“If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.”
Perhaps the authors thought that actual burglary would be more common at night, and that a proprietor during the daytime would be better positioned to shout “stop! thief!” and expect it to do anything, such that if we find you with a corpse in your house at night we have fewer grounds for suspicion (of you) than if we found it during the day. The logic seems pretty similar to the presumption that a woman raped in the countryside resisted, and is therefore merely damaged goods rather than an active participant in the sexual injury to her husband or father, as opposed to women raped in the city, who have an obligation to call for help.
Technically the Bible says you shall not murder. Self-defense is allowed.
What an interesting distinction.
Perhaps the authors thought that actual burglary would be more common at night, and that a proprietor during the daytime would be better positioned to shout “stop! thief!” and expect it to do anything, such that if we find you with a corpse in your house at night we have fewer grounds for suspicion (of you) than if we found it during the day. The logic seems pretty similar to the presumption that a woman raped in the countryside resisted, and is therefore merely damaged goods rather than an active participant in the sexual injury to her husband or father, as opposed to women raped in the city, who have an obligation to call for help.
I was thinking that simply due to the darkness it is more likely to accidentally kill someone at night. Your explanation is very anti-Occam.