1

In this answer, the image below appears. Ignoring the issue of the propriety of "non-kosher" phones, is the sign correct that it can ban entry with something not used in the shul, and that entry with the banned item is then theft?

My intuition would not be that a person who enters with something banned such as illegal drugs is stealing the seat he sits in. This is especially true as he hasn't taken it from someone else unless the synagogue is full.

So on what basis does the sign claim it is theft?

Sign in Hebrew precluding those with iPhone or the like from entering and claiming one who does violates theft and other serious sins.

Ze'ev misses Monica
  • 3,991
  • 24
  • 44
  • 1
    If you consider trespassing a form of theft (which isn't entirely unreasonable, IMO), then someone who enters against the rules of entry (regardless of what the rules of entry are) is trespassing/committing theft. – Salmononius2 Dec 06 '19 at 19:21
  • @Salmononius2 that does seem eminently reasonable in cases where the person is banned. A shul which says baalei agunot can’t come in, the Baal aguna who does is stealing. But where it is “may not enter with iPhone” maybe my iPhone is trespassing but I am not. Granted, the sign may reflect a community that wants to ban iPhone users whether they have the phone on them or not. This gets to issues of cheftza-gavra. – Ze'ev misses Monica Dec 06 '19 at 19:29
  • I feel like we've had this exact question before – robev Dec 06 '19 at 19:40
  • 1
    I think I was thinking of this related question – robev Dec 06 '19 at 21:05
  • @Salmononius2, to emphasize or restate my point: if I get on an airplane without a ticket or without paying for my bags, I am stealing and/or trespassing. If instead I buy a ticket, pay for my bag, but my bag has drugs or guns in it contrary to the rules, am I stealing? Trespassing? I suppose I committed fraud in that if the airline knew what I was transporting they wouldn't allow me to take it. – Ze'ev misses Monica Jun 09 '21 at 15:27
  • @Ze'evmissesMonica I stand by what I said earlier, that your examples would indeed be considered trespassing. As 'wild' or 'crazy' as a condition might be, a proprietor of an institution has the right to make whatever conditions of use that they want*, and entering the premises in violation of those conditions would, indeed, be trespassing. – Salmononius2 Jun 09 '21 at 17:11
  • *discussions of what is considered a permissible condition/who is the proprietor/etc. is beyond the scope of my comments. If a shul, for example, is 'publicly' owned, then they might not be able to make conditions without 'public' agreement, etc. But for the sake of this question, we're assuming that all conditions being established are being established legitimately. – Salmononius2 Jun 09 '21 at 17:14

0 Answers0