Q&A: Be Killed Rather Than Transgress
Be Killed Rather Than Transgress
Question
If a gentile or a Jew comes and threatens a married woman that she must willingly have relations with him, or else he will kill Reuven—according to Maimonides’ view that there is no exemption or permission based on being passive like "mere ground"—does the rule of "be killed rather than transgress" require her not to comply with his demand to have relations with her, even though Reuven will die because of that, and this too falls under "be killed rather than transgress"? Or perhaps not, and she has no permission to save herself from forbidden sexual relations by allowing someone else to murder Reuven.
And this is not similar to a case of murder. If someone orders Reuven to kill Shimon, and if not he will kill Levi, here it seems preferable that he not kill Shimon, because in that case he would both violate the prohibition of murder and one life would be lost from the world, whereas if he refuses to kill Shimon then only Levi’s life will be lost and he will not bear the prohibition of murder. But that does not seem to be the same in the case of forbidden sexual relations, where on one side of the scale there is only forbidden sexual relations, and on the other side the loss of life not caused by her.
Answer
She is not obligated to violate the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations in order to save someone else. This is similar to the words of Tosafot about someone who was thrown from a roof downward: he is not required to turn himself in order to save someone else who is below. The rule is that when it is one life against another, passive omission is preferable. In our case, passive omission means not agreeing to the forbidden sexual act. This is not only because of the prohibition, but also because her body is under her own authority, and the other person’s blood is not redder than the dignity of her own body.
Discussion on Answer
If I understood correctly, then your intention is to say that even according to Tosafot, who allow the exemption of being passive like "mere ground," here she is not obligated to comply, and all the more so according to Maimonides, who does not allow that exemption. And as you emphasized, it is not the prohibition of sexual immorality here that is the deciding factor, but the right over her own body not to be violated. More power to you.
There is only a practical difference: if the right over her body is what is decisive, then it is permitted to waive it; but if the prohibition is what is decisive, then apparently it is actually forbidden. Like someone from whom they demand that he cut off his own finger so that they will not kill someone else.
Thank you very much for the reply