Thursday, August 27, 2009

Rav Menashe Klein: How does calling an abuser a rodef - permit calling the police?


I had previously posted the teshuva of Rav Menashe Klein and child abuse. However there the concern was his insistence on following the strict letter of Torah law concerning witnesses. In our recent discussion of labeling an abuse a rodef he raises another important point - how does calling an abuser a rodef permit calling the police?

Notice the following discussion in the Rema and then read Rav Klein's teshuva.

Shulchan Aruch(C.M. 35:14): A woman is not a valid witness…Rema: All those who are invalid witnesses are invalid even in circumstances where Jewish men are usually not found. However all this is according to the strict letter of the law, but there are those who say that there is an ancient decree that regarding a place where men are not normally found such as the women’s section of a synagogue or any other circumstances where only women are typically present and not men. This decree also applies in regards to facts that woman pay attention to and men don’t - such as to testify that “this woman wore these clothes.” In these cases a woman’s testimony is believed (Terumas HaDeshen 353 and Aguda asara yuchsin). Therefore there are those who say that even one woman or a relative or child is believed concerning physical abuse or the shaming of a talmid chachom or other disputes and informing. That is simple because it is not normal to invite valid witnesses nor is there time to summon them to these events (Maharik 179, Maharam M’Rizborg, Kol Bo #116). These alternative witnesses are only believed when they claim that they are certain of what they are saying (Maharik 93).

Rav Menashe Klein (Mishneh Halachos 16:58): … Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 388:9) writes that it is prohibited to cause a Jew to be handed over to the secular government whether physically or his money - even if he is a wicked person and even if he irritates and causes someone distress. It would seem from this statement of the Shulchan Aruch that it is prohibited to report a person to the police. Nevertheless in Nishmas Avraham (C.M. part 4 page 207) he cites in the name of Prof Avraham Sofer that Rav Eliashiv, the Tzitz Eliezer, R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach classify a molester as a rodef (pursuer) and that they rule that it is permitted to report the molester to the police. However I don’t have this book to see what they actually said….

Concerning the issue of whether it is permitted to give him over to the secular courts (see Shulchan Aruch 388:9). But this that you want to say that he is a rodef (pursuer); I don’t know what you mean. In the case of the rodef we have an established principle that if we can stop him by damaging one of his limbs then he should be stopped that way. Therefore in our case we can say that after the matter has been clarified that he in fact committed the crime, nevertheless he can be stopped by firing him from the school and therefore he will not have the opportunity to do the crime again. Since the administration can stop him in this manner they have no right to punish him by given him to the secular government since he is no longer a rodef. Furthermore if he is now pursued after he has been fired then the victim becomes the rodef and the rodef becomes the victim. If it has been clarified before proper witnesses then there is an alternative way of dealing with him by firing him – it is prohibited to hand him over to the government. And surely in the case where the facts have not been clarified by proper witness as I said before – but only by means of circumstantial evidence. Nevertheless he does not have the status of a wicked person except by means of proper witnesses. So surely it is prohibited to hand him over to the police and to have him imprisoned. (Also because in the case of imprisonment when he is freed he will be like he was before.) Nevertheless after he has committed a transgression we have no ability give him a punishment of flogging because we don’t have a beis din with proper semicha. We do have the ability to make various decrees but what ever is done must be done according to the Torah and with a proper beis din. Nevertheless in a situation where all the clarifications of facts have not been done according to the Torah as we have written, even though it is possible to fire him from the school – but G‑d forbid to hand him over to the police and have him imprisoned.

Therefore I am extremely upset that there are rabbis that have decided to give permission in all cases to go to the civil courts. There are cases of people who have come to me where a child who learns in the school and has various problems with the teacher and has accused the teacher of pursing him in a disgusting manner. Even though there is no previous history of such a thing and he has acted like any other religious teacher. Nevertheless they go to a rav who tells them immediately to call the police. That is in my humble opinion a very serious prohibition. Concerning this the Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 26) says that a person who goes to the secular courts is a wicked person and is like one who blasphemes and raises his hand against the Torah of Moshe. The Rema adds to the Shulchan Aruch and says to punish anyone who assists in this endeavor. Thus one who rules that one should go to the secular courts is included in one who assists in this endeavor. In addition he is giving permission to be a moser and to go to the secular courts which is included in cherem – G‑d forbid.

52 comments :

  1. What Rav Klein says is really outrageous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. shoshi said...

    What Rav Klein says is really outrageous.
    ============
    why?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Since the administration can stop him in this manner they have no right to punish him by given him to the secular government since he is no longer a rodef."

    This is outrageous

    "Furthermore if he is now pursued after he has been fired then the victim becomes the rodef and the rodef becomes the victim."

    This is even more outrageous.

    "If it has been clarified before proper witnesses that there is an alternative way of dealing with him by firing him – it is prohibited to hand him over to the government."

    This is also outrageous.

    "And surely in the case where the facts have not been clarified by proper witness as I said before"

    And this makes all investigations impossible.

    But anyway, this is a question I wanted to raise.

    When roni came to the conclusion contrary to that of Menashe Klein, i.e. if someone goes around hitting people, he can surely be handed over to the police, the question of proof was not dealt with.
    Therefore there is a question: what level of proof is necessary to hand an alleged perpetrator to the police?

    - The victim has proof, so supposedly the victim is allowed to turn the perpetrator over to the police.

    - However, the persons the victim confided in might only have "hearsay". Are they allowed to turn him in?

    Well, actually I noticed that this just resolved Rav Klein's problem: the one who goes to the police has to be the victim himself, so that there is no problem with the absence of witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "There are cases of people who have come to me where a child who learns in the school and has various problems with the teacher and has accused the teacher of pursing him in a disgusting manner. Even though there is no previous history of such a thing..."

    Or look at this kind of reasoning:
    No-one said so before, so it cannot be true...
    Well: there is always a first time.

    How can he say the victim accuses because "the child has various problems with the teacher". How can he be sure it is not the other way round, the problems stem from the teachers "disgusting pursing"...

    With this kind of circular logic, you can eliminate almost all the cases...

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Concerning this the Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 26) says that a person who goes to the secular courts is a wicked person and is like one who blasphemes and raises his hand against the Torah of Moshe."

    This is also very interesting: a molester who molests without witnesses, apparently, is not "wicked", but the victim who turns him to the police is.

    Was Rav Klein's intention to convey the impression that Torah Law is ridiculous? In this case, he succeeded.

    ReplyDelete
  6. i have known rav. menashe klein for the last 35 years [have been davening in his shull],this man is a gevaldige talmid chacham,and has a photographic mind,but when it comes to the fifth shulchan aruch.[ie.common sense ]he is absolutely clueless,this psak of his is an absolute outrage,and should be completely ignored by any normal thinking human being.
    as an example of his lack of common sense.
    if you remmember 20-25 yrs ago when
    the AIDS epidemic came on the scene,and it was discovered that most of the old blood banks where aids infected,and therefore there was a severe shortage of blood,and a health emergency was declared,and an emergency appeal was made by all the rabbonim in NYC and they ruled it is a PEKUACH NEFESH and every healthy jew is obligated to donate blood.
    Well the same shabbos rav.menashe klein got up in his shull,and announced that in his opinion it is absolutely forbiden to donate blood,as there is a prohibition to be CHOVEL BEATZMO,[you are prohibited to injure yourself]
    that is when i realized,this man has absolutely no common sense,and his PSAK'S are absolutely worthless

    CHAIM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I also want to add by asking if this the same Rav who paskened that it is mutar to cheat the US government as long as you do not get caught?

      Delete
    2. Don't think he ever gave such a ruling at least not in public,
      although would not be surprised if he actually did.
      the man had absolutely no common sense,and gave chareidi Judaism a bad name with a lot of his absolutely idiotic rulings,very few people took his psak's seriously

      Delete
    3. browserAugust 5, 2013 at 12:40 AM

      you Don't think he ever gave such a ruling at least not in public' see teshuvot V'hanhagot vol. 5 siman 319 pages 396-397

      Delete
  7. "Concerning this the Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 26) says that a person who goes to the secular courts is a wicked person and is like one who blasphemes and raises his hand against the Torah of Moshe. The Rema adds to the Shulchan Aruch and says to punish anyone who assists in this endeavor. Thus one who rules that one should go to the secular courts is included in one who assists in this endeavor. In addition he is giving permission to be a moser and to go to the secular courts which is included in cherem – G‑d forbid."

    Pure distortion.
    Everyone knows that the secular courts that the shulchan aruch refers to are not the ones we have in the USA but more like the ones in IRAN.

    He confuses the issue when he writes that "Even though there is no previous history of such a thing and he has acted like any other religious teacher."
    He is talking about a situation where we don't have enough proof that the guy is a molester. That is irrelevant to the situations where we do know with an abundance of evidence and various opinions of forensic psychologists (mumchim).

    So he throws a straw man at us and pretends we want to call the police in a case where there is not any substantial proof.

    And then he ignores poskim who pasken in alternative ways such as the aruch hashulchan.

    Why does this man believe it is such a horrible thing to call the police on someone who needs to be put in jail in order to stop hurting others?
    We are doing the criminal a favor. Yes really, he is better off in a jail cell than hurting children.

    ReplyDelete
  8. shoshi said...


    Was Rav Klein's intention to convey the impression that Torah Law is ridiculous? In this case, he succeeded.
    ===============
    Obviously not.

    He is simply pointing out a well known detail of the status of rodef. You can not use more force than is necessary to stop him from either killing someone or committing a prohibited sexual relationship.

    He questions how other rabbonim can use the justification of rodef to call the police when it is possible to stop the molester without calling the police.

    This is a very critical issue.

    There are in fact other ways of permitting (requiring) calling the police.

    1) Rema & Shach (388) permit going to the police for someone who is a public danger

    2) Chasam Sofer based on Gittin (7a)also does not require a rodef - but someone who causes a public danger or financial loss

    3) Rav Eliashiv and others rely on the principle of ais la'asos (Shulchan Aruch C.M. 2) which says that a rabbi or community leaders are not bound by Torah law when faced with a serious problem to the community.

    4) There is also mandated reporting of the secular government which allows calling based on BM 83 or dina d'malchusa

    In short there are so many legitimate paths to the obligation to call the police - that if I know them Rav Klein knows them - the problem is why he doesn't refer to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can stop him without calling the police? This is a psak out of the shtettle. Are we to break this man's knees while he is on the way to molest someone or kidnap and castrate him so he will not have designs on someone else? Moreover does this include someone whom we merely suspect is dangerous? Are we now going to play "Law and Order" in the place of competent authorities?

      Also he is aware that there are other opinions (that might contradict his) cited from Rav Elyashuv, RSZA and the Tzitz Eliezer. He just has not gotten his hands on them and he wants to give a definitive psak. I am speechless.

      Delete
  9. His conclusion is:

    Don't go to the police unless two kosher witnesses testified they saw the abuse taking place.

    What I don't understand: why can't the victim call the police. There is no issue of proof when the victim goes.

    R. Klein seems to say that it is forbidden to believe the victim (which per se is problematic), but this does not rule out that the victims alerts the police.

    So obviously, there is a hole in his argument, and once more I am surprised that this basic kind of error happens to someone who is deemed a "Godel"

    ReplyDelete
  10. shoshi said...

    His conclusion is:

    Don't go to the police unless two kosher witnesses testified they saw the abuse taking place.

    What I don't understand: why can't the victim call the police. There is no issue of proof when the victim goes.
    =================
    If one follows a strict judicial procedure than it is required that two witnesses testify.

    The alternative paths that I described do not require two kosher witnesses.

    That is why it is puzzling why Rav Klein insists on a strict letter of the law approach when there are clearly established alternatives.

    For example Rav Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos 3:231): … Question: If someone is sexually abusing a boy a girl in circumstances which we don’t have the means to stop him from continuing his evil deeds – is it permissible to notify the government authorities? Answer: Rashba (3:393) states: “My view is that if the witnesses are believed by the judges, then it is permitted to punish the accused financially or physically depending upon what the judges think is appropriate to be beneficial to society. Because if we insist on doing only what is specified by Torah law and not to punish except as specified in the Torah – the world will end up destroyed. That is because the elementary rules of a functioning society will be breached and consequently it will be ruined. It is an established practice to punish those who physically harm others…Every community makes judgments in order to preserve it and this is true in every generation and every place according to what is perceived as the needs of the times. For example we see (Sanhedrin 58b) that Rav Huna, who was in Babylonia, would amputate hands as punishment. Therefore these judges you referred to who punished the accused not in accord with Torah law – if they saw the need for it to preserve the society – they have correctly acted according to the halacha....

    ReplyDelete
  11. proceed with cautionAugust 26, 2009 at 10:06 PM

    It is well known that there are serious issues with R. Menashe Hakatan and his extreme Hungarian Hassidic positions. He has been dubbed the Mishaneh Halachot (changer of halachot).

    People should be wary of him and his writings, esp. if they are not personally acquainted.

    Who made him the Ungvarer Rebbe/Rav? He has no Hassidut, although he does have a minyan factory in Bklyn.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Nevertheless he does not have the status of a wicked person except by means of proper witnesses."
    So if a man is walking down the street with yamaka on his head and is firing his ak47 we must wait for witness confirmation before we shoot him. We must certainly not call the police.
    How can Rav Menashe say that we cannot consider a person to be a rasha unless we have testimony from two eidim? This is not psak Halacha nor is it Torah it is just plain stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It seems that the readers of this blog, with or without bad intentions, are distorting the words of the Gaon. To be sure, child abuse is an awful tragedy and sinners should be punished and will be punished by H". We should all pray that this awful affliction and sinful deed be eradicated from the face of the earth.

    As a law student I remember the very complicated issues surrounding child testimony, even where there is physical evidence. To accuse someone of abuse without proper evidence can destroy a man, and effectively "kill" him while he is still on this earth. The Torah established guidelines for valid witnesses for a purpose.

    We should all feel very uncomfortable putting a man in jail and ruining his life based on witnesses that are not approved by the Torah. The fact that frum Yidden have no problem throwing a man to the secular courts is problematic and is evidence of our fallen spiritual state.

    In my opinion many of these abuse problems could have been avoided with stricter compliance with Yichud. A man should not be alone with young children except in very limited situations. It's sad that it would come to this, but apparently the Rabbis have extended Yichud to such situations.

    We should all merit to act with holiness and purity and remove the evil within our midst.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yelamdeinu Rabbeinu, how do you stop a child molester without calling the police and without physically mutilating him? Rabbi Klein thinks that this is accomplished by firing him from a teaching job. This is ineffective because (a)he still is roaming freely and has unfettered access to children (b)he can easily move to another town and be hired again as a teacher.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Spiritual Dan. Would you please advise us of the types of testimony that were used halachically to put people into Beis Din authorised prisons, and how that testimony (or lack thereof) differed from the types of evidence being solicited in abuse and similar cases by western courts of law?

    Is it the case that when the murderer kills your neighbour and you didn't give Hasro-oh and have another witness that you describe such as "an awful tragedy" as well such that the murderer will be punished by H'?

    In respect of Yichud, would you be advocating a re-invigoration of the rule prohibiting men from sleeping in rooms together given the now rather high visibility and acceptability of homosexuality, including at Yeshivas? Shulchan Aruch talks about it, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am not qualified to discuss Rav Klein's halachic analysis of din rodef. However, he makes the following statement:
    ...in our case we can say that after the matter has been clarified that he in fact committed the crime, nevertheless he can be stopped by firing him from the school and therefore he will not have the opportunity to do the crime again. Since the administration can stop him in this manner they have no right to punish him by given him to the secular government since he is no longer a rodef.

    Rav Klein brings a hypothetical: Yes, the man did molest a child, and we hypothetically consider him to be a rodef. In this hypothetical, there are at least two separate possibilities: In one, the accused did it, but will not repeat his action. In the other, the accused is, or will become, a serial molester. Some such monsters are known to have pursued and damaged hundreds, even thousands of children. That is not speculation. That is rock solid truth, and a fact central to any consideration of what to do with child molesters.
    Indeed, when Rav Klein says that prison is only a temporary restraint because the molester will return to his ways on release, he assumes that his hypothetical molester, who can at best (worst?) only temporarily considered to be a rodef, is in fact a serial molester, who will by definition not be deterred by being fired from his teaching job. (While he would not be cured by prison either it would at least interrupt his predation for a while; also, on release from prison our hypothetical convicted molester, now himself the victim of the accuser-rodef, would be placed on the list of registered sex offenders, imperfect tools though such registries undoubtedly are.)

    Since in his central hypothetical Rav Klein is on the one hand assuming that firing will deter his serial molester and on the other assuming that prison will not, his reasoning seems to me to be fatally flawed, even without addressing whether he successfully refuted the poskim who, if I understand the argument correctly, presume serial molesters be permanently in the category of rodef by virtue of the fact that they will repeat their crimes unless stopped by authorities competent to imprison them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Since the administration can stop him in this manner they have no right to punish him by given him to the secular government since he is no longer a rodef."

    This is simply not cogent. Schools are not the only place to find children.

    Frankly, if the police are not allowed to deal with a rodef then parents will sooner or later.

    ReplyDelete
  18. >why?

    Because what Rav Klein has said is clearly an outrage and beyond the pale. It puts the vulnerable and abused in danger. That is not my opinion, that is the opinion of medical experts who work with abused children on a daily basis, that are mandated to report abuse.

    Rabbi Menashe Klein's probable involment in child betrothal issues is discussed in this video by Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff as well as why Rabbi Menashe Klein takes unacceptable positions with regard to women and their rights.

    http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/718997/Rabbi_Aaron_Rakeffet-Rothkoff/2005-10-09_Rav_Menashe_Klein

    It is also alleged by Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoffthat Rabbi Klein takes positions of this sort due to a former wife that took him to civil court and took custody of their son, so that he never saw this son again.

    Yes he went through hell and back during WW II, but that does not excuse this. Rav Klein is not a doctor he has no training in recognizing or treating abuse of children. If a doctor determines there is a danger to a child, it must be reported, period.

    One could argue that there is a aspect of "nogea bedvar" in these sort of teshuvas. Clearly, these outrages must be excised from our practice.

    Abuse must be reported to the police. End of story.

    JWB

    ReplyDelete
  19. steve said...

    Yelamdeinu Rabbeinu, how do you stop a child molester without calling the police and without physically mutilating him? Rabbi Klein thinks that this is accomplished by firing him from a teaching job. This is ineffective because (a)he still is roaming freely and has unfettered access to children (b)he can easily move to another town and be hired again as a teacher.
    ===================
    Rav Klein is alluding to the fact that in two sections of Shulchan Aruch C.M. 1 vs 2 there are two diametrically opposed models of justice.

    Siman 1 highlights the severe limitations the impotence of those who strictly follow Torah law

    Siman 2 highlights that society has a right to protect itself even if one needs to disregard Torah.

    Rav Klein can be viewed as saying that because of these two views the problem needs to be dealt with within the Jewish community but without transparency and without accountability i.e., we don't publish teshuvos as to what is actually going on. The Teshuva serves only one purpose - to prevent people from going to the police with these problems.

    In fact the likelihood of someone accused of child molesting getting jail time - at least in Israel - is about 10 to 20%.

    If you want to focus on the needs of protecting the child there is in fact an alternative system to the impotence of Torah law and the inefficient chillul Hashem of the police.

    That is the use of modesty squads which - at least in Israel - utilize the professional skills of inducing exquisite pain with minimum evidence by former enforcers for organized crime who are now baalei teshuva.

    So for all you who advocate violence against child molesters - there is such a system within the chareidi community. However it comes at a price. Those same goons are used not only against molesters and adulters, fornicators etc. But are also used against those who don't dress modestly enough or have commputers in their house or have unacceptable hashgofa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would like to add that not all people who carry out actions on behave of the modesty squads are balei tshuva but guns for hire from the underworld.

      Now that I have said all of that, the modesty squads that are in existence today are preludes to tomorrow's Jewish KKK and future theological totalitarian rule here in Israel. In other words, a "Kosher Style Iran." The government here is terrified to stop them because they fear angering the Chareidi street. I know that what I am saying here is provocative. Perhaps someone here can explain to me why I needn't be afraid.

      Delete
  20. I wrote about this tsuvah in 2005 in hebrew:

    http://www.hydepark.co.il/topic.asp?topic_id=1290615&forum_id=1364

    ReplyDelete
  21. So in other words, vigilante justice is the preferred method rather than the secular court system? The problem is, vigilantism is also against the law in any country. Also, mandated reporters refusing to go to the police is also against the law. Whatever happened to Dina D'Malchusa? What about the Rashba's psak of Tikkun Olam which Rav Elyashiv quoted? It seems like Rabbi Klein is cherry picking which laws to follow and which to disregard in order to avoid dealing with the police in these matters. Rationally, we all know that it is unavoidable and is the only deterrant in dealing with these child molesters. We are not the mafia and we don't have "enforcers" that will break the law by harrassing and/or causing physical harm to these perpetrators. His whole teshuva does not deal with the actual metzius of the situation. Anyone who follows his shitah will only cause more cases of molestation and destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Again, although I am on multiple levels below which I can claim to understand the Gaon, I think there are volumes of wisdom in the Teshuvah, more than knee-jerk reaction allows. If there is any mistake in the Teshuvah, it lies more in the fact that it does not fully recognize the fallen state of its readers and interpreters...

    The Teshuvah says we can "damage the limb" of a rodef to prevent further injury; R. Klein assumes that firing the teacher is enough to prevent further pursuit. If this is not adequate, we have to ask the Gaon what other "limbs" we can then damage; it's a separate question not addressed in the Teshuvah. I don't know enough Torah law to even ask if "other limbs" includes castration.

    IB: Yes, a major factor to all this seems to be the laxity in the laws of Yichud and negiah. Men who put themselves alone with children are asking for trouble. Worse of course are those who are lenient and touch in any way girls over 3 years old. I see it in shuls too often and it is just inviting problems.

    ReplyDelete
  23. what does he really say?

    that you are allowed to report to to the police a case of rape, only if the rape was seen by two adult men, who are not psulei eidut-(relatives or not shomrei shabbos), and the raped girl is over three years old!

    what did he smoke minutes before he wrote his t'shuvah?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I don't know enough Torah law to even ask if "other limbs" includes castration."

    Practically speaking: if you take him against his will and castrate him, it is OK according to halacha, but if you denounce him to police who will just put him in jail (if he is proven guilty), you are a Mosser?

    And where is Dina deMalchuta Dina, when Dina deMalchuta does not allow you to go around catrating people?????

    ReplyDelete
  25. shoshi said...

    Spiritual Dan said... "I don't know enough Torah law to even ask if "other limbs" includes castration."

    Practically speaking: if you take him against his will and castrate him, it is OK according to halacha, but if you denounce him to police who will just put him in jail (if he is proven guilty), you are a Mosser?
    =============
    Shoshi I am just amazed at the confidence you posken the most difficult questions without a single source - where do you get your information from?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Concerning the words of the Rama that you posted, my understanding has always been, סתם ויש אומרים הלכה כסתם. Admittedly I have not looked at the piece yet to see what the notein kelim have to say. However, based on the above principle, and if R' Klein wishes to follow strict Din... he has a leg to stand on. Not that I agree with it at all.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pt 1
    Shoshi,

    Most of your arguments are predicated upon an two assumptions. The first assumption is that Psychology has any merit that Torah should take note of. To quote myself from previous post where I dealt with this at length. You are assuming that mental health care is a valid form of healing and that it is in line with Torah values. Take for instance this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2G4_CeMCY

    I post that because I know the Rosh Yeshiva he learned that from.

    Then there is the perspective of others such as R' Mordechai Goldstein Shlit"a, who claims that psychology/psychiatry can diagnose accurate problems but is useless to resolve or heal them. He claims that is the shitta of the Yeshiva where he learned(Chafetz Haim), and has passed that on to each of his students at his own Yeshiva. Furthermore each of his former students that have started their own Yeshivas(at least each of the one's I have spent any time at) hold the same opinion. They have passed this on to their students, some of whom are Dayyanim that will hear cases.

    On the other side of the spectrum you have R' Twerski(whom I personally agree with) and Nefesh. Each side believes that it is upholding Torah with its view points. Who is right who is wrong, who can decide? Both sides have Gedolim backing them.

    Those view points will radically dertermine different paths and different solutions to the problems that you give. For instance if one does not believe in mental illness, but rather that "problems" are simply a lack of emunah, middot development and Torah Study, then for instance their is no such thing as a serial abuser who has a mental problem. Rather it is simply someone who has sinned, or who has not yet mastered the teivot. Thus why should they be imprisoned or punished? They need rather to be taught and helped. They need proper musar, and chizuk. Maybe they need to make a tikun for an aveira in a past life. You don't have to take my word for it, see the move "Trembling Before God." Granted it deals with homosexuality(though one of the individuals claims to have "improper feelings" for his school children) which is not classified as a mental illness, but nevertheless is a deviance according to Torah. You will see the variety of approaches portrayed there.

    There are like streams of reasoning dealing with the victims, but because they disgust me I will not share them here. It is enough to say that there are Torah opinions that, because of their view on psychology and other things, essentially blame the victims for their ongoing problems.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Pt 2
    Moving past that first assumption, which is truly key because your second assumption is based upon that. Your second assumption is that lasting harm is actually done those who have been abused. There are a wide range of Torah views on this, everywhere from absolutely no to absolutely yes. It is thus important to understand that R' Klein is not lacking in wisdom or in understanding of the texts. However his own Torah views do conflict with your positions and restrain him from holding the same positions on a number of issues as other Gedolim.

    Thus if you wish to criticize his views you must bring strong halachic support. First it is important to analyze his words to see how he arrived at his final decisions. Then if you truly disagree and think that it is against Torah you have to be able to show where he deviated. Otherwise you simply come across as overly emotional and worked up.

    If you truly don't like this man's teshuvah there are two main ways you can go about disproving it. The first is to pit your intellect and Torah knowledge against his. Maybe you will win, perhaps not.

    The second is what R' Yosef calls halachic arithmetic. It is simple addition and subtraction. How many modern Gedolim hold this way? How many hold against? The higher number is the halacha. For instance R' Klein says not to call the police. R' Yosef, R' Eliashiv, R' Auerbach, R' Feinstein, R' Eliyahu(and I am sure numerous others as well) say to call the police. 5 to 1, the yeses have it.

    This does not mean that we simply reject his teshuva. Halachic books such as the Sh"A are full of Teshuvas that ultimately we reject. However they are still important to be read and understood in depth. If for no other reason than to be sure we do not make the same mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "R. Klein assumes that firing the teacher is enough to prevent further pursuit."
    And this "Gaon" of yours is dead wrong.

    Firing him is not enough and I know of a case where the school did that and the guy got a job at another school.

    "In my opinion many of these abuse problems could have been avoided with stricter compliance with Yichud"

    They could been avoided by complying with Halacha that says molestation is prohibited. What's your point? Molesters don't care about yichud, in case you did not realize that.
    Even according to your view whereas there is no issur of yichud with a man and male child, how would "compliance with yichud" prevent molestation of boys by men? please enlighten me I really am fascinated that there is someone who agrees with "the Gaon"

    ReplyDelete
  30. LOOK, dear Daas Torah,it is mainly the people with the sources who make torah seem ridiculous,so stop your sarcasm which is paired with stupid arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  31. shoshi said...

    LOOK, dear Daas Torah,it is mainly the people with the sources who make torah seem ridiculous,so stop your sarcasm which is paired with stupid arrogance.
    ==================
    Shoshi in other words the more ignorant you are the more you know about Torah! I obviously disagree. If you have nothing intelligent to say, I will simply stop posting your abusive and uniformed comments. Last warning.

    ReplyDelete
  32. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2G4_CeMCY

    iiuc, the fellow in that video was niftar, i am not sure due to what cause.

    kt,
    josh

    ReplyDelete
  33. A good secular example of R. Klein's idea is found in the concept of solicitor-client privilege. A lawyer whose client confesses to a crime is FORBIDDEN to report that client to the police. Think about that. There have been cases where American lawyers KNOW the wrong guy is in prison, have a confession from their client, but do not report facts to the authorities because of this "lofty" concept of Solicitor-Client privilege.

    My lawyer friend - who was staunchly against R. Klein's views - was VEHEMENTLY in favour of solicitor-client privilege in all situations (even murder). He couldn't see the hypocrisy in his own view.

    So basically, it came down to this: if his father confessed to vehicular manslaughter, he would report his father to the authorities; but a client, he would not report.

    It's an absurd outcome and it shows the sad state of modern Jewry, and we should use Elul to elevate ourselves to our true levels of Keddushah.

    Every fellow Jew should be thought of l'havdil as solicitor-client privilege. Which means, if we know the client is going to commit further crimes and cannot be stopped, that's the point where we "cut of all his limbs".

    ReplyDelete
  34. Spiritual Dan,

    Are you then suggesting that we ignore Rov Gedolim?

    It is important to understand that Rov Gedolim disagree with R' Klein. R' Klein even makes mention of this in his Teshuva. It has always interested me that he seems that he cannot be bothered to attain the books where those Gedolim make their own Teshuvot before he argues on them.

    Ultimately while his view is Torah it is not halacha. We do not follow a Yachid over the Rov. So ultimately I have to wonder if you are suggesting that we set aside Rov Gedolim, and thus halacha, on account of this view? I would think that would be even worse in Elul.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Spiritual Dan said...

    A good secular example of R. Klein's idea is found in the concept of solicitor-client privilege. A lawyer whose client confesses to a crime is FORBIDDEN to report that client to the police. Think about that. There have been cases where American lawyers KNOW the wrong guy is in prison, have a confession from their client, but do not report facts to the authorities because of this "lofty" concept of Solicitor-Client privilege.
    =====================
    Your explanation is incorrect. First of all if a lawyer or psychologist is aware that his client is a danger to others he is required to report it.

    The abuser is not just someone who did a crime but is highly likely to repeat it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org


    /wiki/Confidentiality
    However, most jurisdictions have exceptions for situations where the lawyer has reason to believe that the client may kill or seriously injure someone, may cause substantial injury to the financial interest or property of another, or is using (or seeking to use) the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud.

    In such situations the lawyer has the discretion, but not the obligation, to disclose information designed to prevent the planned action. Most states have a version of this discretionary disclosure rule under Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 (or its equivalent).

    A few jurisdictions have made this traditionally discretionary duty mandatory. For example, see the New Jersey and Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6.

    In some jurisdictions the lawyer must try to convince the client to conform his or her conduct to the boundaries of the law before disclosing any otherwise confidential information.

    ReplyDelete
  36. if R' Klein wishes to follow strict Din... he has a leg to stand

    I would call it "naval birshus hatora" , when there are few opinions at least one of them is more compassionate and peaceful and the other one is strict and destroctive , some people choose the latter.

    Just like our own Roni / Leib Tropper revokes conversion of married woman with a child because she wore pants and there are opinions that it is not sufficient to revoke conversion.

    Or his own rabbi Pinchus Scheinberg who said that if the molester did not penetrate the child nothing wrong happened.

    BTW, Mekubal, you told us once that you will check with the family of R; Avigdor Miller about this psak

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Which means, if we know the client is going to commit further crimes and cannot be stopped, that's the point where we "cut of all his limbs"."

    Your equating two separate concepts.
    The right to confidentiality and the issue of whether Halacha obligates one to report molesters to the police (or forbids it according to the Gaon).

    Confidentiality only exists when client attorney privileges are established. In such cases the accused has a right to have help from someone who will seek his best interests and not try to get him in trouble. Obviously if his attorney would just use all the information to damage his clients case, or provide such information to the prosecutors than no one would ever have any faith in representation and the legal system would have only one side, the government's. We are in a democracy and the interests of society are pursued by the Government who prosecute criminals and the criminals have attorneys who can challenge the Government if indeed they were falsely accused. Without confidentiality, the Government would have too much power.

    Now if we choose to not report molesters to the police we are not acting like attorney's who are hired to do a job for their client to counter balance accusations from government, rather we are acting like fools who are assisting and enabling molesters. We have no right and no obligation to cover up for a molester. Although there have been cases where frum people allegedly engaged in obstruction of justice by pressuring witnesses and victims to not cooperate with the police, doing so only undermines the intrests of the community.

    There is a principle in Torah where if there is a conflict between the intrests of the individual or the communaty (tzibur)the community's intrests take precedence.

    You are only concerned with the individual molesters and not the community as whole and its victims. The communities' interests come first.

    You don't even acknowledge that by failing to report the crime you are damaging the lives of many future victims and encouraging future criminals. Have you ever heard of the issur of "thou shall not sit idly by on your brother's blood"?

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Which means, if we know the client is going to commit further crimes and cannot be stopped, that's the point where we "cut of all his limbs"."

    Your equating two separate concepts.
    The right to confidentiality and the issue of whether Halacha obligates one to report molesters to the police (or forbids it according to the Gaon).

    Confidentiality only exists when client attorney privileges are established. In such cases the accused has a right to have help from someone who will seek his best interests and not try to get him in trouble. Obviously if his attorney would just use all the information to damage his clients case, or provide such information to the prosecutors than no one would ever have any faith in representation and the legal system would have only one side, the government's. We are in a democracy and the interests of society are pursued by the Government who prosecute criminals and the criminals have attorneys who can challenge the Government if indeed they were falsely accused. Without confidentiality, the Government would have too much power.

    Now if we choose to not report molesters to the police we are not acting like attorney's who are hired to do a job for their client to counter balance accusations from government, rather we are acting like fools who are assisting and enabling molesters. We have no right and no obligation to cover up for a molester. Although there have been cases where frum people allegedly engaged in obstruction of justice by pressuring witnesses and victims to not cooperate with the police, doing so only undermines the intrests of the community.

    There is a principle in Torah where if there is a conflict between the intrests of the individual or the communaty (tzibur)the community's intrests take precedence.

    You are only concerned with the individual molesters and not the community as whole and its victims. The communities' interests come first.

    You don't even acknowledge that by failing to report the crime you are damaging the lives of many future victims and encouraging future criminals. Have you ever heard of the issur of "thou shall not sit idly by on your brother's blood"?

    ReplyDelete
  39. שעות לאחר צאת השבת

    Mekubal wrote:
    “The second is what R' Yosef calls halachic arithmetic. It is simple addition and subtraction. How many modern Gedolim hold this way? How many hold against? The higher number is the halacha. For instance R' Klein says not to call the police. R' Yosef, R' Eliashiv, R' Auerbach, R' Feinstein, R' Eliyahu (and I am sure numerous others as well) say to call the police. 5 to 1, the yeses have it”.
    It simple only for a "simple simon”, but not for rabbi yosef that wrote in שו"ת יביע אומר ח"ז או”ח סימן מד ד”ה ט:

    "אולם הנה ידועים דברי המהר"ם בן חביב בספר גט פשוט כלל א, כי לא נאמר "אחרי רבים להטות" אלא שכל הדיינים נקבצו ובאו יחדיו ונחלקו פנים אל פנים, וכל אחד מהם אמר טעמו ונימוקו, והרוב עמדו בדעתם, בזה הוא שאמרה תורה אחרי רבים להטות, אבל במחלוקת הפוסקים והמחברים שלא נשאו ונתנו פנים אל פנים לא אזלינן בתר רובא …".

    he also quotes the chazon ish who wrote in orlah simai 17:
    "ידוע כי אין כח 'רוב' אלא במושב בית דין; אבל חכמים החולקים שחיו בדורות חלוקות או במדינות חלוקות, אין נפקותא בין רוב למיעוט".
    to this I may add what harav kook wrote (מאמרי הראי"ה, עמ' 56):
    " … לא שייך לומר כאן 'אחרי רבים להטות', דמי יודע מי הם הרבים?... והרי כל זמן שלא נתקבצו בעלי הדעות במעמד אחד, כדין סנהדרין ברובא, אין שייך דין 'אחרי רבים להטות'... ובפרט כאשר כל אחד מהמתנגדים יש להם טעם מיוחד... וגם מהספרים קשה להכריע איזה הם דעת הרוב'".

    Does it look to you that rabbi yosef was playing the numbers game?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Compulsory reporting on sexual crimes against minors in the Israeli law

    http://www.pigur.co.il/law/onesh3.htm

    368ד.  חובת דיווח (תיקון: תש"ן, תשנ"א, תש"ס, תשס"ז)

    א.   היה לאדם יסוד סביר לחשוב כי זה מקרוב נעברה עבירה בקטין או בחסר ישע בידי האחראי עליו, חובה על האדם לדווח על כך בהקדם האפשרי לפקיד סעד או למשטרה; העובר על הוראה זו, דינו - מאסר שלושה חדשים.

    ב.   רופא, אחות, עובד חינוך, עובד סוציאלי, עובד שירותי רווחה, שוטר, פסיכולוג, קרימינולוג או עוסק במקצוע פרה-רפואי, וכן מנהל או איש צוות במעון או במוסד שבו נמצא קטין או חסר ישע - שעקב עיסוקם במקצועם או בתפקידם היה להם יסוד סביר לחשוב כי נעברה עבירה בקטין או חסר ישע בידי אחראי עליו - חובה עליהם לדווח על כך בהקדם האפשרי לפקיד סעד או למשטרה; העובר על הוראה זו, דינו - מאסר ששה חדשים.

    ג.   היה לאחראי על קטין או חסר ישע יסוד סביר לחשוב כי אחראי אחר על קטין או חסר ישע עבר בו עבירה, חובה עליו לדווח על כך בהקדם האפשרי לפקיד סעד או למשטרה; העובר על הוראה זו, דינו - מאסר ששה חדשים.

    ג1. היה לאדם יסוד סביר לחשוב כי זה מקרוב נעברה בקטין או בחסר ישע עבירת מין לפי סעיפים 345 עד 347, 348 ו-351, בידי בן משפחה שטרם מלאו לו 18 שנים, חובה על האדם לדווח על כך בהקדם האפשרי לפקיד סעד או למשטרה; העובר על הוראה זו, דינו – מאסר שלושה חודשים; בסעיף זה, "בן משפחה" – כמשמעותו בפסקה (2) להגדרה "אחראי על קטין או חסר ישע" בסעיף 368א.

    ג2. בעל מקצוע מהמנויים בסעיף קטן (ב), שעקב עיסוקו במקצועו או בתפקידו היה לו יסוד סביר לחשוב כי נעברה בקטין או בחסר ישע עבירת מין לפי סעיפים 345 עד 347, 348 ו-351, בידי בן משפחה שטרם מלאו לו 18 שנים, חובה עליו לדווח על כך בהקדם האפשרי לפקיד סעד או למשטרה; העובר על הוראה זו, דינו – מאסר שישה חודשים.
    ג3. היה לאחראי על קטין או חסר ישע יסוד סביר לחשוב כי נעברה בקטין או בחסר ישע עבירת מין לפי סעיפים 345 עד 347, 348 ו-351, בידי בן משפחה שטרם מלאו לו 18 שנים, חובה עליו לדווח על כך בהקדם האפשרי לפקיד סעד או למשטרה; העובר על הוראה זו, דינו – מאסר שישה חודשים.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Spiritual dan wrote:

    “I don't know enough Torah law to even ask if "other limbs" includes castration”.
    if there are other limbs handy to chop, such as ears,tongue, nose, hand or hands,castration maybe a bit of problem, as there is the isur of sirus, by the way, batei dinim use to punish criminals by making their ears,tongue,nose, hand or hands a bit shorter,See asaf, Haonashim acharei chatimat hatalmud” p22.

    ReplyDelete
  42. David,

    I will look up that Yabia Omer, I want to read the full teshuva. However, the halachic arithmetic is something I have heard him say numerous times in his Motzei Shabbat Shiurim. I was also certain that I read it either in his Hazon Ovadia, or Halacha Berura, though I will have to check...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mekubal

    הרי לפניך דברי הרב יוסף (שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ז - או"ח סימן מד ד"ה ט) ותבט

    ט) ותבט עיני בשו"ת דבר משה ח"א (חאו"ח סימן ל, דכ"ב ע"א) שהביא מ"ש הגאון רבי משה ששון בקונטריסו להתיר בנידונו מטעם ס"ס, והאחד מהם שמא הלכה כר"ת שחמץ בפסח בטל בששים, ואף שמרן פסק דהוי במשהו מפני שראה שרבו האוסרים על המתירים, ונטה אחר הרוב, מ"מ אם נצטרף עוד ספק אחר גם מרן יודה להקל. וכתב ע"ז הרהמ"ח, דשאני הכא בדין חמץ בפסח שרוב הפוסקים ס"ל דהוי במשהו, וכן פסק מרן, וסוגיין דעלמא אזלא הכי, הרי נעשה דין גמור, ואנו מחוייבים לפסוק כן, משום אחרי רבים להטות, ואין כאן ספק שקול לצרפו לספק ספיקא, שלא נכנס זה בסוג ספק כלל. עכת"ד. והנה גם המהרימ"ט (חיו"ד סימן לג) הנ"ל, אתי עלה מטעם אחרי רבים להטות, וא"כ אין זה בגדר ספק כלל. ע"ש. הנה ידועים דברי המהר"ם בן חביב בספר גט פשוט בכללים כלל א, כי לא נאמר "אחרי רבים להטות" אלא כשכל הדיינים נקבצו ובאו יחדיו ונחלקו פנים אל פנים, וכל אחד מהם אמר טעמו ונימוקו, והרוב עמדו בדעתם, בזה הוא שאמרה תורה אחרי רבים להטות, אבל במחלוקת הפוסקים והמחברים שלא נשאו ונתנו פנים אל פנים, לא אזלינן בתר רובא, והוי ספקא דדינא, כי אפשר שאילו היו נושאים ונותנים ביחד, היו המרובים מודים למועטים, ושכן מוכח בתשובת הרשב"א שהובאה בבית יוסף חו"מ (ס"ס יג). ושכן כתב בשו"ת מהרלנ"ח (בקונטרס הסמיכה דף רעח ע"ג). וכן העלה המהר"א ששון בשו"ת תורת אמת (סימן רז) דמשום האי טעמא כשיש מחלוקת פוסקים בדיני ממונות, המוחזק יכול לטעון קים לי כסברת המיעוט נגד הרוב וכו'. ע"ש. וכ"כ החזון איש (ערלה, ר"ס יז), שידוע שאין כח הרוב מכריע אלא במושב בית דין, אבל במחלוקת חכמים שהיו בדורות שונים או במדינות שונות אין נפקא מינה בין רוב למיעוט. ולכן המוחזק יכול לומר קים לי כהמיעוט נגד הרוב. ע"כ. (וע"ע בשו"ת חזון נחום ס"ס כד בשם הגרע"א בתשובה סימן קכב, ובשו"ת חת"ס חאה"ע ח"ב סימן עא דף לה ע"א בשם הגאון בעל בית אפרים. ודו"ק) ומעתה שפיר סמכינן על סברת מיעוט נגד הרוב לחשוב הדבר בגדר ספק, לענין לצרפו עם ספק אחר לספק ספיקא ...”.

    this teshuvah is about drinking water from the kineret on pesach, a teshuvae on this topic from rabbi woldenberg to rabbi yosef can be found in tzitz elhezer chelek 17 siman 23.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The post should not have been made in the first place.

    It disrespectful to put words of Torah in a place where they will be left to be taken pot shots at and disrespected.

    It's a bizayon Hatorah, Dvar Hashem Bazah.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The post should not have been made in the first place.

    It disrespectful to put words of Torah in a place where they will be left to be taken pot shots at and disrespected.

    It's a bizayon Hatorah, Dvar Hashem Bazah.
    ===========
    I am not sure what is bothering you. Are you saying that since his teshuva is so problematic it should not have publically been pointed out and the masses been made aware of someone who dismisses the views of gedolim such as Rav Eliashiv, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach etc etc.?

    or are you saying that it was such a sensitive and profound point of view that the masses totally missed the beauty and holiness of what he was saying?

    ReplyDelete
  46. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/08/rav-menashe-klein-how-does-calling.html

    ReplyDelete
  47. The previous link was a wrong link. Replace with this:
    http://www.jewishnews.net.au/rabbi-should-step-down/22129

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.