[Avodah] self defense against rape or assault

[Daniel Eidensohn]

A victim or his relative does not have to be precise in his evaluation of
what to do to stop an attack. Thus the rule that a rodef it is prohibited
to kill a rodef when it is unnecessary to stop the attack does not apply
to the victim or his relatives.

Rav Moshe Halberstam (Yeschurun 15): We see in the Mishna LeMelech
(Hilchos Chovel u'Mazik 8:10) who brings commentary that the law that if
it is possible to stop the pursuer by injuring one of his limits only
applies to third parties but the pursued himself is able to kill him
freely even if he could have saved himself by damages one of the pursuers
limbs...Thus it is proven that the relatives of the pursuer (rodef) are
in fact the pursued themselves and they are the closest to the obligation
and mitzva to stop the rodef from perpetrating his evil designs on them...

Shevus Yaakov 2:187 ... It is explicitly expressed from his words
that the pursued himself is permitted to killed his pursuer (rodef)
even if he can save himself by wounding one of the pursuer's limbs.
Even stronger than this the Levush Orah writes there that if the pursuer
comes to kill his wife and children he is also allowed to kill the rodef
and it is not necessary to stop him by wounding one of the pursuer's
limbs. It is this last point that the Tzeida L'Derech disagrees but
not on the issue that the pursuer himself can kill the pursuer without
having to seek a less method of stopping him. This also indicates that
he agrees with the view of the R'am and this makes sense.

Taz (C.M. 421:13):... So when he did stop the assailant it was good and
he did a mitzva. Nevertheless it would seem that there is a distinction
to be made. Beating up an assailant who hit a Jew is not exempt unless
it is totally clear that he couldn't save the victim in another manner.
In contrast regarding a relative it is not necessary to be so careful.
That means that even when it is not clear that there was an alternative
it is permitted because a relative is like the person himself or
herself. Even though it says in simon 4 that a person is not exempt if
he could stop the assailant without giving him a beating but that is
concerned with saving money. However here we are dealing with saving a
relative who is being beaten and that is like someone is beating you.
In such a case even if there is a doubt whether hitting the other person
is needed to save yourself it is permitted. This distinction of self and
relatives versus others can be perceived in the Rosh (Bava Kama 3:13) and
the Tur (421:20). They say concerning a relative they say the reason for
beating the assailant is to save the relative. In contrast when saving
another Jew there is no exemption unless it is absolutely certain that
there is no other way of saving him. In contrast with saving a relative
there is no need to be so certain and it is not needed to be absolutely
certain there is no other way of saving him because a relative is like
oneself.

Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 3:27): The Rosh (13) says, "Similarly if a
man sees an assailant beating his father or son or brother and he beats
the assailant in order to save his relative - he is exempt just as the
wife who hurt the assailant to save her husband if she could not do it
in another manner. This is also like the case of one who sees another
Jew being beaten and he is not able to save the victim without beating
the assailant - even though the assailant is not giving life threatening
blows - he is still able to beat him in order to get the assailant to
stop from sinning." We see that the Rosh divides the matter into two
categories. First he writes concerning beating an assailant who is hitting
his father, son or brother. In such a case the reason that he is able to
save his relative is just as a wife as the right to save her husband. Then
the Rosh talks about the case of saving a non-relative from a beating
in order to stop the assailant from sinning. Thus we see that saving a
relative is different than saving others. I agree with this view. That
is because is clear that if a wife sees someone hitting her husband -
even if he deserved it but she doesn't know - and she save him - it is
obvious that she is exempt because this is truly something beyond her
control. Since she doesn't know the reason he is being beaten how is
it possible to withstand the pain and control her self? Furthermore the
assailant should not have hit her husband in front of her. This case is
like that of someone seeing his father, son or brother being assaulted. No
man is able to control himself when he sees his suffering. Also in this
case the assailant should have been careful not to hit the relative in
front of him. However if there are witnesses that the father knew his
son was being beaten within the guidelines of the law - it is obvious
that if the father attacks the assailant he is liable and also in the
case of the wife. They are no different than the victim himself. In
contrast if you see someone else being beaten who is not a relative.