[Avodah] Yichud and fostering

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

> RnCL ended her post with the following (which I forgot to 
> address before hitting send):
> > And might there not  also be some justification to say that this is
a kind of a case of 
> > pidyon shevuim?

'''
> 
>So, the comparison you make in  the last line is in accord with his
pesaq, perhaps overly 
> *weak* or perhaps we can't divorce the risk of shemad from piqyon
shevuyim.
> 

Well the language of the Rambam (Hilchos matanos anyim perek 8 halacha
10) is:

Pidyon shevuim has priority over [kodem] feeding the poor and clothing
them.  And there isn't a greater mitzvah than pidyon shevuim because the
captured behold he is in the category of the hungry, the thirsty, the
naked and he stands at risk of death (sakanos nafashos). And one who
averts his eyes from his redempion behold he is violating "lo t'ametz es
l'vavcha v'lo tikfotz es yadecha" and "lo tamud al dam re'echa" and "lo
yardenu b'farech l'eynecha" and he is batel the mitzvah of "pesoach
tiftach es yadecha lo" and the mitzvah of "v'chai achicha imach" and
"v'ahavta re'echa kamocha" "v'hatzal lchochim lamus" and many like this
[v'harbe dvarim k'elu].

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 252, si'if 2) quotes this last
sentence verbatum and in si'if 3 states that any second that one delays
pidyon shevuim when it is possible to speed it up harei k'ilu shofech
damim.

So I am not sure the comparison is weak (if by that you mean that pidyon
shevuim is kal).

> BUT, that's adoption, not foster care. AND, it's about 
> finding /any/ Jewish home. Nidon didan is a home where there 
> is no parent of the same gender as the child. So, the heter 
> isn't versus a non-Jewish home or one where kashrus and 
> Shabbos etc... aren't observed kehalakhah. It's versus the 
> risk of not finding an observant home with fewer yichud issues.
> 
Well my understanding of the brief excerpt posted was that this was the
only Jewish home available for the next month. 

So, I guess my question/hypothesis is - why is the placement of a Jewish
child by non Jewish social workers/the State in a non Jewish home, even
for only a month, not considered the equivalent of that child being
captured for a month (and if open ended, an open ended capture)?  Does
the fact that the state believes it is acting in the best interests of
the child change things (and is it not possible that a Roman soldier
might have taken a fancy to a Jewish child and resolved to bring it up
in all the pomp and slendour of Rome, believing that to indeed be in the
best interests of the child - and yet would anybody have said that
redeeming such a child was not pidyon shevuim)?  The commentators on
pidyon shevuim point out that the captured is totally within the control
of the captor, allowing the captor to starve, overwork and even kill the
captured (see Baba Basra 8b).   So it would seem, at least if you do not
accept the argument in my previous post that the government controls
give sufficient weight so as to operate to prevent inappropriate
behaviour  in a frum Jewish home, then you must surely say that they are
unlikely/unable to be able to prevent inappropriate behaviour in a non
Jewish placement - meaning that indeed the child is being placed totally
within the control of their host family. And even if one were to say
that an element of fear of the government exists (perhaps strong enough
to allow for yichud in a frum context) that does not necessarily change
things in the non Jewish context (does having "Geneva convention" type
laws make pidyon shevuim any less of a mitzvah?).  So how indeed does
this kind of case differ from a form capture from which redemption is
required and necessary?


> Tir'u baTov!
> -mi


Shabbat Shalom

Chana