[Avodah] some halachot of moser

[Zev Sero]

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> Because that's all the Rama says (at the end of se'if 7).   He doesn't
>> say anything about other people being allowed to inform on an assailant,
>> but he also doesn't say anything about the crime having to be regular
>> or habitual.  It seems to me just from the Rama's words that this may
>> be a privilege granted to the victim of an assault, because ein adam
>> nitpas al tzaaro.

> At this point I have presented a number of sources while you keep 
> responding with "it just seems to me". Thus you don't have a clear 
> statement that it only applies to victim and you refuse to accept the 
> sources that this is not so. No point in continuing this

Because the sources you present are not talking about the same thing
that the Rama's plain language is talking about.  I'm just taking him
at his word.  This is what he says, and he doesn't say any more than
that.  I have *not* claimed that a third party may *not* masser someone
who has assaulted someone once, but the Rama doesn't say one may, and
nothing you have presented shows otherwise.


>>> *Sema (C.M. 388:30)*:This that the abuser is not reported to the
>>> secular authorities is only when he is verbally abusive to the
>>> individual but if he causes financial loss and surely if he beats
>>> him or causes bodily suffering it is permitted to report him to the
>>> secular authorities as is stated in the Rema and the Darchei Moshe.
>>
>> Sorry, you've mistranslated the Sema in several places.  There is
>> nothing in the Sema about "verbally abusive", or "causes financial
>> loss".  
> 
> This is the understanding of the Chasam Sofer (Gittin 7a) and the 
> Minchas Yitzchok (8:148)- sorry you disagree with them.

Again, you have simply mistranslated the words.  The Sema's words are
what they are, and anyone can look at them and see that they are not
as you have quoted them.   The Chasam Sofer does say this, but not in
the Sema's name.  The Minchas Yitzchok quotes the Sema, and seems to
understand him to be *generally* following this line of reasoning, but
doesn't go into details, since the point of the teshuvah is not about
an individual at all, but about a tzibur.   Nor is any of this
relevant to our question, which is whether a third party can inform on
one who assaults an individual.


> Bottom line. You have a concern that there might be a difference
> between the victim and others. You bring no source to justify this
> concern

My source is the Rama himself.  All I have done is quote his exact
words, and posit a reason for why he *might* mean exactly what he
says.  To show that he didn't mean it, the burden is on you to show
him saying the opposite somewhere else.


> and you reject all the mainstream sources which indicate that there
> is no difference.

So far you haven't brought one.  All the sources you quoted were
about averting danger to the public, which is not what we are talking
about.  Again, the topic here is the Rama's heter for an individual
to inform on someone who has physically assaulted him; we are not
talking about someone who poses a likely danger to the public - that
is another topic.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher