"Ask the Rabbi" by R. Mermelstein
QUESTION: Dear Rabbi
Mermelstein:
I am forwarding the following link in the hope that you might
comment on it's content. I received the link from Aish.com's weekly web
update. I realize that Jews are probably as split on the subject
material as other US citizens.
Thomas
17 Apr 2000
>From: [name omitted]
>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 3:06 PM
>To: [name omitted]
>Subject: Re: [Fwd: ballot initiative update, etc.]
>
>I read it, and this is why Israeli Jews hold American Jews in contempt.
>Has your Rabbi e-friend ever visited the Gun Owners Alliance site? They have
>a feature called "Ask the Rabbi" wherein he quotes jewish scripture to support
>his (the opposite) stance.
>
>you wrote:
>>
>>I happen to have a Rabbi for an email pen pal. I've been communicating with
>>him for quite a number of years and receive his weekly news letter
>>"Shabbot Shalom". Item six in this weeks edition is interesting and shows a
>>different philosophy from the "Ask the Rabbi" column. The kind of philosophy that
>>got so many of them killed during WWII.
>>
>> 6. Society: JEWS AND GUNS - What is the Jewish view on gun control and hunting?
>> By Rabbi Benjamin Blech
>> http://aish.com/ar.asp?an=1240
ANSWER: Dear Thomas,
From the web site you refer, I quote Rabbi Benjamin Blech:
The Code of Jewish Law (Shulchan Aruch) declares that it is forbidden
to own a vicious dog, even though someone may consider it as a pet or
for protection. Why? Because its propensity for hurting others
outweighs any other possible benefits. Such a dangerous object could
scare people, or worse -- get out of control and cause terrible harm.
Dogs can only bite. Bullets kill. If Jewish law demands "dog control," it most assuredly must insist on gun control as well!
END QUOTE OF RABBI BLECH
Rabbi Blech would do well to refresh his memory of the Mishnah in Bava
Kama, 15b. Most children in Orthodox Jewish schools usually learn this
section of the Mishnah and Talmud in the 5th or 6th grades. No doubt
Rabbi Blech has been too busy to review the learning of his youth.
Elucidating on the laws of damages as stated in Exodus 22, the Mishnah
delves into the Biblical differentiation between a docile ox that
causes damage, injury, or death to another animal or person and an ox
with a propensity to damage, injure, or kill based on its prior record
of having done so three times. Until a fourth occurrence, the animal is
considered docile and the owner must only make partial restitution. The
Mishnah (Bava Kama, 15b) states, "Man, a wolf, lion, bear, leopard,
panther, and snake are considered forewarned", meaning that people and
owners of these animals are not entitled to a grace period of three
incidents before having to make full restitution to victims through
their actions. "Man", in all cases meaning an adult that understands
right from wrong, is the operative. Notice that no inanimate object is
mentioned in the Mishnah.
The Talmud, also Bava Kama, 15b, states, "Rabbi Nosson opines that one
should not keep a vicious dog or a ladder in poor repair in his (or
her) home, for the Bible (Deuteronomy 22) says "You shall not bring
blood upon your house." Here, Rabbi Benjamin Blech makes a poor
analogy. A vicious dog may attack someone, and a rickety ladder is an
accident waiting to happen. I have yet to hear about or see a firearm,
all by itself, shoot someone. Neither is a firearm in good repair an
accident waiting to happen. If one has young children, common sense
would dictate that a firearm, knife, matches, power tools, poisonous
household chemicals, medicines, or anything else capable of inflicting
injury when improperly handled by children or uninitiated adults be
kept from their reach. Therefore, Rabbi Blech's hasty argument of "Dogs
can only bite. Bullets kill. If Jewish law demands 'dog control,' it
most assuredly must insist on gun control as well!" is so hopelessly
flawed that anyone of average intelligence will dismiss it as a great
leap of the imagination.
Sincerely,
R. Mermelstein
ADDENDUM: 26 January 2001
QUESTION: Dear Rabbi
Mermelstein:
As one who learned in Kollel for fourteen years and who knows something
about guns, I find it disappointing that Aish would post an article
that contains explicit errors of Torah Law as the "Gun Control" article
by Rabbi Benjamin Blech. Other commentators have expressed their logic
in disagreeing with Blech's conclusion, they are all correct. But I
wish to focus on the mistakes and misinterpretations of Torah Law found
in the article.
1. Rabbi Ezekiel Landau in his classic work, Nodeh B'yehuda only
expressed a prohibition on hunting for sport. But explicitly permitted
the killing of (nonkosher) animals for the hides, or to protect crops
or livestock from predators. There is no prohibition anywhere, implicit
or explicit on sport target shooting.
2. Blech misapplies a Torah dictum, "You shall not ... put a stumbling
block before the blind." This prohibition is only in the negative
sense. Certainly a Jew is not allowed to give a gun to a criminal or an
irresponsible person. But even if advocating for gun bans were a
Mitzva, it wouldn't fall in this category. A true Torah scholar (albeit
misguided about guns) might have cited, "do not stand idly by your
brother's blood," which commands a positive action. The fact of the
matter is, it has been statistically proven that more guns in the hands
of responsible civilians prevent and reduce crime. Therefore, if there
is a Mitzva of the Torah, it is to advocate (1) all states enact
on-demand concealed carry weapon permit laws (2) the multitude of
strict laws already on the books, be enforced (3) no parole or plea
bargaining on weapons violations for criminals.
3. Blech states, "The Sages are saying that even in the messianic
age—when only peace will prevail—weapons will be refashioned so that
there not remain any possibility for their accidental misuse." This is
wishful thinking on Blech's part, the Talmud states nothing about
"accidental misuse." Perhaps this is an example of the injection of
modern politics into the ideas of the Sages. The true meaning is, in
the days of the Messiah, mankind will lose the desire to use weapons
for killing others and therefore remold the materials into useful
tools. As for the argument between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages. The
Sages never intimated that weapons were prohibited to possess. They
were merely citing a reason that disqualified them from being
considered an honorable adornment, which is considered worn as opposed
to being carried. Rabbi Eliezer never argued that weapons will have a
shameful connotation in Messianic times. But until then, due to the
fact that weapons are a necessity to protect society and are, in fact,
worn in an honorable fashion (such as a king or a military officer who,
in full dress, wears a sword) they do presently constitute an
adornment, and may be worn in a public domain on Shabbos.
4. Blech cites, "The Code of Jewish Law (Shulchan Aruch) declares that
it is forbidden to own a vicious dog, even though someone may consider
it as a pet or for protection." I don't know which edition of the
Shulchan Aruch Blech learns from, but nothing of the sort can found in
editions I have checked out. The Shulchan Aruch, CM 409:3 states, "It
is prohibited to raise a vicious dog unless it is restrained by a metal
chain and kept leashed (at all times). In a city that is adjacent to a
rural area one may raise him (such a dog) and he is kept leashed during
the day and released at night." The Rema adds that nowadays, among
gentile nations (who commonly keep dogs) it is permitted to keep any
dog. But if the dog is so vicious as to cause harm, he must be
restrained on a metal chain.
As mentioned, I can't locate Blech's citation of Shulchan Aruch, which
contradicts the Halacha in the standard editions. But let us accept his
premise that there is an analogy between possessing a vicious dog and a
gun. According to Shulchan Aruch it is perfectly permitted as long as
it is kept in a safe manner. Agreed. All sensible gun owners keep their
weapons safe and locked away when being stored. The Rema indicated that
since gentiles possess dogs, so may we. Perhaps he was alluding to the
fact that since gentiles who may be hostile toward Jews may use their
dogs to attack Jews, the Jews in turn may keep dogs for their own
protection. We can deduce form this, that if there are criminals loose
in the streets who threaten society with their guns, law abiding
citizens are also entitled to keep and bear arms in response. Thank
you, Rabbi Blech.
5. Last, I quote Blech, "Because its propensity for hurting others
outweighs any other possible benefits. Such a dangerous object could
scare people, or worse—get out of control and cause terrible harm."
Rabbi Blech, have you forgotten what you stated toward the beginning of
your article, "Of course, there is some validity to the NRA's slogan
that, "Guns don't kill. People do." I've been around guns for almost
forty years, I've never seen a firearm "get angry" and start firing
away. If guns scare people, should we demand that police stop carrying
them in public? Why should a trained, responsible, law abiding citizen
be disadvantaged from criminals any more than a police officer? Rabbi
Blech, no gun advocate or defender of the 2nd Amendment ever insisted
that everyone must own a handgun (even the law in Keneshaw Georgia is
only symbolic and not enforceable). If guns frighten you, don't go near
them; that's your personal choice. But don't try to limit my right,
ability and obligation of the Torah to protect myself and others with
the best physical tool for the job.
Rabbi Sender Goldberg
Click
here to write Rabbi Mermelstein your questions!
[Back to "Ask
the
Rabbi"]