Q&A: The Law of a “Pursuer” When the Pursued Person Wants the Act
The Law of a “Pursuer” When the Pursued Person Wants the Act
Question
Hello and blessings,
I wanted to ask whether there would be a law permitting the killing of a man pursuing a married woman in order to have relations with her, when she is not being coerced but rather agrees to the act. In other words, from the standpoint of the transgression he is a “pursuer,” but she is not being harmed in a subjective sense (and perhaps if she agrees, then although he is acting to get to her, this is actually mutual pursuit?).
And similarly, in a case where someone is pursuing another person in order to kill him as an act of euthanasia, and the person being killed wants this. Is there a law of pursuer here because of the transgression, or not, since there is no subjective harm to the pursued person?
Answer
Good question. I do not know. Based on reasoning alone, I would say that there is no law of pursuer here. Formally, one might perhaps connect this to the question whether coercion together with consent is considered coercion or not. By the way, what does it mean that he is “pursuing her” if she agrees? Do you mean that he is about to have relations with her? In such a situation, this would be a case of killing in order to prevent a transgression, not under the law of pursuer. This is a question of coercing observance of the commandments, and the Ketzot, in Meshovev, section 3, disagrees with the Netivot on the question whether one compels even to the point of death or not.
Discussion on Answer
Yerachmiel, that itself was his question. The answer is not simple at all. In the plain sense of the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin and in Rashi there, it says that this is indeed done in order to save him from a transgression.
Indeed. And that is why I referred to the Otzar HaChokhma forum, because there this point is analyzed.
The arguments there are not conclusive. In the Gemara and in Rashi, the matter comes through quite clearly. Especially in light of what he wrote, that saving someone from a transgression means saving him from a problematic act, all of his proofs fall away. In a parallel thread I referred to Afikei Yam, part 2, section 40.
There is no law of pursuer here, since harming the pursuer is not done in order to save him from a transgression, but rather in order to save the pursued person (not from a transgression but from harm to him).
See here about this: http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?t=37166