Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Motti Elon is honored speaker: Dealing with sexual predators in our neighborhoods.

 JPost - Elon convicted of sex crimes agains minors

The notice below highlights a major problem. What do you do with a child molester/sexual predator and how do you interact with him on a daily basis. What honor can be given and what access to children and women? 

This applies to people such as Dovid Weinberger, Elimelech Meisels, Mordechai Tendler, etc etc. Once upon a time when such crimes were either swept under the rug or the perpetrator banished to someone else's neighborhood - not much thought was given to this problem - because it officially didn't exist. However with the major change in the last few years, we now have sexual predators who are highly talented, personable and well known - in our neighborhoods - even as next door neighbors. There is no mesora for how to deal with these child rapists, adulterers and predators. What should be done? In addition how do you react to people such as Rabbi Druckman who insist on giving honor to predators such as Motti Elon and/or insist against clear evidence that they are innocent?

update:  Hannah @AMotherInIsrael 
I took the picture and posted it on my blog. Not sure why it appears here without credit or link. 


67 comments :

  1. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 29, 2014 at 2:09 PM

    דינא דמלכותא דינא How can Rav Druckman give him honor and put him in touch with children, how can Rav Micah HaLevi(Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikva) do that? By Israeli law Elon is prohbitted contact from minors. How can these two Rabbanim, who claim to so love the State flaunt its laws so flagrantly.

    Should not such actions cause these two Rabbanim to be considered rodefim as well?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please provide relevant sources

    ReplyDelete
  3. Taking Rav Alon in particular, the age-group he molested comprises people mature enough to beware of him now that his propensities are known even if he is publicly honored. Molesters of small children may be a more problematic issue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What are you asking for - official answers? Haven't found any yet. Regarding sources for possible solution - I hope to present material in the near future dealing with that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I took the picture and posted it on my blog. Not sure why it appears here without credit or link.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry. someone sent it to me and I assumed they had taken the picture. Will add your name to the post

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here is the link as well, to include in both the post and the image. Thank you. http://www.amotherinisrael.com/moti-elon-sex-offender-event-children/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Weren't the children minors under 18 years old?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not specific to this case but rather your comment in general, the Ran in Nedarim paskens l'halacha that דינא דמלכותא דינא is inapplicable in Eretz Yisroel.



    (The reason the Ran gives is that DDD applies in chutz l'aartz since the rulers there allow the Jews to reside in their country so in return they are required to follow their laws. But, say the Ran, every Jew has the G-d given right to live in Eretz Yisroel, so therefore there is no requirement to reciprocate in following the rulers of EYs laws.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 29, 2014 at 5:24 PM

    Mostly my fault. Someone forwarded it to me, claiming that they had taken it. Sorry Hannah...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 29, 2014 at 5:45 PM

    Not if prominent rabbis implicitly vouch for him. Elon continues to deny he was guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not much to do then, it wasn't your fault. Thanks to both of you for helping straighten it out.

    ReplyDelete
  13. After giving this matter some thought - Druckman is an overrated, stupid fool who should be ignored. Elon is a sick, weird piece of drek who should be avoided.

    ReplyDelete
  14. People like this may be a public danger and menace (and there is definitely no problem of LH when warning people about him). But the term Rodeif - if employed in its Halachic context, i.e. the Heter to pre-emptively kill a person before he offends - is wrong. Only someone who we know is planning to rape an ערוה is a Rodeif. The Ramban says that one is planning to seduce an ערוה who is a minor, while being considered an אונס in regard to other Halachos, is not considered a רודף and may not be killed. Definitely one who plans to seduce over Bar-Mitzvas is not a רודף. The non-Jewish concept of "statutory rape" has no validity in Halacha whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 30, 2014 at 3:06 AM

    You totally haven't read any of the responsa on the subject that Rav Eidensohn has posted have you?

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Chaim

    A wild driver or one without a license is referred to as a rodef by Rav Eliashiv and Rav Sternbuch

    Shulchan Aruch refers to a counterfeiter as a rodef

    Rav Silman and others refers to a child molester as a rodef

    Rav Eliashiv notes that because child abuse destroys a person psychologically - then there is no difference between the molestation of a boy or a girl. You would agree that molester of a boy is a rodef?

    We don't posken like that Rambam. Molestation of a girl below 12 even with her "consent" is considered rape.

    While you are right that seduction of teenagers would normally not beconsidered rape. But in our day where seduction by a respected rabbi would probably cause severe psychological issues - then he is clearly a rodef and the community can take whatever measures they need to protect them.

    I think that seduction by a respected rabbi is not simply seduction but should be considered rape - even for an adult.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No - give me time...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Could you please provide the textual sources for any Posek who states explicitly that one who seeks to have consensual sex with a minor (and presumably acc. to you even one who is not an ערוה) may be killed if that is the only way to deal with him? Who is Rav Silman? Where does Rav Eliashiv note this? Who says that we don't pasken like the Ramban? The Mesora of Clal Yisrael until very recently was that it was common to marry a קטנה - as did the אבות, דוד המלך etc. My friend's grandmother (from India) took her skipping rope to her husband's house with her! Are you saying categorically that sex with a קטנה is rape?

    I agree that you "think that seduction by a respected rabbi is not simply seduction but should be considered rape - even for an adult." But the issue is - what do the Poskim say, especially in regard to Dinei Nefashos?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rabbi Michael TzadokJuly 30, 2014 at 1:28 PM

    Perhaps. Before you make grand pronouncements regarding halakha, you might want to peruse the relevant halakhic literature...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Chaim please read the articles in Yeshurun volume 15 concerning child abuse most of your questions are answered there.

    Regarding the fact that we don't posken like the Rambam regarding seduction of a minor

    Aruch HaShuchan (E.H. 178:27): The Beis Yosef writes in 178:3 “a child who has been married by her father and she commits adultery willingly – there are those who say that she is prohibited to her husband…. Others say that she is not prohibited to her husband unless he is a cohen.” That is because the seduction of a child is considered rape. The first opinion that she is prohibited to her husband is that of the Rambam (Hilchos Sotah 2) and Rambam(Hilchos Issurei Biah 3) who doesn’t agree that sedution of a child is considered rape. However all the poskim reject his words….

    Regarding how a girl can be married -
    A child can be married with her father's consent which removes this marriage from the category of rape

    Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 37:1): A father can betroth his daughter without her consent while she is a minor and similarly when she is a na’arah he has the option and what the husband uses for kiddushin becomes the father’s. Similarly he has the rights to what she finds or produces as well as her kesubah. If she becomes widowed or divorced after betrothal but before marriage - he has the rights to everything until she becomes an adult. Therefore the father can accepted the kiddushin of his daughter from the day she is born until she becomes and adult. Even if she is a deaf-mute or shoteh (crazy), if her father betroths her she becomes a married woman in every respect. If she is 3years and 1 day old, she can be betrothed through sexual intercourse with her father’s consent. Younger than that if her father allows betrothal through sexual intercourse – it has no halachic significance [and she is not betrothed].

    The above shows that a child can not give consent.

    The next issue is if the girl is not married than what is the sin of molesting a minor? To this Rav Eliashiv says that it is the psychological trauma and thus we don't differentiate between rape of a boy - which is prohibited by the Torah and seduction/rape of a girl.

    Rav Eliashiv (Nishmas Avraham 4:208-211): … Rav Eliashiv told me that there is in fact no difference in halacha between a teacher who is molesting boys or girls since in both cases we are talking about severe mental damages and danger to the public. He cited the Beis Yosef who cites the Rashba regarding R’ Eliezar ben Rav Shimon (Bava Metzia 83a) who reported thieves to the government… Regarding this Rav Eliashiv said that we learn from this that surely in the case of child abuse which is more severe then theft that it would be permitted to first report it to the principal of the school and if he doesn’t do anything to report the matter to the police even in the Diaspora.

    In other words just as a molester or boys is a rodef so is a molester of girls. In both cases there is either a sin that we need to prevent the molester from doing or pikuach nefesh that we need to protect the child. And yes if the only way to stop a girl from being raped is to kill the attacker than he can be killed.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Before throwing around the term "rodef" in its pure halakhic sense, please not that it applies only to one who is actively in the process of "pursuing" another to kill or rape. Nobody holds that one can kill a person who has done these actions in the past, or even one who is suspected of wanting to do so in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I hope that you are not suggesting that one can go kill Motti Alon or any other molester just based on their past actions.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "A wild driver or one without a license is referred to as a rodef by Rav Eliashiv and Rav Sternbuch"

    Only if he is continually engaged in that behavior. If he was once a wild driver he does not have the status of rodef for life.

    "Shulchan Aruch refers to a counterfeiter as a rodef"

    Only while he is actively engaged in counterfeiting. If he stopped that activity, he is no longer a rodef.

    "Rav Silman and others refers to a child molester as a rodef"

    Same principal as above examples.

    "We don't posken like that Rambam. Molestation of a girl below 12 even with her "consent" is considered rape."


    Yet a girl aged 12 through 15 is considered a full fledged adult capable of sexual consent, unlike by the goyim whose age of consent is typically 16 (in most US States - some have age 15 as being able to consent and some 17.)

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Yehoshua - I don't know why you are trying to make things more complicated then they are.

    There are two systems of self-defense - judicial and non-judicial. Rodef is a non-judicial principle which enables one to defend oneself or others against harm and to stop a sinner from sin.

    It is no different than what is found in secular law that a person has the right to respond to a perceied threat - even to the degree of killing someone. HOWEVER It is clear and obvious that if the defenssive method used - was in excess of what a normal person would then the "hero" becomes a criminal himself.

    Therefore if you kill an unlicensed driver - no court - Jewish or secular would consider that an appropriate action and the killer would be guilty of murder.

    The burden of proof is on the "hero" that his action was not only necessary but was also the only reaonable way to intervene.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thank you, I will do so. By the way, it's "Ramban", not "Rambam" (you wrote Rambam twice, so I assume it's not a typo).

    ReplyDelete
  26. @David see my answer to a similar question from Yehoshua

    ReplyDelete
  27. What is so hard to understand is take a case where I know someone who is planning to drive without a license (in your words, a rodef). I cannot employ a judicial process to prevent this, for if I were to cal the police and tell them that x is planning to drive without a license they would hang up on me. According to you, am I actually allowed to use all force necessary (e.g., break his legs) to stop him?

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Chaim we were talking about the principle that a child has no ability to consent. The Rambam clearly disagrees and is a minority view as the Aruch Hashulchan states - where does the Ramban agree with the Rambam?

    ReplyDelete
  29. If someone is a repeat unlicensed reckless driver and continues that practice despite warnings, fines and jail from court, it seems from your above it is permitted under halacha to kill him as a rodef.

    ReplyDelete
  30. In a previous thread you had dedicated about Rivky Stein being a rodef, with the conclusion seemingly that halachicly she is, it would also appear under halacha to be permissible to treat her with how the S"A describes it permissible in our days.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @David - you don't understand. Let me repeat. The category of rodef allows you to take commonsense measures to protect yourself. It doesn't allow you to take measures that no court in the world would think is justified.

    Rodef does not mean that the person can be used for target practise because his life is hefker. Killing a rodef without clear justification makes a person a murderer.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Are you referring to Jewish or goyish courts?



    If someone who continually endangers the public with his reckless driving or is in the process of stealing from another Jew using non-Jewish courts, and the only way to stop him or her is by killing him or her, the S"A says it is a mitzva to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Regarding how a girl can be married -

    A child can be married with her father's consent which removes this marriage from the category of rape"

    This doesn't make sense. If sex with a minor is by definition rape, how can her father's consent make it not rape? If the father married her off and gave the groom explicit permission to really rape his daughter, would that also not be rape according to you? Come on now. And the father's ability to marry his daughter should anyway have no bearing on the issue of rape - spousal rape is still rape.

    "The above shows that a child can not give consent."



    No, of course it doesn't. You may borrow a pencil from a child and use it על פי הלכה even though you may not steal it from him, so we see that he can give consent and that that consent is recognised by Halacha. Nevertheless, if the child wants to give the pencil to you as a gift, the gift is not valid, because to effect a קנין there is a requirement of דעת, which is not present in a minor.
    Sex is no different. If a minor consents to sex then it is not rape (just like the consent to taking the pencil makes it not stealing), but that consent is insufficient to effect קידושין because of the lack of דעת.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I have now gone through the entire section of Nishmas Avraham that you quoted and have seen what the Poskim say. There is an explicit Halacha in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 388:12 that "כל המוסר הצבור ומצערן מותר למסרו ביד עובדי כוכבים אנסים להכותו ולאסרו ולקנסו". The Issur of Mesira does not apply to one who is מצער הרבים. Rav Eliashiv says that this applies to someone who molests children, because he too is a danger to the public. It is clear from the ראיה from Bava Metziah that the issue is one of מסירה, not one of Rodeif. It is not clear that this would create an automatic Heter of Rodeif. You also fail to note the Tzitz Eliezer (quoted in NA) who says clearly that only when molesting an ערוה is there a Heter of Mesira based on the Din of Rodeif - please be honest and cite those who disagree with you as well.


    At any rate, your extension of these דיני נפשות to older girls (18 years old) who are being seduced by an authority figure is completely unwarranted according to anybody. Of course we can and should warn everybody about such a person, but he is not a מצער הרבים any more than any other womanising adulterer, and is definitely not a Rodeif.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Chaim I really don't understand your point. If we posken that a child's consent in sexual relations is not considered consent - but if the father consents it is ok then by definition it is not rape.

    Or perhaps you are saying that all sexual relations with a koton constitute rape.

    In the child abuse literature I have not seen any discussion of the permissiblity of interocourse with a child outside of marriage because she/he consents.

    According to you it would make a major difference.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @David - at this point you seem to be disagreeing with Rav Sternbuch, Rav O Yosef and other gedolim.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Please reread what I wrote. The Ramban says that ALTHOUGH we say פיתוי קטנה אונס הוא and a married קטנה does not become Ossur on the husband if she willingly does זנות, NEVERTHELESS if somebody attempts to seduce her he is NOT considered a Rodeif. Read the Ramban please - I am not making it up.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You know very well that all sex outside marriage is Ossur according to Halacha - of course there is not going to be a "discussion of the permissiblity of interocourse with a child outside of marriage because she/he consents"! But whether consensual sex with a minor is considered rape or not in regard to Rodeif is indeed an important question that is dealt with by the Ramban and others.


    I would like to add that the Minchas Chinuch writes that sometimes Beis Din can kill someone to prevent him sinning even when there is NO Heter of Rodeif - under certain limited circumstances. This could have an application when it comes to child abuse. If so, the Halachic ramifications of our argument may not be as encompassing as they may seem.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 388:10): It is permitted to kill a moser (informant) even in modern times. It is permitted to kill him before he has informed. Even if he threatens to hand either the Jew or his property to non Jewish authorities – even if it is a small amount of money – he can legitimately be killed.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Chaim I read what you wrote and also the question exactly whether it is relevant to halacha.. I have not seen any mention of this Ramban in the discussion of gedolim regarding abuse - so I assume it is not considered halacha. If you find it in Yeshurun 15 or Nishmas Avraham please let me know

    ReplyDelete
  41. @David that was written 500 years ago. the world has changed. Find me a modern posek i.e., last 20 years who says such a thing.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Chaim I don't cite the Tzitz Eliezar because 1) Rav Eliashiv specifically rejects his view 2) he clearly is not addressing the issue that Rav Eliashivs rasies name that pikuach nefesh applies to pscyhological well being as well as phsyical well being. In the same way i didn't mention Rav M Klein because he is totally oblivious to the psychological reality and his view is widely rejected because of that fact. If you want to see all the view - I have them in vol II of Child and Domestic Abuse.

    It is in the new awareness of the psychological damage that not only abuse but seduction causes that I suggested that the halacha of rodef has greater applicablity than traditionally used.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anything not quoted by Yeshurun or NA is not Halacha!? The Haflaah originally thought that since פיתוי קטנה אונס הוא there should be a Din of Rodeif, but retracted because he saw that the Shita Mekubetzes was מסופק about it. Now we know that the Ramban definitively rules that he is not a Rodeif, with no known Rishonim arguing on him - and you would still kill someone because it is not in Yeshurun! וצע"ג.


    One point I am in doubt about. The Machlokes Rambam versus the Rishonim about פיתוי קטנה אונס הוא is explained by the Acharonim to refer to a Ketana who is old enough to make decisions competently - only such a girl does the Rambam describe as יש לה רצון להאסר על בעלה. A younger girl (such as a six-year old perhaps) does not have רצון even according to the Rambam, and would therefore not become Ossur to the husband if she were to do זנות.
    Now perhaps we could suggest - I haven't seen this anywhere - that this חילוק applies to the Din of the Ramban as well. i.e. only with a קטנה who is old enough to make competent decisions (but is nevertheless lacking דעת Halachically and therefore פיתויה אונס הוא), do we say that consensual sex with her is not considered rape in regard to the Din of Rodeif. But a younger girl. whose consent is not recognised even by Rambam, perhaps even "consensual" sex with her IS considered rape even to the extent that we would apply the הלכה of Rodeif. Just a suggestion.


    (I had a similar doubt regarding a שוטה, because the Binas Adam is מסתפק about whether the Rambam's opinion about a קטנה would apply to a שוטה.)

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm sorry that I don't share your view that the Tzitz Eliezer is בטל ומבוטל when he dares to argue with Rav Eliashiv. As for him "not addressing the issue that Rav Eliashiv raises", that is true, presumably because he disagrees. The TE was very worldly, arguably more so than Rav Eliashiv such as in areas of technology etc.(who was a great Posek whom I am not ח"ו denigrating in any way), and he did not share your viewpoint. It is important not to mislead people into thinking there is only one acceptable opinion on a complex matter.

    By the way, even according to Rav Eliashiv לכאורה there would only be a היתר מסירה when there is a רבים in danger, not when it is only an individual, as per the aforementioned סעיף:

    כל המוסר הצבור ומצערן מותר למסרו ביד עובדי כוכבים אנסים להכותו ולאסרו ולקנסו אבל
    מפני צער יחיד אסור למסרו.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The entire S"A was written 500 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The Tzitz Eliezar does not address the issue of psychological damage or acknowledge that it exists. Thus he is not in agreement with the established reality of abuse - while Rav Eliashi clearly was. As Rav Sternbch told me - you first have to get the metzius right before you can give a meaningful psak.

    Regarding your last point - see the Chasam Sofer to Gittin 7.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @David - yes it was all written 500 years ago - so that means you are agreeeing with me that one can not automatically apply rulings based on the reality of 500 years ago to modern times?

    ReplyDelete
  48. @Chaim the Nishmas Avraham and Yeshurun represent the most recent discussion of the issue. The abuse was not a halachic issue until recently - it was a straight question of what the halacha is - indepenently of any psychological damage (which in fact is not even mentioned iuntil recently).

    Thus since psychology is such an important issue today (possibly there was no psychological damage in earlier generations) - it is not relevant to decide halacha without reference to psychological damage.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I agree that psychological damage is relevant. I don't agree that the TE was unaware of such damage, and formulated his conclusion out of ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The fact that TE does not mention psychological damage does not mean that he doesn't acknowledge its existence - only that he thinks that such damage is not pertinent regarding the Halacha of Rodeif.


    I will now look up the Chassam Sofer.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'm just a bit astounded at the argument of using the fact that the S"A was written 500 years ago. It sounds like a recipe to be able to be dismissive of anything the S"A paskens by waiving it off as being 500 years old. Where does it end? That point can be used to dismiss the entire S"A.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @David - changes do happen. It is also interesting to note that Rav Moshe Feinstein says not to mention to baalei teshuva that sometimes halachos change - because it gets them upset.

    If the Shulchan Aruch was written at a time when it was a death sentence for a Jew to be reported to the police - it is no longer true. Rav Eliashiv notes that in previous times that going to jail was a death sentence - but since that is no longer true it is permitted to report stealing by a Jew to the police. The Aruch HaShulchan says that the prohibition no longer applies in modern times.

    If you want to hear a good presentation - Rav Herschel Schacter talks about this at YU.org

    ReplyDelete
  53. But the S"A says you can kill a moser/rodef even if it is NOT going to get the Jew imprisoned. The S"A says it's a mitzvah to kill him "even if it is a small amount of money" that he will cause the victim to lose.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ Chaim I can't find the Ramban you mentioned. There is a Ramban (Kesubos 37a) but it is not about a child but a shoteh.

    חידושי הרמב"ן מסכת כתובות דף לז עמוד א

    אי דייקת עלה איכא למימר לההיא אוקמתא גופה רישא בשוטה מפותה דפתויה אונס היא דאין מצילין אותה בנפשו שכיון שרוצה לזנות אין אפוטרפוס לעריות ויש לה קנס.



    The Minchas Chinuch(#600) says

    מנחת חינוך מצוה תר

    אבל מפותה אין מצילין בנפשו דהתורה לא הקפידה על העבירה רק אפגמה אבל אם היא בעצמה אינה מקפדת ל"ל בה כן מבואר בש"ס ואפשר אם היא קטנה דפיתוי קטנה אונס הוא לדעת רוב הפוסקים חוץ מהר"מ וכן אם היא שוטית וחרשית דודאי הוי כאונס דלאו בת דעת היא מצילין אותה אף בפיתוי. או אפשר כיון דלאו בת דעת אינה מקפדת על פגמה כלל ועל העביר' לא הקפידה התורה א"כ אפי' רוצה לאונסה אין מצילין אותה בנפשו כלל וצ"ע ע' בגמרא.

    מנחת חינוך מצוה תר

    מה שנסתפקתי לעיל אם אמרינן פיתוי קטנה אונס הוא לענין שניתן להצילה בנפשו אף במפותה. שוב ראיתי בס' ש"מ בכתובו' בפרק אלו נערות שנסתפק בזה מ"ש שכתב דאפשר לענין זה הו"ל פיתוי ע"ש.

    He does not mention rodef and simply says that perhaps one can not kill the seducer of a child because even though we normally say that there is no difference between seduction and rape for a child - in this case we regard it as seduction and don't kill the seducer to stop him.


    But we would kill him to stop rape and obviously the seducer ca be stopped by anything short of death.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @David again the problem of mesira is that endangered the life of the Jew

    ReplyDelete
  56. When the S"A rules the following:

    "Even if he threatens to hand either the Jew or his property to non
    Jewish authorities – even if it is a small amount of money – he can
    legitimately be killed"

    The S"A is saying even if he is only turning over a small amount of money from the Jew to the government you may kill him beforehand. Turning over a small amount of money from another Jew to the government isn't endangering the other Jews life. And more importantly the S"A did not qualify his ruling -- which is a major serious as possible ruling allowing one Jew to kill another Jew -- the S"A didn't qualify it with that the small amount of money is endangering anyone's life. Surely the S"A would qualify his ruling if the qualification you're giving it were applicable. You can't get more serious than allowing a killing.


    I apologize if I am coming across as stubborn, but this seems to be a clear cut rulingI am reading in the S"A.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @David please look at the commentaries

    סמ"ע על שולחן ערוך חושן משפט הלכות מאבד ממון חבירו בידים ומוסר ומלשין סימן שפח סעיף י

    כט] בגופו או בממונו. דמסור אף דאינו מזיק ממון חבירו בידים גרע ממזיק, וילפי לה בגמרא [ב"ק קי"ז ע"א] מדכתיב [ישעיה נ"א כ'] בניך עלפו שכבו בראש כל חוצות כתוא מכמר, מה תוא זה כשנפל למכמר שוב אין מרחמין עליו, כן ממונם של ישראל, כיון שנפל ליד אומות העולם אין מרחמין עליו ומעלילין עליו עלילות כל כך עד שהרבה פעמים יבוא ע"י לידי סכנת נפשות, משו"ה יש להמסור דין רודף. מיהו לא גרע מרודף דאחר שעבר עבירה אין הורגין אותו בלא התראה ובדין ב"ד דוקא, כן המסור אחר שמסר, אם לא שהוחזק למסור וכדמסיק המחבר בסעיף י"א:

    ReplyDelete
  58. You are right - I misquoted the Ramban. But I think that if the Ramban says that a Shoteh who willingly is מזנה is not considered אונס in regards to the Halacha of Rodeif, the same would apply to a קטנה (the Dvar Moshe I cited also says this). In fact, it is a כל שכן - as I wrote, the Binas Adam says that it could be that even the Rambam agrees that פיתוי שוטה אונס הוא, so we
    see that a שוטה is considered more אנוס than a child.


    On the other hand, it could still be that a very young child is considered to not be able to give consent at all, and is in fact less capable of רצון than a שוטה, and the Halacha of Rodeif would still apply even according to the Ramban. וצ"ע.

    ReplyDelete
  59. R' Druckman has been a big concealer and enabler of sexual abuse in his yeshiva network, stemming back to the scandals at Netiv meir and Mercaz harav 15 years ago, to this present day.
    I now see why his giur may be tainted (as is the giur of everyone under R' Elyashiv's tainted BD and Tropper).

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Chaim - thank you for acknowledging that you misquoted the Ramban. Unfortunately I wasted a lot of time trying to find the sources you quoted. Please take the time to verify your sources BEFORE you post. I added a note to the beginning of the thread that the citation from the Ramban is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @Chaim - no I don't agree with you regarding your extension of the Ramban from Shoteh to child.

    The Minchas Chinuch however requires further thought - especially regarding the question of what significance it has in practical halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  62. From the Ritva Kesuvos 37a ד"ה מתניתין we see that he extends the Ramban's סברא to a קטנה as well, i.e. although פתוי קטנה אונס הוא nevertheless there is no דין רודף. The מגיה there (note 34) explains it in this way, and that is the real Pshat, if you learn the whole paragraph there (he is saying the same as Ramban, but adds the case of קטנה).


    The מגיה writes that he didn't find anybody else saying so; however, we know that the Shita Mekubetzes has a ספק (brought in Haflaah and Minchas Chinuch), and there is nobody who says otherwise - so we return to my original argument: אין ספיקו של השטמ"ק מוציא מידי ודאו של הריטב"א. Of course, even without the Ramban or Ritva you cannot kill someone מספק since the Shita has a ספק.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Rav Gershon Edelstein also learns that the Ramban applies to a קטנה as well - Shiurei R' Gershon Kesuvos pages 265-266.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @Chaim -- A sofek rodef is considered the same as a rodef and can be killed - despite the sofek. This is discussed by Rav Silman in Yeshurun vol 15.


    ReplyDelete
  65. The שיטות who hold that one may kill a ספק רודף are only talking about when there is a ספק במציאות if he is going to kill/rape - not when we know the מציאות but there is a ספיקא דדינא if there is a דין רודף at all! Chas VeSholom!

    ReplyDelete
  66. It is worthwhile noting that the Ritva was a Talmid of the Ramban, and that lends strength to the assumption of many that the Ramban's words apply to a קטנה as well.

    ReplyDelete

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