Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 44

Tue, 15 May 2012

• 1. Re: torture in halacha??? (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: torture in halacha??? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: torture in halacha??? (hankman)
• 4. Re: torture in halacha??? (Zev Sero)
• 5. Recent N.Y. Times Article (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 6. Re: torture in halacha??? (hankman)
• 7. Re: why finger (D&E-H Bannett)
• 8. Re: Daas Torah Rerere...redux - Pesachim 112a (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: torture in halacha??? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: torture in halacha??? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: torture in halacha??? (Zev Sero)
• 12. defining torture (Simi Peters)
• 13. Re: torture in halacha??? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: torture in halacha??? (hankman)
• 15. Re: torture in halacha??? (hankman)
• 16. Re: torture in halacha??? (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: Recent N.Y. Times Article (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: defining torture (Lisa Liel)
• 19. Re: torture in halacha??? (hankman)

On 15/05/2012 10:00 AM, hankman wrote:
> where the father (rebbe) went beyond simple hitting into territory we
> would call abusive and most would argue without permission - then
> perhaps we would part ways. I assume RZS would argue that it is no
> longer a permitted hitting and therefore now asur.

That is the very case of "pen yosif" from which we learn that it's
forbidden to hit people.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:07:28AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
: The discussion is kind of lame if we ignore context. What is the purpose
: of the torture? Is it to get someone to give up trade secrets? Is it to
: get a terrorist to reveal the location of a bomb?

I thought that's the whole topic -- can anyone provide mar'eh meqomos
for meaningfully discussing how much gain justifies how much pain?

I was adding that because halakhah is deontological, we can't assume
some kind of 1:1 ratio. A consequentialist could say that we have to be
preventing at least as much pain. This way the world is a happier place,
net-net. Deontology's required benefit in order to justify causing pain
is typically going to be higher.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?

RMB wrote:
> We're miscommunicating because you are saying that there is no separate
> issur of torture beyond hitting, something to which I agree. I don't think
> hitting in order to get something from someone and torture are different
> things.

RZS wrote:
I'm not sure there isn't a separate issur. I just can't think of one.
Maybe it does exist, and someone can find a source for it. But the
original question assumed that there was such an issur and asked whether
it could ever be overcome, and RLL's answer was that first one must
establish that the issur exists, and then we can talk about its limits.

CM asks:
Well what about cases where there is no ?hitting,? but there is either
physical or psychological pain, such as say, 1) sleep deprivation, 2)
deprivation of food and water by a near starvation diet, 3) being forced to
stand all day, 4)  getting a little more physical,  to be subjected to the
much discussed water boarding, and I am sure we could dream up many others.
What would these be considered if a father or rebbe tried them? I think
most would think them highly abusive and asur but there is no ?hitting?
involved.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120515/c9b8b938/attachment-0001.htm>

On 15/05/2012 1:52 PM, hankman wrote:
> Well what about cases where there is no ?hitting,? but there is either
> physical or psychological pain, such as say, 1) sleep deprivation, 2)
> deprivation of food and water by a near starvation diet, 3) being
> forced to stand all day, 4)  getting a little more physical,  to be
> subjected to the much discussed water boarding, and I am sure we could
> dream up many others. What would these be considered if a father or
> rebbe tried them? I think most would think them highly abusive and
> asur but there is no ?hitting? involved.

Either they are assault and therefore assur unless there's a specific
heter for them, or they are muttar, or there is some as-yet-unnamed
issur; but before discussing the parameters and limits of that issur
we must first establish that it exists.  Simply saying that "I don't
like it" is irrelevant.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

The recent article regarding child molestation in the frum community is quite disturbing.
I was asked by a congregant what Jewish law says about it.
So the question is: What punishment does the Torah prescribe for child molestation?

On 15/05/2012 1:52 PM, hankman wrote:
> Well what about cases where there is no ?hitting,? but there is either
> physical or psychological pain, such as say, 1) sleep deprivation, 2)
> deprivation of food and water by a near starvation diet, 3) being
> forced to stand all day, 4) getting a little more physical, to be
> subjected to the much discussed water boarding, and I am sure we could
> dream up many others. What would these be considered if a father or
> rebbe tried them? I think most would think them highly abusive and
> asur but there is no ?hitting? involved.

RZS wrote:
Either they are assault and therefore assur unless there's a specific
heter for them, or they are muttar, or there is some as-yet-unnamed
issur; but before discussing the parameters and limits of that issur
we must first establish that it exists. Simply saying that "I don't
like it" is irrelevant.

CM responds:
I thought that was the point of the kalvechomer, for cases such as these.
You are mixing the english (legal term) term assualt with haka?a which of
course are not the same. While these probably qualify for assault, they are
 not haka?a, but they probably are tzar balei chayim.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120515/72539dfc/attachment-0001.htm>

A Sefaradi rav whose name I don't recall noted that pointing 
the appropriate finger at the Sefer Torah is followed by 
kissing the finger. He asks, do they imagine that the 
kedusha of the sefer has been transferred to the finger?

David 

I would recommend the following list of secondary sources on the subject
of daas Torah before entering the n+1st redux of this topic:

- What Daas Torah Really Means
  R' Avi Shafran, NJ Jewish Week
  http://www.tzemachdovid.org/amechad/daastorah.shtml

- Daas Torah: A Modern Conception of Rabbinic Authority
  R' Dr (?) Lawrence Kaplan
  http://www.scribd.com/doc/39842329/
  Kaplan-Lawrence-Daas-Torah-A-Modern-Conception-of-Rabbinic-Authority
  http://scr.bi/KsGxAL

- Daat Torah
  R' Alfred Cohen
  http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/cohen_DaatTorah.pdf

- Observations On And Beyond Rabbi Alfred Cohen's "Daat Torah"
  Yitzchak Kasdan
  http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/observ-on-daat.html

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?

On 15/05/2012 2:09 PM, hankman wrote:
> CM responds:
> I thought that was the point of the kalvechomer, for cases such as
> these. You are mixing the english (legal term) term assualt with
> haka?a which of course are not the same. While these probably qualify
> for assault, they are  not haka?a, but they probably are tzar balei
> chayim.

Again, tzaar baalei chayim means hurting an animal for no purpose.
The moment you have a reason it's not assur.  Whereas hurting a person
is assur, with certain exceptions.  It only makes sense to discuss
torture in a case where it's already been established that force not
amounting to torture is allowed, and any such case will by definition
have a purpose, so the kal vachomer from tzaar baalei chayim will not
work.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 03:01:40PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Again, tzaar baalei chayim means hurting an animal for no purpose.
> The moment you have a reason it's not assur.  Whereas hurting a person
> is assur, with certain exceptions...

For animals, you say that if it's for a reason, it's not assur.
For people, you say it's assur with certain exceptions.

Distinguish between "certain exceptions" and sufficient "reason".

To me they look similar in kind, different in quantity.

FWIW, the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture came up with
    ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
    mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
    obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession,
    punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
    suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a
    third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind...

And Marriam-Webster:
    1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony
      b: something that causes agony or pain
    2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or
       wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
    3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument :
       straining

I assume we're talking about #2. But really, it's RCM's intent that
matters; it was his question we're trying to answer, after all.

So, whether or not torture is permitted appears to me to just be a
different way of asking which forms of torture are motivations included
among your "certain exceptions" in which causing the amount of physical
or emotional pain question is mutar.

As Zev said, there is no issur specific to torture. But that doesn't make
RCM's question trivial to answer. Nor does it mean that it is difficult
to find a case where torture is assur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?

On 15/05/2012 3:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> For animals, you say that if it's for a reason, it's not assur.
> For people, you say it's assur with certain exceptions.
>
> Distinguish between "certain exceptions" and sufficient "reason".

The difference is that TzBCh is specifically about purposeless sadistic
infliction of pain.  It's not the act itself that the Torah cares about,
but the motives behind it, and the middah that allows a person to do it.
Whereas the issur of hurting a person is about the effect on the victim;
instead of "with certain exceptions" I should have said "unless you have
a specific heter".


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

I hope this isn't too pedantic, but can we define 'torture'?  Is there any objective halakhic definition anywhere?

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120515/ce7e5a43/attachment-0001.htm>

On 15/05/2012 4:40 PM, hankman wrote:
> think you need to define ?for no purpose,? wrt tzaar baalei chayim

It is permitted to pluck a feather from a living bird in order to make
a pen.  This is something that no decent human being would actually do,
but it is not forbidden under the rubric of tzaar baalei chayim, because
the intent is not the bird's suffering but to obtain the feather, and
the bird's suffering is merely "psik reisha".  (For that matter,

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

RZS wrote:

Again, tzaar baalei chayim means hurting an animal for no purpose.
The moment you have a reason it's not assur. Whereas hurting a person
is assur, with certain exceptions. It only makes sense to discuss
torture in a case where it's already been established that force not
amounting to torture is allowed, and any such case will by definition
have a purpose, so the kal vachomer from tzaar baalei chayim will not
work.

CM asks for clarification:

I think you need to define ?for no purpose,? wrt tzaar baalei chayim and
then clearly define the heter you refer to when you say ?force not
amounting to torture is allowed, and any such case will by definition have
a purpose? and verify that this would be the same ?purpose? as the ?for no
purpose,? above.

For example, 1) I kill an animal for meat to satisfy my hunger, 2) I kill
an animal for meat to satisfy my (not hunger) enjoyment of food, 3) I kill
an animal for meat for my hunger, painfully, 4) I kill an animal for meat
to satisfy my (not hunger) enjoyment of food, painfully, 5) I kill an
animal to make an ornament of its horns on my wall, 6) I kill an animal to
make an ornament of its horns on my wall, painfully and because I enjoy
watching the pain, (you could throw this last phrase  into any of the above
as well), 7)  I kill an animal	painfully and because I enjoy watching the
pain ? it is psychologically soothing to my psyche, 8) I kill an animal
painfully because I want to and I am a control freak, so this satisfies me.
Which are purposeful and which are purposeless? If I do it, it is always
because I want to satisfy some desire I have  ? so is that a ?purpose.?

So in these various nuanced types of ?purpose? cases, will the ?purpose? in
tzaar baalei chayim always be satisfied by the implied ?purpose? you
derived ?by definition?  from the heter in those cases of haka?a ?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120515/53bee8fa/attachment-0001.htm>

On 15/05/2012 4:40 PM, hankman wrote:
> think you need to define ?for no purpose,? wrt tzaar baalei chayim

RZS reponded:
It is permitted to pluck a feather from a living bird in order to make
a pen.  This is something that no decent human being would actually do,
but it is not forbidden under the rubric of tzaar baalei chayim, because
the intent is not the bird's suffering but to obtain the feather, and
the bird's suffering is merely "psik reisha".  (For that matter,

CM responds:
This didn't respond to the question. I didn't ask for an example of 
purposeful - I asked how you define (or at least a couple of examples of) 
non-purposeful.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster

On 15/05/2012 7:08 PM, hankman wrote:
>
> On 15/05/2012 4:40 PM, hankman wrote:
>> think you need to define ?for no purpose,? wrt tzaar baalei chayim
>
> RZS reponded:
> It is permitted to pluck a feather from a living bird in order to make
> a pen. This is something that no decent human being would actually do,
> but it is not forbidden under the rubric of tzaar baalei chayim, because
> the intent is not the bird's suffering but to obtain the feather, and
> the bird's suffering is merely "psik reisha". (For that matter,
>
> CM responds:
> This didn't respond to the question. I didn't ask for an example of
> purposeful - I asked how you define (or at least a couple of examples
> of) non-purposeful.


How is it not obvious?  The issur is where the animal's pain is the
purpose, and not where it's just the unintended effect.  For Shabbos
psik reisha negates davar she'eino miskaven; for TzBCh it doesn't.



-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 01:55:37PM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: So the question is: What punishment does the Torah prescribe for
: child molestation?

AFAIK, there is no halachic category of child molestation.
It is deemed another case of causing mental and physical pain to
another, without having special laws about it being abuse in particular.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 5/15/2012 3:24 PM, Simi Peters wrote:
> I hope this isn't too pedantic, but can we define 'torture'?  Is there 
> any objective halakhic definition anywhere?

That's just the thing.  There isn't one.  There isn't a subjective one, 
either.  The concept doesn't even exist, which is why some of us have 
been maintaining that it's a non-question.

Lisa

> On 15/05/2012 4:40 PM, hankman wrote:
>> think you need to define ?for no purpose,? wrt tzaar baalei chayim
>
> RZS reponded:
> It is permitted to pluck a feather from a living bird in order to make
> a pen. This is something that no decent human being would actually do,
> but it is not forbidden under the rubric of tzaar baalei chayim, because
> the intent is not the bird's suffering but to obtain the feather, and
> the bird's suffering is merely "psik reisha". (For that matter,
>
> CM responds:
> This didn't respond to the question. I didn't ask for an example of 
> purposeful - I asked how you define (or at least a couple of examples of) 
> non-purposeful.

RZS responded:

How is it not obvious?  The issur is where the animal's pain is the
purpose, and not where it's just the unintended effect.  For Shabbos
psik reisha negates davar she'eino miskaven; for TzBCh it doesn't.

CM responds:
Not obvious to me. If the purpose is fulfilling my satisfaction, need or 
desire (which must be why I am doing this) then why is that not purposeful - 
and that will always be the case? That was the point of that list of cases 
in the previous post. what is the difference between my DESIRE for food, 
money, joy in a horn trophy on my wall,  warped psychological joy or need to 
see pain. The purpose will always be my satisfaction from the pain not the 
pain itself.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 44
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."