Under what circumstances should I avoid saving a person from harm because of the collateral damage? Does it make a difference what type of colleteral damage would occur or how many people would suffer?
Is there a difference if the collateral damage is to a single individual, family, school or community. Sources?
If the rabbonim say that the saving the victim of abuse would mean that community's main yeshiva would be destroyed by lawsuits and as a result 90% of the kids would go off the derech. Does the victim have the right to insist on taking measures to protect himself from harm - even if collateral damage results?
Or what about the future. The molesting has stopped but the victim wants to punish perpetrator to deter other perpetrators in the future. Community says that they are not willing lose yeshiva for the sake of protecting against future acts. Does the victim have to go along with their decision. Sources?
Does the non compliance with the community wishes constitute a transgression of any specific mitzva? Or is it simply that the community has the right apply all types sanctions to achieves but there is no actual sin.
Another way of looking at it is that the community should have taken proactive measures to make sure this dilemna never arises - but since it didn't can they avoid the consequences?
I'm missing something, isn't the decision to let a molester go dangerous both physically and spiritually ("uviarta hara miqirbekha") to the community?
ReplyDeleteYou might save the institution, but will you be left with an institution worth saving?
-micha
Why should 90% go off the derech because a school that tolerated abuse shall pay damages?
ReplyDeleteThis scenario is completely hypthetical and seems highly exagerated.
I'll rephrase the question:
Is it OK to deny justice because of these kinds of hypothetical scenarios?
I think the only question raised by the Markey Bill is:
Is it justifiable, in legal philosophy, to change the conditions of punishment after the act (i.e. undo prescription).
But in my view, it is not defendable from any legal perspective - neither halachic nor other - to make the judgement and payment of fines and damages dependent on the questions you raised.
If staff is negligent, it puts the school in peril. So take staff that is not negligent. It's as easy as that.
The UOJ brought up the point that yeshiva where children are being molested and the hanhala covers up for the molesters could have the din of ir hanidachat and it is mitzva to destroy it. Presumably even if there are innocent people associated with the yeshiva.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how. Ir hanidachas is very specific: it's a city in Israel, not an institution, and one that worships idols (with an fervor Chazal say doesn't exist anymore). A city of murderers wouldn't qualify.
ReplyDeleteIf you're making an aggadic statement, using an ir hanidachas as an example of where that value emerges into halakhah, then your point is essentially the same as mine: "You might save the institution, but will you be left with an institution worth saving?"
-micha
-micha
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קנז
ReplyDelete...עובדי כוכבים שאמרו לישראל: תנו לנו אחד מכם ונהרגנו, לא יתנו להם אחד מהם אלא א"כ יחדוהו ואמרו: תנו לנו פלוני. (משנה פ' ח' דתרומות והרמב"ם פ"ה מהלכות יסודי התורה). ויש אומרים דאפילו בכה"ג אין למסרו, אא"כ חייב מיתה כשבע בן בכרי. (ב"י בשם רש"י ור"ן). ). Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 157:1
If the non-Jews say to sacrifice one Jew so the others will be spared it - they should all die rather than give over one innocent person unless they specify who they want. Some say that even in such a case the one person should not be given over unless he in fact he deserves the death penalty such as Sheva ben Bichri.
What's the connection????
ReplyDeletePeople always seem to mix up "innocent people" and "criminal cases"...
By doing this, they make the torah look ridiculous.
shoshi said...
ReplyDeleteWhat's the connection????
People always seem to mix up "innocent people" and "criminal cases"...
By doing this, they make the torah look ridiculous.
=========
As I have said before if you have problems understanding then...
I was simply bringing a support from the Shulchan Aruch not to sacrifice the victim to save others from collateral damage.
If you have a group of Jews and they are told to hand over one person to save their lives, they are all to die.
The victim is comparable to the person that is asked to be sacrificed for the group. The people in the group are comparable to the family of the perpetrator or other innocent people who will suffer if the perpetrator is arrested.
But this is also an exageration.
ReplyDeleteNo-one is going to be hanged!
But I like the bit about the "ir hanidachat" by Micha...
shoshi said...
ReplyDeleteBut this is also an exageration.
No-one is going to be hanged!
================
True but it sets up a principle that one does not sacrifice an innocent person to save others from suffering.
Similarly for a group of woman - if the non-Jews say give over a woman to be raped or we will rape all of them - they do not give over a woman.
PS: if you wrote more explicitely what you mean from the start, we could avoid this kind of misunderstandings.
ReplyDeleteI think that this has already been mentionned repeatedly on this blog (by other commentators than me).
shoshi said...
ReplyDeletePS: if you wrote more explicitely what you mean from the start, we could avoid this kind of misunderstandings.
I think that this has already been mentionned repeatedly on this blog (by other commentators than me)
=================
Why don't you try not to assert that I am saying something stupid when you don't understand it, and I will try and be more explicit