Roni commented to a previous post - I am making it a separate post & moved other comments
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 you have a raised a critical point in the discussion of child abuse i.e., is it pikuach nefesh.
ReplyDeleteThere 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.
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.
ReplyDeletemekubal said...
ReplyDeleteQuite 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
mekubal said...
ReplyDeleteHowever, 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?
"How would you describe that which is not considered pikuach nefesh?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps if the situation has reached the point that an outsider is aware and/or not willing to dismiss it as mere discipline then the behavior is unstable and destructive enough that we have to be concerned that it may develop into pekuach nefesh?
Dt,
ReplyDeleteI 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
let me add that may be pertient to one angle of this discussion (if there is an elemnt of pikuach nefesh by mental illness).
ReplyDelete1) IgM YD Chelek 2 59:
"אך אולי יש לדון מצד מחלתו אם יאמרו הרופאים שיש בזה משום פ'וח נפש, כגון דעלול מזה להרוג את עצמו באם יהיה לו איזה צער, או דיעבור על דברים שאסורים גם בדיני המדינה ולא ישמע להפאליס ויריב עמם עד שיבא מזה שיהרגוהו ...."
2) Another element that needs to be explored is if we one can ascertain that this mental illness or depression may lead one to turn off from torah and mtizvot completely does this qualify to what is discussed at the end of Orach Chayim 306 that one desecrate shabbat to take out a jewish daughter that was taken way by nochrim so that she may keep other shabbataot and by bring there she might never keep shabat and might be taken out of religion.
Even if one will say that our discussion does not pertain to that halacha one can see a significanace that relates to some of the halachot discussed there at the Magen Avraham, Pri Megadim and later responsa about the importance of doing something to keep someone to keep mitzvot that is either akin to pikuach nefesh or borders on it or is "mitzvah rabbah", that gives us another importanece to it much more that "hashvat gufoy".
3) and another lement that needs to be explored is whether or not this consitutes no less that Sakanat ever where the shach in YD 157 tends to compare this to PN in other mitzzvot (but bot for chilul shbbat),
all this needs to heavily explored (in addition to the other points mentioned),
Dt: One point to clarify with you: I don't think that in order for us to equate with Pn it necessarily must contain the laws of Rodef. Ie: One could perhaps say that this is not equal to rodef in the sense that one may kill theperson who is about to do this action; but nevertheless one may and should treat this illness and protect the person from coming to this similar to the dinim of Pn, like sakannat eyver according to shach: I'm not sure if he would hold that one who rodef achar ever is chayav missah, but certainly he tends to be mekil regarding being docheh shar diney hatorah.
I think you cannot generalise.
ReplyDeleteThere certainly are forms of abuse that are pikuach nefesh, i.e. the cases where the abuser is also a murderer or ready to commit homicide recklessness.
So I suppose that the term of "abuse" is too general.
As far as repeated sexual abuse without intention to kill is concerned, what are the advantages of classifying it as "pikuach nefesh"?
Do you really need this "Dreh" in order to denounce the abuser to the authorities?
Would classifying it as pikuach nefesh allow you to kill the abuser without a process? Is this really the way you would want to settle the problem?
In short: I find the question a bit strange.
I'd rather go with Mekubal's proposition and compare it to an "amputated limb", i.e. something that causes lasting damage in the person's life.
ReplyDeleteIt is actually a very good comparison, because the tearing of a limb might result in death (if no adequate medication is provided, or depending on the limb concerned). In the same way, sexual abuse might lead to death (by suicide or otherwise), but it is not something that always occurs.
And I also think that avoidance of further harm (to persons who already sufferd and to persons who might suffer in the future) and adequate compensation of the damage should be paramount preoccupations.
Aren't there laws about preventing someone from going around and tearing off limbs or carving out eyes?
another mareh makom for a discussion on whether or not choleh ruach (mentalilness) or certain types thereoff can be classified as pkiuach nfesh in STzitz Eliezer Chelek 4/ Siman 13 Ot 3.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think I tend to agree with Shoshi that we do not need to come to "pikuach nefesh" in order to heighten the obligation to act (as it might raise the unwanted thought of killing the perptrator of this act); and I think that "loy Taamod Al dam Reecho" certainly raises the bar, and so the svara that it is not worse than "Sakanat Eiver (if anything it might be worse than sakanat eyver), yet the mere though that this may border with pikuach nefesh raises the serioussness that we should direct ourselves regarding this very issue, like the ruling in Shulchan Aruch about Pkuach Nefesh "hanishal hareh zeh meguneh" and statements of the same sort regarding the deploring of chazal about the inaction in these situations.
another mareh makom for a discussion on whether or not choleh ruach (mentalilness) or certain types thereoff can be classified as pkiuach nfesh in STzitz Eliezer Chelek 4/ Siman 13 Ot 3.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think I tend to agree with Shoshi that we do not need to come to "pikuach nefesh" in order to heighten the obligation to act (as it might raise the unwanted thought of killing the perptrator of this act); and I think that "loy Taamod Al dam Reecho" certainly raises the bar, and so the svara that it is not worse than "Sakanat Eiver (if anything it might be worse than sakanat eyver), yet the mere though that this may border with pikuach nefesh raises the serioussness that we should direct ourselves regarding this very issue, like the ruling in Shulchan Aruch about Pkuach Nefesh "hanishal hareh zeh meguneh" and statements of the same sort regarding the deploring of chazal about the inaction in these situations.
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.
ReplyDelete==================
This point of the Tzitz Eliezer is not obvious.
For example the Abarbanel says that rodef is learned from lo taamod ahl dam - because dam means a threat to life. This seems to be the understanind of Rashi, Ramban and others.
While it is true that the verse is also used for the halacha that one can not withold testimony - but it is interesting that there are in fact two separate derashos. There is not one derasho which clearly includes not pikuach nefesh situations with pikuach nesfesh.
The major poskim [including Rav Moshe, Rav Eliashiv, Tzitz Eliezer, Minchas Yitzchok, R Ovadia Yosef] assume that the police can be called in the case of saving from life threateing situation. If abuse is not rodef than that undermines the basis of the heter.
Regarding Rav Moshe - he clearly holds that mental illness is pikuach nefesh only if there is a danger of suicide or homicide. Shotah is not in itself considered pikuach nefesh.
In sum it is a major problem regarding calling the police if pikuah nefesh is not meant life threatening.
Roni wrote:
ReplyDelete2) Another element that needs to be explored is if we one can ascertain that this mental illness or depression may lead one to turn off from torah and mtizvot completely does this qualify to what is discussed at the end of Orach Chayim 306 that one desecrate shabbat to take out a jewish daughter that was taken way by nochrim so that she may keep other shabbataot and by bring there she might never keep shabat and might be taken out of religion.
==============
This is a dangerous path - that would indicate molesting a non religious person or non-Jewish person is to be treated differently
Roni wrote;
ReplyDeleteDt: One point to clarify with you: I don't think that in order for us to equate with Pn it necessarily must contain the laws of Rodef. Ie: One could perhaps say that this is not equal to rodef in the sense that one may kill theperson who is about to do this action; but nevertheless one may and should treat this illness and protect the person from coming to this similar to the dinim of Pn, like sakannat eyver according to shach: I'm not sure if he would hold that one who rodef achar ever is chayav missah, but certainly he tends to be mekil regarding being docheh shar diney hatorah.
=====================
This is a very important point. If it isn't rodef than where is it learned from. If it is rodef - then why can't you kill the abuser?
You need to keep in mind that we are talking about extra judicial procedures.
Dear Dt (more later when I have more time) but now bekitzur:
ReplyDelete3) Yes, there seems to drashot on loy taamod al dam reecho; but at the end there is one drasha and codified in rambam and So that obliges one to act in case where there nochrim who are thinking to make "rah" something bad to an individual (akin the law of edut). this seems to be bolstered by thge way that Shulchan Aruch Harav brings this law of Rambam in two separate halachot in nizkey guf venefesh.
Can you cite the exact mareh mekomot sources about calling police so that I can look them up? Thanks,
And this is regardless of the rodef angle.
Rodef is learned from Loy ttamod, Loy sochos, vekatzzossah ess kaph, Pn is learned from Vechay Bahem.
ReplyDeleteshotah in and of itself is not pikuach nefesh":
ReplyDeleteHowever, i was thinking of a davar chadash (and not so chadash), for the SHUlchan Oruch Harav explains that the reason one may violate shabbat for someone who taken away by nochrim and might not keep shabat all her life is because not keeping shabbat all life is similar topikuach nefesh. Someone who keeps shabbat and wuill become a shoteh who dos not keep shabbat (on that level of mechuyav badavar) will be mechalel shabbat kol yomeho and not keep shabat kol yameha ; that consititutes "pikuach nefesh" in the eyes of Shulchan Aruch HaRav.
Can you cite the exact mareh mekomot sources about calling police so that I can look them up? Thanks,
ReplyDelete================
Look at the Nishmas Avraham part 4 page 207-221
There is also a major discussion in Yeshurun vol 15
you mean you can't call the police if a jew goes around hacking off hands?
ReplyDeleteOr would it only be allowed because if you are left bleeding with your hand hacked off it could become life-threatening?
Well if this is the meaning of pikuach nefesh, it might be...
But if Rav Elyashiv qualified it as pikuach nefesh, why don't you take his word for it?
ReplyDeleteOr does pikuach nefesh just mean: risk of suffering bodily harm, even if it is not actually life-threatening (because you cannot know beforhand how much harm will be done to the body?)
ReplyDelete"Look at the Nishmas Avraham part 4 page 207-221
ReplyDeleteThere is also a major discussion in Yeshurun vol 15",
Thanks! I don't have them both now (actually the first one I may have but I don't know where i placed it. But maybe I don't have chelek 4).
I'll try to get a hold of them!
thanks again.
ש"ך חושן משפט סימן שפח ס"ק ס
ReplyDelete(ס) מפני צער יחיד כו' - דווקא צער יחיד (וע"ל ס"ק מ"ג דמי שרגיל להכות מותר למוסרו להציל שלא יכה עוד)
שולחן ערוך הרב חושן משפט הלכות נזקי ממון
וכן מי שרגיל להכות הבריות ואי אפשר להציל ממנו אלא אם כן ימסרוהו מצוה על כל אדם למסרו לנכרים שיקחו ממונו או שיקצצו ידו שלא יוסיף להכות עוד.
Roni wrote:
ReplyDeleteanother mareh makom for a discussion on whether or not choleh ruach (mentalilness) or certain types thereoff can be classified as pkiuach nfesh in STzitz Eliezer Chelek 4/ Siman 13 Ot 3.
===============
The Tzitz Eliezar (Nishmas Avraham 4:209) does not view sexual abuse as producing mental illness.
He allows reporting a teacher who is molest boys and a father who is molesting his daughter - but not a teacher who is molesting girls who are not related to him. Thus only when the abuser can be classified as a rodef (Sanhedrin 73a)does he permit calling the police.
The fact that abuse might lead to mental illness is not considered by him
Rav Eliashiv (Nishmas Avraham 4:107-211): Rav Eliashiv told me that there is no difference in the cases of a teacher molesting boys or girls [in terms of considering this a case of rodef]. That is because in either case it is a case of severe psychological damage and danger to the public.
ReplyDelete==================
In other words Rav Eliashiv holds that rape is a danger (pikuach nefesh) because of the psychological damage he causes and thus a child molester would be a rodef.
However the Tzitz Eliezar would only consider a child molester a rodef if it involved a relationship which was punished by kares or capital punishment. The Tzitz Eliezar does allow a non kares molester to be informed on apparently because of the physical damage caused or to save him from sinning - not the psychological.
Tzitz Eliezer (4:13) says that mental illness is inherently dangerous because it can lead to suicide or harm to others. Rav Moshe Feinstein (EH 1:65)& (O.C. 5:18) says the same thing.
ReplyDeleteThus whatever mental illness is caused by abuse is not considered danger - unless it is actually life threatening.
Dear Daat Torah
ReplyDeleteDAAt torah wrote: "The Tzitz Eliezar (Nishmas Avraham 4:209)...
He allows reporting a teacher who is molest boys and a father who is molesting his daughter - but not a teacher who is molesting girls who are not related to him. Thus only when the abuser can be classified as a rodef (Sanhedrin 73a)does he permit calling the police....":
Roni writes: With all due respect you are missing the sequence of what Rav Wildenberg told Nishmat Avraham and is recorded in page 209
"תשובה: אפי' לא היתה ערוה עליו שחייבים על זה כרת, ג"כ היה מותר למוסרו, הן כדי להציל אותו מפגיעתו, וגם לרבות כדי להציל אותו מרשעתו זה" and he differentiates between this halacha and what is recorded in SO CM 338q9 that it is prohibited to inform a rasha, and hedistinguishes that this case is differnt, where we want to prevent the continutiy of such evil and also when protects heer from "פוגם בגופה ובנפשה", Ge then cites the halacha wementioned earlier by Shach (and SO HaRav) that it is permitted to inform soemone who phyiscally hits others so that he should stop hitting them in the future.
In short: Rav WIldenberg permits informing all molesters, whether they are rodef achar ereva or not for the reasons mentioned here. (Where he might make a distinction was earler when he was actually asking whether or not they have din rodef/ But when he wrote about informing to authorities he (and Rav ELyashiv, and Rav Asher Weiss and Rav Halberstam from Badatz) did NOT distinguish between ervah or non ervah and permitted to go to authorities in case where the person is a danger to molest others,
look also the other post that i sent you how Rav WIldenberg and Rav Elyashiv agree on this issue that heter for this messira does not require him to be on the levelof rodef.
ReplyDeleteYou stopped in the middle of his reasoning. The Tzitz Eliezar continues:
ReplyDeleteTzitz Eliezer (Nishmas Avraham) If the case is rape of young children in school when the teacher does a disgusting act on either boys or girls. It would appear that since in the case of boys, the act of sodomy is liable to capital punishment from a beis din – therefore this is a case of rodef and thus it is permitted to informed the secular authorities as it is in the two previous cases [which were classified as rodef.] However in a case where the teacher is molesting girl it would appear that it is permitted for the doctor who discovers the abuse to expose the matter and to inform the principal of the school. If the principal doesn’t do anything then it would be permitted to report the matter to the police – even outside of Israel. That is because a person who molests more than one person is someone who harms the community and there is no prohibition of informing the authorities (mesira). In fact, not only is it not prohibited as informing (mesira) but there is an obligation to inform the authorities so that the teacher will not continue his evil deeds – not only in this school but also in other schools. It is absolutely clear that in all cases that the doctor is not to take any action without first being convinced that his facts are correct and before he consults with a major rabbinic authority – because this is a life and death situation [not only for the children but for the teacher].
Thus the Tzitz Eliezar is clearly differentiating a molester who is a rodef and one who is viewed as merely physically abuser. The latter case is treated much more leniently - he requires the principal be informed rather than the police. He also indicates that if the teacher is only molesting one girl that there would not be permission to call the police because he is not dealing with a rodef - but only a public nuisance. Public means more than one. A rodef only has to try to molest one person and even the attempt to molest makes him a rodef. If the molester is a public nuisance he must actually have molested to be able to call the police.
The next line the Nishmas Avarahm notes that Rav Eliashiv does not make this distinction of the Tzitz Eliezer but apparently considers all sexual abusers as a rodef.
In sum - Rav Eliashiv considers child abuse as pikuach nefesh a clear cut danger to the person and that is why the have the status of rodef. Tzitz Eliezer considers it a case of rodef only if there is a sin of kares or capital punishment. He does not consider sexual abuse as a danger. Where there isn't a status of rodef because of sin he switches over to the din of public nuisance Rambam(Hilchos Chovel uMazik 811) Rema (388:9) & Shach (388:45)
roni said...
ReplyDeletelook also the other post that i sent you how Rav WIldenberg and Rav Elyashiv agree on this issue that heter for this messira does not require him to be on the levelof rodef.
-------------------------
That is true - as I noted in my previous post. But there are significant differences between the mesira done against a public nuisance and against a rodef.
Furthermore I showed that Rav Eliashiv differs from the Tzitz Eliezar in regarding child molesting itself as pikuach nefesh while the Tzitz Eliezar views it as rodef because of sin or public nuisance. He does not view sexual abuse as pikuach nefesh.
o anything until he is convinced that the the "dovor" (the suspicion?) is right and before he speaks about it to a rav muvhak!
ReplyDeleteto be continued
4) and I will stress again, that althou *RAv Sofer* did not repeat in the next paragraph that "mental" pgia is reason for messira, *Rav wildenberg* DID!
ReplyDeleteTherefore, your statement "You stopped in the middle of his reasoning. The Tzitz Eliezar continues:...",
is not correct, for Tzitz Eliezer did not continue (it was Nishmat Avrohom's remarks). And in fact, Tzitz Eliezer own words eralier were: "אפי' אילו לא היתה ערוה עליו שחייבים על זה כרת, גם היה מותר למוסרו, הן להציל אותו מפגיעתו וגם לרבות כדי להציל אותו מרשעתו....",
TE did NOT differentiate in *practice* betwen both of themin the method of the permissiblity to be masser (although conceptually acknowledging that there might be instances where it would be more chamur in cases where it would be orloh of chiyuv karet).
Thus when you write: "
Thus the Tzitz Eliezar is clearly differentiating a molester who is a rodef and one who is viewed as merely physically abuser", is not the TE words! Moreover, even in the words of nishmat Avraham I fail to see treating the rodef case *in practise* different than the non rodef case!
Fo, he is only a rodef (halachikally) only if he at the school; so why do you think that here you should not go first to the school and remove the "Redifa" via the school first? Conceptually you may be right, that TE treats one a din rodef andtheother might not have the din of rodef, but in the ase of a teacher in a schoold I do not see how NA states that they are treated differently and certainly TE did not say so.
to be continued
DT wrote:"The next line the Nishmas Avarahm notes that Rav Eliashiv does not make this distinction of the Tzitz Eliezer but apparently considers all sexual abusers as a rodef".
ReplyDeleteRoni: never does Na state that RE says that "all sexual abusers as a rodef"; he never used the word "rodef"! He used the term "sakana lerabim" ( a sakana of molestation is a sakana lerabim but where does it say that it rises to the level of "rodef")?
You are saying something dangerous when you say someone says he is a "rodef", for it then allows one to kill him!
The only ones who said rodef was: RSZA and only about a father that a) hits the child to the level "ad hamavet" or a father that molests his daughter, where NA says in the name RSZA that he is rodef mamash achar arayot!
DT:"In sum - Rav Eliashiv considers child abuse as pikuach nefesh a clear cut danger to the person and that is why the have the status of rodef."
Roni: He did not use the term "pikuach nefesh" either ! and certainly not the term "rodef"!
Dt:" Tzitz Eliezer considers it a case of rodef only if there is a sin of kares or capital punishment. He does not consider sexual abuse as a danger. Where there isn't a status of rodef because of sin he switches over to the din of public nuisance Rambam(Hilchos Chovel uMazik 811) Rema (388:9) & Shach (388:45)":
Roni: The first part is accurate (rodef in case of arayot); but the later is not accurate: (while Na said so,) TE said that it is more than "nuisance" and also it does not need to be "public" for one to have a right to inform: When one hits one physically or "pgia nafshit" mentally through molesting then one is entitled (in the eyesof TE) to inform as this is like REma, Shach and Sema that one is allowed to inform if someone is "makeh" him so that it he should not makeh him again!
look also the other post that i sent you how Rav WIldenberg and Rav Elyashiv agree on this issue that heter for this messira does not require him to be on the levelof rodef.
ReplyDelete-------------------------
"That is true - as I noted in my previous post. But there are significant differences between the mesira done against a public nuisance and against a rodef".
Roni: 1) I didn't see that TE should differentiate in practice! Actually he didn't. 2) The term "public nuisance" was not used by TE (but by NA), TE said that moelstation is "pgia nafshit" and "pgia bgufa" like HAKKAH!
DT:"Furthermore I showed that Rav Eliashiv differs from the Tzitz Eliezar in regarding child molesting itself as pikuach nefesh while the Tzitz Eliezar views it as rodef because of sin or public nuisance. He does not view sexual abuse as pikuach nefesh".
ROni: 1) RE did not say in these two works one word that child molesting is "pikuach nefesh", (he said "sakanah kerabim" or "pgia nefesh chamura") 2) TE said that it is either rodef in cases of erva (where RE would probably agree - this ishould be no machlokess; RE was not talking about it specifically), or it is a case of "hakkah" where messira is permitted SIMILAR TO RE WHO CALLS "PGIA CHAMURAH" OR "SAKANAH LERABIM" ABUT DOES NOT SAY IT IS "PIKUACH NEFESH"!
ROni: 1) RE did not say in these two works one word that child molesting is "pikuach nefesh", (he said "sakanah kerabim" or "pgia nefesh chamura") 2) TE said that it is either rodef in cases of erva (where RE would probably agree - this ishould be no machlokess; RE was not talking about it specifically), or it is a case of "hakkah" where messira is permitted SIMILAR TO RE WHO CALLS "PGIA CHAMURAH" OR "SAKANAH LERABIM" ABUT DOES NOT SAY IT IS "PIKUACH NEFESH"!
ReplyDelete=============
You raise a good point. We in essence have three sources regarding Rav Eliashiv's point Yeshurun (15) his printed teshuva which is a truncated version of Yeshurun (15) and the report by the Nishmas Avraham.
It is only in the third source where there is an indication that he holds that child abuse is a severe condition.
I am basing my understanding of his view from what I heard from the Rav Mayer Horowtiz the Bostoner Rebbe's son who asked Rav Eliashiv about child abuse. He told me that Rav Eliashiv told him that abuse is pikuach nefesh because the person is destroyed by the abuse.
The question of the accuracy of the Nishma Avraham is a good question - there is a written teshuva in the Tzitz Eliezer (19:52) There the Tzitz Eliezer - while not calling it pikuach nefesh - does allow calling the police because of the physical and psychological damage. The degree of physical and psychological damage to call the police does not seem to be very serious. He also does not mentioned the distinction of calling the principal first as is mentioned in the Nishmas Avraham.
So you are right that practically speaking the Tzitz Eliezar in (19:52) also says to call the police - but he does not seem to view it as seriously as Rav Eliashiv who considers it pikuach nefesh.
It would seem though that the additional points that I made when it is not a case of rodef still apply - then the police can be called only if the abuse was actually done and the danger or repetition is present and that it is done to the masses i.e., more than one person still apply.
It would also seem that if it were a real case of rodef - then there would be no need to consult with a rav or beis din.
DT:"It would seem though that the additional points that I made when it is not a case of rodef still apply - then the police can be called only if the abuse was actually done"
ReplyDeleteROni: While TZ does NOT say this, and neither did RSZA say this clearly, so it might be up to discussion!
While i might concede that you may want to argue that by a safek rodef one is permitted to act even to masser. I don't access to the Yeshurun now, i think that is the next disucssion there, but I don't know if this is a simple matter. Bifrat that lichorah it has to be a strong safek. As Rav Elyashiv writes in pssak in yeshurun that there may be a talmid that has grievance on his teacher or another "dimyon" we are not allowed to bring someone to a state where "tov mossoy mechayav" for no reason.
And on the other hand even it is not rodef, you are dwongrading the concerns too much (you seem to like to call plain "nuisance" ; it is WRONG TE wrote about it "pgia bguf venefesh" -only NA wrote it; i don't know why when TE wrote that it is pgia bguf venefesh-), and therefore even if one is not knowledagable that a chamur dike act of abuse of done, what about lower levels of molestation, I would assume that that too falls under "Hakoo and gia nafshit" or "chanura",
IN short this distinction too, may not be entirely accurate!
DT:" and the danger or repetition is present":
ReplyDeleteRoni: Fine, but this is something that many people claim that a serious molester is shayach to be a reptetive offender and needs rehabilitation etc. so this concern is always present in the nature of the concern,
dt:" and that it is done to the masses i.e., more than one person still apply'.
Roni: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THIS IS WRONG! you repeat so many times, but while NA wrote this, nevertheless, NEITHER DID RAV ELYASHIV AND NEITHER TE:
When you talk about "tzaaar" there is disntinction between "rabim" and "Yachid" but when you talk about HAKAAA (hitting physically or nafshit abuse) then even to YACHID messira is mutar: Remo, Shach, Sema, Shulchan Aruch HaRAv!
DT:"It would also seem that if it were a real case of rodef - then there would be no need to consult with a rav or beis din".
Roni: While conceptually you may be right, but even NA staes that the rofeh should not act before speaking to a Rov "BECHOL HAMIKRIM" and it makes some sense because maybe we need to reassure that it is "Safek rofdef" (if it would be actually permitted to act upon it) and not less than that.
Dear Dt,
ReplyDeleteIn one of the teshuvot in yeshurun there is a practical distinction between the application of the halacha regarding Rodef or just Hmatzaer horabim )or hakkoas hayochid): If one is allowed to inform on his own parents (rachmonoh litzlon from such cases bichlal):
Rav Moshe Halbershtam from the Eydah Hacharedit seems to make this point, that since we are dealing with a case of erva (in case of a parent molesting) therefore even the children can and should inform on their parents based on the din rodef which is a mitzvah to all.
Dear Dt,
ReplyDeleteIn one of the teshuvot in yeshurun there is a practical distinction between the application of the halacha regarding Rodef or just Hmatzaer horabim )or hakkoas hayochid): If one is allowed to inform on his own parents (rachmonoh litzlon from such cases bichlal):
===============
Thanks