Sexual blackmail
Hello Rabbi,
Recently, an article was published about a woman who blackmailed a man by threatening that if he didn’t bring her X amount of money, she would tell his wife that she had slept with him (which actually happened). I was satisfied if there was any moral problem with such a threat. After all, a woman has the right to know that her husband had slept with another woman. On the other hand, perhaps it could be argued that there was an implicit agreement (a hidden condition) between the man and the blackmailing woman, that their relationship was discreet and not to be told to anyone, and then carrying out the blackmail threat constitutes a violation of the condition and plagiarism (disclosing information that is not just yours to a third party). What do you think?
A difficult question. I don’t have time right now, and I’ll write briefly from scratch.
Why does a woman have a right to know this? I’m not sure. It’s quite clear that she doesn’t have a right, but maybe there’s a point in telling her. On the other hand, as long as she doesn’t know, it doesn’t hurt her. Maybe if she wants to get a divorce anyway, and it could be useful to her – then there’s a point in telling. Otherwise, I highly doubt whether it’s right to tell.
Even if the matter reflects a prohibition or permission, such as informing a husband that his wife has committed adultery (which forbids her from him), he wrote a very famous reply in the Novitiate (see 33) to be content with the matter, and to the conclusion I think he concluded that it is not permissible to tell. Although I do not have time to look there now, and I remember that several replies were written about the same case following the Novitiate.
The discussion is not only about whether it is permissible or forbidden to tell, but whether there is a problem with the threat.
And in this it seems to me that if telling is good, then she should tell and not hide for money, and if telling is bad, then she should not tell (and if in any case she intends not to tell and is making an idle threat, it is clearly wrong), and if the act of telling in itself is morally neutral (which sounds strange) then there is a moral problem with the intention to harm (which is inherent in the threat).
And in the end, if you did something wrong to another and he did not know about it, would you want a third party to threaten you? And if someone did something wrong to you and you did not know about it, would you want a third party to threaten him? It turns out that the answer to both questions is no, and in this seemingly clear answer to the question was received.
For precisely this reason I did not address the threat, because if you have to tell, then you have to do it without threatening, and if not - then not even with threatening.
I thought about this issue again and it seems like it should be similar to any breach of contract where the injured party is entitled to know about the other party's breach.
For example, let's say someone rents an apartment from someone on the condition that they not bring animals into the property. Is there a duty to notify the landlord if the tenant brings animals into the property?
I'm not sure there is an obligation to inform. Just because he wants to know doesn't mean I have to tell. If there is a loss there, then there is "you shall not stand for your neighbor's blood" and "you shall not make restitution for loss", etc. But when there is no loss but he would only like to know, in my opinion there is no obligation. Incidentally, if there is no obligation, it is also possible that it is forbidden on the part of the Lord.
But it is clear that in every breach of contract there is a loss for the party who is being breached. In the example I gave with the apartment owner, the animals in the apartment create an increased risk of damaging the property (scratches on the doors and walls, for example). Even in the case of a woman whose husband is cheating on her, she invests every day in the marriage and relationship, knowing that the other party is investing back to the best of his ability. If she knew that her husband was cheating on her, she would invest less on her part (if at all) and thus save time, effort, and perhaps money.
An interesting question is to find a clear source and reasoning. But my intuition is that breach of contract is not like damage and therefore there is no obligation to save the other person from it unless he has a loss.
I mentioned above the answer of the Nov”i (or”ch Si’ la) and a series of answers written in its wake by several recent ones, discussing whether to disclose to the husband about infidelity. The discussion is only on the level of preventing a transgression (because if it is infidelity, it is forbidden for him), but as far as I remember, no one raises the possibility that one should disclose to the other about the breach of contract.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
