It’s no secret that my sons and I has been reading comic books for close to four decades. I think you can divide the superheroes into three categories. Since I’m more familiar with the DC universe, my examples will be from there with one exception. The first category is the Boy Scout. Batman calls Superman a Boy Scout because Superman pretty much embodies his moral code to the equal to the Scout’s Law “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.” Which Superman no matter how dark and cynical the DC world tries to be, is all those. Batman falls into the second category, a vigilante. Many members of the police force call him a vigilante. Although Batman works outside the law, he has his own moral code that he never transgresses. Batman rejects the use of deadly force and refuses to allow even his arch enemies like the Joker to die by his hands through inaction on his part. The third category are those superheroes who take justice into their own hands. Although Jason Todd a.k.a. Red Hood was the second Robin, he does not object to mete out justice to those who deserve it. And even better example is the Punisher in the Marvel universe.
Starting with yesterday’s daf TB Baba Kama 27b and continuing in today’s daf, the Gemara litigates whether one is permitted to take justice
into his own hands.
Here is the case study. “There is a certain cistern
belonging to two people whose arrangement was to alternate its use so that
every day one of them would draw from it in turn. It happened that one
of them came and was drawing water on a day that was not his turn.
His co-owner said to him: This is my day to draw, not yours. His
colleague did not pay attention to him. The person whose turn it was
therefore took the handle of a hoe and struck the person who was
stealing his water, who then sued for damages.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Rav Naḥman
and Rav Yehuda disagree whether a person can take justice into his own hands. “This
is as it was stated, that Rav Yehuda says: A person may not take
justice into his own hands, whereas Rav Naḥman says: A person may take
justice into his own hands.” (Sefaria.org translation)The Gemara limits the
disagreement to the case when there’s no immediate loss. “Where there is
an imminent loss that will be suffered if the injured party does not
take action, everyone agrees that a person may take justice into his own
hands. They disagree only when there is no imminent loss
that will be suffered. Rav Yehuda says that a person may not take justice
into his own hands, because since there is no loss, he should go before
the judge to have him enforce the law. Rav Naḥman says that a
person may take justice into his own hands. Since he is acting lawfully,
as he is clearly in the right, he need not trouble himself to go before
the judge to have him enforce the law.” (Sefaria.org translation)
After citing
eight different misnayot to litigate
whose position is the correct one, the Gemara remains inconclusive. According
to halakha, a person may take justice
into his own hands. If he sees his stolen object in the thief’s possession, he
may take it back even with force. If the thief refuses to return the object,
the owner may beat the thief to retrieve his property. However based on some of
the case studies in the Gemara, the Rama and the Tur limit the ability of the
owner to beat the thief to when there is no other way of retrieving his
property. This halakha applies both
when there is an immediate loss and when there’s no immediate loss as long as
the owner can successfully defend his case later in court. When it comes to
matters of monetary issues, the halakha
always follows Rav Naḥman. See Shulkhan Arukh, Hashen Mishpat, 412:4.
No comments:
Post a Comment