A Study in Trolls: Updated

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics A Study in Trolls: Updated

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 188 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1758065

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “please find out from him, chapter and verse, the punishment for a non Jew being meanes a non Jewish woman, and the source for special treatment (ie extra severity ) of a molester.”

    Of course! But first let’s think through this. (though I’m not sure why you keep switching to “punishment” I said that it was wrong)

    Having gone to a mainstream yeshiva, you must have encountered the chazal that there are mitzvos known to man without the Torah. It’s a gemara, Rashi brings it in Chumash. Are you familiar with this? Do you need chapter and verse.?

    Now while I assume you encountered said chazal. It seems that you haven’t thought much about it (no fault of yours. what kind of self respecting yeshiva guy sounds time on Chumash or agadata we read it say that’s nice and simple and move on).

    But take a second and absorb the above. There are some acts so abhorent that even without the Torah telling us we would know it’s wrong. (some say this is how goyim are to know all of their mitzvos) Surely, you can grant that being meanes someone falls into that category.
    If you can’t grant that. then well, whether you give it weight or not, “that’s perverse thought ” and sadly I’m not sure we can continue since we must be speaking different languages

    Thus it is wrong for a goy to be meanes someone (you seem to indicate that you weren’t sure about this, and you switch my question to punishment let’s stick to the above for a moment)

    Again, although it doesn’t technically violate any of the sheva mitzvos it is wrong/bad/wicked/sinfull for a guy to do that.

    With me so far?

    #1758060

    Phil
    Participant

    “One can say that a molester is a mazik, and as such is chayav the same as any other mazik. But that is not a special chiyuv for molestation.”

    KY,

    Harav SZ Auerbach, zt”l, Harav YS Elyashiv, zt”l, and the Tzitz Eliezer, zt”l, paskened that a molester is a rodef, not a mere mazik. Victims of molestation who are left scarred with severe emotional trauma, often die from substance abuse and suicide. Perhaps you recall a very public example of this which took place in Brooklyn almost a decade ago.

    #1758049

    klugeryid
    Participant

    In the case of a non Jew that was meanes a non Jewish woman,
    One can punish him for stealing.
    But again that’s not any different than punishing him for taking her pen.
    And it’s possibly only if she “was never married ”
    But my point is that the western horror attached to “meanes ” seems to be completely missing from the Torah View.
    Something which I have found makes most people very edgy when confronted with.
    And that is my main point. Most people I know (myself included) are very much impacted by western ideals, to the extent that when confronted with straight Torah ideals our instinctive reaction is often, that nuts, that can’t be… That’s just Josef trolling. When often it’s actually truth

    #1758053

    yeshivishrockstar2
    Participant

    Kluger – you are thinking very krum. First of all, almost all molesters are repeat molesters, and one who is going to molest somebody has the halachic catagory of rodef – and it is a chiyuv to kill them!
    Furthermore, even by one who won’t repeat the act, a king will often mete out justice in cases where bais din can’t convict. That was one of the purposes of a king.

    #1758058

    klugeryid
    Participant

    To up the squeamish factor
    What is the punishment for being meanes a meter married Jewish girl?
    Money, and he must marry her!!!
    Now granted she can say no way, but think about that, the Torah is saying that the meanes should marry his victim!!!!
    Isn’t that a horrible thing?? We should throw him in jail and lose the key? No??
    She should look at the guy every morning when she wakes up?
    How can that be?
    Obviously the Torah does not view the act with the horror western “civilization ” does.
    Again I’m just reading the Torah.
    If it was as horrible as western thought holds, why would the Torah even allow him to marry her.
    Much less require her to refuse in the instance that she doesn’t want to

    #1758108

    Phil
    Participant

    “Again I’m just reading the Torah.”

    KY,

    So being the fine, Torah-observant Jew that you are, uncorrupted by western morals, if ch”v this happened to your daughter, you’d feel no worse than if a Jew stole her pocketbook? And of course you would insist that she feel the same way? After all, that’s what the Torah expects, right?

    #1758110

    Grey matter
    Participant

    Klugeryid you have the dubious honor of posting one of the silliest things I have seen on this site: Are you saying that that the girls tremendous shame isn’t so bad: That it doesn’t matter that he marriage prospects are ruined. That it’s ok that she was selfishly violated. And your saying all this becomes of your baseless evaluation of the Torah punishment. Wich btw the chinuch explains that that consequence will serve As a deterrent. Jail doesn’t seem to be tremendously effective.

    #1758125

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Ky

    Let’s take it one step at a time. We will get to punishment.

    I asked you a question.
    Ok 2.

    1. Are you familiar with the chazal that there are issurim we would know without the Torah.

    2. Do you agree that being meanes someone is something thst falls into that category?

    #1758331

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    I keep going back to punishment because that was my original question.
    I never claimed these are “good ” activities.
    I am saying that one can see how the Torah views the severity of the bad deed from the proscribed punishment. (usually).

    Next
    “Having gone to a mainstream yeshiva, you must have encountered the chazal that there are mitzvos known to man without the Torah. It’s a gemara, Rashi brings it in Chumash. Are you familiar with this? Do you need chapter and verse.?”
    Mitzvos ? No I’m not familiar with it. Help me out.
    Middos yes.
    So is it wrong for a non Jew to do such a thing? Of course. Just like its wrong for him to spit in someone’s face.
    That’s why I keep going back to the question of punishment, and perhaps why you keep jumping back to “is it wrong ” cause that’s an easy answer. But I never asked that. I’m not discussing that cause I agree.

    Phil, yes I know. You’ll notice though that you are only able to bring from the last generation or so. Do you really believe that In the history of our nation there were no molesters until 1945?
    So where is all the responsa about it?
    The answer is, that even they are not making a new classification called molesters. They are stating the current fact. In today’s World a molested child has a high rate of suicide….. Therefore a molester is a rodef. Were it to be true that a victim of a home invasion were to have the same reactions, then they would also be a rodef (besides “ba bamachteres where applicable) it’s not special to a molester.

    Rockstar, I don’t believe you can punish a one time molester based On the fact that he will probably become a repeat offender. I think unfortunately one would need to wait before acting against him as a repeat offender. (that’s just my opinion nothing to back it up)
    As far as a king, absolutely but remember for most of our history we haven’t had a king and it is actually looked down upon us when we asked for one. So that can’t really be the utopian ideal of taking care of issues.

    Phil no I’d imagine a person in that situation would be aghast. That doesn’t mean I could kill the guy. Much as I’d imagine anyone in such a position would want to.

    Grey matter, I never said any such thing. The Gemmara specifically discusses all those things why would I be so stupid as to say otherwise. I spoke about the punishment.
    But the Torah would not allow it.
    (don’t get into punishment as a deterrent, half the posters opposing me here vehemently disagree with such corrupt thought. I happen to agree)

    Ubiq your second post was posted before I had a chance to respond but I think I responded to it

    #1758346

    Phil
    Participant

    “no I’d imagine a person in that situation would be aghast”

    KY,

    According to your novel interpretation of what the Torah demands, what right do you have to feel any more “aghast” than if her property was stolen? You would be obligated to control your base feelings and properly educate your daughter to do the same. Otherwise, you would be surrendering to impure western morals and going against the will of Hashem, who expects much better from such an ideologically pure person such as yourself.

    #1758353

    klugeryid
    Participant

    btw phil
    please explain to me the idea of having him marry his victim?
    how is that fair to her ever?
    leave off my entire discussion
    just answer this as a stand alone question

    #1758359

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    KY
    “I keep going back to punishment because that was my original question.”

    But you only asked that after my question.

    We will get to punishment. Don’t worry, but in some of your posts you offer (I assume inadvertently) mixed messages on the first step eg “But my point is that the western horror attached to “meanes ” seems to be completely missing from the Torah View.” and “So is it wrong for a non Jew to do such a thing? Of course. Just like its wrong for him to spit in someone’s face.”

    Are you saying being meanes is wrong like “to spit in someones’s face”

    “Ubiq your second post was posted before I had a chance to respond but I think I responded to it”

    You did. you responded that you are unfamiliar with the Gemara, which I find surprising, though I’d have to apologize for criticizing your thinking skills. You simply are unaware of the Gemara

    “”Mitzvos ? No I’m not familiar with it. Help me out””

    Of course! Rashi bereishins 26:5 (I know how much you like chapter and verse) actullay says BY definition “mitzvos” are these self understood commands “מצותי. דְּבָרִים שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא נִכְתְּבוּ רְאוּיִן הֵם לְהִצְטַוּוֹת, כְּגוֹן גֶּזֶל וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים: ”

    So I ask you again. Would you say a rule againt being meanes someone is something you’d need to be told? Or is it self understood?

    One comment of yours surprised me. “As far as a king, absolutely but remember for most of our history we haven’t had a king and it is actually looked down upon us when we asked for one. So that can’t really be the utopian ideal of taking care of issues”

    Are you not aware that “som tasim aleicha melech” is a mitzvah? I don’t understand why you dismiss this so quickly

    #1758363

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    I started a thread about troll categories and it became about women’s voting rights, and then somehow seamlessly transitioned into being about whether or the not the Torah views molestation as such a bad thing.

    I’m so proud of this community…

    I will say, while I don’t see what kluger is getting at and my initial inclination is to think he’s just wrong, you guys keep accusing him of saying that rape is “OK.” Saying the Torah doesn’t prescribe a punishment for something is not the same thing as saying it’s OK. He clearly isn’t saying it’s OK. Which is more than I can say for many of you on that thread that came out when they increased the statute of limitations to sue institutions for these things.

    #1758417

    Phil
    Participant

    “how is that fair to her ever?”

    KY,

    I’m not the poster who is attempting to fabricate all kinds of ideological dogma based on several words in the Torah, you are. That said, it’s completely her decision whether to be married to him and he can never divorce her once they are, unless she agrees. Now, please answer my question (post #1758346).

    #1758472

    klugeryid
    Participant

    ubiq
    the brisker rav says
    on the statement “if we would not have the torah we would learn … from the …
    “but now that we do have the torah we do not do things because of our understanding
    we only do what the torah says we dont learn it on our own”
    same with that rashi.which btw does not say what you claim at all
    it says were they not commanded they are worthy that they should be commanded
    in other words as opposed to chukim which are not understandable, these are.
    nowhere indicating that we would be chayav without the torah commanding us.
    thats why i like chapter and verse so i can look it up!

    ubiq
    quote
    “KY
    “I keep going back to punishment because that was my original question.”

    But you only asked that after my question.”
    end quote

    really?????

    here is my original comment from the question on this thread
    quote
    As a test, I’ll repeat a question I asked a while ago on a different thread, which got no answer there.
    What should be the punishment for someone who is מאנס a woman who was previously married and is now divorced

    now with a break put in cause you obviously missed it

    As a test, I’ll repeat a question I asked a while ago on a different thread, which got no answer there.
    What should be the*************** punishment **************for someone who is מאנס a woman who was previously married and is now divorced

    not sure what is unclear about that
    thats why i like chapter and verse

    im still waiting for the gemorah you quoted which im not familiar with
    and mareh mekomos from your rav

    Are you not aware that “som tasim aleicha melech” is a mitzvah? I don’t understand why you dismiss this so quickly
    because of the passuk before it
    אשימה עלי מלך**** ככל הגויים ****אשר סביבותי
    and look at the haftarah of korach we just lained where shemuel tells the yiddin how bad it is that they asked for a king
    (yes the ramban says its a mitzvah to ask ****just like maakeh)

    phil you just went nasty for no reason
    but ill answer you anyway
    the torah enjoyns us not to act out upon our emotions
    we are not forbidden from having them
    additionally look at the story of dina
    the emotion is correct in its anger in certain cases
    i am discussing punishment
    see above

    #1758521

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    To help out klugeryid,

    The Gemara says “האומר על קן צפור יגיע רחמיך משתקים אותו בנזיפה״

    Because the מצוות are only גזירות

    #1758482

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    It’s simple. You break it, you buy it. (T)

    #1758514

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Phil
    You definitely Took a vehement and nastily worded stand in diametric opposition to my position.
    Having said that
    That’s why I asked you to answer the question irrespective of the entire discussion
    To preempt the answer you gave
    But it seems you don’t have the intellectual honesty to attend to answer it so you obfuscate..
    Oh well
    I’ll enjoy the discussion with those who are more open and honest
    Feel free to rejoin any time

    #1758513

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    KY
    “the brisker rav says…”

    chapter and verse please.

    how does that fit wit hthe Rambam in shmoneh perakim perke vav “הענינים המפורסמים אצל כל בני האדם שהם “רעות”: כשפיכות דמים, וגנבה, וגזלה, ואונאה, ולהזיק למי שלא הרע לו, ולגמול רע למיטיב לו, ולבזות אב ואם וכיוצא באלו. והן המצוות שאמרו עליהן החכמים, ז”ל: ‘שאילו לא נכתבו ראויות הן לכתב”

    He gfoes on to say not to say “לא יאמר אדם אי אפשי (. . אלא אפשי ומה אעשה אבי שבשמים גזר עלי” doesnt apply to things we know would be wrong.

    At any rate though your narrow reading of Rashi, (Gemara yoma really) side steps my point.

    HOW would we know such a thing is wrong? (you say “nowhere indicating that we would be chayav” again, patientce we will get to punishment. first we need to settle whether it is wrong. I am not discussing punishment yet.
    I assume we agree stealing less than shava peruta is wrong, things can be wrong without punishment. (bidei adam)

    “same with that rashi.which btw does not say what you claim at all”

    I quoted it verbatim, in its original

    “But you only asked that after my question.”
    end quote
    … really?????”
    Yes really. It is a follow up from a previous thread wher I asked my question

    unlike you I will actually cite chapter and verse :
    It was the thread titled “Waiter’s finger was in my my soup!” page 2 reply number 1718823
    you addressed the question to me.
    now if you look before that in my replies 1717271, 1716745 and 1716458 (all before yours) I asked my original question that I still havent gotten a striaght answer from you.

    Is it wrong for a Goy to be meanes an unmarried woman.

    In case you did answer and I missed it do you mind obliging and giving a simple yer or no.
    I’m not asking if he is chayiv anything I’m not asking if he gets punished. Just did he do a bad thing ?

    “im still waiting for the gemorah you quoted which im not familiar with
    and mareh mekomos from your rav”

    I never said my Rav had mareh mekomos.
    Though relax we have plenty. Torah is perfect dont chas vesholom be worried that somehting is lacking. You are lacking a bit which is why you seem to be so afraid to answer straight forward questions. but together we will get the emes.
    but one step at a time.

    Again lets settle this simple point. Is it wrong for a goy to be meanes a woman, yes or no.

    (forgive me for not replying regarding the king part we will get there but you get lost covering lots of points at once, or maybe its me but I have been asking thsi question several times now and I’m still not sure as to your view or a person being meanes, youve compared it to spitting, said ” the Torah does not view the act with the horror western “civilization ” does.” “OK is a vague word. I’m not sure what the issur would be though”, ” Same as stealing a penny”.)

    NC

    “Saying the Torah doesn’t prescribe a punishment for something is not the same thing as saying it’s OK”
    agreed

    “. He clearly isn’t saying it’s OK.”

    Its not so clear, he seems to be equivocating in a few posts. and when I ask him outright I havent gotten straight answers . but I will keep trying he came close “Of course. Just like its wrong for him to spit in someone’s face.” Though I’m curious if he actually means that

    #1758553

    Phil
    Participant

    “we are not forbidden from having them”

    KY,

    I already answered your question about “fairness”.

    I realize there are a differing opinions but at times the Torah does enjoin us regarding our emotions; loving Hashem, not hating in our heart, etc. Regarding Dina, I’d say that Shimon and Levi did a pretty good job punishing the perpetrators and Yakov’s criticism wasn’t necessarily over their delivering justice. What a shame that your ideological purity and disdain for western morals wouldn’t be enough for you to control your base emotions. You seem to have a much harder time explaining your “critical thinking” when asked to consider your own personal reactions, rather than just standing on a soap box.

    #1758547

    klugeryid
    Participant

    ubiq
    Is it wrong for a goy to be meanes a woman, yes or no.

    yes its definately wrong

    i never went back to that thread so i didnt realize what you were driving at
    in that thread the question was not addressed to me
    sorry for the confusion

    #1758575

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    KY

    “sorry for the confusion”

    Don’t mention it. I am much more guilty of writing confusing posts.

    “yes its definately wrong”
    Agreed whole heartedly! BH I love shalom

    Now, would you say it is wrong on the level of spitting at somone or stealing a penny (both wrong). Or is it something so much worse, perhaps among the worst things a human can do to another ?

    #1758581

    Joseph
    Participant

    “perhaps among the worst things a human can do to another ?”

    If that had been true, the halachic punishment would have been far more severe.

    #1758493

    Phil
    Participant

    “we are not forbidden from having them”

    KY,

    I realize their are a differing opinions but at times the Torah does enjoin us regarding our emotions; loving Hashem, not hating in our heart, etc. Regarding Dina, I’d say that Shimon and Levi did a pretty good job punishing the perpetrators and Yakov’s criticism wasn’t necessarily over their delivering justice. What a shame that your ideological purity and disdain for western morals wouldn’t be enough for you to control your base emotions. You seem to have a much harder time explaining your “critical thinking” when asked to consider your own personal reactions, rather than just standing on a soap box.

    #1758594

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    “If that had been true, the halachic punishment would have been far more severe.”
    Thats purely assumption. Molesting is something rarely done before witnesses other than the child. A better, more educated assumption would be that Hashem, unlike man, isnt interested in destroying the child a second time or making him testify (is he even a kosher witness) so instead he leaves a special place in hell reserved for these animals and reserves their complete punishment for the world to come.
    As long as youre making things up, at least be realistic.

    #1758593

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    “If that had been true, the halachic punishment would have been far more severe.”

    1) mehechi teisi?
    2) what is worse turning someone into a zionist or killing him ?
    3) I cant help but notice you didn’t answer the question

    #1758580

    klugeryid
    Participant

    No I categorically do not agree it is among the worst things a human can do to another. As evidenced by the lack of severe punishment, and the requirement to marry the victim.

    I happen not to understand it. But I think that that is my short coming
    I think it’s pretty clear from the dinim how Hashem views it.
    I don’t have to like it nor understand it, OK maybe I should try to understand it because it’s Part of Torah but my lack of understanding doesn’t change the truth. It just makes me also impacted by western ideology

    #1758636

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “No I categorically do not agree it is among the worst things a human can do to another…but my lack of understanding doesn’t change the truth.”

    I’m a bit confused.

    why isn’t how bad something is towards a person determined by people?

    For example If I were to ask you what hurts more getting stabbed or shot r”l. would you say well the Torah says the punishment is the same so they are the same.

    Or a better example IF a person tortures and kills someone. Is that just as bad as killing since the punishment for both is the same ?

    I think i’m missing something .

    also do you have a mekor fr this idea that something being bad is determined solely by the punishment?

    As to why the Torah didnt mandate misah, maybe being meanes is so bad that he doesnt even deserve the kaparah of misas beis din? Or “I happen not to understand it. But I think that that is my short coming”

    It seems to me than when faced with this “stirah”
    If its so bad why doesnt the Torah demand a worse punishment. can be resolved wither by saying its not so bad (though I don’t know why) or by saying Its horrible, I don’t know why the punishment isnt worse.

    why do you take the former approach?

    #1758637

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Syag
    You went off topic there
    We are discussing rape
    The Gemmara discusses it being done in the presence of witnesses who warn him
    Yes there are dinim for it being done with witnesses

    It’s not assumption. The Gemmara in many places in סנהדרין when discussing the different עונשים for various crimes, clearly states that the more severe crime carries the more severe punishment.

    Ubiq as I just wrote, it’s not an assumption.
    Answer to #2 making him into a Zionist is worse (I don’t know if today’s “Zionists ” count) as חזל clearly state גדול המחטיאו יותר מן ההרגו
    So why is there no punishment you will ask?
    Great question.
    I will offer a few possible answers.
    1) the שו”ע says you can’t be מחלל שבת to save someone from שמד there is a huge סוגיא there discussing this very question. Look there. It’s probably the same (if I remember correctly one way out was that a person can always do תשובה so מחטיאו is not final whereas if you kill him it’s over)
    2) you can’t give התראה as there is no actual time of “making him a Zionist ” as opposed to the moment he pulls the trigger.
    3) who says there is no punishment ?? Much as we saw before, a list of גדולי פוסקי זמננו who say a molester is a רודף due to the ultimate outcome, who says we would not give סקילה to the Zionist maker based on מסית ומדיח ?? In which case he is getting a worse punishment as killing gets הרג which is less severe than סקילה

    #1758639

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    Google is my friend

    עירובין דף ק – “צניעות מחתול” – על משמעותו של מוסר טבעי

    הגמרא בדף ק עמוד ב עוסקת בעניינים שונים הנוגעים לחיי אישות, ואף עומדת על ההבדלים שבין גברים לנשים. בהמשך לעיסוק זה, מזכירה הגמרא מימרה מוסרית ידועה:

    “אמר רבי יוחנן: אילמלא לא ניתנה תורה היינו למידין צניעות מחתול, וגזל מנמלה, ועריות מיונה”.
    בביאורה של מימרה זו, מצאנו שתי גישות עקרוניות, אשר תהום של ממש כרויה ביניהן. הגישה האחת מיוחסת באחרונים לגר”ח מבריסק. כך, למשל, נוסחו הדברים בשו”ת משנה הלכות (חלק טז סימן קכד):

    “זכר מה שאמר הגר”ח מבריסק זי”ע, שאפילו דאיתא בגמרא עירובין: “אילמלא נתנה תורה היינו למדין צניעות מחתול וגזל מנמלה” – כל זה רק לפני מתן תורה, אבל משנתנה תורה אין לנו שיור רק התורה הזאת, ואין ללמוד דבר מבעלי חיים בפרט טמאים ומאוסים כאלה”.
    הגר”ח לומד את הגמרא כפשוטה: אם לא היתה ניתנת תורה, ניתן היה ללמוד דרכי מוסר מבעלי החיים. אך היות שזכינו וניתנה לנו תורה בסיני, שוב אין כל צורך להתבונן בבריאה, וכל עסקנו אינו אלא בתורה.

    ניתן לעמוד על קשר בין דברים אלה של הגר”ח מבריסק, ובין שיטתו העקרונית של סבו הגדול, הגר”ח מוולוז’ין, בעל “נפש החיים”. לדברי זה האחרון (נפש החיים, סוף שער א), קודם מתן תורה היה מקום לעבודת ה’ אישית, הנובעת מהשגת המושכלות, ומתפיסתו המוסרית והערכית של כל אדם באשר הוא. אך לאחר שניתנה תורה, כל תובנה אנושית, ואפילו תובנה של קדושה, בטילה ומבוטלת, ואין לנו שיור רק התורה הזאת.

    לעומת הרבנים לבית וולוז’ין-בריסק, היו שפירשו את הגמרא באופן הפוך: אמנם ניתנה תורה, אך עדיין יש מקום להתבונן בבריאה, וללמוד ממנה דרכי מוסר. כך, למשל, כתב רבינו בחיי בספרו “חובות הלבבות” (שער הבחינה, פרק ב):

    “כי הבחינה בברואים והבאת ראיה מהם לחכמת הבורא יתברך – אנו חייבין בה מן המושכל, מן הכתוב ומן הקבלה … ואמרו: אלמלא נתנה תורה לישראל, למדנו צניעות מחתול ועריות מיונה ודרך ארץ מתרנגול וגזל מנמלה. וכבר התבאר חיוב הבחינה בברואים והבאת הראיות מסימני החכמה”.
    בניסוח קצר וחד אף יותר הובאו הדברים גם במשך חכמה (פרשת משפטים):

    “ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורותם” … לכן אמר “אשר כתבתי” – בספר הטבע אשר יצרתי, שזה ספר של השם יתברך היוצרה”.
    עולם הטבע הוא מעין ספר תורה נוסף שהוענק לכל באי עולם, ואין ספק שעליהם ללמוד ממנו.

    גם מורנו הרב עמיטל ז”ל דגל בעמדה זו. את דברי הגמרא שלפנינו הוא הביא בפתח הפרק העוסק ב”מוסר טבעי” בספרו “והארץ נתן לבני אדם”, והוא מבהיר:

    “הקב”ה ברא את האדם בצלם א-להים, וחנן אותו ברגישות מוסרית ומצפונית – מוסר טבעי. רגישות זו מאפיינת את האדם מאז בריאת העולם, גם כשלא נבעה מתוך ציווי א-לוהי ישיר … כך עולה מדברי הגמרא בעירובין “אלמלא לא ניתנה תורה היינו למידין צניעות מחתול” … גם לאחר שניתנה תורה, לא ייתכן שהתורה תחייב פחות מאותה תביעה מוסרית”.
    כאמור, שתי הגישות מביאות סימוכין מן הגמרא, והפער ביניהן מעמידנו בפני שאלה ערכית, מוסרית, רעיונית ורוחנית מן המדריגה הראשונה.

    So here you have it
    We have taken both sides of the above.
    Use it as you will
    I can’t figure out how to copy the link but I just Googled
    אלמלי נתנה תורה היינו למדים

    #1758644

    Joseph
    Participant

    KlugerYid is correct.

    Ubiq, KY adequately answered the questions you posed. His point remains and is a strong argument that hasn’t (and can’t) be refuted.

    Syag, lack of witnesses is a separate issue that doesn’t impact this point or discussion. We’re discussing the underlying punishment assuming the criteria for warning and witnesses has been met. That is a sufficient way in determining the severity of the crime. (If there are no witnesses to a murder, the murderer still committed one of the most severe crimes even though he might get away scot-free with murder. The underlying punishment for murder is the death penalty even if the murderer avoided it due to no witnesses.) In your example, had the victim been male it would be a capital offense, the most severe of all crimes.

    #1758659

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Lol Joseph
    “Ubiq, KY adequately answered the questions you posed.”

    So shall be written and so shall be done.
    Gepaskened.


    So why is there no punishment you will ask?”

    Nope I don’t ask that, I use it as an example where the severity Of an onesh is not indicative of the severity of the aveira.

    As you seem to acknowledge later on in your post.

    “Much as we saw before, a list of גדולי פוסקי זמננו who say a molester is a רודף due to the ultimate outcome, ”

    See? Critical thinking, at first you didn’t seem to acknowledge this.
    Are you so sure rape isn’t similar?

    “different עונשים for various crimes, clearly states that the more severe crime carries the more severe punishment.”

    Does it? How sure are you the severity there is against man vs Hashem

    Also what’s worse chilul shabbos or murder?

    #1758660

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    What your missing is clarity and definition to the word “bad ”
    It’s an ambiguous word
    I am using it in a clinical legal way.
    You seemingly are using it in an emotional context.
    A court does not belong meting out punishment based on their feelings.
    That’s what we know of as אין עונשין אלא אם כן מזהירים or in sports lingo, you can’t change the rules mid game.
    The idea of התראה is that a person can only get punished, when they undertook to do the crime knowing they will get the specific punishment. That’s why if you warn them they will get a light punishment and it is an error, you cannot give the correct severe one. Therefore the Torah lays out specific guidelines as to what punishment each crime gets. Rape of a single girl gets שקל 50 and married to her for life.
    Consensual with a married lady gets death.
    Which would you say is “badder “?
    Of a divorced girl there is no clearly spoken punishment .
    Should we say that’s because it’s worse than the other two so it’s so bad there is no earthly punishment?
    I can’t figure out that logic.
    That’s why I chose to say, if an unmarried girl carries a clearly defined punishment, and a married woman is clearly a worse punishment, and a single divorced girl has nothing written, it’s probably because it’s not as bad.
    Just logic
    You want a source for the judging of the severity of a crime by the punishment?
    Start with the Gemmara that asks which is worse, ע”ז ג”ע ושפיחת דמים or שנאת חינם ?
    To which the Gemmara responds
    בירה תוכיח שחזר לראשונים ולא חזר לאחרונים

    There are plenty of other Gemmaras, as I said all over סנהדרין .

    #1758685

    orchadash
    Participant

    What your missing is that if a man is meanes a besulah, in addition to the 50 and marrying her forever, he also needs to pay damages- nezek,tzaar,boshes, ripui including paying for therapy. So he doesnt get away so easy.

    #1758691

    klugeryid
    Participant

    See? Critical thinking, at first you didn’t seem to acknowledge this.
    Are you so sure rape isn’t similar?

    No. Actually I acknowledged it right away and I responded to it.
    It would be difficult to put rape there as the Torah bleary discusses it and does not say you kill someone for it. But if the results matched up with molestation, then your correct I can’t say we wouldn’t kill. But as I said before. The same would go for purse snatching.
    If every victim or many even, committed suicide, it would probably also become a capital offense.
    It’s not specific to rape.

    חילול שבת is worse than murder.
    The Gemmara says it goes by the type of death penalty.
    It’s splits different kind of עריות as well.
    It’s clearly basing how big a rasha he is, by viewing his punishment.

    #1758692

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Nope I don’t ask that, I use it as an example where the severity Of an onesh is not indicative of the severity of the aveira.

    Ah but my question was only rhetorical.
    And my answer responds to your point anyway
    You don’t know that there is no severe onesh for making a Zionist

    #1758701

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    יומא פג א
    מאכילים אותו הקל הקל
    טבל ושביעית מאכילים אותו שביעית
    רש”י – אם אין לנו דברים מותרים כדי צרכו ויש לפנינו מיני איסורים מאכילים אותו הקל הקל שבהם
    טבל ושביעית מאכילים אותו שביעית – לאחר זמן הביעור שהטבל במיתה בידי שמים ושביעית בעשה
    You feed him the smaller issur
    How do you know which is smaller?
    You look at the punishmen

    #1758672

    TAS
    Participant

    @Kluger Yid. I believe that you have made some good points but I disagree with one premise of yours. Namely, the punishment reveals the severity of the sin. I don’t know fully understand why, but punishment doesn’t always reveal the severity of sin. For instance, it is brought down by many seforim that zera levavtala is a huge sin but it is “only” a lav. Other one is hugging or kissing niddah (or any other non relative) because one has to give up his life even though it is a lav but not shabbos. There are other examples but I can’t remember off the top of my head.

    Your points of Western thinking is valid and I am only coming to argue on this one point.

    #1758707

    yeshivishrockstar2
    Participant

    Kluger and Jospeh: You cannot learn the severity of an aveirah from the punishment. This is clear from multiple places in the Torah – I’ll suffice with two examples here:
    One: One who gives all his kids to Molech evades punishment, while one who gave only part gets killed, even though clearly one who gave all is worse.
    Two: Being bo’el a goy is seemingly ad’rabbanan (at least based on the punishment), but its considered worse than being bo’el a niddah.
    Thus, in Torah thought, the punishment shows no outlook on the severity of the crime.
    Furthermore, the Rambam writes that one who is going to be me’aness a woman (or anyone, really) against her will is a rodef and anyone can kill her, which makes the prohibition among the most severe in the Torah. One going to steal or be mazik is not a rodef, but one going to molest is. Obviously, a molester is on par with a murderer.

    #1758764

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Tas
    You are obviously factually correct in your first example. However that is only על פי סוד. When dealing with it on a practical level it’s a מחלוקת if you take that into account.
    (when someone is forced to choose between that and an illicit relationship)

    As far as your second example, it’s simply because of it being אבוזריהו דגילוי עריות which has the same dinim as ג”ע for this פרט

    #1758849

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    KY

    “A court does not belong meting out punishment based on their feelings.”
    Again I’m not up to punishment yet.
    I am trying to understand your view. (ie that we strictly judge how bad an act is based on punishment)

    I’m trying to understand your view that severity of an act is absolutly determined by severity of punishment.

    1) “How do you know which is smaller?
    You look at the punishment”

    Yes klapi shemaya. How do we know whats worse donkey or cheilev. both don’t seem particulary bad to me? We look at the punishment.
    If I were to ask you whats worse being embarrased in public or having you r sheep stolen.

    would you say “well if you steal my sheep you have to pay me 5 times its worth, if you embarras me you get no punishment (from beis din (leave out daas yachid that arent lehalacha) So I’d rather get embarrassed”
    does that make sense to you?

    what;s worse chopping of a leg or stealing a cow.
    Ok let me do the math … a cow cost 100,000 dollars so your knas is 400,000, a leg costs well my value goes down, plus bed rest and doctor bill.. add it all up and ok I guess leg is worse

    Is that really how you view the severity of an act?

    2) You acknowledge rape is bad, if there is no onesh how do you know? Is it worse than stealing? If a single girl would r”l say “please don’t d othat take my money” is she being mesayeah ovdei aveira by encouraging him to do a worse aveira?

    3) After how many exceptions, does your absolute rule of greater punishment = worse act fall apart.
    So far you have “However that is only על פי סוד.,” “it’s simply because of it being אבוזריהו דגילוי עריות ” “a person can always do תשובה so מחטיאו is not final whereas if you kill him it’s over” expanding the rules of meisis to include zionism. I’m not disputing these specific points.

    I’m, just saying that clearly the rule greater punishment = worse act isn’t absolute. As you ackowledge based on the multiple exceptions

    4) Nassan tells Dovid of the rich man who stole poor man’s beloved sheep (Shmuel 2 12) Do you think it is no different than a poor man’s stealing a rich man’s sheep? (Yes David was allowed to punish becasue of din melech, my question is WHY did he punish what in your view (if I understand correctly) is an ordinary act of stealing.
    Is that in fact your view that stealing a poor man’s only sheep is not “badder” than stealing a rich man’s?

    5) “חילול שבת is worse than murder.”

    And yet only one of those is one required to give up one’s life for.
    And here is the real kicker: how do we know, one is required to give up his life rather than kill?
    Is it a passuk or limud of some sort?

    1)

    #1758704

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Does it? How sure are you the severity there is against man vs Hashem
    (talking about the Gemmara in סנהדרין )
    One of the גמרות is trying to figure out the parameters of being חייב מכה אביו
    It doesn’t like one approach because it would come out that it carries a less severe punishment than killing a random person and that can’t be because killing a father must be a worse מיתה because it’s a worse חטא
    Not a difference of לחבירו-למקום

    #1758766

    Joseph
    Participant

    Yeshivishrockstar: What’s your source that being bo’el a goy is considered worse than being bo’el a niddah? I dispute that. I think that’s another example of putting personal feelings over Torah thought.

    #1758768

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Rockstar
    Your jumbling.
    Molech is clearly spoken about, I was waiting for it to be brought up. It’s asked as a open question “how can it be that one and he gets killed but more not “?
    According to you what’s the question. There is no clear rational to a punishment scale
    The premise of the whole question is predicated on my contention.
    Since the severity of the punishment indicates the severity of the crime, how can it be that one kid and he gets killed and more he goes free? How can more kids equal a less severe offense.
    To which a chiddush is revealed that in this case it’s so heinous that no earthly punishment suffices.

    (according to your logic, raping a divorced girl is worse than raping a married woman because by the married Woman you get killed but here nothing?)

    I don’t know the Rambam you are referring to but from the context I’d imagine he means you can kill him right then to stop the act.
    That’s not a punishment. So you can’t bring a proof from that. It’s more like בא במחתרת
    Which does apply in some cases of stealing.

    Orchodosh

    Those are payments that every mazik of another person must deal with
    They have nothing to do with rape
    They apply to it just like they apply if I give someone a black eye
    Which is more to my point. The Torah views the rape like any other person to person hezek
    You Pay what you damaged
    If you do it to a girl who for whatever reason is not bothered by it (I’m discussing hypothetical don’t get sidetracked by telling me it’s not possible) you would not have to pay those payments.
    If that same hypothetical girl was married though, yet would get killed even though she doesn’t mind

    Ergo it’s worse to rape a married woman than a single one.
    Happens to be over there the issue also isn’t the coercion factor. It’s the fact that she is married.

    #1758859

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Should we say that’s because it’s worse than the other two so it’s so bad there is no earthly punishment?
    I can’t figure out that logic.”

    a. Why don’t we say onshin min hadin?
    If a the severity of an act is always graded based on punishment then use a simple kal vachomer, then a more severe act should carry (at least) the same punishment?

    b. Its ok not to be able to “figure out that logic” you acknowledge regarding your view of rape as not being so severe “I happen not to understand it”
    so either way you agree that it escapes your full understanding (not that I understand why it doesnt have a more severe punishment)

    I guess what I’m puzzling over is in spite of you conceding this “lack of understating”, what drives you to stick by your assertion that rape is not among the most abhorent acts, and to have to come up with all sorts of exceptions in order to allow the rule that “greater punishment = worse act” to exist. At the very least, why can’t this be yet another exception (for whatever reason)?

    #1758862

    klugeryid
    Participant

    UBIQ
    your looking (you keep asking) in which case does the victim feel worse. im saying that doesnt equate with the perpetrator having done an objectively worse crime. im discussing from the perpetrators position. so yes if its an act whose consequences are limited to monetary then thats how you judge it
    whats worse ? ruining a classic art painting? or burning down an old barn of the same value?
    they are both the same

    2) its bad from a midos perspective (nogea at least for a yid ) and its a violation of personal property rights

    3)i dont know the magic number but i dont consider the first 2 of these examples to even be exceptions
    the third is no different then calling a molester a rodef so im not sure why even you would consider that an exception

    4)he was a king. it was for midos
    in din they are the same
    5) its a limud מאי חזית דדמא דידך סומק מדמא דחברך

    #1759322

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq I made a huge post last night which I guess was to hot for the mods to let through
    Part of it referenced
    יומא פג-א
    מאכילים אותו הקל הקל
    Look in rashi there
    It’s clear you judge severity based on punishment
    He says it straight out
    I keep sticking to it because it’s true

    #1759352

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    ” Molesting is something rarely done before witnesses other than the child.”

    Murderers generally try to avoid having 2 witnesses as well. What gave you the idea that “the Torah doesn’t bother prescribing a punishment because there wouldn’t be witnesses anyway” is a good argument? (P.S. I don’t disagree with your overall opinion, ethically. That’s just a really weak argument that I felt the need to point out).

    The reason you guys are getting so emotional is because this discussion forces you into a corner. You have to either say that we don’t weigh the gravity of wrongdoings on their punishment in the Torah, or that you simply don’t agree with how the Torah weighs this particular act relative to others (or more likely use the lashon “don’t understand”). You can’t have it both ways.

    Is there not just a definitive proof that we do or don’t weigh acts based on their punishments? I think I remember being told once by a Rebbe that we for sure do not infer from punishment, but I certainly would not know where to find a source for that.

    And, can someone catch me up on the sides here? Is kluger the one arguing that we DO infer based on punishment, or was it someone else and he’s using this case as an example of how we clearly can’t?

    #1759652

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    KY
    “Look in rashi there”

    Im not sure which Rashi you are reffering to.
    I responded t o this. Whats worse tevel or neveila?

    Neither of whcih seem assur on their own, we only know they are assur becasue the Borei Olam told us. SO we dont know what He considers worse, wo we look at punishment.

    Rape vs theft. which is worse. We don’t need to look at the onesh to determine that. that is something we all know. (much like you grant you know rape is assur even though their is no explicit passuk telling you)

    “I keep sticking to it because it’s true”
    Its not, the list of exceptions keeps getting longer

    #1759909

    klugeryid
    Participant

    kluger is the one arguing that we DO infer based on punishment,

    ubiq
    (much like you grant you know rape is assur even though their is no explicit passuk telling you)
    no
    its assur from the overall idea of gezel which extends rto personal autonomy over their body as well
    and its bad middos which are chiyuvim even though not listed explicitly
    see chafetz chaim end of hakdama to sefer chafetz chaim

    i gave you the page of the rashi
    מאכילין אותו הקל הקל – אם אין לנו דברים מותרים כדי צרכו ויש לפנינו מיני איסורין מאכילין אותו הקל הקל שבהם:

    טבל ושביעית מאכילין אותו שביעית – לאחר זמן הביעור שהטבל במיתה בידי שמים והשביעית בעשה:

    i must have missed the growing list of exceptions

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 188 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending