Abuse an example of concept creep

psychological inquiry

The main contention of this article is that in recent decades the meanings of several of psychology’s key concepts have changed in a systematic way. I argue that those changes have targeted particular kinds of concept and moved in a particular direction. Specifically, it is psychology’s negative concepts—those that refer to undesirable, harmful, or pathological aspects of human experience and behavior—that had meaning changes, and these changes have consistently expanded those meanings. The concepts denoted at an earlier time, but they now also refer to a horizontally and vertically enlarged range of additional phenomena. This semantic inflation is not widely appreciated by psychologists. When it has been noted it has been discussed in relation to a single concept, and the general pattern has been missed. In the body of the article I illustrate the “concept creep” hypothesis by reviewing changes in six concepts drawn from the provinces of developmental, clinical, and social psychology: abuse, bullying, trauma, mental disorder, addiction, and prejudice After presenting these six case studies, I examine the causes and implications of the changes they illustrate. I argue that a good explanation of concept creep must account for why the changes are specific to negative concepts and why they involve expansion rather than contraction. It should also encompass both vertical and horizontal expansion and account for the consistency of the effect across diverse concepts rather than explaining each change on its own terms. Explanations that invoke technological, social, and cultural developments are entertained, as are some that implicate psychology as a discipline. I then discuss the wider consequences of concept creep. As Hacking argued, changes in human kind concepts alter social reality, looping back into how people understand themselves and one another and bringing new kinds of people into existence through what he called “dynamic nominalism” (Hacking, 1986). I am at pains not to present concept creep as unambiguously desirable or undesirable, or to write it off as arbitrary or unwarranted. Conceptual revision is to be expected in view of changing scientific and social realities, and it may be appropriately responsive to those changes. Although many critics have held psychological concepts responsible for damaging cultural trends—such as supposed cultures of fear, therapy, and victimhood—the conceptual shifts I present have some positive implications. Nevertheless, they also have potentially damaging ramifications for society and for psychology that cannot be ignored. Case Study 1: Abuse The concept of abuse has grown in prominence within psychology and related fields, largely through the growing awareness that maltreatment of children and adults, and its implications for mental health, has been underestimated in the past. This underestimation goes back at least as far as Freud’s abandonment of the seduction theory of hysteria. Decades of research have established the disturbing high prevalence of their causal role in a variety of mental disorders. Hacking (1991) has written at length about the shifting understandings of abuse and the relevance of looping effects to those shifts. He documented the malleability of ideas of child abuse and how these were shaped by cultural trends, legal institutions, and social movements such as feminism and children’s rights activism. However, his historical study primarily addresses changes in professional and popular representations of abuse from the 19th century through to the 1970s and does not focus specifically on psychology. My emphasis here is on more recent changes in the definition of abuse within that field. Classic psychological investigations of abuse recognized two forms, physical and sexual. Physical abuse involved the intentional infliction of bodily harm, whereas sexual abuse involved inappropriate sexual contact, including penetrative sex or nonpenerative molestation. Childhood exposure to these forms of abuse was found to increase vulnerability to adult psychopathology, relationship difficulties, and physical ill health. Three changes to the conceptualization of abuse that have occurred within the psychological literature over recent decades represent clear cases of horizontal expansion. First, “emotional abuse” (Thompson &amp; Kaplan, 1996)—sometimes labeled “psychological abuse”—was introduced as a new abuse subtype. It refers to forms of maltreatment that need not involve bodily contact, unlike physical and sexual abuse, but includes verbal aggression and other behavior that is domineering, intimidating, threatening, rejecting, degrading, possessive, inconsistent, or emotionally unresponsive. This form of abuse was commonly studied within intimate domestic relationships. This new focus on behavior exchanged between adults represents a second horizontal extension of the abuse concept from its traditional focus on the behavior of adults toward children. A third horizontal extension of the abuse concept is its incorporation of neglect. Neglect implies a lack of appropriate care and concern, as when negligent parents fail to tend to their children’s basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, physical contact, and affection. In the early literature on child maltreatment, neglect and abuse were traditionally considered separately—the field’s flagship journal, which commenced publication in 1976, was entitled Child Abuse and Neglect—but increasingly neglect has been understood as a form of abuse. Cicchetti and Barnett’s (1991) taxonomy of child abuse, for example, considers physical neglect as one of its subtypes. Similarly, Goldsmith and Freyd (2005) considered emotional neglect, or “emotional unavailability,” to be a form of emotional abuse. Emotional abuse and neglect as abuse are ideas that represent horizontal extensions of the abuse concept. The former extends abuse into the realm of non  physical harm, where damage is done indirectly through language or social interaction. The latter extends the abuse concept by including acts of omission. Whereas physical and sexual forms of abuse represent the commission of undesirable acts toward a victim, neglect involves the failure to commit desirable acts. Neglect, like physical or sexual abuse, can be an act in the sense of being deliberate, but it differs from these prototypes of abuse by referring to inaction. The inclusion of emotional abuse and neglect within a broadened concept of abuse may also represent a vertical expansion of that concept. Emotional abuse encompasses some forms of interpersonal treatment that are more diffuse and ambiguous than those that fall within the realms of physical and sexual abuse, which, because they require bodily con  tact, are intrinsically more tangible. Determining what counts as emotional abuse may have a larger element of subjectivity. Whether a particular interaction represents humiliation or teasing, possessiveness or protectiveness, and aggressiveness or assertiveness may be uncertain and the parties involved may have very different perceptions. If deciding whether emotional abuse has occurred depends on the self identified victim’s perception, abuse can be invoked as a description that might seem innocuous from an independent observer’s standpoint. This reliance on highly subjective impressions is a feature of some methods of assessing abuse, as in the following item from a popular self report measure: “As a child, did you feel unwanted or emotionally neglected?” A similar vertical expansion of the abuse concept can result when it incorporates neglect. Because criteria for judging omissions (i.e., what was not done that should have been) tend to be less concrete than those for judging commissions (i.e., what was done that should not have been), the boundary of neglect is indistinct. As a consequence, the concept of neglect can become overinclusive, identifying behavior as negligent that is substantially milder or more subtle than other forms of abuse. This is not to deny that some forms of neglect are profoundly damaging, merely to argue that the concept’s boundaries are sufficiently vague and elastic to encompass forms that are not severe. This brief discussion of abuse reveals that the concept’s meaning has undergone significant inflation, horizontal and vertical. Its message is well captured by Furedi (2006), who noted a “continuous expansion of the range of human experiences which can be labelled as abusive,” such that “neglect and unintended insult become equated with physical violence and incorporated into an all purpose generic category ” (p. 86).</div>

RCA resolution on child abuse

 RCA

Apr 27, 2010 -- Whereas we have become increasingly aware of incidents of the sexual and physical abuse of children in our community; and

Whereas, there have been a number of high profile cases in which Orthodox rabbis have been indicted or convicted for child abuse or child endangerment; and

Whereas the lives and futures of many of these victims and their families are harmed in significant ways: suicide, post traumatic stress syndrome, inability to form healthy relationships, inability to develop healthy intimate relationships, etc.; and

Whereas many victims of abuse in our community still remain silent and do not come forward to accuse perpetrators or seek help for fear of stigma, personal and familial consequences, or perceived halakhic concerns; and

Whereas the Rabbinical Council of America has resolved through past resolutions its condemnation of abuse and its censure of abusers, and has affirmed, under the guidance and direction of its poskim (Rabbinic decisors,) that the prohibitions of mesirah (reporting crimes to the civil authorities) and arka’ot (adjudication in civil courts) do not apply in cases of abuse and in fact, it is halakhically obligatory to make such reports; and

Whereas reiterating this long held position can serve to provide pastoral and halakhic leadership, support, direction and affirmation to abuse survivors and their families and advocates.

Therefore, the Rabbinical Council of America resolves that

• It reaffirms its unqualified condemnation of all forms of child abuse.

• It reaffirms its halakhic position that the prohibitions of mesirah and arka’ot do not apply in cases of abuse.

• It will regularly issue on its website and to the media appropriate statements of condemnation when public attention is drawn to a case in which Jews are either victims or perpetrators of abuse.

• It will regularly evaluate the competence of its members in understanding and responding to issues of child abuse and initiate training and continuing educational opportunities for all of its members in this area every year.

• The members of the RCA address the issues of child abuse in their communities in at least one sermon, lecture or article within the next twelve months, and that contact information for local abuse services be displayed in a public place in all synagogues, schools, and Jewish community institutions serviced by its members.

Prominent US-based haredi rabbis declare obligation to report child abuse to police

Arutz                                        Full text of the letter

We, the undersigned, affirm that any individual with firsthand knowledge or reasonable basis to suspect child abuse has a religious obligation to promptly notify the secular law enforcement of that information. These individuals have the experience, expertise and training to thoroughly and responsibly investigate the matter. Furthermore, those deemed “mandated reporters” under secular law must obey their State’s reporting requirements.

Lives can be ruined or ended by unreported child abuse, as we are too often tragically reminded. The Torah’s statement in Leviticus 19:16, “Do not stand by while your neighbor’s blood is shed,” obligates every member of the community to do all in one’s power to prevent harm to others. In conclusion, every individual with firsthand knowledge or reasonable cause for suspicion of child abuse has a Torah obligation to promptly notify the proper civil authorities.

   Child Abuse Proclamation to Go to Police

JPost    More than 100 prominent haredi rabbis and educators from across the US have signed a public declaration stating that it is an obligation of Jewish law on all Jews to immediately notify law enforcement officials when a reasonable suspicion of child abuse exists.

The declaration was described as “an historic watershed” for its broad-based support from a large number of haredi rabbis from major Jewish communities in the US.

The letter addresses the need to prevent and eradicate the epidemic of child abuse adversely affecting the Jewish community.

“We, the undersigned, affirm that any individual with firsthand knowledge or reasonable basis to suspect child abuse has a religious obligation to promptly notify the secular law enforcement of that information,” the declaration reads.

“These individuals have the experience, expertise and training to thoroughly and responsibly investigate the matter. Furthermore, those deemed ‘mandated reporters’ under secular law must obey their state’s reporting requirements.”

The rabbis said in their declaration that “lives can be ruined or ended by unreported child abuse, as we are too often tragically reminded” and cited the biblical injunction “Do not stand by while your neighbor’s blood is shed,” as the basis for reporting suspected cases of abuse.

Among the signatories are Rabbi Nota Greenblatt, the head of the rabbinical court in Mephis, Tennessee, Rabbi Dov Aharon Brisman, head of the rabbinical court in Philadelphia, Rabbi Peretz Steinberg, co-chairman of the rabbinical court of the Agudath Yisrael organization, and Rabbi Yechiel Perr, dean of the Yeshiva of Far Rockaway/Derech Ayson Rabbinical Seminary. [...]

Child Abuse - How do we speed up progress?

Baruch HaShem we have seen significant progress in dealing with sexual abuse. Only a few short years we all knew that child abuse either didn't exist or wasn't a serious problem. The learned amongst us knew that it could only be dealt with by rabbis after two witnesses testified that sodomy or rape of a doreissa level had occurred. The crime of sexual abuse was viewed as a moral one – in which the psychological consequences were assumed to be insignificant. No one heard of post-traumatic stress syndrome. Everyone knew that the molester was some weird psychopathic stranger and therefore there was nothing to fear from the kind neighbor, charismatic teacher or wonderful father. Who knew about the complex and conflicting feelings evoked by a beloved teacher who groomed a child for abuse. No one could believe that a child would keep coming back to the abuser who was molesting them. No one understood that abuse caused suppression of memories that only appear years later. We all "knew" that if abuse was happening it would be reported immediate by an outraged child. Failure to even tell one's parents or teacher immediately was viewed as proof that the accusations were false. 

The police were never called because of the horrific sin of Mesira - which is such a heinous crime that it causes the loss of Olam HaBah (Rosh HaShanna 17a). Who would dare risk violating the complex laws of lashon harah as explained by the Chofetz Chaim? In fact the issue of sexual abuse was viewed by the average parent or teacher as being so complex that only gedolim could know how to deal with the issue. We of course knew that the prime consequence of abuse was damaged to prospective shidduchim for the whole family. Other harmful consequences of abuse involved ruining the reputation of a yeshiva or causing a chilul HaShem. However we really weren't worried about abuse – because it was such a rare occurrence like being struck by lightning after winning the lottery. We of course were comforted by the assumption that the watchful eyes of the gedolim were protecting our kids from this scourge – and would never ever allow anyone to harm the hair of a single kid – and surely would not knowingly keep a child molester as a teacher or camp counselor for decades. After all didn't they have the ruach hakodesh of Daas Torah that they indoctrinated us to believe gave them insight and understanding way beyond that of a mere parent?  Aside from that we all knew that the rabbis followed G-d's Torah fearlessly and they would never be afraid to stand up to pressure from the community and peers. I mean everyone knows that fearlessness in proclaiming the halacha is itself a Torah command (Devarim 1:16).  

Major changes started in 2006-2007. Rabbi Zweibel of the Aguda readily acknowledged that the gedolim had been ignoring the problem ("it was on the back burner") until it came to the public awareness through the secular media (N.Y. Magazine "Do Orthodox Jews have a Catholic Church problem?) as well as blogs and a number of organizations. Child abuse has moved from an issue which was never mentioned in public to one that even Rabbi Perlow - the head of the Aguda - has publicly acknowledged at an Aguda Convention.

The major accomplishment of this phase was the mere fact that abuse was acknowledged publicly as a significant problem. Additionally it was beginning to be acknowledged that covering up abuse (contrary to the public statement by Rabbi Mattisyahu Solomon) – was not only not a good idea – but that due to the secular media and internet – it really was impossible to "sweep things under the rug".  The Baltimore rabbis collectively issued a proclamation in 2007 in which they acknowledged that a serious problem existed and that they were not competent to deal with it.

While all of this is important, it is not my primary focus in this article. I did not mention recent events to provide a history lesson in the dynamics of our community. All of this is a necessary introduction of a very important question.

The question is - What do we need to work on to speed up the processes of change within our communities and within ourselves? How do we give victims of abuse the courage to come forth? How do we prevent abuse? What is the best way to comfort and heal the survivors of abuse and their families? (I met someone over Rosh HaShanna who confided to me that he had been abused as a child and now – 30 years later – despite intensive therapy he and his family still suffered terribly every day.) How do we get our rabbis, educational and community leaders to have the courage to deal with the issue? How do we get them to understand what action halacha demands of them – rather than what is the fastest way to cover up the facts? 

In short – what is the best way to finish the revolution of dealing with sexual abuse? Suggestions are welcome!

Update: 9/16/13 One important issue is that it is necessary to change how we think about abuse. It is not that enough to say that it is wrong and needs to be stopped. It is necessary to understand on the most elementary level that abuse is harming another person and that can not be tolerated. See Simon Sinek regarding the greater importance of why we do things than what we do.

Child Abuse - A sefer on the Jewish Perspective II

Vosizneias posted this article I wrote regarding the issue of child abuse. [Previous posting] ========================================== Child abuse is one of the things parents fear most for their children - physical abuse or sexual molestation. It means not only a major violation of trust – in the assumption that adults will protect children – but it can also be a source of severe lifetime psychological damage to the tender child – that can lead him/her to hurt others in turn.

But it is not just parents who abuse and molest their children - it is also siblings, extended family, teachers, clergy – and sometimes strangers.

While everyone will agree that it is horrible – the response to child abuse has been strangely muted. Even in the Orthodox Jewish community – there is often silence from the family of the victim – refusing to press charges even when begged. Sometimes there are active attempts within the community to silence the accusation. [This is true of other communities as well]. On the other hand, in the world of the communication media – especially the liberal newspapers and magazines as well as some blogs - there is almost a gleeful lynch mob mentality – “Let’s get the mamzer and show the world that the well thought of parent, educator, author, principal, teacher or psychologist is nothing but a warped pervert preying on innocent children.”

How in fact should someone respond when they hear rumors or suspect that some one is molesting children in his/her neighborhood or school? What should a parent do when it seems Uncle Mark has been spending a lot of time with his 9-year-old niece – doing inappropriate things? Is the ideal response to pick up the phone and call the police?

Is it to call your rabbi? Or perhaps one should simply pickup a baseball bat and teach the person a lesson?

I am presently working on a book – Child Abuse and Halacha. Contrary to other halachic issues such as theft, or whether opening a soda bottle is permitted on Shabbos – there are many diverse and conflicting considerations when dealing with child abuse. I am exploring questions such as, “Is the primary concern the suffering of the victim or stopping the perpetrator?” “Does the potential chilul HaShem deserve the most attention or is the destruction of trust and respect of teachers and schools?” “Are we to be concerned only with the loss of Olam HaBah promised to informers or is the requirement of stopping a rodef more important?” “Are all the above considerations primary some of the time – or is there a response which is best all of the time?”

I am not only collecting the halachic sources on the issues above but also researching the psychological literature in terms of the nature of the damage. What types of abuse constitute pikuach nefesh? Is it better to focus on accepting what happened or to encourage repression of the experience? Is systematic desensitization training more useful than the concern with catharsis?

In addition, I am trying to elucidate the various perspectives that are brought to bear on the subject.

For example I recently posted one of the earliest references to child molesting – the Tzemach Tzedek – on my blog Daas Torah. The question was whether this teshuva represented a gadol’s ignorance of child abuse or whether there simply was very little if any child abuse in the 1800’s? Alternatively it could be argued that the Tzemach Tzedek’s prime focus was not whether a serious crime was committed but whether the event could be understood as innocent enough so the rabbi would not lose his position. While the question remains unresolved, it needs to be explored further.

Finally I will be presenting actual cases which can serve as guidelines for the concerned parent, teacher or community rabbi. For example, I was once consulted by a young lady who had been molested by some frum boys when she was ten. She concealed the event from her parents and became increasingly withdrawn and depressed. As a teenager she tried committing suicide. Had a mental breakdown. Was hospitalized in a mental hospital for several years. Now at the age of 20, she seemed fully recovered, cheerful and productive.

My question to her was, now that it is over why are you coming to me? She replied that she has learned to deal with the horrible memories, the pain and degradation. She has learned to let go of feelings of revenge. She has a single problem left. She had asked a single question to all the rabbis she has consulted, “Why did G-d do this to me?” They all replied with some version of, “G-d always does what is best and for reasons beyond our comprehension felt that you had to be raped.” She said simply, “I can’t accept that G-d is so cruel!” My response was that these rabbis were wrong. That they were providing her with one legitimate view of theology i.e., that all that happens is caused by G-d. But there is an alternative view – that of all the Rishonim.

This view says that one man can harm another man – even though G-d doesn’t want it to happen. This is the view not only of Rishonim but is that expressed in Michtav M’Eliyahu, the Netziv citing the Zohar, it is also the view of the Maharal. Thus I told her, G-d did not want it to happen but He gives free-will to man, He does not stop man from acting. You have suffered greatly but will be compensated in the World to Come. She replied that she could live with such an understanding of G-d, while the other view was totally unacceptable. However other victims receive greater consolation from the original answer. One needs to be sensitive to individual differences.

Power struggle: Bill to hook up illegal Arab homes to grid passes in stormy session

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/power-struggle-bill-to-hook-up-illegal-arab-homes-to-grid-passes-in-stormy-session/

The Knesset was the scene of ill-tempered verbal jousting on Wednesday morning as lawmakers deliberated a bill that would allow thousands of illegally built homes, mostly in Arab communities, to connect to the power grid, then passed it in its second and third readings.

The debate began with a long speech in Arabic by Ra’am MK Walid Taha, chair of the Knesset Internal Affairs and Environment Committee, in an apparent attempt to buy time for more coalition lawmakers to arrive.

The opposition then tried to embarrass the coalition by proposing an amendment that would also hook illegal West Bank outposts up to the electricity grid.

The Electricity Bill, proposed by the coalition’s Islamist Ra’am party, addresses the issue of more than 130,000 Arab Israelis who live in illegally built homes across the country that cannot be connected to the national grid under existing legislation.

Israel caves, detained terrorist to end hunger strike

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/319871

An agreement was reached on Tuesday between the administrative detainee Hisham Abu Hawash and the military prosecutor's office, according to which he would stop his hunger strike, which has been going on for 141 days, in exchange for his detention not being renewed.

A Hamas spokesman said he "congratulates Hisham Abu Hawash on his victory over the Zionist prisons, he has once again demonstrated the ability of the Palestinian people to show resilience and forcibly achieve their victories over Israel."

"Surrender to terrorism," commented MK Bezalel Smotrich of the Religious Zionism party. "There is no other way to call it. A government that relies on terrorists and has made us all their hostages."

Law Without Justice

 https://www.theviennareview.at/archives/2013/law-without-justice

As in most countries in the West, Austrian family law is meant to serve the best interests of the children. But what if Justitia errs?

However, for Judge emeritus Lilian Hofmeister, Alexander’s case comes as no surprise in the Austrian legal system: "This is particularly true in custody wars over sons," Judge Hofmeister said. "There seems to be a new ‘rule of thumb’, which states: ‘Sons belong to their fathers’," she said. "In the course of my pro bono work, I have come across cases that I wouldn’t have thought possible from my understanding of the law," she added.

While she was not familiar with all the details of this case, she said that especially with parents raising their children religiously, courts often prefer the fathers to the mothers. "I often get the impression that fathers use women as baby machines," Dr. Hofmeister said, "As soon as the baby is born, they want to get rid of the mother(...), with foreigners, it is even easier." As a social critic and feminist, she sees the situation in Austria as "a ‘war against women as mothers’, something not yet being examined by the courts."

Insistence on only Torah law would destroy society

There are many sources which explicity reject Rav Menashe Klein's view Beis Yosef(Choshen Mishpat 2:2): The Rashba (3:393) states: It appears to me that if the witnesses are believed by the judges then the judges are permitted to administer physical or monetary punishment according that which they deem appropriate. This is necessary to preserve society. Because if you would insist that everything has to follow the law of the Torah and only punish according to the Torah in cases of beatings and similar cases – the result is that the world would be destroyed. In other words, society would be destroyed if you were always required to have 2 male Jewish witnesses and forewarn the criminal in order to convict a person of a crime. This is what is meant in Bava Metzia (30b): Yerushalyaim was only destroyed because they insisted on following the Torah law. This is certainly true outside of Israel where monetary fines are not administered according to Torah law. As a consequence of the inability of Torah law to punish those who don’t take committing crimes seriously - they would break down the walls that protect society and as a result the world would become lawless and destroyed….

Rashba - Get can not be forced

חידושי הרשב"א מסכת כתובות דף סד עמוד א

ומיהו אפילו באומרת מאיס עלי אין כופין אותו להוציא, שלא אמרו כאן אלא אבל אמרה מאיס עלי לא כייפינן לה אבל כייפינן ליה לא אמרו דלעולם אין הבעל מוציא אלא לרצונו, וזה שלא כדברי הרמב"ם ז"ל שכתב דבמאיס עלי כופין אותו להוציא לפי שאינה כשבויה שתיבעל לשנוי לה, ואין דבריו במקום זה מחוורים דאנו אין לנו כפייה בבעל אלא באותן השנויים במשנת אלו שכופין אותן להוציא (ע"ז א') או לפסולות בין דאורייתא בין דרבנן כשניות, ותנן בפרק בתרא דנדרים (צ' ב') חזרו לומר שלא תהא אשה נותנת עיניה באחר ומקלקלת על בעלה אלא האומרת טמאה אני לך תביא ראיה לדבריה נטולה אני מן היהודים יפר חלקו ותהא משמשתו, אלמא אין כופין ואף לא מבקשים ואף על פי שבאה שם מחמת טענה ואסרה נפשה עליו ועל כל העולם אפילו הכי חוששים שמא עיניה נתנה באחר כ"ש בזו, ותנן נמי ביבמות פרק ב"ש (קי"א ב') הנודרת הנאה מיבמה בחיי בעלה ומת בעלה כופין אותו לחלוץ לה ואם מתחלה נתכוונה לכך מבקשים ממנו והתם כיון שנדרה ממנו הא ודאי מאוס הוא לה ואפ"ה אין כופין, ובריש פרק הניזקין (מ"ט ב') אמרו כי היכי דכי מפיק לה איהו תקינו לה רבנן כתובה מיניה כי נפקא איהי נמי ליתקנו ליה כתובה מינה ואמרינן אשה יוצאה לרצונה ושלא לרצונה והאיש אינו מוציא אלא לרצונו אפשר דמשהי לה בגט, אלמא אין כופין אותו לגרש לעולם דאם איתא האיך הוא יכול לשהותה לימא מאיס עלי ויוצאה ואם היה אפשר לה בשום פנים לגרש את עצמה היו מתקנים לו כתובה ממנה, ותנן בפרק המדיר (ע"ז א') האיש שנולדו בו מומין אין כופין אותו להוציא וההוא ודאי מאוס הוא לה מפני מומיו ואפ"ה אין כופין, ויש שדוחין שאין כופין להוציא וליתן כתובה קאמר, וכן כתב הרמב"ם ז"ל בפרושי המשנה שלו ביבמות פרק ב"ש דכל מקום מקום שאמרו כופין ר"ל ותטול כתובה וכל מקום שאמרו מבקשים כדתנן התם הנודרת הנאה מיבמה וכו' לאחר מיתת בעלה מבקשים מן היבם שיחלוץ לה היינו שמבקשים שיחלוץ ויתן לה כתובה ואם נתרצה מוטב ואם לאו כופין אותו על החליצה ותצא בלא כתובה, וליתא דאין כופין סתמא קתני ואם איתא היכי שביק תנא עיקר דהיינו נתינת הגט [ונקט הטפל דהיינו נתינת] הכתובה אדרבה כופין אלא שאינו נותן כתובה, ועוד דהא איכא מאן דתני התם היו בו מומים ואם איתא דלעולם כופין ליתן גט אלא שאין כופין ליתן כתובה קאמר צריכה למימר דאם היו בו מומין מעיקרא וסברה וקבלה שאינה יוצאה ונוטלת כתובה אטו כתב לה כדי למישקל ולמיפק בעל כרחיה ובכי הא מי אמר ר"ג במומין גדולים כופין אותו להוציא וליתן כתובה, אלא ע"כ אין כופין אפילו ליתן גט קאמר ור"ג ליתן גט בלא כתובה קאמר ואליבא דמ"ד היו, כנ"ל. וגרסינן בירושלמי בריש פרקין רוצה הוא ליתן כמה כדי שלא תחזור בה, ויכולה היא לא כן תני האיש אינו מוציא אלא לרצונו, מעיקא ליה והוא מגרש לה, אלמא לעולם אין כופין אותו לגרש, וגרסינן נמי בירושלמי בפרק אלמנה ניזונת אמר שמואל אין מעשין אלא לפסולות כגון אלמנה לכה"ג והא תנינן המדיר את אשתו וכו' יוציא ויתן כתובה, ומפרק שמענו שמוציא שמענו שכופין, לומר שבכל מקום שאמרו יוציא ויתן כתובה אין כופין להוציא אלא כופין ליתן כתובה ומבקשים ממנו ליתן גט, זהו דין המורדת והאומרת מאיס עלי, אבל רבינו אלפסי ז"ל כתב בהלכותיו שהגאונים ז"ל תקנו להוציאה הכל כמו שכתוב בהלכות ואפשר שלא תקנו הגאונים ז"ל כן אלא לדורם לצורך שעה אבל עכשיו אין מקילין בדבר וכן כתב הרמב"ן ז"ל והר"ז הלוי ז"ל.

שו"ת הרשב"א חלק ז סימן תיד

+ע' לעיל בחלק ששי סי' ע"ב ומה שרמזתי שם+ דיני מורדת האומרת מאיס עלי והטוענת על בעלה שאינו יכול דע כי המורדת שדברו בה חכמים היא המונעת את בעלה מתשמיש המטה וב"ד שולחין לה ושואלין אותה מפני מה מרדה ואם אמרה מפני שאני רוצה לצערו מתרין בה שאם תעמוד במרדה תפסיד כל כתובתה ואפי' אם היתה של אלף מנה ואם לא חזרה בה מכריזין עליה ביום השבת בכל בתי כנסיות ובכל המדרשות ואומרים כך. הוו יודעים שפלניתא מרדה על בעלה ואם חזרה בה מוטב ואם לאו מכריזים עליה פעם שנית ביום שבת שני וכן עושין שבת שלישי וכן שבת רביעי ואחר אותן ד' שבתות אם לא חזרה בה שולחים לה הבית דין עוד ומזהירין אותה שאם תעמוד במרדה ולא תחזור בה מיד מפסידין כל כתובתה מיד ואפי' חזרה בה לאחר מיכן אין לה כתובתה כלל מאחר שלא רצתה לחזור בה כשהיו ב"ד מזהירין אותה ומ"מ לא הפסידה מנכסי מלוג שלה כלום אבל כל מה שכתב לה בעלה ושהוסיף לה בכתובתה או נתן לה תכשיטין ובגדים וכיוצא בהן מוציאין ממנה ונותנין לו ואפי' אם תפשה היא כלום מן הבגדים והתכשיטים שהכניסה לו בנדונייתא מוציאין ממנה ונותנין לו ואעפ"י שלא כתב כן הרמב"ם ז"ל ואם רצה הבעל לגרש אותה תוך אותן ד' שבתות אם רצה לגרש מגרש ואם רצה להשהותה משהה ובלבד שלא יבא עליה אפי' רצתה לחזור עמו עד שיכתוב לה כתובה אחרת כדין אלמנה לפי שאסור לשהות עם אשתו בלא כתובה אפי' שעה אחת זהו דין המורדת. והאומרת בעינא ליה ומצערנא ליה. אבל האומרת מאיס עלי בית דין מבקשים ממנה שתהא נותנת דעתה עליו ותתפייס לו ואם לא רצתה מפני שלבה אונסה שלא תתפייס לו אין מכריחין אותה לעמוד אצלו לשמשו ואין מכריזין עליה כלל אבל ממתינין לה י"ב חדש ואם +נדצ"ל לא+ חזרה בה תוך י"ב חדש הפסידה כתובתה וכל נדוניתה וכל שכן מה שנתן לה ומה שהוסיף לה מדעתו בכתובתה ואם רצה מוציא אותה בגט לאחר י"ב חדש ויוצאה בלא כלום אבל עדיין בידה או ביד הבעל מן הבגדים והתכשיטין שהכניסה לו בנדוניתא וקדמה היא ותפסה אותם אין מוציאין אותם מידה זהו כשגרשה הבעל לאחר י"ב חדש ואם גרשה תוך י"ב חדש נותן כל כתובתה אבל מה שהוסיף לה משלו אינה נוטלת מהן כלום שלא כתב ולא נתן לה משלו על מנת שתקח ותצא ממנו ותתנאה בהם בפני בעל אחר. וכל אותן י"ב חדש שאמרנו שמשהין אותה אינה אוכלת משל בעל כלום ולעולם אין כופין את הבעל לגרש אלא רצה לגרש יגרש ואם לא רצה לא יגרש ואף על פי שלא כתב כן הר"ם במז"ל זהו דין האומרת מאיס עלי. והטוענת על בעלה שאינו יכול והיא רוצה להתגרש ממנו מחמת כך שואלין ממנה ב"ד ואומרין לה מה שאמרת שאינו יכול אם אומרת שהוא משמש אבל אינו יורה כחץ אינה נאמנת אבל האשה שאמרה על בעלה שאינו יכול כלל נאמנת ומכל מקום ב"ד באין עליה דרך בקשה ואומ' לה תני דעתיך על בעליך שמא מתוך איבה אין אתם נזקקים. ונכנסים לחדר ועושין להם סעודה שמא מתוך כך יתנו דעתם זה על זה ואם היא אינה רוצה ואינה שומעת להם בכך אלא שרוצה להתגרש מפני טענה זו מבקשים מן הבעל לגרש ואם לא רצה כופין אותו ליתן כתובה אבל אין כופין אותו ליתן גט אלא יכולין ב"ד לאיים עליו בדברים ובלבד שלא ינדוהו ולא יבזוהו ולא יצערו אותו בגופו. ויש מגדולי רבני צרפת ז"ל שהורו שאפי' דין זה שאנו דנין שמבקשין מן הבעל לגרש ואם לא רצה כופין אותו ליתן כתובה כמו שאמרנו לא נאמרו דברים אלא כשהיא אינה תובעת גירושין ואינה מזכרת פרעון כתובה אבל אם אמרה אינו יכול לשמש על כן אני רוצה שיגרש אותי ויתן לי כתובתי בזו אינה נאמנת ואין שומעין לה כלום דכיון שהזכירה פרעון הכתובה אנו חוששין שמא עיניה נתנה באחר ועל כן היא מעיזה פניה בפני בעלה ותובעת כתובתה כדי שתתנשא באותו ממון לאותו שנתנה בו עיניה ולענין כתובתה שאמרו שנותן לה מה שהכניסה לו בנדונייתא ומנה ומאתים אבל תוספת אינה גובה כלל ואפילו תפסה מוציאין ממנה ונותנין לה /לו/ שלא כתב לה על מנת שתקח ותתן לבעל אחר:

Pure Torah law vs. pragmatic "weeding out the thorns" - BM 83b

[updated again June 18th] There is an underlying issue in my debate with those who insist that the rabbis are the best address for dealing with child abuse. Those who insist that rabbis should take care of abuse are claiming that the Torah has its rules which we are to follow. They assert that we can not modify the Torah to get certain results - but rather we must follow precisely the path prescribed by the Torah. Thus Torah provides a protective barrier against action for them. Action only occurs if that barrier is surmounted by the path defined by Shulchan Aruch.

Rav Sternbuch told me that the welfare of the child is first priority. Thus a community focused on protecting the innocent focuses on "not to stand idly by the blood of your fellow man." We don't sacrifice a child to preserve the image of the community. We don't sacrifice a child to preserve the financial well being of a yeshiva. We don't sacrifice a child to preserve rabbinic authority. That theoretically should be agreed to by everyone - but it isn't. The ones who feel that the community image is first priority, or we must be 100% sure that the innocent aren't slandered or that the welfare of the family of the abuser is first - will look at the situation differently.

Rav Sternbuch also told me that the first task of a posek is to  establish the fact of what is happening. Is a child being threatened or harmed? Who is apparently the perpetrator? Only after the facts are gathered do you go to the Shulchan Aruch and see what the Torah allows you to do in that particular case. The obligation to investigate is required even if the posek/menahel/parent/neighbor needs to listen to rumor and lashon harah to clarify the matter. Those who focus on the image of the community - work the other way. They have a high barrier that much be passed before they get involved. 1) Are there proper witnesses - if not nothing can be done. 2) Is there a crime that is punishable by the Torah? 3) Secular government can't be used if the punishment is greater than that prescribed by the Torah. 4) Using social agencies and the police constitute mesira. 5) use of secular courts is prohibited
 
However if you accept that protecting  the child is first priority a number of apparent halachic problems arise. 1) Most of the time there are  not proper witnesses according to the Torah which requires 2 frum adult males. Those whose prime value is protecting the child utilize the Rema that permits testimony of women and children in situations where men are not found. Those who focus on the image of the community or avoidance of involvement with secular government insist that the strict Torah law be followed and thus since most of the time there are not proper witnesses - their hands are tied which allows them to do nothing while following the laws of the Torah. 2) In addition the advocates for children use the concept of rodef which removes the necessity of formal witnesses and allows the use of circumstantial evidence. Rodef is non-judicial - it simply means you can protect yourself if you think you are threatened or someone else is threatened. However the Rav M. Klein - who is a clear example of following Torah law to do nothing - objected to this approach because he said minimal force is not used to stop the rodef - but rather the police are called. In fact Gedolim such as Rav Eliashiv are well aware that the community is often not effective in stopping a molester and therefore permit the police  be called in and that is in fact the minimum force needed to protect the child. 3) However the concept of Rodef has significant limitations. It is useful to stop perpetrators or suspected perpetrators only when it involves a sin punishable by capital punishment - such as sodomy. But rape of little girls is not such a crime. Rav Eliashiv gets around that objection by categorizing child abuse as pikuach nefesh - which is an implicit acknowledgement of the view of mental health professionals. Therefore the victim is to be saved even when there rodef would normally not apply because of the type of sin or lack of physical harm. (The Tzitz Eliezar results to the use of the Rambam - about one who torments the maases for a heter in this case - see Shulchan Aruch C.M. 388) However the ones defending the community image say - there is no pikuach nefesh because they say an increase in suicide rate 20 years later amongst abuse victims doesn't constitute pikuach nefesh. They don't view psychological destruction as pikuach nefesh. 4) Mandatory reporting - it is clear from BM 83b that if reported required by secular government is obligatory and one does not have to suffer the penalties for non reporting. However those who focus on community image and rabbinical status - argue that only a rabbi can decide the complicated interaction of factors to decide to call police. The child centered advocates says that mandatory reporting can be decided by the average adult and that there is nothing in BM 83b which requires consulting with a rabbi. 5) Community image focused rabbis focus on the serious prohibition of lashon harah as described by the Chofetz Chaim with all the conditions. Rav Sternbuch has written a teshuva strongly criticizing using the prohibition of listening to lashon harah to avoid protecting the children. 6) Using the approach of self-defense rather than the judicial model of guilt or innocence enable the utilization of circumstantial evidence as well as involving the police. The community defenders insist that the community can handle the problem internally and that the prohibition of mesira and use of secular courts is too great a sin. And so the argument goes back and forth.

 A clear example of the pure Torah law versus pragmatic goal oriented halacha - is found in the beginning of Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat.  Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 1) goes through all the things we can't do today without semicha which is required by the pure Torah law. However  Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 2) provides an alternative pragmatic system focused on results not procedures. In fact the Aruch HaShulchan (C.M. 1:1) it cites the Rashba that the Temple was destroyed because of the insistence on following the strict letter of the law - instead of focusing on necessary goals.

Consequently a very functional defense of the victim happens when these alternative Torah paths are followed. However focusing on protecting the innocent rather than focusing on the strict parameters of Torah law takes power away from the rabbis - as Rabbi Zwiebel succinctly summarized the issue.

It is important to be aware that the argument between the goal oriented halachacists and those who view the halacha as a barrier to prevent action -  has been going on for a long time. Here is the granddaddy of them all. R' Eliezar is cooperating with the government to catch thieves who will be crucified. He took the job to prevent the innocent from suffering. However Torah procedure is not being followed. Goyish government is heavily involved. Death penalty is utilized by the Romans for stealing which is not what the Torah prescribes. A prominent rabbi is cooperating with the government and is moser Jews. He justifies it by saying that he is just weeding out the thorns - tikkun olam. The reply of his opponents is that the strict laws of the Torah must be followed and it really doesn't matter whether they are helping the individual or society - any injustice is up to G-d to correct. We are soldier's in G-d's army and our job is not to second guess the will of G-d which is manifested in the Torah.

Bava Metzia(83b): R. Eleazar, son of R. Simeon, once met an officer of the [Roman] Government who had been sent to arrest thieves, ‘How can you detect them?’ he said. ‘Are they not compared to wild beasts, of whom it is written, Therein [in the darkness] all the beasts of the forest creep forth?’ (Others say, he referred him to the verse, He lieth in wait secretly as a lion in his den.) ‘Maybe,’ [he continued,] ‘you take the innocent and allow the guilty to escape?’ The officer answered, ‘What shall I do? It is the King's command.’ Said the Rabbi, ‘Let me tell you what to do. Go into a tavern at the fourth hour of the day. If you see a man dozing with a cup of wine in his hand, ask what he is. If he is a learned man, [you may assume that] he has risen early to pursue his studies; if he is a day labourer he must have been up early to do his work; if his work is of the kind that is done at night, he might have been rolling thin metal. If he is none of these, he is a thief; arrest him.’ The report [of this conversation] was brought to the Court, and the order was given: ‘Let the reader of the letter become the messenger.’ R. Eleazar, son of R. Simeon, was accordingly sent for, and he proceeded to arrest the thieves. Thereupon R. Joshua, son of Karhah, sent word to him, ‘Vinegar, son of wine! How long will you deliver up the people of our God for slaughter!’ Back came the reply: ‘I weed out thorns from the vineyard.’ Whereupon R. Joshua retorted: ‘Let the owner of the vineyard himself [God] come and weed out the thorns.’

One day a fuller met him, and dubbed him: ‘Vinegar, son of wine.’ Said the Rabbi to himself, ‘Since he is so insolent, he is certainly a culprit.’ So he gave the order to his attendant: ‘Arrest him! Arrest him!’ When his anger cooled, he went after him in order to secure his release, but did not succeed. Thereupon he applied to him, [the fuller] the verse: Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from troubles. Then they hanged him, and he [R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon] stood under the gallows and wept. Said they [his disciples] to him: ‘Master, do not grieve; for he and his son seduced a betrothed maiden on the Day of Atonement.’ [On hearing this,] he laid his hand upon his heart and exclaimed: ‘Rejoice, my heart! If matters on which thou [sc. the heart] art doubtful are thus, how much more so those on which thou art certain! I am well assured that neither worms nor decay will have power over thee.’ Yet in spite of this, his conscience disquieted him. Thereupon he was given a sleeping draught, taken into a marble chamber, and had his abdomen opened, and basketsful of fat removed from him and placed in the sun during Tammuz and Ab, and yet it did not putrefy. But no fat putrefies! — [True,] no fat putrefies; nevertheless, if it contains red streaks, it does. But here, though it contained red streaks, it did not. Thereupon he applied to himself the verse, My flesh too shall dwell in safety.

     A similar thing befell R. Ishmael son of R. Jose. [One day] Elijah met him and remonstrated with him: ‘How long will you deliver the people of our God to execution!’ — ‘What can I do’, he replied, ‘it is the royal decree.’ ‘Your father fled to Asia,’1 he retorted, ‘do you flee to Laodicea!’

Rashba (1:413): Medicine is anything that cures - even if not scientifically

שו"ת הרשב"א חלק א סימן תיג

ואומר אני כי מחסד עליון היה בתחלת הבריאה להמציא בעולמו דברים להעמיד בריאות הנבראים. שאם יקרה המקרים כחליים ושאר הסבות יוציאו הנמצאים מגדר טבעם השלם יהיו אלו מוכנים להחזירם אל גדרם או להעמידם על בריאות'. ושם הכחות האלה בעצם הדברים הנמצאים בטבע מושג בעיון כסמים והמסעדים הידועים לחכמי הרפואו' או בטבע מסוגל לא ישיג אותו העיון. וכן הענין בעצמו בשאר הנמצאים שיש בכל אחד דבר מועיל או בטבע מושגי או בטבע מסוגל כמסמר הצלוב ושן של שועל ואבן תקומ'. וכן תמשך הסגלה בסמים הידועים המחממים בחומם ובסגל' יועילו לדבר החם וכיוצא בזה הרב*ה. ואינו מן הנמנע שיהיה בזה אסור גם בדבורים כענין הקמיעין והדומה לזה. ועל כן אמרו אביי ורבא דרך כלל כל דבר שיש בו משום רפואה אין בו משום דרכי האמורי. ואמנם כתב יתעלה בתורתו (דברים י"ח) תמים תהיה עם ה' אלהיך. ותמים הכתוב כאן פירושו אצלי כולל האזהרה וההבטחה. הזהיר שלא נשתבש ונחוש להבלי הגוים הקוסמים והמנחשים ואוכלי הדם בכוונתם הרעה להמשיך להם שדים לא אלה רק היות תם עם השם רוצה לומר לך עמו בתמימות מלשון ואני בתומי הלכתי. והבטיח שבעשיית מצותיו ובעבודתו יהיה תמים לא יגע בו רע מלשון שה תמים הפך מה שיחשבו אותם הטועים. והוא אומרו לאות (/דברים י"ח/ שם) כי הגוים האלה אשר אתה יורש אותם אל מעוננים ואל קוסמים ישמעו. ואולם הבטחון נחלק לענינים לפי הזמנים ולפי האנשים. ודרך כלל לעולם נבטח כי נלך בטח בלכתנו בדרכי התורה השלמה. והיא המצלת מן המקרים והסבות הנסתרות כאמרו (משלי ז') בשכבך תשמור עליך. וזה כולל פרשה והיה אם שמוע תשמעו אל מצותי ופרשת אם בחקותי תלכו. וצדקה תציל ממות שלא מדעת בנס נסתר כמעשה בתו של רבי עקיבא ומעשה דשמואל ואבלט כמוזכר בשילהי שבת (דף קנ"ו ב'). ואם חל המקרה כחליים מותר להתעסק ברפואות ובלבד שיהא לבו לשמים וידע שאמתת הרפואה ממנו וידרשנו. ולא שיכוין שהכל תלוי בסם הפלוני וברפואת האיש הרופא. והוא אמרו באסא (דבה"י ב' י"ו) גם בחליו לא דרש את ה' כי ברופאי'. ומי שהשיגו החולי אינו סומך על הנס שלא לשאול ברופאים ולהתעסק בדברים המועילים בין בדברים הטבעיים בין בסגולות. והוא אמרו ורפא ירפא ואמרו ז"ל מכאן שנתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות. ואמרם נתנה רשות לומר שאין זה הפך מה שהזהירה התורה בהשגחה. ובגדר זה נכנסו כל דרכי הרפואות אפילו מה שמועיל בסגולה מן הסגולות בין בעצמים בין בדבורים. וזה דרך הקמיעים בין קמיע של כתב בין קמיע של עיקרין. וכן כל מה שאמרו בשבת וחולין וסנהדרין ובעבודה זרה ובשאר המקומות שכתבנו למעלה. והוא שאמרו אביי ורבא /חולין ע"ז/ כל שיש בו משום רפואה אין בו משום דרכי האמורי. ולא עוד אלא שאסור להכנס בעניני הסכנות ולבטוח על הנס והוא אמר' שקיר נטוי מזכיר עון. ואמרו כל הסומך על הנס אין עושין לו נס. ומותר לבטוח באדם והוא שלא יסור לבו מן השם. ואמרו ארור הגבר אשר יבטח באדם ומה' יסור לבו. אך לבטוח בשם ושיעשה לו תשועה ע"י האיש הפלוני מותר ומצוה. וזה כולל כל עסקי בני האדם במלאכתם זולתי האנשים השלמים ושזכיותיהם מרובות. כמעשה דרבי חנינא בן דוסא עם הערוד שאמרו אוי לו לאדם שפגע בו ערוד. ואוי לו לערוד שפגע בו רבי חנינא בן דוסא. וכמעשה דרבי חנינא שהיתה אשה מחזרת ליטול עפר מתחת רגליו לכשפי'. ואמר לו שקולי אין עוד מלבדו כתיב (דברים ד'). והקשו והא אמר מר למה נקראו שמן כשפים שמכחישים פמליא של מעלה. והשיבו שאני ר' חנינא דנפישן זכוותי'. ואפילו החסיד שבחסידים אין להם רשות לעשות במלאכתן דרך הבטחון רק כדרכו של עולם. שלא יאמר אדליק נרי במים או ביין ואסמוך על הנס. אף על פי שאמר במס' תענית (פ"ג דף כ"ה) הוא החסיד לבתו ששגגה בערב שבת ושמה בנר יין במקום שמן ונצטערה. אמר לה בתי אל תצטערי מי שאמ' לשמן וידליק הוא יאמר ליין וידליק. וכן מותר שיעשה אדם דבר קודם חול המקרה כדי שלא יחול או יאמר דבר או מקרא אחד אפילו מן התורה להגן. וזהו שאמרו בע"ז (דף י"ב ב') אי צחי לזדהר משברירי. ולימא הכי לנפשיה פלניא אמרה לך אימיך אזדהר משברירי ברירי רירי ירי רי. ואמרינן בשבועות פרק ידיעות הטומאה (דף ט"ו ב') שיר של פגעים ובנבלים ובתופים ואומר (תהלים צ"א) יושב בסתר עליון עד כי אתה ה' מחסי. ואומר (תהלים ג') מזמור לדוד ה' מה רבו וכו' לה' הישועה. ר' יהושע בן לוי מסדר להני קראי וגני. והיכי עביד הכי והאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אסור להתרפאות בדברי תורה? להגן שאני. וכן בחולין (כל הבשר דף ק') אמר אביי משמיה דרבה הא דלא משו מיא בתראי אארעא משום דרוח רעה שורה עליהן. ולא שקלי מידי מפתורא בדנקי' איניש כסא בידי' משום דקשי לרוח צרדה. ומר בר רב אשי קפיד אאסיתא ובכנא דתבלי דצריכי לסעודת'. ועוד שם רבים כיוצא באלו. ואין זה ממיעוט הבטחון דאדרבא אסור להשען על הנס. ואפילו במקום הדברים שנודעו לחכמים בסגלה שצריך להשמר ואין העיון הטבעי משיג. הנה שנכנסו בכלל ההיתר הזה כל שאמרוהו שיש בו משום רפואה בין בסגולת העצם בין בסגולת הדבור והפעולות. ואפשר שאפילו העתים והשעות בכלל זה כל שהוא עושה צורה לרפואה ונותן דעתו לשמים. לא כאותן שמכונין לשר השולט באותו יום שזה כעובד אותו. והוא שהכ' אומר (דברים ד') פן תשא עיניך השמים וראית את השמש ואת הירח כל צבא השמים ונדחת והשתחוית להם ועבדתם. ובחובר חבר אמרו המחבר נחשים ועקרבים ואמרו ז"ל שלוחשין על הנחשים והעקרבים. ונראה שזה נכנס בכלל כל שהוא לשום רפואה מותר שלחיש' עקרבים שהתירו היא לחישה על המכה של נחשים ועקרבים וכמו שכתב הרב ז"ל בהלכות בפרק ארבע מיתות. גם בניחוש שיש בכללו חכמת התיירין שהיא מן הנחשים בעופות אמרו במעשה דרב עיליש דשמע עורב ויונה אומרין עיליש ברח עיליש ברח וסמך עליהם וברח וניצל. ואולי גם זה משום דשבי כולהו איתנהו ביה ובכלל רפואה ויותר ממנה היא. ושלא ילך אחרי נחשים אלו אלא שאם שמע במקרה שמות' לסמוך עליו להנצל מן השבי. ובכלל מעונן אמרו ראש חדש הוא מוצאי שבת הוא. ואמרו לא יקיז דם בראש חדש וזהו גם כן מצד היתר במקום רפואה משום דאיכא חולשא כמוזכר שם בגמ'. גם בלא יקיז בשני ובחמישי שאמרו מפני שהם ימים קבועין לדין בית דין של מעלה ובית דין של מטה. ואין בזה הסרת הלב מן השמים רק כמאמין בהשגחה ומוסיף ביראת ה'. וכמצו' התרועה וההכנעה בראש השנה שהוא מוכן לדין עמים ונוסיף /ומוסיף/ יראה וההכנעה בוידויין להגן מדין שמים. דכל שעת הדין והפקידה על באי עולם קרוב יותר לעונש. על כן אמרו אדכורי ריתחא בריש שתא לא מדכרינן. ואמר ליה רב קטינא למלאכא ענשיתו אעשה. ואמר ליה בעידן ריתחא ענשי ושעת החולי כעולה לידון. וכמו שאמרו בעולה לגרדום לידון שאומרין לו הבא ראיה והפטר. יום ההקזה כשעת הסכנה שהכח נחלש בהתמעט הדם ואפילו רוח מועט מזיקתו. ושמואל שהיה רופא לא היה מקיז אלא בבית של שבעה אריחי. ומזה הזהירו שלא להקיז דם באותן הימים העומדים בזוגי למאדים. ובערב עצרת שהרוח רע וחזק באותו יום דשמו טבוח כנזכר שם. ואמרו שהשטן מקטרג בשעת הסכנה. והזהירו להשמר מזוגות לפי שמלאכי החבלה מקפידין בהן. וכבר הזכירו בגמרא מה שאירע מן ההיזק על זה. ומה שאמרו בבעילת הנשואות בחמישי וששי מפני שהעסק בפריה ורביה. והימים האלה רצוני לומר חמישי וששי נתברכו מפיו יתעלה בתחלת הבריאה בפריית ורביית בעלי חיים כדגים והעופות והאדם. וכבר אמרתי שכל יום מימי הבריאה פועל יותר במלאכה שנתחדשה בו משאר הימים. וכן אפשר שמותר להתעסק באותן הדברים האסורים כדי לבטל מעשי מכשופי המכשפים. והוא שאמרו בפרק כל הבשר במעשה דההיא מטרוניתא דאמרה מילתא ואסרתה לספינתא ואמרו אינהו מילתא ושריוהא. ונכנס בכלל זה מעשה דר' אליעזר ור' יהושע בן חנניא שעשו עם אותו המין במרחץ. ומעשה שעשו באביו של רבי יהודה בן בתירא ברומי כמוזכר בירושלמי בפרק ארבע מיתות. והוא הטעם שאמרו בשילהי פרק קמא דסנהדרין (דף י"ז) שאין מושיבין בסנהדרין אלא בעלי חכמה ובעלי כשפים כדי שיבינו במעשה הכשפים ויבטלום. ולא יוכלו לעכב על ידם או לשבש את דעתם מכשף מן המכשפים. והוא אומרו (דברים י"א) לא תלמד לעשות ובא בפירושו אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות. רוצה בו להבין מעשיהם ולהורו' במה ינצל הנכשל בהם. והוא שאמר ר' אליעזר בשילהי פרק ארבע מיתות (פ"ח) כמאשי' מי שאינו לומד מהם על הכונה הזו. ואומר יש לי ג' מאות הלכות בנטיעת קשואין ולא שאלני אדם בהם מעולם אלא עקיבא בן יוסף. פעם אחת ולמדו נטיעתן ועקירתן דאמר מילתא ונתמלאה כל השדה קשואין ואמר מילתא ונעקרו. והקשו והיאך עביד הכי והא העושה מעשה חייב? והיתה התשובה לא תלמד לעשות לעשות אין אתה למד אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות. אבל מעשה דר' אבהו דעל לההוא אושפיזא ואשקייה לההיא איתתא והות חמר'. לא ידעתי האיך היה מותר לו לעשות מעשה כזה אלו היה ר' אבהו המוזכר כתלמידו של רבי יוחנן. ואולי אחר היה. וכן נראה מפי' רש"י ז"ל. דרבי אבהו תלמיד של רבי יוחנן לא היה עושה מעשה כזה. ובשואלין בשדים שאמרו שהוא מותר אלא משום הסכנה ראיתי תשובה לרמב"ן ז"ל. וזה לשונו מה שהתירו בפרק חלק (דף ק"א) דללחוש על השדים אלא משום סכנה. אין זה ללחוש ולהשביע לצאת מן האיש כדרך מעשה בן תמליון. ורבי יוסי אוסר שמא יזיק אותו כשמוציאים אותו בעל כרחו. ואני תמה כי שמעתי בבירור שמנהג חסידי אלמנייא לעסוק בדברי השדים ומשביעין אותן ומשלחין אותן ומשתמשין בהן בכמה עניני'. וסבור אני שיש לומר דמעשה שדים לחוד ומעשה כשפים לחוד. כמו שאמרו בלטיהם אלו מעשה מעשה שדים בלהטיהם אלו מעשי כשפים. ופרש"י ז"ל מעשה כשפים על ידי מלאכי חבלה הם נעשים והם אשר אסרה תורה. אבל מעשה שדים שרי. וזהו דעתם שנהגו בו ועשו בו כמה מעשי' ובודאי פשטי השמועות כך הם. ומעשה בבן תמליון וארגנטין ויוסף שידא ושאר מעשי' בתלמו' ומדר' אגדה כך הם נוטים. עכ"ל. הנה כתבתי ממה שבא בדבריהם ז"ל בכללי ענינים אלה. ומה שהתירו מכללם רבותינו הקדושים אחד אחוז מן החמישים. ולבי עוד מגמגם כאשר כתבתי ואשר באתי לתקן ולתרגם. ולא כתבתי אחד מאלה לעשות מעשה רק באותן שהוזכרו בגמר' שאין זאת משנת חסידים רק כדורש מן הספק להלכה. עד אמצא חכם יעשה אתנו ברכה להוציא כאלו רגלינו מן הסבכה. ואתם תעמידו דבר על בוריו ותודיעונו. והאלהים יראנו נפלאות מתורתו וידריכנו באמתתו ויצליחנו בעבודתו כי לו לבדו הגדולה והגבורה והתפארת והנצח וההוד ואפס זולתו.

Child Abuse - Calling Police /HaRav Eliashiv shlita II

This is my copyrighted translation of the teshuva which I previously posted ========================== Question: If someone is sexually abusing a boy a girl in circumstances which we can’t stop him from continuing his evil deeds – is it permissible to notify the government authorities? Answer: Rashba (3:393) states:

“My view is that if the witnesses are believed by the judges, then it is permitted to punish the accused financially or physically depending upon what the judges think is appropriate to be beneficial to society. Because if we insist on doing only what is specified by Torah law and not to punish except as specified in the Torah – the world will end up destroyed. That is because the elementary rules of a functioning society will be breached and consequently it will be ruined. It is an established practice to punish those who physically harm others…Every community makes judgments in order to preserve it and this is true in every generation and every place according to what is perceived as the needs of the times. For example we see (Sanhedrin 58b) that Rav Huna, who was in Babylonia, would amputate hands as punishment. Therefore these judges you referred to who punished the accused not in accord with Torah law – if they saw the need for it to preserve the society – they have correctly acted according to the halacha. This is true when there is a specific order from the king as we see in the case of R’ Eliezar the son of R’ Shimon bar Yochai in Bava Metzia (83a).”

We learn from the Rashba’s words that when action is needed for the well being of society (tikun olam), that the Jewish sages have the ability in every generation to act to preserve the society and to repair breaches – even when there isn’t a specific order from the king. The Ritva (Bava Metzia 84a) has stated that this order of the king is:

"if the king says to capture certain criminals, even though the government will judge without witnesses and warning [as required by Torah law] and there is no functioning Sanhedrin [as required by Torah law] – it is still permitted since he is acting as the agent of the king. Since it is the law of the land to execute criminals without the testimony of witnesses and warning - as it states [Shmuel 2’ 1:5-16] that Dovid killed the Amalekite ger who had acceded to Shaul’s request to kill him -the agent of the king is like him.”

However according to what has been said, in a matter which is needed for the well being of society (tikun olam), it is not needed to have been ordered to act by the king [in order to act as needed]. However, it is permitted to notify the government authorities only in the case which it is certain that the accused has been sexually abusing children. Informing the authorities in such a case is clearly something for the well being of the society (tikun olam). However in a case where there is no proof that this activity is happening but it is merely a conjecture or suspicion, if we permit the calling of the authorities - not only would it not be an improvement (tikun olam) - but it would destroy society. That is because it is possible that allegations are being made solely because of some bitterness the student has against his teacher or because of some unfounded fantasy. As a result of these false allegations the accused will be placed in a situation for which death is better than life. Therefore I do not see any justification for calling the authorities in such circumstances

Reporting abuse: Did Rav Eliashiv require a psak from a rabbi to call police?

I received the following letter requesting my response to Rav Feivel Cohen's assertion that Rav Eliashiv required that a person needs explicit permission from a rabbi to report abuse to the police in each case. Click here for translated letters and quotes of Rav Eliashiv

Rav Feivel Cohen states it is based on the "Rashba [which] posits that any rav or group of rabbanim who have rabbinical jurisdiction over any locale have the Torah-authorized power to go beyond the punitive measures—both corporal and financial—generally set forth in the Torah for malefactors and impose such penalties as they deem appropriate."

There are two letters - the first one deals with sexual abuse and does not mention consulting with a rabbi. The second one dealing with physical abuse by parents and the possibility that the children will be taken from parent's custody states "In every case it is necessary to obtain the evaluation and decision from talmidei chachomim who are great in Torah and fear of G-d"

Rabbi Feivel Cohen deduces the basis for rabbinical authorization from the Rashba cited by Rav Eliashiv in the first letter. Rav Eliashiv in the first letter noted two sources for reporting abuse to the police. He states that the Rashba says if reporting to the police is tikkun olam [preserving the welfare of socity] one can go beyond that which the Torah permits. He cites the Ritva as indicating that reporting can also be done if there is mandated reporting (based on Bava Metzia 88). If there is no tikun olam and no mandated reporting - such as when there is no reasonable evidence - one can not go to the police.

The Rashba indicates that the rabbis have the obligation to declare that something is a danger to the individual and/or society (i.e., the police need to notified) - even though this might lead to punishment not prescribed by the Torah. That is because of tikkun olam. As the Rashba notes - if we insist on only following the Torah - the world will be destroyed (Aruch HaShulchan C.M. 2). Therefore the police must be informed when it is clear or even reasonable that someone is an abuser. 

In addition Rav Eliashiv considered child abuse as pikuach nefesh as opposed to the Tzitz Eliezer. With this rabbinic acknowledgment of abuse as pikuach nefesh, there is no requirement of a rav's permission in each and every case. Rav Feivel Cohen's understanding of Rav Eliashiv's view would be appropriate if abuse was only a moral issue but didn't involve pikuach nefesh

Furthermore contrary to what Rav Feivel Cohen's understanding of Rav Elieashiv's view - reporting abuse to the police is not inherently a punitive measure. As Rav Silman and others have pointed out - reporting is simply a means of stopping harm to another. The purpose is not to cause punishment against that which the Torah prescribes. This is Bava Metzia (88) where Rav  Elieazar ben Rav Shimon brought about the death of thieves (not a Torah punishment) by reporting them to secular authorities. This is also discussed in Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 388). Reporting is done because of the din of rodef because of pikuach nefesh and Rav Eliashiv viewed abuse as pikuach nefesh. There is no special requirement to get a psak to stop harm to another. As Rav Silman has noted - the police don't automatically declare an accussed molester as guilty and imprison him. Instead they carefully weight the evidence and only if it is convincing to that have him tried in court. If the court finds him innocent he goes free.

In contrast to Rav Feivel Cohen's understanding of Rav Eliashiv's view - Rav Sternbuch told me that one should go to a rav before reporting so that the world should not be hefker. But if the rav told you not to go that one was required to ask another rav since by saying not to go - he was not acting as a rav. Thus in Rav Sternbuch's view it is not because of a unique authority to rabbis to permit something not normally permitted by the Torah. Furthermore since the abuser has the status of rodef - if there is any possibility that going to the rav will endanger children - one should go directly to the police. It is no different than if you see a fire or a burglar breaking into a house. I don't see there is any reason to assume that Rav Eliashiv's view is different than Rav Sternbuch's. 

Furthermore the Aguda view - which Rabbi Zweibel claims based on Rav Eliashiv's psak - says said that if a person has directly knowledge of abuse he can go directly to the police. That the  requirement of going to a rav only was for a case in which there is only reasonable certainty (raglayi l'davar) that this person is an assailant. They claim that only a rabbi can ascertain if there is reasonable evidence. However this understanding for raglayim l'davar is problematic  since in other cases of pikuach nefesh (or sofek pikuach nefesh) and rodef - there is no requirement to ask a rav's permission.

Bottom line. Rav Eliashiv doesn't mention the need for rabbinical authorization in reporting abuse as based on rabbinical authority.  Rabbi Feivel Cohen deduces this need for rabbinical authorization from the Rashba cited by Rav Eliashiv. However Rav Eliashiv states that the reason for reporting clear cases of abusers is either because of tikkun olam or mandated reporting - not because of rabbinical authority.  Even according to Rav Feivel Cohen's view that a psak is required in each case - that would only apply if there was no pikuach nefesh involved. However Rav Eliashiv held that child abuse was pikuach nefesh. According to Rav Eliashiv and Rav Sternbuch - there is no inherent halachic obligation to get a heter to report abuse to the police - if this would cause even possible danger to a child. Going to a rav when there is no perceived danger is not because of the need for unique halachic authorization to allow punishing a person beyond that which the Torah prescribes. The  purpose of reporting is to stop harm - not to punish (tikkun olam). In fact Rav Sternbuch says if the the rav tells you not to report - when you feel otherwise - the obligation is on you to ask another rabbi as long as that doesn't involve even sofek pikuach nefesh.

==============================

==============================

Rabbi Eidensohn,

In the latest issue of the OU's magazine, Jewish Action (Winter 5774), there is a letter to the editor from Rav Feivel Cohen in which he describes his understanding of  Rav Elyashiv's opinion on reporting abuse.  Jewish Action Magazine

It appears from his letter that Rav Cohen bases the requirement to get permission from a Rov to report abuse on these words of the tshuva (your translation): "We learn from the Rashba’s words that when action is needed for the well being of society (tikun olam), that the _Jewish sages_ have the ability in every generation to act to preserve the society and to repair breaches"

My understanding from your recent post is that Rav Elyashiv's opinion was that a Rov need not be consulted.

I would be very interested in seeing your response to Rav Cohen's letter. 

=================================================

Rav Feivel Cohen wrote:

This letter is in response to a request from Jewish Action that I state my view and, to the best of my knowledge, that of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, zt”l, concerning the topic of reporting molestation.

What prompted this request was a letter published in the winter issue, in which the writer purports to set forth both my view and, more importantly, that of Rav Elyashiv on this topic.

Firstly, I thank the editorial board for making this request.

In order to set the record straight, I need to preface my comments with the following:

As is made clear in Rav Elyashiv’s written response (of which I have the original copy, and which was subsequently printed in Kovetz Teshuvos, a compendium of Rav Elyashiv’s responsa), his answer to the question posed to him is based on Teshuvas HaRashba (volume 3, siman 393; also quoted in the Beis Yosefon Choshen Mishpat, siman 2), in which the Rashba posits that any rav or group of rabbanim who have rabbinical jurisdiction over any locale have the Torah-authorized power to go beyond the punitive measures—both corporal and financial—generally set forth in the Torah for malefactors and impose such penalties as they deem appropriate.

This special empowerment is where one’s malfeasance tends to endanger the desired and called for societal contract among men.

It goes without saying that the aforementioned rav, or his appointed agent (“bo’rrim” in the Rashba’s parlance—not to be confused with the same term when used in the context of a beis din), must practice due diligence in determining the veracity of one who reports such conduct.

All of the above is adduced by the Rashba from numerous citations from the Gemara.

After quoting the Rashba, Rav Elyashiv clearly states that all of the above (that is to say both the nature of the penalty and the determination of the report’s veracity) is at the sole discretion of the rav, and at times, with the appointed agent.

The rav may find that it would be most valuable to seek the input of the secular authorities who have much experience in these matters and also to seek the input of individuals who are privately engaged professionally in these matters.

In conclusion, it is abundantly clear to me that according to Rav Elyashiv, it is absolutely forbidden for any individual to report any malfeasance to the secular authorities without prior authorization from a rav empowered to do so as described above.

Rabbi Feivel Cohen
Brooklyn, New York