Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Rav Sternbuch: Saving others from sin - Paying compensation after breaking a computer used to watch pornography

 Update: Added example of vigilante justice regarding the beating of an elderly woman as the result of mistaken allegations that she was involved in Nachlaot pedophile ring.

This teshuva (volume 6 # 292) is relevant in many situation where a person sees something seriously wrong and acts to prevent sin or harm to others. Is a psak needed? Is compensation required? This gemora (Bava Kama 28a) has been applied to a diverse numbers of situations - a teaching taking away a phone or gadget from a student, wife beating, husband beating for refusing to give a get, attacks on individuals who are viewed as threats to community, destroying a woman's sheitel or clothing viewed as immodest It involves attacking another person or his property because he has a different set of standards which the assailant views as sinful. A related issue is whether the owner of the computer has the right to defend his property against the attack and whether he needs to pay compensation for damaging the righteous assailant and his property.

In short this deals with parameters of vigilante justice







--

==================================

Vigilante justice - a 72 year old woman was severely beaten - because of mistaken belief she was involved in the Nachlaot Pedophile panic - and it was believed that the police would not handle the matter properly. See the video  below. The story is the second one on the news report

I was told that the judge accepted Rav Shapiro's explanation of his words and the charges against him were dropped.

Nana10

הרב משה שפירא אמר לארבעה מחסידיו לתקוף קשישה בת 72. הוא האשים אותה במעורבות בפרשת הפדופיליה שהייתה בשכונת נחלאות בירושלים לפני שנתיים וחצי. "צריך להכות אותה עד לאשפוז, לא יהיה איכפת לי אם לא יהיה את מי לאשפז"
הרב משה שפירא, העומד בראש קהילה גדולה של חוזרים בתשובה בירושלים, אמר לארבעה מחסידיו לתקוף קשישה בת 72. בתיעוד שניתן לחדשות10 נראה הרב אומר: "צריך פשוט להכות אותה עד לאשפוז, וגם לא יהיה איכפת אם לא יהיה את מי לאשפז".

לפני כשנתיים וחצי הסעירה פרשת פדופיליה שהתרחשה בשכונת נחלאות בירושלים את הקהילה החרדית בשכונה. המשטרה עצרה שלושה חשודים במעשה, אך בקהילה נוצר חשד שהמעשים בוצעו בדירתה של ש', הקשישה שהותקפה. "צריך להיכנס אליה הביתה ולהחריב אותו. נכנסים כמה גברתנים רעולי פנים ועושים שם שמות, לוקחים גרזנים והורסים את הכל", הוסיף שפירא

לאחר שהבהיר בפני חסידיו כי אי אפשר לסמוך על המשטרה ועל הראיות שהשיגו, החליטו ארבעה מהם, אבות לילדים שהותקפו מינית לכאורה בפרשה, לתקוף את ש'. הם נכנסו לביתה, היכו אותה בכל חלקי גופה, כפתו אותה באזיקונים, חקרו אותה והמשיכו להלום בה עד שרגלה נשברה<
"

84 comments :

  1. Who gets to decide what is a forbidden film?

    ReplyDelete
  2. how far is the distance between destroying someone's computer for the reasons stated here and attacking a solider (whose uniform represents avodah tzara according to kavod harav bloi) who walks into your neighborhood?

    ReplyDelete
  3. what happened to my second comment?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The reason why it may be permitted to destroy someone's computer is to prevent him from transgressing a prohibition. There is no parallel claim in the case of the soldier.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If (1) the Rav of the person looking at the film, and (2) the Rav of the friend who saw him and is asking the שאלה, both agree that it is forbidden to watch, then of course for the purposes of the שאלה it can be assumed that it is forbidden, just as much as religious Jews rely on a Rav in other areas of Halacha. You could rewrite your question: who gets do decide what is a forbidden food/Melacha on Shabbos etc.


    By the way - do you know any Rav who permits looking at pornography?

    ReplyDelete
  6. according to bloi, there is every reason to get him out of there. he is a מסית

    ReplyDelete
  7. oh yeah? a film has to be born? i could watch, i don't know, saving private ryan, or some cohn brother film, or lassie and that's OK?

    ReplyDelete
  8. What was Rav Shapira's explanation of his words?

    ReplyDelete
  9. so all the viewer has to do is refuse to release the name of his rav and that's it, the process stops dead in its track?

    ReplyDelete
  10. He could be summoned to beis din and forced to defend his actions in b"d.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "how far is the distance between destroying someone's computer....?"

    The המון עם in general destroying computers? Are we becoming a mob of תליבנסטין living in some 13th century theocratic cesspool?

    The גמרא in ב"ק כ"ח ע"א learns:
    ורבו מסרהב בו לצאת וחבל ועשה בו חבורה

    Does that sound like the אדון deliberately intended to strike the עבד (to keep him away from his former שפחה כנענית) or, while insisting that he leave at יובל, the אדון happened to strike the עבד? Doesn't the גירסא seem more בדיעבד than לכתחלה?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Regarding paying: there is an incident in MOAG (don't know if its in the second edition) that RAK was caught reading a russian newspaper in slabodk ayeshiva. The newspaper was confiscated, and he was assessed a ten kopeck fine. He complained to the RY, the fine he has to pay, but the newspaper must be returned. The RY agreed, he is entitled to the value of the newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why is Rav Shapira being discussed here for an old story? Do you have any idea who he is? Who on this list (moderator included) can sit in judgment of a man of his stature for what he said during a very trying period for people of the area? Even the judge understood to leave him alone!

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Ish Mibeis Levi - do you have any idea who the Chazon Ish was? We have no idea who you are but it is reasonable to assume that you are are nothing compared to him.

    Chazon Ish(2:133):Knowledge about a talmid chachom who shapes yiddishkeit is similar to that of an artisan. Just as one is permitted to convey accurate information about an artisan if there is to'eles so it it permitted to reveal information about a gadol if there is to'eles. Of critical importance is to be totally accurate otherwise it is slander. This implies that expressing negative information about others is relevant for those who are considered influential authorities – in order to understand the degree to rely on them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Again: "Why is Rav Shapira being discussed here for an old story?" What to'eles is there to hear that his assessment of the situation was different than yours?Is there any "shoe" that anyone is buying from him (as for the artisan?) Perhaps the to'eles is to spread the word to stop going to his shiurim?
    And if the toeles is not to become "hysterical," there are people in jail for child abuse from the Nachlaot story. THe Tablet article believes that that was because the police are too quick to prosecute. The author lives in America so he believes that. Has that been your experience?
    Rav Moshe made a judgment call. You believe he was wrong, others believe he was not. Is there really toeles in singling him out for a wall of shame?

    ReplyDelete
  16. My reference to pornography was relevant because (1) that is Daas Torah's title, and (2) I was trying to show that there must be something that even you would agree is Ossur to watch, and in such a case Rav Sternbuch's Psak would be very germane - after all, all he says is סרטים אסורים. If you deny the concept of סרטים אסורים altogether, that would be a different position - but not one alignable with Torah Judaism.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Who gave him the right to order the beating of anyone? Your response of "he made a judgment call" is ludicrous. Actually, it's stupid. He has no right to make "judgment calls" about beating old women with iron rods. This would be true even if the woman were guilty of the accusations. All the more so now that it's admitted she was innocent. At best his words were careless; at worst they were vicious. The woman might have been killed. Would you then exonerate him for making a "judgment call?" Idiotic.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Em, no. Otherwise nobody could ever be prevented from doing any Issur, because he could always lay claim to some phantom Rav HaMachshir who wants to remain anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Really? Who would the תובע be? With which תביעת ממון would he summon him to BD? One cannot summon people to BD unless he has a financial claim.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Ish Mibeis Levi - if I had said the things that Rav Shapiro said - would you have any problem telling others?

    Is it the behavior or the person that concerns you?. If it is the person - then the Chazon Ish clearly disagrees with you. If it is the behavior - then I strongly disagree with you about this being an acceptable "judgment call" to this type of situation."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Fortunately, we have a very reassuring מסקנא which reads in part:

    מ"מ אם נתיר דבר זה לכל אחד עלול לצאת מכך תקלות. שפעולה שלא בזמנה עלולה לפעמים לקלקל ולגרום לריחוק יותר.

    And so, we are not to act like the Taliban, thankfully.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @MiMedinat HaYam - could not find it in the second edition

    ReplyDelete
  23. If someone broke your computer and said he did so because you were using it for halachicly forbidden activities, you can take the person who broke it to B"D to sue him to pay you back for your broken computer. He will then have to defend having broken it by explaining why he broke it, how it was halachicly justified and prove that you used it inappropriately. Otherwise B"D will force him to pay you back for your broken computer.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Actually, not so reassuring.
    He disallows it only b/c it could be מרחק the person, but not on general principles. That leaves a very large, gaping loophole.

    ReplyDelete
  25. obviously was taken out. must be in first edition.

    ReplyDelete
  26. As per the news report, he claimed his words were taken out of context. His intention was only to encourage the victims, and to show them that he was taking a firm stance.

    I don't see how that explains his telling people to beat her till she needs to be hospitalized, and then to add that so far as he is concerned, it wouldn't bother him at all if there would be no one left to hospitalize, which was a not-so-veiled exhortation to kill her.

    One might wonder why he did not first try to get the facts before sending out his goons, but he actually addressed that by saying that there's no point in trying to ascertain the facts, b/c nothing will come of it.

    It's all there in the subtitles. The sort of thing that one would expect from an Iranian mullah talking about Jews, but that one does not expect from a rav of any stature.

    RDE, may I ask why you have removed the video?

    ReplyDelete
  27. The computer breaker can be summoned to BD, the computer user cannot. Your comment implied otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that, m'doraita, a bystander who saves a nirdaf from a rodef at someone else's expense (say, by smashing his bar stool over the head of the rodef) has done a mitzvah (indeed, the bystander is required to do so) but he is nonetheless required to reimburse the damaged party. [Dirabbanan a bystander is exempt from paying so as to encourage bystanders to perform their mitzvah and help; however, the nirdaf himself, although required to protect himself, is required to reimburse a third party for damages even midirabbanan as Chaza"l assume he will act to save his own life even if he has to pay the damages.] So it is far from clear that we can assume that a mitzvah implies a p'tur from paying for damages; there are clearly cases where one must pay for damages even while fulfilling a mitzvah.

    I wish Rav Shternbuch had explicitly addressed this sugya. Do you know how he would approach it?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Plus the b'diavad position allows for total Taliban activity. The destroyer could always come up with some defense (no time to ask, he was endangering other people, etc).

    ReplyDelete
  30. the charges were dropped? i searched google news and didn't see that mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Let's go back to the 'artisan'. Supposing there was a shoemaker who made fine custom shoes and he had thousands of satisfied customers. One person bought a pair of shoes from him and there were signs of shoddy workmanship. He posted a video on YouTube of the shoddy work of that artisan. Would you take that video and post it two years later, despite no further manifestaion of that behavior? Is that what the Chazon Ish meant?
    Again, what is the to'eles? Are you trying to say that -- as kishke concluded -- that he "has no seichel"? That he is "unthinking [and] uncaring"? Thousands of satisfied 'customers' before and after that one event couldn't disagree more. Do you think that people should stop going to his shiurim and stop going to him for advice?
    If the to'eles is showing how harmful mass hysteria can be -- that point was quite effectively made previously. Publicly shaming a talmid chochom -- a Gadol -- did not make that point any more effectively.
    You do an injustice to the CHazon Ish. He was talking about making known a shitah or a hanhago of a chochom who shapes yiddishkeit, so that one can make informed decisions about following that chochom. He does not question the gemoro Brachos 19a that when a talmid chochom makes a one time slip [as you strongly feel R' Moshe did] you can "be certain" that he did tshuvah. Do you really see a to'eles in people such as kishke concluding "The last thing we need is rabbonim of "such stature" -- unthinking, uncaring, without seichel."

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Ish - you have a serious problem if you think that this is comparable to producing some shoddy shoes!

    Do you have any idea who Rav Shapiro is?

    His position regarding this woman is public knowledge as evidenced by the video - the obvious solution is if he issued a public apology. I would be willing to post his apology and the lesson he has learned and wants us to learn from what happened.

    What would be the appropriate respond to a world famous surgeon who killed a patient through negligence. You think the appropriate course is to ignore it? That there is no to'eles in seeing how a major talmid chachom deals with erros and the resulting chilul hashem?

    We have gone through a number of such "errors" of gedolim recently. The shameful handling of the Kolko case, the Dodelson Weiss divorce, the Epstein Friedman divorce - including the ridiculous claim that Epestein is magically free of her married status, the Nachlaot and Sanhedria Murchevet Satan ring panic etc etc etc.

    They are all associated with chilul hashem, and a serious loss of emunas chachom - because gedolim refuse to accept responsibility for their egregious errors - including the elementary one of apologizing.

    You really feel that the Berachos 19 applies - please give sources that it applies to this case.

    Berachos (19a) It was taught in the school of R. Ishmael: If you see a scholar who has committed an offence by night, do not cavil at him by day, for perhaps he has done penance. ‘Perhaps’, say you? — Nay, rather, he has certainly done penance. This applies only to bodily [sexual] offences, but if he has misappropriated money, [he may be criticised] until he restores it to its owner.

    In short your description of the Chazon Ish, the gemora etc are simply wrong. A gadol doesn't get a free pass on errors of judgment - especially when it results in people being hurt. It is not something to sweep under the rug - the mountain growing under the rug is too obvious. You can pretend that there is no elephant in the room - but just be sure he doesn't step on you.

    ReplyDelete
  33. That very Gemara (74a) states:

    של רודף פטור שלא יהא ממונו חביב עליו מגופו



    I.e. whenever there is a Heter to kill someone (to prevent him sinning), כל שכן there is a Heter to damage his property (in the process), and therefore the מזיק is Pottur. So too here, if a person is allowed to prevent someone from sinning by causing him bodily harm or possibly even killing him, then כל שכן he may damage that person's property while doing so, without having to pay restitution.


    Only damage caused to third parties, who are not sinning at all and who one most definitely cannot kill, causes a חיוב תשלומין מן התורה, but that is not analogous to Rav Sternbuch's case, where the computer damaged belongs to the sinner himself.


    I hope this helps!

    ReplyDelete
  34. And the problem is... that there are radical groups, in places like Beit Shemesh, Meah Michsholim etc who do this as and when they please, whehter it is attacking women on buses, int he street for dressing "immodeslty", or even attacking Rabbonim and rachmono they attack Gedolei Torah, whether verbally or physically.
    The persistence of extremissm in halacha over several generations has created these outliers who want something more radical and see the existing Ultra-hareidi as being soft/left wing /reformists. That leads to "Talibanism".

    ReplyDelete
  35. I was speaking of the computer breaker not user. Ben's comment I responded to seemed to imply he was concerned that the computer breaker could break it and no one could do anything about it if he claimed his rav permitted his breaking it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "That leaves a very large, gaping loophole."

    Yes, supposedly that is so, and can be seen from Rav Sternbuch's words:

    וע"כ לכל עת ולכל זמן ובעצת חכמים ישכון אור וחייב עכ"פ לשאול ולקבל היתר מרב

    Ostensibly then, under the right circumstances (לכל עת ולכל זמן) whatever they may be, or with a היתר from some רב, we could conduct ourselves as brutally as the Taliban, not even being חייב for נזיקים. Is this the kind of פסק that should be publicized to the general המון עם?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Plus the b'diavad position allows for total Taliban activity."

    Is that really why you think that חז"ל learned this סוגיא
    in the בדיעבד? Could the משמעות possibly be that לכתחלה, it is אסור to commit the היזק?

    ReplyDelete
  38. by implication, is it permitted to attack gays and in fact kill them, to prevent them committing very serious aveiros?
    I am referring to the here and now - in today's world.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Eddie - No! .

    The closest is a case of rodef where one male is chasing another male to rape him. Sanhedrin (73). It is not talking about 2 consenting adults

    MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING MUST BE SAVED [FROM SINNING] EVEN AT THE COST OF THEIR LIVES: HE WHO PURSUES AFTER HIS NEIGHBOUR TO SLAY HIM, [OR] AFTER A MALE [FOR PEDERASTY]. [OR] AFTER A BETROTHED MAIDEN [TO DISHONOUR HER].1 BUT HE WHO PURSUES AFTER AN ANIMAL [TO ABUSE IT]. OR WOULD DESECRATE THE SABBATH, OR COMMIT IDOLATRY, MUST NOT BE SAVED [FROM SINNING] AT THE COST OF HIS LIFE.

    Even in the case of rodef - once can not use more force than necessay to stop the sin.

    Where do you see that a Jew is allowed to kill another Jew to prevent sin of any type other than endangering the life of another person?

    ReplyDelete
  40. this was the case of Zimri - and Pinchas was able to kill him. But I am talking about the range of attacks, between causing some damage all the way to killing them.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ Eddie - you are dumping everything including the kitchen sink in this. Zimri was not a case of rodef nor was it a homosexual relationship.

    We are talking about extrajudicial responses i.e., no beis din. Don't know where you are coming from that you just keep tossing out "what about this" questions. As I said I am not aware of any sources that justify your conjecture. If you have any please present it.

    Otherwise please stick to the topic

    ReplyDelete
  42. Your question was: "Where do you see that a Jew is allowed to kill another Jew to prevent
    sin of any type other than endangering the life of another person?"

    You asked for a case other than a rodef. I provided a case other than rodef. Your response to this was "Zimri was not a case of rodef". In other words, you object to my response by confirming that I have provided a case that satisifes your conditions of a case other than rodef.

    Next, you add "We are talking about extrajudicial responses i.e., no beis din." Again, my example is the quintessential case of an extrajudicial action (ie no beis din). This is where Pinchas receives his special status for acting outside of a BD.

    Third, you state " Zimri was not a case of .... a homosexual relationship."

    By this you confirm that my question was regarding whether it is permitted "kill another Jew to prevent sin of any type other than endangering the life of another person?


    Since neither Zimri nor the homosexual case were directly endangering the life of other people, then they are both cases of arayos.


    Let's be quite clear - I have asked a legitimate question, and not ch' v'shalom made any sort of psak or normative halachic statement.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This is an "error in judgment," if you want to call it that, which demonstrates unfitness to lead a Jewish community. People who make such "errors" should seek another line of work. To exhort the members of one's kehilla to go out and beat an elderly woman to the point of hospitalization or death on suspicion of a misdeed should exclude him forever from leadership. He lacks the sense and restraint required for such work, and that's putting it mildly. To me this is a davar pashut. It should not even need to be said.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The "psak" of R' Shapiro featured in this post would seem to qualify.

    ReplyDelete
  45. If the shoe quality is in issue today, two years later, one has a right / obligation to post a video today, two years later.

    ReplyDelete
  46. See Minchas Chinuch 4:10 who maintains that מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו applies to every Issur, and is not limited to Beis Din but may be employed by any individual seeking to stop somebody sinning. Why, then, is the extra Din of Rodef (which only applies in specific circumstances) needed? The MC answers that there are 3 differences between Rodef and כפייה on other Mitzvos:
    1) חיוב כפייה על שאר מצות is only voluntary on a יחיד, whereas with a Rodef it is a Chiyuv.
    2) With other Mitzvos there must be התראה first, but with Rodef this is not necessary.
    3) With other Mitzvos one may not be כופה if this would involve doing other איסורים such as חילול שבת, whereas killing a Rodef may be done even if it involves violating other איסורים, such as on Shabbos.


    See, however, in בשולי המנחה there, who shows that the MC's position is not unanimously held - the Nesivos (משובב נתיבות סי' ג ס"ק א) actually proves from the fact that we need the Chiddush of Rodef that with other Issurim there is no Din of מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו, even by Beis Din. (עד שתצא נפשו only applies to Beis Din enforcing positive Mitzvos.)
    Also, Rabbeinu Yona says that עד שתצא נפשו is לאו דוקא, in which case there is never a Heter to kill somebody to prevent them from violating any Aveira (apart from a Rodef).


    [Incidentally, the MC's 1st point - that there is no obligation to stop somebody doing an Aveira by force - is highly controversial. See בשולי המנחה who brings that the Chassam Sofer disagrees, although the Rishonim imply that there is no obligation. The Mishna Brura (שער הציון סי' שמז ס"ק ח) maintains that there is a Biblical obligation.]


    Practically speaking, even according to the MC it would seem that one may not kill non-frum עבריינים nowadays, as since they are (at least a Safek) תינוק שנשבה there is no possibility of התראה.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Doesn't the case of Pinchas and Zimri have halachic application in certain situations?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Bodily means not only sexual offenses, but also assault offenses.

    (Doesn't he have to repay some sort of monetary damages in bodily offenses, just like monetary offenses?)

    ReplyDelete
  49. In this letter, Rav Shapira condemned the beating in the strongest terms:

    http://nachlaotchildabuse.blogspot.co.il/2012/10/letter-from-rav-moshe-shapira-in-hebrew.html

    ReplyDelete
  50. Wasnt there a case a while ago of a child accusing someone of showing him pornographic films (tv). Once they looked into the matter, it turned out it was regular TV, which the child was always taught was pornography.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I am astonished. How does this letter square with what he said? He writes as though he had nothing to do with it. Were his words not stated regarding this woman? Did the men not act in response to his words? There is a piece of the puzzle missing.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The halacha as by Pinchas killing Zimri is a kanoi may kill a perpetrator during the act of him committing an offense. The halachic conditions include the kanoi must be free of that sin himself and he can only kill him b'shas hamaaisa.


    (Zimri wasn't even committing a capital offense. If Zimri was taken to beis din after the fact he wouldn't have been chayiv misa.)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Maybe we were a bit too quick to rush to judgment on him. Are you familiar with his style of speaking? I am not - but saying certain things in an initial validation of angry and hurt parents, while concluding to the opposite of the initial validation is a possibility. I am not familiar with his style of speaking. The fact that he was video recorded is strange. What is even stranger is that the whole recording does not seem to have been released.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "The halachic conditions include the kanoi must be free of that sin himself"


    Please provide a halachic source for this "halachic" condition.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @Eddie - I thought you were aware that the case of Pinchas is unique. It is a punishment for sin - not a preventative.If you go to beis din then you can't kill. In the case of rodef if the sin has been done then you can't do anything.

    We are talking about preventative acts that an individual can do without beis din and that if beis din is asked they would agree.

    In short you are mixing cases together and the answer is simple that as a general rule you can not kill someone to stop them from sinning.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @Eddie - I thought you were aware that the case of Pinchas is unique.
    It is a punishment for sin - not a preventative.If you go to beis din
    then you can't kill. In the case of rodef if the sin has been done then
    you can't do anything.

    We are talking about preventative acts that
    an individual can do without beis din and that if beis din is asked
    they would agree.In short you are mixing cases together and the
    answer is simple that as a general rule you can not kill someone to stop
    them from sinning

    ReplyDelete
  57. Chaim wrote

    Daas Torah



    2 hours ago

    Daas Torah:


    (2)
    What do you mean that with Pinchas it is punishment and not
    preventative. That is not true - of course it is preventative! That is
    why the Gemara Sanhedrin 82a states

    שאם פירש זמרי והרגו פנחס נהרג עליו

    because
    once the Aveira has been committed, there is no longer a need to
    prevent anything, so the Din of קנאים פוגעין בו no longer applies.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Eddie • 37 minutes ago
    Yes, you are quite correct. I will do some further research on this, many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Eddie wrote::



    Yes, you are quite correct. I will do some further research on this, many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Eddie wrote:


    Your question was: "Where do you see that a Jew is allowed to kill another Jew to prevent
    sin of any type other than endangering the life of another person?"

    You
    asked for a case other than a rodef. I provided a case other than
    rodef. Your response to this was "Zimri was not a case of rodef". In
    other words, you object to my response by confirming that I have
    provided a case that satisifes your conditions of a case other than
    rodef.

    Next, you add "We are talking about extrajudicial responses
    i.e., no beis din." Again, my example is the quintessential case of an
    extrajudicial action (ie no beis din). This is where Pinchas receives
    his special status for acting outside of a BD.

    Third, you state " Zimri was not a case of .... a homosexual relationship."

    By
    this you confirm that my question was regarding whether it is permitted
    "kill another Jew to prevent sin of any type other than endangering
    the life of another person?

    Since neither Zimri nor the homosexual
    case were directly endangering the life of other people, then they are
    both cases of arayos.

    Let's be quite clear - I have asked a
    legitimate question, and not ch' v'shalom made any sort of psak or
    normative halachic statement.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Chaim wrote:
    (2) What do you mean that with Pinchas it is punishment and not
    preventative. That is not true - of course it is preventative! That is
    why the Gemara Sanhedrin 82a states

    שאם פירש זמרי והרגו פנחס נהרג עליו

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Chaim - the killing is not done to prevent the man from sinning. If he is in the act of sin he may be killed by an individual - without a psak from beis din.. If he is finished sinning an individual can not kill him.


    The fact that he might be killed obviously can be a preventative - but the motivation of the person killing the sinner is not to prevent him from sin - because he must be sinning in order to be killed! That is the case we have been talking about and it is not related to the case of Pinchas and Zimri

    ReplyDelete
  63. That's my question. Did he say this regarding this woman or another? If another, who is she? And why would it be okay to beat her to death? Either way, the things he said are crazy, and in direct contradiction to his letter. If that's his usual style of speaking, all the more reason for him to seek another line of work.

    ReplyDelete
  64. DT: You will do more research on which of Eddie's comment that you characterize as being correct? (Your quote is missing.)

    ReplyDelete
  65. I'm outside the beis medrash and going off distant memory. But I believe either the Gemora or Shulchan Aruch say a kanoi using the Pinchos example to kill a sinner who is in the act of sinning can only be done by someone who was never guilty of that sin himself. Otherwise he isn't qualified to be kanoi.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @Moe that is a quote from Eddie - the original letter was in the wrong thread

    ReplyDelete
  67. disqus_YOi43tN6R9May 1, 2015 at 12:23 AM

    When this recording originally came out, my sense was that it was made after the beating in order to take some blame off of the folks that probably decided on their own to do the beating. The people that were making the accusations did not even listen to the conclusions of the vaad of Rabonim that they themselves appointed to look into what was going on. See the letter from Rav Porush.

    http://nachlaotchildabuse.blogspot.com/2012/06/english-translation-of-letters-written.html

    ReplyDelete
  68. Well try to find a source when you get back to the Beis HaMedrash!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Daas Torah - what are you talking about? Are you saying that Pinchos has to wait until Zimri starts being בועל in order to be able to kill him? I have never heard anybody make this claim - can you back it up with a source?

    ReplyDelete
  70. @Chaim - you have a different way of reading the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch?
    שולחן ערוך חו"מ סימן תכה:ד
    הבא על העובדת כוכבים בפרהסיא לעיני עשרה ישראלים, קנאין פוגעים בו ומותרין להרגו. ודוקא בשעת מעשה, אבל אם פירש אסור להורגו, ודווקא שהתרו בו ולא פירש. ודווקא שבא הקנאי להורגו מעצמו, אבל אם שאל לבית דין אין מורין לו כך.

    רמב"ם אס"ב יב

    הלכה ד
    כל הבועל כותית בין דרך חתנות בין דרך זנות אם בעלה בפרהסיא והוא שיבעול לעיני עשרה מישראל או יתר אם פגעו בו קנאין והרגוהו הרי אלו משובחין וזריזין, ודבר זה הל"מ הוא ראיה לדבר זה מעשה פנחס בזמרי. +/השגת הראב"ד/ כל הבועל עכו"ם וכו'. כתב הראב"ד ז"ל /א"א/ בד"א שהתרו בו ולא פירש אבל לא התרו בו לא אמרינן הרי אלו משובחין עכ"ל.+

    הלכה ה
    ואין הקנאי רשאי לפגוע בהן אלא בשעת מעשה כזמרי שנאמר ואת האשה אל קבתה אבל אם פירש אין הורגין אותו, ואם הרגו נהרג עליו, ואם בא הקנאי ליטול רשות מב"ד להרגו אין מורין לו ואף על פי שהוא בשעת מעשה, ולא עוד אלא אם בא הקנאי להרוג את הבועל ונשמט הבועל והרג הקנאי כדי להציל עצמו מידו אין הבועל נהרג עליו, והבא על בת גר תושב אין הקנאין פוגעים בו אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות.

    הלכה ו
    לא פגעו בו קנאים ולא הלקוהו ב"ד הרי עונשו מפורש בדברי קבלה שהוא בכרת שנאמר כי חלל יהודה קדש י"י אשר אהב ובעל בת אל נכר יכרת י"י לאיש אשר יעשנה ער ועונה, אם ישראל הוא לא יהיה לו ער בחכמים ולא עונה בתלמידים ואם כהן הוא לא יהיה לו מגיש מנחה לי"י צבאות, הנה למדת שהבועל כותית כאילו נתחתן לעכו"ם שנאמר ובעל בת אל נכר ונקרא מחלל קדש ה'.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Again, its completely possible that it was said during a therapeutic type of discussion with the hurt and angry parents. Yes, if you're going to have any success with frantic and horrified parents, you must first validate their feelings. How to validate their feelings is not a on-size-fits-all matter. Some people do have a more abrasive approach. However, what matters is the conclusion he left them with.


    I believe you're being a bit too trigger happy in calling unfit to be a rabbi. I believe that you would first need to see the entire clip prior to passing judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Presumably you mean the words

    ודוקא בשעת מעשהו

    But the Rambam himself clarifies his intention straight away by writing:

    , אבל אם פירש אסור להורג



    i.e. he is coming to exclude AFTER the Aveira, but not BEFORE the Aveira. Furthermore, the Gemara which the Maggid Mishna says is the Rambam's source ONLY addresses AFTER the Aveira.


    סוף דבר, if he sees that there will be an imminent ביאה, then of course he may kill them, to PREVENT the ביאה. Even when they are already copulating, the Heter to kill them is also preventative - to prevent them continuing.


    Can you find anyone who explains the Rambam to mean that before the ביאה he cannot kill them?

    ReplyDelete
  73. OK, now I have seen אגרות משה אה"ע ח"א סי' לח and he does seem to learn like you, that (1) the killing is because of the Aveira that has been committed (and לאחר שפירש is only פטור because חס רחמנא עליה), and (2) before the מעשה there is no היתר to kill (he says there is no דין רודף). But I don't think that it is so פשוט!

    ReplyDelete
  74. Meanwhile, I saw in Igros Moshe E.H, 38 (beginning of Teshuva) that only קנאים may kill him, and others who do so are חייב מיתה. If so, then presumably one who has committed the same Aveira (and hasn't done Teshuva) would מסתמא not be a קנאי, in which case your original assertion is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I am חוזר בי. The implication of the Mishna in Sanhedrin 81b which lists קנאים פוגעין בו together with other punishments is that it is a punishment, not a preventative measure. Although one could be דוחה that even a preventative measure is classified as an עונש (see there 73b that מצילין אותו בנפשו creates a קים ליה בדרבה מיניה), nevertheless the Mishna does not list בועל ארמית with Dinei Rodef but rather with actual punishments for Aveiros. The same can be seen from the placement of the Rambam - following the Mishna, he puts it in Hil. Sanhedrin 18:6 together with all the other עונשים and not with Rodef in Hil. Rotzeach. So we see that it is an עונש ממש.


    So obviously the punishment can only be given after the ביאה has started.


    Then I saw that it is an explicit Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos (ל"ת נ"ב):


    הזהירנו מהתחתן בכופרים. והוא אמרו יתעלה (דברים ז-ג) ''לא תתחתן בם'', ובאר החתנות מהו (דברים ז-ג) ''בתך לא תתן לבנו'', ובבאור אמרו דרך חתנות אסרה תורה. והעובר על לאו זה יש בענשו הפרש, וזה שהבועל ארמית כשבא עליה בפרהסיא כל מי שיהרגהו והוא דבק בעבירה הנה קיים העונש כמו שעשה פנחס לזמרי, ואמרו (גמרא סנהדרין פ"א-ב) הבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין בו, אבל בתנאים שאמרנו והוא שיבא עליה בפרהסיא ובשעת מעשה וכמעשה שהיה..,


    Thank you for being מעמיד me על האמת.

    ReplyDelete
  76. How can the witness ever be sure that it is "imminent"? They can decide to change their mind and not have ביאה even at the very last moment.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Trigger-happy? Perhaps, but I don't think so. And his next words imply strongly that he is prescribing action, not just being supportive. I refer to his response to someone who mentioned going to the police. He says, looking for evidence and going to the police is שטויות and nothing will come of it. He vehemently repeats this חכמה. It's pretty clear he was encouraging a certain course of action.

    Whatever reading you give them, his statements are bizarre. He comes across as unhinged.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Moe, I have since been חוזר (see below). But in answer to your question, I was originally assuming that קנאין פוגעין בו is a Rodef-type Din, so the answer to your question would be: every case of Rodef. (Of course you can answer that in Rodef there is the element of saving the נרדף, which doesn't exist here, to which I would answer that... But I don't want to get into a whole discussion in defense of a position which I no longer subscribe to.)

    ReplyDelete
  79. Thank you Chaim, this was a very interesting discussion, and it helped to clarify certain issues. I am still trying to find the source which may have caused me to think it is sometimes permissible (eg moridin v'ain maalim) with heretics. But it is a complex issue, and also it goes against the logic of the Torah, which requires evidence of an act already done, in order to administer onesh of any kind.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Eddie - if you meant to put this comment here, then you should know that I have since been חוזר. Now Daas Torah seems to have deleted the comments in which I was חוזר! I don't understand, it's confusing.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Your comment being חוזר is still up and not deleted. See the below link. The problem with the comment system is if you follow a link directly to a comment, it sometimes doesn't show you all the other comments. If you go to the page directly, not to a comment, you should be able to see all comments.

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/04/rav-sternbuch-saving-others-from-sin.html#comment-1997098031

    ReplyDelete
  82. I read the chozer comments, that is why it is an interesting discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  83. OK - now Moe has shown me where they are...

    ReplyDelete
  84. Thank you Moe - I learn something new every day!

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.