Exercise of authority by the individual
Several places cite evidence that one can exempt one’s friend from a prohibition even by causing harm (and perhaps even by causing injury): Rav Ada bar Ahavah tore someone’s garment out of modesty (Berakhot 20), Maimonides in Hala’ Kilaim says that one who sees one’s friend with kilaim jumps on him and tears it off, and in Pihamash he wrote that not only is it forbidden to repair utensils to be suspected of being broken, but that it is proper to spoil them, and in Khum 12:13 he ruled that it is permissible to hit in order to exempt one from a prohibition (although there it is speaking of someone who hits another, and perhaps it is permissible because in any case there will be a beating in the end, and if it is pale, he is also violating a prohibition, and apparently this is what the Rambam means there that only someone under one’s permission is permitted to hit him in order to exempt him from a prohibition in other cases, but then it is not clear where the permission to hit someone under one’s permission comes from).
This question, of course, also arises in moral matters, such as animal activists who release animals that are suffering, thereby financially harming those who cause them distress.
In exercising such authority by an individual, there are two problems in my understanding: 1. Causing anarchy – I throw your smartphone down my toilet because I think it is forbidden, but maybe someone will go ahead and break my toilet so that I can’t throw it away, and of course all of this leads to the holy wars that we know from, for example, Funbiz. 2. Violation of the autonomy of the individual – I can go steal poor chickens locked in a battery coop, but then someone will come and steal my dog because I didn’t fulfill an ark mitzvah and it is not humane to raise a dog like that (this is of course an extreme). After all, these are usually cases where there are sides here and there, for example, what is the appropriate balance between animal cruelty and using them for benefit, and my intervention in everything that seems immoral to me violates the decisions of the other.
What is your general opinion on such cases (halachically and morally)? For example, when should animals whose owners abuse them be released by robbery?
This is a very difficult question. I myself encountered it when I was in Yeruham. A friend’s son who studied there in a Haredi yeshiva came to us, and we lent him a reading book (by Joseph Heller – in the Ha’Machs Milkud 22, something happened). The yeshiva supervisor caught him with the book and confiscated the book. He came to me ashamed and told me. I told him to tell the supervisor that if he didn’t return the book to me, I would sue him for Torah law and/or complain to the police. The supervisor said that he had already thrown it in the trash (whether he had or not), so I demanded compensation from him and I received it. After that, I really thought to myself that from his perspective, this must be an abomination and therefore deserves to be destroyed, but what can I do if I don’t agree with it?!
I think that in places where there is disagreement, such a step requires at least a decision by a judicial body or a broad consensus. Of course, this does not close the matter either, since any savage can decide that the necessary consensus is among the members of his collective and that all the others are criminals and amarites. But savages do not seek regulatory rules for their activities. Those who do seek such rules would do well not to resort to violence and harm unless there is the consent of some objective institution and their personal opinion is not enough.
The examples given in the Gemara can be considered examples that have the approval of an authoritative institution (the Talmud itself), and therefore it is justified to act according to them. But of course, this is not the case today, since today we are not a society that accepts the Talmud, and in our life circumstances, these instructions are not always correct even for those who do accept it. Therefore, today I hardly see a situation in which there is justification for violent action to prevent a prohibition.
Regarding the book confiscation, I don't know the case, but the confiscation is not always because the book is “abomination” in the eyes of the supervisor, sometimes it is a sanction for not following the rules, and then the student enters the place.
This is similar to the case where a yeshiva boy plays ”Tetris” or ”Rami” during the seder. He is expected to have the game confiscated + a fine, even though the game is not “abomination”. In such a case, should he contact the court or the police?
First, this is not the case because the fact is that the supervisor refused to return it to either him or me, claiming it was an abomination. Second, you can still contact the police because the fact that they violated the rules justifies punishing the guy but not confiscating and stealing my book.
Tearing a book and all, you might think.. If that's the rules - there's nothing to be done, you have to be smart and not unjust. And regarding the above examples, cell phones, toilets, etc. - the laws of the country deny it, so the Torah certainly does. Unless it's a real idolatry. Which commands its cutting off and loss from the world.
The same goes for a person's cruelty to his own animal. Report him to the authorities and they'll deal with him. Haha, why do you need to do anything other than report him? Sorry I answered the question
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
