Self Defense - Revision history

Maharikorkus at 14:37, 23 August 2024

2024-08-23T14:37:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:37, 23 August 2024
Line 43:		Line 43:
	## For example- a donkey is riding aboard a boat with its owner and other passengers. The donkey suffers a panic attack and begins jumping up and down and causes the boat to begin to sink. The passengers are permitted to throw the donkey off the ship to save their lives. The passengers are exempt for paying damages for the donkey.<ref>Bava Kama 116b</ref>		## For example- a donkey is riding aboard a boat with its owner and other passengers. The donkey suffers a panic attack and begins jumping up and down and causes the boat to begin to sink. The passengers are permitted to throw the donkey off the ship to save their lives. The passengers are exempt for paying damages for the donkey.<ref>Bava Kama 116b</ref>
	## Some say that this is only true if the donkey owner was negligent in bringing the donkey aboard the boat and the donkey was known to be dangerous. If the incident is a freak accident, the passengers who threw the donkey must pay damages.<ref>Tshuvot Maimoniyot Sefer Nizakin 20</ref>		## Some say that this is only true if the donkey owner was negligent in bringing the donkey aboard the boat and the donkey was known to be dangerous. If the incident is a freak accident, the passengers who threw the donkey must pay damages.<ref>Tshuvot Maimoniyot Sefer Nizakin 20</ref>
			### Some say that this in turn is only true if there are other luggage on the boat and thus the instability is not only the donkey's fault, but partially due to the weight of other people's luggage. If the donkey is the sole cause of the danger, there is no requirement of owner negligence.<ref>Shut Gur Aryeh CM 32</ref>
			### Others say that this principle is always true- the donkey is not considered a Rodef unless the owner is negligent.<ref>Erech Shai CM 264.2</ref>
	#For more details about the practice of jettisoning on boats- see [[Maritime Law in Halacha]]		#For more details about the practice of jettisoning on boats- see [[Maritime Law in Halacha]]
	== Sources ==		== Sources ==
	<references/>		<references/>

Maharikorkus: /* Self Defense with Someone Else's Property */

2024-08-22T21:10:15Z

Self Defense with Someone Else's Property

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:10, 22 August 2024
Line 14:		Line 14:

	== Lo Tamod- You Shall Not Stand on Blood ==		== 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 Torah prohibits a person from not assisting someone in mortal danger.<ref>Vayikra 19.16</ref> The Talmud also explains that there exists a mitzvah to save someone from death as a fulfillment of returning a lost item.<ref>Sanhedrin 53a</ref>

	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 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.<ref>Sanhedrin 53a</ref>

	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.		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.<ref>Rosh Sanhedrin 8.2</ref>

	== Property in a Rodef Case ==		== Property in a Rodef Case ==

Maharikorkus: /* Self Defense with Someone Else's Property */

2024-08-22T20:32:33Z

Self Defense with Someone Else's Property

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 22 August 2024
Line 34:		Line 34:

	== Self Defense with Someone Else's Property ==		== 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.		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.<ref>Bava Kamma 60b</ref>

	# 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 must die rather than violate theft?		# 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 must die rather than violate theft?
	# Most say that one is permitted to steal in order to save your life- but King David 's question was only about if the theft was exempt from damages.<ref>Tosafot Bava Kamma 60b</ref>		# Most say that one is permitted to steal in order to save your life- but King David 's question was only about if the theft was exempt from damages.<ref>Tosafot Bava Kamma 60b</ref>
	# There are some that say that the statement should be taken at face value- theft is prohibited even to save a life.<ref>Rashi Bava Kamma 60b. There are many different approaches to read Rashi's opinion- as noted by Rav Asher Weiss in his piece on this sugya- Minchat Asher Vayikra Siman 66.</ref>		# There are some that say that the statement should be taken at face value- theft is prohibited even to save a life.<ref>Rashi Bava Kamma 60b. There are many different approaches to read Rashi's opinion- as noted by Rav Asher Weiss in his piece on this sugya- Minchat Asher Vayikra Siman 66.</ref>
	# A person is permitted to save themselves by destroying property that is a rodef to him- or belongs to a rodef. He is exempt from paying liability for this destruction.		# A person is permitted to save themselves by destroying property that is a rodef to him- or belongs to a rodef. He is exempt from paying liability for this destruction.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 380.3</ref>
	# Some say that property is only a rodef if the owner of the property is to blame for the item being dangerous		# Some say that property is only a rodef if the owner of the property is to blame for the item being dangerous.<ref>Rama CM 380.4</ref>
	## For example- a donkey is riding aboard a boat with its owner and other passengers. The donkey suffers a panic attack and begins jumping up and down and causes the boat to begin to sink. The passengers are permitted to throw the donkey off the ship to save their lives. The passengers are exempt for paying damages for the donkey.		## For example- a donkey is riding aboard a boat with its owner and other passengers. The donkey suffers a panic attack and begins jumping up and down and causes the boat to begin to sink. The passengers are permitted to throw the donkey off the ship to save their lives. The passengers are exempt for paying damages for the donkey.<ref>Bava Kama 116b</ref>
	## Some say that this is only true if the donkey owner was negligent in bringing the donkey aboard the boat and the donkey was known to be dangerous. If the incident is a freak accident, the passengers who threw the donkey must pay damages.		## Some say that this is only true if the donkey owner was negligent in bringing the donkey aboard the boat and the donkey was known to be dangerous. If the incident is a freak accident, the passengers who threw the donkey must pay damages.<ref>Tshuvot Maimoniyot Sefer Nizakin 20</ref>
			#For more details about the practice of jettisoning on boats- see [[Maritime Law in Halacha]]
	== Sources ==		== Sources ==
	<references/>		<references/>

Maharikorkus: /* Self Defense with Someone Else's Property */

2024-08-22T20:24:12Z

Self Defense with Someone Else's Property

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:24, 22 August 2024
Line 36:		Line 36:
	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.		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.

	# 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 must die rather than violate theft?
	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.		# Most say that one is permitted to steal in order to save your life- but King David 's question was only about if the theft was exempt from damages.<ref>Tosafot Bava Kamma 60b</ref>
			# There are some that say that the statement should be taken at face value- theft is prohibited even to save a life.<ref>Rashi Bava Kamma 60b. There are many different approaches to read Rashi's opinion- as noted by Rav Asher Weiss in his piece on this sugya- Minchat Asher Vayikra Siman 66.</ref>
			# A person is permitted to save themselves by destroying property that is a rodef to him- or belongs to a rodef. He is exempt from paying liability for this destruction.
			# Some say that property is only a rodef if the owner of the property is to blame for the item being dangerous
			## For example- a donkey is riding aboard a boat with its owner and other passengers. The donkey suffers a panic attack and begins jumping up and down and causes the boat to begin to sink. The passengers are permitted to throw the donkey off the ship to save their lives. The passengers are exempt for paying damages for the donkey.
			## Some say that this is only true if the donkey owner was negligent in bringing the donkey aboard the boat and the donkey was known to be dangerous. If the incident is a freak accident, the passengers who threw the donkey must pay damages.
	== Sources ==		== Sources ==
	<references/>		<references/>

Maharikorkus: /* Self Defense with Someone Else's Property */

2024-08-20T21:22:04Z

Self Defense with Someone Else's Property

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 20 August 2024
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/>

Maharikorkus: /* Self Defense with Someone Else's Property */

2024-08-20T21:17:44Z

Self Defense with Someone Else's Property

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 20 August 2024
Line 34:		Line 34:

	== Self Defense with Someone Else's Property ==		== Self Defense with Someone Else's Property ==
	The Talmud ~~explains~~ that King David was the ~~first~~ to ~~ask whether you could do 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.

	~~King David was attacking~~ the ~~Philistines~~, and the ~~Philistines hid from King David~~ in ~~Jewish fields~~. ~~King David wondered whether he could destroy the fields to get~~ to the ~~Philistines.~~		# 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

			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/>

Maharikorkus at 21:09, 20 August 2024

2024-08-20T21:09:15Z

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 # It is possible to kill a rodef even if he's a minor.<ref>Sanhedrin 72b, Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:6), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1</ref>
 == Sources ==
 <references/>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Saving the life of a victim */

2023-10-23T21:57:40Z

Saving the life of a victim

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:57, 23 October 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:
	# However, two criteria that need to be met in order to kill a rodef are:		# However, two criteria that need to be met in order to kill a rodef are:
	## The rodef is warned that the victim he is chasing is Jewish and if he tries to kill him, he is culpable of death.<ref>Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:7), Tur and Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1</ref> Some poskim hold that this warning is only necessary when there is time and it is possible, but when impossible it isn't necessary.<ref>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 [https://www.academia.edu/67649220/Split_Second_Decisions_Policing_and_the_Halachos_of_Rodeif RJJ article by Rabbi Bechofer (p. 11 fnt. 38)] where he quotes R' Ari Federgrun, who questioned Sma's proof.</ref>		## The rodef is warned that the victim he is chasing is Jewish and if he tries to kill him, he is culpable of death.<ref>Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:7), Tur and Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1</ref> Some poskim hold that this warning is only necessary when there is time and it is possible, but when impossible it isn't necessary.<ref>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 [https://www.academia.edu/67649220/Split_Second_Decisions_Policing_and_the_Halachos_of_Rodeif RJJ article by Rabbi Bechofer (p. 11 fnt. 38)] where he quotes R' Ari Federgrun, who questioned Sma's proof.</ref>
	## 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.<ref>Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:13), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1</ref>		## 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.<ref>Sanhedrin 57a-b, Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:13), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1, Aruch Hashulchan 425:6</ref>
	### 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.<ref>Hagahot Mishna Lmelech (Chovel Umazik 8:10) quoting one answer in Rivash 238</ref> 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.<ref>[https://www.academia.edu/67649220/Split_Second_Decisions_Policing_and_the_Halachos_of_Rodeif 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. </ref>		### 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.<ref>Hagahot Mishna Lmelech (Chovel Umazik 8:10) quoting one answer in Rivash 238</ref> 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.<ref>[https://www.academia.edu/67649220/Split_Second_Decisions_Policing_and_the_Halachos_of_Rodeif 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. </ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Sources */

2023-10-23T21:50:01Z

Sources

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:50, 23 October 2023
Line 14:		Line 14:

	== Sources ==		== Sources ==
	~~<nowiki>~~<references/~~></nowiki~~>		<references/>

YitzchakSultan1: Created page with "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 == # 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.Sanhedrin 73a,..."

2023-10-23T21:49:26Z

Created page with "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 == # 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.<ref>Sanhedrin 73a,..."

New page

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 ==

# 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.<ref>Sanhedrin 73a, Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:6), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1</ref>
# However, two criteria that need to be met in order to kill a rodef are:
## The rodef is warned that the victim he is chasing is Jewish and if he tries to kill him, he is culpable of death.<ref>Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:7), Tur and Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1</ref> Some poskim hold that this warning is only necessary when there is time and it is possible, but when impossible it isn't necessary.<ref>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 [https://www.academia.edu/67649220/Split_Second_Decisions_Policing_and_the_Halachos_of_Rodeif RJJ article by Rabbi Bechofer (p. 11 fnt. 38)] where he quotes R' Ari Federgrun, who questioned Sma's proof.</ref>
## 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.<ref>Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:13), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1</ref>
### 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.<ref>Hagahot Mishna Lmelech (Chovel Umazik 8:10) quoting one answer in Rivash 238</ref> 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.<ref>[https://www.academia.edu/67649220/Split_Second_Decisions_Policing_and_the_Halachos_of_Rodeif 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. </ref>

== Minor Rodef ==

# It is possible to kill a rodef even if he's a minor.<ref>Sanhedrin 72b, Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:6), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1</ref>

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