Why rabbis are typically not competent to deal with abuse cases

Guest Post from Rabbi Yehoshua Kaganoff: This is a letter written several years ago which was sent in response to an article in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society.

=====================

Rabbi Alfred Cohen, Editor

RJJ Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society

5 Fox Lane

Spring Valley, NY 10977

Chol Hamoed Succos, 5771

Dear Rabbi Cohen,

I appreciate the voluminous amount of research and effort that you invested in composing your recent article, “Judging Transgression in the Absence of Witnesses”. However, I was considerably dismayed over several fundamental omissions of very critical dimensions that impact dramatically on the outcome determinations and guidance that was necessary to convey to your readership and others under their influence.

Probably the most effective and efficient means of demonstrating the deficient aspects of the article is to critique the 3 case-studies that you cited as examples on pages 45-47 of your article.

In regards to the first case, you state that you feel that the authority figures acted in laudatory fashion.

Unfortunately, that is grossly incorrect. Nowhere is it mentioned that in the initial confrontation (“the quiet, discreet one”) that the rabbis in charge stipulated that the “rebbe” needed to submit to specialized psychological testing and treatment and that his engagement in the treatment protocols needs to be corroborated and verified. Nor was it mentioned that in the interim his movements need to be constantly (electronically) monitored and that the monitoring would only be discontinued after receiving a “clean report” from the supervising therapist.

The “rabbis in charge” were completely unaware of the compulsive, addictive nature of pedophility. Nor were they aware of the extent of the injury and damage caused to the victim of molestation.

Therefore, even though they may have (perhaps) protected the children of the yeshiva, they did nothing to protect the children of the community at large. As is well documented and known, a pedophile’s verbal assurances are of absolutely no value; Nor are threats of punishment! The disease (and indeed, a disease it is!) is a compulsion that he cannot rationally control and it was only a matter of time before he would victimize another child.

The rabbis in charge, either out of neglectful ignorance or arrogance, ignored the medical scientific research on this condition and blundered egregiously. They did not discharge their responsibility of Lo Sa’amod Al Dam Re’echo. The subsequent victim’s trauma (“….not abiding by the terms of the agreement.”) is their full responsibility. “Kol Dmei Achicho Tzoakim Eilai!”. Yodenu Shofchu es HaDom Hazeh!”      

              

This is very precisely a case of “Holcho Chamorcho, Tarfon”.

And likewise the public denouncement thereafter, was also a consequent miscarriage of justice. They never gave the perpetrator a proper chance at therapy to modify his psychological issues which underlie his disease. They basically set him up for failure and the subsequent public degradation.

This is not laudatory at all!

Similarly in the case of the Hebrew school teacher that you cited as case study #2, The Rosh Yeshiva perhaps protected the children in school. How these same children were to be protected off school premises remains mystifying. The nature of the disease is that if one avenue of sating the craving is denied, then the addict finds another avenue to “soothe” the compulsion.

And exactly how was the Shul Rabbi going to protect the children in the Shul? Was he to appoint (discreetly, of course) a shomer to watch the teacher’s every action? Anyone who works in the field of addictions knows that it is absurd and impossible to expect another person to control externally the addict from engaging in his “drug of choice”.  And what about the children in the rest of community? Again there was no interim electronic monitoring to keep the community safe. And there was no   mandated treatment with corroboratable compliance to ascertain that the perpetrator was engaged in the therapeutic process. All of these follies lay the groundwork for a subsequent disaster to happen.

Your referencing and comparing of these first 2 cases to your third case study of a Monsey butcher is a total non-sequitor. Even if we suspect the butcher of the compulsion of Kleptomania, at most he is endangering people’s money. The Maacholos Asuros factor is clearly an “Ones Rachmono Patrei” on the part of the customers and every responsible rov and rebbi will exonerate the consumers. Even the “Timtum HaLev” aspect, if indeed it applies at all, is removed by some Teshuva on the part of the consumers – please see endnote for elaboration. In no way does this compare to the severe emotional trauma and physical damage caused by molestation! A molester is a true Rodef in every sense of the word as borne out by the research.

Until such time as Rosh Yeshivos, Rabonim and Dayonim educate themselves in the following areas:

            1 – The compulsion dimension of Pedophilia; it is not a case of yitzra b’yodo – that he can contain his “own   evil urgings”…..

             2 – The extensive damage done to the victims….; 

          3 – That this is not a case of “judging transgression”; but preventing profound injury by a public menace (Rodef)…

A parent or other responsible adult has no other recourse than to go to the secular authorities and/or to the media, to protect his own children and those of others. And this is, indeed, mandated by Halocho!

If you would like, for your convenience I can send to you the corroboratory Teshuvos, Mareh Mekomos and resource material that is available upon these matters.

I believe it behooves you to recall the article as being half information and therefore inaccurate and misleading.

A Guten Moed v’Simchas HaChag

Sincerely,

Rabbi Kaganoff

PS – concerning Timtum Halev:

1) Droshos HaRan(#11) posits that a person who commits an Aveira but did so because he followed the Psak of Torah Authority does not suffer Timtum HaLev. In the cited butcher case, the consumers were following a very reliable Rav HaMachshir.

2) Even if we would disregard the Droshos HaRan, the Timtum HaLev is at most a Hezek SheAino Nikar, which is only a Hezek m’d’Rabbonon – NOT m’dOiraisah (Oruch HaShulchon CM 386:8).

3) Even if we suspect that the consumers ate Chelev, which would precipitate upon them a Chiyuv Korbon (Chatos or Oshom Tolui) to atone and rectify the damage, the cost of the animal would be only a monetary damage on the part of the butcher (Garmi – Oruch HaShulchon 368:11). 

And whether it be in a time when Korbonos can or cannot be brought, Teshuva accomplishes the requisite rectification as per Rambam, Teshuva 1:1 ; 3 and 7:4,6-8