RnCL writes, regarding Rodef:<br><br>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">>> It is not a genuine case of a kal v'chomer from one<br>issur to the next, it is a case of all issurim being doche to pikuach
<br>nefesh. <<</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>But, if the saving of the victim will be accomplished equally effectively by killing the Rodef or having him lose a limb, we MUST aim for his limb. I am suggesting that in a case of equal effectiveness in stopping the rodef, faced with a choice of having him lose a limb or lose money, the Shelo Yehei Gufo Chaviv MiMamono is obvious. I think we would be horrified if someone chose to permanently maim a Rodef when he had the equally effective option of taking his property.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">>> If you were to<br>run a kal v'chomer in this context would you not say - since we can push<br>
aside shabbas (an issur punishable by misas beis din) to do a bris,<br>surely we can push aside the issur of gezela and steal in order to do a<br>bris? Or, for that matter - if we can push aside the issur of gezel for<br>
the mitzvah of chinuch of a talmid, why cannot we push aside the issur<br>of gezel so that the rav can take the talmid's lulav so as to fulfil his<br>mitzvah with it -both only involving the taking for a very short time?
<br>Why is this different? <<</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The issue is not a Kal VaChomer in that sense. The issue is, starkly, if the Torah allows Reuven to deprive Shimon, forever, of his arms, legs, eyes, ears, tongue, and teeth, (which are certainly Shimon's 'property'!), then it follows that he can deprive him of 3 dollars in pursuit of that same overrriding goal, Shelo Yehei Mamono Chaviv Migufo. It makes no sense that I can take away the use of a child's hand for two weeks in the interest of Chinuch, but I can't take away his keychain. Because to whatever extent his personal rights to the use of that keychain bar me from taking it, his personal rights to the use of his hand are more intrinsic, and I should be barred from taking that away from him.
</div><br> </div>