<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">On 15/05/2012 1:52 PM, hankman wrote:<BR>>
Well what about cases where there is no “hitting,” but there is either physical
or psychological pain, such as say, 1) sleep deprivation, 2) deprivation of food
and water by a near starvation diet, 3) being forced to stand all day, 4)
getting a little more physical, to be subjected to the much discussed water
boarding, and I am sure we could dream up many others. What would these be
considered if a father or rebbe tried them? I think most would think them highly
abusive and asur but there is no “hitting” involved.<BR><BR>RZS
wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Either they are assault and therefore assur
unless there's a specific<BR>heter for them, or they are muttar, or there is
some as-yet-unnamed<BR>issur; but before discussing the parameters and limits of
that issur<BR>we must first establish that it exists. Simply saying that "I
don't<BR>like it" is irrelevant.</FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>CM responds:</DIV>
<DIV>I thought that was the point of the kalvechomer, for cases such as these.
You are mixing the english (legal term) term assualt with haka’a which of course
are not the same. While these probably qualify for assault, they are not
haka’a, but they probably are tzar balei chayim.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Kol tuv</DIV>
<DIV>Chaim Manaster</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>