[Avodah] Can you steal/damage to prevent an autopsy?

[Marty Bluke]

This is a followup to the Areivim discussion Re: Torah without Derech Eretz

Here is an interesting article which discusses whether you are allowed
to steal to save your own life
(http://jlaw.com/Articles/ch_stealsavelife.html).

"... There are sources that indicate that one may not steal even if it
is for pikuach nefesh. The Binyon Tzion, Rav Yaakov Ettlinger, brings
two sources that show authorities of the opinion that it is forbidden
for a person to steal even if his life depends on it.7

The first source is a Gemara in Bava Kamma8 that relates a story from
Sefer Shmuel about King David.9 King David was fighting the
Philistines when he became very thirsty. He said "if only someone
could give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem which is in
the city of the gate." Upon hearing this, three of David's men broke
through the gate and retrieved water. Before drinking, David sent a
question to the Sanhedrin, asking permission to drink the water, to
which they responded in the negative. The Gemara understands the
passage to be speaking of David's wish for halachic guidance. The
"mayim" being referred to was not physical water but the waters of
torah. According to R' Huna, the question David was asking was whether
he was permitted to destroy the property of another for pikuach
nefesh. David and his army were in the middle of a barley field where
the Philistines were hiding. He wanted to torch the field so that the
Philistines would retreat and thereby avoid an ambush on his army. The
problem was that the barley field belonged to another Jew. David
inquired if he could save himself and his army by sacrificing the
property of another. The Gemara states that the Sanhedrin sent him
back a ruling that it was forbidden to destroy the property of another
to save his life, however since he is king, he has the power to do
what he wants with the property of his people.10

>From this Gemara a conflict arises between Rashi and Tosafos. Tosafos
maintains that David was not asking the Sanhedrin if property
destruction was permitted to save a life, because that was obviously
permitted. David was aware of the rule that when there is a possible
danger to life, one may transgress any sin in order to escape the
danger, with the exceptions of idolatry, forbidden relations and
murder.11 Thus, one is clearly allowed to destroy someone else's
property in order to remove a threat to life. David's question was
whether he was liable to compensate the owner if he burnt the field.
The Sanhedrin responded that it was forbidden to burn the property
without compensating the owner. Tosafos further explains that the
reason this rule is stated in the gemara in terms of a prohibition (It
is prohibited for a person to save himself…) is to imply a caveat
where there is another way to save oneself that does not entail the
destruction of another's property, one is indeed prohibited from
destroying that property.12

The Rosh13 agrees with Tosafos and states that the Gemara never
contemplated whether it was forbidden to save the life of the Jewish
army at the expense of someone else's crops. Such a ruling was obvious
since nothing stands in the way of pikuach nefesh except the three
cardinal sins. David was inquiring about compensation to which the
Sanhedrin responded was obligatory.

The Binyon Tzion states that Rashi disagrees with Tosafos'
understanding of the Gemara and maintains that the Gemara should be
interpreted literally.14 King David asked whether he could burn the
field to save his soldiers, which the Sanhedrin prohibited. According
to Rashi, a person is not allowed to steal or damage another person's
property even under threat of death and even if one will repay the
loss. Therefore it is Rashi's opinion that one may not steal even if
it is for pikuach nefesh.

The second source that the Binyon Tzion discusses is a Gemara in
Kesubos,15 that describes a scenario where a witness is given the
ultimate to sign a false note, which will award money to an
undeserving party, or be killed. Rav Chisda says that Rav Meir rules
that in such a case one should allow himself to be killed rather than
sign the note since signing the false note would be stealing. Rava
disagrees with the view of Rav Chisda and rules that the witness may
sign the note since nothing stands in the way of mortal danger other
than the three cardinal sins, which stealing is not a part of. The
Rambam states that Rav Chisda's interpretation of Rav Meir is correct,
and brings a Braisa Kitzonis (excluded beraisa) to show that R'Meir
adds theft to the list of the cardinal sins holding that stealing is a
form of killing. Additionally, the Shitta Mekubetzes in Kesubos16
quotes from the Rambam that the question of whether or not stealing
should be the fourth of the cardinal sins may be a matter of dispute
among the Tanaim.

In addition, there are sources that seem to imply that stealing is
forbidden even for pikuach nefesh. Meseches Yoma17 records a story
where a Tanna stole a loaf of bread from a farmer in order to save his
life, and was rebuked for doing so. In Bava Kamma18 there is a case
where the Rabbis objected to a person keeping in his possession an
animal that grazed other people's property, thereby stealing from
others even though the animal was needed to save the owner's life. The
Yershalmi in Avoda Zara19 implies that stealing is equal to the three
cardinal sins of Judaism. Forcing someone to steal is like forcing him
to kill. Since one cannot kill to save a life, one cannot steal
either. The Beraisa in Meseches Semachos20 compares one who steals to
one who murders and worships idols; the Vilna Goan21 compares a thief
to an adulterer and a violator of Shabbos. From these sources, we can
see that although theft is not formally on the list of cardinal sins,
there are authorities that believe that theft is similar enough to
murder, adultery and idolatry that it is forbidden to transgress even
at the expense for the sake of pikuach nefesh.

Despite these sources, the halacha follows the views that one can
steal for pikuach nefesh, but only on the condition that the property
be returned or the owner compensated for the property's value.22 The
Shulchan Aruch23 states that, except for idolatry, illicit relations
and murder, a person is permitted to transgress all the sins in the
Torah rather than be killed. Therefore, if a person's life is in
danger and he must steal to save himself, he can do so. However, he
must have the specific intention to pay back the owner. The Rambam24
rules that if a person commands a Jew to transgress one of the
commandments or be killed, he should transgress rather than be killed.
He learns this rule from the pasuk "vechai bahem." Moreover, if a
person is in this situation and chooses to die, he is guilty on his
life.25 The Rambam applies the law to all commandments except
idolatry, illicit relations and murder.26

In conclusion, the dominant view in Jewish law follows the Shulchan
Aruch27 and the Rambam,28 which allows a person to steal or damage
property of another to save his own life. Thus, one may break in to
the house of another, or steal insulin if that was necessary to save
his life. However, such a person must compensate the owner of the
property."

It is clear from the above to steal to prevent an autopsy from being
done would be prohibited (the whole heter above was pikuach nefesh
which does not apply here) especially if you have no intention and/or
no way of paying back. Therefore, to throw rocks and damage property,
burn garbage bins etc. where the rioters have no intention of paying
back and in fact in many cases don't even know who to pay back would
be categorically prohibited.