[Avodah] lifnei iver/kanaus

[Akiva Blum]

   >> 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.
   >
   >Well it is not my heter - after all the right to hit a student, at least
   >with a retzua katana, is enshrined in the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah
   >siman 245 si'if 10.  And the Rambam in hilchos talmid torah perek 2
   >halacha 2 specifically says that one should hit the talmidim so as to
   >put fear upon them (albeit with a retzua katana and not with shotim).

Yes, yes. I mean according to your analysis that chinuch shouldn' be able to overide any lo ta'aseh, it should follow that a rav can never hit a talmid - and that isn't true as you have well shown.

   >Even more generally, there are opinons out there that one might find
   >somewhat worrying to modern sensibilities, but I am not sure we should
   >pretend they do not exist.  For example the Rema states in Choshen
   >Mishpat Siman 421 si'if 13 "v'chen mi shehu tachas reshuto v'roeh bo
   >shehu oseh d'var averah rashai l'hachuso v'lyissuro cde l'hefrusho
   >m'isur v'ain tzarich l'hevio l'beis din (trumas hadeshen siman 18)"  He
   >also brings a linked statement in Even Haezer siman 154 si'if 3 as a
   >yesh omrim (and then brings an alternative opinion that it is absolutely
   >forbidden), but I am afraid he then goes on to say that the first
   >opinion is the ikar.
   >

Why does this trouble you. One might be justified arguing that in the 21st century it would be largely  inaffective. Or that it's a dangerous slope. But surely fom a moral standpoint, his longterm welfare is of paramount importance.


   >> 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.
   >
   >If you assume that it is a svara, then you have two choices. Either you
   >say that the various heterim regarding hitting a talmid and more general
   >hitting in order to separate from averah are also gzerot hamakom (based
   >on pen yosif) in which case you cannot use the sevarah shelo yehe gufo
   >choviv mimamono, or you say that they too allow application of the
   >svarah, in which case you have certainly opened the floodgates even
   >wider than the Rema would have seemed to.  At the very least you appear
   >to be saying that according to the Rambam a rav may steal from a talmid
   >in order to create fear!
   >

Not steal. If there is a heter to confiscate, then absolutely, why not?  It's far better than hitting, especially if one has "modern sensibilities".

   >> > 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.
   >
   >You hold a lulav hagozel is mutar on the second day?  I don't think the
   >Mishna or the Shulchan Aruch (see Orech Chaim siman 649 si'if 1) agrees
   >with you (kol arba minim poslim b'gozel or b'gonav)!
   >

Again, not stolen. Once it is mutter to confiscate, the rav is a shoel/shomer.


GCT

Akiva