The ruling uses twisted logic. The phone is somebody's property and even if it should not be returned, it does have a value which belongs to the owner. It is such rulings that turn people off. Just ask the Moslem Brotherhood.

Per the Talmud.

According to Rabbi Shapira, a well known Rabbi which gets great support from the Israeli government, Non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature” and should be killed in order to “curb their evil inclinations.” “If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder... There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.” So to answer your question: No, it's not theft.

by the majority of the population. This is evidenced by the great number of cellphones still in existence in the chareidi community. Therefore, the ban does not carry halachic weight. Its, therefore, difficult to declare ownerless that which is not forbidden. If it is not ownerless, then saying one does not have to return it, is like saying you can take it in the first place. This would be welcome to all those who steal music saying R Feinstein allowed them to do it in 1970.

Another incident/statement which pushes me away from Judaism.

So it's acceptable to steal a camel or a pig since they're not kosher either. This is a mockery of Yiddishkeit.

With all due respect, I ask this Rabbi: Are you sure you want to play this way? It's a two way street. Following this logic, I can assume that if a rabbi forgets his cellphone in my store, I can keep it because if I give it back, he might use it to communicate some message that I don't agree with. Using this logic, we can assume that any article lost by a haredi and found by a non-haredi needn't be returned because the finder suspects the use it may be put to by the one who lost it.

does this halakhic ruling apply to other items, like guns, for example? a gun can also be used to commit robbery, murder or suicide, which is certainly as bad as reading "non-kosher" content on the internet, if not worse. but if, by not returning it, you prevent the owner from defending him/herself, or calling for help, are you guilty if he/she is attacked, or needs medical help? this psaq would seem to be unsound.

mean keeping it.

It's not about religion. It is about control. Bann all the things which might educate haredi population which will lead to reduce of rabbi power. They are taking about water supply on Shabbat for about a decade. Has anyone seen any ruling against it? No. In the chain of events, once you use water or flush, the generation pushes the water up. Generator uses the electricity. They just talk and talk about it but no one is ready to pass any ruling against it. Who will shit in same pot someone else has shitted and not flushed? It all about control and difference between what suits me and what not...

If you find something which is not yours, your obligation is to return it to its owner - if at all possible.

For the rest of the normal population, we will continue to recognise what is theft and what is not ie depriving the owner identified on the phone off their property. This ruling is a recipe for a dishonest society based on blind ignorance.

And I thought we had the monopoly on crazy religious people.

Their rabbis rulings just show that the Haridi are not real Jews but a sect posing as ultra Orthodox Jews. They just give Judaism a bad name and should be ignored at the very leas and should be treated as a non Jewish sect.

you tempt too easily.

kosherphonewireless I sell kosher phones

Nonsense, why not ban TV, Computers, ads and a whole host of other items which could tempt a person

is it the chefetz (the phone) or the gavra (the person) that bears the issur (that which is forbidden. I would say it is the person that is forbidden to see certain things, but the object is parve depending on who is using it, but then again, I am not a rabbi...

they dont say what is rule and so this article is about nothing of course you have to give it back kosher or not the rabbi didnt even say you dont need, it is misleading artilce like 90 percent on ynet news !

The ruling states that "banned cellular phones are not considered a property which, if lost, must be returned to its owner according to the Torah." How can you conclude that the phone must be returned?

Here you go again with your crazy reasoning just to support the Rabbi. Wrong is wrong. If you can't understand the clear words of the Torah Commandments you should not be commenting. Theft is theft no matter what is done with the article afterward. This person knows the phone belongs to another and is refusing to return it. All the Rabbi did was become an accomplice to the theft.

More shameful declarations from people who should know better. Isn't there a religious law somewhere that says giving ammunition to antisemites is forbidden ?

better said a "Mitzva" to give back a lost object to it's owner.Secular people do not have this responsability,and they very often don't bother doing that. The Rabbi said that in this particular case,it is not an obligation. Why did you react so rudely ?

Croissants! Nobody in their right mind would say this put this rabbi in a mental ward.

even should the Rebbe ignore that part of the Bible.