Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Question #215

1.       Question: Why does Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 2:77) poskin that if a Jew purposefully carries keys in the public domain in order to open the shul then the congregants may not enter the shul until it is relocked and opened by a non-Jew, since the congregants walking in are benefiting from the door being opened, however he says in (1:126:3-4) that one is only forbidden to benefit from the prohibition of Shabbos for his own benefit if transgressed but one may benefit if it is for the sake of a mitzvah, like here where they are going to daven in shul? (See Dirshu Mishna Berura 318 footnote 28 and page 39 footnote 9.)

Background:

A.      The Mishna Berura 318:1 says there is a rabbinic fine that one may not ever get any benefit from a Torah prohibition that he himself purposefully transgressed and others must wait until after Shabbos to benefit from it.

B.      The Be’ur halacha (2nd one in the siman) quotes a Chaye Adam that though this fine only applies to prohibitions which caused the actual object to change like by cooking or planting, or lighting a fire but, for example carrying in the public domain doesn’t change the object carried at all, but still you should be strict and not benefit from the object carried, at least until after Shabbos.

 Answer: Because there is an easy solution of ow to fix the problem by getting a non-Jew to reopen it then it’s considered benefit for yourself to walk through the do that was opened by the Jew and not for the sake of a mitzva.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus chapter 9 halacha 2 conclusion of footnote 9

It’s obvious that if you don’t personally know, for example the maid, that she is a thief, or any other example of the like, rather people just told you, even though we said you can tell the would be hirer so that he can protect himself, however you can’t just say plainly “so and so is a thief” looking as if you know yourself this fact. You can’t even say “I have heard that son and so is a thief” because many people, not being experts in the laws of accepting rechilus will take it as fact. Rather you should be as non-confident as possible and say, “I heard about so and so this and this, and maybe the matter is true, therefore t would be appropriate for you to be cautious and protect yourself from her.” This non-confidence is the way to act in all circumstances of the like to protect others besides a person looking to hire a teacher or looking for a shidduch and the he or she is rumored to have fundamental flaws in his or her Torah perspectives, philosophies or beliefs (not observance), which could be serious red flags, then you can just say with more confidence “I heard…”

The reason why rebuking the perpetrator beforehand is not on the list of conditions as it was by lashon hara is because it’s not applicable here. One is looking to hire someone else. It doesn’t make sense to first rebuke the would-be candidate before definitely deciding to go to the hirer to warn him the candidate s a thief because even if he promises he will change who says that is true, the hirer still has a right to protect himself and know what he is getting into. Whereas by the laws of lashon hara, one should first go over to the thief and rebuke him because that was in order to get the thief to give back what he stole without needing to tell the victim what happened.

Posted on

Vayechi – Life Cycles

 In the concluding Torah portion for the Book of Breishis, parshas Vayechi, Yaakov passes away and the Torah relates that the brothers mourned for seven days (Breishis 50:10). The last Medrish Tanchuma in the book of Breishis concludes that from this pasuk we learn the laws of shiva, the day mourning period following the death of a close relative. …The medrish then asks why the mourning period is for exactly seven days?, and answers that it is contrary to the seven days of partying for a wedding, sheva brachos. The Etz Yosef, quoting the Yifeh Toar, asks what does one have to do with the other,  that the text of medrish (which the Etz Yosef says we don’t have) says “just as he comes he will go?” The Yefeh Toar explains that this hints to the fact that there is no point to life in this world, and its joys, because in the end a person will die;, just as he comes he will go. Therefore, just as the days of partying we have for a wedding, which is for the sake of having children (if Hashem grants the couple to have children), is for 7 days, so too the days of mourning are the same amount. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 We must put in context what it means that there is ‘no point to life and happiness in this world. For if that is really true, then why have days of feasting by a wedding, and what about what the Mesilas Yesharim says in the first chapter, “…but the path to the object of our desires is this world, as our sages of blessed memory have said, ‘This world is like a corridor to the World to Come (Avos 4:21).’ The means which lead a man to this goal are the mitzvos, in relation to which we are commanded by G-D, may His name be blessed. The place of the performance of the mitzvos is this world alone.” If that is the case than doesn’t this world have a very important role in our lives and the Torah even says in the curses of parshas Ki Savo “because you did not serve Hashem, your G-D amid joy…” (Devarim 28:47). So we see how important life is in this world, as well as living it up happily and serving Hashem with joy. s So how can the Yefeh Toar be saying there is no point to life and happiness in this world?

However,, the answer is, that vis a vis the World to Come, this world is nothing, as the Medrish Tanchuma concludes, “The Holy One Blessed Be He said that in this world you are pained over the righteous, mourning for 7 days. In the future to come I will switch their mourning to glee and comfort them and cheer them up from their depression (Yirmiyahu 31:12). And I will comfort Tzion and its destruction, as it says, ‘For Hashem will comfort Tzion, He will comfort all her ruins; He will make her wilderness like Eden and her wasteland like a garden of Hashem; joy and gladness will be found there, thanksgiving and the sound of music’ (Yeshayahu 51:3).
 The Medrish Rabba concludes Sefer Breishis the same way as the Tanchuma, and the Yefeh Toar there explains that “this pasuk is only a hint to the concept of seven days of shiva but it’s not a Torah level obligation. Mourning for seven days is only Rabbinic. Since that’s the case the medrish was wondering why the rabbis enacted mourning to be for that long, isn’t there a punishment for mourning over the dead too much (See Devarim 14:1)? That is why the medrish answers that 7 days is opposite the sheva brachos, 7 days of feasting by a wedding. (Sheva brachos is learned from Shimshon in Pirkei diRebbe Eliezer, parenthetically.) Since it’s better to go to a mourners house then to go to a party house, and the hearts of the wise are at a mourners house and the hearts of fools are in a party house, therefore the days [of celebrating and mourning] are equal… there is another reason [why they are equated] because the days of feasting by a wedding has a connection to the days of burial, for since a person is destined to die, therefore he feels compelled to try to have children, and ensure offspring… Therefore, the days of mourning were set up as 7 days just as the days of partying after a wedding.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
  If it is so bad to mourn too much over the dead, then why is it permissible to set up these seven days of mourning just to equate it to the seven days of partying at after a wedding? Isn’t it still going overboard;, why risk the punishment?

However, it would seem that the lesson learned from equating them two is such an important lesson that it’s worth it for the Rabbis to enact seven days of mourning. In fact, the reason for the punishment of overly mourning is the same as for Shiva, to realize that this world is temporary and we should not put too much focus on it, as mentioned in the Sforno Devarim 14:1, “there is no reason to mourn excessively for the person who has passed as he, at least, has not experienced any loss, on the contrary, he has been promoted to the region of eternal life, something of which our sages in Avos 4:6-7 have said that a single hour of the serenity experienced in that life is worth all the combined delights ever experienced during one’s transient life on earth.”

There is definitely a very important attitude to live life and enjoy it in this world;, it is the corridor to prepare yourself for the ultimate joy of basking in Hashem’s presence in the next world and part of the preparation is to be happy while serving Hashem. That is part of living life properly, but it must be with the perspective that it is just temporary, it’s not the beginning and end of life. There is much more to life than this world and the real joy is in the World to Come. This equation puts one’s mindset into the proper perspective, if focused on accurately, that as important this world is the main place to look forward to is the World to Come.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #214

Question: Why when you forget to say Birkas haTorah ahava rabba can count as saying Birkas haTorah only if you learn immediately after davening but let say you slept the whole entire day and didn’t say Birkas haTorah but davened mincha/maariv early with a minyan before it was dark, then the Shema counts as learning after Ahavas olam? 

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura 47:7:13 says the blessing of ‘Ahavas Olam’ takes care of birkas haTorah if you learn immediately after davening without any interruptions. This applies in the morning (for Ashkenazim we say ‘ahava rabba’) or in the evening, for example if someone took a few hour nap in tbe day according to the opinion you have to birkas HaTorah and even those that are lenient it does not hurt to have in mind birkas haTorah when saying ‘ahavas olam’ during maariv.

B. The Mishna Berura (17) says that the reason why you have to learn right after davening is because it’s not apparent you are saying ahava rabba for the mitzva of learning Torah since it’s being said during another mitzvah, of davening. Rav Elyashiv adds that even though Shema can be considered Torah learning but because it’s being said for another mitzvah of krias Shema, which is a mitzva to be recited in the morning and at night once it is dark and the stars are out, and the bracha at the end of ahava rabba does not talk about learning Torah rather the love of Hashem for the Jews then without learning right after davening it’s not apparent it was said for Birkas haTorah.

 Answer: The Dirshu (note 22) quotes a Teshuvas Hisorirus that because you recited Shema of maariv too early and it would have to be repeated once it got dark then it is apparent that the paragraph of Ahavas olam was said for Birkas haTorah and the Shema was used for learning.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 9 footnote 9

This 5th condition that you cannot harm the would-be perpetrator any more than what he deserves is a very tricky condition which the Chofetz Chaim himself is very hesitant in what to do but bottom line one has to divulge information in a fashion which will be a balance for both parties. That the wouks be victim can take proper precautions and the would-be threat won’t be overly damaged than what he or she deserves. For example, If Reuvain wants to hire Shimon for a job and Levi knows Shimon stole something at one point. Levi has to tell Reuvain the information he knows even if Shimon regrets what he did and wouldn’t do it again, but Reuvain has a right to be concerned and investigate the matter. However, if Levi can determine that by telling Reuvain about Shimon the word will get out and Shimon will be run out of town in shame then Levi really shouldn’t tell Reuvain the information. In this case as opposed to lashon hara, one does not need to have seen the stealing happen first hand, or even know for sure that it happened, as long as there is rumors you are allowed to tell a would be victim to be cautious himself just as you yourself can just be cautious with this information as long as you know he will only take proper precautions to quietly investigate the matter and make proper decisions to just protect himself from any harm. Just as a side note, even though there is a specific mitzvah of “lo sa’amod al dam re’echa” don’t stand by when your fellow Jew is in danger that is only when you definitely know of the potential danger, and you can help. But if it is just a rumor then it’s a good thing, a general mitzvah, to be concerned about and take proper precautions. So Gedalia ben Achikam, the mayor of Beitar that refused to accept lashon hara and wasn’t even cautious and that is why Beitar was destroyed, and we have Tzom Gedalia, chas vishalom, a tzadik like him transgressed a blatant mitzvah, rather he was being too Stringent of not even being cautious about rumors that he heard that he might be killed by someone.

Posted on

Vayigash – Anger Management Solution

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

 The Ramban opens his letter to his son saying, “Constantly act by talking all your words softly, to every person, at all times. In this way you will be saved from anger, which is a bad attribute that causes people to sin. As Chaza”l (Nedarim 22a) say, ‘All who are angry, all sorts of Gehenom control him as it says (Koheles11:10) ‘remove anger from your heart, and take off bad from your flesh,’ and bad only refers here to Gehenom as it says (Mishley 16:4) ‘and also the wicked for the day of bad.'” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The beginning of Orchos Tzadikim, in The Gate of Anger, states: “Anger is an evil trait. Just as scurvy is a disease of the body, so anger is a disease of the soul… Our sages have said further (Nedarim 22b): ‘If one gets angry, even the Shechina is of no account to him…And he also forgets his learning and grows in stupidity… and it is known that his sins are more than his merits…’ and his punishment is very great…” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

If this is how terrible the character flaw of anger is, then why does the Rabbeinu Bachye in his introduction to this week’s Torah portion of Vayigash say that “it is well known that Yosef should not have been the one showing anger over his stolen goblet, but rather Yehuda and his brothers, who were in fact innocent of the crime since the whole thing was a setup, were the ones that should have been angry. Nevertheless, Yehuda the great wise one, powerful physically and spiritually, was able to overcome his proclivity and did not become angry. Even though it was fitting for them to be angry, Yehuda saw that it wasn’t the time or place to get angry,  but rather to speak gently in order to calm down the wrath of the master, Yosef.” How can Rabbeinu Bachye say that the brothers were the ones that really should have been mad? No one deserves to be angry, because anger is such a bad character trait as we saw above! So what does Rabbeinu Bachye mean when he says the brothers were deserving of feeling angry?

 It must be that anger is a very different negative character trait than most character flaws, in that it comes spontaneously onto a person, whereas other characters flaws are developed. This is why there is no prohibition of becoming angry in the Torah but there are prohibitions against other emotions, such as jealousy, “Don’t covet” (Shemos 20:14), hatred, “Don’t hate your brother in your heart” (Vayikra19:17), and haughtiness. As the Orchos Tzadikim says in the beginning of The Gate of Pride, “Pride is the coin the Great, Blessed King has invalidated and which He has extorted us about in His Torah, as it is written: ‘Take heed lest you forget Hashem your G-D’ (Devarim8:11) for the proud man forgets his Creator…” The feelings of pride, hatred, and jealousy develop inside a person and get worse over time, so the Torah prohibits one to develop those negative attributes. But anger is a spontaneous emotion, which is why it makes sense that in their circumstances the Rabbeinu Bachye says Yehuda and his brothers were the ones who should have been experiencing it, not Yosef. This is also why the Torah didn’t place a prohibition against becoming angry. However, since if you let it fester, it is so unhealthy, Hashem created a system to manage anger which the Ramban says is to always speak softly. That will diffuse the feeling of anger that might be triggered when someone is being irritating, which might naturally spark anger.

However, talking softly isn’t just a system to calm oneself down; it can also be used as a weapon or mechanism against other people who are angry at you, to calm them down and diffuse the situation. Rabbeinu Bachye, as he always does in his introduction to the Torah portion quotes a pasuk from Mishley. “A gentle reply turns away wrath, but a galling word incites anger” (15:1). “Shlomo Hamelech (the author of Mishley) is warning a person in this pasuk to raise one’s soul and habituate one’s natural tendency and speech in replying gently to others, because replying gently quiets and puts to rest anger towards an angry person. Antagonizing words which are the opposite of replying gently cause a buildup of anger and wrath.” Rabbeinu Bachye goes on to describe the power of speech in general; how it is a great power that can influence good and bad, life and death, as we see speech being related to learning Torah but also to speaking lashon hara/slander. Then he says, “And because speech is a major component for saving one’s soul and body, or G-D forbid causing its destruction, King Shlomo comes and teaches knowledge to the nation that they should strengthen themselves in this attribute of replying softly because it calms wrath, even the wrath of the king as he says, ‘the king’s wrath is like angels of death’ (Mishley 16:14). Now Yehuda ben Yaakov excelled in this attribute for he spoke to Yosef softly and in this way calmed his wrath that he was showing them, for he was angry over the incident of the goblet [found in Binyamin’s sack.]” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

 We see from Rabbeinu Bachye that speaking softly doesn’t just calm oneself down but can calm others down, even an angry leader. The reason why soft speech even has an influence on others is as the Ramban writes later in his letter to his son, “Therefore I will explain to you how to act with the trait of humility, to walk in it constantly. All your words should be said gently… and if someone calls out for you don’t answer him loudly, rather gently, like one who stands before his master.” Speaking gently has a calming effect which makes others perceive that you are humbling yourself before them, and therefore they feel obliged to act in kind and treat you with some level of respect. That is why the anger resides on both sides, you are feeling ashamed or humbled by your actions of speaking gently and he feels respected.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #213

Question: Why can you hold your lulav and esrog during davening, including shema and shemone esray but you can’t hold your tefillin in your hands, or a knife , plate full of stuff, or bread, neither can you hold your lulav and esrog while learning Torah, what is the difference?

Background:

A. Rashi in Sukkah 41b says you’ll be afraid the knife will fall on your foot, the plate full of stuff will spill, and if the bread falls it will become disgusting. But if the lulav and especially esrog falls it might become unkosher?

B. Love for the mitzvah not a burden

C.תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם

  Answer: The taking and holding of the lulav and esrog is the mitzvah and because of the love to perform the mitzvah it is not considered a burden therefore you won’t be distracted during davening but holding tefillin or the knife, bread and plate is a burden and will be a weight and distraction during davening which will not allow him to concentrate properly. By Torah learning since he will get so involved in his learning and will get distracted from the mitzvah of lulav and esrog and they might fall out of his hands therefore he should give it to someone else to hold while learning. (See Rashis there.)

Posted on

Miketz – Fooling Themselves


Yosef’s brothers confront him in this week’s Torah portion of Miketz. The obvious question is: why hadn’t they figured out who he was? Yosef unintentionally dropped so many hints that it seemed obvious he was Yosef; how were they able to turn a blind eye?

The Torah states, “Now Yosef was the ruler over the land; it was he who sold grain to the entire populace of the land, and Yosef’s brothers came and prostrated themselves to him, with their faces to the ground. And Yosef saw his brothers, and he recognized them, but he made himself a stranger to them, and he spoke to them harshly, and he said to them, ‘Where do you come from?’ And they said, ‘From the land of Canaan to purchase food.’ Now Yosef recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him” (Breishis 42:6-8).

The Radak first quotes Rashi, that the reason why the brothers did not recognize Yosef but Yosef recognized the brothers was because he left them without a beard and now he had a beard; but they all had beards when he left so he recognized them but they did not recognize him. However, the Radak continues, “that it was really possible for them to recognize Yosef even though he now had a beard, except for the fact that they saw him in a high position of leadership and it was so farfetched in their eyes that this was Yosef who they sold as a slave and now he is master over all of Egypt. They said in their hearts that even though he looks like Yosef, there are many people that look a little bit similar to each other, therefore it left their hearts that this was Yosef.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The brothers were face to face with the viceroy of Egypt and he looked exactly like Yosef. Yet they literally could not believe their eyes; in reality they didn’t want to believe their eyes. Although they knew about Yosef’s dreams that they would bow down to him, and in fact they even came to Egypt looking for Yosef, they still were unable to put two and two together, whether consciously or unconsciously.

The Radak goes on to explain the end of pasuk 7, that Yosef purposefully estranged himself from his brothers by speaking to them harshly and calling them spies. This was in order to remove the possibility that he was Yosef from their hearts and minds. But they had many hints afterwards, which should have given away, the fact that the person in front of them was actually Yosef. Just to name a few, for example, when Yosef heard the brothers talking amongst themselves expressing their regrets for what they had done to him, Yosef, pasuk 24 based on the Radak says he started crying because he saw them admitting fault, and he had to run out of the room to compose himself. Afterwards, the pasuk says Yosef threw Shimon in jail right in front of the brothers; but the Radak quotes a medrish (Breishis Rabba 91:8) that says that after they left Yosef took Shimon out of jail, fed him, washed him up, and anointed him with oils to freshen up. Wouldn’t that tip off at least to Shimon that something strange was going on and allow him to consider that he might indeed be his brother Yosef? In fact, when Shimon was reunited with hos brothers, he could have told them this viceroy might actually be Yosef, but he never thought about that! (Click here for Hebrew text.)

When the brothers came back to Egypt with Binyamin, Yosef invited them to eat with him,  they still thought that he was up to no good, and that there was no way that he might actually be their brother, being nice to them. The Radak on perek 43, pasuk 18 says that the brothers were saying to each other that this viceroy of Egypt was trying to find excuses to take them as slaves by first contriving a plot to find them guilty on charges of stealing their own money that they paid with. He was being nasty to them from the start, so now by inviting them to eat with him he was setting up a trap to make them his slaves. They didn’t hear what Yosef had told his servants, to fill their bags with money as gifts to comfort them. He even told them in pasuk 23, “Peace shall be with you, you shall not be afraid, your G-D and the G-D of your fathers gave to you treasures in your bags. Your money came to me, and he brought out to them Shimon.” Even though Yosef attributed their good fortune of finding money in their bags to Hashem, still they didn’t get the hint. This wasn’t even the first time he had mentioned G-D. Before in perek 42 pasuk 18 Yosef said, “On the third day, Joseph said to them: “Do this and live I fear God.” The Radak there says Yosef is telling the brothers, I fear G-D and I would not keep all of you because there is a famine in your house, and it would be a travesty [to not allow you to feed your household], rather I would keep only one of you to interrogate. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

Then, in pasuk 33, Yosef sits them at the table by age, youngest to oldest, and the pasuk says that they were of course shocked; how did he know? The Radak says the brothers were shocked that this viceroy was able to know their age order, for how was he able to recognize who was older from amongst people that were all born within 7 years of each other? This was astonishing in their eyes, yet still it wasn’t fishy enough for them to connect the dots that he must be Yosef. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

We see from here how far the bias of denial can stretch. The brothers refused to acknowledge the possibility that Yosef became second in command in Egypt and his dreams came true. Therefore even though he looked like Yosef, and there were many hints that it might actually be Yosef, they still never put two and two together until he actually revealed himself as being Yosef, their brother.

Posted on

Torah Riddles #212

Question: Why can you fix an esrog by just peeling off the place a mouse bit from, though it was disgusting yet you can’t just take out the mouse even if the oil is 60 times more than the mouse that fell into it, in order to use the oil for Chanukah candles since it is disgusting?

Background:

  1. The Rema (549:5) says if mice made holes in the esrog one should not use even on other days beside yom tov because it is disgusting, until you remove the spots the mice punctured. The Mishna Berura (37) adds that we are lenient because an incomplete esrog is technically kosher to be used on other days, but just ideally we are stringent here because it was disgusting, therefore when the area that was disgusting is removed it is kosher again. The Sfas Emes brought in the Dirshu (footnote 64 found in the back, page 85) adds that being disgusting only applies to something which is potentially edible and therefore it is considered disgusting to be used for the mitzva but if mice would have nibbled on hadasim or aravos they could still be used.
  2. The Mishna Berura (573:1:3) says if one finds a mouse in the oil, it is disgusting and forbidden to be used for Chanukah light. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 104) says one must remove the mouse if found whole or in parts before eating or drinking the item it fell into like wine, or oil in this case, which means it would be kosher to eat, but only if its taste was nullified in 60 times the liquid it fell into before being taken out. Yet the Mishna Berura still says it’s disgusting and can’t be used for Chanukah oil without mentioning that if taken out it is permitted so the oil must still be forbidden to use to light for Chanukah.

Answer: The oil that the mouse was in is still there even if the mouse was nullified in 60 and then removed so that is still disgusting and cannot be used for the mitzvah. But the area where the mouse took a bite from on the esrog is now gone if shaven off so the esrog is not disgusting anymore and can be used for the mitzvah on all other days besides the first.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus chapter 9 halacha 2

There are 5 conditions that must be met in order to be allowed to speak rechilus for a constructive purpose. 1. Can’t jump to conclusions. When you see or hear something wrong that might effect others first think about what just happened, maybe even investigate before concluding it really is bad.  2. Don’t exaggerate, if you must say something just say it how it is and nothing more.  3a. One must have proper intent to help the would be victims, not to speak up out of hatred because then it would be rechilus. However that does not exempt you from speaking up because there is a mitzvah to not just stand by and let other people get hurt physically and monetarily, לא תעמוד על דם רעך. So if you have hatred towards the perpetrator this should arouse you to remove it from your heart before speaking up but if you don’t you still must speak out and you will just get a sin of rechilus for performing the mitzvah of saving a person’s life.  3b. Even if you have the proper intentions, you aren’t exaggerating, and you got the scenario right, but if there is no way that what what you say will help in any way then you can’t say it and it is rechilus. Whether you think you won’t be listened to or whether after the fact you say I told you so, after warning him once it is still rechilus because nothing good can come out of what you say. Another example is in shidduchim. You are able to speak up before a shidduch goes through, while they are still investigating, but once there is an engagement it is rechilus to speak up now, they are planning on getting married, they want each other, it is only hurtful to say anything about either party now. It is better for them to get married, and you’ll see what will happen. Maybe what you know isn’t a factor, no red flags came up during dating so your issue might not be an issue. Worst comes to worst they will have to get divorced. Another example is if the victim that you want to help has a big mouth, and he will tell the world what you said and it might even get back to the person you were talking about, there is than mo mitzvah to tell him because it might create a big fight. It’s his problem now if he might get hurt.    4. If you are able to resolve the issue without needing to speak rechilus you have to fix the situation in that manner, even if that will be the hard way of taking care of things.   5. Even if you know there is a problem, there is no other way to fix it besides speaking up, you have the right intent, to help, and you are ready ti say precisely what you heard or saw, and you know you might very likely help the potential victim but if he might cause more harm to the would be perpetrator than what any court would do to him then you can’t tell the potential victim because he can’t be allowed to punish the perpetrator more than what he deserves. That means, for example if you are the only person telling him, he can’t do anything worse than forcing the perpetrator to swear that he did, or will do no harm, because at best a single witness can only enforce an oath in court. But even if two people let say tells the victim Who stole from him. If they know the victim will go and beat up the thief, they can’t tell the victim because the court would only monetarily punish him and the victim would be going overboard, so it would be better just to tell police or the court and let them handle it for the victims instead of the perpetrator getting unlawfully punished.