[Avodah] lifnei iver/kanaus

[Chana Luntz]

RAB writes:

> 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.

Only if you understand the lo ta'aseh of pen yosif as forbidding any
kind of hitting in any context.  If however you understand the words as
they read literally - pen yosif, ie that what is forbidden is excessive
hitting, then all the sources allowing a rav to hit etc is only setting
out what are the permissible levels of hitting, so that you know when it
is that you hit (if you will excuse the pun) the lo ta'ase.  There is no
need for chinuch to be doche a lo ta'aseh, the lo ta'aseh is never
activated until the Rav hits excessively.

> 
> 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.

You don't find sources that would appear to support wifebeating somewhat
troubling? (BTW on the subject of kanaus, what say those on this list
who have said one cannot indulge in being a kanoi unless one has the
absence of negios of a Pinchas.  In particular, what do you think of the
Trumas hadeshen that appears to be the source of the Rema, where it
would seem hard to believe it was possible for there to be no personal
negios - ie cursing and showing an absence of kavod to the in-laws being
the crime in question.  And how about the case brought in the Shulchan
Aruch and as discussed by the meforshim there regarding the
permissibility to, it would seem, get involved in a fight that involves
ones relatives even where one would not necessarily have done so in
other contexts)?

> 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".

Ah, but what and where is there a "heter to confiscate" and what does
that mean halachically?  The sources, as Rav Henkin brings, are clear
that the taking of somebody else's property without their permission,
even with the intention to later return it, falls within the halachic
definition of stealing.  The prohibition on the Torah regarding stealing
is not phrased in the manner of pen yosif - "lest he exceed", but is a
stam prohibition, thou shalt not steal.  So where are you finding the
wriggle room within that definition for a "heter to confiscate"?  And
how are you analysing such a heter?  Is it hutra or dechuya?  
 
>    >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.

First you have to show the existence of a heter to steal.  Then, it
would seem, you need to be able to justify that the appropriate
relationship of the Rav to the property is as a shoel or a shomer - I
don't think even RDB would go that far.  And then of course you need to
show that a shomer (chinam presumably) is permitted to use the object
which he is holding for mitzvah purposes without the consent (and
presumably against the wishes of) the true owner.  Of course, if you are
willing to hold that the Rav represents a shoel, you don't even need to
raise the question of mitzvah, the Rav presumably could use the object
for any purpose that he desired (he could play ball with it himself if
that is what he chose to do).  This does beg the question, however, as
to whether the Rav would be chayav to pay for it if the object was
permanently lost or stolen.  Without wanting to put words into his
mouth, my guess would be that RDB would hold no, on the grounds that if
the Rav is patur from galus if he kills the talmid, then surely he
should be patur from paying if he confiscates the talmid's property
intending to do so for a short time, and the property gets lost, stolen
or damaged, even without swearing (which presumably a Rav would not want
to do). But then that would appear to take it out of the category of
shomer chinam or shoel, so it would sound like you hold differently.
> GCT
> 
> Akiva

Gmar tov

Chana