More Discussions for this daf
1. Kedushah 2. Women wearing Tefilin 3. Baal Keri learning Torah
4. Tosfos DH Shev 5. Time to eat vs. Time to Bentch 6. Question on Rashi regarding Kavod ha'Briyos
7. Children and Mezuzahs 8. Chiyuv d'Rabanan Being Motzi a Chiyuv d'Oraisa 9. Tum'ah of Zera
10. Talmid Chacham 11. Rav Ada bar Ahavah's zealousness 12. Bentching/Shochad
13. Ba'al Keri Meharher 14. First Tosafos on Amud Bais 15. Mitzvos Lo Sa'asei she'ha'Zman Grama
16. Rav Yochanan by the Mikva 17. Chinuch for Tefillah 18. Tosfos Divrei Hamaschil Ba'al Keri
19. Women and Tefilin 20. Problems with the Kal v'Chomer 21. Mezuzah

Yehonasan Gefen asks:

the Gemara on 19b and 20a gives a few cases where we are docheh an issur for kavod habrios. One is in hashavas aveida where we learn from 'vehisalamta' that in inyanim of mamonos kavod habrios is docheh even doraisas - the implication is even kum v'aseh doraisas and not just shev ve'al taaseh. on 20a the Gemara gives another example - that is not doing korban Pesach or bris for a meis mitzva - the Gemara there says that kavod habrios is docheh a doraisa that is shev ve'al taaseh. Rashi there (dh:aval) implies strongly that according to the maskana we are only maikel by hashavas aveida because it is also a shev ve'al taaseh. However I would have said from the previous amud that even all mamanos inyanim, including kum v'asehs would be docheh kavod habrios - According to my logic it would seem to be mutar for someone who finds himself withuot clothes to steal clothing because of his kavod habrios (as gezel is an inyan of mamonos)) Is this true? is my diyuk in Rashi correct -

and is Rashi difficult?

Yehonasan Gefen, Ramat Beit Shemesh

The Kollel replies:

It would seem that someone who finds himself without clothes may not steal clothing according to Rashi because of his own Kavod, for the following reason:

1. When the Gemara (19b) says that "Mamona mi'Isura Lo Yalfinan," it does not refer to every type of Mamona but only to Hashavas Aveidah (which the Sugya is discussing). In contrast, the Sugya never discussed stealing, as is apparent from the end of the Sugya which says that only a Shev v'Al Ta'aseh is permitted, as you imply. Therefore, one may not steal in order to maintain one's own Kavod.

2. A proof for my argument may be found in Bava Kama (60b). The Gemara there asks about whether one is allowed to save himself by taking someone else's property without permission. Tosfos (DH Mahu) writes that the question of the Gemara is whether one is obligated to pay after he has saved one's life by taking somebody else's money. The conclusion of the Gemara is that one is "not allowed," which, according to Tosfos, means that one is not allowed to save one's life by stealing from someone else unless he pays him back afterwards.

3. However, Rashi there does not seem to learn like Tosfos. Rashi learns that the question of the Gemara is that even if one intends to pay back afterwards, nevertheless one who takes the money without permission commits the sin of stealing, and this is not permissible even when the saving of a life is involved. This way of understanding Rashi is cited there by the Maharatz Chayus in the name of the Parashas Derachim. The Maharatz Chayus also explains the reasoning behind Rashi's opinion.

4. Since, according to Rashi, one may not steal even to save a life, and even if he later returns the stolen item, it should be a Kal va'Chomer that one may not steal where one's life is not in danger but one merely seeks to avoid embarrassment.

5. After doing further research, I found a source that it may be permissible for someone who finds himself without clohes to take the clothes of someone else without permission. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 14:4) rules that one is permitted to borrow someone's Talis without permission and recite a Berachah on it. The Mishneh Berurah there (#13) explains that although this is done without the knowledge of the owner of the Talis, it is permitted because of the rule that a person is happy when a Mitzvah is performed with his property. I propose that if this Halachah is said where a person has clothing but merely does not has a Talis at the moment in Shul, then certainly the owner of the clothes should be happy for the naked person who takes his clothes to save himself from tremendous embarrassment.

However, in my opinion, this Halachah is not connected to the Sugya in Berachos (19b), because when the Gemara there says "Mamona" it is not referring to stealing but only to the Mitzvah of returning lost property, as I mentioned earlier. (In addition, there are several conditions to the Halachah of using the Talis without permission which may be relevant here; see aforementioned Mishneh Berurah.)

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom