Rise up to kill yourself, rise up to kill him.
Hello Rabbi. I hope the question is not ridiculous, but I will ask anyway. What is the explanation for the law “If he rises to kill you, he rises to kill him”? Let’s assume for the sake of the question that the murderer will never do it again after the current murder attempt, and there will be no deterrent in the world from killing him. Now the persecuted are faced with two options: either I die or the persecutor. One soul will die. Why would I determine that it will be the persecutor and do this even if he rises? Perhaps it should be said that because the persecutor is the one who created the situation in which “one is destined to die”, therefore I am allowed to throw the burden on him to be that one? Perhaps his very attempted murder causes the prohibition of death to hover over him? Or perhaps it is simply a matter of the decree of Scripture? Regards.
This is not a ridiculous question at all, and many have already addressed it. I will only answer briefly here.
It is clear that this was not done for deterrence. Only a B.I.D. can kill for such reasons, while a pursuer is killed by any person.
Rashi in the Sanhedrin writes that the persecutor is killed to prevent him from committing the crime. That is, there is an advantage in killing the persecutor because there one gains both a life and a crime, whereas in killing the persecuted one gains only the life of the persecutor.
Some believe that because the persecutor created the situation, he must bear its consequences.
Others say that killing the pursuer is a death sentence for a murderer, but the law permits anyone to punish him, and even to do so before he has killed, in order to save the pursued. If we wait until he kills and only then kill him, we will lose the lives of two people.
And it should be extended.
Apparently, the reason that it is better to “gain” both saving someone and preventing the crime is not enough, because a baby who chases its mother is not committing any crime, and yet they kill it.
The same applies to the reason for the death penalty for the murderer.
Hasn't it been proven from the case of a baby and its mother that the reason for the persecutor's punishment is because he created the situation? (Not a punishment for that, but a necessary consequence).
You probably mean a small child who is chasing. This is not the case with a baby. When he has not removed his head, then he is not a person and killing him is not murder. And when he has removed his head, he is not really killed (because it is forbidden to pursue him). It is true that a small child who is chasing is killed, and indeed this indicates that the more likely explanation is that there is an obligation on the one who created the situation. It is true that it must be rejected in several ways, see Afiki Yam Ch”b C’ M and others.
Thank you.
Indeed, it is impossible to prove from a small child that he is not a person, but apparently from the fact that the Gemara justifies not killing him after his head comes out (which is when he is a person, as I believe), in ”Mishmiya ka radfu la”, meaning that without this (if it were not a natural process at birth) he would indeed have been killed, for creating the situation.
He is what I said. A small pursuer is a dispute between the Amoraim in the Gemara, and it was ruled that he is subject to the law of a pursuer. There is no need to specify the specifics from the Gemara.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
