Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> 1. This makes no sense, since its premise - that the law of moser has
>> something to do with the government killing the victim - is patently
>> false. Hamoser *mamon* chavero is no less a mosser.
> in the case of money of a fellow Jew, once it falls into
> the hands of a bandit there is no mercy. Today they take some of it and
> tomorrow they take the rest and in the end the Jew himself is taken by
> the bandits and he is killed because they think he admit he has more
> money. Because it leads to killing, the informing of bandits about a
> Jew’s money is like a pursuer to kill someone (rodef)
This is very remote. The Rosh is clearly looking for a justification
for what seems at first glance a strange law. But if such a remote
possibility of the moser's actions ultimately leading to his victim's
death is enough to compare the moser to a rodef (though we wouldn't
do so in other cases with similar risks), then there is certainly no
justification for *not* treating in the same way one who causes another
Jew to go to prison. Prisons today may be less dangerous than they
were in Roman times, but they are still dangerous places, and the life
expectancy of someone who goes to prison today is diminished at least
as much as that of the Rosh's victim of a financial mesirah.
>> 2. The Aruch Hashulchan absolutely cannot be relied on in this area;
>> his exaggerated flattery of contemporary government is transparently
>> designed to please the censor, and is so over the top precisely so
>> that the reader should understand that he doesn't mean it. E.g. see
>> the title of the siman on hilchot gerut.
> It is hard to accept that the Aruch HaShulchan would lie c.v. about the
> correct halacha See Yam Shel Shlomo Bk 38a
See what he says about gerut. It's not really a lie, if the reader is
expected to see through it.
>> The Ramo permits the *victim* of a violent crime to masser his
>> assailant. I'm not sure that other people are included in this heter.
> Rema (388:7) is dealing with a case that someone is regularly beating
> others - there is no mention how serious the beatings are
>
> *Rema**^[1] * <#_ftn1>*(C.M. 388:7):…* Some say that if a man has been
> hit by another - it is possible to file a complaint with the secular
> government - even though this causes the assailant great damage.
>
> There is also a Shach (388:45) to this effect as well as a Chasam Sofer
> (Gittin 7a).
Where does he say "regularly"? And who suggested that the beating
must be serious? But what source is there to extend this heter to
people other than the victim?
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name eventually run out of other people’s money
- Margaret Thatcher