June 24, 2014 1:27 pm at 1:27 pm #613069splendaMember
If someone was forced to steal food to survive, does that make it muttar under the rubric of pikuach nefesh?June 24, 2014 2:16 pm at 2:16 pm #1021452
Yes, but he has to pay back.June 24, 2014 2:36 pm at 2:36 pm #1021453jewishfeminist02Member
Also, you don’t make a bracha on the food.June 24, 2014 2:36 pm at 2:36 pm #1021454akupermaParticipant
1. Probably not if by stealing the food someone else’s would starve to death.
2. “Survive” does not include ice cream, nice fleisigs, wine, etc. It means enough to stay alive. Not enough to feel like you are a normal middle class consumer.June 24, 2014 2:56 pm at 2:56 pm #1021455
HaLeiVi: Actually, it’s Lich’ora a Machlokes Rishonim. I think Rashi in Bava Kama holds Assur L’hatzil Atzmo B’mamon Chaveiro is literal. And there are more Rishonim who hold that if you don’t have money to pay back then it’s also Assur.June 24, 2014 4:24 pm at 4:24 pm #1021456
Sam, I remember that as well. How does that work, though? Is it somehow considered one of the gimmel chamuros?June 24, 2014 5:02 pm at 5:02 pm #1021457yaakov doeParticipant
There certainly are other ways to obtain food except possibly in times of war.June 24, 2014 5:16 pm at 5:16 pm #1021458
DY: It would have to function under the rubric of Yesh Koach…, I would think. It’s not so clear that Rashi actually ever held that way because, frankly, it’s a very tough Shittah to digest. There are those who say B’feirush, though, that if you can’t pay back then you can’t save yourself (I think the Meiri or the Shittah Mekubetzes there in Bava Kama 60 quotes them). It’s very difficult to understand. If you’ve seen a good P’shat, by all means please share.June 24, 2014 5:25 pm at 5:25 pm #1021459
Not yet, I was hoping you did.June 24, 2014 7:01 pm at 7:01 pm #1021460
I don’t think it’s so much an Inyan of being more Chamur than other Issurim as much as the fact that you don’t have the right. Your Heter doesn’t change someone else’s property. But if I’m recalling correctly, we safely assume that anyone has Daas to allow someone to survive.June 24, 2014 8:01 pm at 8:01 pm #1021461
HaLeiVi: That would only be if we Pasken Yeiush Shelo MIda’as. SInce we don’t, you would have to know.
I assume that one of the reasons people say Rashi doesn’t actually hold what he seems to say is because what happened to Nicha Leih L’inish L’me’evad Mitzvah B’mamonei.
DY: I mean, the best I can think of is a Yesh Koach to impress upon people how much you really need to worry about other people’s property. But that’s weak.June 24, 2014 8:10 pm at 8:10 pm #10214622qwertyParticipant
In our times there are soup kitchens so i dont think its justified.June 24, 2014 8:54 pm at 8:54 pm #1021463
??”? ??”? ?’ ??”?June 24, 2014 10:10 pm at 10:10 pm #1021464
??”? ???? ???? ??”?
The ??”? I referred to is here: (It’s actually ??”?, can the moderator please change that for me? Thanks.)June 24, 2014 10:47 pm at 10:47 pm #1021465DikDukDuckParticipant
Well we know that we should give up our lives instead of worshiping idols. Worshiping idols is one of the three cardinal sins, as is murder. Murder is a type of stealing, because if you kill someone you are stealing their life. So maybe you should give up your life instead of stealing.
HUGE STRAW MAN ARGUMENT HEREJune 24, 2014 11:08 pm at 11:08 pm #1021466
DDD, explain, please.June 24, 2014 11:25 pm at 11:25 pm #1021467
HaLeiVi, Your Heter doesn’t change someone else’s property.
I don’t get that. Your pikuach nefesh doesn’t make it your property, but it changes what you are allowed to do with someone else’s property.June 25, 2014 1:01 am at 1:01 am #1021468
The idea is that while Bein Adam Lamakom is up to Hashem to allow, Bein Adam Lachaveiro leaves you with a person to deal with. Your Hetter can’t break the boundary and play with someone else’s property.June 25, 2014 1:10 am at 1:10 am #1021469MachaaMakerMember
Why wouldn’t it be pikuach nefesh?June 25, 2014 1:57 am at 1:57 am #1021470rationalfrummieMember
nicha lei l’inish does not apply if the cheftza would be irreparably damaged by someone else’s use. I think the mishnah berurah has an example that you can’t take another guy’s sefer cause your using it would devalue the sefer. In this case, not only is the food devalued, it doesn’t exist! So it should be assur from that angle.June 25, 2014 2:10 am at 2:10 am #1021471
RF: That’s what the Shulchan Aruch says (14:4). The Achronim (I think even the M”B) explain that because in his time, Seforim were both incredibly valuable and easy to damage. Thus, it wasn’t worth it (the Tzitz Eliezer applies this to other people’s Taleisim now that we know about germs, even though the Mechaber is explicit that a Tallis is okay) so we assume that someone won’t let without explicit permission. Many Poskim nowadays say it is okay to borrow Seforim without permission because they are much more durable nowadays and less valuable, so people are more inclined to let someone use them. It would take a very cruel person to not allow someone to lose your money to save his own life. Thus, we should assume that he would want you to eat. Why that logic doesn’t hold true is the question.June 25, 2014 3:39 am at 3:39 am #1021472
Sam, you’re weighing the losses, but that not the reason for the chilluk you quote; borrowing seforim today is not considered to cause a loss (shava pruta) at all.
HaLeiVi, you are making the claim (to defend Rashi) that yaavor v’al yehoreg doesn’t apply to beim adam lachaveiro. This is in fact what the Binyan Tzion says. I wouldn’t say it precisely the way you did, though, because at the end of the day, Hashem is the baalim on that as well. Maybe it’s a good enough sevara to be a pircha on a man matzinu, though.
R’ Moshe rejects this, though, because why would a person’s life be any better than his money, and we need a limud for r’tzicha.
Binyan Tzion bavorned this, though, and says ein hochi nami, but we need a limud for a case of mechilah, which surely works for money, but doesn’t for r’tzichah.June 25, 2014 3:40 am at 3:40 am #1021473
Sam, nevertheless he has a point. The fact is it is about letting someone use but not about giving away. This is the problem with the only coat left in Shul while mine is missing. We can’t say Nicha Lei to trade with me since he obviously has mine.
On the other hand, Yi’ush Shelo Midaas is when the person is unaware of the item being lost. In this case, we are saying that there is automatic Daas to be Maskim to sell. Automatic Daas is a Svara that we use often. Nicha Lei utilizes this.June 25, 2014 3:43 am at 3:43 am #1021474
MachaaMaker, I think the OP met to ask if the issue is pushed off for pikuach nefesh, assuming a case that it is, in fact, pikuach nefesh.June 25, 2014 6:39 am at 6:39 am #1021475
DikDukDuck used the logic of the famous “All cats die, Socrates is dead. Therefore, Socrates is a cat” thing.June 25, 2014 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm #1021476takahmamashParticipant
Jean Valjean was arrested for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister’s starving child . . . and look what happened to him.June 25, 2014 1:19 pm at 1:19 pm #1021477
Rebyidd23, that’s not a straw man argument.June 25, 2014 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm #1021478
Didn’t say it was.June 25, 2014 2:11 pm at 2:11 pm #1021479zahavasdadParticipant
During the Holocause Stealing food was really the only way to suriveJune 25, 2014 5:37 pm at 5:37 pm #1021480
Irrelevant. “Is” and “was” are two different things.June 25, 2014 6:21 pm at 6:21 pm #1021481DikDukDuckParticipant
I like silly logic. I’m a duck.June 25, 2014 8:54 pm at 8:54 pm #1021482
You’re a low duck. 🙂June 26, 2014 3:38 am at 3:38 am #1021483
DY: That can’t be right. Damage of less than a Shaveh Prutah is still damage and still exists. I don’t have R’shus to be Mazik you less than a Shaveh Prutah.June 26, 2014 5:12 am at 5:12 am #10214842qwertyParticipant
If a person does steal food in order to survive from hunger does that mean for the rest of his life he will be doing mitzvas haba’ah b’aveira?June 26, 2014 6:07 am at 6:07 am #1021485
No, but there may be an assumption of reshus for a mitzvah, mah she’ein kein for damage of more than a shava prutah.
In other words, the nicha lei d’isavid mitzvah b’momonei includes hishtamshus and the slight “wear and tear”, both of which would be assur without mitzvah, but there’s no nicha lei on a bigger loss.June 26, 2014 11:41 am at 11:41 am #1021486
DY: So, basically what I said. 🙂June 26, 2014 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm #1021487
You wrote, “Why that logic doesn’t hold true is the question.”, but I think I’ve answered it.
I think there’s another pshat out there; I’ll see if I can find it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.