Halakhah su Deuteronomio 22:27

The Gemara, Sanhedrin 73a, attempts to derive the "law of the pursuer" from the commandment "You shalt not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:16). This commandment establishes a general obligation to come to the aid of a person whose life is endangered. Ultimately the Gemara derives an obligation to preserve the life of the victim even if it is necessary to sacrifice the life of the pursuer in order to accomplish this end from the verse "For … the betrothed damsel cried and there was none to save her" (Deuteronomy 22:27). From this statement the Gemara infers that were a bystander to be present he would be obligated to preserve the betrothed damsel from violation by any means possible, including summary execution of the would-be rapist. By virtue of the juxtaposition (hekesh) of homicide and rape of a "betrothed damsel" in the immediately prior verse the Gemara derives a binding obligation requiring any and all bystanders to intervene and to preserve the life of the intended homicide victim by any means possible.

Minḥat Hinnukh cogently argues that the commandments expressed in Leviticus 19:16 and Deuteronomy 22:27 are incumbent only upon Jews and hence cannot establish obligations upon non-Jews who are bound only by the provisions of the Noachide Code. Minḥat Hinnukh does, however, adduce another source which serves as a basis for derivation of the "law of the pursuer" and which is applicable to Noachides as well. The Gemara, Sanhedrin 72b, cites the verse "Whosoever sheddeth the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6) as granting dispensation to preserve the intended victim by eliminating the pursuer. The phrase "by man" is understood as calling for the shedding of blood "by any man," i.e., by persons witnessing the act, rather than as a reference to punitive measures to be undertaken subsequent to the act. Thus the Gemara understands the verse as referring, not to an act of homicide which has already been committed, but to the prevention of a would-be homicide. The verse, which was addressed to Noah, establishes a law not only for Jews, but for Noachides as well. The general principle is that any commandment given prior to Sinai is binding upon Noachides even subsequent to the Sinaitic revelation provided it has been reiterated at Sinai. The law of the pursuer is indeed repeated in Exodus 22:1. In the course of the same discussion, the Gemara, Sanhedrin 72b, states that the statute formulated in this passage, which provides that a thief who breaks into a dwelling during the night may be smitten without penalty, is based upon the assumption that the thief is intent not only upon larceny but will commit homicide as well if he meets resistance. Hence the thief is in effect a pursuer and may be put to death if necessary by virtue of the "law of the pursuit." Tosafot, Sanhedrin 72a, commenting on the redundancy of the multiple scriptural sources for the "law of pursuit" states that Exodus 22:1 serves only to establish a license for execution of the pursuer but does not make such a course of action obligatory. The obligation, according to Tosafot, is expressed solely in Deuteronomy 22:27. Minḥat Hinnukh assumes that Tosafot intends this comment to apply as well to the interpretation of Genesis 9:6, which presents the same difficulty. The phrase ba-adam damo yishafekh, according to Minḥat Hinnukh's understanding should thus be translated "by man may his blood be shed" and serves to grant permission to put the aggressor to death when necessary to preserve the life of the victim, but does not mandate such action.¹³R. Shlomoh Zevin, Le-Or ha-Halakhah, p. 17, argues against Minḥat Ḥin nukh’s position and maintains that Noachides are not merely permitted, but are obligated, to execute the pursuer in order to preserve the pursued. He argues that this is evident from the phrase “domo yishafekh” which he maintains must be translated “by man shall his blood be spilled.” It would, however, appear that the question raised by Tosafot, Sanhedrin 73a, s.v. af, with regard to the earlier cited verse which speaks of the ba ba-maḥteret applies with equal validity to this verse. It would appear that Tosafot’s statement that the verse establishes permission rather than obligation applies to the subsequently cited verse “ba-adam damo yishafekh” as well. Accordingly, concludes Minḥat Hinnukh, Noachides are justified not only in acting in self-defense but may eliminate a threat to the lives of others as well, even though, in contradistinction to Jews who are bound by Sinaitic revelation, they are under no obligation to do so.

That He prohibited us - that we not have compassion upon a pursuer. And the explanation of this is that that which we mentioned in the commandment before this about saving the sinner, such that the witnesses not kill him before the court judges him - that is however when he sinned and did the act for which one is liable for the death penalty and completed it. However at the time that he is making efforts and seeking to do it, he is then called a pursuer - and it is an obligation upon us to prevent him from doing what his heart desires and to stop him, in order to prevent him from the sin. But if the does not want to listen to us, we fight against him: If we can prevent it by destroying one of his limbs - such as if we cut off his hand or his foot or blind his eye - behold that is preferable. But if it is impossible to prevent it without [killing him] - he must surely be killed, so that he does not do that evil act. So the prohibition comes [that we] not have compassion upon him and prevent ourselves from killing him. And that is His saying, "You shall sever her hand; you are not to have compassion" (Deuteronomy 25:12). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 293:1) is, "It teaches that you are obligated to rescue him with her hand. And from where [do we know] that if they are not able to rescue him with her hand, they rescue him with her soul (i.e., by killing her)? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you are not to have compassion.'" And there, they said, "Just like his genitals are specific in that they involve a danger to life - and it is with, 'You shall sever her hand'; so [too] is everything that involves a danger to life with, 'You shall sever.'" And that which we said, that the pursuer is to be killed, is not regarding anyone making efforts to do a transgression. However it is the same whether it is one who is pursuing his fellow to kill him - even if he is a minor - or one who is pursuing one of the forbidden sexual prohibitions to have sexual relations. And [the latter] is on condition that he is nine [years] old and a day; and it is clear that a male is among the sexual prohibitions [for a man]. And His saying, "the betrothed maiden cried out, but there was none to save her" (Deuteronomy 22:27), [tells us] - behold, if there was someone to save her, he must save her with everything he can. And He equated one pursuing her with one pursuing his fellow to kill him, with His saying, "for, just as if a man rises up against his neighbor and murders him, so is this matter" (Deuteronomy 22:26). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Sanhedrin. (See Ki Teitzeh; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 1.)