Jewish Press published my article

The Jewish Press just published my article in the Letters to the Editor section

http://www.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfm?contentid=26563&mode=a&sectionid=59&contentname=Letters_To_The_Editor&recnum=0&subid=23694

It was also mentioned in Hirhurim

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/

Article requested by Jewish Press

The Jewish Press requested that I send in a more detailed comment which they said they will publish in the print edition. This is what I submitted

The Bedatz’s criticism of Eternal Jewish Family

The Bedatz of the Eidah Chareidis has recently brought some disturbing developments to our attention. [This is the actual Bedatz not an unofficial offshoot]. I must note that I am not a neutral observer in this matter. I played a minor role in aiding Rav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita obtain information from the Internet as well as translating and distributing two letters. [See my blog Daas Torah - http://daattorah.blogspot.com/ ] While I have some knowledge of Rav Moshe Feinstein’s zt”l views as the author Yad Moshe - my comments are what I have heard from Rav Sternbuch and other rabbonim.

Last Chanukah, Rav Efrati described Rav Eliashiv’s views concerning teaching Torah in a non‑observant community which has non‑Jews who think that they are Jewish. Concerning intermarried couples he says: “Rav Eliashiv, shlita has repeatedly said that those living as intermarried couples cut themselves off from the Jewish people. Furthermore he holds that we are obligated to distance ourselves from them and their society and to cut off all connection with them. However this community is different because its members mistakenly think that the non‑Jewish spouses are Jewish. Therefore it is permitted to maintain ties with the Jewish spouses in order to draw them closer through ties of love and to bring them under the wings of the Shechina.” This shunning of intermarried couples has always been the normative approach.

Nevertheless, what if a couple comes to a rabbi and asks for the non‑Jewish spouse to be converted? While there are dissenting views – there are many great rabbinical authorities which permit conversion as last resort - if the Jewish spouse becomes observant and the non‑Jewish spouse sincerely accepts the obligation to keep all mitzvos.

Why did the Bedatz issue their protest against participation in Eternal Jewish Family (EJF) – despite it being supported by many gedolei Torah? Because EJF is actively pursuing the conversion of the non‑Jewish spouse! Rav Leib Tropper, the head of the organization, has repeatedly denied proselytizing because he says he is only dealing with couples referred to him by rabbis. However it is difficult to understand his denials since proselytizing simply means trying to convince someone to change their religion. That is clearly what EJF is doing. It is a fact that Rav Tropper spends hundreds of thousands of dollars per convention to persuade a handful of uncertain or curious couples that they should become Jews. Those who are certain are not invited. These intermarried couples are given free conventions at quality resort hotels where they are wined and dined and given an intensive program by the world’s best religious motivational speakers – all in the hope that they will decide to convert.

In a recent intensive exchange of e-mails, I asked Rav Tropper the halachic rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein he claims as the basis for EJF’s activities. His response was, “Why do you think it is prohibited?” This is an astounding justification for a radical break with the past. While in fact it is not explicitly prohibited – this radical innovation of spending millions of dollars to convince non‑Jews to convert presents serious dangers to the Jewish people. It requires acceptance or rejection through scholarly discussion in peer-reviewed responsa - as innovations have been justified in the past.

Daniel Eidensohn Ph.D.

EJF Motivational Retreat

Proselytizing? III EJF (deleted) home page

Proselytising? II

http://www.jewishpress.com/print.do/18698/Oxnard_Diary.html

Jewish Press published the following entitled
Oxnard Diary - what follows is the second half of the article
by Isa David Balaban June 28, 2006

From a Jewish perspective, however, the most heartbreaking aspect may be that those intermarried Jews who, despite past decisions, fervently wish to retain their identity and their children’s identity as Jews are up against near impossible odds. These include the inescapable reality that there are few more serious violations of Jewish law than marriage to a non-Jew, that such marriages are condemned by the Bible and completely unrecognized, and that the status of the children of such partnerships are regarded accordingly. But can Judaism simply turn its back on sincere returnees who are intermarried?

Those who remember the television program “The Millionaire” will recall that each time the anonymous benefactor’s emissary, John Beresford Tipton, approached someone with the gift of a million dollars (which was a lot of money in the late 50’s), the recipient’s initial response was a blend of disbelief and cynicism (the varying proportions of which kept the series interesting from week to week).

Such was the understandable reaction of most of the thirty-two intermarried couples who were invited to the Oxnard Seminar when their local rabbi informed them that the religion best known for turning away potential converts would not only welcome the non-Jewish spouse’s application for conversion but also wanted to roll out the red carpet.

And who can blame them? Having long been written off as a bad investment of an outreach rabbi’s time, they were now being invited along with their children to an all-expenses-paid retreat at a luxurious winery on the California coast. Between the gourmet meals, vineyard tour, and wine-tasting, they would get the lowdown on converting to Judaism, share their own experience with other similarly-situated couples, and meet the team that would streamline the process for them. It sounded too good to be true.

Yet by the end of the three-day event, even the couple who had braced themselves for “the ultimate Amway pitch” were reassured – and much more. Oxnard Seminar participant Mike Perkins called the experience “life-changing.” New Yorker Pauline Edwards described herself as being “beyond inspired.” Canadian David Durand said “it gave us a unity for life.”

Little wonder. Along with the steak and (kosher) caviar, EJF flew in a world class line up of motivational speakers. Such well known Torah heavy hitters as Rabbis Doron Kornbluth, Mordechai Neugroschel and Meyer Schiller gave talks and one of the top Israeli rock bands played through the night. Britney Spears’s publicist even made a video appearance. In short, it was a lineup that would make George Steinbrenner blush, and the all but inevitable result was that of the thirty-two couples that came to Oxnard, thirty applied for EJF’s Universally Accepted Conversion. Suffice to say that with chassidic tales, world class Beaujolais, and the California surf replacing Constantine’s sword, conversion will never be the same again.

Which raises the questions: Who is responsible for Judaism’s apparent course change, who is footing the bill for this, and where is it all heading?

The rudder of Judaism is being steered in the same way as it has for thousands of years – by the leading Torah scholars of the generation. Today, that distinction is shared by HaRav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, shlita, in Jerusalem and HaRav Reuven Feinstein, shlita, in New York. But it would be a mistake to believe that these Torah authorities, however venerated, had the power to change Jewish law or alter God’s Torah. As the Oxnard participants learned, no one has the power to do that – and this is part of what defines Judaism.

The surprising fact of the matter is that the legal basis for actively encouraging the conversion of non-Jewish spouses has long existed in the Bible commentaries of the medieval Jewish sage Maimonides. Based on subsequent elucidations by Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky, zt”l, and most recently by HaRav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, the gedolei hador merely made the decision to proactively apply this principal to the American situation at this time.

Financed by investor-philanthropist Thomas Kaplan and led by Feinstein-associate HaRav Leib Tropper, the Eternal Jewish Family was established last year to realize the vision of the gedolei hador. Its mission is to develop a new standard for conversion – one that is universally accepted by all rabbis regardless of their affiliation (divisions had emerged over the last hundred or so years about the proper interpretation of the Jewish conversion laws); to educate the thousands of rabbis from diverse streams of Judaism about the new standard and instruct them in its implementation; and to establish the educational vehicles and religious courts that will serve the needs of the new converts.

With the demand for additional couple retreats now pouring in, EJF is too busy to revel in its California triumph. (Rav Tropper merely said that he was “gratified.”) More advanced couples (who need no such motivational retreats) are already sending the volume of online application for UAC’s soaring (the EJF website can be found at www.eternaljewishfamily.org; the phone number is 845-425-0550) and the organization is determined to provide a world class product. Regional EJF offices are opening, and rabbinical conferences are slated for Jerusalem in July and Boston in October, with gatherings in Europe and South America to follow. And as if EJF’s plate needed filling, Israel’s Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar recently announced that EJF would develop Israel’s state-of-the-art, high-tech repository for conversion data .

Where is it all headed? EJF Executive Director David Jacobs believes the organization will receive a steady stream of applications that will gradually grow over time, and that EJF’s success should be measured in terms of the number of Jewish souls that otherwise would have been lost.

Others, like Thomas Kaplan, continue to hold out hope that EJF will significantly mitigate the willful self-destruction of non-Orthodox American Jewry.

Still others decry the entire effort. Concerned that EJF might inadvertently send a message to unmarried Jews that intermarriage is okay or at least fungible, they contend that the Torah authorities involved have made a mistake of tragic proportions.

Only God knows, but it’s clear that something big happened at Oxnard.

Jewish Press Editorial & my (so far ) unpublished response

Jewish Press
Conversions And Controversy

By: Editorial Board Wednesday, November 21, 2007

A brief news item in last week’s Jewish Press reported on the latest conference of the Eternal Jewish Family, an organization intent on formulating universal standards for Jewish conversions. As was the case with its four earlier sessions, the group brought together notables from the Torah world – respected roshei yeshiva, leading poskim and prominent pulpit rabbis – to identify and promote a conversion process that would pass muster across the spectrum of Jewish life while alleviating the horror of conversions that are problematic because of questions about the procedures that were followed or the credentials of the overseers.

The enterprise would seem to be one of those things about which there should be no dispute. But the long knives are coming out nonetheless.

There are those who are not part of the Eternal Jewish Family team that are taking umbrage at its increasing success in the area of conversions. Frustration at not being accepted as the last word on conversions has, from the beginning, been a sore point with veteran conversion practitioners and rabbinic groups that preexisted the EJF (which, among other things, has directed the establishment of regional religious conversion courts that apply its standards and abide by its cap on what converts may be charged).

Unfortunately, a new dimension to the challenges has emerged.

In order to secure the recognition of the most stringent haredi communities, EJF early on enlisted the involvement of such luminaries as Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rav Ovadia Yosef and the Israeli Chief Rabbinate in Israel and Rav Reuven Feinstein here in the U.S. There has also been support on the part of, among others, Rav Dov Povarky, Rav Moshe Shapiro, Rav Ahron Schechter, Rav Hillel David and Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky.

There are, however, voices from within the haredi world that have taken to questioning the bona fides of EJF despite the imprimatur of Rav Elyashiv and the other gedolim. To be sure, those leading the new charge have in the past made a point of tweaking Rav Elyashiv and others in the haredi hierarchy on various issues. And they have employed the time-honored device of approaching a posek, ex parte, for a p’sak regarding a litany of facts that may include a number of halahic no-nos but that do not necessarily have anything to do with the intended target. The inevitable negative ruling, though, is then spun as being directed at that target.

This is not to take sides in a public row that is only bound to escalate in the coming weeks. We do, however, recognize the great strides achieved by EJF on an issue that has long vexed the religious community and hope that the important work of standardizing the conversion process will not be derailed, even momentarily.

My response sent November 22, 2007 which has not been published or acknowledged:

Firstly let me express strong gratitude to the Jewish Press for its efforts of many years to ameliorate the problems of the Jewish people. However I am troubled by your presentation of this matter and its serious deviation from your normal standards of impartiality and fairness. I fail to understand why you say you are not taking sides in this matter, when in fact you have invalidated the opposition as essentially beneath contempt. There are in fact serious halachic issues involved - something which unfortunately your informant in this matter has failed to mention. It would be helpful for the productive resolution of this matter if you heard from all the parties involved before passing judgment. Especially since the position of the Jewish Press carries great weight with its readership. Please let me know if you would like to hear the other side.

Daniel Eidensohn Ph.D.

Bedatz letter regarding conversion

Rav Sternbuch, shlita approved translation by Daniel Eidensohn

ב"ה

5th of Kislev 5768

Concerning the Holiness of the Jewish People – the Holy Nation.

The senior dayanim of the Bedatz met today to discuss allegations that certain kiruv activists are actively proselytizing the children of intermarried couples to convince them to convert – even though according to Torah law there is no halachic relationship with their Jewish fathers. They are calling for the acceptance of these non-Jewish children in Jewish programs and religious schools. Such an action is literally a disaster and self‑destructive. It is self‑evident that such a program is absolutely prohibited by the Torah.

Furthermore until now anyone who wanted to marry a non‑Jewess – Heaven forefend! – knew very well that this act would sever them from the Jewish people forever. Because of the dire consequences of intermarriage, there was a strong barrier that prevented many from intermarrying. However now that the consequence of exclusion from the Jewish people has been removed - this motivation not to intermarry has been lost. Consequently these intermarried couples and their children remain amongst the Jewish people. This results in their non-Jewish children being accepted into religious schools out of the hope that they will eventually convert.

Therefore we are warning that this activity is against the Torah. It has never been acceptable to proselytize non‑Jews. Furthermore as we mentioned it actually encourages intermarriage.

We therefore are turning to the poskim and the roshei yeshivos not to participate in their conventions - such as the one that occurred in America last week. Even if their motivation was to improve the standards of conversions – they are making improvements in one area while making things worse in another. This approach is directly causing serious problems.

Those who heed our cautions will benefit and receive blessings.

We - the members of the Bedatz in Jerusalem - affix our signature to this document out of fear and concern for the holiness of the Jewish people – the holy nation.

Horav Meir Brandsorfer Horav Moshe Sternbuch
Horav Naftoli Frenkal Horav Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman
Horav Yakov Mendel Yorovitch Horav Yehoushua Rosenberg

Bedatz letter regarding conversion

Kiruv Guidelines for Geirus

R' Daniel,

As always the proverbial devil is in the details.

· - Do Kiruv Orgs have an Achrayus to reach out specifically to intermarried people who show no interest? If they do not do so because they feel that their time is better served addressing other issues are they to be criticized?

· - If an intermarried couple does get involved with a Kiruv org or shul and is turned down by a beis din should compassion lead us to question the beis Din’s approach and should we then shop around for them?

· - Can we allow such people to be included in Kiruv efforts when there is a possibility of intermarriage or even countenancing it?

· - Even assuming all of that what is the posture we take towards these people? How positive and welcoming should we be?

Frankly, that is the issue at hand. There is an effort to “normalize” geirus to the point where we should be treating these people just like rechokim. It may be emes but it is certainly not yet a consensus……

There indeed are some pretty strong feelings out there. Our policy is that we do not sponsor geirus as a Kiruv oriented organization and we will work with a beis din unquestionably or a community rabbi to help in their education efforts. All prospective converts are told that we are happy to get them together with a beis din and that the expectation is shemiras Torah umitzvos right up front.

I hope this sheds some light

Kesivva vachasima tovah

Rabbi N. T.

Changing entrenched attitudes

Yirmiahu wrote:

Recently, Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn mentioned that he was interesting in exploring “how to actually change entrenched attitudes which have no halachic basis.” As it turns out I had recently been skimming a book from fifty or sixty years ago on Public Relations, called “Public Relations”* which addressed this issue (albeit without direct reference to ideas without halachic basis).

Public Opinion is not a mere collection of individual opinions. It has its own dynamic which should be taken into account if one hopes to be an influence. While we are interested in how these principles are applicable to a specific sociological group, we should bear in mind that they apply generally as well. Indeed as individuals these principles likely factor into our opinion making more than we would like to imagine, and almost certainly factor into how many who share our opinions reached their conclusion. Hopefully such a recognition will help us consider the role of these principles in Public Opinion without developing a spirit of condescension.

Initially we need to consider what we mean by “public”, “A public is comprised of people who are engaged in a common enterprise with similar interests and are conscious of their mutual dependence” (page 26). Public Opinion is the position taken on a controversial issue by the public. In any given public there are members of various education, aptitude, and temperament. At times Public Opinion is driven by the higher, more reasoned opinions of the knowledgeable and educated. But even the knowledgeable and educated can be swayed by emotion or otherwise make poor judgments, and as a result direct Public Opinion, or allow it to be directed by those less equipped to make such decisions, in a less well thought out direction.

Now people display certain patterns of thought and behavior with respect to the “public” they identify with which influences how “Public Opinion” is developed:

Identification: The group becomes an extension of one’s self. One’s willingness to “take one for the team” can extend to subjugating one’s own opinion in favor of the collective opinion.

Conformity: It is easier to go with the flow. On a more charitable note, not everyone is a born leader. Going against the tide can require more confidence in one’s conclusion, and ability, than many people have.

Anonymity: It seems to me that this is a bit of the reverse of the prior example. In some instances individuals who would otherwise be unwilling to voice their opinion are able to make their views heard via the group, sparing themselves personal scrutiny.

Sympathy: Members of a group take what happens to each other personally. While in many different contexts this tendency has been noted and criticized as a limitation on who we care about, it is in fact more of an extension. Especially in the era of mass communication we hear about more misfortune than anyone can handle. To take it all personally could emotionally crush a person. Personally, it is not unheard of for a news story to put me in tears, but such stories typically involve Yidden, or children (appealing to my identity as a “parent”). The tsunami in the South Pacific a few years back was very difficult emotionally even without any personal connection, but to react to each and every case is such a manner would be crippling. I’m inclined to believe that our natural tendency is to close ourselves off to such unpleasant emotions but our group identity allows us make ourselves vulnerable to experience empathy and compassion in some cases.

Emotionalism: Group opinion is seldom the result of detached and calculated logic, but the extent to which emotion drives the discussion varies. An issue which effects the communities lifestyle, health, parnassa, or safety are going to be more emotionally charged than peripheral issues.

Nobility: Public Opinion means that one’s positions are going to be known and shared so one is going to [tend to] put their best foot forward. Opinions will be influenced by the higher values which they share. I would add, however, that consciously or not, less noble intents will likewise be channeled into a more “noble” presentation.

Oppression: The work Public Relations writes “Oppression is a common delusion” (page 36) but I think that many or most of us would recognize that it is not uncommon for a group, a public, to have been treated unfairly. Mainstream society, particularly in the information age, tends to have a short attention span on such mistreatment, even when mainstream society is itself the subject of mistreatment. Other, “minority” communities do not tend to forget so quickly. This has a very real impact on Public Opinion and must be taken into consideration. I should note that while this consciousness of past wrongs may make it difficult for a community to adapt to new realities, the lack of such consciousness tends to make mainstream society complacent and unwilling to safeguard against further assault.

Symbolism: Symbols are employed to represent values and ideals of the group, or to represent the opposition against which the group struggles.

Rationalization: As we noted earlier with respect to nobility, at times reasons are given for taking a particular position which serve as a smoke screen to hide ulterior motives.

The goal of Public Relations, as opposed to mere propaganda, is to inform the public on a given topic so that they have the ability to make a better decision. We can safely assume that not every individual will ultimately be persuaded by proper evidence, but we have to trust that most people will be inclined to make better decisions if given the chance. Additionally, certain people are “opinion leaders” on certain issues. These individuals are not identified by their position or title, but one can expect to find them involved in activities which promote the welfare of others. Reaching such people with the appropriate information is a significant component of influencing public opinion.

While we have always had our ups and downs, it seems to me that the last few years has been a difficult period for the frum world, with what seems to me to be an large increase in members of our community making headlines for things we may not be proud of. Often we hear of calls for “moderation” but this is, effectively, equivalent to calling for less motivation. I do not think that this is the correct, or desirable approach. If, or rather Since, we are correct in asserting that the ways of Torah are “Darchei Noam” then we need work on publicizing relevant Torah material which will make it easier for Yidden to come to appropriate conclusions, and more difficult for people to rationalize positions which are in fact not based in halachah. And we should, at least now and then, go out of our comfort zone and challenge popular misconceptions with halachic sources. And the effort to get our own “Public Opinion” in check is the most significant hishtadlus to influence the “Public Opinion” of the outside world.

*Public Relations: Principles, Cases, and Problems, 3rd Edition, Bertrand R. Canfield, 1952, 1961

Abuse - reporting exempts from responsibility?

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:

the position of the Rav Shulchon Aruch(Hilchos Aveida uPikadon #32 quoted by Pischei Choshen, Aveida 6:4) and Halacha Berura 5:12 (lost & found II, between footnote #7&8), both hold that Aveida in all circumstances has no restriction of Osur l'Shomer LiMsor l'Shomer; The reasoning of Rav Shulchon Aruch is, "Hashem made him a shomer; NOT the Baalim"
The source for the Rav Shulchon Aruch is most probably the Rashbo (Teshuvos Vol 4 #254 quoted in Bais Yosef CM 235 immediately preceding note #10 of Darchei Moshe). The Rashbo clearly states the principle that obligations of Hashovas Aveida operate independently of Dinei Shomer. Rav Shulchon Aruch based on the 2 principles in Hashovas Aveida of 1) Mishtamer (discussed below) and 2) no necessity of Daas Baalim, extends this to mean that another trustworthy person can take over as Shomer.

The Machne Efraim (Shomrim #14, also quoted by Pischei Choshen) understands and applies this Rashbo even in a case where there is an actual cheftzo and chiyuv tashlumin is in question. He holds that a scenario is possible that 1) I could have your object in my jurisdiction, 2) I am, nevertheless, totally exempt from any Shomer responsibility but 3) nevertheless Hashovas Aveida requires me to keep it "Mishtamer".

One could conjecture that by extension, It would appear that Machne Efraim, a fortiori, concurs with Rav Shulchon Aruch that the Aveida object could be transferred to another Shomer; but after reflection we realize that the 2 opinions are not interwoven. Indeed in the unique scenario of the Machne Efraim he would hold that there is no chiyuvei shomer and consequently it could also be transferred to another shomer but that does not necessarily means that he would agree in all other cases with the Rav Shulchon Aruch's chidush.

The only thing we can definitely extract from the Machne Efraim's position is that he is in agreement with the Rashbo's principle that obligations of Hashovas Aveida operate independently of Dinei Shomer.

Likewise the Rav Shulchon Aruch does not agree with the Machne Efraim. Even though he holds that another Shomer can be appointed in the finder's stead, he does not agree to exemptions from other chiyuvei Shomer. This I believe is apparent from his formulation of Halocho in Hilchos Aveida uPikadon # 29

The Nesivos CM 291:3 strongly disagrees with the whole premise of the Machne Efraim. He maintains that it is absurd to posit that your object is in my jurisdiction and concomitantly there are no Chiyuvei Shmira -ie every object Aveida situation ipso facto also incurs shomrim obligations. It would appear that the Nesivos not only disagrees with the Machne Efraim but even with the Rav Shulchon Aruch as well for the same reason. (Hoewever, The Raayos that the Nesivos adduces from the Yerushalmi and Maharit are neutralized by the refutations proffered by the Machne Efraim and ShuT Ein Yitzchok (EE #78 anaf 2)

Nevertheless, I believe that in a scenario of Hashovas Aveida that does not pertain to a cheftzo but is only a Chiyuv m'Gavra l'Chaveiro that the Nesivos will agree to the premise of the Rashbo that obligations of Hashovas Aveida can be operative even though there are no Dinei Shomer. I assert this based on the discussion of the Nesivos himself, in regards to how the Mitzvo obligation interplays with the Chiyuvei Shmira insofar as to whether the Pruta d'Rav Yosef applies to modify the status re: Shomer Chinum or Shomer Sochor. I believe this indicates that even according to the Nesivos the Mitzvo is operating independently, just superimposed upon the Shomer Cheftzo platform.

In summary:

Rashbo -obligations of Hashovas Aveida operate independently of Dinei Shomer.
Rav Shulchon Aruch - by all Aveidos there is no restriction of Shomer SheMosar l'Shomer.
Machne Efraim - Rashbo's principle exempts, in certain scenarios, even Chiyuvei Tashlumin of an erstwhile Shomer.
Nesivos: - Disagrees with Machne Efraim in scenario where there is an actual Cheftzo.
- States no opinion re: Rav Shulchon Aruch's Chidush
- No opinion stated in regards to Hashovas Aveida sans Cheftzo

Conclusion:
in a scenario of Hashovas Aveida that does not pertain to a cheftzo but is only a Chiyuv m'Gavra l'Chaveiro;that obligations of Hashovas Aveida operate even though there is no Shomer and no Dinei Shomer

2) It is a case of Hashovas Aveida
while indeed the Gemoro Sanhedrin 73a, on its own, would seem to be inconclusive as to whether according toits Maskono rescuing from danger still falls under Hashovas Aveida or not, we could entertain

3 approaches:
A - that the whole Mitzvo and obligation derives from Lo Saamod alone
B - that the basic Mitzvo derives from Hashovas Aveida. just certain aspects and details that intensify and magnify the obligation are derived from Lo Saamod
C - both pesukim are necessary; neither one has a greater intrinsic revelation over the other, but m'Yitura d'Kro. (This 3rd approach is nevertheless still consistent with the premise that Hashovas Aveida is still operable)

It appears to me that the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Poskim accept the second approach:
1) Ramban in Toras ho'Odom (quoted anonymously almost verbatim by Tur YD 336)
2) Tur YD 336
3) Ritvo (in Chidushim) Yevomos 106a
4) Nemukei Yosef ibid quotes Ritvo and doesn't dispute
5) Meiri (Sanhedrin) hashovas aveida is the minimum obligation and Hashovas Gufo is Kal voChomer from Momono.
6) Sm''a CM 426:1
7) Chochmas Shlomo 426
8) Shulchon Aruch YD 336 seif 2&3 - the underlying principle is V'Hasheivoso not Lo Saamod. see Shach, Taz & Gro #7&12
9) Ran in Chidushei Sanhedrin ibid -(both pesukim are necessary; neither one has intrinsic revelation over other and m'Yitura d'Kro. (This is the 3rd approach mentioned above. as mentioned above, it is nevertheless consistent with the premise that Hashovas Aveida is still operable)

the raaya that I had tersely alluded to in my email of 5 weeks ago, is the fact that concerning Nedorim, the Mishna (halacho) permits, in a madir/mudar situation, to nevertheless administer Refuah as long as there is no external benefit other than that of providing the refuah itself. The Rambam and Bartenura, both adduce v'Hashevosa as the source - not Lo Saamod. The Tosfos Yomtov's reticence would also indicate that he is in agreement. ( granted that other Rishonim give a different reason for the Heter for refuah to be administered, but that's because a more basic more global Sevoro is available - not that they dispute the principle of the Rambam & Bartenura)

The Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvas Lo Saamod) draws attention to the astounding oddity, that in spite of the above quoted Rambam in Pirush HaMishnayos, nowhere in Yad HaChazoko does he bring Aveidas Gufo to be subsumed under Hashovas Aveida!!
We, on our own, might even add that Rambam's complete reticence in this regard in Rotzeach 1:7-end ;(especially #15) would seem, Stama k'Pirusho, that he retracted from his position in Pirush HaMishnayos and concludes with approach #1 above
Be that as it may, e ven if we take into account the ambiguity of the Rambam's position, we cannot determine more than a Sofeik as to what his final opinion is.

Therefore,whereas the overwhelming majority of Rishonim quoted above quite definitively state that Hashovas Gufo is subsumed under Hashovas Aveida; In the final analysis, it would appear to me that the normative Halocho is that indeed we are dealing with Hashovas Aveida.

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

now to return to your original question: "When I discover a case of abuse and report this information to a rabbi or the police - am I free from future obligation? Or should I view that I have merely delegated the task to another but that the primarily responsibility remains with me."

as discussed above, the obligation of Hashovas Aveida differs in many details to those of Hashovas Gzeila/Gneiva and Shomrim. The pertinent detail that most pertains to our discussion is that the finder needs to restore it to a location where it is ''Mishtamer'' (CM 267:1,2). the concept of ''Mishtamer'' is probably best translated/interpreted by the word ''secured'' as in ''the house has been secured'' or "security services''which means protected and safe.this means that unless the Aveida is secured, ie that it is protected and safeguarded, the finder/discoverer has not fulfilled his obligation of v'Hasheivoso. Stating this in the reverse, if the finder should ''return' the Aveida to a place that is NOT ''mishtamer'' he has not discharged his obligation properly and is fully responsible as a Posheah for any mishap (lost, damage or stolen) that may occur.

a second detail of Hashovas Aveida that also would be germane to our discussion is the following: even if he returns the Aveida to a location that is indeed Mishtamer and thereby fulfilled his obligation, if, however, it should escape again from that mokom mishtamer, and the jeopardy of losing it recurs, the finder is once again obligated to retrieve and return it; and this is true even if reoccurs many times (''even a hundred times'')

Translating these details of obligation into our scenario of abuse, I believe that reporting the abuse to the police or Rabbi, would exempt the reporter from further obligation only if the reporting would reestablish full security (eg safety) for the victim(s). If the involvement and oversight of these or any other authority or person would restore safety, then indeed the responsibility and obligation would pass to the new "Shomer" completely and the first party would be totally exempt from further involvement.

Unfortunately, however, in our present milieu, in most cases, this hardly occurs. In most instances a report even to the police at most only initiates an investigation, (and I dare say that to a Rav the results are even more disheartening) but the abuse goes on unabated or even intensifies.

Even if the abuse would cease for a period of time after the report; if it should begin again, the initial report would not exempt the discovery of its reoccurrence from further reporting.

therefore in summary, the original responsibility remains in place on the original discoverer until the safety of the victim is assured.

Please note that Rashi's language, quoted on your blog, that seems to derive from Lo Saamod that you are still obligated even after "passing the baton" and others are acting on your behalf, I believe is inconclusive. Even though it would dovetail nicely with my presentation above, I believe that the thrust of Rashi is different. I believe that Rashi (like Meiri and Ran cited above) is bothered by the following question,"where do you see from this posuk more dimensions of obligation than from v'Hasheivosa Lo" Rashi proceeds to demonstrate this from the language of the posuk itself. But Rashi does not mean to offer any comment on whether your obligation continues even after the appointment of qualified others.

Sincerely,

R' Pinchos Yehoshua HaKohain