Assumptions are made about a rebellious child regarding the course his future will take and therefore he is killed to prevent him from sinning further.\u00a0 Assumptions are also made regarding a robber – the assumption is that a robber will come to kill if the owner of the house stands up to him and therefore it is permitted to kill him.\u00a0 The gemara\u00a0discusses the circumstances in which one can assume the robber is coming to kill.\u00a0 Since at the time\u00a0of the robbery, there is a “death penalty” on the robber, the robber is exempt from damages caused to the property because of the law that if one incurs two punishments at the same come, one is exempt from the more lenient one.\u00a0 Rav takes this even further to say he is exempt from returning the stolen items.\u00a0 Rava disagrees.\u00a0 Does one who breaks into another’s house need to be warned?\u00a0 Rav Huna says no.\u00a0 The gemara raises questions and also potential proofs\u00a0to Rav Huna’s statement, including a mishna in Ohalot that discusses\u00a0aborting\u00a0a fetus to save the mother’s life.<\/p>\n