tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post3800930315521531214..comments2024-03-28T21:30:33.665+02:00Comments on Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Is child abuse pikuach nefesh?Daas Torahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-29869199594470649322009-08-23T10:57:33.911+03:002009-08-23T10:57:33.911+03:00Dear Dt,
In one of the teshuvot in yeshurun there...Dear Dt,<br /><br />In one of the teshuvot in yeshurun there is a practical distinction between the application of the halacha regarding Rodef or just Hmatzaer horabim )or hakkoas hayochid): If one is allowed to inform on his own parents (rachmonoh litzlon from such cases bichlal): <br />===============<br />ThanksDaas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-92085598358901082232009-08-23T06:41:09.352+03:002009-08-23T06:41:09.352+03:00Dear Dt,
In one of the teshuvot in yeshurun there...Dear Dt,<br /><br />In one of the teshuvot in yeshurun there is a practical distinction between the application of the halacha regarding Rodef or just Hmatzaer horabim )or hakkoas hayochid): If one is allowed to inform on his own parents (rachmonoh litzlon from such cases bichlal):<br /><br />Rav Moshe Halbershtam from the Eydah Hacharedit seems to make this point, that since we are dealing with a case of erva (in case of a parent molesting) therefore even the children can and should inform on their parents based on the din rodef which is a mitzvah to all.Roninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-73405933089376583712009-08-21T15:31:13.945+03:002009-08-21T15:31:13.945+03:00DT:" and the danger or repetition is present&...DT:" and the danger or repetition is present":<br /><br />Roni: Fine, but this is something that many people claim that a serious molester is shayach to be a reptetive offender and needs rehabilitation etc. so this concern is always present in the nature of the concern,<br /><br /><br />dt:" and that it is done to the masses i.e., more than one person still apply'.<br /><br /><br />Roni: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THIS IS WRONG! you repeat so many times, but while NA wrote this, nevertheless, NEITHER DID RAV ELYASHIV AND NEITHER TE:<br /><br />When you talk about "tzaaar" there is disntinction between "rabim" and "Yachid" but when you talk about HAKAAA (hitting physically or nafshit abuse) then even to YACHID messira is mutar: Remo, Shach, Sema, Shulchan Aruch HaRAv!<br /><br />DT:"It would also seem that if it were a real case of rodef - then there would be no need to consult with a rav or beis din".<br /><br />Roni: While conceptually you may be right, but even NA staes that the rofeh should not act before speaking to a Rov "BECHOL HAMIKRIM" and it makes some sense because maybe we need to reassure that it is "Safek rofdef" (if it would be actually permitted to act upon it) and not less than that.roninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-2337339570528595842009-08-21T15:30:48.988+03:002009-08-21T15:30:48.988+03:00DT:"It would seem though that the additional ...DT:"It would seem though that the additional points that I made when it is not a case of rodef still apply - then the police can be called only if the abuse was actually done"<br /><br />ROni: While TZ does NOT say this, and neither did RSZA say this clearly, so it might be up to discussion! <br /><br />While i might concede that you may want to argue that by a safek rodef one is permitted to act even to masser. I don't access to the Yeshurun now, i think that is the next disucssion there, but I don't know if this is a simple matter. Bifrat that lichorah it has to be a strong safek. As Rav Elyashiv writes in pssak in yeshurun that there may be a talmid that has grievance on his teacher or another "dimyon" we are not allowed to bring someone to a state where "tov mossoy mechayav" for no reason.<br /><br />And on the other hand even it is not rodef, you are dwongrading the concerns too much (you seem to like to call plain "nuisance" ; it is WRONG TE wrote about it "pgia bguf venefesh" -only NA wrote it; i don't know why when TE wrote that it is pgia bguf venefesh-), and therefore even if one is not knowledagable that a chamur dike act of abuse of done, what about lower levels of molestation, I would assume that that too falls under "Hakoo and gia nafshit" or "chanura",<br /><br />IN short this distinction too, may not be entirely accurate!roninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-68727721992924333682009-08-21T12:59:41.702+03:002009-08-21T12:59:41.702+03:00ROni: 1) RE did not say in these two works one wor...ROni: 1) RE did not say in these two works one word that child molesting is "pikuach nefesh", (he said "sakanah kerabim" or "pgia nefesh chamura") 2) TE said that it is either rodef in cases of erva (where RE would probably agree - this ishould be no machlokess; RE was not talking about it specifically), or it is a case of "hakkah" where messira is permitted SIMILAR TO RE WHO CALLS "PGIA CHAMURAH" OR "SAKANAH LERABIM" ABUT DOES NOT SAY IT IS "PIKUACH NEFESH"!<br />=============<br />You raise a good point. We in essence have three sources regarding Rav Eliashiv's point Yeshurun (15) his printed teshuva which is a truncated version of Yeshurun (15) and the report by the Nishmas Avraham.<br /><br />It is only in the third source where there is an indication that he holds that child abuse is a severe condition.<br /><br />I am basing my understanding of his view from what I heard from the Rav Mayer Horowtiz the Bostoner Rebbe's son who asked Rav Eliashiv about child abuse. He told me that Rav Eliashiv told him that abuse is pikuach nefesh because the person is destroyed by the abuse.<br /><br />The question of the accuracy of the Nishma Avraham is a good question - there is a written teshuva in the Tzitz Eliezer (19:52) There the Tzitz Eliezer - while not calling it pikuach nefesh - does allow calling the police because of the physical and psychological damage. The degree of physical and psychological damage to call the police does not seem to be very serious. He also does not mentioned the distinction of calling the principal first as is mentioned in the Nishmas Avraham.<br /><br />So you are right that practically speaking the Tzitz Eliezar in (19:52) also says to call the police - but he does not seem to view it as seriously as Rav Eliashiv who considers it pikuach nefesh.<br /><br />It would seem though that the additional points that I made when it is not a case of rodef still apply - then the police can be called only if the abuse was actually done and the danger or repetition is present and that it is done to the masses i.e., more than one person still apply.<br /><br />It would also seem that if it were a real case of rodef - then there would be no need to consult with a rav or beis din.Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-45263322777812283822009-08-21T07:04:26.978+03:002009-08-21T07:04:26.978+03:00look also the other post that i sent you how Rav W...look also the other post that i sent you how Rav WIldenberg and Rav Elyashiv agree on this issue that heter for this messira does not require him to be on the levelof rodef.<br />-------------------------<br />"That is true - as I noted in my previous post. But there are significant differences between the mesira done against a public nuisance and against a rodef".<br /><br />Roni: 1) I didn't see that TE should differentiate in practice! Actually he didn't. 2) The term "public nuisance" was not used by TE (but by NA), TE said that moelstation is "pgia nafshit" and "pgia bgufa" like HAKKAH! <br /><br />DT:"Furthermore I showed that Rav Eliashiv differs from the Tzitz Eliezar in regarding child molesting itself as pikuach nefesh while the Tzitz Eliezar views it as rodef because of sin or public nuisance. He does not view sexual abuse as pikuach nefesh".<br /><br />ROni: 1) RE did not say in these two works one word that child molesting is "pikuach nefesh", (he said "sakanah kerabim" or "pgia nefesh chamura") 2) TE said that it is either rodef in cases of erva (where RE would probably agree - this ishould be no machlokess; RE was not talking about it specifically), or it is a case of "hakkah" where messira is permitted SIMILAR TO RE WHO CALLS "PGIA CHAMURAH" OR "SAKANAH LERABIM" ABUT DOES NOT SAY IT IS "PIKUACH NEFESH"!RONInoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-2692259012593518902009-08-21T06:58:56.439+03:002009-08-21T06:58:56.439+03:00DT wrote:"The next line the Nishmas Avarahm n...DT wrote:"The next line the Nishmas Avarahm notes that Rav Eliashiv does not make this distinction of the Tzitz Eliezer but apparently considers all sexual abusers as a rodef".<br /><br />Roni: never does Na state that RE says that "all sexual abusers as a rodef"; he never used the word "rodef"! He used the term "sakana lerabim" ( a sakana of molestation is a sakana lerabim but where does it say that it rises to the level of "rodef")?<br /><br />You are saying something dangerous when you say someone says he is a "rodef", for it then allows one to kill him!<br /><br />The only ones who said rodef was: RSZA and only about a father that a) hits the child to the level "ad hamavet" or a father that molests his daughter, where NA says in the name RSZA that he is rodef mamash achar arayot!<br /><br />DT:"In sum - Rav Eliashiv considers child abuse as pikuach nefesh a clear cut danger to the person and that is why the have the status of rodef."<br /><br />Roni: He did not use the term "pikuach nefesh" either ! and certainly not the term "rodef"!<br /><br />Dt:" Tzitz Eliezer considers it a case of rodef only if there is a sin of kares or capital punishment. He does not consider sexual abuse as a danger. Where there isn't a status of rodef because of sin he switches over to the din of public nuisance Rambam(Hilchos Chovel uMazik 811) Rema (388:9) & Shach (388:45)":<br /><br />Roni: The first part is accurate (rodef in case of arayot); but the later is not accurate: (while Na said so,) TE said that it is more than "nuisance" and also it does not need to be "public" for one to have a right to inform: When one hits one physically or "pgia nafshit" mentally through molesting then one is entitled (in the eyesof TE) to inform as this is like REma, Shach and Sema that one is allowed to inform if someone is "makeh" him so that it he should not makeh him again!roninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-28213118158940157722009-08-21T06:58:28.310+03:002009-08-21T06:58:28.310+03:004) and I will stress again, that althou *RAv Sofer...4) and I will stress again, that althou *RAv Sofer* did not repeat in the next paragraph that "mental" pgia is reason for messira, *Rav wildenberg* DID! <br /><br />Therefore, your statement "You stopped in the middle of his reasoning. The Tzitz Eliezar continues:...",<br /><br />is not correct, for Tzitz Eliezer did not continue (it was Nishmat Avrohom's remarks). And in fact, Tzitz Eliezer own words eralier were: "אפי' אילו לא היתה ערוה עליו שחייבים על זה כרת, גם היה מותר למוסרו, הן להציל אותו מפגיעתו וגם לרבות כדי להציל אותו מרשעתו....",<br /><br />TE did NOT differentiate in *practice* betwen both of themin the method of the permissiblity to be masser (although conceptually acknowledging that there might be instances where it would be more chamur in cases where it would be orloh of chiyuv karet).<br /><br />Thus when you write: "<br />Thus the Tzitz Eliezar is clearly differentiating a molester who is a rodef and one who is viewed as merely physically abuser", is not the TE words! Moreover, even in the words of nishmat Avraham I fail to see treating the rodef case *in practise* different than the non rodef case!<br /><br />Fo, he is only a rodef (halachikally) only if he at the school; so why do you think that here you should not go first to the school and remove the "Redifa" via the school first? Conceptually you may be right, that TE treats one a din rodef andtheother might not have the din of rodef, but in the ase of a teacher in a schoold I do not see how NA states that they are treated differently and certainly TE did not say so.<br />to be continuedroninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-27928158220942357792009-08-21T06:57:53.490+03:002009-08-21T06:57:53.490+03:00o anything until he is convinced that the the &quo...o anything until he is convinced that the the "dovor" (the suspicion?) is right and before he speaks about it to a rav muvhak!<br /><br />to be continuedroninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-38067419017135383362009-08-20T23:44:25.303+03:002009-08-20T23:44:25.303+03:00roni said...
look also the other post that i ...roni said...<br /><br /> look also the other post that i sent you how Rav WIldenberg and Rav Elyashiv agree on this issue that heter for this messira does not require him to be on the levelof rodef.<br />-------------------------<br />That is true - as I noted in my previous post. But there are significant differences between the mesira done against a public nuisance and against a rodef.<br /><br />Furthermore I showed that Rav Eliashiv differs from the Tzitz Eliezar in regarding child molesting itself as pikuach nefesh while the Tzitz Eliezar views it as rodef because of sin or public nuisance. He does not view sexual abuse as pikuach nefesh.Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-28124664911112054132009-08-20T23:35:12.896+03:002009-08-20T23:35:12.896+03:00You stopped in the middle of his reasoning. The Tz...You stopped in the middle of his reasoning. The Tzitz Eliezar continues:<br /><br />Tzitz Eliezer (Nishmas Avraham) If the case is rape of young children in school when the teacher does a disgusting act on either boys or girls. It would appear that since in the case of boys, the act of sodomy is liable to capital punishment from a beis din – therefore this is a case of rodef and thus it is permitted to informed the secular authorities as it is in the two previous cases [which were classified as rodef.] However in a case where the teacher is molesting girl it would appear that it is permitted for the doctor who discovers the abuse to expose the matter and to inform the principal of the school. If the principal doesn’t do anything then it would be permitted to report the matter to the police – even outside of Israel. That is because a person who molests more than one person is someone who harms the community and there is no prohibition of informing the authorities (mesira). In fact, not only is it not prohibited as informing (mesira) but there is an obligation to inform the authorities so that the teacher will not continue his evil deeds – not only in this school but also in other schools. It is absolutely clear that in all cases that the doctor is not to take any action without first being convinced that his facts are correct and before he consults with a major rabbinic authority – because this is a life and death situation [not only for the children but for the teacher].<br /><br />Thus the Tzitz Eliezar is clearly differentiating a molester who is a rodef and one who is viewed as merely physically abuser. The latter case is treated much more leniently - he requires the principal be informed rather than the police. He also indicates that if the teacher is only molesting one girl that there would not be permission to call the police because he is not dealing with a rodef - but only a public nuisance. Public means more than one. A rodef only has to try to molest one person and even the attempt to molest makes him a rodef. If the molester is a public nuisance he must actually have molested to be able to call the police.<br /><br />The next line the Nishmas Avarahm notes that Rav Eliashiv does not make this distinction of the Tzitz Eliezer but apparently considers all sexual abusers as a rodef.<br /><br />In sum - Rav Eliashiv considers child abuse as pikuach nefesh a clear cut danger to the person and that is why the have the status of rodef. Tzitz Eliezer considers it a case of rodef only if there is a sin of kares or capital punishment. He does not consider sexual abuse as a danger. Where there isn't a status of rodef because of sin he switches over to the din of public nuisance Rambam(Hilchos Chovel uMazik 811) Rema (388:9) & Shach (388:45)Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-27786102948491703962009-08-20T23:20:31.921+03:002009-08-20T23:20:31.921+03:00look also the other post that i sent you how Rav W...look also the other post that i sent you how Rav WIldenberg and Rav Elyashiv agree on this issue that heter for this messira does not require him to be on the levelof rodef.roninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-67059056128434927142009-08-20T20:00:32.694+03:002009-08-20T20:00:32.694+03:00Dear Daat Torah
DAAt torah wrote: "The Tzitz...Dear Daat Torah<br /><br />DAAt torah wrote: "The Tzitz Eliezar (Nishmas Avraham 4:209)...<br />He allows reporting a teacher who is molest boys and a father who is molesting his daughter - but not a teacher who is molesting girls who are not related to him. Thus only when the abuser can be classified as a rodef (Sanhedrin 73a)does he permit calling the police....":<br /><br /><br />Roni writes: With all due respect you are missing the sequence of what Rav Wildenberg told Nishmat Avraham and is recorded in page 209<br />"תשובה: אפי' לא היתה ערוה עליו שחייבים על זה כרת, ג"כ היה מותר למוסרו, הן כדי להציל אותו מפגיעתו, וגם לרבות כדי להציל אותו מרשעתו זה" and he differentiates between this halacha and what is recorded in SO CM 338q9 that it is prohibited to inform a rasha, and hedistinguishes that this case is differnt, where we want to prevent the continutiy of such evil and also when protects heer from "פוגם בגופה ובנפשה", Ge then cites the halacha wementioned earlier by Shach (and SO HaRav) that it is permitted to inform soemone who phyiscally hits others so that he should stop hitting them in the future.<br /><br />In short: Rav WIldenberg permits informing all molesters, whether they are rodef achar ereva or not for the reasons mentioned here. (Where he might make a distinction was earler when he was actually asking whether or not they have din rodef/ But when he wrote about informing to authorities he (and Rav ELyashiv, and Rav Asher Weiss and Rav Halberstam from Badatz) did NOT distinguish between ervah or non ervah and permitted to go to authorities in case where the person is a danger to molest others,roninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-40787807009352771342009-08-20T18:19:05.351+03:002009-08-20T18:19:05.351+03:00Tzitz Eliezer (4:13) says that mental illness is ...Tzitz Eliezer (4:13) says that mental illness is inherently dangerous because it can lead to suicide or harm to others. Rav Moshe Feinstein (EH 1:65)& (O.C. 5:18) says the same thing.<br /><br />Thus whatever mental illness is caused by abuse is not considered danger - unless it is actually life threatening.Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-88393178322342762652009-08-20T16:30:59.435+03:002009-08-20T16:30:59.435+03:00Rav Eliashiv (Nishmas Avraham 4:107-211): Rav Elia...Rav Eliashiv (Nishmas Avraham 4:107-211): Rav Eliashiv told me that there is no difference in the cases of a teacher molesting boys or girls [in terms of considering this a case of rodef]. That is because in either case it is a case of severe psychological damage and danger to the public.<br />==================<br />In other words Rav Eliashiv holds that rape is a danger (pikuach nefesh) because of the psychological damage he causes and thus a child molester would be a rodef.<br /><br />However the Tzitz Eliezar would only consider a child molester a rodef if it involved a relationship which was punished by kares or capital punishment. The Tzitz Eliezar does allow a non kares molester to be informed on apparently because of the physical damage caused or to save him from sinning - not the psychological.Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-32854092480598251042009-08-20T16:14:18.918+03:002009-08-20T16:14:18.918+03:00Roni wrote:
another mareh makom for a discussion o...Roni wrote:<br />another mareh makom for a discussion on whether or not choleh ruach (mentalilness) or certain types thereoff can be classified as pkiuach nfesh in STzitz Eliezer Chelek 4/ Siman 13 Ot 3.<br />===============<br />The Tzitz Eliezar (Nishmas Avraham 4:209) does not view sexual abuse as producing mental illness.<br /><br />He allows reporting a teacher who is molest boys and a father who is molesting his daughter - but not a teacher who is molesting girls who are not related to him. Thus only when the abuser can be classified as a rodef (Sanhedrin 73a)does he permit calling the police.<br /><br />The fact that abuse might lead to mental illness is not considered by himDaas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-25373054341676327902009-08-20T06:27:23.413+03:002009-08-20T06:27:23.413+03:00ש"ך חושן משפט סימן שפח ס"ק ס
(ס) מפני ...ש"ך חושן משפט סימן שפח ס"ק ס <br /><br />(ס) מפני צער יחיד כו' - דווקא צער יחיד (וע"ל ס"ק מ"ג דמי שרגיל להכות מותר למוסרו להציל שלא יכה עוד) <br /><br /> שולחן ערוך הרב חושן משפט הלכות נזקי ממון <br /><br />וכן מי שרגיל להכות הבריות ואי אפשר להציל ממנו אלא אם כן ימסרוהו מצוה על כל אדם למסרו לנכרים שיקחו ממונו או שיקצצו ידו שלא יוסיף להכות עוד.roninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-8243452011658066062009-08-20T03:11:55.056+03:002009-08-20T03:11:55.056+03:00"Look at the Nishmas Avraham part 4 page 207-..."Look at the Nishmas Avraham part 4 page 207-221<br /><br />There is also a major discussion in Yeshurun vol 15",<br /><br />Thanks! I don't have them both now (actually the first one I may have but I don't know where i placed it. But maybe I don't have chelek 4).<br /><br />I'll try to get a hold of them!<br />thanks again.roninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-28578302635627895782009-08-19T22:49:15.572+03:002009-08-19T22:49:15.572+03:00Or does pikuach nefesh just mean: risk of sufferin...Or does pikuach nefesh just mean: risk of suffering bodily harm, even if it is not actually life-threatening (because you cannot know beforhand how much harm will be done to the body?)shoshinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-78887369764318616182009-08-19T22:46:10.606+03:002009-08-19T22:46:10.606+03:00But if Rav Elyashiv qualified it as pikuach nefesh...But if Rav Elyashiv qualified it as pikuach nefesh, why don't you take his word for it?shoshinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-61442661950735994192009-08-19T22:45:20.071+03:002009-08-19T22:45:20.071+03:00you mean you can't call the police if a jew go...you mean you can't call the police if a jew goes around hacking off hands?<br /><br />Or would it only be allowed because if you are left bleeding with your hand hacked off it could become life-threatening?<br /><br />Well if this is the meaning of pikuach nefesh, it might be...shoshinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-77169413934440756632009-08-19T21:41:29.316+03:002009-08-19T21:41:29.316+03:00Can you cite the exact mareh mekomot sources about...Can you cite the exact mareh mekomot sources about calling police so that I can look them up? Thanks,<br />================<br />Look at the Nishmas Avraham part 4 page 207-221<br /><br />There is also a major discussion in Yeshurun vol 15Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-41821595721930073422009-08-19T20:18:36.706+03:002009-08-19T20:18:36.706+03:00shotah in and of itself is not pikuach nefesh"...shotah in and of itself is not pikuach nefesh":<br /><br />However, i was thinking of a davar chadash (and not so chadash), for the SHUlchan Oruch Harav explains that the reason one may violate shabbat for someone who taken away by nochrim and might not keep shabat all her life is because not keeping shabbat all life is similar topikuach nefesh. Someone who keeps shabbat and wuill become a shoteh who dos not keep shabbat (on that level of mechuyav badavar) will be mechalel shabbat kol yomeho and not keep shabat kol yameha ; that consititutes "pikuach nefesh" in the eyes of Shulchan Aruch HaRav.roninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-9599592760314230212009-08-19T20:14:28.247+03:002009-08-19T20:14:28.247+03:00Rodef is learned from Loy ttamod, Loy sochos, veka...Rodef is learned from Loy ttamod, Loy sochos, vekatzzossah ess kaph, Pn is learned from Vechay Bahem.roninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-33401105296220901622009-08-19T20:13:28.442+03:002009-08-19T20:13:28.442+03:00Dear Dt (more later when I have more time) but now...Dear Dt (more later when I have more time) but now bekitzur:<br /><br />3) Yes, there seems to drashot on loy taamod al dam reecho; but at the end there is one drasha and codified in rambam and So that obliges one to act in case where there nochrim who are thinking to make "rah" something bad to an individual (akin the law of edut). this seems to be bolstered by thge way that Shulchan Aruch Harav brings this law of Rambam in two separate halachot in nizkey guf venefesh.<br /><br />Can you cite the exact mareh mekomot sources about calling police so that I can look them up? Thanks,<br /><br />And this is regardless of the rodef angle.roninoreply@blogger.com