HaloScan.com - Comments

Interesting blog. Intelligent and informative. Keep it up.
Independent Frum Thinker | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 1:35 am | #

Clearly, discussion on blogs is generated and dominated by those who never look to these Rabanim for guidance, so what could they really have to say, anyway?

I don't understand why people like DovBear and the Wolf get so worked up about what the Agudah's going to say or do. What's it matter to them?

I've never seen any chareidim get agitated about the pronouncements of the RCA about smoking, or whatever. They'd just say, "nu, nu" and light up a cigarette.
David | 11.24.06 - 3:52 am | #

Did you see any other bloggers there ? Did anyone recognize you as a blogger ?

You mean they didn't have your name on their watch list ? ;-)
anonymous | 11.24.06 - 3:55 am | #

Clearly, as the blogging universe expands, various niches become better defined. One can offer little criticism of Torah blogs that do not offer social comment and commentary or are dedicated to inspiration, Jewish thought and Torah study (such as hirhurim, avakesh.com -my blog, or the simple jew). Other blogs, especially when anonymous, engage in disussions that definitely weaken the traditional methods of communal control. Otehrs, even if not objectionable in tehmselves, certify the legitimacy of the internet as repository of Torah knowledge and therefore deteract from live role models.

It is too early to asess the impact of blogs. As hth various niches establish themselves, the long term potential impact will become clearer. We will then be speaking in terms of blog categories and not painting with brash strokes.
avakesh | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 4:09 am | #

According to YW, the convention can be heard via telephone (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/?p=3916#more-3916) . Complete details are not given. It seems that it is only live and I suspect that it is only for some sessions.
anonymous | 11.24.06 - 4:10 am | #

Ok, so the three-letter-blogger [tlb] was the focus of the eve.
Understandable.

At the same time, tlb served an important, even crucial role.
Does the Agudah have an alternate course of action when the rabbis are not responsive, especially to this degree? What would they suggest? What should have been done in order to effect the kind of change needed?
Fred | 11.24.06 - 6:28 am | #

R. Matisyahu Salomon in saying that questions and critiques that are respectful are acceptable

Wow. This is major. If you're right, then I view this as a virtual Haskakma of my own blog.
Harry Maryles | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 6:44 am | #

'a three-letter acronym containing two vowels....'

----- ????? maybe it's early A.M.
Paul | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 7:09 am | #

>is an understandable misunderstanding because I have not yet said, but will be"H soon be saying, "Eis la'asos la-Shem" on the subject.

R' Wachsman point was not 'Es Laasos', but that R' Aron Kotler surely understood the Rambam better than any of us, and if nevertheless RAK, a transmitter of the Mesorah tells us that Kollel is OK, then that is Daas Torah and we are obliged to follow whether we understand it or not.

As in the story of the Chazon Ish who paskened that even Sheirut L'umi (national service) for our Bnos Yisroel is Yaharog V'al Yaavor.

When they asked the CI - where in the Torah does it say that, he opened his jacket, pointed inwards, and said - right here.
ed | 11.24.06 - 7:47 am | #

If the Agudah is concerned with the impact of blogs, why don't they start their own blog, one that can deal with topics and issues in the Agudah's perspective.
Jacob Farkas | 11.24.06 - 8:02 am | #

R' Wachsman point was not 'Es Laasos', but that R' Aron Kotler surely understood the Rambam better than any of us, and if nevertheless RAK, a transmitter of the Mesorah tells us that Kollel is OK, then that is Daas Torah and we are obliged to follow whether we understand it or not.

And how did RAK understand the Rambam? Perhaps, just perhaps, like the Kessef Mishneh who said "Eis la'asos la-Shem".

As in the story of the Chazon Ish who paskened that even Sheirut L'umi (national service) for our Bnos Yisroel is Yaharog V'al Yaavor.

I believe that the Chazon Ish was referring to forced Sherut Leumi and not volunteer Sherut Leumi.

If the Agudah is concerned with the impact of blogs, why don't they start their own blog, one that can deal with topics and issues in the Agudah's perspective.

The Agudah has a policy of not having an internet presence so as to be consistent with the message they are trying to teach of staying off the internet.
Gil | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 8:30 am | #

"Clearly, a certain blogger was the villain of the evening. I won't name him, but let's just say that he goes by a three-letter acronym containing two vowels. I looked around but did not see that blogger there."

He is, no doubt, delighted by this--as he should be.
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 8:40 am | #

"a certain blogger was the villain of the evening"

- was Kolko at the event?
Jewish Observer | 11.24.06 - 8:41 am | #

>And how did RAK understand the Rambam? Perhaps, just perhaps, like the Kessef Mishneh who said "Eis la'asos la-Shem".

Most likely, that WAS the reason.

But Es Laasos wasn't the relevant point. The point was that if RAK ok'ed it, then its OK. Whether we understand it or not.

>I believe that the Chazon Ish was referring to forced Sherut Leumi and not volunteer Sherut Leumi.

You mean if its forced - you should let yourself get killed, but its OK to volunteer?!?!?

Gil, please explain what you meant.
ed | 11.24.06 - 8:45 am | #

>He is, no doubt, delighted by this--as he should be.

He is, no doubt, disgraced and humiliated by this--as he should be.
ed | 11.24.06 - 8:48 am | #

Maybe I'm atypical, but I see more and more recycled ideas and discussions, and blogs running with other blogs' topics. This suggests to me that boredom and loss of interest will soon sink much of this enterprise. Even the blog reactions to current events often address the events by saying exactly the predictable thing.

The Jewish-oriented blogs that survive will be those that enhance our dedication to Torah and mitzvot and are free of shticky putdowns of Orthodox groups and ideas, and free of character assassination.
Bob Miller | 11.24.06 - 9:00 am | #

Just curious-How many of us received some sort of assurance that Agudah welcomed constructive Torah oriented blogs, as opposed to irresponsible blogs that either could be seen as displayong a lack of respect for Gdolim and/or the Charedi world?
Steve Brizel | 11.24.06 - 9:04 am | #

"The Agudah has a policy of not having an internet presence so as to be consistent with the message they are trying to teach of staying off the internet."

Granted. But they acknowledge the effects and influence of bloggers who send a message that they find inconsistent with their own. Should they feel this risk puts their mission in jeopardy, is it not shortsighted to ignore a medium in which they can potentially regain their influence?

Will they avoid the Internet forever?
Jacob Farkas | 11.24.06 - 9:07 am | #

"R' Wachsman point was not 'Es Laasos', but that R' Aron Kotler surely understood the Rambam better than any of us, and if nevertheless RAK, a transmitter of the Mesorah tells us that Kollel is OK, then that is Daas Torah and we are obliged to follow whether we understand it or not."

My problem with this kind of thinking has nothing to do with whether or not people accept money to teach or learn in kollel. I object to the position that when someone of great stature takes a position is difficult to comprehend, we should not try to comprehend it--but should instead simply nullify ourselves to it. Perhaps for a godol's actual talmidim this is an appropriate way to behave le-ma'aseh in terms of following a pesak halahka, but in terms of Torah study, this is an unacceptable attitude.

It is certainly reasonable to assume that great talmidei chachamim don't make careless errors and are not unaware of primary sources. However, there is still a chiyuv to try to understand someone's reasoning. The suggestion that we should not think about these questions because 'he knew the Rambam better than us' is simply a way avoiding thought, and this anti-intellectual ideology is antithetical to Torah. It is also dangerous. It is what led to Second Coming Messianism, and it has led to all the other wacky manifestations of 21st century zealotry. Whenever any single person's authority is accepted with no critical thinking and is immune to criticism (and indeed any questions are shouted down as kefira or rebellion) then the path is open for being led way off the derekh. It is bad for the godol himself. Every lamdan should fear being refuted by his talmidim and colleagues. It forces someone to think more carefully about potential weaknesses in his arguments, and to refine his exposition.

This kind of thinking is also symptomatic of weak, lame emuna. It is a defense for a flimsy belief in a thin ideology which cannot stand up to any questions or challenges.
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 9:08 am | #

"But they acknowledge the effects and influence of bloggers who send a message that they find inconsistent with their own. Should they feel this risk puts their mission in jeopardy, is it not shortsighted to ignore a medium in which they can potentially regain their influence?
Will they avoid the Internet forever?"
Jacob Farkas | 11.24.06 - 9:07 am | #

In their defense: The main problem with the Internet is not that there are messages which are antithetical to their ideology. That is true of printed media as well, but they are not prohibiting membership at public libraries.

The Internet presents special challenges because of how visually stimulating it is, how addictive it can become, the easy access to pornographic sites, the temptations of chat rooms, and most of all the impression that it is all anonymous--which removes inhibitions. They simply don't want people involved in the internet, and they don't want to be involved with the internet themselves.

I respect their stance on this (even though I disagree with it).
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 9:21 am | #

Nachum Klafter - Bravo! Very well put. RAK (and no other Godol for that matter) has ever told his talmidim that "since I'm smarter than you and a much greater tzadik and talmud chachom then you'll ever be, you should follow my psak unquestionably and not even try to understand it."

Gil - Is it possible that instead of "Eis la'asos la-Shem", RAK may have held we don't pasken like that Rambam, or that the Rambam may have been completely mistaken.
UnAnonymous | 11.24.06 - 9:22 am | #

"R. Matisyahu Salomon in saying that questions and critiques that are respectful are acceptable

Wow. This is major. If you're right, then I view this as a virtual Haskakma of my own blog."

didan natzach.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 9:22 am | #

Although, one testimony to the impracticality of this stance is how many card-carrying right wing agudaniks. I know who spend huge amounts of time online. THis includes rabbonim in RW yeshivos. I don't know who is following this eitzah. Perhaps prushim who don't even own a computer in the first place.
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 9:25 am | #

Dr. Klafter ,very well said. In fact R'Rakkefet (who went to Lakewood)said (one of the lectures on YU.org that when Rav Aharon gave a shiur many of the bachurim would literally shout objections that an outsider would think was chutzpadik.(Apparently,iirc this was the method of learning in Kletsk)(IIRC did not R' Rakeffet also say that a future son-in-law was showing so much chutzpah, and when RAK asked him why he replied to RAK if you knew the topic or knew how to learn..?) Not that I advocate this behavior but its a far cry from mevatel daas.
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 9:28 am | #

Also after the holocaust perhaps there may have been a better reason to claim es laasos laheshem.
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 9:30 am | #

How many of us received some sort of assurance that Agudah welcomed constructive Torah oriented blogs, as opposed to irresponsible blogs that either could be seen as displayong a lack of respect for Gdolim and/or the Charedi world?

I did receive such assurance, although I think R. Wachsman might have gone after me. I might be mistaken, though, because I am so unused to his style that I likely misunderstood him.

Is it possible that instead of "Eis la'asos la-Shem", RAK may have held we don't pasken like that Rambam, or that the Rambam may have been completely mistaken.

Certainly. But the issue was how he understood the Rambam.

>I believe that the Chazon Ish was referring to forced Sherut Leumi and not volunteer Sherut Leumi.

You mean if its forced - you should let yourself get killed, but its OK to volunteer?!?!?

Yes. It is a very different beast when it is voluntary.

This is why I think R. Wachsman did a disservice to the community by not clarifying his point, thereby indirectly (and presumably unintentionally) leading people to believe that an entire community of lomdei Torah are acting against Da'as Torah when they participate in Sherut Leumi.
Gil | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 9:33 am | #

eit laasot in its classic form aiui is for temporary set asides. Assumedly R' AK gave over to his talmidim his logic so they would be able to determine future application.

From some of the current articulations (I can't say if authoratative) it sounds like the earlier generations could do both (e.g. a tanna could be a blacksmith and a gadol) but not later generations. At some level imho this implies that even though the original ratzon hashem was to do both and he would allow success (or else wouldn't that tanna have been a greater gadol had he spent all his time learning) this is no longer the ratzon hashem and it seems a permanent (since the Rambam?) change.

I suppose in the end it's a question of relative priorities(would anyone say we should sell advertising space in a beit medrash to an unseemly cause as an eit laasot to support learning?) I would just like to have a better understanding of why the decision went this way in this case and why according to R' MF if one wanted to follow the original derech, he shouldn't.

KT
Joel Rich | 11.24.06 - 9:46 am | #

his is why I think R. Wachsman did a disservice to the community by not clarifying his point, thereby indirectly (and presumably unintentionally) leading people to believe that an entire community of lomdei Torah are acting against Da'as Torah when they participate in Sherut Leumi.

Even if they are. The CI wasn't their Da'as Torah, and they have no obligation to accept his words as binding.
ari | 11.24.06 - 9:49 am | #

"...They simply don't want people involved in the internet, and they don't want to be involved with the internet themselves.

I respect their stance on this (even though I disagree with it).
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 9:21 am"

I too respect their stance, but I find it shortsighted. The Internet as a medium is something they can't control without an outright ban against its usage, or urging its constituents to avoid using it as much as possible.

But when you openly acknowledge an effective medium as a threat to your own ideals, the obvious solution should be to use that medium, perhaps even cite "eis la'asos" and publish your own blog.

I find the policy of isolationism to be detrimental.
Jacob Farkas | 11.24.06 - 10:04 am | #

> R' Rakeffet also say that a future son-in-law was showing so much chutzpah, and when RAK asked him why he replied to RAK if you knew the topic or knew how to learn..?) Not that I advocate this behavior but its a far cry from mevatel daas.

That was Kletsk. I don't think it was RAK. The marriage, btw, was a disaster.
Nusach Anglia | 11.24.06 - 10:16 am | #

Nusach I don't recall but was that not on a shiur given in Israel from the f-i-l from klestk (I thought by RAK but not at all sure)
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 10:22 am | #

"I looked around but did not see that blogger there."
--------------------------------------
How do you know who he is?
steve | 11.24.06 - 10:23 am | #

ended in divorce, correct?
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 10:24 am | #

"...In fact R'Rakkefet (who went to Lakewood)said (one of the lectures on YU.org that when Rav Aharon gave a shiur many of the bachurim would literally shout objections that an outsider would think was chutzpadik.(Apparently,iirc this was the method of learning in Kletsk..."

That is interesting. My Shver shlit"a, who attended Reb Aharon zt"l's shiur in Lakewood, told me that his policy was that talmidim were not to interrupt or question him during the delivery of the shiur. My Shver told me that the only ones who ususally violated this rule and argued with Reb Aharon during shiur were HaRav Moshe Eisemann zt"l (was a talmid chochom in NJ - not to be confused with the Rosh Hayeshiveh of NI) and bl"c, HaRav Elya Svei shlit"a.
Rafael Araujo | 11.24.06 - 10:45 am | #

I apologize, first of all, for writing anonymously, but I too was there, Gil, and I too have to collect my thoughts before I write under my name.

I didn't hear Rabbi Solomon say respectful questions and critiques are acceptable, but maybe you're right, Gil, and maybe I'm wrong. I heard him say blogs are a "plague" and an "insidious...poison" that has entered our homes. At one point, he did obliquely refer to the UOJ/child abuse problem, and I give him credit for that. Criticize some rabbis, he said, not all of us, so perhaps that is what you're referring to.

He said we don't know how many hours rabbis have dedicated for dealing with perpetrators, but acknowledged some cases have slipped through our fingers, and demonstratively held up his hand. He said some cases should be swept under the rug, when the Torah tells us to sweep it under the rug.

I heard Rabbi Wachsman come out unconditionally against blogs - he said, "No excuses". He told the story of a kehilla where some of the baal habattim appointed a dayan without first asking the town Rav, and the Rav then said those baal habattim should die within a year. I'm not 100 per cent if R' Wachsman told this story, or R Solomon. This is the meaning of daas Torah, and rabbinic authority. Rabbi Wachsman uttered only one word about "grievances", and that was the word. On the other hand, he uttered the words "mesorah" and "laytsim" many times.

I'm still giving this thought, and maybe I'll write under my name, and maybe not, but the point they all missed was not that the Jews are losing respect for their rabbis, and blogging is a cause and/or symptom. F'kert. It is because the Jews have such great respect for rabbis, and Torah learning, that many of us have taken to the blogs to vent our protest. It is always peaceful, often intelligent, and even mostly respectful, albeit with major exceptions, but this is what is agitating people.

As far as the mood of the crowd there, I don't think the three speakers captured their emotions at any point. There was no spontaneous crowd response at any point. Maybe others will differ, I don't know.

I would love to see a transcripts.
Ploni ben Avrohom | 11.24.06 - 11:01 am | #

Rafael Araujo

Two possibilities. Very possible that my memory of the lecture is bad. (getting too old).
Different times they attended Lakewood?
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 11:06 am | #

>I object to the position that when someone of great stature takes a position is difficult to comprehend, we should not try to comprehend it--but should instead simply nullify ourselves to it.

Of course we should try to comprehend it. What do you think they do a whole day in kollel/yeshivos?

My point was, that when a Godol of the stature of RAK paskens a halacha, our lack of comprehension doesn't give us the right to dismiss his psak. Sure we are allowed to discuss it. But when it comes down to the bottom line, it is on us to nullify our Daas, that his psak is correct. Unless of course, you have an opposing Godol of equal stature. Then, you have to decide which Godol do you follow.
ed | 11.24.06 - 11:11 am | #

cazzie: the story ostensibly happened in yerushalayim, when RAK came to etz chaim. When he came in, someone had his feet on the chair/desk, and RAK said kovod hatorah, and the future son in law said that when the rosh yeshiva demonstrates he's worthy of kovod hatorah he will give him kovod or something like along these lines. So goes the story.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 11:16 am | #

"But when it comes down to the bottom line, it is on us to nullify our Daas, that his psak is correct."

Your aim should be to learn and be capable of paskening for yourself.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 11:19 am | #

"Your aim should be to learn and be capable of paskening for yourself."

is in response to this:

"Of course we should try to comprehend it. What do you think they do a whole day in kollel/yeshivos?"
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 11:21 am | #

>Your aim should be to learn and be capable of paskening for yourself.

Of course. But it takes a Godol Hador to argue on a Rambam.

And when a Godol does that, the fact that you have 'smicha' doesn't give you the right to argue on the Godol on Halacha Lmaaseh.
ed | 11.24.06 - 11:28 am | #

"Of course. But it takes a Godol Hador to argue on a Rambam."

Not when the rama says otherwise. Let alone all the other ink that's been spilled on this topic.
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 11:33 am | #

See R. Chaim Volozhin in Ruach Chaim on Pirkei Avos 1:4 where he states "it is forbidden (assur) for a student to accept the words of his teacher if he has a question on his words" He maintains that although we must have respect and humility, we are obligated to ask questions, critique and argue if we don't understand or we have proofs against our Rabbanim.
Observer | 11.24.06 - 11:36 am | #

And when a Godol does that, the fact that you have 'smicha' doesn't give you the right to argue on the Godol on Halacha Lmaaseh.
ed

Plenty of RY's do eventhough we might not have them on kids gedolim cards.
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 11:37 am | #

But when it comes down to the bottom line, it is on us to nullify our Daas, that his psak is correct."

Your aim should be to learn and be capable of paskening for yourself.
Anonymous

A gadol shouldn't pasken for himself -he is a nogeah badavar. He can pasken for another gadol not when he is nogeah badavar.
Of course if the matter is clear eg a dvar mishna etc it is not really psak-it is knowledge of existing clear cut law.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 11:37 am | #

>>You mean if its forced - you should let yourself get killed, but its OK to volunteer?!?!?

>Yes. It is a very different beast when it is voluntary.

Although it may have been partially apologetics, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky is quoted in the book about him as making a similar point about Sherut Leumi to a non-religious Israeli politician. Parents need to have the right to dtermine the proper environment for their children. He said his grand daughter volunteers in a hospital, but he'd never let her get drafted into a Sherut Leumi type program he couldn't control.

At a minimum, parents need to be able to decide which kids are suited for such a program and which aren't.
UnAnonymous | 11.24.06 - 12:00 pm | #

> A gadol shouldn't pasken for himself -he is a nogeah badavar. He can pasken for another gadol not when he is nogeah badavar.
Of course if the matter is clear eg a dvar mishna etc it is not really psak-it is knowledge of existing clear cut law.

mycroft - Says who? There are countless examples of Godolim following their own Daas Yachid opinions. Whatever source you may have for it, it seems we don't pasken that way.
UnAnonymous | 11.24.06 - 12:02 pm | #

>A gadol shouldn't pasken for himself -he is a nogeah badavar. He can pasken for another gadol not when he is nogeah badavar.

It is mind boggling and quite shocking how a blog commentor gets to decide who a Godol could pasken for.
ed | 11.24.06 - 12:16 pm | #

I think it is a question of what we are referring to when we say nogeah bedavar. I would think if its a case of halacha like practices in davening then a Gadol could easily pasken for himself. If it is a case of a Gadol or his relative involved in a money argument then the Gadol should and I imagine do recuse themselves.
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 12:34 pm | #

Nachum Klafter, it was the "temptations" of printed material that decimated religion among Eastern European Jewry a hundred years ago. I doubt there's nearly so much of a problem now.
Nachum Lamm | 11.24.06 - 12:44 pm | #

WADR to the quotes re RAK and understanding Rambam, I side with Dr Klafter-RYBS never encouraged anyone to accept a pshat that he offered in any Sugya or Rishon on his own word without at least thinking thru the sugya or Rishon on his own. It is antithetical to the entire underpinnnings of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah which challenges us to (1)understand the primary sources (2)understand what your rebbe is saying by way of explanation, and (3) use one's critical thinking in understanding any source, I also share R D Klafter's view that there is a huge world of difference in nullifying one's own will to obey Psak Halacha and in trying to understand a Machlokes Tanaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim or Gdolie HaDor. Obeying established Psak means that you are affirming Naaseh VNishmah every moment of your life.

Walking away from working out a machlokes in the course of any sugya or inyan that you are learning basically shows that you have no interest in offering a possible chiddush based upon a Rishon, etc and is contrary to Chazal's observation that "ain beis hamedrash bli chiddush". As RCS once said "Noone ever died from a Kashe." Unfortunately, the approach set forth shows that the fear of questions is widespread, despite the fact that it is the bread and butter of TSBP.
Steve Brizel | 11.24.06 - 12:48 pm | #

See here for the perspective of the Seridei Eish on Pilpul vs. acceptance of the Torah of the greats:

http://mishmar.blogspot.com/2006...n-torah- of.html
Bari | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 12:53 pm | #

It is mind boggling and quite shocking how a blog commentor gets to decide who a Godol could pasken for.
ed

I'll quote Cazzie and adapt his cogent comments

I think it is a question of what we are referring to when we say nogeah bedavar. I would think if its a case of halacha like practices in davening then a Gadol could easily pasken for himself.

Agreed

If it is a case of a Gadol or his relative involved in a money argument then the Gadol should and I imagine do recuse themselves.

agreed
cazzie | 11.24.06 - 12:34 pm | #
Also in halachick matters where a gadol has a family interest eg "should his sick son eat on Yom Kippur etc" there are tradeoffs the mere fact that he is a
father makes him a nogeah badavar.

Ed thus if a gadol would pasken in an issue where his son or grandson had a financial interest he would be disaualified as a nogeah badavar.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 12:53 pm | #

Dr. Klafter was basically Mechaven to that Seridei Eish, I see.
Bari | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 12:56 pm | #

Steve:

Your 1248 PM post is as usual right on point-we don't disagree.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 12:56 pm | #

"He said some cases should be swept under the rug, when the Torah tells us to sweep it under the rug."
-------------------------------------
This is a troubling statement, if indeed Rabbi Solomon did say this and is not being misquoted. I don't know how you can "sweep under a rug", even a single claim of molestation. Every Jewish soul is precious and by not acting swiftly and definitively, you are potentially causing others to be harmed.

The passuk states regarding a man or woman who is accused of idolatry:
"Vedarashta heiteiv vehineh emet nachon hadavar neestah hatoevah hazot beyisrael. Vehotzeta et haish, etc."
Now we know that a homosexual act between two consenting adults is also called a "toevah", an abomination. How much more so is child molestation a "toevah". And we see that when there are accusations of a "toevah" being committed, it is the responsibility of our leadership to thoroughly investigate. If the allegations are indeed true, then the perpetrator must be dealt with accordingly. There is no "sweeping under the rug" in such cases.
steve | 11.24.06 - 1:02 pm | #

>Ed thus if a gadol would pasken in an issue where his son or grandson had a financial interest he would be disaualified as a nogeah badavar.

Of course. Even Moshe Rabbeinu wouldn't be believed.

The discusion at hand is relating to a general psak for the Klal.
ed | 11.24.06 - 1:17 pm | #

>This is a troubling statement, if indeed Rabbi Solomon did say this and is not being misquoted. I don't know how you can "sweep under a rug", even a single claim of molestation.

Steve, I'll requote it with the proper emphasis.

"He said some cases should be swept under the rug, when the Torah tells us to sweep it under the rug."

Still troubled?
ed | 11.24.06 - 1:21 pm | #

>If the allegations are indeed true, then the perpetrator must be dealt with accordingly.

Who said he wasn't dealt with according to the way that Daas Torah outlines in such circumstances?
ed | 11.24.06 - 1:24 pm | #

Ed,

Yes, I am still troubled. Where does it say in the Torah to sweep such cases under the rug?

I asked a friend who was there last night if he indeed said this. According to his recollection, Rabbi Salomon said that the rabbis are being accused of sweeping these cases under the rug. In the meantime, nobody knows the tens of cases that they dealt with definitively, because those cases were also swept under the rug.
steve | 11.24.06 - 1:29 pm | #

"R. Salomon meant that was is swept under the carpet (not rug) is when they take steps against an offender but keep it quiet to protect the innocent individuals involved. He did not mean that an offender should be left alone and his acts swept under the carpet."
-------------------------------------
Thank you, Rabbi Gil. Now I am less troubled.
steve | 11.24.06 - 1:31 pm | #

ed:
You said "...if nevertheless RAK, a transmitter of the Mesorah tells us that Kollel is OK, then that is Daas Torah and we are obliged to follow whether we understand it or not."

RAK poskined this how long ago? Decades. How many kollel learners were there? Not many. The situation today is different than decades ago therefore the p'sak does not necessarily apply.

In America the kollel system is not yet out of hand. But in E"Y, where almost half of chareidim are in kollel, it is out of hand. The situation there is unsustainable, but will the Gdolim stop it? Sometimes I think they are hesitant to do so because they will be denounced by the kollel members and roshei kollel.
The Answer | 11.24.06 - 1:40 pm | #

Bari's reference to the SE should be mandatory reading for anyone who believes that Daas Torah prevents us from delving into and understanding a Machlokes Tanaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim, Gdolei HaDor.Simply stated-there is a huge difference between Naaseh Nishmah as a fundamental to all of Torah observance and using all of one's intellectual powers to understand pshat in any issue within TSBP. The entire process of learning TSBP resonates and beams with Machlokes-Tanaim, Amoraim, Rishonim and even betwe generations ( Rashi and Baalei Tosfos). Our duty is to explain these conflicts , not to walk away from them because of a notion that we can only receive the text, not explore it and try to understand it within the Mesorah.

I stand by my point that Naaseh vNIshmah ,while extremely important to how one accepts Psak, is of little importance and is never used as a primary or even secondary means of argumentation among Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim in understanding any Talmudic concept.Learning, as per the Mesorah that I received from my RY means (1) knowing the primary source (2) understanding what your rebbe has added to your knowledge and (3)using one's own critical knowledge in understanding a source. It is not blind acceptance of the words without understanding the concepts, what your rebbe says and suspending critical inquiry.IMO, when one blindly accepts the words without having any understanding of the issues and critical inquiry, it is tantamount to reducing Mitzvas Talmud Torah and especially TSBP, which is an ongoing process that has been codified for our convenience, into the recitation of Tehilim and a dumbing down of the beauty and complexity of TSBP.

It is a sad day when we are told that a Ben Torah is told that he must rely on "pshat" of a "shvere Rambam" or worse an English "elucidation" instead of breaking his head and mind over the pshat and finding a Chiddush.Blind acceptance of the words of the Talmud or a Rishon without struggling thru the process of what is meant by the words and without a rebbe to explain to you what is between the words IMO raises the issue of whether one has even begun to fulfill the mitzvah of Talmud Torah as to TSBP-which minimally requires the would be lamdan to understand it and which RCS would possibly require the would be lamdan to be able to explain it to the man in the street.
Steve Brizel | 11.24.06 - 1:42 pm | #

Gil is correct. This was the clear intent of Rabbi Solomon.

In another forum, Rabbi Avrohom Chaim Levine, Telshe Chicago R"Y, and Moetses member, said, We can't sweep these cases under the rug anymore, there's no more room.

So what did Rabbi Levine mean? That in the past, we weren't sufficiently focused on addressing abuse, we thought each case was an aberration, and we would even turn our eyes away; now, because of the rising caseload, we understand we were mistaken, and we must address it.
Ploni ben Avrohom | 11.24.06 - 1:46 pm | #

Steve: I agree with your 142 pm post very well put.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 1:48 pm | #

How many kollel learners were there ever in Europe at the height of Jewish life on that continent?
curious | 11.24.06 - 1:51 pm | #

Yes, I found it ironic that R. Wachsman specifically said that what a particular Gadol said 60 or 70 years ago is irrelevant, and then kept on quoting what R. Aharon Kotler said 40+ years ago.
Gil | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 1:52 pm | #

>Yes, I am still troubled. Where does it say in the Torah to sweep such cases under the rug?

See my comment at 7:47am

"When they asked the CI - where in the Torah does it say that, he opened his jacket, pointed inwards, and said - right here".
Anonymous | 11.24.06 - 1:52 pm | #

1:52pm was me
ed | 11.24.06 - 1:53 pm | #

>RAK poskined this how long ago? Decades. How many kollel learners were there? Not many. The situation today is different than decades ago therefore the p'sak does not necessarily apply.

The "psak" we are refering to here, is if one may accept money for learning, vs the Rambam who seemed to indicate that its forbidden to do so.

Just because there are more learners today, that doesn't invalidate the psak.

Perhaps, the RY's have to send people out of the Bais Midrash to find jobs. But that is irrelevant to the Rambam and RAK's psak if its PERMITTED to accept money for learning.
ed | 11.24.06 - 1:59 pm | #

>Bari's reference to the SE should be mandatory reading for anyone who believes that Daas Torah prevents us from delving into and understanding a Machlokes Tanaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim, Gdolei HaDor.

Steve, what do you think they do a whole day in Yeshivos?

That's right! They delve into and attempt to understand a Machlokes Tanaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim, Gdolei HaDor.

But don't you see a difference between "delving into/understanding" and arguing against the PSAK HALACHA of a Sar Hatorah and Godol Hador?
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:05 pm | #

ed:

I agree it is permitted today, whether eis laasos or some other reason.

But is it permitted in the NUMBERS we have today? Is it still an eis laasos for each individual when we have the numbers? This is a difficult question, but I think the answer is no once there are "enough" learners.
The Answer | 11.24.06 - 2:06 pm | #

>Yes, I found it ironic that R. Wachsman specifically said that what a particular Gadol said 60 or 70 years ago is irrelevant, and then kept on quoting what R. Aharon Kotler said 40+ years ago.

Gil, he didn't say its irrelevant. What he said was, that we have to learn from the transmitters of the Mesorah.

We can't cherry pick a rishon, if we aren't being Mekabel directly from that Rishon.

However, the mesorah received via RAK is still current, being that R' Schneur and RAMK are following in his derech.
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:12 pm | #

>But is it permitted in the NUMBERS we have today? Is it still an eis laasos for each individual when we have the numbers? This is a difficult question, but I think the answer is no once there are "enough" learners.

A great question indeed. And every God fearing jew should NOT reach his own conclusions, but should consult with his transmitter of the Mesorah.

As per the story mentioned by R' Zwiebel, that when R' Moshe Sherer ZT"L thought that option A would be better, and the Moetzes said to follow option B, he was very B'simcha.

Why?

"Because this is what we are here for. To follow our Gedolim".
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:21 pm | #

However, the mesorah received via RAK is still current, being that R' Schneur and RAMK are following in his derech.

And the mesorah of Rav Herzog and others whose views have been used to defend R. Slifkin are also current. Maybe not in Lakewood, but they are still current.
Gil | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:26 pm | #

As per the story mentioned by R' Zwiebel, that when R' Moshe Sherer ZT"L thought that option A would be better, and the Moetzes said to follow option B, he was very B'simcha

R M Sherer had a unique ability to get the Moetzes of selected Agudah Rabbis to agree with him. They probably recognized that Sherer was more sophisticated in political matters than they were.

A very interesting study -if one could get access to materials is a history of lay vs Rabbinic power in Agudah in its roughly 95 years of existence so far starting with the debates of Rosenheim vs Breur in the beginning decades of Agudah in Europe.-for this purpose Rav Sherer is a layman,no one seriously believes he had his power because of his gadlus in
Torah-a Gadol in PR see eg how he built Daf Yomi into a big Agudah power play.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 2:31 pm | #

And the mesorah of Rav Herzog and others whose views have been used to defend R. Slifkin are also current. Maybe not in Lakewood, but they are still current.
Gil

Agree with Gil
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 2:32 pm | #

Clearly, a certain blogger was the villain of the evening

Giving this loser credence is the biggest mistake.
ratzdash | 11.24.06 - 2:37 pm | #

So what we have Gil is three mesoras, at least: Chasidish, Yeshivish, Modernish/Centrist.

"Both are the words of the Living G-d"
The Answer | 11.24.06 - 2:39 pm | #

Picking up on Gil's last comment, Rabbi Wachsman discussed at length the gemara's story of Chonie Hamagil. He was gadol hador in his day, but after his long sleep spanning generations, when he returned, he was no longer gadol hador. Why? Because he no longer carried the mesorah for that dor. This is so even though his Torah learning was greater than anyone else in that dor.

So this is why we listen to Rav Ahron Kotler - Rabbi Wachsman was referring to the kollel movement here - and not to the Rambam. Rabbi Wachsman joked, many shvers know the Rambams by heart.
(We also don't listen to the Chasam Sofer either, but why Rabbi Wachsman picked him, I don't know why, maybe somebody else can explain this.)

I'm bothered. Yes, we needed kollel in RAK's day. But today, in this quantity, when there are other pressing needs, like K-12 chinuch?
And why isn't RAK the Chonie Hamagil of our day? We look to our gedolim of past years with reverence, and for guidance, and where applicable, we apply their teachings, but where the problems differ, we need to follow the guidance of our living leaders, both rabbinic and communal.

I don't see anything complicated about this.
Ploni ben Avrohom | 11.24.06 - 2:45 pm | #

>And the mesorah of Rav Herzog and others whose views have been used to defend R. Slifkin are also current. Maybe not in Lakewood, but they are still current.

But they aren't current in R' Elayshiv book either. Or in the book of all other signatories.
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:48 pm | #

>R M Sherer had a unique ability to get the Moetzes of selected Agudah Rabbis to agree with him. They probably recognized that Sherer was more sophisticated in political matters than they were.

The point of the story was, that when the Moetzes paskened AGAINST him, he accepted the psak B'simcha.
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:52 pm | #

ed:
But R'Elayshiv and the other signatories are not the only opinions on this matter. As you stated, there are different mesorahs. Each one of us can pick to follow the one we think is best. That is why I am not Chasidish.
The Answer | 11.24.06 - 2:54 pm | #

>And why isn't RAK the Chonie Hamagil of our day?

Because RAK's mesorah was passed to his son and grandson, who still believe that RAK was correct.
ed | 11.24.06 - 2:55 pm | #

Thanks for the report, Gil. Good Shabbos.
neilsharris | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:56 pm | #

>But R'Elayshiv and the other signatories are not the only opinions on this matter. As you stated, there are different mesorahs. Each one of us can pick to follow the one we think is best.

You can't pick and choose. You have to stick to one mesorah.

L'kula U'lchumra.
ed | 11.24.06 - 3:00 pm | #

"See R. Chaim Volozhin in Ruach Chaim on Pirkei Avos 1:4 where he states "it is forbidden (assur) for a student to accept the words of his teacher if he has a question on his words" He maintains that although we must have respect and humility, we are obligated to ask questions, critique and argue if we don't understand or we have proofs against our Rabbanim."
Observer | 11.24.06 - 11:36 am | #

It is also a beraisa on "Me-devar sheker tirchak..." on Shavuos 30b.
Nachum Klafter | 11.24.06 - 3:26 pm | #

>And why isn't RAK the Chonie Hamagil of our day?

Because RAK's mesorah was passed to his son and grandson, who still believe that RAK was correct.
ed

Give me a break if R M Kotler's last name were not Kotler would he had a chance in the world to be head of BMG as compared to Rav Wachtfogel? This is not a Purim Torah blog.
Rav Schneir ZT"L a leading Gadol but Rav Malkiel?

Of course his grandson better believe he is correct-the source and authority of the family business.
mycroft | 11.24.06 - 3:49 pm | #

gil - regarding the volunteer sheirut leumi, i heard that the problem isnt b'etzem volunteering, its the fact that once you volunteer, you cant get out of it, and they can change your position - against your will. and therefore, in any event, its not "volunteer" per se, but rather there is (atleast) an element of force in it
Anonymous | 11.25.06 - 2:55 pm | #

Rabbi Matisyahu Salomon is not the torch bearer of Reb Aharon Kotler’s ideology. [deleted]

I dare say that Reb Aharon would have put an end to his experiment had he lived to see its current state [deleted]. BMG was never designed to be a mass production institution but rather a Makom Torah created to grow Torah in America. Look at what it has become.

If bloggers are the only people willing to speak the truth about this sorry state of affairs; Godspeed to them.

Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous | 11.25.06 - 7:19 pm | #

Rabbi Salomon in his eternal wisdom states that some cases of child molestation should be swept under the carpet “when the Torah so dictates.” [deleted]

Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous | 11.25.06 - 7:36 pm | #

Rabbi Salomon in his eternal wisdom states that some cases of child molestation should be swept under the carpet “when the Torah so dictates.”

He never said such a thing. See my comment above.
Gil | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 8:38 pm | #

>BMG was never designed to be a mass production institution but rather a Makom Torah created to grow Torah in America. Look at what it has become.

It became a Makom Torah.
ed | 11.25.06 - 8:47 pm | #

>In another forum, Rabbi Avrohom
>Chaim Levine, Telshe Chicago R"Y,
>and Moetses member, said, We can't
>sweep these cases under the rug
>anymore, there's no more room.
>
>So what did Rabbi Levine mean?

Per Gil:
>R. Salomon meant that was is swept
>under the carpet (not rug) is when
>they take steps against an offender
>but keep it quiet to protect the
>innocent individuals involved. He
>did not mean that an offender should
>be left alone and his acts swept
>under the carpet.

So what did Rav Levine mean?

They've run out of room to protect innocent individuals?

Come on Gil, since when did Rav Salomon give you authority to clarify HIS comments? Do you purport to speak for him? With what authority can you say what he meant? What right do have to do so?
anonymous | 11.25.06 - 9:23 pm | #

Gil, Thank you.
ed | 11.25.06 - 9:26 pm | #

I was there as well Gil, he definitely said that certain cases should be kept under the carpet. I just could not believe my ears.
michoel | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 9:39 pm | #

>How many kollel learners were there ever in Europe at the height of Jewish life on that continent?

In eastern Europe pre-war there were about 6000 young men learning in yeshiva gedolah, out of a population of millions. That does not, of course, mean that only 6000 people were learning Torah and nothing of the sort is implied by this statistic.
.

Strioctly guess out of memory I believe the figure was less than 4000-maybe some differences in definitional problems. Effie Zuroff discusses it in his book about Vaad Hazalah-believe he gives figures for 20's and 30's. Someone check it .
mycroft | 11.25.06 - 9:52 pm | #

>I was there as well Gil, he definitely said that certain cases should be kept under the carpet. I just could not believe my ears.

Did he also say:

"when the Torah tells us to sweep it under the rug." ???
ed | 11.25.06 - 9:52 pm | #

I was there as well Gil, he definitely said that certain cases should be kept under the carpet. I just could not believe my ears.

You misunderstood him, then. Listen to a recording.
Gil | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 10:35 pm | #

Ok Gil, I spoke to 3 people that were there, they all agreed that R' Solomon definitely said that certain cases that were being dealt with by them should be "kept under the rug"

Was there an "under the rug" scenario talked about at all or is everyone hallucinating?
MO MAN | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 10:45 pm | #

Would a transcript help, or would you just say it's being taken out of context?
ICAAN | 11.25.06 - 11:13 pm | #

I continue to give much thought to Aguda's Thursday night session. I definitely did not come away with any feelings of "general tolerance" described by Gil in his post.

My overall impression is that the Aguda fortress mentality is as rigid as ever. Now its not the goyim who are the problem, its other frum Jews, from other camps. They're talking about modern and central orthodox Jews, and of course, bloggers.

The very choice of the two speakers was notable. It would be hard to find two more identifiable hardliners than Rabbis Wachsman and Salomon. Notably, also, although this was not the traditional motsei Shabbos keynote session, the Rosh Aguda, Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, was seated to the right of the podium; and seated to the left was Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, Philadelphia Rosh Yeshiva and Moetses member, usually looked upon as the most senior Aguda rabbinic figure alongside Rabbi Perlow. This was an endorsement.

Rabbi Salomon, from Lakewood, hates bloggers. There were at least two Lakewood blogs that I know of, and they were instrumental in defying the Lakewood rabbis when they wanted to agree to the construction of a hockey stadium very close to the Yeshiva, in exchange for some money from the town; in forcing the cancellation of a glitsy Chinese auction that they felt was not in keeping with the modest Lakewood style; and in exposing some yeshiva administrator's very high salary, that raised some eyebrows. The Lakewood rabbis eventually shut down these blogs, because after all, Internet is forbidden in Lakewood.

Rabbi Salomon said what he said, and he meant it. Sweep it under the carpet, when the Torah tells us to. He is talking about child sex abuse committed by rabbis and other "frum" Jewish adults. But when does the Torah tell us to? And who decides? Rabbi Salomon did not answer these obvious questions.

I'll tell you why Rabbi Salomon is so wrong - because a pedophile repeats his behavior. He is an ongoing threat to children. He must be exposed, and forever barred from contact with children. He should never work in chinuch or any other youth setting again. By the way, this is exactly what the RCA Resolution says, from May 2005. If the pedophile's family members feel shamed or embarrassed, that is, unfortunately, fallout that cannot be prevented. The greater good of protecting children is far more important. There is a pasuk, Lo sa'amod al dam ra'echa, Do not stand upon the blood of your brother. The mitzvah requires one Jew to save the life of another. It means that you don't put a pedophile in close proximity to children. Child sex abuse is a form of retsicha, and a pedophile is a rodef. You heard none of this from Rabbi Salomon.

Rabbi Salomon's view, by the way, which has carried the day, is much different than that of Rabbi Levine, another Moetses member, who said, Let's NOT sweep it under the rug, there's no more room, and this was said at the May 2003 Torah U'Mesorah Convention, where there was a session on the child sex abuse problem. What did Rabbi Levine mean? That we erred in the past, as demonstrated by the fact that the cases have increased. We now need to change course, and at least publicize the problem.

I think, Gil, that you're looking for some type of hechsher from the Aguda types. Fuggehdaboutit. You can't dance at two weddings.

In Rabbi Salomon's view, the perpetrator should be dealt with by beis din, behind closed doors, some form of punishment/teshuva should be imposed, and the community will not be informed. That is daas Torah.

The great flaw in Rabbi Salomon's reasoning is that the perpetrator can pick himself up, resign from his charedi yeshiva, and move to an out-of-town day school. His guilt is under the rug, and his new employer neither knows about the rug, nor what's under it.

By the way, everybody, we will NEVER see a nationwide registry of sex and violent offenders initiated by Aguda and Torah U'Mesorah. If it ever does happen, it will need to be initiated by other camps, and/or imposed by the Government.
Ploni ben Avrohom | 11.25.06 - 11:52 pm | #

"In Rabbi Salomon's view, the perpetrator should be dealt with by beis din, behind closed doors, some form of punishment/teshuva should be imposed, and the community will not be informed. That is daas Torah."

Sad.
tzvee | Homepage | 11.25.06 - 11:57 pm | #

The Haredi "wise men" will pay the same price the OU paid for their obfuscation of their problem. When one Haredi rabbi winds up behind bars,all these brave guys will hide under the carpet. [deleted]

Edited By Siteowner
MO MAN | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:40 am | #

I think, Gil, that you're looking for some type of hechsher from the Aguda types.

Far from it. I've just chosen to sit on my post and think about it before posting it.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:44 am | #

The great flaw in Rabbi Salomon's reasoning is that the perpetrator can pick himself up, resign from his charedi yeshiva, and move to an out-of-town day school.

No, the great flaw is that there are too few people, with too little training, involved. A few (extremely dedicated) rabbis with little experience and no professional training cannot solve the entire community's many problems.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:55 am | #

>Sweep it under the carpet, when the Torah tells us to. He is talking about child sex abuse committed by rabbis and other "frum" Jewish adults. But when does the Torah tell us to? And who decides? Rabbi Salomon did not answer these obvious questions.

R' Wachsman already answered that:

"When they asked the CI - where in the Torah does it say that, he opened his jacket, pointed inwards, and said - right here."
ed | 11.26.06 - 7:56 am | #

>No, the great flaw is that there are too few people, with too little training, involved. A few (extremely dedicated) rabbis with little experience and no professional training cannot solve the entire community's many problems.

Well, if you are referring to RMS when you talk about dealing with people with 'no professional training', you don't know what you are talking about.

RMS deals with, on a constant basis, trained mental health professionals. He refers people to professionals all the time!
(Psychologists, social workers etc..)

To claim that RMS is not aware of the need for trained professionals, is just uninformed and plain wrong.

BTW- 'ploni' are you so sure that there is never a Torah obligation to protect the accused? People who always take the accused side in their zeal for what they feel is a form of 'retzicha' (perhaps rightfully so), get me very worried.

We do have halachos that come into play with regard to ruining someones reputation you know. Even if caution must be taken with regard to children, this doesn't mean that we need to ruin someones life if we can avoid it.

(l'hisvayish p'nei chaveiro b'rabim is certainly a form of retzicha. Not to mention the damage on the accused's wife, children, shiduchim etc..)
Anonymous | 11.26.06 - 8:26 am | #

I am very well aware of the involvement of trained professionals.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 9:36 am | #

R' Wachsman already answered that:

"When they asked the CI - where in the Torah does it say that, he opened his jacket, pointed inwards, and said - right here."
ed

a classic "daas Torah " response. BTW that classic is relatively new-roughly from the time that Vatican 1 promulgated the doctrine of papal infallibility-did the Agudanh types-technically found rarely before Agudah's founding.

Trivia-about Agudah-who was the only American to go to the first Agudah convention in Europe?
R. Dov REvel.
mycroft | 11.26.06 - 9:46 am | #

>I am very well aware of the involvement of trained professionals.

Then why did you earlier say:

"A few (extremely dedicated) rabbis with little experience and no professional training cannot solve the entire community's many problems."

Without adding that trained professionals ARE involved?
ed | 11.26.06 - 9:46 am | #

Because it is the rabbis without the professional training who are doing the exhausting and seemingly endless day-to-day work.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 9:57 am | #

>a classic "daas Torah " response.

Are you denying what the Chazon Ish said? Are you saying that what he said isn't good enough for you?!?

>BTW that classic is relatively new-roughly from the time that Vatican 1 promulgated the doctrine of papal infallibility-did the Agudanh types-technically found rarely before Agudah's founding.

R' Wachman mentioned that too. He said that such statements as yours comes from an absolute ignorance of what Daas Torah means. People who are ignorant tend to associate their confusions with something they are familar with, such as confusing Daas Torah with the pope, which is as stupid and silly as it gets, since Gedolei Torah among themselves always had arguments in Hashkofa and Halacha.
ed | 11.26.06 - 10:02 am | #

>Because it is the rabbis without the professional training who are doing the exhausting and seemingly endless day-to-day work.

But you admitted that they are involved with trained professionals. What more do you expect them?
ed | 11.26.06 - 10:05 am | #

A methodical, professional way of dealing with issues, including a certain amount of transparency.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 10:20 am | #

First of all, RMS has at least one major prominent psychologist's cell number on his speed dial. Kach Shamati. I find it hard to believe that RMS said that we should sweep the problem under the carpet in its entirety.

OTOH, the notion that RAK "paskened" that we should meekly accept Pshat in any sugya without delving into the sugya, the Rishonim, Acharonim and words of the Gdolim-both those who are "goresed" inside and outside of BMG IMO runs contrary to the basic notions of Talmud Torah. On many sugyos, psak halacha simply doesn't exist or is irrelevant to understanding pshat of the Tanaim or Amoraim or the views of the Rishonim. One does not approach a blatt Gemara by opening up a KSA or handbook of the Psakim of any Gadol.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 10:21 am | #

Once again-IMO this point is critical-did RMS say that problems should be swept under the rug within the Charedi world because the Torah says so? I find it very hard to accept such a statement especially since RMS utilizes and relies upon the services of frum, college educated mental health professionals.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 10:35 am | #

"..college educated mental health professionals..."

Hopefully, MD, PhD, and PsyD educated individuals who, after receiving advanced degrees, went on to receive clinical professional training.
anti-meshichist | 11.26.06 - 11:12 am | #

Rabbi Blau's approach to dealing with child molesters is correct. He says the following:

1) It would be preferable to deal with these issues privately in order to prevent humiliation of so many families involved.

2) Preventing humiliation takes no priority over the obligation to protect children from molestation.

3) Since the frum community has shown itself to be completely inept in dealing with sexual abuse--(they essentially give child molesters jobs as teachers in a different school and write letters of haskama for them, and then they molest more boys and girls, etc.)--public disclosure of the identities of child molesters and turning them over to the police is the only method we can use. (Numerous Rabbonim have poskinned that this is NOT mesirah. Perhaps Rabbi Solomon disagrees, but he is not my rebbe and I am not responsible for his concerns.)

You have a choice between Rabbi Solomon and Rabbi Blau. I choose Rabbi Blau.
anti-meshichist | 11.26.06 - 11:19 am | #

Anti-meschichist-Read my first post on this issue. Again-RMS has one of the most premier frum and PhD trained psychologists on his speed dial. I would never confuse RMS's rhetoric with a recognition of where and who RMS turns to for advice on these issues.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 11:32 am | #

There is indeed a Gemara which
states that the misdeeds of a Talmid
Chochom should be hidden however
it is clear to me that the
intention of that Gemara is only
when there is a non-public way of
dealing with it- not to ignore it!
Also, it's probably when the Talmid Chochom is not a threat to others!
I hope Gil is right in his interpretation.

Gil-is it possible u could put ur recording on-line or a transcript.
I've ordered things from the Agudh before- only to find some parts omitted.

[deleted] - Yasher Koach but watch your
language!!!

Edited By Siteowner
mavin | 11.26.06 - 11:40 am | #

>A methodical, professional way of dealing with issues, including a certain amount of transparency.

Your approach starts from a secular perspective, and you attempt to make it fit with a Torah perspective.

R' Solomon's approach is the reverse.
ed | 11.26.06 - 11:41 am | #

>OTOH, the notion that RAK "paskened" that we should meekly accept Pshat in any sugya without delving into the sugya, the Rishonim, Acharonim and words of the Gdolim-both those who are "goresed" inside and outside of BMG IMO runs contrary to the basic notions of Talmud Torah.

RAK never said that.
ed | 11.26.06 - 11:45 am | #

>Once again-IMO this point is critical-did RMS say that problems should be swept under the rug within the Charedi world because the Torah says so?

You're misquoting. He didn't say problems SHOULD be swept under. He said THERE ARE problems that should be swept under (NOT ALL!!), in accordance with the direction of Torah.

>I find it very hard to accept such a statement especially since RMS utilizes and relies upon the services of frum, college educated mental health professionals.

Of course. When RMS' understanding of Torah says go to a professional, he goes to one. And when it says sweep it under, then he follows accordingly.
ed | 11.26.06 - 11:51 am | #

I'm trying to fathom how the Torah or those who speak in the name of Torah can decide what sexual predator's behavior should be swept under the carpet.

It is common knowledge that this disease is not able to be cured, and these pedophiles just continue their behavior elsewhere.

So someone decides that the Torah says this or that, that's the problem. People with no knowledge of the illness are making these life shattering decisions in the name of the Torah. Sheer stupidity.
MO MAN | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:00 pm | #

The Agudah and its approach is certainly an approach among others in Yahadus. Agudah BTW was formed relatively late in Jewish history-over a decade after the OU was formed in the US,it was formed after and largely in reaction to the establishment of the Mizrachi. They are a political party and organization that like others believes it is supporting Klal Israel-their rabbonim do not have amonopoly on what is emes-we don't know what shamayim paskens like.
Specific response to Ed:
a classic "daas Torah " response.

Are you denying what the Chazon Ish said?
No
Are you saying that what he said isn't good enough for you?
The CI was a gadol-but his authority was only persuasive authority-he was not head of any community-certainly not head of my community -unlike R Chaim Ozer. It is no secret that the CI had hashkafot different than many other Rabbonim-one is not required to follow the CI in his hashkafot-the vast majority of MO reject his statements about 5th seder of shulchan aruch etc

>BTW that classic is relatively new-roughly from the time that Vatican 1 promulgated the doctrine of papal infallibility-did the Agudanh types-technically found rarely before Agudah's founding.

R' Wachman mentioned that too.
He mentioned Vatican 1 as what people believe is the cause of daas Torah?

He said that such statements as yours comes from an absolute ignorance of what Daas Torah means.
To me the basic bible on Daas Torah are two similar pieces recollection about 15 and 25 years ago by frequent hirhurim commentator Lawrence Kaplan on Daas Torah-may I suggest you read them. BTW-I don't recall Kaplan making the Vatican 1 reference I did-since Prof. kaplan is the one who populariized the exposure of "daas Troah" I have a wonder that R. Wachsman would have referred to Vatican 1!!

People who are ignorant tend to associate their confusions with something they are familar with, such as confusing Daas Torah with the pope, which is as stupid and silly as it gets

, since Gedolei Torah among themselves always had arguments in Hashkofa and Halacha.

So whose Daas torah counts R. Wachsman, Rav Ploni Almoni, Gils. eds , mycrofts,, In one respect we all follow Daas Torah-what we individually believe Torah demands of us-it need not be the same as what the Agudah Board says it is.

ed | 11.26.06 - 10:02 am | #
mycroft | 11.26.06 - 12:03 pm | #

Ed-what if the advice given by a professional and the decision to sweep an issue under the carpet cannot be reconciled-especially in the case of a pedophile-what would RMS have us do-pass the offending educator around from school to school? Aside from the issue of an accused pedophile-which other issues would RMS view as deserving such a treatment?
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 12:09 pm | #

"Your approach starts from a secular perspective, and you attempt to make it fit with a Torah perspective."

Ed-There is no such thing as "THE Torah perspective" on how to deal with child molestation.

Every serious Torah Jew realizes that there is a need to protect children from sexual predators. Every serious Torah Jew knows that it is forbidden to spread loshon hora about people unless there are overwhelming reasons to do so and many specific parameters have been met (as deliniated in the halahka). Every honest Torah Jew knows that there is a serious problem in the Frum community (like many other communities) of denial and repression of the reality of sexual abuse.

If Rabbi M. Solomon has developed a way of dealing responsibly with these horrible cases which avoids publicizing the situation then no one would object. The problem is that most of us have no confidence that he is successful in dealing with these situations because stories of molestation of children continue, and the sexual predators are simply moved around the country, or in some cases around the city.

As a frum psychiatrist who lives out of town, I end up hearing about cases and situations in other cities because I am a resource who is not "noge'a be-davar". The cases continue. The exist in both modern orth. communities as well as in the Haredi communities. In modern orth. communities, there has been a recent increase in professionalism in handling these situations because of the OU-NCSY scandal, the scandal involving a famous Haredi rabbi who molested boys for decades at institutions which were popular among modern families, and a famous scandal involving a Y.U. graduate and musmach who later became a non-Orthodox New Age-Jewish Renewal cult figure, and who exhibited gross sexual misconduct on countless occasions, which included seducing his female students (seemingly regardless of age and marital status).

The Haredi leaders would be wise to obsere and learn from these three scandals. They are going on in Haredi world as well. It is a ticking time bomb. The New York Magazine article is the tip of the iceberg.

Our kehillos, Haredi and Modern, are now in serious peril because many institutions will face civil lawsuits for negligence and failure to disclose in cases where it is very clear that molestation and rape of many tinnukos shel beis rabban could have been avoided.

Are you aware that in many states teachers, roshei yeshiva, and congregational rabbis are 'mandatory reporters'? I.e., if they become aware or even if they only have reasonable suspicion of children being victimized sexually by anyone at all, they are obligated to report all the information they are aware of to Child Protective Services? This means that teachers, roshei yeshiva, and congregational rabbis will face criminal prosecution as well as civil liability if they fail to inform Child Protective Services about these cases. This is currently the law in Illinois. It will probably soon be the law in NYS.

I still believe that the amount of sexual abuse which occurs in the Torah community is far less than among he general American public. However, there are more than 500,000 registered sexual offenders in America. And these are only the known offenders. All expert suspect that the vast majority of cases of sexual abuse are unreported (a statistic which, by definition, is unknowable and unproveable).

We are all in the same boat on this issue. If the Haredi world is going to try to create a private method for dealing with this issue, they face the following challenges:
1) It is been shown countless times that the Orthodox world is incapable of dealing with this issue on their own.
2) The civil authorities are now under pressure from the American public to deal with these issues in a serious manner. Orthodox institutions will be scrutinized for how they deal with sexual abuse.
3) The notion that sexual offenders can be mandated to do "teshuva" is at odds with what most experts believe about child molesters. It is a controversial area to be sure, but no one has much confidence in the possibility that such individuals to ever be "safe" around children. More to the point, many sexual offenders are actually sexual predators. They did not succumb one time to a temptation. They are motivated by perverse sexual impulses, and their behavior is predatory and deliberate. They are not interested in teshuva. They are interested in gaining access to children. If they are run out of NYC, they will just move to L.A. and start over, or to Eretz Yisrael.
4) The social structure of Orthodox kehillos is such that there is a huge amountn of access of unknown adults to our children. This is why many sexual predators like to attend Orthodox synagogues. I am aware of many such cases.
5) The fact that many Torah institutions are in violation of mandatory reporting laws.
6) The fact that many Torah institutions are in violation of due dilligence laws--such as performing criminal background checks for any potential employees of schools or shuls
7) The ubiquitous tendency among all human beings to deny the existence of sexual abuse, even when it is occurred r"l to one's own children or to oneself--this makes it very easy to rationalize coverups by invoking the gravity of speaking loshon hora, etc.
8 ) Nothing does more to undermine the stature of rabbonim than learning of their participation in coverups to sexual abuse, and their putting other children at risk.
9) Secrecy is always helpful for sexual predators. The Haredi world for understandable reasons is very squeamish about discussing sexuality in general, and even moreso sexual abuse. It will make it much harder to raise conciousness in this community if everythign is handled silently and secretly. The best protection against sexual abuse is vigilant parenting. Parents deserve to be informed about the presence of sexual offenders in their kehillos. The gedolim are not capable of policing synagogues.
nachum klafter | 11.26.06 - 12:20 pm | #

I forgot to mention the fact that the already horrible psychological, physical, and spiritual impact on the victim of sexual abuse is amplified and magnified by a culture of secrecy. The victim already feels horribly guilty and filthy for abominations which he/she is not responsible. To add the burden of silence, or respecting the "teshuva" of the perpetrator (and all of these perpetrators claim to do "teshuva"), is very damaging to the recovery of these victims.

I am aware of a case involving one of the Haredi "gedolei ha-dor" who poskinned that a girl was not allowed to tell a therapist that her father raped her because her father had done "teshuva" and she was not allowed to speak loshon horah against him. (Note: There is no issur loshon hora in psychotherapy. See the Maharal Nisiv ha-Lashon, perek 2, or email me privately for and I will explain why this is the case and will share the identities of posekim who will confirm this). I am aware of another case where a girl was raped repeatedly by her brother (who had been raped by his rebbe in yeshiva). The family was told to separate the boy from the girl. The girl developed serious behavioral problems (as is common in cases of sexual abuse) and therefore was sent out of the house to an out of town girls high school. She was admonished by her family's rebbe not to reveal this to anyone, and the parents were told to keep her out of town so that she would not spread loshon hora about their son locally and therfore they would have greater success in finding him a shiddukh. By the way, that girl is now addicted to drugs, is completely non-observant, and has been disowned by her family. I am aware of numerous similar cases.

IN theory, it is possible to separate the communal policy from the individual pesak for a victim. However, in reality, this cannot be separated so clearly. The victim because a scapegoat for the community. "If only he/she would stop making such a big deal out of this and we could just put it behind us..." This is such a common attitude toward victims of sexual abuse, and this attitude is common among non-Jews as well as Jews.

The interesting thing about everyone talking about the "Torah perspective", which justifies cover-ups, shrouded in the rationalizations of protecting the issur of loshon hora or the obligation to prevent embarrassment of talmidei chachamim--IS THAT THESE PERSPECTIVES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE REACTIONS OF GENTILES TO SEXUAL ABUSE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND SCHOOLS. THERE IS NOTHING FRUM ABOUT THIS PERSPECTIVE AT ALL. IN FACT THERE IS NOTHING JEWISH ABOUT IT.

It is indeed frustrating for me to read many of the sanctimonious comments above, citing the Chazon Ish or the Mo'etzes Gedolei HaTorah. Is that really what we need sages for, to repackage the natural but misguided reactions (denial, secrecy, and unintended collusion) of all human beings to sexual abuse in a "frum" language ("bizayon", "hillul HaSHem", "loshon hora", etc.)?
nachum klafter | 11.26.06 - 12:38 pm | #

Rabbi Solomon:

"Let's talk about what we do."

"Do these people know how many times perpetrators have been dealt with?"

"Do these people know to what extent one has to have the courage to start up against public opinion in order to make sure to protect our children?"

"The only thing is, the dust was swept under the carpet..... Because we protect human dignity!"

"We are not the cowards of these anonymous people. We are courageous. And let it be said!"

"And sometimes when a thing is not proven 100%, yes, we are guided by the Torah. We don't jump to conclussions and their consequence. And we must be proud of this. And the Olam Hatorah has to be proud of their Manhigim."

"One has to know, that this point in itself, the Taanah that one sweeps things under the carpet, in itself, is our greatest honor. Because its done Al Derech Hatorah, B'ruach Hatorah, Al Pi Hatorah Hakedosha."

"If someone slips through the fingers, the Chupzta to hold that up, as an example on Klal Yisroel."
ed | 11.26.06 - 12:40 pm | #

Gil-is it possible u could put ur recording on-line or a transcript.

Call Zalman Umlaus in Flatbush for tapes.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 12:48 pm | #

Ed-I stand by what R Gil, Mycroft,myself and others have pointed out to where and who is considered within the pantheon,legacy and development of the Mesorah of BMG and RAK ZTL. I also stand by my posts of 11.24 on Mitzvas Talmud Torah.

It is interesting that RAMK is viewed almost in a Chasidishe sense as the heir to the Mesorah of BMG and RAK ZTL. [deleted]

Edited By Siteowner
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 12:48 pm | #

>So someone decides that the Torah says this or that, that's the problem. People with no knowledge of the illness are making these life shattering decisions in the name of the Torah. Sheer stupidity.

People who have no knowledge of what 'Daas Torah' and 'Al Pi Derech Hatorah ' mean, are deciding what Gedolim have the right to pasken on. [deleted]

Edited By Siteowner
ed | 11.26.06 - 12:53 pm | #

"Again-RMS has one of the most premier frum and PhD trained psychologists on his speed dial"

Steve -- If you're referring to Dr. Twerski then explain why Dr. Twerski stood before a roomful of Torah Temimah parents and referred to Rabbi Margolis in the most glowing terms, despite Rabbi Margolis' proven complicity in covering for a heinous child molestor for nearly a quarter century?

And of not, then who is the trained psychologist?
still wonderin' | 11.26.06 - 12:57 pm | #

Still wonderin-the DR Twerski that you mentioned is the lawyer-R D Aharon Twerski, a prominent Agudah official, not the psychiatrist-R D Avraham Twerski
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 1:08 pm | #

>They are a political party and organization that like others believes it is supporting Klal Israel-their rabbonim do not have amonopoly on what is emes-we don't know what shamayim paskens like.

Oy. Please. Lo Bashamayim Hee.
ed | 11.26.06 - 1:12 pm | #

People are writing about this as though there is a Haredi vs. a Modern perspective on how to deal with sexual abuse. Everyone would be wise to admit that the problem in the Haredi world is not more substantial than the problem in Modern Orth. communities. The policy in Modern Orth. communities for how to deal with these cases did not change because of the wisdom of our rabbonim, or because of openness to modern sensibilities. It changed because the existences of several of our organizations and mosdos are threatened by scandal and lawsuits. Denial, secrecy, and sweeping under the carpet are not unique to Haredi, Orthodox, or Jewish institutions. They are typical reactions of well intentioned, scandalized human beings to the horrible shock of childhood sexual abuse. See my two lenghty posts above at 12:20pm and 12:38pm.
Nachum Klafter | 11.26.06 - 1:21 pm | #

OK Gil, let me try this, Mr. Censor Hagodol.

Rabbi Solomon questioned, "Does anyone know the courage it takes to stand up to public opinion to protect our children?"

I suggest he ask Mr.UOJ.
MO MAN | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 1:30 pm | #

Ed-Assuming that your quotes from RMS are accurate, IMO, it is the view of other Gdolim BaTorah that :

1)Not enough discussion has been had on this issue.
2) Perpretrators have been hidden by shifting them from school to school and job to job
3) the dignity of the perpretrator has been maintained at the expense of the mental and physical health of the accused, especially when the conduct of the perpetrator if unpunished, will repeat itself over and over again.
4) Manhigim who engage in pedophilic conduct should be viewed with revulsion, not pride or protected via a misplaced sense of courage ( which in and of itself is based on a misapplication of Mesirah)
5) Tanach sweeps certain, but by all no means, not all unpleasant issues under the carpet.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 1:33 pm | #

One more point-(6) Look at how the Talmud and Rambam define Chillul HaShem. The Bushah is that we as a community view pedophiles as appropriate teachers and role models.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 1:35 pm | #

Steve, I think you misread "Taanah" for "Tanach."

In any event, Ed, if you think we're supposed to be impressed with all those quotes from R' Solomon, I'm afraid you're accomplishinh exactly the opposite with me. They're just making me more disgusted. Basically, they just boil down to a giant "Trust us."
Nachum Lamm | 11.26.06 - 1:51 pm | #

I'm a lawyer who has been active in attempting to persuade our mosdos to perform employee background checks; comply with mandatory reporting laws; and establish a registry of offenders (sexual and violent) who should not be working near children.

I was at the Thursday night session. What's been written here by those commentators who were also present is accurate, and that includes the meaning of what Rabbi Salomon said, which was not hard to discern. Sweep it under the rug, when the Torah tells us to. This means deal with the perpetrator privately, without shaming his family, set up a teshuva program, and do not notify the community.

This is completely unworkable, as Dr. Nachum Klafter writes, both in practice and theory. In practice, because its been tried, and predators are still moving from city to city, and even between Israel and the U.S. How could it be otherwise? If there is no registry for a yeshiva/day school to check before hiring a rebbe or other employee, multiple abuse incidents will occur.

In theory, because a private beis din giving a psak of teshuva to a sex offender, and expecting compliance, is a naive view to say the least. There is no cure for pedophilia. It requires lifetime therapy, and quarantine from children.
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.26.06 - 2:07 pm | #

>In any event, Ed, if you think we're supposed to be impressed with all those quotes from R' Solomon, I'm afraid you're accomplishinh exactly the opposite with me. They're just making me more disgusted. Basically, they just boil down to a giant "Trust us."

I took utmost care to attempt to accurately type his words based on my handheld tape recorder.

Please note, that what I quoted is what he said in public. "I" am not attempting to impress anyone. There was a discusion here in regards to what he said, and I made an attempt to present his actual words.
ed | 11.26.06 - 2:19 pm | #

Elliot Passik,

I do recall seeing a post of yours on UOJ berating him for his choice of vocabulary. I do admire your courage for that, and for what you're doing for the benefit of the Klal.

Have you consulted with Rabbonim from the Moetzes in regard to your Practical and Theoretical points? Or with any other Rabbonim? If yes, can you share that with us? If not, why haven't you?
ed | 11.26.06 - 2:29 pm | #

I would add that Mr. Pasik and I were both hired recently to speak to rabbonim about these and other issues related to professional misconduct. B"H, professional miscondunct and sexual misconduct is extremely rare among rabbonim. We are blessed with a preponderance of admirable spiritual leaders and mechanchim. However, the presence of a few sexual predators in our kehillos is enough to wreak havoc on thousands of lives, and our rabbincal leadership is not yet equipped to handle this problem. This is not surprising. There is really no one, secular or religious, Jewish or Gentile, who has developed a failsafe program to protect children. However, silence and secrecy are the most effective means to perpetuate an intergenerational cycle of sexual trauma--that much is clear to all experts.

In discussing these issues with rabbonim and lay leadership, I have come to the following conclusion: Some individuals (not just Haredi, but perhaps moreso Haredi) feel threatened and offended by the very notion that social ills (sexual abuse, spousal abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, etc.) exist in frum kehillos, or that religious leadership cannot deal with all social problems. That is why "Daas
Torah" and "Derekh Ha-Torah" are being invoked above. This is a non-argument, which is designed to delegitimize any problems or challenges to the implausible proposal that private, secret tribunals can be used to stop sexual abuse.

I am aware of Haredi Day School that received an application for a gemara Rebbe position. He seemed to be a good applicant. The principal received an anonymous phone call from someone saying that they should stay away from this guy, but no explanation as to why. The principal called a dayan in the city of the applicant's origin. He was told--"I know what this person is referring to. You could definitely go ahead and hire him, but don't let him go into the bathroom unaccompanied if other children are present."

Whenever rabbonim contend that they have received legal and clinical advice that these situations can be handled secretly and privately, then it is no wonder that many other rabbonim, attorneys, and mental health professionals will have serious doubts about the appropriateness of the guidance they are receiving.
nachum klafter | 11.26.06 - 2:37 pm | #

I've begun some posts on the convention before reading the outstanding response on Hirhurim.

I also want to add that expecting any responsible person to ruin another's life not al pi torah is unreasonable and cruel to the innocent family.

At the same time, Mr. Pasik's suggestion of background checks and a registry could easily be implemented and limited to mosdos on a 'need to know basis'. Every shadchan does not need to know. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to leave chinuch.
Leapa | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:43 pm | #

I would note that in Israel there is a registry of mamzerim and in Europe the rabbonim are starting a "Jewish Interpol" to track and deal with men who leave their wives agunot.

So why in America can our rabbonim not do something about our sexual predator problem?
jewishwhistleblower | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:47 pm | #

>to mosdos on a 'need to know basis'.

If you are a parent you "need to know".
jewishwhistleblower | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:50 pm | #

Ed -

Yes, I've been in contact with the Aguda Moetses and other rabbis.

Everybody is basically on board for background checks - but getting them to do it is another matter.

On mandatory reporting and a registy, some are in favor, some against.

Question: who's in charge? Yes, the rebbe has r'shus over the neshama, but the parents have r'shus over the guf of the child. There are yeshivas today that do more in securing permission slips from parents for museum day trips for children, than in protecting the children from sex offenders.

From my legal, and also halachic vantage point, my question is an easy one. Of course, the parent has exclusive authority for the physical well being of his child. The school nurse can't give the child a Tylenol, without the parent's permission.

Viewed from this perspective, the Agudah evening was an interesting one, but to some extent irrelevant. I'm the boss over my child's guf, and so are you if you have children in school. Of course, I've sought the guidance of rabbis, both as rabbis and fellow fathers. I've sought guidance from doctors also, both as doctor and fathers. In fact, Dr. Nachum Klafter's comments here have been very helpful for increasing my understanding of the nature and extent of the problem, so thanks Nachum.

At the end of the day, the parents can and should have the final say over background checks; mandatory reporting; internal disciplinary system and registry.

In addition to dealing with Aguda, I proposed and drafted the May 2005 RCA Resolution, appearing on their website at rabbis.org, which endorsed mandatory background checks, and a registy.

Finally, if anybody reading this is in the Rockland County area, at 8 pm tonight, 11-26 at the Dvar Shul, 4 Village Green, Wesley Hills, Monsey, I will be speaking about the new NY nonpublic school background check law, together with Rabbi Chaim Friedman, the shul rav, and Rosh Kollel at Yeshiva Dvar Yerushalayim (Topic: Square Pegs in Round Holes in our Yeshiva System); and Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn, Torah scholar and author, with haskomos from gedolei Torah (Topic: Parents Power: Advice from the Great Rabbis of the Past Generation).
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.26.06 - 2:54 pm | #

From Leapa's website:
>Rav Solomon nicely addressed the
>issue of blogs 'outing' purported
>child abusers in our community. He
>made a neat rhetorical spin on the
>charge that these charges are 'swept
>under the carpet'.
>He said (paraphrased) "Yes, we do
>sweep these things under the carpet!
>We sweep under the carpet the many
>cases we take firm action on to
>protect the families of these
>(abusers) as we get them out of
>chinuch. And we cannot be faulted if
>a few cases slip through our
>fingers!"

My comment -
Yes you can and must, how else will the sutuation improve? If you take on the responsibility to protect our children and silence others with different approaches, you must be held accountable when you are wrong.

Because when you are wrong it is worse than Jews eating treifut, the neshamas of innocent Jewish children are murdered.
jewishwhistleblower | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:55 pm | #

Whistleblower - you only need to know about your child's rebbeim.
Dor Yeshorim style, perhaps.
Leapa | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 2:58 pm | #

>Whistleblower - you only need to
>know about your child's rebbeim.

And what about the people in your shul that go in to the washroom at the same time as your child?

Those who babysit, tutor your children?

Your child's friends parents where he/she spends time and has sleepovers and who drive your child to various places?

And the list goes on ....
jewishwhistleblower | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:04 pm | #

The more information parents have, the better tools they have to protect their children.

If you think otherwise, go talk to the parents who trusted in the Catholic priesthood to look out for their children.
jewishwhistleblower | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:07 pm | #

You're very welcome, Elliot. I admire and am grateful for the work you are doing. I have no doubt that you will end up indirectly saving thousands of lives by speeding up the process with which the Torah community deals seriously and effectively with this issue, and I am honored to have been included in the same speaking venue as you.

To everyone else here: I strongly recommend Mr. Pasik as a speaker for your school, beis din, shul, va'ad ha rabbonim, or similar rabbinical body where the individuals there are responsible for setting policies for how to deal with reports of sexual abuse. There is a mass of legal, psychological, and halakhic information that anyone in a position of authority must assimilate before making communal decisions. Mr. Pasik is an expert in the secular legal aspects of this complex issue, and he is a vital resrouce for anyone facing the resopnsibility of how to negotiate these challenges. He can at least explain to you what the state laws are in your jurisdiction. Wouldn't that be an important thing for educators and poseqim to know about?
nachum klafter | 11.26.06 - 3:12 pm | #

Whistleblower:

There are already public databases for that.

You are diluting your issue, which should focus on the school or camp, where the child spends many hours out of the parents' control and in the control of the mechanech.

If I slap your child on the back in shul (perhaps because he's the first one in the room for tehillim) will I appear on your proposed registry?
Leapa | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:12 pm | #

>Then they put up RMS to confirm what we already know; they intend to rely on their own "daas" to continue to do as they see fit.

>After all the bizyonos, they will continue to stonewall this issue. UNREAL!

What is truly unreal, is the idea that for thousands of years, Klal Yisroel was lead by our Gedolim, and an anonymous commenter under his cowardly disguise has no qualms stating that he knows better.

Let me see you say that in RMS's face.
ed | 11.26.06 - 3:14 pm | #

In case nobody has yet cited the Gemora in Moed Katan that is the basis for not publicizing the moral downfall of a talmid chacham, it's on 17a.

Of course, that's where yilbash shchorim is too, so it's hard to claim that the gemora is self explanatory.
Barzilai | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:17 pm | #

"Whistleblower: There are already public databases for that."

But, if our rabbonim don't turn the identities over to the police of sexual predators who have raped and molested our children, then these predators will not be found in the public databases! Indeed, the vast majority of them are NOT.

Why do you not understand this point?
nachum klafter | 11.26.06 - 3:20 pm | #

FYI, I am editing and deleting comments heavily in this thread. If you see a comment quoting a previous comment that no longer exists, it is because I have deleted it.

JWB has been banned from this blog. I left up the comments that are not beyond the pale.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:22 pm | #

Also, I will b"n post more extensive comments on the Agudah speeches later tonight.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:27 pm | #

Dr. Klafter,

If you follow the thread, you see I'm not referring to the mechanchim that Rabbonim are in the best position to know about.

This was a response to 'babysitters, etc'.

Do you think that the rabbonim are to be put in charge of reporting babysitters?

I am in favor of anything protecting children while providing safeguards against ancillary damage.
Leapa | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:27 pm | #

Re JWB:
Thanks for the editing, R' Gil.
Leapa | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:29 pm | #

I have known R E Pasik since our days in Cardozo LS's initial class,. He is a Ben Torah who is respectful of Gdolim and whose first interest is the physical, mental and emotional well being of our children during the time that they are entrusted to the principals, administrators, rebbes, moros and bus drivers who act as locus parentus during the school day.It is more than apparent that as long as we are told that the problem is either under control or should be swept underground that parents will continue to display a lack of confidence in the safety that is supposed to be provided to their children.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 3:32 pm | #

"Do you think that the rabbonim are to be put in charge of reporting babysitters?"

The law in all jurisdictions is (as far as I am aware) that ALL teachers are mandatory reporters in all cases where they learn of sexual or physical abuse of anyone under 18 years of age. This means that they are obligated to notify Child Protective Services and/or the local police if they learn of allegations of sexual abuse, even if they do not have full confirmation of the veracity of these allegations. Whether the allegations are founded will be the responsibility of Child Protective Services to determine, and not the responsibility of the teacher. This would include a situation where a babysitter perpetrated sexual abuse, and even a case where the child who was molested, raped, or assaulted was not a child in their school.

In some jurisdictions, congregational rabbis are also mandatory reporters.

In all jurisdictions (to my knowledge) all physicians are also mandatory reporters.

Failure by a mandatory reporter (e.g., teacher, Rosh Yeshiva, doctor, and in some states a congregational rabbi) to report cases of sexual abuse is grounds for professional censure, criminal prosecution, and civil liability. Sadly, it is civil liability which appears to be the main source of motivation for institutions to implement compliance with these laws.

You have asked whether I think this is a good idea. Yes, I do. But don't bother arguing with me. This is the law. The posekim I am familiar with have ruled that reporting sexual and physical abuse to Child Protective Services is NOT MESIRAH, and this is the halakhic guidance that I rely upon in order practice medicine according to the parameters of my license and the laws of Ohio.

I don't have the data first hand, but my intuition is reporting babysittes who sexually and physically abuse the children they are babysitting for would be a very effective way to stop such individuals from becoming camp counselors, rebbeim, social workers, janitors in schools, or any other career where they will gain access to children. It would also prevent other parents from hiring the same babysitter.

Personal story: We personally hired a babysitter who lied to us about what occurred with our child. She was embarrassed of forgetting to feed our babty, and embarrassed of the fact that our baby did not stop crying. I suspect however that she also struck our infant, but I do not know for sure. We learned, later, that the same individuals who served as a reference for her no longer hire her because she screamed at their children inappropriately. We confronted these two families about this, and they told us that they were told they were not allowed to interfere with her parnassah and that they should assume that she did teshuva.

Yes, this was preposterously stupid and incompetent pesak halakha for these families. However, this is our reality: There are many, many people out there who would rather put your childern at risk for physical harm rather than put their souls at spiritul harm by speaking loshon hora. I have more confidence in Child Protective Services (which is itself by no means a perfect system!) than I do in the common sense of well intentioned frum people.

Elliot Pasik should please comment on whether my understanding of the laws is correct.
nachum klafter | 11.26.06 - 3:44 pm | #

When I was teaching the Gemora in Moed Kattan, one of the talmidim pointed out that the two gemoros, unfortunately, are symbiotic. If you do like Reish Lakish--hide the sins of a talmid chacham, then you are giving the avaryan the opportunity to do what R' Illa'i said--to put on shechorim (a black hat and suit) and go to a place where nobody knows him, and they will give him a chezkas kashrus, and he will be able to do what his heart desires.
Barzilai | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 3:52 pm | #

This is the first (but not the last) time in history that agudah and the moetzes knew that every word that came out of their mouth would be scrutinized.

They are being put in a very uncomfortable position. This is something that they are not used to.

The fact of the matter is no matter what issues are being discussed, they were (and are being) rendered impotent by the blogs and the internet. The fire and smugness they once displayed is long gone.
anon | 11.26.06 - 4:04 pm | #

NC - Some state jurisdictions establish nonpublic school employees, and clergy, as mandated reporters.

Probably all jurisdictions accept voluntary reports of child abuse/neglect from nonpublic school employees, or any other citizen for that matter.

Probably all state jurisdictions establish physicians as mandated reporters.

Ed - I don't know.
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.26.06 - 4:06 pm | #

Ed-The NY Magazine article hinted that one claim of abuse stemmed back to the 1970s or 1980s. While that claim might be untimely, the defense of lack of a timely claim may be deemed waived as a matter of law if the defendant withheld knowledge of the facts underlying the claim. AFAIK, the same lawyer filed another claim that was timely.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 4:16 pm | #

WADR, those who view the issue as one of Daas Torah or any regulations precluded by Mesirah should read the account at R Harry Maryles blog about a BT's bchor who the system chewed up and spit out and who consequently is off the derech.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 4:39 pm | #

Please don't discuss specific cases and don't quote extensive legal briefs.
Gil | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 5:32 pm | #

Yasher koach to Dr. Nachum Klafter and Elliot Pasik, Esq. for their professional psychiatric and legal opinions on the sexual abuse of minors issue. I would disagree, however, that the torah does not deal with such abuse. It's a question of understanding the torah and talmud properly. The torah compares someone who pursues a betrothed maiden to a would-be murderer. This rodef must be stopped even at the cost of his life. Someone who sodomizes minors is clearly a rodef who must also be stopped. The best current way to eliminate the threat that he poses is to inform the secular authorities. They have the power and, hopefully, the inclination to effectively deal with him. The religious authorities, do not. Someone who sexually abuses children in other ways (I don't mean, patting their faces) must also be stopped even if he may not, technically, be a rodef. Any avoidance of reporting such activities to the authorities makes you transgress "Uvi'arta hara'ah mikirbecha", "Lo ta'amod al dam re'acha", as well as "lifnei iver..". The talmud forbids giving a son to be apprenticed to a Gentile because they were suspect of sexually abusing their charges. The same prohibition should hold against anyone who is regarded as a sexual predator - even without airtight evidence. It's sad when a rebbe has to be treated like a suspect Gentile, but that's the reality.

Y. Aharon
Anonymous | 11.26.06 - 5:44 pm | #

Y Aharon-While I also am attracted the term rodef or adam hamazik, I also think that there are sugyos and shitos that discuss a teacher who is negligent or uses excessive force on a child, aside from the Torah prohibitions against sexual transgressions with a minor or anyone else. How "parnassah" can justify the continued employment of the case cited by D N Klafter escapes me.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 6:05 pm | #

Dr. Klafter, it would seem you are intentionally misunderstanding a common sense point about the proper duties and obligations of rabbonim , in this case vis-a-vis baby sitters.
Leapa | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 6:52 pm | #

The Tzitz EliezerZT"L wrote the first teshuvah,that I am aware of ,considering the molester a rodef and therefore to notify the authorities.That there is no issue of moser.See chelek19:52.
daat y | 11.26.06 - 7:04 pm | #

Leepa: I am at a loss as to why you think I am intentionally misunderstanding anything.

Please ask your question clearly and I will do my best to respond, but avoid references to posts above, which are probably contributing to my unintentional misunderstanding.
Nachum Klafter | 11.26.06 - 7:06 pm | #

Daat Y. Thank you for the reference.

A comprehensive article on this, "Informing on Others for Violating American Law: A Jewish Law View" by Michael Broyde, can be found at http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/ mes...mesiralaw2.html

The Tzitz Eliezer (19:52) you are referring to is cited in this article: "Even in the understanding of the secular court system it appears that there is a difference between primitive and enlightened governments as is noted by the Aruch Hashulchan in Choshen Mishpat 388:7 where it states that "every issue related to informing found in the Talmud and poskim deals with those far away places where no one was secure in his money or body because of the bandits and pirates, even those who had authority, as we know nowadays in places like Africa" such is not the case in Europe, as the Aruch Hashulchan notes. ... I write this as a notation of general importance in the matter of the laws of informing."

In addition, the Aruch HaShulchan (Choshen Mishpat 388:7) which is cited by the Tzitz Eliezer is quoted by Rabbi Broyde as well: "As is widely known, in times of old in places far away, no person had any assurance in the safety of his life or money because of the pirates and bandits, even if they took upon themselves the form of government. It is known that this is true nowadays in some places in Africa where the government itself is grounded in theft and robbery. One should remind people of the kingdoms in Europe and particularly our ruler the Czar and his predecessors, and the kings of England, who spread their influence over many lands in order that people should have confidence in the security of their body and money. The wealthy do not have to hide themselves so that others will not loot or kill them. On all of this [the presence of looting and killing] hinges the rules of informing [moser] and slandering [malshin] in the talmud and later authorities, as I will explain infra: These rules apply only to one who informs on another to bandits and so endangers that person's money and life, as these bandits chase after the person's body and money, and thus one may use deadly force to save oneself."
Nachum Klafter | 11.26.06 - 7:34 pm | #

From the same articled by Rabbi Broyde, a fascinating teshuva by Rav Elyashiv:
------------------------
Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv explicitly adopts this logic.

A questioner asked [Rav Elyashiv]: The office of Religious Affairs in our location has been robbed of collected money on more than one occasion. All of the indications point to one of the workers, but all of our efforts have not led this person to confess. We are asking if it is proper to call the police, who after investigation, if successful, will bring the suspect to secular court. The matter could be serious, as we suspect that the person is the husband of a large family, and this person is connected to Torah activities; it is possible that there will be a desecration of God's name, Heaven forbid. On the other hand, public money is missing, and who knows what else is gone.

Rabbi Elyashiv replied: See Responsa Panim Me'erot 2:155 dealing with our matter of one who found an open chest, and much was stolen from it. There is reasonable grounds to believe that one of his workers did this act of theft. Is it permissible to inform on this worker to the secular authorities? He proves from Bava Batra 117 and Bava Metzia 25 that there is a religious duty on the judge of this matter to hit and punish based on the knowledge that he has, when his knowledge is correct. He then quotes from the incident with Rabbi Heshel and the view of the Shach but he ends he concludes "nonetheless I [the author of the Panim Me'erot] say that is it improper to report him to secular authorities, as our Talmud sages recount 'they treat him like a caught animal' and one must be afraid that they will kill him." From this it is clear that such is not applicable in our [Rabbi Elyashiv's] times. By the halacha it would be proper to report him to the police. But, you ponder the possibility that this will lead to a desecration of God's name, and it is not in my ability to evaluate this, since I do not know the facts."
Nachum Klafter | 11.26.06 - 7:40 pm | #

>By the halacha it would be proper to report him to the police. But, you ponder the possibility that this will lead to a desecration of God's name, and it is not in my ability to evaluate this, since I do not know the facts."

So in essence, R' Elyashiv is saying that where there will be Chilul Hashem, one should NOT immediately run to secular authorities. Correct, Dr Klafter?
ed | 11.26.06 - 9:26 pm | #

Lemme get this straight: DO they think that if I hear that Blogs are Assur, I'd end mine? Puh-leez. Most people, particularly bloggers, are individuals, and independent thinkers, not willing to just go with everything they say.
Michelle | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 9:35 pm | #

>Lemme get this straight: DO they think that if I hear that Blogs are Assur, I'd end mine? Puh-leez. Most people, particularly bloggers, are individuals, and independent thinkers, not willing to just go with everything they say.

Michelle,

Lemme get this straight. I checked your blog. You're against bellydancing, because its not in "spirit of the law". But you're willing to defy Daas Torah. Would you mind explaining yourself?
ed | 11.26.06 - 9:59 pm | #

Ed-try rereading RYSE's teshuvah again. As Dr Klafter pointed out, RYSE stated that al pi din, mesirah would be permitted if there was no Chillul HaShem and that he did not have the requisite facts to make that call in the particular case-as opposed to saying that an arrest would automatically cause Chillul HaShem.
Steve Brizel | 11.26.06 - 10:05 pm | #

Steve, I didn't ascertain that arrest is an automatic chilul hashem.

All I said, was that from the quoted words of RYSE, it appears that when there will be chilul hashem (say, as in a newspaper headline - "Rabbi accused of molestation"), mesirah might not be permitted.

Do you agree?
ed | 11.26.06 - 10:34 pm | #

The vague notion of preventing a chilul hashem cannot and should never be used to justify condoning by not reporting or worse, by covering up, the violation of city, state or federal laws.

I cite maseches bava common sense as my authority.
tzvee | Homepage | 11.26.06 - 11:58 pm | #

>I cite maseches bava common sense as my authority.

I cite maseches Daas Torah that you're wrong :)
ed | 11.27.06 - 12:13 am | #

The only chilul HaShem that I can imagine is the one that occurs when you DON'T report the offense, and then the public finds out about it. (i.e. 99% of the time you cause a chilul HaShem by NOT reporting it.)

Have we forgotten about the little incidents regarding the Catholic priests? Had they been reported early on, the problem would never have gotten so bad. Non-reporting means there is effectively no rule of law, and anyone can do what he pleases.

It's frankly unbelievable (and utterly immoral) that anyone could imagine that reporting nowadays to the secular authorities (of even minor offenses) to be an issue. We have rights in our country only by agreeing to abide by the rules of the place. It's basically a contract. If we don't follow the rules, we should not expect to retain the freedom to practice our religion in return.
BackAgain | 11.27.06 - 12:14 am | #

>The only chilul HaShem that I can imagine is the one that occurs when you DON'T report the offense, and then the public finds out about it.

And when you do report it, and the media jumps on it "Rabbi accused of molesting boys", that isn't a chilul hashem. Correct?!?

Please.

> Non-reporting means there is effectively no rule of law, and anyone can do what he pleases.

No. We have laws in place. Its called "Halacha".

>It's frankly unbelievable (and utterly immoral) that anyone could imagine that reporting nowadays to the secular authorities (of even minor offenses) to be an issue.

Again, if the halacha says not to, then its perfectly believable. That is, if you're an orthodox jew.

>We have rights in our country only by agreeing to abide by the rules of the place. It's basically a contract. If we don't follow the rules, we should not expect to retain the freedom to practice our religion in return.

Just curious, if the secular law of the land would require you to be Mechalel Shabbos, would you follow?
ed | 11.27.06 - 12:37 am | #

Ed: Are you maintaining that reporting the criminal acts of an ostensibly god-fearing person would cause a chilul Hashem and is therefore forbidden? That turns the morality and halacha on its head. The real chilul Hashem is for the religious community to allow the perpetrator to continue his activities. Ultimately, truth will out and the entire community will be tarnished by its injustice - not to mention the harm done to innocents by this perpetrator. The public will then say, "See what the religious people are capable of. They cover up crimes that their members commit. If this is what their torah teaches, of what use is their religion?" If, on the other hand, the criminal is reported, then the public will say, see what some religious person can do. But they can not generalize it to the torah and the entire community since they are the ones who turned him in.

Your would-be defense of da'as torah just confirms peoples's negative impressions of the chareidi world.

Y. Aharon
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 1:02 am | #

Ed and Steve:

The point of that teshuva is that turning people over to the government authorities, according to many great posekim, is NOT mesirah if the government is just and follows due process. It is not "permitted mesirah"; rather it is NOT mesirah (according to these posekim).

The chillul HaShem aspect of Rav Elyashiv's teshuva is not the point. There is good basis to suspect that it would not apply in the case of sexual predators, where separating them from our children is vital protection and sakkanas nefashos. The teshuva by Rav Elyashiv was regarding a case of theft.

Ed: you write about daas torah as though this is an accepted normative concept. Most of us don't believe in it, at least not in the manner you are citing it. And we don't believe it is possessed by the individuals that you think it is.
Nachum Klafter | 11.27.06 - 6:26 am | #

"I heard that the problem isnt b'etzem volunteering, its the fact that once you volunteer, you cant get out of it, and they can change your position - against your will. and therefore, in any event, its not "volunteer" per se, but rather there is (at least) an element of force in it"

What you heard has absolutely no basis in reality; any sherut leumi volunteer can quit from one day to the next. for any reason, with no penalty, other than the obvious loss of the sherut leumi stipend and bonus for completion. The concept that the volunteers are being "forced" to do anything is baseless (although, of course, they are encouraged and expected to execute their appointed tasks competently and responsibly, similar to any work environment).

All kinds of "bubba meises" are told about sherut leumi by people who know nothing about it, or by people who do but have a hostile agenda.

Disclosure: I am the father of four daughters who served in sherut leumi, and proud of it, and them.
Saul Mashbaum | 11.27.06 - 7:23 am | #

>Ed: Are you maintaining that reporting the criminal acts of an ostensibly god-fearing person would cause a chilul Hashem and is therefore forbidden?

I never said that. What I said is:

1) There MIGHT exist a chilul hashem in doing so - in contrast to someone above who said there isn't any.
2) The "Mashmo'os" of RYSE is that where there is chilul hashem, one may not go to secular authorities.

Therefore, if the Gedolim determine that in the case of R' xyz, it will become a chilul hashem if the matter becomes public, then according RYSE who is considered by these Gedolim as Posek Hador, R' xyz should not be turned in.

>Your would-be defense of da'as torah just confirms peoples's negative impressions of the chareidi world.

Y. Ahron, you know very well, that the Gedolim are not going to be joining us on this thread.

Further, I never claim to be a Rabbi, Talmid Chochom or major brain. I'm a simple ordinary guy, whose willing to take the time to write in defense of the Gedolim that I was brought up to believe in. I therefore don't appreciate being made to look like "the bad guy" for my goodhearted efforts. Sure, argue on me all you wish, but it isn't fair to pinpoint me as turning people off.
ed | 11.27.06 - 7:57 am | #

>The chillul HaShem aspect of Rav Elyashiv's teshuva is not the point. There is good basis to suspect that it would not apply in the case of sexual predators, where separating them from our children is vital protection and sakkanas nefashos. The teshuva by Rav Elyashiv was regarding a case of theft.

Nachum, classic "Yeshiveshe Chiluk". But when its Nogea to Halacha L'maaseh, we consult the Posek who issued the original Psak. After all, he most likely knows more Torah than us, or, he would know better if from a halachic perspective, such a chiluk should be made.

>Ed: you write about daas torah as though this is an accepted normative concept. Most of us don't believe in it, at least not in the manner you are citing it.

I'm blogging long enough that I'm aware of dissenting views. Being that Daas Torah themselves will not be participating in this thread, I make a goodhearted attempt to portray their position from the way I see it.

Fair enough?
ed | 11.27.06 - 8:06 am | #

"2) The "Mashmo'os" of RYSE is that where there is chilul hashem, one may not go to secular authorities."

No, the mashma'os of RSYE is that reporting a criminal to secular authorities in the case of a just government which generally observes fair, due process is NOT MESIRAH.

Another point, unrelated to our question, is that in a case of theft the potential for chillul HaShem must be weighed against the loss of property.
nachum klafter | 11.27.06 - 8:34 am | #

Ed,
We don't need you to portray "their position;" they do a good enough job of that on their own (their inaction and obfuscation speaks volumes).
Anon | 11.27.06 - 8:38 am | #

>Another point, unrelated to our question , is that in a case of theft the potential for chillul HaShem must be weighed against the loss of property.

Nachum, I'll requote you from above:

"From this it is clear that such is not applicable in our [Rabbi Elyashiv's] times. By the halacha it would be proper to report him to the police. But, you ponder the possibility that this will lead to a desecration of God's name, and it is not in my ability to evaluate this, since I do not know the facts."
Nachum Klafter | 11.26.06 - 7:40 pm"

The line "By the halacha it would be proper to report him to the police." is saying that there is no mesirah. But the following words - "But, you ponder the possibility that this will lead to a desecration of God's name" indicates, that the reporting to the police is what will create the Chilul Hashem. ??
ed | 11.27.06 - 8:57 am | #

I am jumping in really late, but want to thank both Elliot Pasik and Dr. Klafter for their enlightening comments.

I also want to add that anyone who thinks sexual predators are not an issue in our community, or thinks that the community can deal with them, is completely deluding themselves.

I have lived in a handful of communities/areas from very small to very large, and except for my current community for which I have no historical knowledge of this issue, every single on of these communities has had, at some point, a Rabbinic predator who acted improperly (molestation, with other women, etc).

However, even in my current community, for which I am not familiar with any wrongdoing by anyone in a cleric position, I became aware that a ba'al habayit was on the registered offender list after we looked into buying a home next door which was priced well below market. (If anything can change the mind of a potential buyer with young children, this is it!).

The fact that we have gedolim who take a different stance of this important issue doesn't surprise me. The fact that we don't take our business somewhere else on this particular issue when the facts on the ground speak loudly does surprise me.
SephardiLady | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 9:04 am | #

It took me less than 30 seconds to find Rabbi Broyde's article discussing mesirah and child abuse, which can be found on jlaw.com, or by just googling the words. At footnote 102, Rabbi Elyashiv and other poskim are quoted as saying there is no mesira in golus for reporting child abusers to the police. Saving a life takes precedence.
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.27.06 - 9:18 am | #

>At footnote 102, Rabbi Elyashiv and other poskim are quoted as saying there is no mesira in golus for reporting child abusers to the police. Saving a life takes precedence.

Does he say that that should be the FIRST step? or only when alternative options have failed? Also, what does R' Elyashiv say about a predator of which there hasn't been a victim in 15 years+ ?
ed | 11.27.06 - 9:34 am | #

Ed-it is obvious that we disagree on how to understand a teshuvah of RYSE,the application or non-application of Mesirah and more fundamentally on what constitutes Chillul HaShem. AFAIK, the Talmud and Rambam are very very explicit that any act by a Shomer Torah Umitzvos done in public in front of at least 10 Jews is an act of Chillul HaShem. In this age of instantaneous media and web coverage, IMO, it is a fair conclusion that the arrest of someone who posits himself or herself as a Torah observant Jew for either a criminal offense or violation of a civil ordinance that includes civil penalties such as jail time is a grave Chillul HaShem.
Steve Brizel | 11.27.06 - 9:41 am | #

Actually it is the Nishmat Avraham who is quoting a personal conversation with Rav Elyashiv. This is footnote 102:
---------------------------
Abraham Sofer Abraham, Nishmat Avraham Volume 4, pages 307-11, quotes responsa from Rabbis Auerbach, Elyashiv and Waldenberg in agreement on this point, that one must report cases of child abuse. No alternative view is quoted in this enclyopedic work. Rabbi Abraham writes:

A child or infant who is brought to a hospital with symptoms of being a battered child... it is prohibited, after an investigation to return him to his home as they will continue to beat him until he might die. Because of the real danger, it is obligatory for the doctor to inform the courts, and with an order from the court, place the child with a foster parent or agency. There is no problem of informing since we are dealing with danger to life and the parents are the pursuers. This is permitted even if they will place the child, due to no choice, with a family or agency that is secular. It is incumbent upon the Jewish court to do everything in its power to insure that the child is placed with an observant family or agency. Particularly in the diaspora it is important that the Jewish court work to insure that the child not be placed with a Gentile family or agency. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach agreed with all of the above.

Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashi recounted to me that it is permitted for the doctor to inform the authorities even if it is possible that the child will be placed with a family or agency that is not Jewish ....

Rabbi Waldenberg wrote "if there is a real risk that the parents will continue to hit the child .... it is obligatory for the doctor to report the matter to the police..." Sexual abuse (of either boys and girls) is no different than physical abuse. [Rabbis Waldenberg, Elyashiv and Auerbach agree that reporting is mandatory also.] Rabbi Elyashiv writes "there is no difference between boys and girl since one is dealing with a seriously life wounding event (pegiah nafshit) and a danger to the public ... this is much more serious than theft and one certainly must report this matter to the school administration and if nothing is done, even to the police even in the diaspora."
nachum klafter | 11.27.06 - 9:50 am | #

"Does he say that that should be the FIRST step? or only when alternative options have failed?"

Our point is that all the alternative options have already failed.
nachum klafter | 11.27.06 - 9:51 am | #

>Ed-it is obvious that we disagree on how to understand a teshuvah of RYSE,the application or non-application of Mesirah and more fundamentally on what constitutes Chillul HaShem.

Please see my comment at 11.27.06 - 8:57 am, and explain why my reading is wrong.

>AFAIK, the Talmud and Rambam are very very explicit that any act by a Shomer Torah Umitzvos done in public in front of at least 10 Jews is an act of Chillul HaShem.

Correct.

>In this age of instantaneous media and web coverage, IMO, it is a fair conclusion that the arrest of someone who posits himself or herself as a Torah observant Jew for either a criminal offense or violation of a civil ordinance that includes civil penalties such as jail time is a grave Chillul HaShem.

So you're agreeing that an arrest constitutes a chilul hashem? Then surely you should agree that arrests made on baseless allegations and/or gossip/rumour (or allegations with sub-minimal evidence) are a violation of chilul hashem?
ed | 11.27.06 - 10:10 am | #

Yeshurun, XV, Nisan 5765 pp.641
Rabbi Shalom Yosef Elyashiv

A Question in the Matter of Informing the Government Concerning Abuse of a Boy or a Girl

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.

Shalom Yosef Elyashiv
In the words of Harav Shalom Y | 11.27.06 - 10:14 am | #

>Sexual abuse (of either boys and girls) is no different than physical abuse. [Rabbis Waldenberg, Elyashiv and Auerbach agree that reporting is mandatory also.] Rabbi Elyashiv writes "there is no difference between boys and girl since one is dealing with a seriously life wounding event (pegiah nafshit) and a danger to the public ... this is much more serious than theft and one certainly must report this matter to the school administration and **if nothing is done**, even to the police even in the diaspora."

>Our point is that all the alternative options have already failed.

So we are then in agreement, that the Gedolim's initial actions of "sweeping it under the carpet" was correct as the first appropiate step. The question is only if that helped resolve the situation or not, and if there is a FURTHER need to go to the authorities, correct?
ed | 11.27.06 - 10:16 am | #

Chillul Hashem = The desecration of G-d’s name.

Can there be a greater desecration of G-d’s holy name than the sexual abuse of our innocent children by men who appear to be servants of G-d? Is there a better example of Middos Sedom than our Rabbonim and communal organizations protecting the reputations of sexual abusers at the expense of the reputations of their victims and exposing our innocent children to these bearded wolves in sheep’s clothing?

This is not a matter for Rabbonim to deal with; it is a police matter and we are in clear violation of Lo Saamod Al Daam Reiecho every instant we sit idly by without reporting our knowledge of a sexual predator in our midst.
anon | 11.27.06 - 10:28 am | #

"Rashba: Because if you will adjudicate based only on the laws established by the Torah, society will be destroyed..."

Hear ye hear ye. Rabbi Salomon; are you listening? Rabbi Pinchus Scheinberg; are you listening?

The souls of the children destroyed by those molesters protected by our Rabbonim cry out for justice.
The RASHBA | 11.27.06 - 10:36 am | #

Ed-I think that the Poskim as cited by D Klafter in Nishmas Avraham indicate that their understanding of Chillul HaShem runs contrary to that which you have set forth during this discussion. Obviously, "what will the neighbors think" or "how could such a 'Shomer Torah Umitzvos' person do acts A, B and C" or "how will his child ever get a shidduch" appear to be irrelevant criteria, as opposed to a focus on the acts that the person is accused of in the eyes of the Poskim quoted by D Klafter.
Steve Brizel | 11.27.06 - 10:38 am | #

The problem is that nobody is giving Rav Solomon the credit for the countless hours he works on these issues. All he gets is contempt. Nobody is perfect, but he IS taking responsibility & doing his best.
________________________________
Would you say the same if he dabbled in open heart surgery? He may mean well but to involve himself in matters of life and death where he has no expertise or police authority is tantamount to criminal negligence.
Daas | 11.27.06 - 10:42 am | #

So we are then in agreement, that the Gedolim's initial actions of "sweeping it under the carpet" was correct as the first appropiate step. The question is only if that helped resolve the situation or not, and if there is a FURTHER need to go to the authorities, correct?
____________________
Ed: Are you a parent? If your child was molested by a protected predator while Rabbi Salomon pondered the matter would you feel the same? What about Rabbonim of far greater repute (in your world) who pondered Kolko's guilt for thirty years while he went about his business and destroyed lives? Do you want to meet a few of these shattered people?

Spare me your misguided faith. We have a Torah which teaches us right from wrong. Some things are very simple and if Rabbi Salomon disagrees this is his right but he is just another man and our obligation to G-d and out Torah remains despite Rabbi Salomon's pronouncements.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 10:50 am | #

A chillul Hashem committed in private inevitably becomes public. Its in pirkei avos.
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.27.06 - 10:52 am | #

Well said, anon. 10:50 a.m.
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.27.06 - 10:55 am | #

Steve:

Exactly. What some people seem to be missing is that the Chillul Hashem is in the act itself and perhaps in the covering up of the act by others; not in the subsequent publicity. What greater Kiddush Hashem can there be than showing our brethren and the world that we stand for Halacha and justice by exposing these monsters and protecting our children from them?
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 10:55 am | #

As has been said a thousand times -- he does NOT dabble in heart surgery -- he gets advice from experts. But he adds the Torah perspective, which is Hefech daas baaley batim.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 11:06 am | #

Anonymous-Noone here disputes that RMS has worked countless hours on these and many other similar issues. The issue at hand is whether Ed has set forth a definition of Chillul HaShem that has any support in Shas and Poskim. Does the fact that there are instances of false accusations mean that all such cases are false in nature? That IMO is a huge conclusion which requires much more evidence and at least a case by case analysis by Gdolei HaPoskim, as opposed to Gdolim whose renowned expertise is being a RY or Mashgiach before reaching the same by anyone on this blog.It is a not a lack of Kavod HaTorah-Not every Posek is a Mashgiach or RY and not every Mashgiach or RY is a Posek. It is a simple matter of who possesess the requisite skills.

Ed-Placing oneself into a situation where arrest can occur constitutes a Chillul HaShem-regardless of the evidence precisely because of the media reportage and the subsequent damage to the reputation of Klal Yisrael as a whole-that is the pshat of the relevant sugya and Rambam.

The filing of the charges in this context are the "icing on the cake", as opposed to the ingredients that led to the Chillul HaShem. Even if a ritually observant person is found not to have violated a state or federal law or if no evidence is found to substantiate an indictment, etc, the impression in the public eye and within the Torah community is that the person at least lacks a Chezkas Kashrus, as opposed to being an individual who should receive Shlishi or a communal organization's award. That reflects or should reflect badly on the fact that such a person's lack of adherence to basic CM and Halacha 101 diminished the image of all of Klal Yisrael. In fact, RYK ( Bmchitzas Rabbeinu) stated that even if a person was released after serving time for a white collar violation, he should not recite a bracha because IIRC, he was not exactly a prisoner in Sing Sing or imprisoned without evidence.

Again, RYSE raised a question as to whether the student's claim constituted proper evidence-not whether such evidence in all cases was inherently unreliable to warrant Mesirah. It is also evident that the Nishmas Avraham quoted RSZA, R E Waldenberg Zicronam Livracha and Yivadleinu LChaim RYSE in stating that Mesirah was not implicated in a case of child abuse even if it would result in a child being placed with a non-Jew and that your interpretation of the teshuvah of RYSE runs contrary to that as set forth in Nishmas Avraham as well as that of RSZA and R Waldenberg Zicronam Livracha.
Steve Brizel | 11.27.06 - 11:12 am | #

As RMS said, it is not always possible to prove guilt in these cases. That is a serious consideration. Bloggers accuse with much less evidence than is required by halakhah to report someone to the police.
Gil | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 11:14 am | #

I am not Orthodox, but I am a proud Jew and I must say, with all due respect, Ed's comments baffle me. The idea that "sweeping" abuse "under the carpet" could ever be a good way to deal with the issue is unfathomable. People who engage in this kind of behavior are endangering the welfare of children, not to mention breaking the law. I have always had respect for religious Jews, but frankly Ed's comments have shaken that respect (I know he does not represent all religious Jews, of course, as the comments from Mr. Pasik, Dr. Klafter and other posters attest). It seems to me that the concept of chilul hashem is being used here as an excuse for protecting molesters and the "good name" of the religious community. As an outsider, however, I can assure you that covering up abuse and silencing victims gives the religious community a much worse name than admitting that, like all communities and societies, there are people with problems in the Orthodox world.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 11:16 am | #

Let me repeat that RMS never said that we should sweep cases of abuse under the carpet. He said that they sweep their remediation of such cases under the carpet.
Gil | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 11:19 am | #

That begs the question of what precisely constitutes their "remediation." If it is getting someone into treatment and notifying heads of other yeshivas so that the perpetrator will not be hired to work with children again, that is one thing. If it is a quiet firing or transfer to another school, that is quite another.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 11:26 am | #

Very valid question. I was just trying to remove the misunderstanding that RMS was advocating ignoring cases of abuse.
Gil | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 11:29 am | #

I understand. But I think these are the questions that need to be asked, and answered. People are entitled to know just what those policies are if they are to feel comfortable placing their children in the "custody" of schools and other communal institutions.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 11:31 am | #

Gil:

Time does not permit me to write everything I would like, but let me say that some of the comments bear the hysteria of a lynch mob. Not atypical when the issue is child abuse, but disturbing nonetheless.

Anyone who believes the issue is a "simple" one is a certified am haaretz and should simply stop expressing an opinion on the matter. Simple it ain't.

Just two ideas to chew over:

1. It has happened on more than one occassion in the secular system that those accused of child abuse have later been found either not guilty or the basis for the charge has been seriously undermined. There was one very famous case in NJ, another in Massachusetts.

So is there a hetter to completely ruin someone's life -- and make no mistake about it, that is what the lynch mob here is demanding -- based on a mere charge? How about if the evidence is mixed? Uncertain? Conflicted?

As I previously posted, in my last job we handled criminal cases, mostly white collar, but sometimes others. We once defended (at the appellate level) a gentleman who had been convicted of molesting two retarded boys. Their testimony was the only evidence against him. Their combined IQ was less than 100. Of course, their testimony had been "helped" by a psychologist (and for one of the boys, his aunt). From our vantage point, it was hard to tell how much of it was the boys' recollection and how much was the psychologist's suggestions. If I had to assess it, I would say he was probably guilty, but with a significant amount of doubt.

Imagine this person was a rebbe in a yeshiva. Are we prepared to ruin his life based on that quantum of evidence? Does lo saamod al dam reecha maybe apply to him too?

2. The above applies to a possibly innocent accused. Guess what, lo saamod al dam reecha also applies to the guilty. IIRC, Rav Moshe Feinstein has a teshuva wherein he forbids mosering someone who was involved in a financial crime because the typical punishment meted out to such under the secular system far exceeds that which is the Torah demands -- basically repayment.

Most of our religious brethren who are caught up in the criminal justice system are invovled in financial crimes. They often are sent to what is affectionately known in the profession as Club Fed. Now that is a major busha, no question about it, and I would not wish it on anyone. Still, their life is, relatively speaking, not too unpleasant. Crooked stock brokers, accountants and assorted swindlers do not make bad company -- at least compared to the alternative.

Not so someone convicted of child abuse, whether sexual or otherwise. That is virtually always a state crime, and they will end up doing hard time. Since this particular crime is viewed with particular abhorrence by the prison population, the person is likely to suffer physical injury, if not rape.

Is there a hetter to be moser a person -- even a child molester -- to such a system? I very much doubt it. Especially if there are other ways to ensure that he does not come in contact with children again.

* * *

R. Yisroel Paretsky, alav ha Shalom, was the bochen at YU. He would determined in which shiur a bochur would be placed. He once told me that when he was considering where to place the bochur, he considered that to be a shaylo in dinei nefashos, since the bochur's whole spiritual future was at stake.

The issue of child abuse is one of dinei nefashos. That requires an extraordinary level of koved Rosh, yiras shomayim and siyyatta di shmaya. A mistake in judgment IN EITHER DIRECTION can have devastating consequences. Any attempt to whip up hysteria or a lynch mob mentality has to be categorically rejected.
Tal Benschar | 11.27.06 - 11:34 am | #

Reb Nachum K. -- do you think we must lean towards reprting even if we are not sure when this can completely ruin someones life??
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 11:37 am | #

Is there a hetter to be moser a person -- even a child molester -- to such a system? I very much doubt it. Especially if there are other ways to ensure that he does not come in contact with children again.

The contemporary posekim have overwhelmingly ruled that there is a heter if the molester is guilty. There were some holdouts 20 years ago but they've changed their minds when they've seen what happens when you do not remove such people from our midsts -- more molestation.
Gil | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 11:39 am | #

>I am not Orthodox, but I am a proud Jew and I must say, with all due respect, Ed's comments baffle me.

I venemously protest. I do not seek to argue here my personal opinion, or to argue a Haredi opinion.

The discussion at hand is in reference to what R' Solomon spoke at the Thursday night convention.

I simply seek to argue his Point of View. It is unjust for anyone to give up their respect for religious jews based on my comments. If you wish to say that your're giving up your respect because of R' Solomon's comments, and you heard them first hand - word for word, then that's your call. I fail to understand why I should be the scapegoat here.
ed | 11.27.06 - 11:40 am | #

I think something people seem to be missing is that, as of now, the secular authorities are much more capable of investigating cases of suspected abuse than haredi rabbis. Yosef Blau has made this point repeatedly. If the haredi world were to set up an trained and impartial investigative body, then reporting to the police might not be necessary. Even so, however, I believe that if someone breaks the law, he or she should not escape some form of punishment, which provides justice for the victims.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 11:43 am | #

Ed,
I apologize. I should have put the blame on Rabbi Solomon, assuming what he said has been accurately represented here. That said, I am not sure why you feel the need to defend this point of view (and I also hope you meant to write "vehemently protest" rather than "venemously."
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 11:45 am | #

>The contemporary posekim have overwhelmingly ruled that there is a heter if the molester is guilty.

IF the molester is guilty.

IF IF IF.

What constitutes 'guilty'?

The angry rantings of an anonymous blogger?
ed | 11.27.06 - 11:45 am | #

>Ed,
I apologize. I should have put the blame on Rabbi Solomon, assuming what he said has been accurately represented here.

Apology accepted. And before you make any judgement, never rely that what people write in R' Solomon's name is accurate. I've seen a few blogs where his words were totaly misrepresented and distorted.

>That said, I am not sure why you feel the need to defend this point of view

Because I was raised to follow Daas Torah, I believe in Daas Torah (see Sefer Hachinuch Mitzvah 496), and I'm educating my children to follow Daas Torah.

>(and I also hope you meant to write "vehemently protest" rather than "venemously."

Yes. Thank you for correcting.
ed | 11.27.06 - 11:53 am | #

I will try this again: The "anonymous blogger" may have been angry, but there is no evidence to suggest that what he published about [deleted] was untrue. At times you have to separate the message from the messenger.

Edited By Siteowner
Anony | 11.27.06 - 11:53 am | #

I will add that I wish the "anonymous blogger" had not used the language nor engaged in the hyperole he did because I think it diluted his message and turned many people off. However, I strongly believe that were it not for his airing of this issue, it would not gotten the attention it now is. I would also add that in this particular case, rabbis and community leaders were notified about the alleged abuse over 30 years ago, and given multiple opportunities to address it before the blogger went public. There is ample evidence of this for anyone who wants it.
Anony | 11.27.06 - 11:58 am | #

I don't see the slightest evidence of either a lynch mob, or am haaretzis.

The Torah demands a justice system. Tsedek tsedek tirdof... Its incumbent upon the Jews and the umos ha'olam. Might there be occasional error? Of course, but G-d tells us to establish courts in any event.

The child sex abuse literature I have read indicates that the vast majority of reported cases are true. I recommend, Salter, "Predators". Where false accusations do occur is in the age range below 5 or 6, where toddlers can be coached by social workers and psychologists hired by DAs. That's what happened in the Mass. case, the one I think Tal Benschar is referring to. I'm unfamiliar with the NJ case.

Every case of child sex abuse allegations that I've read about, or have become personally aware of, made by frum children, has been true, in my professional opionion.

Other than the criminal justice system, which will put a sex offender on the government registries, there is no mechanism in the Jewish world for barring violent and sexual offenders from our schools. So there are no "other ways" to handle this situation, as Tal Benschar writes, and when it has been attempted in the past, there have been tragic results -continued child abuse in other school venues.

I've been adocating for a yeshiva/day school-wide mechanism for several years, and it has not been done, and based on Aguda's Thursday night session, I do not expect it will be done. It is apparent that far greater Government oversight over the nonpublic schools is required.
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.27.06 - 12:17 pm | #

We are presently assisting the police and the D.A. in a criminal investigation of a prominent yeshiva, after receiving a heter from a real godol.
Shomrim | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 12:39 pm | #

Several of these investigations are underway and it seems the haredi establishment will have a lot to answer for. Effective self-policing could have avoided all of this.
Sad to say... | 11.27.06 - 12:42 pm | #

Someone above cited Reb Moshe that says that one may not hand over a thief to the government because they impose punishments beyond that which the Torah imposes.

Like all citations to authority, it is essential to examine it to determine its relevance. In fact, this particular teshuva SUPPORTS the hetter of mesirah in the cases being discussed.

The teshuva, which is in Igros OC 5:9:11, states that where the mesirah is done to protect the community, mesirah may be proper, despite the excessive punishment the government will impose. This is the relevant point, since the concern here is preventing future abuse.
Barzilai | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 1:15 pm | #

some thoughts on all this:
first of all, there is a precedent to this: in Germany, a young woman with a "sense of justice" publicized all the atrocities she could find in the Jewish community as a call for justice. She was told not to do so by rabbonim but did so anyway. A few short years later, the Nazis used every whit of her literature as propaganda for how corrupt Jews were. At that point in time, she had to admit she should have listened to Daas Torah beforehand. Hope none of you ever feel that way. That is just one of the many issues with blog spots, a bloated sense of justice without remembering "Ayzehoo Chacham - HaRoeh Es HaNolad."
second of all, i laugh out loud everytime folks think secular sources are the way to go to help the problem. statistics in the greater usa for this kind of abuse, for getting pedophiles out of schools are worse than ours actually. i would much rather take a risk sending my kid to yeshiva than public school. don't believe me - trawl newspapers a few weeks in a row and you will see crazy amounts of abuse and criminal activity - this in places where there are "screenings" and everyone has been "trained" and is "monitored". Yes, we have abuse in our community, yet, not out of proportion to the greater community. so, for all you brilliant folks who think secular society and justice will help the situation, think again.
next, most rabbonim pasken you can call authorities. i don't know who thinks you can't - just ask.
and lastly, as a victim, i can reassure you that rabbonim who are sensitive are way more qualified to provide guidance after abuse than therapists. There are VERY few competent therapists when it comes to this - and most do more harm than good.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 1:25 pm | #

>Ed: Webster's defines guilt as; the act or state of having done a wrong or committed an offense; culpability, legal or ethical.

>Any more questions?

Ahem. Yes. Based on what evidence do we establish that the accused has actualy done a 'wrong' or 'commited an offense'? Is the testimony of a 5 year old sufficient?
ed | 11.27.06 - 1:40 pm | #

What constitutes 'guilty'?

The angry rantings of an anonymous blogger?
__________________________________
Ed: Webster's defines guilt as; the act or state of having done a wrong or committed an offense; culpability, legal or ethical.

Any more questions?
anon

Are you serious anon? Or merely nitpicking on ed's lack of full mastery of English?

substitute the word 'determines' for the word 'constitutes' and Ed's question is a perfectly valid one.

I think ed understands that "guilty" in substance means the person did the deed. The issue is how one determines that. Accusations are not enough -- not in secular law, and certainly not acc. to the Torah.
Tal Benschar | 11.27.06 - 1:41 pm | #

A few short years later, the Nazis used every whit of her literature as propaganda for how corrupt Jews were. At that point in time, she had to admit she should have listened to Daas Torah beforehand. Hope none of you ever feel that way.
___________________________________
Great point. Had the "Rabbonim" removed [deleted] from the classroom 30+ years ago when they were informed of his activities, there would have been no need for publicity today. It was the publicity that caused his removal from the classroom, not the Rabbonim.

Edited By Siteowner
anon | 11.27.06 - 1:42 pm | #

Dr. Klafter: "I forgot to mention the fact that the already horrible psychological, physical, and spiritual impact on the victim of sexual abuse is amplified and magnified by a culture of secrecy. The victim already feels horribly guilty and filthy for abominations which he/she is not responsible. To add the burden of silence, or respecting the "teshuva" of the perpetrator (and all of these perpetrators claim to do "teshuva"), is very damaging to the recovery of these victims."

This is ludicrous. 99% of victims of sexual abuse in the frum community would much prefer - and be much better served in general - by people not publicizing it. The fact that you could make a statement so at odds with reality calls into question any other judgments you might make on the subject.

Elliot: Pasik "Every case of child sex abuse allegations that I've read about, or have become personally aware of, made by frum children, has been true, in my professional opionion."

The last qualification makes the entire statement meaningless.
Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.27.06 - 1:47 pm | #

Every case of child sex abuse allegations that I've read about, or have become personally aware of, made by frum children, has been true, in my professional opionion.

Pardon my skepticism, but how in the world can you come to that conclusion? Particularly where you are not sitting as a court and have not heard both sides?

Mr. Pasik, I respect that you probably have wider experience than I in this particular area. But I have had a number of criminal clients. Some I knew were guilty, but others there was ample room for doubt. That includes the one child molestation case I had -- which as I said I believe was probably guilty, but there was plenty of doubt, too.

As for alternatives, have they been seriously tried? How about the beis din helping the person get another job not involving children combined with a warning that if he ever again tries to work with children he will be mosered to the authorities? I seem to recall the last time that Hirhurim had this issue, someone posted that something like this was used succesfully somewhere.

And what about cases where there is a real safeik as to guilt? Is there still a hetter of mesirah? (Which, as I posted above and no one disputed, includes certain ruination of the person's life AND likely subjecting him to physical assault if not rape.)

BTW, I do think a national database of problem cases along the lines Mr. Pasik suggests, is a good idea. (Could use Dor Yeshorim as a model perhaps.) That really is too bad if the Agudah won't make efforts in that direction.
Tal Benschar | 11.27.06 - 1:51 pm | #

>Great point. Had the "Rabbonim" removed [deleted] from the classroom 30+ years ago when they were informed of his activities, there would have been no need for publicity today. It was the publicity that caused his removal from the classroom, not the Rabbonim.

Err, there wasn't a single victim in the last 15 + years. The publicity caused the unjust defamation of many innocent victims.

So far, the publicity did more harm than good.
ed | 11.27.06 - 1:53 pm | #

"Tal, do you agree that my reading is correct?
Barzilai"

Barziali: bli neder, I will have to look it up tonight. I don't have access to that right now.

However, the big question is whether the only means of ensuring children's safety is mesirah. You seem to assume that and then proceed to use R. Moshe as a support for a hetter. That begs the question. See my other post as to alternative suggestions.
Tal Benschar | 11.27.06 - 1:54 pm | #

Err, there wasn't a single victim in the last 15 + years. The publicity caused the unjust defamation of many innocent victims.

________________________________________________
Boy are you in for a rude awakening! There have been numerous victims in the last 15 years, which you would know if you bothered to investigate the matter, as I and many others have. And to trot out anti-Semitism as a justifcation for protecting perpetrators and their enablers is just disgusting. You should be ashamed.
Sad to say... | 11.27.06 - 2:19 pm | #

So far, the publicity did more harm than good.

_________________________________________________

The publicity enabled more victims to come forward, which is a good thing. I agree with the poster who said none of this would have been necessary if this situation had been dealt with 30 years ago. It never should have had to come to this, but it did precisely because the leadership failed to deal with the problem.
Sad to say... | 11.27.06 - 2:21 pm | #

"I simply seek to argue his Point of View. It is unjust for anyone to give up their respect for religious jews based on my comments. If you wish to say that your're giving up your respect because of R' Solomon's comments, and you heard them first hand - word for word, then that's your call. I fail to understand why I should be the scapegoat here."

You keep representing other people's point of view. The point of view of the rioters against the gay parade. The point of view of Rabbi Soloman. Why don't you try writing your own point of view for a change?
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 2:39 pm | #

>"Every case of child sex abuse allegations that I've read about, or have become personally aware of, made by frum children, has been true, in my professional opionion."

It's hard to express how impossibly silly I believe this statement to be. I alone have been aware of at least 4 cases (4 cases!!!!) of claimed sexual abuse that were either certainly fabricated or almost certainly fabricated. I am one person, not a community leader or therapist and I alone know about 4 such fabrications already! Child abuse is deeply evil--but only a complete fool could regard every alleged case as "true". The very fact that you would suggests that you regard accusation as ipso facto proof of guilt--especially considering that you only know about many of the cases through reading!

For just one example of fabricated child abuse accusations see the book No Crueler Tyrannies by the WSJ's Dorothy Rabinowitz. The credulity and hysteria in response to any claim of "child sexual abuse" (a reaction that is idealized and encouraged by American society) does gross harm to the interests of truth and the imposition of justice on the true perpetrators who deserve it.
STBO | 11.27.06 - 2:40 pm | #

If you look at the statistics, there is a very low rate of fabrication for the kinds of cases we are discussing --that is, in which there are multiple, unrelated accusers over a long period of time, all of whose stories are similar.
Sad to say... | 11.27.06 - 2:44 pm | #

I do not know what the population statistics are, but it is clear that almost any accusation of sexual misconduct has legs, and few accusations will get you farther or last longer than a charge of child sexual abuse. Damage is done even if the charges are conclusively disproved and the accuser determined to be a liar.
STBO | 11.27.06 - 2:46 pm | #

Fabrications of abuse tend to be most common in child custody cases or the kind of "mass hysteria" cases people like Rabinowitz have chronicled.
Sad to say... | 11.27.06 - 2:47 pm | #

Ahem. Yes. Based on what evidence do we establish that the accused has actualy done a 'wrong' or 'commited an offense'? Is the testimony of a 5 year old sufficient?
_____________________
How about unrelenting and persistent accusations from dozens of victims over a period of 40 years? In your vernacular “Kola D’lo Pasuk” a never-ending cry.
anon | 11.27.06 - 2:53 pm | #

According to the two best and largest studies on the subject, false allegations of sexual abuse are rare -- in the range of 2 to 8 percent [1,2]. That means the other 92%-98% are meritorious. [3] (and, bearing in mind that child sexual abuse is a highly *underreported* crime, these are just the cases we know about).

1. Thoennes N, Tjaden PG: The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody/visitation disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect 14: 151-163, 1990.

2. Everson MD, Boat BW: False allegations of sexual abuse by children and adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 28: 230-235, 1989.

3. McCurdy K, Daro D: Current trends in child abuse reporting and fatalities: The results of the 1993 annual fifty state survey. Chicago: NCPCA, 1994.
Sad to say... | 11.27.06 - 2:54 pm | #

If you look at the statistics, there is a very low rate of fabrication for the kinds of cases we are discussing --that is, in which there are multiple, unrelated accusers over a long period of time, all of whose stories are similar.
Sad to say

Ahem. That is NOT what we are talking about, at least not exclusively. We are talking about how a beis din is supposed to deal witha charge of child abuse by, e.g. a rebbe in a yeshiva (or, perhaps, a relative). That could easily be a single event, at least insofar as the Beis Din knows. You are not suggesting that they have to wait until there are multiple complaints from unrelated complainants until they act.
Tal Benschar | 11.27.06 - 2:55 pm | #

Well I know about 1 quasi-mass hysteria case, 2 custody cases and 1 out-of-nowhere case. Obviously if there is real abuse taking place and there is a coverup, that is sickening and indefensible. However there are equally good reasons to shun the hysteria-sanctifying persons and websites that condemn the accused and "comfort" the accusers before even investigating the charges' veracity. Those entities are counterproductive to the goal of stopping real abuse cases and they do gross damage to innocent people.
STBO | 11.27.06 - 2:55 pm | #

Ahem. Yes. Based on what evidence do we establish that the accused has actualy done a 'wrong' or 'commited an offense'? Is the testimony of a 5 year old sufficient?
_____________________
How about unrelenting and persistent accusations from dozens of victims over a period of 40 years? . . .
anon

So less than that you would do what, exactly? You surely recognize that most cases have far less evidence than that, don't you?
Tal Benschar | 11.27.06 - 3:02 pm | #

Tal Benschar,
Why do you insist on shifting the focus. We are talking here about a particular case in which there were multiple accusations and even 2 (thwarted) beit dins! Why can't you admit that this was handled egregiously?
Sad to say... | 11.27.06 - 3:05 pm | #

Why do you insist on shifting the focus. We are talking here about a particular case in which there were multiple accusations and even 2 (thwarted) beit dins! Why can't you admit that this was handled egregiously?
Sad to say...

Because that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about how the Jewish community in the future should handle the issue as a whole. It's easy after the fact to say one particular case was poorly handled. Try saying something constructive going forward -- that's a lot harder to do.
Tal Benschar | 11.27.06 - 3:07 pm | #

We are talking about how a beis din is supposed to deal witha charge of child abuse by, e.g. a rebbe in a yeshiva (or, perhaps, a relative). That could easily be a single event, at least insofar as the Beis Din knows. You are not suggesting that they have to wait until there are multiple complaints from unrelated complainants until they act.

__________________________________________________

Why should we have any confidence in beis dins. Again, Rabbi Yosef Blau has made it quite clear that, with the exception of the beit din in Chicago, most are utterly unprepared to deal with these accusations.

And of course I am not suggesting they wait for multiple victims. I am merely saying that false accusations are rare in cases where there are multiple, unrelated victims, as we have here. I didn't realize this was such a difficult concept to grasp.
Sad to say... | 11.27.06 - 3:10 pm | #

It is BY FAR not the only badly handled case, as you will learn. Going forward? I would say take these cases to the police and let them investigate. At least until the haredi world develops an independent mechanism for investigating such allegations, and an effective means of determining and enforcing punishment when perpetrators are found guilty.
Sad to say... | 11.27.06 - 3:12 pm | #

Because that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about how the Jewish community in the future should handle the issue as a whole.
__________________________________
What about this one case? How is it being handled by the "community"? Silence from our Rabbonim, Rabbi Salomon presides over the grand opening of a branch of YTT in Lakewood, Rabbi K blows shofar in Rabbi W's shul in Flatbush.

What does this say about us NOW?
anon | 11.27.06 - 3:17 pm | #

As the great askan and attorney Mr. Pasik said, he has not come across one complaint by a frum kid that was not substantiated.

What does that say for Haredi rabbis and their protectors?

All will agree that Mr. Pasik is an ehrilche Yid with no ax to grind against the Establishment.
MO MAN | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 3:33 pm | #

Some important clarifications:

1) There are DEFINITELY cases of false allegations in all communities--frum, frye, non-Jewish. That being said, the consensus of experts is that the vast majority of allegations are true, and that the vast majority of incidents are unreported. Whether such reports lead to criminal prosecution or conviction is a separate question from whether the reports are truthful. (Again, as I said above, the percentage of indidents which are never reported is by definition unknowable. Experts believe that the vast majority are unreported and unknown.)

2) There are definitely cases where the abuse is known with no doubt. E.g., the hanhala or other teachers of witnessed, first hand, molestation or rape of students.

3) Fotheringay-Phipps: Please be careful with the comments you are making. Some of the things you are saying are beyond ignorant or foolish, but are quite problematic. For example, you state: "This is ludicrous. 99% of victims of sexual abuse in the frum community would much prefer - and be much better served in general - by people not publicizing it. The fact that you could make a statement so at odds with reality calls into question any other judgments you might make on the subject."

The "reporting" we are talking about is to Child Protective Services, who employ full time experts in the legal and psychological aspects of sexual and physical abuse. The utmost care is taken to protect the identity of victims. The legal system in our country goes out of its way to protect the identies of victims and minors. Families and experts are consulted regarding whether it would be helpful or damaging for the victim to press charges because testimony in court can be extremely traumatic for children who are victims of abuse. In many cases, evidence is overwhelming and perpetrators plea guilty in order to avoid having to appear in court.

However, a culture of secrecy and silence about sexual abuse is very different than taking care to protect the identities of victims. When victims are admonished to forgive their perpetrators because the perpetrators have done teshuva, or are told that they are allowed to see a therapist only on condition that they not reveal the identity of their perpetrator to the therapist (e.g., one's brother, teacher, uncle, or father), then this is extremely destructive to the recovery of the victim.

With all due respect, I would request that you stop making claims about the preferences and best interests of victims of sexual abuse, or citing imaginary statistics. Furthermore, it appears that you are not following the discussion.
nachum klafter | 11.27.06 - 3:34 pm | #

R Gil's points re "remediation" and Mesirah that will lead to serving hard time for the violation of a criminal statute are welcome clarification of these issues.Let me comment on the latter issue first. It is tragic that we need Psak to remind us of that which is elementary-that Mesirah has no application where there is evidence of guilt because the acccused will continue on his path of destruction if left unchecked.

As far as remediation is concerned, "remediation" can consist of advising the person to leave the profession completely or to move around from school to school. Those are vastly different concepts with tremendously varying effects. Relocating a teacher is merely the chinuch world's way of burying a mistake until and if it crops up elsewhere. Asking a person to leave a job or the profession is a way of solving a problem that happens in every profession.

Of course, there are due process issues with regards to the coaching of young children and "mass hysteria" but one would have to evaluate this issue with regards to whether the claims are meritorious in the overwhelming majority of cases.However, IMO, there should be a balancing of the rights of the accused with those of the victim.

IMO, a recently passed bill in NY is useless because even though it contained the basis for a databank, schools were given the option, as opposed to a mandate to contribute to the same. WADR, that is what is called a toothless law or what Talmidie Chachamim call being "ikar chaser min hasefer."

F-P-I challenge your claim that 99% of the victims would prefer to live in silence. Ask R D Cohen, R D A Twerski or the head of Shalom Task Force and they will tell you that we need to talk more about this plague and run the abusers out of our communities.

One more comment-Maybe I am mistaken, but the halachic standards for Chillul HaShem and those of the criminal law are by no means coexistent. Chillul HaShem, by its very definition, entails the commision of an act in front of 10 Jewish males that causes the reputation of all of Klal Yisrael to look bad. It is by no means the same or remotely the same as the evidence required to convict anyone of any act under any criminal statute which require the proof of all elements beyond a reasonable doubt after a trial by jury.One can find stacks of books and articles on the purposes of the criminal law and incarceration.IMO, we need to remember that these concepts are vastly different in their elements, proof and purpose.
Steve Brizel | 11.27.06 - 3:53 pm | #

Elliot -- you are [deleted]. I don't like making such statements, but it is true. There are MANY cases that have been proven beyond a doubt to be false & others that were exaagerated (an innapropriate, non abusive behaviour was described as abusive). And lets say it's five percent. Do you know what Retzicha you are doing to those 5% by assuming all are guilty.

And Nachum -- as in many other comments you made -- you too are [deleted]. Do you know how cruel the child welfare agencies can sometimes be. There is some joke about them & pit bulls with the difference being that you can get someone out of the hands of pit bulls. I know a case where someone left a 10 yr old to babysit for ten minutes & the kids got taken away for months. I don't want to debate whethere the parents should have -- probably not (although there were extenuating reasons why they did). But they were loving parents & the agenct traumatized these kids for life.

Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 4:55 pm | #

What faith can we have if we say lekhattehilla we cover up any of their sins? I also want to point out if you have no connections one is ruined by any small non-conformity. I have no faith in this system.
Male Repellant | 11.27.06 - 5:12 pm | #

Thank you for those statistics, Sad to Say. That is what I was referring to. The children are nearly always telling the truth.

I've also read Rabinowitz's excellent book, which concerns exceptions to the rule. She discusses, in depth, seven or eight false claim cases, but those cases mostly concern pre-school children, who can be coached, as I said; and also one or two cases of highly disturbed adult women who made false accusations.

There are also false child sex abuse claims in custody cases made by spouses, and as a lawyer, I've seen a few of them, and I'm aware of more, but that's not what I or we have been writing about here. We're discussing first-person sex abuse accounts made by children, and the overwhelming majority are true.

Those who continuously write, like some here, about false claims, are themselves doing some harm. Dr. Anna Salter, Harvard BA, Ph.D., and among the elite of those who identify and treat sex offenders writes, "What has surprised me, however, is how many times offenders report that children have disclosed the assaults but were not believed". Salter, "Predators", page 201. This has happened in our own corner of the world, over and over again, and the result is more offending. Those crowing about false claims are muddying the waters, and discouraging true claims, and adding to the bitterness of victims and their families.

The consequences of child sex abuse, particularly below age 12, are often lasting and permanent. I've read five or six medical abstracts, describing such long term effects as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, hypertension, obesity, shortened life spans. A pediatric neurologist recently described for me how the brain of a sex abused child gets "rewired", and the damage is permanent. Therapy, of course, can help, and many children are resilient, but some aren't. This is why child sex abuse is, literally, a type of retsicha, and the abuser has the halachic status of rodef.

Torah lo sh'bashamayim hi. The Torah was not given in heaven to angels, but to Jews on earth. Its a Toras chaim, a living Torah, and is intended for us to apply to the challenges of our world, despite the slight possibility of error.

We need a unified justice system for our nonpublic schools, and I and other advocates have been asking for it for several years. It has not been done, and instead, Aguda has given us a lesson on daas Torah and kavod harav. The justice system that we need will therefore have to be imposed on the nonpublic schools by the Government - nisht k'ferlach.
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.27.06 - 5:20 pm | #

"According to the two best and largest studies on the subject, false allegations of sexual abuse are rare -- in the range of 2 to 8 percent [1,2]. That means the other 92%-98% are meritorious. [3] (and, bearing in mind that child sexual abuse is a highly *underreported* crime, these are just the cases we know about)."

Even assuming that the above is a valid summary of the "two best and largest studies on the subject", your conclusions are erroneous. 1) It does NOT mean that the others are true, only that they were not conclusively shown to be false (to the satisfaction of these researchers). I would imagine a large number of situations fall somewhere in the middle. 2) the relative incidence of reporting of these crimes is irrelevant to the likely veracity of a particular report - you appear to have made some sort of logical error here.

Dr. Klafter: ""When victims are admonished to forgive their perpetrators because the perpetrators have done teshuva, or are told that they are allowed to see a therapist only on condition that they not reveal the identity of their perpetrator to the therapist (e.g., one's brother, teacher, uncle, or father), then this is extremely destructive to the recovery of the victim."

I don't believe this is widespread and it is certainly not the issue being discussed here, sorry. If you want, I'll condemn the notion that any victim be required to assume that their assailant has done t'shuva and act on that basis. (I suspect that if in fact the victims are occasionally pressured to keep it quiet it is because of doubts about the veracity of their claims.)

"With all due respect, I would request that you stop making claims about the preferences and best interests of victims of sexual abuse, or citing imaginary statistics."

This is weird, since you apparently agree with what I said but only claim that you meant something else.

In any event, I think the record of the past 100 years or so will show a consistent pattern of psychologists being a whole lot more cocksure of themselves and their theories than subsequent research demonstrates to have been warranted, so I think your arrogance here is misplaced.
Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.27.06 - 5:28 pm | #

Like I sais Elliot is [deleted]. He blames others for trying to silence the claims of abuse & sweep it under the rug, & yet he wants to silence the fact that there are not uncommon cases of false claims. And he does it brilliantly -- by claiming that even to mention false claims is harmful. Abuse is a very serious problem & must be dealt with seriously. But don't sweep under the rug the real problem of false claims.

Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 5:33 pm | #

Anon., who says that I am clueless -

Let's put the debate aside for the moment as to how many true and false claims there are.

I and other advocates have been futilely calling for a unified justice system for our yeshiva/day school world - which by the way was promised at the May 2003 Torah U'Mesorah Convention on this subject, which I listened to on audiotape, but which was never done.

Are you for or against? What exactly do you propose if you're against?
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.27.06 - 5:41 pm | #

"I don't believe this is widespread..."

Talk to victims of sexual abuse in the frum community.

"...and it is certainly not the issue being discussed here"

It is the issue that I was discussing and which you called "ludicrous."

"...consistent pattern of psychologists being a whole lot more cocksure of themselves and their theories than subsequent research demonstrates to have been warranted, so I think your arrogance here is misplaced."

Indeed.
nachum klafter | 11.27.06 - 5:45 pm | #

What I am for or against is this:

I, and I know that I am very alone in this here, trust RMS a million times more than any blogger or community hocker. I know him, & anyone who does know him can testify to his complete care & concern for Kelal Yisrael & the INDIVIDUALS who are going thru tzoress. He helps numerous individuals, he is the one who comforts those who have suffered pain & loss. Is he perfect? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Could he use constructive criticism & advise from concerned & informed laymen & experts? ABSOLUTELY YES. but after all is said & done, while I too wonder about some of his decisions, I think it is pple like him who know how to take care of of the problems of the individual, while balancing Kelal Yisroel's needs. That is what I am for. He cares more than you can imagine.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 6:00 pm | #

Psychiatrist not the same as Psychologist. And the ones that have been discredited tend to be the wild eyed doctrinaires, not the frum ones that do piku'ach nefesh.

Fotheringay-Phipps, from my memory of past comments, is out of character here. I agree that false accusations are horrible and I doubt I would survive one. But there is no middle ground here. Either you have a system that protects victims or you don't. Maybe it's a simple arithmetic calculation; would more people be harmed by taking these accusations seriously and doing an immediate and public quarantine on the suspect, or would more people be harmed by a ponderous and hesitant system?
Barzilai | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 6:00 pm | #

From an outfit calling itself the "Institute for Psychological Therapies": http://www.ipt-forensics.com/jou...ume2/ j2_4_7.htm

"The National Study of Child Abuse (Smith, 1985) estimated that 1.1 million child abuse and neglect reports have been filed with Child Protective Agencies each year and that more than 600,000 of these probably cannot be substantiated even using the broad definitions of child abuse and neglect often used by the protective service agencies. Of the remaining 40%, only half (or 20% of the total reports) were considered substantial enough to be included in the national study (Smith, 1985). It was not known what happened to the hundreds of thousands of people accused but not convicted of child abuse and neglect."

"There is disagreement in the professional literature about the number and significance of unsubstantiated reports of child abuse each year."

"In 1974 the passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (Federal law, P.L. 93-247), established a National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN). The main purpose, in addition to research, was to begin child maltreatment programs and establish standards by which states could become eligible for federal money to help them establish their own child abuse agencies (Johnson, 1986).

Douglas Besharov, the first director of NCCAN, addressed the issue of unfounded allegations in an article that broadly outlined the development of child maltreatment as a social issue from relative obscurity in the 1950s. He said, "We now face an imminent social tragedy: the nationwide collapse of child protective efforts caused by a flood of unfounded reports" (1986, p.22). Besharov notes that in 1984 nationwide, 65% of all reports proved to be unfounded, (dismissed after an investigation by child protective agencies). Put another way, "Each year, over 500,000 families are put through investigations of unfounded reports" (p.23-24)."

"Curtis (1986) reports that diagnosis by clinicians frequently is based on subjective impressions, and that these judgments are "often unreliable and inaccurate" (p.592). He believes this occurs because of pressure on professionals to act decisively in cases involving suspected incidents of sexual abuse coupled with the absence of specific, empiric ally verifiable, situational and diagnostic factors associated with child sexual abuse. In Curtis's words, "Clinicians have been forced to make largely intuitive 'hit or miss' judgments regarding the likelihood of occurrence sometimes resulting in unfortunate miscalculations" (p.569)."

"According to Schultz and Jones (1983), much of the literature on sexual abuse is "marked by poor samples, lack of longitudinal studies, and the cloaking of moral position with scientific attitudes" (p.99). Their report of a survey of 267 college students in West Virginia challenges several popular ideas about child molestation and warns of the danger of iatrogenic trauma.

They state that approximately 40% of both sexes in their sample report engaging in three sexual acts before age 12. The reactions to the sexual acts were varied and Schultz and Jones state that "These highly differentiated reactions to the sexual act . . . should warn professionals that each case must be evaluated with caution because psychological trauma may not be assumed, and they ... have a duty to control for possible psychological iatrogenesis" (p.101).

The authors warn that the legal process after an offense is reported, along with viewing the child as a victim of violence, may overlook the strength and health of the family, or the alleged act's intended nature. They suggest inappropriate sexual activities of children are best treated from a family dysfunction perspective."

"Schultz (1989) reported on 100 family members falsely charged with sexual abuse. The definition of "not guilty" was based on respondents' insistence they were innocent, acquittal by a jury, refusal of the case by a grand jury, or if the prosecutor nolle prossed the case.

Virtually all respondents reported trauma in personal health, family breakdown, loss of employment, and/or having to go on welfare. All reported some degree of depression, sleep difficulties, nausea, and weight loss. Only 16% reported no change in job status and 82% suffered some type of job loss or penalty. Financial problems were common, 24% applied for welfare and 28% had to sell the family home to pay legal fees. Families were disrupted, as 20% were divorced and 22% lost custody of their children to foster homes, or to the divorced spouse."

And here's some discussion of the way the secular system works from the perspective of a suspected abuser:

http:// www.childprotectionreform...t_Yourself.html
Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.27.06 - 6:01 pm | #

" and I know that I am very alone in this here, trust RMS"
_____________________________________
I trust him and respect him also. He did admit that they let some cases slip through their fingertips. I do not hold him responsible for these cases, he had nothing to do with them. He was not trying to defend those that fumbled those cases, as was suggested here by Ed. He was merely suggesting that we should accentuate the positive and focus on the cases that were dealt with appropriately. To me, it is no consolation that there were cases that were dealt with that we don't know about. It only raises this issue to a more urgent level. RED ALERT!!!
steve | 11.27.06 - 6:08 pm | #

Oh my gosh, Barizilai you can't be serious. An immediate PUBLIC quarantine based on any accusation?? That seems to me to be anti-Torah & anti-secular Law.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 6:11 pm | #

Instead of hurling adverbs like "clueless", we should all remember that Chillul HaShem and the civil or criminal allegations lodged against potential abusers and any penalties that flow therefrom have little, if any , logical relationship with each other. There simply is no comparison in terms of the proof required or the severity of the punishment.

One looks in vein for any admission that Chillul HaShem is based on one's actions in front of 10 Jewish men, that bring shame on Klal Yisrael as opposed to the communal reaction upon hearing that someone has been arrested , charged with abuse or is merely the subject of a civil lawsuit. I hate to sound redundant but the real ingredients of any Chillul HaShem long preceeded the icing of the cake of the lodging of a criminal or civil proceeding.
Steve Brizel | 11.27.06 - 6:14 pm | #

F-P-Let's limit the discussion to frum psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers who know what pikuach nefesh means, as opposed to those members of these professions whose expertise is based upon their success in court. IMO, one cannot casually dismiss their conclusions and views on spousal or child abuse as cavalierly as you have with a "shoot the messenger" rationale.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 6:21 pm | #

> He was not trying to defend those that fumbled those cases, as was suggested here by Ed.

My memory is kinda hazy today. Can you please point to where I said that?
ed | 11.27.06 - 6:24 pm | #

Here are some choice quotes from the website recommended by Fotheringay-Phipps:

"Don’t spank in public. A classic is the "grocery store parking lot spanking". Some busybody Boomer is sure to get your license plates. And the cops, lacking serious bad guys to chase, will be waiting for you at home."

"Don’t spank in ways that leave bruises. The system treats a welt on the posterior with the same seriousness as a cigarette burn, a broken bone, or a severe beating. State laws provide NO distinction between a single mark from legitimate discipline, and devastating injuries from willful, sustained torture."

"If, Heaven forbid, you do bruise your child – do NOT allow him/her to attend school the next day. Services to Children and Families (SCF) indoctrinates teachers to turn OFF the brain and get ON the phone to report "any" suspected child abuse. As mandatory reporters, teachers are told they are at serious risk of prosecution for not reporting. That is not true. However, most teachers believe it is true; they will act accordingly."
anonymous | 11.27.06 - 6:24 pm | #

F-P-The above post was mine.

Anonymous-again,noone here doubts that RMS is one of the preeminent Marbitzei Torah UMussar today who spends more time dealing with these issues while we are all asleep than all of us combined. Yet, based upon the views of Gdolei HaPoskim, Acharonim , Rishonim and Maamarei Chazal as to the severity of Chillul HaShem, one wonders why the victims seem to be deserving of less protection than the perpretrators -especially if and wnen the perpetrators' conduct caused the Chillul HaShem, as opposed to the revelation of the same or the initiation of criminal, civil or similar proceedings.
Steve Brizel | 11.27.06 - 6:27 pm | #

Steve -- just to give an example -- in the Lakewood tragedy, had pple listened to his rational advice on how to deal with certain peratim alot of pain would have been saved. Instead the hockers & machers got involved & unnecesary pain was caused.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 6:33 pm | #

FWIW, anyone seeking a Torah perspective on the utterly counterproductive use of corporal punishment by a parent should read Zeriah UBinyan BChinuch by R Wolbe ZTL. It is sad that someone would quote from a website that advocates the use of such a method, even if "surreptiously" when one of the greatest Baalei Mussar of this generation viewed it as wrong.
Steve Brizel | 11.27.06 - 6:33 pm | #

And I personally know stories (one mentioned above) about the child welfare agencies similar to those quoted above. And in one case it was only RMS' involvement that saved the family from the abuse of the child welfare agencies. And I also mentioned above the minor infractions or innapropriate behaviour that they call abuse -- similar to those quoted above.

And these are the Tzadikim that Nachum wants us to trust.

I know of a tragedy in the Frum community of a child left in a car. The welfare agencies got involved & so did RMS. RMS way of doing things was far smarter & fairer.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 6:39 pm | #

Steve B. -- agreed -- it may be wrong. But to brake up a family because a very loving parent smacks a kid on the behind, or even on the face is utterly & completely ridiculous.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 6:42 pm | #

Not only ridiculous -- cruel & evil. But the welfare agencies would do it.
Anonymous | 11.27.06 - 6:43 pm | #

I am one of many skeptics about the veracity of RMS's statement that the rabbonim are taking care of many abuse cases. There was no more in your face abuser than the present accused from Brooklyn, he's been in Camp Agudah, the Mir, etc......for 40 years and these accusations trailed him until one brave guy said enough.
Then we had this bais din that never took place. And the guy goes back for more and the Establishment says nothing. A public hazmana goes out and a Brooklyn posek advises the defendants to ignore it. Then this posek issues a hazmana for motzee shem ra against a parent of the school to silence him. Am I crazy or is Rabbi Solomon part of the problem?
eliezer | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 7:05 pm | #

This conversation has moved far a field of its origin. The issue at hand is whether our Rabbonim are qualified to deal with the issue of sexual abuse by Rabbeim in our community. I posit that they have proved by their action (and inaction) that they are not. Harav Elyashiv agrees with my position. We live in a society that has a flawed but working system for dealing with sexual predators. Harav Elyashiv has ruled that in an instance where there is no doubt as to the perpetrators guilt we must report the predator to the police. To change this discussion to one that debates how to act if one is unsure of the allegations is disingenuous at best. Both Rabbi Salomon and I are discussing cases where there is no doubt. Whereas he seems concerned with the “dignity” of the offender (and presumably the ensuing furor against the Yeshiva) I (and apparently Harav Elyashiv) am more concerned with the welfare of the current and potential future victims. I respectfully submit that Rabbi Salomon’s position has little to do with “Daas Torah” and much to do with protecting institutions.
Daas | 11.27.06 - 7:07 pm | #

From the other Agudah thread:

If so many innocent people have been smeared, I would like to hear about them. So far, there is a very long list of alleged abusers and no list of innocents who have been falsely accused. Tells you something.

anony | 11.27.06 - 6:57 pm | #
-----------------
Fothingay and Anonymous would have us believe that the problem is that Child Protective Services are tearing erlicheh yidden away from their families.

It is very convenient to attack the public systems. This does not excuse the Orthodox world from ignoring and perpetuating sexual and physical abuse of children.

If Rabbi Solomon has intervened in order to help decent people be treated more humanely by the legal system then that is wonderful.

But we are also talking about cases of rabbis who were shuffled from one school to another only to rape and molest children. The leadership at that time failed. I have heard no evidence that rabbi Solomon was even involved in any such cases.

If they have developed a private system to deal with allegations in a manner that will protect children, then that is great. But, they need to prove this to both the secular authorities and the frum public, or else their credibility will continue to decline. They should also share this with the Modern Orth world, which has had its own problems with sexual abuse, and inaction/cover-ups.

The problem with the Haredi world is that their leadership does not feel that they are accountable to klal yisrael. They feel that klal yisrael is accoutable to them. Leaders are supposed to serve the public, not be worshipped by them.
anonymous | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 7:11 pm | #

>and these accusations trailed him until one brave guy said enough.

Please be accurate. "Until one angry foul-mouthing Gedolim-bashing madman said enough".

>Then we had this bais din that never took place.

It sure did. Do your research.

>A public hazmana goes out and a Brooklyn posek advises the defendants to ignore it.

Of course. It was a weak hazmana. Issued by a lawyer, not by the Bais Din. [deleted] himself admitted that to me. When I asked him why, he said because he knew they won't respond, so he figured he might as well give them the loophole.

That ludicrous. If you're out to nail someone, you go all the way. Not with a hazmana that's not kosher according to all.

Edited By Siteowner
ed | 11.27.06 - 7:22 pm | #

Ed,

You may hate [deleted] OK, but I understand the logic of what he did by having the hazmana issued by an attorney. They could have accepted it by going to bais din of course, and [deleted] covered his bases halachically. But he knew the arrogance of the defendants and their posek, and they fell into his trap. I'm certain he was praying that they don't go to bais din( they could have and we would not be having this conversation). So here we are and the defendants and their posek are looking pretty dumb.
If you call Rabbi Rosenberg, as I have, he will tell you that Mr. Herman got the OK from M'chon L'horaah to issue the hazmana and that it was in Mr. Herman's rights to call them to bais din in any format he chooses.
Pretty clever if you ask me.

Edited By Siteowner
eliezer | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 7:58 pm | #

The one brave guy was David Framowitz.
Sad to Say... | 11.27.06 - 8:01 pm | #

Amen V'amen....the real hero is David Framowitz.
eliezer | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 8:09 pm | #

Re my comment about R' Moshe's teshuva supporting those that would go to the civil authorities-- it was cited here as supporting a contrary position by Tal Benschar on 11.27.06 - 11:34 am.

Tal, do you agree that my reading is correct?
Barzilai

No, I don't. RMF understands the Rema that one can be moser someone (in that case, a counterfeiter) ONLY if the secular authorities are accusing a number of Jews of being involved in that crime. In that situtation ONLY, the Rema permits one to save oneself from the accusation by saying that Ploni is the only one at fault (i.e. he was passing counterfeit money, and I did not notice it.)

RMF notes that the Darchei Moshe quotes a Maharam mi Rizbork (?) who seems to permit mesirah even if the counterfeiting is causing damage to the public (i.e. cheating the public, but not through a broad accusation of the secular authorities). But he understands the Rema himself as being machmir.

Of course, one might be mechaleik between the damage caused of cheating the public through counterfeiting and the damage caused by child molesters. But RMF's teshuva is not a support
Tal Benschar | 11.27.06 - 9:07 pm | #

There's only one person in the whole kehillas hakodesh that is capable of making such a bahala l'tov. My former chavrusah in the good old days.
Be matzliach.
Yitzckok the former chavrusah | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 9:10 pm | #

Once again, to anon., who says I am clueless -

One irony here is that the Thursday night speakers made it a point to condemn anonymous bloggers.

With your last comment, we're getting somewhere, and I think we can close our debate. There's a philosophical gulf between us. You believe in a benevolent despot, the strong-rav authority figure, common to pre-war Europe, and existing for centuries. I believe the pre-war model sometimes did not work so well, and the world has changed so much, we Jews need to respond. Democracy, science, and unprecedented moral decay require that. No one rabbi possesses all the skills that are required to adjudicate even one case of child sex abuse(as Gil mentioned earlier). We need physicians, lawyers and other "community hockers" (your loshon) involved. This is what was done in Chicago - establishing an interdisciplinary beis din to adjudicate abuse cases. We can learn from non-Jews also, as Yisro reminds us, in advising Moshe to set up intermediate courts. How do you think courts today decide all kinds of complex cases - malpractice, sex abuse, homicide cases involving fingerprint and DNA evidence, etc. Expert witness testimony is heavily used, sometimes excessively so, and there are great controls on it, as the courts attempt to avoid junk science. Lay jurors decide many cases, the trial judge is the gatekeeper of evidence, and there is sometimes appellate review by a panel of judges. Sometimes injustices do occur, every lawyer has seen it. But at the end of the day, as I said before, Torah lo shebashayim hi. A justice system is one of the sheva mitzvos bnei Noach. You did not answer this point, and I don't think you can.

You know RMS? Wonderful. You have great respect for him? Even better. We all know RMS, or some other Aguda rabbi or officer. They're inspirational teachers and baalei mussar, but this isn't about us or the rabbis, its about the children, and their right not to be harmed. The flesh and blood of our children deserve our great respect. Their bodies are a kli for a neshama given by the Borei Olam. Our children's bodies are small, and they are emotionally immature. Their parents are their legal caretakers, and they are entitled to the fullest protection that secular law and halacha can give them. That should mean the establishment of an impartial panel of rabbis and frum experts adjudicating an abuse case, and finding guilt or innocence after a hearing, that involves cross examination of witnesses, medical and psychological testimony, medical records, and physical evidence. Guilt or innocence is then found, and life goes on. The very establishment of such a legal/halachic system would have acted in the past as a deterrent. It was not done, so let our medina shel chesed step in. Increased government oversight over the nonpublic schools is the only answer. Public safety and health for the benefit of our children's bodies supercede everything else. Let the medina shel chesed step in.

What you probably don't know is that many of our yeshivas aren't even doing criminal background checks on our employees, despite incidents in our mosdos where convicted sex offenders have attacked children. Some states require nonpublic school employee fingerprinting and FBI checks, and even in those states, there is uneven compliance. Some states allow fingerprinting and FBI
checks, and again, some do, some don't. Certainly, it is legal all over the country for any employer to conduct a name based check through a commercial company (e.g., Choice Point) - again, some schools do, some don't. Can you imagine - for a few dollars, we can prevent a convicted sex offender or murderer from working as a janitor, teacher, or G-d forbid, rebbe in our schools, and we don't do this. Madness.

In New York, it has been illegal since 1937 for private employers to fingerprint, unless some other law allows it, and no law allows nonpublic schools to fingerprint. New York City public schools have been required to fingerprint since 1974, and all New York State public schools since 2000, but our yeshivas were silent in asking for a law that would allow or require them to fingerprint, and do FBI checks. I asked the yeshiva community to set up a system of name checks in New York, and elsewhere. Everyone said I was right, but no such system was set up.

I approached the NY Legislature, and the Governor. There I got some attention, and a law was passed. Starting July 1, 2007, all NYS nonpublic schools are authorized to submit their prospective employees' fingerprints to the FBI for national criminal background checks.

Does what I describe inspire any confidence in you that our yeshivas are capable of adjudicating abuse cases without the input of doctors and lawyers, and without accountability and transparency? Or doing background checks without the parents and the Government demanding it? I hope not, because if you answered yes, you are truly unreachable.

You've made it plain, you're machmir on kavod ha'rav. I'm machmir on kavod ha'chaim, on kavod the gufim and neshomos of yiddishe kinder. I'm disgusted and nauseated by adult men, and even a few women, who take advantage of the small bodies of children who cannot defend themselves, and then who are not believed by their adult caretakers. They are, at best, very, very sick, warped people, and I use the term loosely, and at worst, r'shaim. They need to be forever banished from our system, and that our community has not done this, after everything that has occurred, is a great shame and stain on all us. I have much, much more to say, but one of the writers here has a point, and a point which I've tried to observe to some varying degree, which is that there are great limitations as to what a Jew can say in a public forum like this. I differ with her in that I do not believe anything written here has crossed the line, but its a line we should be aware of.
Elliot Pasik, Esq. | 11.27.06 - 9:21 pm | #

Yitzckok, you talking to me? I don't recall ever having a chavrusah with that name. But you sound like a roommate I once had.
Gil | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 9:31 pm | #

Am I crazy or is Rabbi Solomon part of the problem?
__________________
You are quite sane. In his defence, he is a foreigner who has little knowledge of the environment he now calls home. No excuse, merely a Limud Zechus on what may appear to some as cold hearted Rishus on his part.
anon | 11.27.06 - 10:29 pm | #

Elliot: You have outdone yourself today. Thank you.
anon | 11.27.06 - 10:30 pm | #

>You are quite sane. In his defence, he is a foreigner who has little knowledge of the environment he now calls home. No excuse, merely a Limud Zechus on what may appear to some as cold hearted Rishus on his part.

I would venture to say, that RMS has dealt with more child abuse cases, than all you bloggers together ever will (other than those in the field ie Dr Klafter etc)
ed | 11.27.06 - 10:51 pm | #

Tal, no.

The essential difference is whether the community is seeking to punish him for what he has done, or whether they are seeking to prevent him from doing damage in the future. For what he's done, we are limited seeking punishment according to our law, and not to involve the government which would impose punishment beyond what our code imposes. Even if his past behavior will cause future damage, there is a limit to when and how mesirah is allowed. But to prevent him from committing illegal acts in the future which will damage the community, we are allowed to do whatever we can. We can stop a thief by beating him up, and we can stop him by mesirah to the government.

There are no two ways of reading the tshuvah. Please read it again.

So the teshuva does clearly support those that said that mesirah is muttar where the purpose is to prevent future illegal acts of the malefactor.
Barzilai | Homepage | 11.27.06 - 11:04 pm | #

[deleted] Elliot -- I AM talking about the children. I said clearly that I believe that he cares more about the INDIVIDUAL children (& adults) far more than you. And he has the record to prove it in numerous cases. Like I said before, he isn't perfect. But he has the blend of unlimited care for the individual & the vision of what is important for Kelal Yisrael that you just don't have.

Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous | 11.28.06 - 8:13 am | #

Mr. Pasik,

Your above writings is probably the most eloquent analysis that I ever read on this topic.

Ignore the above anonymous clown, he overdosed on kool-aid.
MO MAN | Homepage | 11.28.06 - 8:33 am | #

Elliot: Let's collaborate on a paper for Jewish periodicals. Email me: doctorklafter@cinci.rr.com
Nachum Klafter | 11.28.06 - 8:50 am | #

Everyone is talking about child molesting. What about molesting the Torah? What kind of Torah is it when one shadchon has a list of 2500 girls over 25 because of the sick system of looking for money to learn in Kollel?

The Agudah convention is about a community too frum and too respectful to refrain from child sacrifice, the destruction of our daughters, and the destructions of our sons in the Kollel system, which is not only a molestation of the daughters and sons, who have no jobs and no hopes and will almost surely not become "gedolim," because we have none growing out there that I know of, but is a molestation of the parents who must bleed their dry bank accounts when they are ready to retire to support people who are miserable because they have nothing to do with their lives. All of this is the policy of Agudas Yisroel, and the "gedolim," who are the true rodfim and threats to our children, ourselves, and the Torah. There is almost no tenet of "Torah" considered a major plank of the present "Torah" leadership that is not completely contradicted by Chazal, or the Zohar, or the Rishonim. It is a generation of a "new" Torah that is "necessary" in order to "sustain the Torah" although the entire program is one CHilul HaShem.
Dovid Eidensohn | Homepage | 11.28.06 - 9:18 am | #

And I will add that Elliot calls RMS an inspirational teacher. I think it is sad in a way that he is such a good speaker, because that takes attention away from who he is as a human being. Pple complained that RYSE is inacessable -- and that seems to be correct. But RMS is VERY accesable -- his phone number is listed, his address is well known & his front door is open at virtually all times. He has time every day for personal appointments for both Baaley batim & Bnay Yeshiva. His phone rings off the hook all day. The only reason you may have to wait to get an appointment with him is because hundreds of other INDIVIDUALS have made appointments with him to discuss problems or issues. He is involved with dozens of widows, orphans, rape & abuse victims, parents who have lossed children, all who view him as their source of comfort & advice. And he consults with experts. Elliot -- call him, & you will see why it makes sense to put your trust in him, not the biased & sometimes cruel child welfare agencies.
Anonymous | 11.28.06 - 10:07 am | #

And as far as the point of the Sheva Mitzvos that require a justice system -- I thank G-d for our Malchus Shel Chesed & agree that it has probably the fairest system in the world. But that is for for Benay Noach -- Jews have the Torah as their justice system.

And as fair as America is the abuses of the system are plenty. And Elliot did not respond to the overwhelming statistics that show the amount of unproven abuse cases, & cruelty of the welfare agencies.

The Gedolim system is flawed & so is the secular system & therefore when given the choice I trust pple like RMS.
Anonymous | 11.28.06 - 10:12 am | #

And I certainly am skeptical of pple who claim concern for Jewish children who would not allow a child a Jewish education because they can't afford it. I bring that up only to show how many times even the best meaning Ba'al Habayis is Hefech Daas Torah.
Anonymous | 11.28.06 - 10:14 am | #

Speaking as a lawyer, I offer this rule: "Never call the police for anything, unless someone is being beaten up or robbed at the time of the call." In our current nanny-state society, we are encouraged to call " the authorities" for just about anything. Before I became a lawyer, I too, thought the police were good guys who were generally helpful. Unfortunately, experience shows otherwise.

The police are an arm of the government, and no one is ever better off with government intrusion. Certainly there are bad marriages, bad parents, and simply bad people out there. But unless someone is in immediate threat of harm, such that a call to 911 will cause the police to arrive in time to save the victim, it's better off not getting the government involved.

In criminal matters, unlike firemen, many policemen - not all - are the power trip types who enjoy arresting people. Further, they are trained to ignore the suffering caused by their intrusion into people's lives. They are taught to believe that if a fellow is innocent, he will be cleared - as though prosecutors don't put enormous pressure on even innocent men, to admit guilt for anything.

I mention this b/c of the incident thata happened last month, when some yeshivah boys were arrested for "assualting" some guys on the street. (" Assault" is what the legal system calls a simple fight, even if you don't actually touch the other fellow, but only scare him). They were taunted into a fight, and when one of the guys got hurt, the yeshivah guys called the police and waited for them to show up, to make sure the injured fellow got help. How naive they were.

There's much more to say. The prison system is a horrific hellhole. Imagine sending men to be locked away for years, rotting behind bars, for crimes the Torah would never recognize as crimes. Example - did you know you can be convicted of rape, with 20 years imprisonment, if you simply finish conjugal relations - and even with your own wife - if she claims she changed her mind in the middle and did not want to continue? That's not a hypotehtical, it happens all the time. All we hear about, from the paid PR professionals, are "recalcitrant husbands"( in the frum context) and wife abusers, etc. You never hear about the innocent, bewlidered men with their lives destroyed in prison, by vindicitve wives and girlfriends, unabashed to charge "rape". Ever heard of the Duke Lacrosse team?

Sorry to rant. I hope the seminar covers everything. But in sum, I repeat, stay away from the police and the legal system. However many flaws our own community systems of pressure have, they are infinitely better than a cold, unfeeling government beauracracy.
Seen-it-all
Anonymous | 11.28.06 - 10:27 am | #

R' Gil,

I was referring to my dear and chashuve chaver/chavrusah R' UOJ. We spent literally 30-40 hours a week learning after I left Lakewood and he left......
His clarity of thought on all issues in learning and meele d'alma was second to none. It is his ability to rally the crowd on this issue that will be remembered in our history.

Dear chaver, watch your language, I understand your mihalach, to appeal to the masses with righteous outrage, but you need to tone it down, although it does seeem to have worked.

Now move on b'lashon nikiyah, you got everyone's attention.

R' Gil,
Your work is wonderful as well. Please see that R' UOJ gets this message, my e-mails to him keep bouncing back.

B'yididus,
Itzy
Yitzckok the former chavrusah | Homepage | 11.28.06 - 11:17 am | #

>Ignore the above anonymous clown, he overdosed on kool-aid.

Ignore MO MAN. He is overdosed on valium.

Anonymous is correct. One has to wait weeks to get an appointment with RMS because he is so booked up.
ed | 11.28.06 - 11:23 am | #

One has to wait weeks to get to see RMS........................

Exactly, that's why he needs help by professionals and a team of askanim temimim.

If a parent or child needs help in an emergency (all cases are emergencies), they should not have to wait weeks to get a "bracha" from a charismatic baal mussar, they need professional intervention.
MO MAN | Homepage | 11.28.06 - 11:33 am | #

>If a parent or child needs help in an emergency (all cases are emergencies), they should not have to wait weeks to get a "bracha" from a charismatic baal mussar, they need professional intervention.

Thanks for confirming your ignorance. Emergencies are always taken in immediately.
ed | 11.28.06 - 12:39 pm | #

"Let's limit the discussion to frum psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers who know what pikuach nefesh means, as opposed to those members of these professions whose expertise is based upon their success in court. IMO, one cannot casually dismiss their conclusions and views on spousal or child abuse as cavalierly as you have with a "shoot the messenger" rationale."

I'm not convinced that these frum psychiatrists etc. are as Torah oriented as you seem to think. And in any event, once you involve the authorities you can't limit who gets to have an opinion.

"Here are some choice quotes from the website recommended by Fotheringay-Phipps"

Those are all fine and valid quotes.
Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.28.06 - 12:48 pm | #

MO MAN -- you can disagree but argue honestly. You are just not saying the truth. Pple do NOT meet with RMS to get Berachos (although they may ask for that as well). The primary reason they meet with him is to get concrete solutions to serious problems or to ask his advice. And the wait to get to him shows that very many are happy with the solutions. Disagree all you want, but these are the FACTS -- pple meet him for advice & solutions to problems NOT Berachos.
Anonymous | 11.28.06 - 1:36 pm | #

Sorry to rant. I hope the seminar covers everything. But in sum, I repeat, stay away from the police and the legal system. However many flaws our own community systems of pressure have, they are infinitely better than a cold, unfeeling government beauracracy.
Seen-it-all
______________________________________
Seen-it-all: Is it true that you confessed?
anon | 11.28.06 - 2:28 pm | #

Fotheringay-Phipps cited statistics which are intended to prove that there are many false claim cases; and thereby rebut Sad to Say's statistics which show 92 to 98 percent of sex abuse claims are true.

F-P's statistics encompass far more than child sex abuse cases. They include NEGLECT too, and varying cases of abuse, not only sex abuse. Certainly, there are false claims of varying types of neglect and abuse.

But child sex abuse claims are overwhelmingly true.

All of this is beside the point. This is what courts and administrative tribunals are for. Hearing claims and deciding guilt.

Nachum - I'll get back to you.
Elliot B. Pasik, Esq. | 11.28.06 - 3:02 pm | #

What is wrong with letting everyone have an opinion? That is what I love about this country. Of course, that's asur too.
Male Repellant | 11.28.06 - 3:18 pm | #

Honestly the best way to protect is transparency. It will be obvious that allegations are looked into and dealt with appropriately. Any other way makes me suspect anyone. We have to remember our community is very insular-we are nog'im baddavar. And when we discourage kids from talking about it, we know we are letting these people go. Of course, some innocent people will get hurt. But we have to look at probability and gains here-I would rather have more kids protected and our community trusted than ensure 100% that no one innocent is removed from teaching.
Male Repellant | 11.28.06 - 3:31 pm | #

I also notice FP includes as innocent those who claim to be innocent.
Male Repellant | 11.28.06 - 3:32 pm | #

Also about innocent men and rape-first, we do hear about these cases. Whatever we feel the law should be, though, do you think as a whole we would be better off just punishing based on the halakha? True-marital rape is asur, but we do not punish a man for it.
Male Repellant | 11.28.06 - 4:14 pm | #

The other important thing to remember is that in our society, at least with the court system we have procedures that have to be adhered to and they have teeth. There is accountability. That is just not the case when things are handled internally on a case-by-case basis. In both systems, some people will fall through the cracks-we have to judge what the consequences are and where negative ones are greater and more likely.
Male Repellant | 11.28.06 - 4:19 pm | #

"Fotheringay-Phipps cited statistics which are intended to prove that there are many false claim cases; and thereby rebut Sad to Say's statistics which show 92 to 98 percent of sex abuse claims are true."

As noted above, Sad to Say did not provide any such statistics

"F-P's statistics encompass far more than child sex abuse cases. They include NEGLECT too, and varying cases of abuse, not only sex abuse. Certainly, there are false claims of varying types of neglect and abuse."

You present a moving target. Earlier you've qualified your statements to be exclusive of certain types of situations. Now you are drawing new distinctions. Eventually we will reach the point where "child sex abuse claims that Elliot Pasik believes in are overwhelmingly true." Until you provide some meaningful distinction, this remains a baseless and self-serving one.

"But child sex abuse claims are overwhelmingly true."

No doubt you have some evidence of this that you cannot share.

"All of this is beside the point. This is what courts and administrative tribunals are for. Hearing claims and deciding guilt."

As a practical matter, they do. Whether they get it right is another matter. And even if they decide innocence, the accuser and family are ruined anyway.
Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.28.06 - 5:28 pm | #

But this way more children are protected. I honestly think courts have more chance of getting it right than anyone else-especially when the people investigating are part of the same group and have a vested interest in keeping things quiet.
Male Repellant | 11.28.06 - 6:41 pm | #

Fotheringay-Phipps has resorted to the following in his attempt to defend the incompetent and irresponsible handling of sexual and physical abuse by Orthodox leadership over the last 3 decades:

1) Characterizing claims of sexual abuse as being frequently false.

2) Manufacturing statistics ("99%" he claimed) about the wishes of victims of sexual abuse.

3) Demonizing Child Protective Services.

4) Claiming that frum psychiatrists are really not very Torah oriented

5) Constantly using ad hominem insults.

6) Making ignorant claims about what is in the best interests of victims of sexual abuse.

7) Drawing self-serving conclusions from statstics which are cited by other commentors from studies which he has never read.

I recommend that we stop responding to anything he says.
Anti-Fotheringay Task Force | 11.29.06 - 1:46 am | #

Yeah, maybe if we ignore him he'll just go away.
Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.29.06 - 12:46 pm | #

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvw
Great Site Thanks
Joe | Homepage | 10.17.07 - 12:54 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan