Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 43

Tue, 15 May 2012

• 1. Re: Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: torture in halacha??? (hankman)
• 3. scraping/ finger.... (Harvey Benton)
• 4. Re: scraping/ finger.... (Zev Sero)
• 5. Subject: Re: commentary of the maharshal on the smag (David Wacholder)
• 6. Re: torture in halacha??? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: torture in halacha??? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: torture in halacha??? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: torture in halacha??? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: why finger (Danny Schoemann)
• 11. Re: torture in halacha??? (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: torture in halacha??? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 13. Re: torture in halacha??? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Subject: Re: why finger (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 15. Re: torture in halacha??? (Lisa Liel)

On 14/05/2012 1:32 PM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> So why didn't the Rambam list this a heter?

He did -- in Hil' Shmita Veyovel.  There's a rule in Mishneh Torah
that the Rambam expected people to learn the whole thing, in order,
and to remember what he wrote earlier; he never repeats something
he said earlier unless there's a specific reason why it needs to be
said again.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 14/05/2012 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 02:01:18PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> On 5/13/2012 3:26 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:

>>> is torture ever allowed in halacha???

>> Is it ever not allowed in halakha?

> If tza'ar baalei chaim isn't allowed, lo kol shekein humans.
> So, there has to be a criterion for justification.

RZS wrote:

If it's for no reason then why talk about torture? Hitting another
person is explicitly forbidden by the Torah: "pen yosif". The question
only makes sense in a case where we've already determined that hitting
is permitted, and now RHB is asking whether there are any cases where
not only hitting but also torture is permitted. And RLL's response is
correct: first find a case where it's *not* permitted, and only then
can you ask whether there also exist cases where it is.

CM responds:
I think RMB?s logic makes more sense, and the argument by RZS above is missing the step that RMB provided.

That is to say: Accepting RZS?s point that even plain vanilla hitting is
asur even if it does not amount to torture, so we must be considering cases
where hitting is permitted. Now comes RHB with his question about torture.
Then RZS chooses R?nLL logic rather than argue that even if hitting is
permitted perhaps the level of issur from the kal vechomer from tza'ar
baalei chaim would indicate that the default at this point is issur and you
would then have to bring proof of heter and not as R?nLL assumes a default
of heter.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120514/c35cbdd9/attachment-0001.htm>

i have been to? a sfardi shul and they 

use a pointer (silvver??) to point and
assis t the reader. my question is; 

doesn't the pointer some-times 

scrape off the letters (or portions 

of them) and thus....

?
hb
















________________________________
 From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
To: Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>; The Avodah Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Avodah] why finger
 
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:43:12PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: why do we hold up a finger (pinky amnong some congregations
: when the torah is lifted???
: and if we are left handed do we switch hands?? 

The "zos" of "vezos haTorah" implies pointing. Some hold that pointing
with an index finger is insulting, so, the pinky. OTOH, the Siddur Vilna
says (quoting a few meqoros including Seifer haChassidim) one should
bedavqa use the index finger, since that's the one called "etzba". As
in anthropomorphications about HQBH doing things with His "Etzba" --
including the writing of the luchos.

I'm lefty, and I do use my left hand, since that's how I point to things.
But not because I thought about it, just because that's what I naturally
do.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger? ? ? ? ? ?  Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org? ? ? ? 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org?  Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507? ? ? ? ? ? ?  require one to be strict with another?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120514/7b31a977/attachment-0001.htm>

On 14/05/2012 6:30 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> i have been to a sfardi shul and they use a pointer (silvver??) to point and
> assis t the reader. my question is;  doesn't the pointer some-times
> scrape off the letters (or portions of them) and thus....

Only if the reader is careless enough to let the pointer touch the
parchment.


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

There is a big difference between the old edition and the newly typeset and
edited one.  The new edition -  adds many more comments to the Maharshal.
As there is no specific "Seal" on the comments, there is a difficult issue.
For instance, Chafetz Chaim used it  in laws of Lashon Hara, and the "new"
comments may or may not confirm the conclusions.
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120514/5f41b1c8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 05:19:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> If tza'ar baalei chaim isn't allowed, lo kol shekein humans.
>> So, there has to be a criterion for justification.
>
> If it's for no reason then why talk about torture?  Hitting another
> person is explicitly forbidden by the Torah: "pen yosif".  The question
> only makes sense in a case where we've already determined that hitting
> is permitted, and now RHB is asking whether there are any cases where
> not only hitting but also torture is permitted.  And RLL's response is
> correct: first find a case where it's *not* permitted...

We can agree that it's inappropriate to torture for no reason.

I presume also to torture in order to retrieve a stolen quarters.
And that it's okay to torture someone who we know is in guilty
posession of information that could save 2,823 people.

So, where between those two values does halakhah permit torture?

As I said, proving that one needs /some/ justification is sufficient
to imply there must be a "shiur".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507               require one to be strict with another?

On 14/05/2012 9:46 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> We can agree that it's inappropriate to torture for no reason.

Just as it's forbidden to hit someone for no reason.  Therefore if we
are hitting someone, we've already established that there is a reason.


> I presume also to torture in order to retrieve a stolen quarters.

Why do you presume it?  Is it OK to hit someone for that reason?  If
not, then we don't need to ask about torture.  If yes, then on what
basis do you *presume* that torture is not also permitted?  Just
because it feels wrong?


> And that it's okay to torture someone who we know is in guilty
> posession of information that could save 2,823 people.
>
> So, where between those two values does halakhah permit torture?
>
> As I said, proving that one needs/some/  justification is sufficient
> to imply there must be a "shiur".

Not until we first establish that there is any separate issur on
torture, beyond the issur to inflict *any* harm on someone.

Your proposed kal vachomer was from tzaar baalei chayim, but in any case
where one could even contemplate using torture (i.e. where one has already
established that *some* kind of force is allowed) TzBCh doesn't apply, so
the KvCh doesn't work.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:54:59PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I presume also to torture in order to retrieve a stolen quarter.

> Why do you presume it?  Is it OK to hit someone for that reason?  If
> not, then we don't need to ask about torture.  If yes, then on what
> basis do you *presume* that torture is not also permitted?  Just
> because it feels wrong?

Hitting someone in order to get a quarter back is itself a minimal
case or torture.

We're miscommunicating because you are saying that there is no separate
issur of torture beyond hitting, something to which I agree. I don't think
hitting in order to get something from someone and torture are different
things.

However, I am saying that the question of issur veheter and what
constitutes sufficient justification for torture does exist -- because
the question exists for hitting.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507               require one to be strict with another?

On 14/05/2012 10:03 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Hitting someone in order to get a quarter back is itself a minimal
> case or torture.

Not as the term is usually used.


> We're miscommunicating because you are saying that there is no separate
> issur of torture beyond hitting, something to which I agree. I don't think
> hitting in order to get something from someone and torture are different
> things.

I'm not sure there isn't a separate issur.  I just can't think of one.
Maybe it does exist, and someone can find a source for it.  But the
original question assumed that there was such an issur and asked whether
it could ever be overcome, and RLL's answer was that first one must
establish that the issur exists, and then we can talk about its limits.

  
> However, I am saying that the question of issur veheter and what
> constitutes sufficient justification for torture does exist -- because
> the question exists for hitting.

Oh, OK.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:43:12PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:

: why do we hold up a finger (pinky among some congregations

: when the Torah is lifted???

 

For the record: This is not mentioned in Shulchan Aruch, nor in the Kitzur SA ? and not even in the Kitzur Yalkut Yosef.

 

-          Danny

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120515/acb85a04/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/14/2012 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> On 5/13/2012 3:26 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
>>> is torture ever allowed in halacha???
...
> If tza'ar baalei chaim isn't allowed, lo kol shekein humans.
> So, there has to be a criterion for justification.

I would think that the only criterion would be "is it necessary?"
Just as in tzaar baalei chayim.

Lisa

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:

> On 5/14/2012 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> >> On 5/13/2012 3:26 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> >>> is torture ever allowed in halacha???
> ...
> > If tza'ar baalei chaim isn't allowed, lo kol shekein humans.
> > So, there has to be a criterion for justification.
>
> I would think that the only criterion would be "is it necessary?"
> Just as in tzaar baalei chayim.


Necessary for what means? To force him to grant a Get? To force him to make
a business deal?

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120515/8f4f24d4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:47:40PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
: I would think that the only criterion would be "is it necessary?"
: Just as in tzaar baalei chayim.

In general, halachic ethics are deontological, not consequentialist.

Consequentialism: the more ethical choice is the one with the better
outcome.

IOW, if a consequentialist saw a runaway train about to mow down and kill
five people, he would divert the train to a track on which only one
person is stuck.

Deontology: the more ethical choice is the one in which the fewest
rules are violated.

The deontologist would allow 5 to be killed besheiv ve'al ta'aseh rather
than actively murder.

Halakhah's deontological nature is implied by the machloqes Reish Laqish
and R' Yochanan about what to do when an enemy tells a group of Jews to
either turn one of their number over to be executed, or all will be killed.

Consequentally speaking, the logical thing to do is to pick one to be
killed, since if you don't, that person will be killed anyway -- along
with the rest of the group.

But neither RY nor RSBL tell us to do that. Rather, one may only do so
if the enemy says "turn over Sheva ben Bikhri" (to give the example
from Shemuel II). And according to RSBL, this was only because David
haMelekh knew Sheva b Bickri is chayav misah -- otherwise their naming
a particular victim doesn't matter.

This came up lemaaseh during the first Lebanon War. (Story heard from
RARakeffetR.) 5 soldiers went into a building in Berut to check if it
was safe. They make it to the top of the building, and having completed
their inspection, gave the all clear. 100 or so chayalim start storming
the building when the enemy blows it up.

Does one:

Recover the 5 boys at the top of the building in hopes of saving them?
But then meanwhile, more of the chayalim who are trapped further down
in the rubble will die.

Or:

Bulldoze away the top layer of the rubble, killing the 5 boys (some of
who are likely dead already, all of whom are omedim lamus without help)
in order to save far more boys overall?


Back to nidon didan...

For this reason, we can't simply say that torture is justified
when you can inflicting no more pain than you are saving. That's
consequentialist. Deontologically, we might require more suffering rather
than actively inflicting pain.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?

where is this minhag brought down ? when did it  start?  were some  eidot 
not  noheig?  [ i don't  remember ever seeing this growing up]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120515/9eefb27f/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/15/2012 7:09 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net 
> <mailto:l...@starways.net>> wrote:
> On 5/14/2012 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2012 3:26 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
>>>>> is torture ever allowed in halacha???
>> ...
>>> If tza'ar baalei chaim isn't allowed, lo kol shekein humans.
>>> So, there has to be a criterion for justification.

>> I would think that the only criterion would be "is it necessary?"
>> Just as in tzaar baalei chayim.

> Necessary for what means? To force him to grant a Get? To force him to 
> make a business deal?

I agree with RZS. Any case where any physical coercion whatsoever is
permitted, I'd imagine torture would be permitted. I don't see any
halakhic distinction between types of physical coercion. Certainly
in a case of war, torture is a valid way of getting information.
Contrary to the nonsensical claims that it never or rarely provides
useful information, it can be extremely useful if done properly.

On 5/15/2012 9:05 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:47:40PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> : I would think that the only criterion would be "is it necessary?"
> : Just as in tzaar baalei chayim.

> In general, halachic ethics are deontological, not consequentialist.

<snip>
> Back to nidon didan...

> For this reason, we can't simply say that torture is justified
> when you can inflicting no more pain than you are saving. That's
> consequentialist. Deontologically, we might require more suffering rather
> than actively inflicting pain.

The discussion is kind of lame if we ignore context. What is the purpose
of the torture? Is it to get someone to give up trade secrets? Is it to
get a terrorist to reveal the location of a bomb?

I don't think "inflicting pain" as such is forbidden. It isn't by
tzaar baalei chayim, and I don't imagine it is by people, either.
Possibly inflicting pain on another Jew is forbidden if there's no
legitimate reason, but as I said in the other email, I don't think
there's any source for it being any different than any other sort of
physical coercion, including imprisonment.

Lisa


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 43
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."