Abuse - children are valid witnesses II

Abuse - children are valid witnesses I

Sho’el U’Me’shiv(1:185):... And here, in [the week of] Parashas Va’era, a letter reached me with testimony signed by three respected men, and one man who recognizes the signatures, and two young men testified, one who is now 15 years old and one who is today 13 years old or more, that in their youth when they learned from him, boys of around 9 years or less, he would defile them with homosexual intercourse, for they would sleep with him in a bed in the room where he lived, and the things came with much elaboration that is disgusting to put into writing. And this is what I responded: in truth, I already went on at length about this in a responsum, that to disqualify a person it is necessary that there be two kosher witnesses, and I brought the words of the Pri Chadash and the Ritva that to disqualify a person it requires two kosher witnesses, and that it is like capital matters. And if so, in this case, where they were minors at the time of the act and they are only believed to testify in their adulthood about what they saw in their childhood for questions of rabbinic law [not biblical], as elaborated in Choshen Mishpat siman 35, and here to disqualify a person they are certainly not believed. However, according to what the Mahari”k and the Terumas Ha-Deshen wrote, and the Rem”a set in the Shulchan Aruch, that in a situation where kosher witnesses are not necessary, even a woman and a minor child are believed. And if so, in this matter, where it is definitely impossible for there to be adult men, and it is impossible for there to be testimony in the matter, for without a doubt this man even if he is wicked and corrupt, but his acts are in secret and he only amuses himself with young children, and he is like one who (mislahleha be-zikim?) and says “I am only playing.” If so, it is obvious that they are believed to testify, and are we also [not - GS] coming to disqualify him from testimony and oaths but only say that perhaps he did this. And they already said in Niddah (61), this bad talk [i.e. lashon ha-ra], even though to accept it is not required, to be concerned however is required. And in Moed Kattan (18) they said that this bad talk—in any event some bit of it is true. And if so, however, woe unto us that in our days such a thing arose, that a man like this would be a teacher of young children of the study house, the breath of whose mouth is pure, and there is a concern that the breath of his unclean mouth will defile them. And therefore, in my opinion it is appropriate to remove the crown of education from his head, and they should worry for their lives until he fully repents with afflictions as appropriate, and then he will return to accept the status of a full community member and it will be for him atonement for his sins. And as long as he does not admit his sins repentance is inapplicable, as the Tevu'os Shor wrote in siman 2. And I went on at length about this in a responsum to Dravitch… And here, regarding what was written above from this bad talk, even though to accept it is not required, to be concerned however is required, I found afterward in the Mahari”k shoresh 188, that he wrote that this is specifically to save them that it is permitted to desist [based on the lashon ha-ra], but not to punish them with any punishment, and to embarrass them is prohibited based on bad talk. However, this is specific to the case there, where there was only bad talk. But here there was a testimony, even if there are no kosher witnesses it is worth more than (mere) bad talk, and it is obvious that one should desist from giving him students.

Questioning the validty of a convert or Jew

This post was originally about Reform rabbis who were intermarried. The comment was made that there are also intermarried Orthodox Rabbis. This resulted in the following question: While it is true that if someone converts for the sake of marriage but they promise to keep mitzvos - the conversion is valid. However if someone questions the sincerity of a conversion for marriage - are they to be cursed? Have they committed an aveira? Rav Sherman said that Rabbi Druckman's converts were questionable. Did he have the right or ability to make such a statement? In our case - in which the future wives of Orthodox rabbis converted and the mikve ladies refused to supervise the tevila - it was reported that Rav O. Yosef and Rav Shmueli both cursed the mikve ladies. What prohibitions were these women accused of violating?

In sum, to what degree do people have the right or ability to question the validity of converts or even Jews? What manifestations of this doubt are legitimate. For example do you have the right to refuse to eat the food the converts prepare? Do you have to count them for a minyan?

You might remember a while back there was a Lakewood avreich whose Judaism was questioned - and it turned out he wasn't Jewish. Apparently those who raised the question committed no sin. I recently heard of a case where a woman was married as a Jew - not a convert and she lived for a number of years in the community had several kids and then her Jewish status was questioned by members of the community including a rabbi. Latest I heard the beis din asked to certify her as Jewish - has not found sufficient evidence that she is a Jew. None of the rabbis that I talked with have said that it was prohibited to question her status as a Jew.

Because these are current concerns - I am making this a separate post

Pikuach nefesh - is depression?/R' Moshe Feinstein

In my comments to a previous post, I made the assertion that Rav Moshe Feinstein is cited incorrectly by Rav Zilberstein. While it is true that both say that depression can endanger life - it seems that they do not agree as to how. The following seems to suggest that Rav Moshe labels pikuach nefesh as something which leads to suicide or clearly diminishes ones life while Rav Zilberstein seems to feel that any major psychological pressure itself decreases life.


Igros Moshe(O.H. 5:18): Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 306:9): “It is prohibited to ask a non‑Jew to travel outside of the techum on Shabbos to notify the relatives of the deceased to come and to eulogize him. However concerning a terminally ill person who asks that his relatives be notified it is definitely permitted.” The Levushei Serad says that it is permitted to pay a non‑Jew to travel so that the sick person won’t become severely agitated (tiruf daas) since this is included in the category of pikuach nefesh which permits violation of Shabbos. However I have not found any basis to permit this for the sake of a terminally ill person to prevent him from getting severely agitated (tiruf daas) – except for a rabbinic prohibition. I am astounded that the Levushei Serad said that it is permitted because of pikuach nefesh. His explanation that tiruf daas (severe agitation) is a sickness which endangers the person. That is only so for a healthy person who might come to commit suicide because of his agitation. However for a terminally ill person (shechiv m’rah) there is no basis to be concerned for this and therefore this is not considered pikuach nefesh. However more thought is needed as to what the actual halacha is in this case.

Turkey and abused wives

CNN

In a landmark case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Tuesday that Turkish authorities failed to protect a woman from her abusive ex-husband, effectively allowing his pattern of domestic violence to lead to the killing of her mother at gunpoint.

Judges unanimously ruled that the Turkish state violated three articles prohibiting torture and discrimination, and ensuring the right to life of the victim.

Legal experts said the ruling sets a precedent throughout Turkey and Europe for governments to protect women from domestic abuse. [...]

According to a Turkish government study released in February, four out of 10 Turkish women are beaten by their husbands. The European Union-funded poll concluded that "one out of 10 women has reported to have been beaten during her pregnancy."[...]

Tuskan cited polls that indicate up to 40 percent of Turkish women believe they deserve to be beaten by their husbands.[...]

R' Broyde - Informing & other articles

Informing on others - mesira

Enabling a Jew to sin

Child custody

Adoption

Marriage, models of sexuality and reproduction

Obama's reversal on gay soldiers

Time magazine

[...] The endorsement of "Don't ask, don't tell" by the Administration marks the latest rightward tack by Obama. The President denounced many of George W. Bush's national-security policies during the campaign, but in office has adopted more conservative positions, including endorsing military commissions to try purported terrorists, and declining to release a second batch of photographs depicting alleged U.S. maltreatment of Iraqi detainees. His stance on "Don't ask, don't tell" may be more surprising, because Obama aides have made clear the President wants the ban lifted eventually.[...]

Pikuach nefesh from being labeled as abused

The following story illustrates the complexity of abuse. If you want to used the heter of rodef to call the police because the abuser is endangering the victims life - you also need to understand that it is an issue of pikuach nefesh in being labeled as a victim of abuse and having your family labeled as containing an abuse victim. That stigma is also pikuach nefesh.


Brisker Rav (Rav Zilberstein Assia Nissan 5747): There was a case of a sick person who requested that the doctor allow him to fast on Yom Kippur. This was because his condition had significantly improved and his life was no longer in danger. The Brisker Rav told the doctor that pikuach nefesh doesn’t mean that right now there is a danger that might cause death. Rather even if fasting influences him so that when he has a recurrence of the illness - that he will die before his time – that is also considered pikuach nefesh. Therefore the sick person is obligated to eat rather than fast on Yom Kippur. The doctor replied that the aggravation that is caused to the sick person by his awareness that he is categorized as being in a fragile condition is liable to endanger his life. The Brisker Rav accepted the doctor’s words and replied, “If so we have to think very carefully how to act.”

Eternal Jewish Family - denies proselytizing

http://www.hidabroot.org/tozamir/NMY.htm

Abuse - "teshuva" & cover-ups

Guest post:

I will share with you how I think about cover-ups. Every single society has had sexual abuse of children since the dawn of Civilization, and covering up sexual abuse has been the norm and not the exception for most of history. When rabbonim distort halakhic categories (teshuva, Chillul HaShem), I take this to be evidence that they are having a hard time coping, themselves, with the horrors that there are adults in our midst who have a ta'avah to do these things to children. Sexual abuse provokes this more than physical abuse by the way, probably because of the great shame that sexual deviancy stirs up in all of us.

So, it is significant to identify when Batei Dinim or posekim deviate from their usually correct stance in halakhic matters--they become more "lenient" in accepting someone's statement as a sign of "teshuva" and more strict in protecting against loshon hora or chillul HaShem than the would, for example, in a case involving theft, damage to property, or fraud.

Maybe just identifying cases where proper halahkic procedures are not followed - and trying to adopt a sympathetic understanding of why accomplished and knowledgeable poskim might find these situations to be very difficult - would be an approach you could take on this in your book.

I know that the concept of teshuva implies the person won't do this again, but I am pointing out that it is implausible to assert that the perpetrator has done teshuva when there has been

1. no apology to the victim
2. no payment for damages or attempt to pay for damages.
3. a "confession" which was not in the presence of the victim or victim's family but rather in front of the rabbonim, which allows the perpetrator to minimize or change the facts

In nezikin, a person cannot stam do teshuva with mere words. I know of a case where the rabbonim protected someone because he did teshuva. However, that perpetrator never even admitted wrongdoing in several of the cases--he continued to deny it! You will not be surprised to hear that he continued to molest sodomize boys despite the Rosh Kollel claiming he would keep an eye on him.

So, yes, we can all be appalled at this bad judgment. However, on technical halakhic grounds I am challenging the notion that such a person can be said to have done "teshuva" when there is no confession, no restitution, no attempt at restitution--not even a din Torah where the victim is heard! I should think that these are power halaklhic arguments against the "teshuva" concept.

Since the rabbonim who are claiming that "teshuva" is a reason for them not to worry about further episodes are in general much more knowledgeable about the halakha than I do, I assume that they know very well that there is no halakhic basis to claim that "teshuva" has been done, that it is fact just a ploy to help with a cover-up.

Abuse - calling police