<div>RnCL writes:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>>Rav Henkin rejects this argument in the teshuva immediately following<br>(siman 48 of Chelek Sheni of Benei Banim) (clearly his correspondent had <br>responded to this effect) holding that in his view the one has nothing
<br>to do with the other. Starting from the language of the Torah (where<br>the one prohibition is phrased as lo signov stam, while the other is pen <br>yosif) and working through the various sources that discuss hitting a
<span></span><br>talmid, he holds that while striking a talmid is mutar m'dina and its<br>justification, when done appropriately, can be found throughout the <br>sources, the taking of property has no source to permit (and he deems it
<br>noteworthy that wherever the permission to strike a talmid is brought<br>down in the various sources, this is not anywhere coupled with a comment <br>that the halacha of lo signov can as a kal v'chomer be waived). <<
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So if I were to ask R' Henkin, in a situation of a Rodef, where I have a choice of either blinding him (Chavalah) or taking his money Al Menas LeHachazir, to save the Nirdaf, that these are equally good options? Or, based on the Pen Yosif/Lo Signov distinction, that it is better to blind him?
<br> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><br> </div>