Complex and controversial questions Rabbis get asked. A brief analysis of two topics. 1) Gun Control in Halacha 2) The Agunot cases of 9/11

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: One may not sell weapons to gentiles or the auxiliary equipment of weapons, and one may not sharpen weapons for them. And one may not sell them stocks used for fastening the feet of prisoners, or iron neck chains [kolarin], or foot chains, or iron chains. This prohibition applies equally to both a gentile and a Samaritan.

Rav Dimi bar Abba says: Just as it is prohibited to sell to a gentile, it is prohibited to sell to an armed bandit who is a Jew. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this prohibition? If the thief is suspected of killing, isn’t it obvious that it is prohibited? After all, he is the same as a gentile. Providing a Jew who might kill with weapons is no different from giving a weapon to a gentile, as in both cases one violates the prohibition: Do not place a stumbling block before the blind. And if he is a bandit who does not kill, why not sell to him? The Gemara answers: Actually, Rav Dimi bar Abba is referring to a bandit who does not kill, and here we are dealing with a bandit who steals, as sometimes he makes use of his weapon to save himself when he is caught. Consequently, it is prohibited to sell him weapons in case he kills with them in self-defense. § The Sages taught: One may not sell shields [terisin] to gentiles, despite the fact that they are used for protection, not to attack others. And some say: One may sell shields to them. The Gemara asks: What is the reason behind the opinion that prohibits selling shields to gentiles? If we say it is because they protect them in wartime, if so, then even wheat and barley should not be sold to them. Rav said: If it were possible to avoid selling produce to gentiles without incurring their animosity, indeed it would be prohibited to sell them. Since limiting sales to gentiles to such an extent would cause great harm, it is only prohibited to sell them shields. There are those who say: With regard to shields, this is the reason that one is not allowed to sell them to gentiles: As when their use of their weapon is finished in battle, they kill with these shields. And accordingly, the reason that some say in the baraita that one may sell shields to them is because they maintain that this is not a concern, as when their weapon is finished they flee, rather than use their shield as a weapon. Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion cited as: Some say. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: One may not sell blocks [ashashiot] of iron to gentiles. What is the reason? It is because they forge weapons from them. The Gemara asks: If so, then even hoes and axes should not be sold to them, as they too can be used to forge weapons. Rav Zevid said in response: The ruling of Rav Adda bar Ahava was stated with regard to Indian iron, which is of a superior quality and used only for crafting weapons. The Gemara clarifies: And as for the fact that nowadays we do sell all weapons, Rav Ashi said: We sell the weapons to the Persians, who protect us.

5) One may not sell to a gentile, or a suspected Jew (who may sell it on) or to a Jewish bandit anything that can cause harm to society, for example bears and lion, and no form of weaponry or spear, nor dangerous dogs. Or metal chains and other cuffs and dangerous items.

6) If a Jew was living amoungst the gentiles, and he establishes with them a contract, it is permitted to sell weapons to the army of the king and his officers, since they are going to war with them for the protection of the country, to protect them from the place they are dwelling.

(8) Even as it is forbidden to sell to idolaters things which uphold their hands to idolatry so it is forbidden to sell them things wherein there is a menace to the public, for instance, bears, lions, weapons, iron fetters, and chains; it is likewise forbidden to sharpen their weapons for them. And, everything which is forbidden to sell to an idolater is also forbidden to sell to an Israelite who is under suspicion that he might resell it to an idolater. It is likewise forbidden to sell instruments of harm to robbers who profess to be Israelites.⁸Ibid. 15a–16b.

(9) Israelites living among idolatrous neighbors, with whom they made a covenant of peace, are permitted to sell weapons to the king's servants and militia, because they conduct war therewith against the country's enemies to save it, as a consequence whereof they protect the Israelites who dwell among them. A city wherein there is an established house of idolatry, one is permitted to pass by it without its boundaries, but is forbidden to enter it; if the idolatry is established without its boundaries he may enter it.¹⁰Ibid. 11b. C.

(4) There is no difference between a roof or anything else that is dangerous and likely to cause death to a person who might stumble. If, for instance, one has a well or a pit in his courtyard — — he must build an enclosing ring ten handbreadths high, or put a cover over it, so that a person should not fall into it and die. So too, any obstruction that is a danger to life must be removed as a matter of positive duty and extremely necessary caution.

(1) To not leave a stumbling block: To not leave stumbling blocks and snares in our land and in our homes, so that people not die or get injured from them (see Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 11). And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 22:8), "and you shall not place blood in your house." And they said in Sifrei, "'And you shall make a parapet for your roof' is a positive commandment and [that] and 'you shall not place blood in your house' is a negative commandment."

(2) I have written about the roots of this commandment and all of its matter in its [corresponding] positive commandment in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 446) - and take it from there if you want to know.

If one comes to kill you, kill him first.

(12) It is forbidden to sell arms of any kind to heathen ; one should not sharpen their weapons; one should not sell them a knife — — or anything that is likely to be a public danger. Shields, however, may be sold to them, since they are used only for defense.

(13) Just as the sages have prohibited the sale of arms to a heathen, so have they prohibited selling the same to a Jew who sells to a heathen. On the other hand, weapons may be sold to the local citizens' force, since they protect the Jewish population.

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and that one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? As it is stated: “You shall not bring blood into your house” (Deuteronomy 22:8), which means that one may not allow a hazardous situation to remain in his house.

(8) Likewise, one has a positive duty to remove and guard oneself of any life-threatening obstacle, as it is said "beware and guard your soul". If one did not removed said obstacles, one has cancelled a positive commandment and transgressed "do not bring bloodguilt" (Deut. 22:8).

is an unambiguous distinguishing mark that they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Mahavai, holds that a mole is an unambiguous distinguishing mark and may be relied upon by Torah law. Consequently, if a man’s corpse was identified in this manner, his wife may remarry. And one Sage, the anonymous first tanna, holds that a mole is not an unambiguous distinguishing mark. The Gemara asks: According to the first version, that Rava said that distinguishing marks are recognized as valid identification by Torah law, there is a question: Isn’t it taught in the mishna: Although there are distinguishing marks on his body and his personal belongings, one may not rely on these as identification, implying that distinguishing marks are not valid identification by Torah law? The Gemara answers: The mishna’s intent is that ordinary distinguishing marks on one’s body, which constitute only weak evidence to a person’s identity, e.g., that he was tall or short, are not valid identification. Additionally, one cannot rely upon distinguishing marks on his personal belongings, as we are concerned about borrowing, i.e., perhaps the deceased had borrowed the clothes he was wearing from someone else. The Gemara asks: But if we are concerned about borrowing, then, with regard to returning lost property, how can we return a donkey based solely upon distinguishing marks on the saddle? Why don’t we consider the possibility that the saddle was borrowed? The Gemara answers: People do not normally borrow a saddle because it bruises the donkey, as the saddle must fit exactly to the donkey’s measurements. The Gemara raises further objections based upon the baraita cited earlier: If he found the lost bill of divorce tied to a purse, or a money bag, or a ring, he may rely upon the distinguishing marks on those items and deliver the bill of divorce to the woman. But how can we return it and not be concerned that these belongings may have been lent to someone else whose bill of divorce is tied to them? The Gemara answers: The case of the ring is referring to a signet ring, which one does not lend, because he is concerned about forgery, i.e., that the borrower might use it to forge his consent on documents without his knowledge. With regard to a purse or a money bag, people consider it a bad omen to lend them out and do not lend them to others.

It is written in the manuscript of Harav Daniel, that, on the surface certain signs are expected, scattered over the corpse, i.e, average height, red appearance, curly hair etc... however if it is on one limb, with several divergences from the norm, even though each change is independent, it is a weak sign, nonetheless, when you combine these signs, it becomes a stronger sign of identity.

But in my opinion, we do not say that all these things combine to create a substantial sign.....

I declare that I received this tradition from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, that the court may allow a woman to remarry based on the testimony of a single witness. Rabbi Akiva continues: And when I came and presented the matter before Rabban Gamliel of Yavne, the grandson of Rabban Gamliel the Elder, he rejoiced at my words and said: We have found a companion who agrees with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, and since his lenient opinion is no longer the opinion of a lone Sage, it may now be relied upon. As a result of this event, Rabban Gamliel remembered that people were murdered in Tel Arza, and Rabban Gamliel then allowed their wives to remarry based on only one witness. And from then onward they established as protocol to allow a woman to remarry based on hearsay testimony, a slave’s testimony, a woman’s testimony, or a maidservant’s testimony.

(3) A woman whose husband went overseas, and has been testified to be dead, even by one witness, even the witness being a slave or a maidservant or a woman or a relative, is free. and even a witness from the words of a witness, or a woman from the words of a woman, or a slave or a maidservant or a relative, are worthy of this testimony. and testimony invalids, if by Rabbis, are fit for this testimony. but testimony invalids by Torah, are invalid. and if [they are] innocently speaking, [they are] fit. and so a Cuthean or an Israelite converted to idolatry and for the whole torah, if he's innocently speaking, [he is] trustworthy. ???: no witness came in the above manners, only a rumour is going out in town, that [he's] dead, his wife is not wedded.

Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labour in vain on it; unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchman keeps vigil in vain.