Spilling soup on someone to stop bitul Torah: Rav Zilberstein
Quote from the article:
ReplyDelete"However this is only if his intent is for the sake of Heaven and he is firmly established himself as sterling example of Torah Jew."
I believe that now-a days none of us can presume that we mean something totally leshem shomayim and are sterling examples of Torah Jews.
I think ignoring this piece is dangerously arrogant, and very disturbing.
A couple of points:
ReplyDelete* You appear to take the position that Shimon is trying to prevent Reuven from being oiver on the issur of Bitul Torah. However, from the way the case was presented, it appears to me more likely that Shimon poured soup on Reuven so that Reuven would not prevent Shimon from learning. In other words, Shimon is not concerned for Reuven's neshomo - he is concerned about his own learning.
If so, we could say that since a person who is trying to save his own life has to pay for any damages while running from a pursuer, so too, Shimon would have to pay for any damage he caused Reuven while in his (Shimon's) attempt to learn.
In addition, I don't think that Reuven would be considered a rodef here, because the application of rodef is limited to murder and gilui arayos.
I also don't think that the din of taking the law in your own hands is applicable here, because the halocho is only that you can stop the person from doing more damage - but not to the point of injuring him physically or monetarily.
* Regarding your quote of Rav Chaim Kaniefsky "that we only find that it is permitted to hit someone to stop him from sinning but we don’t find that it is permitted to damage his property." I find it very interesting, because, supposedly, Rabbi Kaniefsky paskened recently that it is permissible (and according to others required) to break the iPhone of another Jew, and the one who breaks it does NOT have to pay. I find this psak particularly troubling.
As someone who is connected to a Yeshiva for modern American boys on the fringe, I know that the Hanholo received a psak many years ago that the dorm counselor must confiscate and destroy pornographic material found in the dormitory - but that the Yeshiva must compensate any student who demands payment for the property that was destroyed.
This psak seems very logical. If you want to help someone else's ruchniyus against his will, then you must be willing to pay for any monetary damage you cause.
Bottom line - I can see how you may permit Shimon to spill the soup on Reuven, but I cannot see how you may then exempt Shimon from paying for the damage, including the embarrassment he caused.
As far as Shimon's tzidkus goes, I would ask Shimon what Reuven's agenda is, and why Reuven is preventing him from learning. Perhaps it would be a chessed to listen to Reuven or pay attention to him. Certainly he should be dan Reuven licaf zechus that his intent is not to prevent anyone from learning. If this is true, then perhaps Shimon has a chiyuv to be mevatel his learning in order to do this chesed.
excellent points
DeleteRegarding rodef - the Chinuch and others disagree with you. the Chinuch explicitly learns defense against verbal abuse from the din of rodef.
Chinuch (#338): ...However it would seem that despite the fact that verbal abuse of others is prohibited, one should not conclude that if one Jew came and wickedly verbally inflicted pain on another Jew that the victim should not answer him. That is because it is impossible that a person should be like a stone which has no one to turn it over. Furth more if the victim remains silent it would imply that he agrees with the insults. In truth the Torah does not command that a man be like a stone which remains silent in the face of those who insult him as he would in the face of those who bless him. Rather the Torah commands us to stay far away from this type of behavior and not to initiate quarrels and insult people. If he is not a quarrelsome person he will be saved from insults. That is because one who doesn’t get into fights is generally not insulted by others except by total fools - and one should not pay attention to fools. [...] We learn that it is permitted to answer a fool apparently from the fact that a person is permitted to kill a robber who has broken into his home. That is because there is absolutely no doubt that a person is not obligated to tolerate harm from another but rather has the right to defend himself. Likewise concerning verbal abuse which contains cunning and deceit, he is permitted to save himself with every manner with which it is necessary to save himself.
In addition Rav Zilberstein seems to miquote the Chasam Sofer. where the Chasam Sofer in the name of Pnei Yehoshua would apparently permit throwing soup if this was the only way to stop his harrasser.
DeleteHowever while it seems obvious to the Rambam that if one verbal harasses a community it is permitted to report him to the government – the commentaries don’t show the sources of this ruling. It must be that this ruling is learned from this gemora. It would seem that if hadn’t been for the fact that Mar Ukva had a solution to the harassment problem by going to the study hall it would have been permitted to report his assailants to the secular government. However this solution is only relevant for an individual. But it is not relevant for the community and therefore it is clearly permitted to report the community nuisance to the government. Also see the Pnei Yehoshua’s discussion of this gemora where he says that the solution of going to the study hall and complaining to G d about the assailant is not correct if one can stop the harasser in other ways. However he says if the harassers cause him to waste time from Torah and prayer because of his upset he can stop the harassers in any manner…
Thank you for pointing out the Chinuch to me. However, is this called verbal abuse? I don't think so, but we really need more information about the case before we can discuss some of the issues.
DeleteTo be Mazik someone else is a Lav d'Oiraisa,
ReplyDeleteBodily injury is pen yoisif,monetary damage is bal tashchis,plus other isurim.
None is allowed, for the purpose of what is classified today as bitul torah.
The concept of bitul Torah , because someone is not b' Torah in a certain timeframe is an invented term, which is not in the Talmudic tradition, meant in such extreme terms.
What was a plate of soup doing in the beit hamedrash in the first place? Every place of learning (be it for limudei kodesh or at med school) that I have ever attended specifically banned bringing food or drink into the room.
ReplyDelete