This is a good example of a posek requiring strict Torah restrictions for reporting a molester to the police. This view is widely criticized by such poskim as Sho'el UMashiv, Rema, Shach, R' Eliashiv, R' Moshe Halberstam, Tzitz Eliezer, R' Ovadiah Yosef, and Minchas Yitzchok. [this was posted 3 years ago - just updated the formating]
Rav Menashe Klein - 16 58 Abuse
Rav Menashe Klein - 16 58 Abuse
This is probably the most problematic ruling that I have seen on the issue of reporting an abuser. There are two issues that definitely seem to stick out. First the strict insistence upon two halakhic witnesses, and secondly the concept that behavioral sciences run contrary to Torah.
ReplyDeleteTwo halakhic witnesses in most cases is simply an impossibility. By nature of predatory behavior these people wish to be as hidden in their actions as possible. It is well known that such behaviors are disgusting in the eyes of society, and thus they are not going to be engaging in them in public view. If the Rav is going to insist on all the halakhic strictures regarding eidus be followed, such as even two witnesses where each witnessed a separate incident cannot combine to make a proper eidus, then the truth of the matter is that it will be an extreme rarity that a predator is ever stopped. Instead this ruling ChV"Sh seems to embolden predators. As long as they are certain there is no true eidus they have no worries that someone can act against them.
Rejection of behavioral science, while a recognized Torah view, does seem to run contrary to the history of our sages. It seems that our sages throughout time took into account observable facts when making their rulings. Considering that much of the psychological evidence that he says is against Torah, comes not from the theories of the psychologists, but rather from the observation of patterns carried out by the predators, it seems in my humble opinion that its rejection can also be said to run contrary to Torah.
My class on Psychology & Halacha just concluded and reading this blog post was quite an ironic way to end off the class. :/ :)
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I may not comment like I used to because I'm so busy, but I'm still reading!
mkubal said: "Two halakhic witnesses in most cases is simply an impossibility."
ReplyDeleteSame principle is true with murder. A murderer will not kill in front of two eye-witnesses (especially after "warning"). Do we discard the necessity of 2 eye-witnesses to convict for murder?
Do we discard the necessity of 2 eye-witnesses to convict for murder?Effectively yes, since the Melech may order executions as necessary to preserve the public order without adhering to those requirements. See Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 3:10 and Moreh Nevuchim 3:40.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, in contemporary society I doubt many rabbis would forbid informing the police where a murder was hiding because they didn't have two witnesses to the crime.
Effectively yes, since the Melech may order executions as necessary to preserve the public order without adhering to those requirements. See Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 3:10 and Moreh Nevuchim 3:40.The keywords here are "to preserve the public order." i.e. during a time of unusual necessity. Not the standard judicial approach.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, in contemporary society I doubt many rabbis would forbid informing the police where a murder was hiding because they didn't have two witnesses to the crime.That statement is vague. Who determined he is a murderer?
Joseph,
ReplyDeleteSee the end of Perek Merubah with subsequent commentaries in the Rishonim and Achronim. The answer is yes, we do. We have a round about way of killing a murderer for whom we only have circumstantial evidence.
However, abuse as we have it now seems to be, halakhicly a fairly new animal.
Regarding reporting a murderer see Mishne Halachos 7:285
ReplyDeleteI agree with mekubal on the halachic witnesses thing. We are not trying the person for a conviction for some dinei nefashot issue m'doraita. A lot of this is more for prevention than conviction. While we are at it, why not require that the two halachic witnesses give the perpetrator the requisite warning with the proper psukim while the crime is being committed?
ReplyDeleteAlso this business of what he wrote regarding torah versus psychology and science is self evidently ridiculous.
Also this business of having expert judges whatever that means try these cases al pi torah, whatever that means hear these cases because non exist as far as I am aware. If such a committee were formed I am sure that the authorities whomever they may be depending on which country we are discussing, will be just ecstatic of having these extra judicial tribunals taking place in their midst.
If he did not have the sefer to read what Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbauch zt'l had said then he had no buisiness to paskin. If he judged someone to be a rodef then as far as I'm concerned you had better deal with the issue very thoroughly before you decide to impede
ReplyDeleteTo convict someone al pi Torah requires kosher edus, but what if reporting to the police is for the purpose of removing danger from the community? Must the same standards apply?
ReplyDeleteparshainsights.blogspot.com
This is an obvious point that Rav Klein ignores. I have the major sources on this in vol II of my "Child and Domestic Abuse." For example
DeleteRav Yehuda Silman (Yeschurun volume 15 page 662):. … The commentaries explain that the obvious reason for not needing witnesses but they could rely even on circumstantial evidence is because this was not a court procedure to punish wrongdoers. Rather it was either done to obey the law of the kingdom or it was to stop someone from sinning. The Rashba is cited in the Beis Yosef that witnesses are not needed in such a case…”. That is because we are concerned only with the knowledge of truth in order to stop the harm and to make protective measures against iniquity. Furthermore according to what I said that even a doubtful rodef is permitted to be killed, it is obvious that it is permitted for us to take protective action even if we have unresolved doubts.
Rav Yehuda Silman (Yeschurun 22): … In the original article I was inclined to the view that in the case of sexual abuse since the perpetrator is not executed but is imprisoned to protect society then perhaps all would agree that it is permitted to report him to the authorities. Furthermore in the original article it was concluded that that it is obvious that there is no need to have witnesses that meet the standards required by the Torah but even less than that is sufficient and I cited a number of rishonim. The reason is reporting the teacher to the secular authorities is not punishment requiring a beis din but is an action mandated by secular law (in the Diaspora) or in order to separate the abuser from committing sin. In addition according to the reason that even in the case of a possible rodef it is permitted to inform the authorities – it is obvious that is permitted without proper witnesses since all that is required is that there be the possibility that he is an abuser….some say just the opposite and assert that it is not necessary to convene a beis din with both sides present and that in fact a beis din or even a rav is not needed at all. Rather what is needed is to involve the government authorities as soon as possible since only they have the legal right and actual ability to deal with these matters…. On the one hand concerning the legal requirement - it is clear that there is no need to convene a beis din in the presence of both sides since the basis of the permission to report the perpetrator to the secular authorities is either because he is a possible rodef (pursuer) or to separate him from sinning or because of the government mandates reporting… [SEE RABBINIC SOURCES]
Let's see if he changes his mind if the victim is him or a descendant of his.
ReplyDeleteHe was niftar several months ago
Delete"Rav M. Klein's rejected view"
ReplyDeleteJust to play devil's advocate. (not that I consider R Klein to be the devil) What makes this Teshuva rejected? Is it because every other Posek disagrees? Is it because you feel he's a Ta'ah be'dvar mishneh? (no pun intented)
not sure what you want. all of the above - in addition he had no knowledge of child abuse either how harmful it is or how prevalent.
ReplyDeleteIn sum this teshuva is an embarrassment
"not sure what you want."
ReplyDeleteI want to konw what makes it a 'rejected' psak as opposed to a daas yachid like any other.
To shaul shapira. If rabbi klien came out with a psak that todays pigs are kosher with out question because they are not what the torah refers to a chazir. Would u also call him a dass yochid? What rabbi klien paskind regarding molestation cases is absolutely absurd. My only reason for giving him the benefit of the doubt is that he wrote this teshuva when he wasn't well. Or perhaps misinformed about what molestation actually is
ReplyDeleteWho care what an anono internet poster thinks of a Godol HaDor such as Rav Klein zt'l.
Delete