למרדכי שם סי' קצ"ו תשובת מיימוני שם. וששאלתם וכתבתם שיש שפוטרים את ר' יואל לפי שאין אדם נתפס על צערו שראה אותומצ"ל שקם עליו בפרץ והעמידו. קם שעליו בפרץ והעמיד בערכאות של עכו"ם נהפך גם הוא לעשות לכשנגדוננראה שט"ס הוא. (כאשר זמם לעשות לכשנגדו) כאשר זמם לעשות לו ולא כאשר עשה ותולין דבר זה בתקנת הקהלות איני סבור שיתקנו הקהילות דבר זה שאם חזר השני ומסר את הראשון שמסרו ונתכוון להפסיד ממונו ובזה לא הציל את עצמו רק שנתכוון לנקום את עצמו בכך ודאי לא פטרו אותו הקהלות אלא מן קנס שלא לנדותו או להלקותו על המסירה שמסר את חבירו כי יחם לבבו אבל משלם ההפסד שהפסיד חבירו דבר פשוט הוא שלא פטרוהו כי לא באו להפקיע ממון ולהקל על דברי התלמוד אלא להחמיר כ"ש יואל זה שמסר את חבירו אחרי שכבר יצא מב"ד זכאי:
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.
למרדכי שם סי' קצ"ו תשובת מיימוני שם. וששאלתם וכתבתם שיש שפוטרים את ר' יואל לפי שאין אדם נתפס על צערו שראה אותומצ"ל שקם עליו בפרץ והעמידו. קם שעליו בפרץ והעמיד בערכאות של עכו"ם נהפך גם הוא לעשות לכשנגדוננראה שט"ס הוא. (כאשר זמם לעשות לכשנגדו) כאשר זמם לעשות לו ולא כאשר עשה ותולין דבר זה בתקנת הקהלות איני סבור שיתקנו הקהילות דבר זה שאם חזר השני ומסר את הראשון שמסרו ונתכוון להפסיד ממונו ובזה לא הציל את עצמו רק שנתכוון לנקום את עצמו בכך ודאי לא פטרו אותו הקהלות אלא מן קנס שלא לנדותו או להלקותו על המסירה שמסר את חבירו כי יחם לבבו אבל משלם ההפסד שהפסיד חבירו דבר פשוט הוא שלא פטרוהו כי לא באו להפקיע ממון ולהקל על דברי התלמוד אלא להחמיר כ"ש יואל זה שמסר את חבירו אחרי שכבר יצא מב"ד זכאי:
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.