just as Bilaam does. The
rabbis of the Talmud even extended the penalties for wrongful and criminal acts
committed to include those who remained silent when they should have spoken out
against evil and cruelty. Bilaam’s donkey is commended while his associates are
undoubtedly condemned and eventually punished—hence the plethora of laws in the
wider world that cover conspiracy to commit crimes and criminal negligence. Though
an actual perpetrator sometimes attempts to hide behind the façade of only
following orders, Judaism does not recognize that excuse. Even so, the one who
issues the orders is also deemed guilty of the crime.
Shabbat shalom, Rabbi Berel Wein