Category: Abuse

Another horrifying case of child abuse

The victims of this abuse have life-long sentences. That community must be one of the saddest and most troubled in a long time. I can’t see any other option but to disperse and live elsewhere; what a tragedy.

The next time somebody tries to sell you the line that ‘it happened years ago’ and that the criminal who did the abuse is ‘cured and gets respected professional psychological help’ ask yourself when the victims will be cured despite their own psychological treatment. Ask yourself whether the victims and their families will ever recover.

Next time someone expresses the view that the parents of an alleged abuser are nebachs and it’s no fault of theirs (which may well be the case in many instances, and sadly true) remind them to apportion at least as much, if not more pity on the parents and families of the VICTIMS of abuse.

The parents should be fined

More disgraceful acts in Beth Shemesh. Read it here

A sane view of Beit Shemesh from the right

Rabbi Ron Yitzchok Eisenman on the violence in Beit Shemesh.

Can the Crown Heights example be reproduced elsewhere?

The following article from the Jerusalem Post is of interest to the wider community. Amongst Chabad, it has been known for some months. Read it.

The Jewish term רגלים לדבר can be translated using the words of this article as “credible evidence”. The critical issue is determining whether evidence is credible. There are a range of views. On one extreme is the largely derided view of R’ Menashe Klein ז’ל who clearly stated as follows:

Child abuse reporting R’ M Klein 16 58http://www.scribd.com/embeds/16001839/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list

In summary, R’ Klein felt that the Torah does not halachically consider anything to have happened unless there are two kosher witnesses who attest. This is an extreme view. I would suggest that certain cloistered circles utilise this view in order to keep things “in-house”. I don’t think that they are motivated by the actual legalistic decision itself, and in many cases the people involved and who use it as their justification are cowards, selectively religious, or simply not God-fearing. R’ Klein’s position is extreme and is opposed by Rav Eliashiv, the Tzitz Eliezer ז’ל, R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ז’ל all three of whose decisions, in general, are considered to be more widely accepted, influential and robust.

The Crown Heights Beis Din clearly didn’t agree with R’ Klein’s view either. That being said, the determination of “credible evidence” is a critical issue.

The Aguda, in my opinion, have been dancing on the tightrope. Faced with a reality wherein people aligned with their organisation have and continue to be involved in serious crimes, it cannot be seen to be taking R’ Klein’s view. The internet has laid bare the pockets of iniquity and forced the Aguda to make pronouncements through their Council of Sages and their mouthpieces. On the other hand, devolving the determination of what is considered credible evidence to non-Rabbinic authorities, be they Jewish or otherwise, Police or professional, is not something Aguda have been prepared to say unequivocally and with complete clarity and transparency. There are some clever spin doctors who speak for the Aguda, but they fool nobody in their level of translucence on this issue. Indeed, some members of Aguda leadership, such as R’ Shmuel Kamenetzky, are thought to lean towards R’ Klein’s views on such matters even today, despite the mounting evidence that there is a scourge that needs to be excised.

Allegations against R’ Motti Elon are before the courts in Israel, however, it is clear that elements of the Orthodox Zionist Rabbinate in Israel, felt that they could deal with those allegations by effectively placing R’ Elon under conditions akin to “house arrest”. I do not know whether they also informed the police. Perhaps they knew that the Police were already aware of the allegations. Rabbi Elon denies the charges. Time will tell. The courts will decide.

I don’t think that any Posek, however, will attempt to define רגלים לדבר in a general way. If so, the person in the street is left with two choices:

  1. When a situation arises, ask a recognised world authority (and here, I do not mean one’s local orthodox rabbi most of whom would readily admit that they are not qualified to make determinations on such issues)
  2. Decide for oneself whether there is enough רגלים to hand over the דבר to the police, so that the authorities will decide in the end whether there is רגלים לדבר.

In my opinion, there is also a qualitative difference in respect of 1. above. A renowned Posek will not need to question witnesses nor will they need to question the accused or make local enquiries. Rather, they will listen to the nature of the quality of information that is provided to them and indicate whether it is appropriate to pass on the matter to the authorities. It would be wrong, in my opinion, for any para-inquest regarding the veracity of testimony to take place. Rather, the Posek would only look to see if someone was basically   “off the planet” in their allegations.

If a Posek insists on hearing evidence first hand, for example, before they can make up their mind whether a matter should be reported, then I contend that their position is closer to that of R’ Klein and/or the the Aguda.

God forbid, someone has been reported to have entered your neighbour’s house with a gun, and screams are heard. What do you do? Do you go to your Posek? Does your Posek insist on speaking with the alleged gun wielder or screamer before giving you permission to report to the police? All I can say is I hope not.

To be sure, there are some 3% reported false accusations. In addition, there is collateral damage that may occur when issues come to light. We need to get away from a culture where those who report are seen as pariahs.

Shimush in our time

To become a posek, at least a recognised posek, it is not enough to pass exams on Yoreh Deah and Choshen Mishpat. In addition, it is important to add practice to theory. What does practice consist of? Traditionally, doing Shimush meant that the young Rabbi sat for some time (perhaps a year) in close proximity to a Posek or Dayan or Av Beis Din and observed the range of questions that were being asked and learned how to answer, when to answer, when not to answer, when to ask for more information and more.

A Rabbi who wanted to be qualified to pasken Nidah questions, would see the artefacts that the supervising Posek would see. A Rabbi who wanted to pasken about kashrus, would see the chicken or the innards of an animal and learn in a practical fashion. These days, one can find augmentation via multi-media. I have seen video lectures in full colour given by experts in Nikkur, for example. The posek who wishes to learn the complex aspects of Gittin or Chalitza, would be well served sitting in on, or observing the work of an established Beis Din.

The notion of shimush is sound. Without shimush, one is locked somewhat into a theoretical world. A Rosh Yeshivah or Rosh Kollel often doesn’t have shimush. That’s a generalisation, of course, and is intended to be. They will have a profound knowledge of texts but may not have experienced the so-called “real world” around them, and “real world” questions.

Poskim, and indeed qualified communal Rabbis, will be exposed to aspects of the real world that they learn from and adapt to. The Debreciner z”l, whose brother the בצל החכמה was a Rabbi in Adass many years ago, was rumoured to have a resident (religious) psychiatrist or psychologist close at hand to assist him with issues of mentoring and advice. The Posek or qualified communal Rabbi will often be called upon to provide sage advice and counsel.

At RIETS, after ordinary Smicha graduands complete their text-based examinations, they are subjected to a series of scenarios that are simulated out by qualified actors. In those scenarios, a husband and wife may play out marital problems, or a congregant may come to complain about another congregant’s behaviour etc. Each graduand interacts with the actors’ scenarios and is then provided with feedback by both their fellow graduands and their experience Smicha Rebbeim.

The value of practical exposure is well-known in general educational circles. At my own university, RMIT, it is now compulsory for each student to be exposed to a semester of “Work integrated learning”. Simulation has a place, but the “real thing” is even better. Even at the more informal level, I recall when we were learning Chullin in Daf HaYomi, that Reverend Velvel Krinsky z”l, who was a shochet and bodek, would bring various innards to enhance the learning experience. Given my limited spatial imagination, this certainly helped to lift the words off the page.

What of today? In an article recently published by the Jerusalem Post, it was reported that:

On October 31, Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yonah Metzger informed Israel Radio, Reshet Bet, that he had visited a shelter for battered Orthodox women in Beit Shemesh and was horrified to hear of their suffering.

Apparently the chief rabbi had not been aware that Orthodox women were victims of domestic violence and expressed sincere compassion for their plight.

He described how he spoke with the women and listened to their stories. This eloquent spiritual leader pointed out that Jewish law (Halacha) does not condone violence in the home and that good Jewish husbands honor their wives and treat them with dignity and respect. He was so impressed by the experience that he is now going to recommend that all dayanim (religious judges) visit this shelter.

I have no doubt that a visit to the victims of spousal abuse would at least allow a Dayan or Posek to approach the concept of אל תדין את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו. Statistically, I do not know whether abuse is more rampant that it was, but there can be no doubt that with the advent of instant modern communication, we are more acutely aware of their prevalence, often in disturbingly graphic portrayals.

But this type of shimush, or worldly experience, should not be limited to emotional or spousal abuse. I am of the strong view that society in general, especially cloistered societies, and Rabbis in particular, are not sufficiently sensitised and exposed to the trauma of victims of abuse. The stigma attached to these issues is grave.

My words are but a miniscule digital imprint in a sea of platters and NAND based memory in the blogosphere. Contrary to the views of some, my words serve no self-aggrandising cause, but are a (semi) conscious stream of thought emanating from my cerebral cortex, often in a seemingly sporadic form.

If there was one thing I’d like to add to the shimush of Rabonim, it would be that they each attend ten to twenty secular court cases where they will be exposed to the harrowing impact statements and testimony of victims across a range of abuse, including sexual abuse and inappropriate contact. I feel that through this experience, they will better understand the comments of a person who comes to them, sometimes after an extended period of time, and says “I was violated”. Until they do, despite the various well-meaning courses that some undertake, I don’t think they will have had “real shimush”.

Looking around the world, and seeing reported incidents on a daily basis, it’s high time this became part of a mandated curriculum. Is it less important than the sircha on a lung?

Misplaced concern

There is considerable hyperventilation in the comments section over at this blog, primarily in regards to understanding the social realities at play.

This really isn’t about religion. It’s about the fact that in a religious community people are close and cloistered. It’s about the fact that victims have not felt strong enough to confront the world they live in. I certainly don’t blame them. It’s decidedly not about a victim trembling in regards to the Halacha of mesira. It’s not about a victim coming to a Rabbi who follows the Aguda versus the RCA. The closer and more united a community is, the more difficult it is for victims to come forward. This, more than halachic nuance, is the critical issue.

I contend that very few are truly worried about the halachic issue; they are a drop in the ocean. In the past, it was a combination of misguided attempts at minimising bad press and a gross lack of understanding of the nature of crimes, their recidivism and the long-term effect they have, which influenced well-meaning people to make the tragic wrong call.

In my estimation it’s mainly all about societal pressures and realities not halachic pronouncements. Cover ups have occurred throughout history across all groups and all religions. The common element is the close and cloistered nature of the group.

We need to focus on the main group of people: victims. We need to continue to encourage each and every one of them to feel they can come forward without the social stigma. There is no halachic issue according to any posek: a victim may and should go to the police. While we concentrate on those who knew and should have known better, we must ask ourselves why we have been complicit in a societal structure that inhibits victims from going to the police.

Some of the commenters on the aforementioned blog can’t “imagine” that this sort of thing would happen in a modern orthodox or religious Zionist style community. Think again. It happened. The crimes were not reported and it was not about halacha. It was about victims feeling that they could not go to the police. This is what we need to address.

Victims will make a difference to attitudes. They don’t need a Rabbinic or Psychologist gatekeeper. What victims can achieve, nobody else can.

The key to reform is opening up tabooed doors.

There are a number of perpetrators and victims who still occupy the proverbial “cone of silence”. I continue to hope that victims have the strength and empowerment to emerge and proceed directly to the authorities. It matters little whether incidents happened 5 years ago or 25 years ago.

Silence only works against the present and future. If we deal with the past, we protect the future.

Some people still don’t seem to get it

Last night, in conversation with two sensible people, I was flummoxed to find the arcane view expressed that in theory someone accused of non-consensual sodomy should not face justice as

  1. it was “many years ago”
  2. they may have done T’shuva
  3. they haven’t been involved in such things for the last few years

Now, before anyone gets too quizzical or Machiavellian, we were not speaking about Australians. Indeed, we were focussed on principles.

I asked my two interlocutors

  1. what the meaning of ובערת הרע מקרבך meant in the context. Does it mean that if the person has allegedly done תשובה that there is no חיוב?
  2. how they defined תשובה in the context of the רמבם?
  3. what הלכה said about the recidivism attributed to perpetrators by experts
  4. whether expert advice needed to be heeded
  5. what their reaction would be if a victim was one of their children “many years ago”
  6. what if בית דין find out that someone bashed another person, but the bashing occurred 5 years earlier and the basher had done תשובה so to speak. Would the case not be heard? Would the דין not be meted out? Would a בית דין act in a way less than a western court of law?
  7. what are the responsibilities of a person who is aware of a past injustice. Do they have a דין of לא תעמוד על דם רעך?

I opined that there was a world-wide awakening, across religions, groups within religions, and elsewhere, with the strong view that society needed to be more open and change. Society had now not only drawn a red line, but was now ready, especially through new media, to protect beyond that red line and do all that was in their power to see that

  1. justice is served
  2. the future social environment is safer
  3. those affected are counselled and supported and not marginalised via internal ructions throughout their life
  4. see that education across the board is enhanced through the realisation that there is no room for the proverbial “carpet sweep”

As R’ Schachter explained to me, Yidden may not be in a situation where the ethical and moral standards of general society are, and are seen to be, more virtuous than ours. We are enjoined not to allow such a situation to exist via the positive Torah command of קדושים תהיו as per the רמבן and others.

We need to carry out a significant change in our thinking and actions. Issues regrettably continue to emerge. This one is another indicating we have learned precious little. In response to an apparently dangerous person stalking children in Ganei Geulah, Rabbinic authorities are using the papers etc to warn people to watch their children, but suggest that the police not be informed because it’s לשון הרע.

שומו שמים = “the mind boggles”

Clarification of R’ Aviner’s פסקי הלכה on abuse

R’ Aviner posted the following פסקי הלכה

Based on the recent discussions by Rabbinic organization in the US and Canada
regarding reporting child abuse, we saw fit to reprint this article:
One’s Duty to Immediately Report Child Abuse, at all Costs

When children are battered, whether sexually or “just” physically, anyone who knows about it has to report it to the authorities. The child, after all, is helpless and has no defenses. According to Jewish law, the primary loyalty of anyone who knows what is happening must be to the battered child, and this duty is absolute. Allow me to add that from a legal standpoint, if the person who knows about it is a professional in an associated field, for example a social worker or psychologist, and he does not report it, he is liable to go to prison for half a year.

Cruelly hitting children is alien to the world of Jewish law. Our halachic authorities viewed the matter so gravely that Ha-Rav Ha-Gaon Yosef Shalom Elyashiv ruled that outside of Israel in the case of a battered child, one must assist the authorities to remove him from his home – even if the child will be moved to a non-Jewish family. The reason is that such treatment could threaten the child’s life (see Shut Tzitz Eliezer 19:52 who discusses abused children in Israel and considers the abuser a “Rodef – pursuer” who must be stopped).

The desire not to report it in order to spare the perpetrator may derive from sincere motives, but one must first take pity on the helpless child. His fate comes before all else. In the Crisis Center for Religious Women, it is reported that there are more children who suffer from beatings and sexual abuse among the religious public than among the secular public. This is not because the religious are more violent, but because more often the religious public avoids reporting such incidents, and they make reports only when the matter go to extremes. Until then, the battered child suffers terrible harm.

It is important to note that there is only one situation in which one is exempt from reporting. If the perpetrator is aware of his problem, is willing to go for appropriate treatment, steadfastly shows up for treatment sessions, and the responsible authorities supervise this process, then the perpetrator is doing what he would be ordered to do anyway. In all other instances, without exception, there is an obligation to report abuse, and quickly. The child’s fate depends on us.

I recall a story in which I was personally involved. Someone saw his neighbor kick his small daughter in the head when she was lying on the floor. The man hesitated about whether or not to report what had occurred, when it was clear that he would pay for his deed with a fight with the neighbor. I ruled that he was obligated to report it, and immediately. During the talk it became clear to me that the person asking the question was a social worker. I had trouble believing this and I asked him, “How can it be that you, as a social worker, would ask me such a question?”

He did report what he had seen, and as he feared, he got into a fight with his neighbor, as well as with much of the neighborhood in which he lived, since the violent father incited them against him. I heard about that and I talked to him. I told him, “It will all be worth it. Think about the fact that you saved a Jewish life.”

Subsequent to that Psak, I asked him a number of questions. I reproduce the questions and answers below. Q is me, A is R’ Aviner.

Q: On what basis does one assume that the process outlined above, is indeed the process required by the law? Which law? In Australia there is a law of mandatory reporting which requires that professionals and para professionals, including teachers and Rabbis report alleged abuse to the police. Is R’ Aviner saying that in the case of someone who has previously committed a crime and is now under the care of a psychologist, as above, that one should ignore the law of the land and not report them to the authorities?
A: Good point.  This is according to the law in Israel.  One should follow the law if it is other wise.
Q: If we report someone to the authorities and they are convicted, and we know that there is every chance that the the abuser will be assaulted in the prison by fellow inmates (because inmates tend to target those who have abused children) is there a problem with doing so?
A: No.  We do not allow a child to be abused to save the abuser!
Q: Does a Rabbi have any more knowledge/authority on deciding whether a person is likely to abuse again, despite having treatment, given that all the research shows that offenders offend and re-offend, despite knowing that what they did was wrong?
A: Rabbis are generally in contact with specialists who guide them.
Q: Is it permissible for a community to effectively send away an offender to another country, and “warn” people in the other country that the person has offended, in order to protect the offender from a local prison sentence?
A: No.  Same as number 2.

Rabbi Yossi Feldman responds

I have a word of advice to anyone using email: never, but never, assume that what you have written, even with the qualifying words “highly confidential” or “for your eyes only” won’t be sent on against your express wishes. Personally, I would never send out something confidential to a third-party, but the reality is that people do. Indeed, I experienced this “phenomenon” a few weeks ago when I sent an email to four trustworthy people. One of them may have leaked, but all denied it. It is remotely possible that their email account was accessed against their will, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

It would seem, and I do not know, that Rabbi Feldman’s private emails to fellow Rabbis were leaked to the Jewish News. It would then appear that the AJN created a news story based on the email interchange. It is important to remember that Rabbis are also entitled to discuss matters להלכה ולא למעשה. If another Rabbi leaked Rabbi Feldman’s private emails, then it’s beyond contempt, and disgusting.

If the AJN constructed their story based on such leaks, then I suggest their actions are unethical and amoral. I don’t care if they are in the business of selling papers. In the least, I wonder if they conferred with Feldman before publishing? At any rate, no doubt the AJN got legal advice before they went to press and Yossi Feldman has now reportedly got his own counter legal advice, and there are threats of defamation flying around. I’d hope that it would go ahead to an independent international Beth Din for arbitration before it got to any defamation lawyers, though.

Was this episode necessary? If there was just a modicum of respect, the AJN should not have behaved like a Murdoch style paper excitedly thinking they had a Watergate leak. They should have asked Feldman for clarification. This issue of abuse is too grave to be side-tracked by what will become a win/win for only the respective lawyers. How sad.

Here is what I received Erev Shabbos from one of my readers (thanks Steve). It is doing the rounds and is a legitimate email from Feldman.

From: Yeshiva Shul
Date: Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:58 AM
Subject: Statement from Rabbi Yosef Feldman in relation to article in the AJN

To: yeshivashul

B”H

I would like to put on the record that from my perspective the Australian Jewish News coverage in issue dated 29/7/11 misquoted, misconstrued and misrepresented my comments from an in internal Halachic debate amongst the Rabbinate of Australia relating to the serious and reprehensible issues of Child abuse and the appropriate response. I reserve all of my Halachic and Legal rights in relation to this matter which constitutes in my opinion no less than character assassination at the highest level. Today I will be consulting with a senior defamation Lawyer in relation to what I believe is an outrageous travesty, and exploring all available options including Beth Din or court proceedings to remedy the matter.

I quote the beginning of the article which says that, “Among his assertions were that anyone who reported a paedophile would be responsible if the paedophile was raped in prison.” I never made such an unqualified assertion in relation to a convicted paedophile. This and other serious matters arising from the coverage will be pursued vigorously.

I would also like to make abundantly clear that the Rabbinate of NSW under my Presidency and encouragement has unequivocally and unanimously endorsed a resolution condemning all forms of child abuse and recommends the reporting of such to the relevant secular authorities.

I also emphatically endorse the joint statement on this matter publicised by ORA (The Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia) the Melbourne Beth Din and the Sydney Beth Din, which states that there is no Halachic impediment to conveying all credible information regarding such matters to the police or relevant authorities, but to the contrary, it is Halachically obligatory to do so. The obligation applies not only to mandatory reporters but to all who become aware that abuse is taking place.

The Jewish News has called for my resignation as President of RCNSW.

My response is that as a result of what I and others believe to be their unprofessional recklessness, in my personal capacity I call for the immediate resignations of both AJN National Editor Zeddy Lawrence and article author Josh Levi, before they cause further damage to myself, the Sydney Rabbinate and the Jewish community.

Rabbi Yosef Feldman

I hope this rather nasty incident doesn’t deflect from the main issue at hand:

  • protecting children
  • reporting alleged abusers to the police

Sigh.

R’ Yossi Feldman’s alleged statements as reported by the AJN

The Australian Jewish News reported

SYDNEY’S top rabbi has been urged to resign after he said it should be up to rabbis to decide whether allegations of child abuse should be reported to police.

In a series of emails that contradicted the recommendations from other rabbinical authorities around Australia in the wake of claims of abuse at Melbourne’s Yeshivah College, Rabbinical Council of NSW (RCNSW) president Rabbi Yosef Feldman outlined his views to fellow members of the rabbinate.

Among his assertions were that anyone who reported a paedophile would be responsible if the paedophile was raped in prison.

He also said abuse should be dealt with, when legally possible, outside the Australian legal system.

“I really don’t understand why as soon as something of serious loshon horo (evil talk) is heard about someone of even child molestation should we immediately go to the secular authorities (sic),” Rabbi Feldman wrote.

“One must go to a Rov (rabbi) who should firstly investigate the veracity of the complaint and if thought to be serious, warn the culprit etc. and act in a way that could scare him by threatening him with publicity by internet to the whole community.”

He added: “I personally feel that if we as a Jewish leadership can’t deal with this and other issues bifnim (internally) we are showing ourselves to be impotent …”

When contacted by The AJN this week, Rabbi Feldman didn’t back down. He said that if there is no legal obligation to report abuse and the rabbi believed the perpetrator would not reoffend, then there was no need to call the police.

“If there is a grey area then we have to look at the Jewish perspective and the human rights of the aggressor. It is not only the victim that he (the rabbi) has to think of, because in this case he also has to think of the attacker.”

In light of Rabbi Feldman’s emails, the president of the Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia (ORA) Rabbi Dovid Freilich told The AJN: “He is halachically wrong and the statement is abhorred. When it comes to molestation and child abuse, it is a mitzvah to go right to the authorities – 100 per cent. I personally would have resigned if I was a member of the NSW Rabbinical Council, to show my total disapproval of Rabbi Feldman’s sentiments.”

Manny Waks, the head of Canberra’s Jewish community, who alleged this month that he was a victim of sexual abuse at Yeshivah College in the early 1990s, described Rabbi Feldman’s comments as “immoral” and “unethical”.

“Contrary to what the rabbi says, there is no grey area in this case. There are victims and there are perpetrators.

“Rabbi Feldman should immediately clarify his remarks publicly, and if he still stands by them then his colleagues should ask him to tender his resignation immediately,” Waks said.

Adding his voice to the chorus of disapproval, the Sydney Beth Din’s Rabbi Moshe Gutnick said Rabbi Feldman was “out of touch with the view of society”.

“He is out of touch with the views of rabbinic Judaism. I dissociate myself with them as should every observant Jew,” Rabbi Gutnick said.

The RCNSW met on Tuesday morning to discuss the issue.

“One rabbi suggested that I should stand down,” Rabbi Feldman said. “He was not listened to and I had overwhelming support.”

The council did, however, express its unanimous adoption of a motion passed by the Rabbinical Council of Victoria condemning all forms of child abuse and affirming “its halachic position” that prohibitions of reporting such crimes to the civil authorities “do not apply in cases of abuse”.

In a statement, Rabbi Feldman said: “I would like to unequivocally publicise my support and encouragement of the adoption of that resolution within the NSW rabbinate and the wider Jewish community.”

However, on Wednesday he told The AJN: “My opinion is that we [rabbis] should determine if there was actual abuse, then call the police. The statement from the rabbinic council does not specify this and I believe it does not contradict my view.”

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies president Yair Miller said the email exchange was disturbing, but noted the RCNSW’s decision.

“It would be entirely unacceptable and unbefitting any rabbi, even in an abstract discussion, to canvass the theoretical possibility of not reporting allegations of serious criminality to the police,” he said. “What is more important, however, is that that possibility has been unanimously and unreservedly rejected by all members of that council.”

In a joint statement issued yesterday, ORA, the Melbourne Beth Din and the Sydney Beth Din said: “There is no halachic impediment to conveying all credible information regarding such matters to the police or relevant authorities, but to the contrary, it is halachically obligatory to do so.

“The obligation applies not only to mandatory reporters but to all who become aware that abuse is taking place.”

Leaving aside the press hyperbole describing him as “Sydney’s top Rabbi”, in and amongst Feldman’s self-contradictory statements, as reported above, Feldman fails to see the wood from the trees. Feldman struggles to reconcile ובערת הרע מקרבך with לא תעמוד על דם רעך and in doing so, he fails in his responsibility to ensure that the former is addressed. Feldman does make a valid halachic observation: it is definitely problematic that in Australia there is a penal system that passively tolerates inmates who have been found guilty of serious crimes, such as sexual offences or homicide against a minor, being subject to extra-judicial punishment by their fellow inmates. This is clearly not acceptable. The prison system needs to be reformed to make sure that such things do not happen.

A responsible comment taking the above into consideration would have read like this:

It is incumbent upon the Jewish community to protect children at all costs from the scourge of sexual predators who are in our midst. I am troubled by the continued revelation of instances of child molestation and abuse. These occur both within the religious and irreligious communities, amongst Jews and non Jews. I fully support all efforts to protect our children and encourage any victim of such abuse, to come forward and identify themselves to the authorities irrespective of when such offences may have taken place. Studies clearly show that predators have a predilection to re-offend, and even if they have not, they need to face the justice system as per the laws of our country. Rabbis should be trained to appreciate the gamut of issues surrounding sex abuse and we will ensure that each Rabbi is so trained by professionals.

I am gravely concerned, however, about the incidence of abuse within the prison system. Abuse of those who are incarcerated by fellow inmates is simply not acceptable. It isn’t acceptable according to Jewish law and it should not be part of our modern society. Accordingly, I will, through the Organisation of Orthodox Rabbis and the aegis of the ECAJ be mounting a political campaign to stop the incidence of rampant prison abuse. We accept that criminals need to be incarcerated but we do not accept that they should be abused within the prison system itself.

Feldman’s reported comments in the Jewish News are facile. If these AJN comments are accurate he should stand aside from his elected position as he has not displayed the requisite political prowess or leadership characteristics Sydney so sorely needs. Untold damage may have been done to the cause of מאן מלכי רבנן.

Sadly, we now have this

What makes a Rabbi an expert on matters of abuse?

Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the chief posek for the Charedi non Chassidic community, especially in Israel, issued the following ruling in 2004 in Yeshurun. The translation below is from Rabbi Dr Asher Lipner. The original question and answer is here.

BS”D Fast of the Tenth (Month) 5764

To my friend etc. Rabbi Shraga Feivel Cohen etc.

I received his letter in its time and was unable to respond until “a day on which scholars take a holiday.” The essence of the letter: one knows that someone is sexually abusing a boy or a girl in a manner in which we are incapable of stopping him from continuing his evil deeds, is it permissible to report such a matter to a government official?

This is the language of the Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet, Spain, 1235-1310, one of the foremost authorities in Jewish law) in his Responsa, III no. 393, “It appears to me that if the witnesses are believed by the selected judges, [these judges] are permitted to impose a monetary fine or corporal punishment, all in accord with their evaluation; and this maintains society. Because if you will adjudicate based only on the laws established by the Torah, society will be destroyed… And, therefore, those judges who did this, if they saw that the situation required [such action] for communal welfare, they acted legally, and certainly when they have been authorized by the government (to impose such punishment)…”

From the words of the Rashba we learn that in matters that concern societal welfare the Sages of Israel of every generation have the authority to make fences (to extend their authority and decide matters according to their best judgment) and to stand in the breach, even without government authorization. And concerning that which the Rashba wrote in his novel insights to Baba Metzia (84b) implies that this is (based on) governmental authority: “If they say to him ‘Arrest him,’ and we are dealing in a case in which there are no witnesses or forewarning and in which there is no Sanhedrin (Supreme Court that has the authority to impose capital punishment) [and therefore according to strict Jewish law a Jewish Court cannot convict such a person], this case is different because they (the members of the Jewish Court) are agents of the king (government) and the king’s law allows for capital punishment even without witnesses and forewarning, in order to discipline the world…” Accordingly, in matters of societal welfare it is not necessary to receive prior governmental approval.

The permission to report (an abuser) to the government is when one is certain that he transgressed, in this there is benefit to society. However, when there is no substance or foundation [to the allegation] but merely a dimyon (presumption), if we would allow (reports to the government) not only is this not for societal welfare, but this is societal destruction. It is possible that [a student may make false allegations] because of some bitterness that the student holds against the teacher or for some meaningless presumption that causes a person to think that his death is better than life—through no fault of [the teacher]. I do not see any permission in the matter.

Yosef  Shalom Elyashiv

Rav Elyashiv’s willingness to permit cooperation with authorities diminishes when it comes to parental abuse of children. This has to do with the concern that the child will be removed from the parental home and given to a foster family that is either xtian or secular. “There is no doubt that this would harm the soul of the child, even if for a short while,” in such a situation, R’ Elyashiv stated that qualified Rabbis must be consulted in each case of parental abuse.

None of the above is new. What is new, however,  is the recent Charedi Agudas Yisrael pronouncement:

But at a panel discussion titled “Molestation Issues and Reporting: Current Halachic Thinking,” the panel’s leader, Rabbi Shlomo Gottesman, cautioned that Elyashiv never explained what constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” To establish this, Gottesman said, a person should consult a rabbi “who has experience in these issues” before going to secular authorities.

“If [the rabbi] thinks reasonable suspicion has been met, then you would be allowed to overcome mesirah and report,” said Gottesman, a board member of Torah Umesorah, the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools.

Rabbi David Zwiebel, Agudah’s executive vice president, told the conference that even mandated reporters — teachers, social workers and people in certain other professions who are required by law to promptly report any suspected cases of sexual abuse — should consult a rabbi before going to the police.

This qualification by Agudas Yisrael brings us back to square one! In fact, it might be worse because even they acknowledge that nobody knows who the so-called qualified Rabbis are, Rabbi Yosef Blau of Yeshivah University, who was originally involved in the ill-fated case involving the guilty Baruch Lanner stated:

“There is no decent justification why anybody in their right mind should think rabbis are qualified to make that judgment”

Indeed, check out this recent farcical case in Lakewood, where the Beis Din had to call a social worker to make the detemination and wasn’t even available to later hear what the social worker had unearthed!

Agudas Yisrael’s pronouncement has caused justifiable consternation (see also here).

Melbourne has its share of alleged predators, some of whom walk around in our community with impunity. Yes, it is true that in most cases victims will not formally go to a court of law and press charges. I am not here to judge them. However, I do have the following question, which is bothering me.

If I am a Rabbi, and I have undergone specialist training on abuse  and I have seen victims who have testified to me about crimes a Melbourne predator has allegedly committed, and I believe those victims but I cannot convince the victims to go to the police, would I do everything in my power to make sure that those alleged predators

  • are not given opportunities to address youth in our community
  • are not able to sit on boards of community organisations

Sadly, in our own Melbourne community, there are alleged predators who continue to speak to our youth in both formal and informal manners presenting as some sort of “expert” as well as alleged predators who continue to sit on the boards of community organisations. Should those people be encouraged to remove themselves from such positions? The predators need to seek help. They need to admit what they have done and be under a supervised treatment regimen. We must protect society in whatever way we can. Some of these predators masquerade as if they never perpetrated any crime.

Surely, if we can’t get victims to press charges, removing alleged predators from positions of power or influence is the least we can do to protect the vulnerable ones in society?

Rabbi Mark Dratch of JSafe is a source of inspiration.

as is Dr Asher Lipner

Perhaps it’s time to open up a Melbourne Chapter of JSafe?