Poison Pills

One idea that has been floated in non-Jewish circles is to secretly add laxatives to one’s food. The food thief, once afflicted, will think twice about stealing again. At the very least, perhaps the food owner can derive some satisfaction from this prank. In a slight twist, this article will not discuss whether it is halachically permitted to do so. (Legally, it may be considered assault.) Instead, the discussion will assume that one lives in a location where beis din is the supreme authority. In such a place, if beis din finds out that a person is planning to do this, will they get involved and put an end to the devious plot?

We can conclude from a passage in Bava Kamma that one is not allowed to intentionally poison a neighbor’s animal. This brings to mind the news of a pooch named Arturo, who lived with his owner in the village of La Loggia, close to Turin, Italy. The dog had to be looked at by a vet in 2010 after becoming seriously (and fatally) ill. What the mixed-breed dog’s vet and owner didn’t know was that Mario Macrì had been feeding him walnuts, which are toxic to dogs. The vet eventually found intestinal lesions that had been caused by the nuts, which Macrì would throw for the neighbor’s dog from his balcony.

If beis din found out what Macrì was perpetrating, they would have stopped him and employed force if needed. However, the Gemara makes clear that Macrì cannot be forced to pay restitution. The act of throwing walnuts to the dog indirectly caused the animal to die. If Macrì had shot the animal himself, then beis din would force him to pay. However, in this case, the unknowing animal ate the walnuts that caused his own death. Beis din would inform Macrì that he must pay restitution because it is the appropriate action to take; however, beis din cannot enforce the judgment.

Suppose someone allows his animals to roam free on his neighbor’s property. The neighbor told the animals’ owner many times to please ensure that the animals stay off his land, but the owner paid no heed to his neighbor’s protestations. The aggravated neighbor sprinkles poison around his property. He intends that the animals should die by consuming the poison if they graze on his property. The Derech Emunah says that beis din will not get involved in this case. The landowner is only acting on his own property. In the case the Gemara discussed, poison was placed on someone else’s property with intent to injure the animal. Therefore, beis din would get involved to prevent the animal’s injury. However, beis din will not stop a landowner from doing something on his property that will not affect anyone outside his property.

The Maharsham vehemently disagrees with the above ruling. He says that there is no difference in this situation between putting poison on one’s own property and putting it on someone else’s. One may not take the law into his own hands if there is an alternative. The landowner should go to beis din and complain about his neighbor’s animals. This is especially true since his neighbor does not intend to cause him harm; it is just that he has a lackadaisical attitude about watching his animals. Therefore, beis din will get involved and order the landowner to remove his poison.

The Derech Emunah takes his ruling one step farther. He argues that beis din will not stop someone from adding a laxative to his milk in a communal fridge which is clearly labeled as personal. His decision to add the laxative to his milk will not affect anyone else who doesn’t take his milk. Therefore, beis din will not interfere with him adulterating his own milk. The Maharsham may disagree here as well, and say that beis din will become involved.

Without actually resorting to these drastic measures, one bright individual who was constantly plagued by milk theft came up with a solution. He left his milk pure but wrote the following on the container: “Please note: A mild laxative has been added to this milk.”

His milk was never touched again. ™