Somone just sent me the following guest post. It clearly expresses that being a proper servant of HaShem requires understanding the collective nature of the Jewish people and the need to uproot evil from our midst. Just as we clearly celebrate the good we do as Jews - we need to condemn and criticize the bad. Failure to be concerned with publicizing the negative because of fears of chilul HaShem or degrading talmidei chachomim - results in the disaster described in the post.
============================================
In שמואל בּ פּרק כ״א, it describes a famine in Dovid HaMelech time. After 3 years he consulted the אורים ותומים and was advised that the famine was a punishment for Shaul HaMelech (deceased) killing Givonim many years earlier. So Dovid HaMelech approached the king of the Givonim and asked how he can appease them, and the response was "we want to kill 7 of Shaul's descendants as retribution". So 7 family members were handed over, they were killed and hung on a tree for 7 months, and subsequently the famine ended.
Two questions arise: 1) why was the whole בּני ישׂראל punished for one persons crime and had to endure a famine? and 2) Shaul HaMelech was long deceased so why rehash old stories and bring to the worlds attention problems the Jews had in the past and punish them creating a חילול השׁם?
Answers: The Abarbanel (and it appears also the Malbim) comment that the reason the Jews were collectively punished was because they didn't protest Shaul HaMelech's actions of killing the Givonim. Regardless that he was the Melech, Godol, Daas Torah (all the above combined in one) you do not blindly listen especially if they're making a mistake. And to the contrary, you have a responsibility to protest these actions.
The second question is answered by the Gemora Yevamos (78B and 79A) (Rashi ד״ה ואל יתחלל שׁם שׁמים), that a חילול השׁם was caused among the non-Jews as they saw Jews can commit crimes and escape unpunished. But after killing the 7 descendants as retribution and hanging them on a tree for 7 months, people asked who they were and were told that they are of royalty and how Jews treat crime seriously regardless of the perpetrator's background. This created a massive קידושׁ השׁם and 150,000 people converted to Yiddishkeit in that period.
We learn from here that whether covering up child abuse crimes or any other crimes or assisting perpetrators to evade justice, this is a חילול השׁם. The חילול השׁם isn't the public court case where the culprit is on trial for their crimes, but rather Jews assisting criminals in evading justice. And to the contrary, the קידושׁ השׁם is when the world observes Jews treating crime seriously using the justice system appropriately.
Can we agree that there is a difference between a public chilul hashem and a private one? A public one needs to be publicly condemned while a private one can/should be kept quiet - to avoid a chilul hashem. There's no need to publicize aveiros.
ReplyDeleteI think the issue is - condemning vs ignoring and not publicizing vs protecting.
a private chilul hashem eventually becomes public and it is even worse when it is revealed that the issue was deliberately covered up
ReplyDeleteIsn't it now time for a beis din in London to finally get to the bottom of the chaim Halpern situation? This dark cloud has divided London Jewry for too long. I am not saying necessarily that he has done anything wrong, but we should have a public statement from a beis din to this effect if that is the case.
ReplyDeleteLet's say a Conservative rabbi sits down with the halachic literature and writes a first rate teshuvah. Which "Torah" is worse, this guy's or the Conservative rabbi's?
ReplyDeletePart of the problem is the reticence to testify to the beis din. Beis din can not operate without information
ReplyDeleteagreed, but that needs to be accessed individually.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see more effort being made to get to the truth of this sorry affair. It seems too easy just to have all the witnesses refusing to testify so the case can be closed. There must have been some people coming forward to lead prominent London dayanim raising their public concerns. It is in the interests of the safety of everyone that this is not just left to be conveniently forgotten.
ReplyDeleteIf there is no conviction, there is the presumption of innocence.
ReplyDeletethere was originally testimony but then they changed their minds and decided not to testify
ReplyDeleteDayan ehrentreu would not agree with your presumption of innocence regarding Chaim Halpern.
ReplyDeleteWatch Rav Shmuel Eliyahu about this Inyan (starts at 6.00):
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDgcH73lS3Y
Anyone in London who has a Rav can ask that Rav and follow his Psak. People who have no Rav will not listen to a beis din either.
ReplyDeleteThat is not good enough. In the same way as the public psak about a Rabbinic figure being labeled a rashah came out, the same should be done with Chaim Halpern if he carried out the acts he is accused of. Otherwise, a similar public letter should be published explaining his innocence.
ReplyDeleteWhy has YOUNG ISRAEL aided and abetted the evil of this RASHA / MOSER for a dozen years?!?!
ReplyDeleteHow can a public psak come out if there isn't enough evidence? If people are refusing to testify, there cannot be a public psak. On the other hand, if Beis Din does not have evidence proving his innocence, how can they come out with a letter in stating that he is something that they do not know that he is? Why are you asking a Beis Din to rule about something that they were not presented with enough evidence about?
ReplyDeleteIn secular law, yes, but not necessarily in fact.
ReplyDeletewould you send your daughter to him for "counseling"? conviction, or no.
ReplyDeleteIn Jewish Law as well.
ReplyDeleteHuh? Where does Jewish law say that an accused is presumed innocent unless he is "convicted?"
ReplyDeleteA person begins with a חזקת כשרות
ReplyDeleteChezkas kashrus, not allowed to believe negative information, even the dayanim are not allowed to listen to negative claims unless two eidim present it.
ReplyDeleteOne is permitted to believe negative information where there are strong raglayim l'davar even if a "conviction" cannot be obtained. Children are not valid eidim; yet, if one's child credibly reports that someone molested him, he is believed. There are lots of other scenarios where facts are known even though a conviction cannot be obtained.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhdU8a9EafI
ReplyDeleteTom Segev