Discussing accusations of rabbinic malpractise

THIS IS TO NOTIFY READERS THAT A LOT OF MISINFORMATION IS CONTAINED IN THESE LETTERS AND THEIR ASSERTIONS SHOULD BE PRESUMED TO BE MISTAKEN UNLESS CONFIRMED BY RELIABLE SOURCES.

FURTHERMORE SINCE THIS IS NOT A BEIS DIN AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES - AT MOST THE ASSERTIONS MADE IN THE COMMENTS CAN BE REASON FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION, BUT THEY ARE NOT TO BE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE. FINALLY EVEN IF THE LETTERS AND OTHER PROOF ARE IN FACT VALID DOCUMENTS - THERE IS NO CONTEXT OR PROPER DESCRIPTION OF PRECEDING OR SUBSEQUENT EVENTS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COME TO A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF EVENTS

IN SUM THESE SOURCES ARE UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE AND ARE NOT TO BE BELIEVED WITHOUT DISCUSSION WITH COMPETENT RABBIS.


THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IN THE COMMENTS IS ONLY SO THAT A PERSON SHOULD BE AWARE OF POSSIBLE CONCERNS SO THAT HE CAN PROTECT HIMSELF FROM POSSIBLE HARM - BUT THE MATERIAL BY ITSELF CAN NOT ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THE ASSERTIONS.

Pischei Tshuva (O.C. 156): I want to note here that while all the books of mussar are greatly concerned about the sin of lashon harah, I am greatly concerned about the opposite problem. I want to protest about the even greater and more common sin of refraining from speaking negatively when it is necessary to save someone from being harmed. For example if you saw a person waiting in ambush to kill someone or breaking into someone’s house or store at night. Is it conceivable that you would refrain from notifying the intended victim to protect himself from the assailant - because of the prohibition of speaking lashon harah? By not saying anything you commit the unbearable sin of transgressing the prohibition of Vayikra (19:16): Do not speak lashon harah [but] do not stand idly by when the blood of your fellow man is threatened? By not speaking up, you violate the mitzva of returning that which is lost to its owner Devarim (22:2). Now if you can understand the obvious necessity of speaking up in these cases then what is the difference between a robber breaking into someone’s house or store or seeing that his servants are secretly stealing from him or that his partner is deceiving him in their business or that another person is cheating him in commerce or that he is lending money to someone that you know doesn’t repay? How is this different from stopping a proposed marriage to someone you know is a wicked person who would be a horrible husband. Saving a person from these situations is clearly included in the command (Devarim 22:2) to return to the person himself or his money. From where do we get the mistaken idea that in the case of murder, I will speak up but that it is prohibited to say anything in other situations where someone is being harmed? The general principle is that these are matters which depend upon the speakers motivation. If the informant’s intent in relating these matters is entirely to cause harm that is lashon harah. However if his intent is to bring about benefit to the other person and to save him and to protect him – then it is a great mitzva. In my opinion this is the underlying intent of the Yerushalmi which the Magen Avraham brings which says that it is permitted to speak lashon harah about people who cause disputes. … It is obvious that even concerning those who cause disputes it is not permitted to speak lashon harah gratuitously about them in all matters. It is only permitted for those things directly related to the particular dispute. It is only permitted concerning that which they are trying to harm others. In such a case it is permitted to reveal degrading things about them in order to save others. … Unfortunately I have seen many times where someone witnesses another person trying to cause harm to someone – and he suppresses the information and says, “Why should I get involved in a matter which isn’t my business…However one needs to be very careful about these and similar matters. Our Sages have said – when the permissibility depends on motivation - it says, “And you should be afraid of your G‑d.”

Anyone who feels the above is not sufficient justification to read assertions and charges against others - should skip this post.

meinyan leinyan beosso inyan said:

Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz's shita is that such things as corrupt rabbonim being machshil the rabim need to be publicized.

RSFM was a fearless man who took a lot of petch for doing the right thing. Not everyone is necessarily mechuyev to do the same. I could not quote the rabbonim who spoke to me on certain items because they must maintain a low profile unless they want to invite certain dark forces to harass them or worse.

=====================
Chazon Ish(2:133)… My opinion is that it is appropriate to have true knowledge about a talmid chachom who shapes yiddishkeit. If it is permitted to tell someone who needs to know about the bad points of an artisan in regards to his qualifiation for doing a job, then it is surely permitted in regards to conveying information about an influential talmid chachom for those who need to know. That is because knowing about the great scholars of the generation concerning their thoughts and characteristics – is itself considered Torah. [In other words just as one is permitted to convey accurate information about an artisan if there is to'eles so it it permitted to reveal information about a gadol if there is to'eles. Nevertheless it is necessary to be extremely careful not to distort the facts in the slights, because that would lead to slandering a talmid chachom.

This indicates that expressing negative information about others is relevant specifically for those who are considered influential authorities and only concerning isssues that are critical for the listener – in order to understand the degree to rely on them.