טמרדכי ב"ק פ"י סי' קצ"ה באריכות. תשובת מיימוני לס' נזיקין סי' ט"ו. וששאלתם על דין מסור כתב רבי' משה בר' מיימון ז"ל (פ"ח מהל' חובל ומזיק הל' י"א.) עשה המסיר אשר זמם יראה לי שאסור להורגו עכ"ל. ונ"ל דטעמי' הוי משום דמסור רודף הוא דאע"נ דלא מחווי אלא ממונא דחברי' מחמרינן בי' טפי מהיכא דמזיק ממונא דחברי' איהו גופי' בידים כגון דשדיי' בנהרא או שרף גדישו של חבירו לא קטלי לי' והיכאיצ"ל דאמר. אחוי אחווי בעלמא אממונא דחברי' כל דהוא קטלינן לי' (ב"ק קי"ז.) אלא היינו טעמא דמסור רודף הוא להרוג חבירו דכתיב בהוכצ"ל כתוא. מכמר מה תוא שנפל למכמר אין עליו מרחמין אף ממונן של ישראל כיון שהישראל נופל בידם בעלילה כל דהו מעלילין עליו עלילות עד כי הרבה פעמים בא לידי סכנת נפשות הלכך עשה המסור אשר זמם לא קטלינן לי' דתו לא רודף הוא ואפי' בשעת רדיפתו למסור נר' אם יכול להציל עצמו באחד מאיבריו בסימוי עיניו או בחתיכת לשונו אסור להורגו וההורגו חייב מיתה הילכך בנדון זה מה שחזר בו ר' יואל ומסר את אפרים ובזה לא הציל את עצמו בשום דבר חייב בכל ענין לשלם לו כל הפסידו:
Q. A (R. Ephraim) brought a complaint against B (R. Joel) before a Gentile court in order to compel B to answer A's summons before a Jewish court and abide by its decision. The Gentile court released B from all obligation. B, however, angered at A's act, turned informer against him and was responsible for his losing some money. When the matter came before us, we decided that B must compensate A for the damage he caused him. However, some people believe that B ought to be free from obligation since he acted while in the heat of anger. They state that a takkanah of the communities frees from obligation a person who in the heat of anger against a friend turned informer, retaliates by informing against him. Is our decision correct? Signed: R. Isaac and his court. A. Your decision is correct. Although A committed a wrong by summoning B to a Gentile court — it is true that A only wanted to force B to abide by the ruling of a Jewish court, but he had no right to do so through the intervention of a Gentile court without the consent of the community or of the foremost authorities of the land — and ought to be flogged or be fined, the amount of the fine to be determined by the Rabbis of this country, nevertheless B had no right to inform against A and, therefore, must compensate him for his loss. It is true that we deal harshly with an informer, that we are even permitted to kill him, and that A committed the first wrong by turning informer against his friend B.*A person who summoned a Jew before a Gentile court was considered an informer. But, a person is in the status of an informer while he threatens, or is on his way, to inform against his fellow, and not after he has already done so; for, while a person is on his way to inform against his friend, the amount of damage he might cause by his act is unlimited; since after a Jew is delivered into the hands of Gentiles they bring false accusations upon him until his very life is in danger. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, we are permitted to damage, maim, and even kill, the informer in order to prevent him from carrying out his evil intentions. But after the informer has completed his work, the extent of the damage is known. While the informer is obliged to pay for the damage he has caused and may be punished or fined for his crime, we are not permitted to damage indiscriminately his property, his interests, or his person. The takkanah of the communities referred to, probably frees a person who informs (against an informer) in the heat of anger from the special fines which communities usually impose upon those who violate public policy, but does not free him from responsibility for the actual damage he has caused by his act. SOURCES: L. 247–8; Mord. B. K. 195; Tesh. Maim. to Nezikin, 15. Cf. Beth Joseph to Hoshen Mishpat 388; Weil, Responsa 147; Moses Minz, Responsa 44; Isserlein, Pesakim 208.
טמרדכי ב"ק פ"י סי' קצ"ה באריכות. תשובת מיימוני לס' נזיקין סי' ט"ו. וששאלתם על דין מסור כתב רבי' משה בר' מיימון ז"ל (פ"ח מהל' חובל ומזיק הל' י"א.) עשה המסיר אשר זמם יראה לי שאסור להורגו עכ"ל. ונ"ל דטעמי' הוי משום דמסור רודף הוא דאע"נ דלא מחווי אלא ממונא דחברי' מחמרינן בי' טפי מהיכא דמזיק ממונא דחברי' איהו גופי' בידים כגון דשדיי' בנהרא או שרף גדישו של חבירו לא קטלי לי' והיכאיצ"ל דאמר. אחוי אחווי בעלמא אממונא דחברי' כל דהוא קטלינן לי' (ב"ק קי"ז.) אלא היינו טעמא דמסור רודף הוא להרוג חבירו דכתיב בהוכצ"ל כתוא. מכמר מה תוא שנפל למכמר אין עליו מרחמין אף ממונן של ישראל כיון שהישראל נופל בידם בעלילה כל דהו מעלילין עליו עלילות עד כי הרבה פעמים בא לידי סכנת נפשות הלכך עשה המסור אשר זמם לא קטלינן לי' דתו לא רודף הוא ואפי' בשעת רדיפתו למסור נר' אם יכול להציל עצמו באחד מאיבריו בסימוי עיניו או בחתיכת לשונו אסור להורגו וההורגו חייב מיתה הילכך בנדון זה מה שחזר בו ר' יואל ומסר את אפרים ובזה לא הציל את עצמו בשום דבר חייב בכל ענין לשלם לו כל הפסידו:
Q. A (R. Ephraim) brought a complaint against B (R. Joel) before a Gentile court in order to compel B to answer A's summons before a Jewish court and abide by its decision. The Gentile court released B from all obligation. B, however, angered at A's act, turned informer against him and was responsible for his losing some money. When the matter came before us, we decided that B must compensate A for the damage he caused him. However, some people believe that B ought to be free from obligation since he acted while in the heat of anger. They state that a takkanah of the communities frees from obligation a person who in the heat of anger against a friend turned informer, retaliates by informing against him. Is our decision correct? Signed: R. Isaac and his court.
A. Your decision is correct. Although A committed a wrong by summoning B to a Gentile court — it is true that A only wanted to force B to abide by the ruling of a Jewish court, but he had no right to do so through the intervention of a Gentile court without the consent of the community or of the foremost authorities of the land — and ought to be flogged or be fined, the amount of the fine to be determined by the Rabbis of this country, nevertheless B had no right to inform against A and, therefore, must compensate him for his loss. It is true that we deal harshly with an informer, that we are even permitted to kill him, and that A committed the first wrong by turning informer against his friend B.*A person who summoned a Jew before a Gentile court was considered an informer. But, a person is in the status of an informer while he threatens, or is on his way, to inform against his fellow, and not after he has already done so; for, while a person is on his way to inform against his friend, the amount of damage he might cause by his act is unlimited; since after a Jew is delivered into the hands of Gentiles they bring false accusations upon him until his very life is in danger. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, we are permitted to damage, maim, and even kill, the informer in order to prevent him from carrying out his evil intentions. But after the informer has completed his work, the extent of the damage is known. While the informer is obliged to pay for the damage he has caused and may be punished or fined for his crime, we are not permitted to damage indiscriminately his property, his interests, or his person. The takkanah of the communities referred to, probably frees a person who informs (against an informer) in the heat of anger from the special fines which communities usually impose upon those who violate public policy, but does not free him from responsibility for the actual damage he has caused by his act.
SOURCES: L. 247–8; Mord. B. K. 195; Tesh. Maim. to Nezikin, 15. Cf. Beth Joseph to Hoshen Mishpat 388; Weil, Responsa 147; Moses Minz, Responsa 44; Isserlein, Pesakim 208.