tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post7224530922385381604..comments2024-03-25T09:43:27.402-04:00Comments on Divrei Chaim: Rachel stealing the terafim: afrushei m'siursa by a ben noach Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-16460660951699538592015-11-26T14:54:04.909-05:002015-11-26T14:54:04.909-05:00The issue of whether hezeik is included in the iss...The issue of whether hezeik is included in the issur of Gezel appears to be a machlokes. <br />Tur 378. <br />כשם שאסור לגנוב ולגזול ממון חבירו כך אסור להזיק ממון שלו אפילו אינו נהנה<br />Also, Rabbeinu Yonah in Avos 1:1.<br />כתוב "לא תגזול" וכל "נזיקין בכלל אותו הלאו", והן הן התורה שהיה קבלת משה בסיני אע"פ שלא נכתבו<br />Also, the Steipler in BK1 suggests that it might stem from the din of Shoftim and b'tzedek tishpot.<br />OTOH, <br />the Yad Rama BB 26a;107, that the issur stems from either lifnei iveir or ve'ahavta,<br />and the Rosh Teshuva 108:10 that it's from דרכיה דרכי נועם, <br />and the Rashash in Kesuvos 18, and that Steipler in BK:1, and the Minchas Chinuch in the Kometz 11, who all say that it is derived from a kal vachomer from hashavas aveidah.<br />According to the former, the issur of mazik is indivisible from Gezel, or falls under the umbrella of Mishpat, and so would apply to Bnei Noach. According to the latter group, it would not.Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-72573172861606287412015-11-24T23:19:41.295-05:002015-11-24T23:19:41.295-05:00Excellent chiluk. And it may be that Ya'akov ...Excellent chiluk. And it may be that Ya'akov assumed that the terafim were destroyed.<br /><br />Which begs the question: why didn't Rachel destroy them? Could she have thought that her actions were a kind of bittul avoda zarah?pellehDinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08182620985068790625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-37325839214301320352015-11-24T19:06:48.848-05:002015-11-24T19:06:48.848-05:00>>>I assumed everyone up to Har Sinai did...>>>I assumed everyone up to Har Sinai did not have a din of a Yisrael.<br /><br />First essay in the Parashas Derachim deals with these issues. TOo big a debate to summarize.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-82220188154469694862015-11-24T19:05:20.297-05:002015-11-24T19:05:20.297-05:00Maybe you can destroy it but not steal itMaybe you can destroy it but not steal itChaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-16475194261988345442015-11-24T18:08:41.414-05:002015-11-24T18:08:41.414-05:00If Rachel had the din of a Yisrael, how did she ma...If Rachel had the din of a Yisrael, how did she marry her sister's husband?<br /><br />Also, I thought that part of the reason that someone who ate gid hanashe rendered in cheilev would be chayav malkos twice was because gid hanashe was an issur hakolel, different in kind than cheilev, because it once included benei Noach. So I assumed everyone up to Har Sinai did not have a din of a Yisrael. (Not even Yisrael himself.) Which also fits deriving the steps for geirus from the preparation for Maamud Har Sinai.micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-4091970968793171382015-11-23T23:59:38.726-05:002015-11-23T23:59:38.726-05:00So Nimrod, having to be mekayem the mitzvas bnei N...So Nimrod, having to be mekayem the mitzvas bnei Noach of mishpatim, was correct in throwing Avrohom into the kivshan ha'aish?? And had he not, Nimrod would have himself been chayav misa for not having mishpat, as were the anshei Schem?<br /><br />Perhaps the issur avoda zarah intrinsically involves destroying it even for a ben Noach, and not just for Yisroel where it is explicit.pellehDinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08182620985068790625noreply@blogger.com