Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Abuse - reporting exempts from responsiblity?


R' Pinchos Yehoshua HaKohain wrote:

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

I would like to follow up on some Shakla v'Tarya from 13 July. (It is copied below). I would like to present 3 points:

1) Shomer SheMosar L'Shomer is not applicable here.

2) It is a case of Hashovas Aveida

3) What are the parameters of Hashovas Aveida and how they would apply in our context.

1) Shomer SheMosar LeShomer would not seem to be applicable here.
Either according to Abaye, that the reasoning is because "Ain Reztoni SheYehe Pikdoni b'Yad Acher" or whether according to Rovo that it is because of "At M'Hemnis Li b'Shevuoh, v'Haich Lo M'Hemnis Li", b oth reasons see that the underlying principle is a contractual agreement (a shibud) that binds the shomer, because of the contract undertaken, with the owner of the property. In our situation there has occurred no contractual arrangement between the victim and his erstwhile rescuer/interventionist.

Whether there is an Isur aspect of "Osur L'Shomer Limsor l'Shomer" is discussed in the Acharonim - please see Aruch haShulchon 291:45,46 and Pischei Choshen vol 2, 4:1:1). B ut even if there is an Isur aspect, it flows from being "Maavir Al Daas Baalim" - a Gezel/Gneiva parameter which would not be applicable in our scenario in a strictly Halocho legal sense. (Musar/ethical/moral considerations need to be considered separately)

The following sources and analysis, I believe,support this position: Click on this link for the rest of the posting

9 comments :

  1. Shalom!

    Lean"d regarding 2 (and then 3), it is clear lefu, rihatoh that at best the C is applicable:

    I have to check all M"M; but lefm ruhatoh it is barur, that there are two cases of refuah. a) where there is no sakanah whatsoever, b) where there is chashash sakonoh, especially if it is a safek or sfek sakanah.

    It would appear clearly, that whereever there is a sakanah or safek sakanah, that we have an issue of pikuach nefesh! where it is much more than avedat gufoy!

    The m"m that you cite are mostly for a) cases where there is no sakanat nefashot. A proof for that is: that at the beggining of YD 336 it says (after it states that it is reshut, it adds that it is ) Mitzvah "ubichlal pikuach nefesh!". It seems pashut that pikuach nefesh does not require the parsha and obligation of of "hashvat aveda"; it is a chiyuv on it's own.

    It would appear that the reference that are cited later in the posskim (or the rishonim) refer to a situation where there is clearly no sakanat nefashot; there it is under the parsha of "hashavat gufoy"; but if it is akin to "roeh chaveroy toveah bayam..." or nochrim having a bad thought on a Jew (CM 426) then it falls under "loy taamod al dam reecho" and if it is a case of sakanat nefashot it falls under pikuach nefesh.

    Wrt to three: It seems clear that there is an additional obligation of "atrichoy veoygureh" (to add tircha and hire experts) that is not under the general obgliation of a regular "hashavat gufoy".

    the question will have to be analyzed what is the geder of molestation: "pikuach nefesh" sakanat nefesh or just "hashvat gufoy" (I would tend to a go with the former. But let's hear the discussion on it).

    Regarding Chemdat Shlomoh. I don't have the mareh mekomot in my mind now, but I remember a LOT OF ACHRONIM MATMIHA ON THIS PATICULAR CHEMDAT SHLOMOH and disagreeing harshly with him.

    Bechavod uvrachah,

    Roni

    ReplyDelete
  2. in addition to the above: The Nimukey Yosssef in Nedarim 41b is clear that in casesof pikuach nefesh it certainly mutar to be merapeh. It is clear that that is not (only) under "hashovas guf".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Roni you have a raised a critical point in the discussion of child abuse i.e., is it pikuach nefesh.

    There is no question in some cases we are talking about the destruction of the person. But there are other cases (many?) where it is a unpleasant trauma but is it pikuach nefesh?

    One you start comparing it to rodef then it of necessity has to be pikuach nefesh. But is psychological damage or problems considered pikuach nefesh.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Quite frankly I don't think anyone who has ever been abused would use the term "unpleasant trauma" to describe the event. Most abuse is quite shockingly traumatic and typically leaves issues that the person will have to deal with for the rest of their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  5. mekubal said...

    Quite frankly I don't think anyone who has ever been abused would use the term "unpleasant trauma" to describe the event. Most abuse is quite shockingly traumatic and typically leaves issues that the person will have to deal with for the rest of their lives.
    ==================
    Do you have sources that that is the definition of pikuach nefesh?

    ReplyDelete
  6. In general, no, in fact quite the opposite. My objection primarily was to the language. Categorizing abuse of any kind and serial abuse especially as an "unpleasant trauma" seems to equate it with having a minor wound or needing to have a root canal.

    It appears that from all of my learning that it equates more to having a limb amputated. Wherein it results in a serious diminishment of the person's abilities and quality of life.

    Could the case be made that it is pikuach nefesh... perhaps. I seem to remember a sugiya toward the middle/end of Perek Merubah in Baba Kama that stated if a person was blinded/deafened it is as if they have been killed. However, I only learned that Bekiut about two years ago and never really delved into the Rishonim ect.

    However, the point of my comment was to state that I do not think that language you used was commensurate with the damage done the individual.

    ReplyDelete
  7. mekubal said...


    However, the point of my comment was to state that I do not think that language you used was commensurate with the damage done the individual.
    ====================
    What term would you use? Rav Eliashiv says that child abuse is destruction of the soul and thus pikuach nefesh.
    However not all cases of abuse have the same consequences.

    How would you describe that which is not considered pikuach nefesh?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dt,

    I may have gove a bit overboard. however, regarding our discussion it remains the same:

    WE may have 3 levels:

    1)Hashavat gufoy,
    2) Pikuach Nefesh,
    3) "loy Taamod al Dam recho as ruled by Rambam and Sa without any opposing view.

    1) Would entail ALL healings under it's wing,

    2) Would entail any healing connect with a doubt over someone's life, One has to ask a iyun to a Rav Mumcheh whether destroying one's mental life, or one into a shoteh etc. is equivalent to sakanat nefesh or sakant ever,

    3) Rambam and Sa rule there is an issur of "loy taamod al dam reecho" when one hears nochrim preparing an ambush on the person. It does not state that the ambush or pach is relating directly to pikuch nefesh; actually in one case it says "mechashvim loh rah", which would appear to include any rah.

    שולחן ערוך חושן משפט סימן תכו

    או מוסרים מחשבים עליו רעה או טומנים לו פח ולא גילה אוזן חבירו והודיעו; או שידע בעובד כוכבים או באנס שהוא בא על חבירו, ויכול לפייסו בגלל חבירו ולהסיר מה שבלבו ולא פייסו, וכיוצא בדברים אלו, עובר על לא תעמוד על דם רעך


    שו"ת ציץ אליעזר חלק טז סימן ד

    א) הרמב"ם בפ"א מה' רוצח ושמירת נפש הי"ד פוסק וז"ל: כל היכול להציל ולא הציל עובר על לא תעמוד על דם רעך, וכן הרואה את חבירו טובע בים או ליסטים באים עליו או חיה רעה באה עליו ויכול להצילו הוא בעצמו או ששכר אחרים להצילו ולא הציל או ששמע עכו"ם או מוסרים מחשבים עליו רעה או טומנים לו פח ולא גלה אזן חבירו והודיעו או שידע בעכו"ם או באונס שהוא בא על חבירו ויכול לפייסו בגלל חבירו להסיר מה שבלבו ולא פייסו וכל כיוצא בדברים אלו, העושה אותם עובר על לא תעמוד על דם רעך עכ"ל.

    ובזה הלשון נפסק בפשיטות גם בשו"ע ח"מ סימן תכ"ו [אלא דבמקום שלפנינו ברמב"ם הנוסחא בלשון "או ששכר אחרים להצילו", בשו"ע שם הגירסא "או שישכור אחרים להציל" ויש נפ"מ מזה לענין אם שכר אחרים במקום שיכול להציל בעצמו אם מהני ואכמ"ל].

    למדנו מדברי הרמב"ם והשו"ע הנז' שבכלל האיסור של לא תעמוד על דם רעך כלול לא רק כשהמדובר על שפיכות דמים ממש, אלא הוא כולל על כל העומד מנגד ונמנע מלעשות פעולה כדי להציל את חבירו מכל רעה שחורשים עליו או מכל פח שטומנים לו, ולאו דוקא רציחה ממש, והוא יכול להצילו מזה הן באופן פיזי, הן על ידי פיוס שיפייס את חושב הרעה, והן על ידי הקדמה להקדים לגלות מזה את אוזן חבירו, ואיננו עושה זאת, בכל אלה הוא עובר על לאו של לא תעמוד על דם רעך.

    ReplyDelete
  9. moved the discussion of pikuach nefesh to a separate post


    This link
    is to the new post on pikuach nefesh.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.