Why force feed?

Because then they will be a martyr and therefore must be avenged, gives them another reason to kill more innocents.

According to the shittos that somebody who commits suicide transgresses ?? ????

What do you mean “according to the shittos”? Which shittos do not consider suicide to be murder?

Joseph – It is definitely assur to commit suicide, but it isn’t necessarily the issur of ?? ????. I don’t remember the specifics, but there definitely is a ?????? about it. I think the Rambam doesn’t bring suicide under ?? ????. Could have been somebody else.

(Only the ??? of ?? ???? is ???? ?????? ?????)

It would be worse?

Since when do they need any more excuses??

Its not like they arent trying with all their might to kill as many of us as possible?

Wolfish – There are two reasons why we kill a ????: a) ???? ????? – saving the victim, and b) ??????? ???????. Your tone of surprise is because you are working with the first reason, in which case killing him is obviously useless. However, according to the second reason, if he is about to commit suicide and there is no way of stopping him, you should kill him (provided suicide is ?? ????, as I said above).

Scared Driver Delight – I love insults. They make me sound like I made a good point that the other fellow didn’t think of but doesn’t know how to prove it wrong. Keep ’em coming!

And, sorry for hijacking your thread. I know this discussion is not directly related to what you had in mind.

yekke2: When else do we kill someone due to ??????? ???????, in situations where ???? ????? is inapplicable?

Can you please cite where this is halacha? I would be very interested in reading such a ruling.

yekke2: When else do we kill someone due to ??????? ???????, in situations where ???? ????? is inapplicable?

I will look for the exact Mareh Mekomos when I have a chance. It is muchach in Sanhedrin 73a. The Ketzois also writes mefurash that you kill a ???? because of ?????? ??????? in Meshovav Siman 3.

I haven’t answered your questions directly. I haven’t seen any Mareh Mokom about this exact case; what I wrote above was my own application that if it would be ?? ????, you would have to kill him. (The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzvah 237 disagrees with me, but he is clear in ?? that there is no issur of ?? ????)

sorry if the insult sounded like a compliment–let me make it clearer: Have your head checked, because the cerebral cortex within seems to be malfunctioning.

I understood the first time that it was an insult. I was merely pointing out that any insult in an intellectual discussion not written together with a logical argument is paramount to admitting defeat.

I think the ??? ???? ??”? ??”? brings from the ?????? ???? on the Posuk “?? ?????” = “?? ????” that ???? ???? ???? is ???? ??? ????. There is an ?????? in the Achronim about it; I don’t have many seforim with me on holiday to check it up. See also ???? ????? ???? ?”? who says it ISN’T ?? ????, and in Hagahos R’ Yerucham Fishel Perlow there.

See also ????? ?”? ??’ ? who apparently entertains a tzad that suicide is muttar [Lo Lemaisah!!].

As I wrote before, it isn’t about Roidef or Nirdaf per se, it is about preventing him being oiver ?? ????.

The Brisker Rov, and perhaps others, does indeed say there are two dinnim, but ???? ????? is definitely needed, as is evident from the ??? of ???? ???? ??????.

Which Brisker Rav are you referring to? I remember one about ??? ????? ???? ?????, but that is referring to the ???? himself, and that actually doesn’t need ???? ?????.

What is evident from the din of ???? ???? ??????? Even if it is to stop him from transgressing the issur, this will not allow you to kill him if you can do it any other way. (There is a third tzad that it isn’t to stop the issur, it is an ????. [see ????? ?? ?”? ??’ ? and R’ Chaim Stensel] – your point of ???? ????? might be a ???? on that third tzad). I’m not sure what you see from ???? ????? regarding ???? ?????.

I forgot to say that not eating isn’t a violation of ?? ????.

If suicide is considered ?? ????, why should starvation not be suicide? I would have said like you logically, and I think R’ Chaim in Sefer writes that there can be no such thing as ?? ??? ???? by ?????, although Tosfos clearly argues with that. Tosfos holds that you can be ???? ????? ??? ??? ????, but it just isn’t ???? ??? ?????.

Disclaimer: I have not seen inside many of the Mareh Mekomos I mentioned before posting. Some of these are from memory, other’s I have seen quoted but not checked up. Use at your own risk.

Joseph: That’s a B’feirush Gemara in Sanhedrin. I don’t remember what it says, but the case is there.

Not force feeding is a D’Oraisa violation of Lo Sa’amod Al Dam Reiecha.

That’s wonderful to hear.

You didn’t make yourself very clear. (In fact, if I wasn’t worried about Poe’s law, I would say that your idiocy didn’t even astound me.) You pointed out that even if suicide was ?? ????, “not eating” wouldn’t be included in that. I understood that to mean because it was a passive way of killing rather than an active murder. I brought you a Shittas Tosfos who says that a passive murder is also called murder.

I don’t think R’ Chaim agrees with that principle at all. R’ Chaim points out that in the baby case, you are just a bullet, not the killer. According to R’ Chaim – as is the pashtus, I would say – there would be no such thing as a passive killing.

Tosfos, however, disagrees. I don’t understand Tosfos, I never have understood it. Why you should be considered a murderer – enough to say ???? ??? ????? – I don’t understand. (I wanted to suggest that Tosfos doesn’t mean ?? ????, but Tosfos is saying that the same logic of ??? ???? applies even in that case. But I don’t think it worked…)

I would say that Tosfos applies to any passive murder as well.

(BTW – I have no access to the ???? ??? at the moment; would you care to post a link, or summarize his points?)

Everything is a “natural process”. Strangling a person kills by stopping the oxygen intake; stabbing him in the heart simply stops all heart function and therefore via a natural process will die. Dropping somebody into a pit of fire is a very natural process. What murder isn’t natural?

(There obviously is a line; where do you draw it?)

That is a big controversy whether “Lo Sa’amod Al Dam Reiecha” applies to a self inflicted problem. The Minchas Chinuch says that there is no chiyuv. Many Achronim disagree.

sdd: Where/how are you making a halachic distinction between 1) a third person who doesn’t give food to an immobile person (who wants to eat) or locking someone involuntarily into a foodless room versus 2) someone refusing to eat?

“When else do we kill someone due to ??????? ???????

Isn’t this one of the reasons for killing a ben sorer umorer. Even though no one is in immediate danger at this juncture.

As for the next point about natural process, here I think you could call me an idiot, if you’re not worried about Poe, whoever he is. My point was that eating is a way to sustain one’s self; not eating is merely refraining from sustaining himself, whereas killing, be it passively or actively, is the immediate cause of death.

Breathing is also “sustaining yourself”; taking away the oxygen supply is still counted as murder.

Poe’s law is the adage that without the correct emoticons or background information, parodies of extremism cannot successfully be distinguished from the sincere article.

SDD – I have just thought of something so twisted that if you don’t insult me badly enough, I will have to insult myself. So I’ll leave it up to you.

According to what I have written above, somebody who is trying to commit suicide is ???? ?????? ?????. You may kill him in order to stop the murder.

The Rishonim say (Rivash, Levush) that although a bystander may not kill a Roidef in a case which is ???? ????? ???? ??????, the ???? himself is permitted to (The Levush actually extends this to the family of the Nirdaf as well).

This being true – and here comes the really krum part – if somebody is trying to commit suicide, he has a status of a Roidef. Ergo, he would be permitted to kill himself.

Suggested Psak: Suicide is permitted.

You would get a ???? ????? – if you are allowed to kill yourself, then you have no status as a ???? and therefore are not allowed to kill, in which case you become a ????…..

SDD, yes I have answered the question posed. The question was why should Israel force feed them, seeing as they are trying to kill themselves and Israel isn’t exactly desperate for them to be on this planet anyway. And those two points are right.

But the reality is that the answer is down to PR, which is why that is the main tenet I have adressed. The PR of a successful hunger strike, by which I mean one given in to or taken to its conclusion, is harmful for Israel. I think we all agree giving in is not the right path to take, as it sends the message that Israel can be blackmailed and opens up the door to other prisoners taking similar action (Since you seem to need everything spelled out for you). And letting them die would lead to a negative impact on ISrael in the short term. This impact would include an increased security risk due to the public strength of feeling, a PR loss amongst the world and local media, which leads to further damage to Israel’s image abroad, and leads to increased sympathy, and therefore increased active support, for the Palestinian cause, be it from governments or the public. If you’re wondering why people are so taken by hunger strikes, it is simply because if somebody is dying, passively, for a cause, people automatically take more attention in that cause, and/or feel that cause obviously is worth dying for, and is as such nobler, in some twisted way. We are not talking of rationality here, as PR never is, but of human psychology, particularly group psychology. It provides a rallying point to stage demonstrations around, to use the platform to highlight other issues, to make Israel appear uncaring and unfeeling. And it will provoke increased terrorist attacks, at least in the short term, by increasing strength of feeling amongst the groundroots of the Palestinian movement. So, to sum up, short term security threat and PR loss, and possible effect on long term security and PR. Force feeding does not eliminate these issues, but it does diminish their likelihood or impact.

I would have thought all of this was obvious from both my earlier posts, especially as I backed it up with a specific example of exactly this situation, with the exact feared consequences detailed above, occuring, and that was the case of Bobby Sands, who despite fighting for a cause that didn’t have majority support amongst the populace of Northern Ireland, despite fighting for a cause that the UK was not going to give into, as had they given it to their specific demands (to be treated as political prisoners), it would have given the terrorists legitimacy, and despite the fact that there wwas no good logical reason why the UK was doing anything wrong in that specific case, or should suffer as a result of the strikers’ actions PR wise, the case still led to the ezact problems detailed above. Which strengthens the case for force feeding, as I put it above, the lesser of several evils.

And, though I am loath to be anything but concillatory in this debate, you have attempted above to poiont out inconsistencies in my reasoning that did not exist, but were simply due to you obviously not having understood or even fully read my above posts. So in future, before responding, please be slightly clearer as to your specific problem with my reasoning, and not just make some vague rebuttal, that, as I have explained above, does not make much sense. Perhaps pick a specific point and point out why it doesn’t stand up, or a faulty piece of reasoning, as opposed to simply saying I haven’t answered the question without explaining why. Thank you, and looking forward.

See also ????? ?”? ??’ ? who apparently entertains a tzad that suicide is muttar

Rav Ya’akov Emden has a teshuva where he states that one is permitted to commit suicide as an atonement for a sin for which the punishment is the death penalty.

The Wolf

Can we stop quoting these Shittos please? They are wholly and entirely rejected by every major Posek in the last century, most notably (and strongly) R’ Moshe Feinstein.

Next you’ll be telling me I should never state that Bais Shammai have a particular opinion (except for the rare cases when we do hold like them).

The Wolf

SDD:

Ok, lets take this one step at a time…

What is with your fixation on Israel? Where in the opening post does it say Israel?

Admittedly, nowhere. But, I assumed, as you yourself have already said, that this post was inspired by recent events in Israel. I therefore based my answer on that particular case. So, as I have already said, I refer in all my questions to a case where the prisoner is doing it for political/ideological reasons, not simply because they’re suicidal, and that the prisoner in question is a non-Jew, eliminating the above halachic discussion from my consideration. I simply use Israel as an example, as it is a pertinent one. But you could just as easily put any other government in their place.

In all three of your posts, this the first time you wrote this.

True. In that it is the first time I have gone into this mucch detail about why hunger strike have such an effect. But the actual central point hasn’t altered. And anyway, this kind of detail is not necessary to answer the question. Recognizing that hunger strikes cause this kind of reaction is a fact. And recognizing that fact was the basis of the answer to your question, which, if I may remind you, was:

If a prisoner wants to commit suicide by starving him/herself, why stop them?

My answer to that question, succintly put, is: Because people dying of hunger strikes leads to negative press attention and increased security risk for the country involved. Giving in means allowing themselves to be blackmailed. So force feeding is mmaking the best of several unwanted decisions.

That’s it. I bought proof that this is the case, by bringing the example of Bobby Sands, for whom all the dangers I just enumerated, here and above, occured. I, obviously naively, thought that explaining why was unecessary, both because I thought it was self-evident after a bit of thought, and because it was not necessary to ask the given question. Simply acknowledging that that is the case is sufficient in this context.

And it still begs wonder why intelligent people give in to perceptions of crazies instead of clearly and coherently stating their position, and pointing out that someone refusing to eat isn’t their fault.

Well, there are several problems with your reasoning. Firstly, who said ‘intelligent’? Secondly, we are not talking of previously uninterested people, but people already with a strong connection to the cause, be it Irish republicanism or Palestinian nantionalism. A case like this, where people die, leads to an increase in the strength of feeling surrounding the case, and through protests and media increases the public’s level of emotion, and therefore response, both violent and otherwise. So, an ordinary Arab/Palestinian, who already wrongly believes, through biased media reports and propoganda, that Palestinian prisoners are wrongly imprisoned, might get further inflamed by that prisoner killing themselves in protest.

Also, death is emotional, and can cloud rational judgement. In ch’vsh a similar case involving a yid, you too might not approach it fully rationally. And furthermore, a high publicity event like a hunger strike engenders news reports, press releases and public attention. This gives those with an agenda a platform from with to espouse their views. This ensures their message, and therefore their influence and ability to cause problems, is spread yet further. Perhaps only crazies would believe in the justice off this cause, as you, probably errantly, suggest. Then a successful hunger strike allows the message to reach more of those who would be easily influenced, or easily inflamed. I have already said this, and this is one of the reasons I suggested you read my earlier posts, if not for the first time, then properly. Because this point about publicity providing a wider platform to spread their general views was neither picked up on, nor rebutted, in any of your previous posts.

…in reality they’re not dying for the cause but rather trying to scare their wardens into freeing them from jail.

Actually, in most cases not. In Bobby Sands case, as I have also already explicitely said (hence my request for you to read my post), the aim was not to get released, but to be treated as political prisoners, a request the British Government could and should not have given into, and didn’t, because that would have granted a terrorist organization, the IRA, legitimacy.

So, in summation, I could have answeredall your questions with a ‘see above’, not for the first time, and this is precisely why I suggested you read, or at least reread, the point you are denigrating before deigning to write a response. Thank you.