- This topic has 36 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
If someone was forced to steal food to survive, does that make it muttar under the rubric of pikuach nefesh?
Yes, but he has to pay back.
Also, you don’t make a bracha on the food.
1. Probably not if by stealing the food someone else’s would starve to death.
2. “Survive” does not include ice cream, nice fleisigs, wine, etc. It means enough to stay alive. Not enough to feel like you are a normal middle class consumer.
HaLeiVi: Actually, it’s Lich’ora a Machlokes Rishonim. I think Rashi in Bava Kama holds Assur L’hatzil Atzmo B’mamon Chaveiro is literal. And there are more Rishonim who hold that if you don’t have money to pay back then it’s also Assur.
Sam, I remember that as well. How does that work, though? Is it somehow considered one of the gimmel chamuros?
There certainly are other ways to obtain food except possibly in times of war.
DY: It would have to function under the rubric of Yesh Koach…, I would think. It’s not so clear that Rashi actually ever held that way because, frankly, it’s a very tough Shittah to digest. There are those who say B’feirush, though, that if you can’t pay back then you can’t save yourself (I think the Meiri or the Shittah Mekubetzes there in Bava Kama 60 quotes them). It’s very difficult to understand. If you’ve seen a good P’shat, by all means please share.
Not yet, I was hoping you did.
I don’t think it’s so much an Inyan of being more Chamur than other Issurim as much as the fact that you don’t have the right. Your Heter doesn’t change someone else’s property. But if I’m recalling correctly, we safely assume that anyone has Daas to allow someone to survive.
HaLeiVi: That would only be if we Pasken Yeiush Shelo MIda’as. SInce we don’t, you would have to know.
I assume that one of the reasons people say Rashi doesn’t actually hold what he seems to say is because what happened to Nicha Leih L’inish L’me’evad Mitzvah B’mamonei.
DY: I mean, the best I can think of is a Yesh Koach to impress upon people how much you really need to worry about other people’s property. But that’s weak.
In our times there are soup kitchens so i dont think its justified.
??”? ??”? ?’ ??”?
??”? ???? ???? ??”?
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=591&st=&pgnum=141
The ??”? I referred to is here: (It’s actually ??”?, can the moderator please change that for me? Thanks.)
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=917&st=&pgnum=411
Well we know that we should give up our lives instead of worshiping idols. Worshiping idols is one of the three cardinal sins, as is murder. Murder is a type of stealing, because if you kill someone you are stealing their life. So maybe you should give up your life instead of stealing.
HUGE STRAW MAN ARGUMENT HERE
DDD, explain, please.
HaLeiVi, Your Heter doesn’t change someone else’s property.
I don’t get that. Your pikuach nefesh doesn’t make it your property, but it changes what you are allowed to do with someone else’s property.
The idea is that while Bein Adam Lamakom is up to Hashem to allow, Bein Adam Lachaveiro leaves you with a person to deal with. Your Hetter can’t break the boundary and play with someone else’s property.
Why wouldn’t it be pikuach nefesh?
nicha lei l’inish does not apply if the cheftza would be irreparably damaged by someone else’s use. I think the mishnah berurah has an example that you can’t take another guy’s sefer cause your using it would devalue the sefer. In this case, not only is the food devalued, it doesn’t exist! So it should be assur from that angle.
RF: That’s what the Shulchan Aruch says (14:4). The Achronim (I think even the M”B) explain that because in his time, Seforim were both incredibly valuable and easy to damage. Thus, it wasn’t worth it (the Tzitz Eliezer applies this to other people’s Taleisim now that we know about germs, even though the Mechaber is explicit that a Tallis is okay) so we assume that someone won’t let without explicit permission. Many Poskim nowadays say it is okay to borrow Seforim without permission because they are much more durable nowadays and less valuable, so people are more inclined to let someone use them. It would take a very cruel person to not allow someone to lose your money to save his own life. Thus, we should assume that he would want you to eat. Why that logic doesn’t hold true is the question.
Sam, you’re weighing the losses, but that not the reason for the chilluk you quote; borrowing seforim today is not considered to cause a loss (shava pruta) at all.
HaLeiVi, you are making the claim (to defend Rashi) that yaavor v’al yehoreg doesn’t apply to beim adam lachaveiro. This is in fact what the Binyan Tzion says. I wouldn’t say it precisely the way you did, though, because at the end of the day, Hashem is the baalim on that as well. Maybe it’s a good enough sevara to be a pircha on a man matzinu, though.
R’ Moshe rejects this, though, because why would a person’s life be any better than his money, and we need a limud for r’tzicha.
Binyan Tzion bavorned this, though, and says ein hochi nami, but we need a limud for a case of mechilah, which surely works for money, but doesn’t for r’tzichah.
Sam, nevertheless he has a point. The fact is it is about letting someone use but not about giving away. This is the problem with the only coat left in Shul while mine is missing. We can’t say Nicha Lei to trade with me since he obviously has mine.
On the other hand, Yi’ush Shelo Midaas is when the person is unaware of the item being lost. In this case, we are saying that there is automatic Daas to be Maskim to sell. Automatic Daas is a Svara that we use often. Nicha Lei utilizes this.
MachaaMaker, I think the OP met to ask if the issue is pushed off for pikuach nefesh, assuming a case that it is, in fact, pikuach nefesh.
DikDukDuck used the logic of the famous “All cats die, Socrates is dead. Therefore, Socrates is a cat” thing.
Jean Valjean was arrested for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister’s starving child . . . and look what happened to him.
Rebyidd23, that’s not a straw man argument.
Didn’t say it was.
During the Holocause Stealing food was really the only way to surive
Irrelevant. “Is” and “was” are two different things.
I like silly logic. I’m a duck.
You’re a low duck. 🙂
DY: That can’t be right. Damage of less than a Shaveh Prutah is still damage and still exists. I don’t have R’shus to be Mazik you less than a Shaveh Prutah.
If a person does steal food in order to survive from hunger does that mean for the rest of his life he will be doing mitzvas haba’ah b’aveira?
No, but there may be an assumption of reshus for a mitzvah, mah she’ein kein for damage of more than a shava prutah.
In other words, the nicha lei d’isavid mitzvah b’momonei includes hishtamshus and the slight “wear and tear”, both of which would be assur without mitzvah, but there’s no nicha lei on a bigger loss.
DY: So, basically what I said. 🙂
You wrote, “Why that logic doesn’t hold true is the question.”, but I think I’ve answered it.
I think there’s another pshat out there; I’ll see if I can find it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.