Self Defense: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
Line 37: Line 37:


# The commentators disagree over the extent of this ruling. The Talmud clearly says pekuach nefesh overrides all mitzvot in the Torah with the exception of sexual immorality, Avodah Zara, and murder. Given that, one should be able to perform theft for the purpose of saving their life. Does this ruling imply one cannot save oneself, or that
# The commentators disagree over the extent of this ruling. The Talmud clearly says pekuach nefesh overrides all mitzvot in the Torah with the exception of sexual immorality, Avodah Zara, and murder. Given that, one should be able to perform theft for the purpose of saving their life. Does this ruling imply one cannot save oneself, or that
 
There is an exception to the prohibition of saving oneself with the property of another person. A person is permitted to self themself by destroying property that is a rodef to him- or belongs to a rodef.
Elsewhere in the Talmud
 
A later dispute emerged in the commentators about someone offered the choice of death or handing over the property of a friend. Which choice should someone pick, and are they liable to compensate their friend if they end up picking the option of handing over property?


== Sources ==
== Sources ==
<references/>
<references/>

Revision as of 21:22, 20 August 2024

The Torah permits a person to neutralize an attacker if his life is threatened. This concept is known in halacha as Rodef (heb. רודף; lit. a chaser). When necessary it is even permissible to kill a rodef in order to save the intended victim.

Saving the life of a victim

  1. When an attacker is chasing his victim in order to kill him, it is permissible and a mitzvah to save the victim from death, even if that necessitates killing the attacker.[1]
  2. However, two criteria that need to be met in order to kill a rodef are:
    1. The rodef is warned that the victim he is chasing is Jewish and if he tries to kill him, he is culpable of death.[2] Some poskim hold that this warning is only necessary when there is time and it is possible, but when impossible it isn't necessary.[3]
    2. If it is at all possible the savior should try to neutralize the rodef without killing the rodef. If incapacitating him by injuring one of his limbs or in another manner is possible those means must be resorted to before killing the rodef. If the savior kills the rodef without trying to neutralize the rodef without killing him, he is culpable for his murder.[4]
      1. Some poskim make a distinction between the intended victim and someone else coming to save the intended victim. The intended victim may kill the rodef without first trying to neutralize the rodef by incapacitating him in another fashion. However, someone else coming to save the intended victim must first try to neutralize the rodef before resorting to kill him.[5] However, most poskim reject this distinction and require even the intended victim to try to neutralize the rodef without killing him if at all possible.[6]

Minor Rodef

  1. It is possible to kill a rodef even if he's a minor.[7]

Lo Tamod- You Shall Not Stand on Blood

The Torah prohibits a person from not assisting someone in mortal danger. The Talmud also explains that there exists a mitzvah to save someone from death as a fulfillment of returning a lost item

The Talmud says that in a case where someone sees another person in need- you must try all you can to save the person, including the rescuer spending his own money.

The commentators explain that while the rescuer is liable to spend his own money in the moment, but that the rescued must later compensate the rescuer for expenses.

Property in a Rodef Case

The Talmud says that if someone is being chased by a rodef and in order to escape, the victim damages property of a third party- the victim must later compensate the owners of the broken property for damages. If the victim damages the rodef's property, the victim is exempt.

If a rescuer chases after the rodef in order to save the victim and damages property over the course of the chase- the rescuer is exempt from the cost of damages even if the rescuer damaged property of a third party

  1. The Talmud explains that the rescuer is exempt from damages out a concern lest people refrain from saving out of a liability concern
    1. In contrast, no such concern exists if the victim damages property in his flight, since he has the natural incentive of self preservation
  2. There is a dispute about when this exemption applies. The case in controversy is where the rescuer is also a potential victim, and by defeating the rodef, the rescuer also saves the victim.
    1. Some say that the exemption does not apply- in this case we are not concerned that the rescuer would not rescue- since his life was at risk.[8]
    2. Others say that the exemption from liability applies anytime you save other people.[9]

Self Defense with Someone Else's Property

Can you save yourself with someone else's property? The Talmud records that King David raised this exact question in his war with the Philistines. The Philistines were hiding in Jewish-owned barley fields- and King David wanted to light a fire in order to drive the Philistines out. King David asked the Sages whether he was permitted to burn the field- and they exclaimed that for a private individual it is forbidden to save himself with another person's property.

  1. The commentators disagree over the extent of this ruling. The Talmud clearly says pekuach nefesh overrides all mitzvot in the Torah with the exception of sexual immorality, Avodah Zara, and murder. Given that, one should be able to perform theft for the purpose of saving their life. Does this ruling imply one cannot save oneself, or that

There is an exception to the prohibition of saving oneself with the property of another person. A person is permitted to self themself by destroying property that is a rodef to him- or belongs to a rodef.

Sources

  1. ↑ Sanhedrin 73a, Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:6), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1
  2. ↑ Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:7), Tur and Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1
  3. ↑ Sma 425:3 writes that the entire warning is only necessary initially, but after the fact it isn't necessary. Bach 425:4 s.v. ma shkatuv keysad implies that the formal hatrah warning necessary for bet din punishments isn't necessary except initially for Rambam. However, informing the rodef that the victim is Jewish and he will be culpable for killing him is necessary, seemingly even after the fact. See RJJ article by Rabbi Bechofer (p. 11 fnt. 38) where he quotes R' Ari Federgrun, who questioned Sma's proof.
  4. ↑ Sanhedrin 57a-b, Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:13), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1, Aruch Hashulchan 425:6
  5. ↑ Hagahot Mishna Lmelech (Chovel Umazik 8:10) quoting one answer in Rivash 238
  6. ↑ Rabbi Bechhofer in RJJ article (p. 4 fnt. 18) presents that Brisker Rav (Griz on Rambam Chovel 8:10), Rav Kook (Mishpat Kohen 139), Rashi (Sanhedrin 57a s.v. vyachol), Yad Ramah (Sanhedrin 57a), and Rosh (Bava Kama 3:13) do not hold of any distinction between the nitzal and matzil. Rabbi Bechhofer presents an argument that Rambam does hold like this distinction.
  7. ↑ Sanhedrin 72b, Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:6), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1
  8. ↑ Pnei Yehoshua Bava Kama 60b
  9. ↑ Netivot Hamispat Biurim 340.6 The Netivot is commenting on the Terumat Hadeshen's case of someone who borrows weapons before fighting in a battle to save the town. The Terumat Hadeshen exempts the borrower for loss of property is the battle is lost and the weapons stolen because of meta Machmat melacha. The Netivot argues that the Terumat Hadeshen must be describing a case where the battle was not life or death, because if it were, there would be no doubt about exempting the borrower from liability.
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Self_Defense&oldid=33579"