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:
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 LeShomer would not seem to be applicable here.
Either according to Abaye, that the reasoning is because "Ain Reztoni SheYehe Pikdoni b'Yad Acher" or whether according to Rovo that it is because of "At M'Hemnis Li b'Shevuoh, v'Haich Lo M'Hemnis Li", b oth reasons see that the underlying principle is a contractual agreement (a shibud) that binds the shomer, because of the contract undertaken, with the owner of the property. In our situation there has occurred no contractual arrangement between the victim and his erstwhile rescuer/interventionist.
Whether there is an Isur aspect of "Osur L'Shomer Limsor l'Shomer" is discussed in the Acharonim - please see Aruch haShulchon 291:45,46 and Pischei Choshen vol 2, 4:1:1). B ut even if there is an Isur aspect, it flows from being "Maavir Al Daas Baalim" - a Gezel/Gneiva parameter which would not be applicable in our scenario in a strictly Halocho legal sense. (Musar/ethical/moral considerations need to be considered separately)
The following sources and analysis, I believe,support this position: Click on this link for the rest of the posting