- This topic has 34 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Is it really a clear-cut issur. What are the sources? Is there no Gemarah the permits it?
chabura is certainly an issur of bal tosif.
However an issur to damage property is less clear
But once the teeth are out of us not part of him anymore. So if you go ??? ??? it won’t be Chaburah. And even about paying for it, can’t you say ??? ??? ??????
Don’t rely on comments here, ask a rav.
are you a dentist?
If he says “why did Hashem take YOU out of mitzraim?”
Knock his teeth out. Go for it.
Mistranslation is fun, but don’t knock out anyone’s teeth.
if hes your slave, dont do it 😉
Oh, I was hoping you’d come and knock out my neighbor’s teeth.
Why can’t you do it yourself?
If you deliver a free pair of dentures, you will probably save he/she dental fees on the long term.
why u want this ??
Froggie – if your assumption is bringing you to practically do things, I’d refrains from making such large assumptions. If the goal is to discuss and learn how the halachos work, go right ahead and make large assumptions.
However, being that the psukim and common sense (which is only applicable to “mishpatim”) are explicit that this behavior is assur and reprehensible (respectively), your assumption should only last for as long as you’re utterly ignorant and senseless.
Acc to the Rambam in Chovel Umazzik, intentionally hitting a fellow jew is a lav dioraysah.
So are you permitted to extract the teeth with pliers?
But your bein adom lamakom is your business. Your bein adom lachavero involves the neighbor whose teeth you will not knock out.
If I remember correctly, the gemara specifically says to knock out your neighbors teeth if he stole something from you and has it in possession. The gemara says this is a better approach than just taking back the item it back yourself, lest someone think that you are a thief. By making a scene as oppose to sneaking, everyone will know that you are taking your own item. Obviously, if you have a legal remedy then the gemara would prefer exersizing that option first.
froggie: you clearly are fixated on your misunderstanding of what I said in re mixed gyms. From a logical perspective one must build from ground zero. From a practical perspective one must be cautious and use common sense. I was coming from a logical perspective, discussing theory. Further, I requested sources numerous times before suggesting that if the thread implied anything it implied heter. Emphasis on the word if.
An aside counter to your absurd argument: I think your breathing is assur. Stop! How dare you play around with such serious issurim. Everything is assur until proven muttar. Your breathing is like stealing and cheeseburgers. Because it is.
Actually froggie. hitting is assur becasue it is a lav in the Torah of Baal Tosif and as codified by the Rambam. If not for the pasuk forbidding it it would be allowed. (Of course there is also Veahavta lereicha etc…) But there is in fact a passuk in the torah and halacha in shua forbidding hitting.
Things arent assur becasue they seem assur they are assur if the Torah/Chazal/Poskim tell us it is assur. if you dont know if it is assur there is noting wrong with asking whether it is of more knowledgable posters or of your Rav.
Of course nothing is assur unless there is a source at its origin, but from a practical perspective, it is ridiculous to assume heter out of ignorance, or worse, out of ignorance of the source, knowing full well that mainstream frum Yidden are careful. This is what was happening on the other thread.
Who says I have teeth?
DY: “…mainstream frum yidden are careful.” I’d add the word in-town to that.
For the tenth time: my argument was not practical.
You did indeed say you meant it hypothetically, but the nature of the thread, starting with the OP, was practical.
LF: Frankly, I find this thread despicable. You took the built-in assumption that some people care about Bein Adam L’Chaveiro more than Bein Adam L’Makom (and, let’s face it, we all know who “some people” are here) and therefore wanted to prove a point about their gut reactions. You wanted to show that there are disingenuous people who don’t care about Hashem and care about “being nice” more and that for some reason is a P’gam in their Yiddishkeit. It is uncalled-for and unnecessary.
Moreover, you are actually wrong. The rule by Bein Adam L’Makom is if there is no source to Assur, it’s not Assur. Hence, the gut reaction should be to ask someone who knows. On the other hand, there is a pretty famous Gemara (Shabbos 32a, quite possibly the most famous Gemara) that says that the gut reaction to Bein Adam L’Chaveiro should be to err on the side of not doing it.
Froggie, you are funny! Thanks for bringing some well needed humor to the CR!
SiDi™
If it’s Al Sharpton I totally approve
Sam, frankly, your comment to Froggie was unnecessarily harsh. You make a good point that a person’s gut reaction should be to realize that hurting another person is wrong, even without a source.
However, Froggie made a good point, that something which frum society deems wrong cannot easily be dismissed simply in the case that nobody in the CR could provide a clear source in these inyanim, which are vague (how does one precisely define ??? ????).
Daas Yochid boy don’t u dislike Al Sharpton, u would be the first to knock out his teeth I bet
Even if one could provide a source that explicitly prohibits knocking out somebody’s teeth (which unsurprisingly, has yet to happen), the argument could still be made that that is only because some people may feel hatred while engaging in the said act of knocking out teeth. However, if I decide that I will not feel any such hatred, perhaps I should still be allowed to knock out others teeth, especially if doing so will help me exercise.
Sam2, both the OP and the above are obviously satirical, but they are meant to bring out a serious point about being overly resistant to applying general principle to specific cases where they obviously should apply.
And as an aside, whatever happened to “Attacking someone for asking a question is an anti-Torah attitude. Don’t do it. Ever.”? Or do you agree that there are indeed cases where the underlying attitude of question should be vehemently opposed?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.