[Avodah] lifnei iver/kanaus

[Akiva Blum]

   >In the teacher case, we are not generally considered to be dealing with
   >pikuach nefesh.  It is just that it is possible that in the course of
   >hitting a talmid, the teacher might come to kill him.  One has to
   >consider such a possibility reasonably remote - and that this is
   >precisely why the teacher is indeed patur from going into galus.  It is
   >not just that he is doing something mutar (although he may well have
   >ended up violating pen yosif), but that the consequences (ie death) are
   >not reasonably forseeable or particularly expected, and, of course,
   >completely unintended.  However, taking away the talmid's property would
   >seem, as per the definition of gezela, to be straight out stealing.  And
   >the teacher by doing so would seem to be intending to do the issur of
   >stealing (in a way that he never intended to kill).  So you need to ask
   >the question, one what basis can one override the issur of gezel?  This
   >is standard halachic analysis - gezela is a lo ta'aseh, what overrules a
   >lo ta'aseh?  Pikuach nefesh is clearly one such case.  Arguably a
   >mitzvas aseh might do so - but the mitzvah of chinnuch is derabanan, so
   >it is hard to see how you can override a lo ta'aseh on the basis of a
   >d'rabbanan.  
   >

Lo yosif pen yosif is a lo taaseh even hitting alone without any damage. What would then be, according to your analasis, the heter to hit the student.




   > Perhaps we can differentiate 
   >> between where the rodeif is a killer, thus since he has 
   >> forfeited his life, his property is undoubtedly worth less, 
   >> and our case where the pupil has forfeited his right to a 
   >> beating. Perhaps his property is more valuable to him. For a 
   >> proof, see pesachim 25a: Rebbi Eliezer says why does the 
   >> Torah say.. uvchol meodecha.. if there is someone whose money 
   >> is more precious to him than his body..
   >
> [as an aside if you apply this reference in
   >pesachim 25a in the way you appear to want to, then should you not also
   >say that all of the punishments of the Torah that relate to the body
   >should perhaps be switched in the case of somebody who values his money
   >more than his body, and similarly perhaps all of the fines in the Torah
   >should be switched in relation to somebody who values his body more than
   >his money?].  

Shelo yehei gufo choviv mimomono is a svara. The ptur is based on the svara. Where the svara doesn't apply, the heter/ptur falls apart. All the punishments in the Torah are not svaras. They are gzerot hamakom.
   >
   >And I confess that the fundamental point that Rav Henkin appears to be
   >making seems very valid to me - if we do not have a source specifically
   >allowing for a kal v'chomer, on what basis can we intuit it?  Because
   >gezel seems light in our eyes (that is what we are really saying by
   >means of the kal v'chomer, isn't it)? 

I am sugesting that in this case, the kal vechomer may not work because gzeila is not kal than chavala - here. But maybe it is.
However, in general we have already shown that WRT the same person we can sum up gufo and momono which is more choviv.

> Or, for that matter - if we can push aside the issur of gezel for
   >the mitzvah of chinuch of a talmid, why cannot we push aside the issur
   >of gezel so that the rav can take the talmid's lulav so as to fulfil his
   >mitzvah with it -both only involving the taking for a very short time?
   >Why is this different?

Because it remains the property of the talmid. I don't why the rav couldn't use it on the second day.

GCT

Akiva