Q&A: Reconciling Positions
Reconciling Positions
Question
Good morning. If I understood correctly, last night in the first Duties lecture, obligations stem from the other person's rights, and therefore one must refrain from taking positive actions. In Rabbi Shabtai's lecture it was said that in order to prevent the other person from committing a transgression, the first person is permitted to perform an act (the example he gave was stripping someone who is wearing a garment of wool and linen mixed together). How are these positions reconciled?
Thank you
Answer
This is not necessarily a question of positive actions. One may not violate another person's rights in order to save oneself.
Even Pinchas was given permission to kill Zimri. That does not mean he is not a pursuer. There is a law of coercion regarding the commandments (although opinions differ as to whether this applies to every person or only to a religious court), but the person being coerced is permitted to resist. Damaging your property in order to save myself is not coercion regarding the commandments. Why did you choose me specifically? Take from someone else. Beyond that, when the goal is to protect one person's rights, that should not be done at the cost of violating another person's rights. Therefore one is not required to give more than a fifth of one's assets to charity, even though there is also a prohibition involved there.
Beyond that, stripping a person who is wearing wool and linen mixed together is done for his sake and not for mine. Harming him is worth it in order to save him from a transgression. Like the law of a pursuer according to Rashi, where he is killed in order to save him from a transgression.