Abuse: Questions to ask your rabbi 2

Rav Pinchos Yehoshua HaCohain wrote in answer to: Questions to ask your Rabbi

1. In a case where a father finds out that his son is being molested by a teacher and this is corroborated by several of his classmates. The abuse has been going on for a number of months. Thus there is absolutely no question that the abuser is active and the danger is present for the foreseeable future. Since in my opinion I have clear and unequivocal evidence that the molesting is taking place - can I go directly to the police. Or do I need rabbinic approval first?

In item #1 of my first teshuva to the Moetzes, which you posted on your Blog, I addressed this. The Maharam m'Rizburk is quoted as the definitive Halacha that it is a Mitzva to Go directly to "Arkuos" eg the police. Please refer there for the sources-

--- Is there a difference whether the likelihood of another incident is clearcut and urgent or whether there is clearly time to consult rav?

The only time that one needs to consult a Rav first, is if it is absolutely clear that it will not occur again. Also mentioned in the above source material.

2. A person reported Reuben as an abuser or attacked Reuven because he reasonable thought Reuven was a rodef and needed to save Reuven's apparent victim from harm and he hurt Reuven in the process. It was discovered that the Reuven not in fact an abuser or rodef – is the person liable for damages? For example I see a man and woman fighting and the woman is screaming. I go over and warn to guy to stop but he tells me to mind my own business. the women seems to be in danger and the ownly way I can stop the attacker is by taking a baseball bat and knocking him out. It turns out they are married and the wife sues me for hurting her husband.

According to all poskim, he is definitely Potur. because he reasonable thought Reuven was a rodef") There is no dispute. see CM 380:3 from BK 117B and Sanhedrin 74a. It is Gemoros Mefuroshos. A Takonas Chazal that suspends Odom Muod L'Olam!

3. In a case where a rav said not to report a case of abuse and as a result the child suffered severe physical and psychological damage – is there any liability for either the rav or the person who listened to the rav?

Much to my chagrin, in the eyes of Halocho there would seem to be no fiscal culpability. I guess Hashem wants to deal with this Himself. The Rav is in violation of at least 2 Mitzvos Aseh and at least 2 Lo Saaseh. He may also incur upon himself an "Orur" - a Klolo. The Rav was guilty of a Hora'ah b'To'os. From the Shach CM #9 it would appear that this is a To'oh b'Dvar Mishna. His proof from Sanhedrin 32a concerning Rabi Tarfon would seem to be an even closer fit to our present discussion - after all Rabi Tarfon also was just unaware of some medical information. Even so it is of little consequence in regards to financial liability. The operative Psak, whether it be To'oh b'Dvar Mishna or To'oh b'Shikul HaDaas is that a 1) "Mumche" that 2) has Kobilu Olayhu or has Reshus, is not Chayov to pay any damages. The operative Halocho, in spite of many dissenting opinions is that he is NOT considered even a Garmi because he did not intend to be Mazik. Most Rabonim who pasken on these Shaalos today, fall under the rubric of Mumchoim (see Oruch Hashulchon CM 25 # 1) and Kobilu Olayhu (see Oruch Hashulchon CM 25 # 7) and therefore would escape financial liability. (Even if you could bring proof against the Aruch HaShulchon, the rav could patur himself with "Kim Li")Even though the Chazon Ish (Igros #31) and the Gro (Mishlei 6,4 & 22,12) are very critical of Dayonim/Poskim who are not well-informed in regards to the "Metzius" and are not up to date on the current scientific/ medical info, and as a result hand down erroneous Piskei Din; we would, nevertheless, be very hard-pressed to thereby demote the status of contemporary Rabonium to that of non-Mumche. Even if we could muster a cogent case to do so, they, nevertheless would, in all likelyhood, still be Potur, since in it is very unlikely that he will actually have personally handed the child directly to the molestor - ie only Noso v'Nosan b'Yad is Chayuv in this case (as per Aruch HaShulchon CM 25 # 9).he party who listened to the Rav likewise has no financial liability. He is an "Oness" having been misled by someone whom he thought was knowledgeable However, The Rav is in violation of at least 2 Mitzvos Aseh and at least 2 Lo Saaseh. (Hashovas Aveida and b'Tzedek Tishpot; Lo Saamod Al Dam Re'acho and Lo Saasu Ovel BaMishpot.) He may also incur upon himself an "Orur" - a Klolo. If he is opposed to becoming educated and informed (his attitude is contrary to the Gro and Chazon Ish above), then the reasoning in the Pesicha to Chofetz Chaim concerning the Arur's on Loshon Horo would equally apply here to "Oror Mateh Mishpot Ger Yosom v'Almono"

4. In a case where a person reasonable concluded that a child is being molested and a rav told him not to report it – should the person report it anyway?

Of course, he should ignore the rav and report it! The Rav's directive is a To'oh b'Dvar Mishna which is Chozar Dino-a non-hora'ah.