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.

EJF declares world-wide war on intemarriage

Eternal Jewish Family Blog

The Eternal Jewish Family International (EJF) has launched a major initiative on three continents to stem the tide of soaring intermarriage in Jewish communities in the US, Israel and Europe. Eternal Jewish Family is partnering with the largest and most successful kiruv (outreach) organizations, such as Ohr Somayach — Jerusalem, Hidabroot, Lev L'achim and Nefesh Yehudi in reaching out to large numbers of Jewish youth "with a direct message on the threat of intermarriage to themselves, their families, and the Jewish future". In the US, Eternal Jewish Family will team up with Gateways in reaching vulnerable youth. "This epidemic of intermarriage can only be confronted with 'straight talk' about the dangers of intermarriage", said Rabbi Leib Tropper, Rosh Yeshiva of Kol Yaakov/Horizons and the chairman of the Rabbinical Board of Eternal Jewish Family. "We can no longer afford to beat around the bush in the hope that the anti-intermarriage message will somehow penetrate". In many instances, Eternal Jewish Family will be cosponsoring seminars and Shabbatonim for the Jewish youth where special sessions will be devoted to the dangers of intermarriage. The first such Shabbaton in March was held in Baden, Austria in a joint program with Nefesh Yehudi for more than 100 Israeli medical students in Central and Eastern Europe. Eternal Jewish Family will be joining the outreach (kiruv) organizations in many similar seminars in the coming months.

Down's Syndrome - Disaster or mixed blessing?

JPost

A friend confided to me that she was concerned about her sister, who had just given birth to a little girl with Down Syndrome.

"I'm worried about her state of mind. She seems to be in denial, behaving as if the baby was normal. I'm wondering how she will cope when the reality hits."

I ventured that denial might be a necessary stage in the acceptance process.

"It's too big a thing to embrace all at once," I surmised, "and so she has gone into shock, like people do after a traumatic event. It shields her from the full force of what has happened, but that doesn't mean she isn't coming to terms with it inside." [...]

America's rising debt

Watch CBS Videos Online

Circumcision as a weapon against AIDS

NYTimes

Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

The topic is a delicate one that has already generated controversy, even though a formal draft of the proposed recommendations, due out from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by the end of the year, has yet to be released.

Experts are also considering whether the surgery should be offered to adult heterosexual men whose sexual practices put them at high risk of infection. But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men.

Recently, studies showed that in African countries hit hard by AIDS, men who were circumcised reduced their infection risk by half. But the clinical trials in Africa focused on heterosexual men who are at risk of getting H.I.V. from infected female partners. [...]

Sweden's "when did you stop beating your wife" standard of journalism

YNET YNET (humor altert)

Boström explained that he had not meant to imply that IDF soldiers were killing Palestinians for their organs. "Even the Palestinians don't say that," he said

"What they said is that when the Israeli army returned the bodies, 62 of them had been autopsied and 20 Palestinian families I spoke to were certain that their sons' organs had been harvested."

But Boström admitted he had no evidence of such deeds, as the bodies returned to the families were never examined to determine whether organs had been taken. "As far as I know no one examined the bodies," he said. "All I'm saying is that this needs to be investigated."

Rodef and the right of self-defense

One of the difficult issues in dealing with abuse is the issue of rodef (pursuer) and the associated issue of self-defense. Rodef has acquired a problematic status because Rabin's assassin used the concept as justification for killing Rabin.

1) Is rodef a commonsense expression of the right to self-defense or is it a special halacha which we would only have because of a Torah verse and Chazal's explanation.

2) Does the status of rodef require a beis din or can anyone make the decision (extra-judiciarly) and consequently kill or maim someone who is a threat?

3) Does rodef require a clear and present danger or is it enough for a reasonable person to suspect that his life is at stake.

4) Can anyone stop a rodef or is it only permitted for the potential victim.

5) A pregnant woman who is having a difficult birth which endangers her life is allowed to kill the baby - but only until it's head comes out. At that point the baby is no longer considered a rodef - but Heaven is. What is the distinction?

6) If abuse doesn't cause the victim to commit suicide or involve a sin punished by kares or death - is the abuser still a rodef and thus can be killed or maimed if that is the only way to stop him?

7) Does it matter which of the sources the law of rodef is derived 1) Rape of a betrothed maiden (Sanhedrin 73a). 2) Burglar breaking into one's home (Sanhedrin 72b). 3) Don't stand idly by the blood of your brother (Vayikra 19:16) 4) Two men who are fighting (Devarim 25:11). 5) Difficult labor (Shulchan Aruch 425:2) 6) Commonsense- self defense.

8) Does the threat have to be direct or can it be indirect?

9) If the rodef model is used - can the abuser only be threatened before committing abuse - or even afterwards.

10) What is the difference between viewing abuse as rodef and viewing it a threat to public welfare?

11) Is the status of rodef severely limited by the laws of modern secular society? For example can anyone maim or kill someone trying to commit rape [of a man woman or child] according to secular law?

Geirus - R' Eisenstein's observations

The item on the left is a transcript of R' Eisenstein's comments from the 2007 Washington convention as it appeared in the Yated magazine section.
================================================
Observations from an interview in Bakehila August 13, 2009 page 6 - (my translation)

1) "A large part of invalid geirim originate in Israel"

2) Regarding those who were converted by R' Druckman - "It is necessary to correct the statement that they were invalidated retroactively. There was no disqualification of the geirus. Does anyone really think the thousands of geirim from these special courts accepted to do mitzvos? Go and see that that the absolute majority continued to live as non-Jews immediately after the conversion. Even those converts who genuinely accepted to do mitzvos are in fact invalid because this beis din that they used was invalid. You will note that in the case that caused all the upset - the woman did not even observe the first Shabbos. Is this called conversion?"

3) It is only Reform and Conservative conversions which are not such a problem because everyone knows that they are not the paper they were written on. The real problem is the Orthodox rabbis..."

4) "It is not just once or twice but much more than that in yeshivos and Beis Yaakovs that it has been revealed cases of young people whose mother had an invalid conversion. The problem is revealed when they want to get married and they turn to us to examine the conversion. But how many cases are not revealed? From the time that kiruv organizations have done their holy work the numbers of these cases have constantly increased. This is also from baalei teshuva who come to marry with us and then it is discovered that they are not Jewish."

5) "In most cases where it is discovered that these people who mistakenly thought they were Jews we convert them secretly. However there have been cases of a young lady about to be married and it is discovered that her mother was not converted properly. So even though we convert them according to the halacha - but since the chasan was a cohen - the engagement is destroyed."

Circumstantial evidence & lashon harah

Shabbos (56a): But Samuel maintained: David did not pay heed to slander, [for] he saw self-evident things in him,22 For it is written, And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king; and he had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, etc.23

This gemora is used as the justification that if there is clear circumstantial evidence then it is not considered lashon harah to believe negative things about another.

Semag (Negative #10) :If a person sees in another aspects and circumstantial evidence which seems to validate the claim then it is proper to believe and accept that which is said as is stated in Shabbos (56b)…

Shulhan Arukh ha­Rav(O.C. 156:10): One who accepts lashon harah is punished more than the one who says it unelss he sees clear cirucmstantial evidence.

However the Chofetz Chaim(Hilchos Lashon Hara, kelaI 7:10-11): takes a much more stringent view

חפץ חיים (הלכות אסורי לשון הרע - כלל ז:י-יב): י. וְאִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו (כב) דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים, שֶׁנִּרְאֶה עַל יְדֵי זֶה, שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁמְּסַפְּרִין עָלָיו הוּא אֱמֶת, דִּינָא הָכֵי (הַדִּין כָּךְ), אִם יֵשׁ בָּעִנְיָן הַזֶּה, אֲפִלּוּ אִם הַדָּבָר אֱמֶת, (כג) לְשָׁפְטוֹ לְצַד זְכוּת, אוֹ בְּעִנְיְנֵי שְׁלִילַת הַמַּעֲלוֹת, אוֹ בְּכָל שְׁאָר הַפְּרָטִים, הַמְבֹאָרִים לְעֵיל בְּסָעִיף ז', לֹא שַׁיָּךְ בָּזֶה דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים, דְּוַדַּאי אָנוּ מְחֻיָּבִין לְדוּנוֹ לְכַף זְכוּת (כד) כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא אִישׁ בֵּינוֹנִי כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְבַּזֶּה עַל יְדֵי זֶה בְּעֵינֵינוּ וְכַנַּ"ל, אֲבָל אִם הוּא דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֵין לִמְצֹא צַד זְכוּת עַל הָעוֹשְׁקוֹ, (כה) מֻתָּר לְהַאֲמִין וּלְקַבֵּל:

[הגה"ה - וּבְכָל זֹאת צְרִיכִין לְהִזָּהֵר מְאֹד וְלַחֲקֹר בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת, אִם הֵם בֶּאֱמֶת דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים, וְלִזָּהֵר בְּכָל הַתְּנָאִים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לָזֶה וּכְדִלְקַמָּן, כִּי הַיֵּצֶר מַטְעֶה אֶת הָאָדָם בָּזֶה מְאֹד וּמַרְאֶה לוֹ כַּמָּה דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים שֶׁהֵם אֱמֶת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּאֲמִין בָּזֶה וְיִלְכְּדֶנּוּ עַל יְדֵי זֶה בְּרֶשֶׁת שֶׁל עֲוֹן קַבָּלַת לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, וְעַל כֵּן אַל יְמַהֵר לְהָקֵל בָּזֶה]:

יא. וְדַוְקָא אִם הֵם נִכָּרִים מַמָּשׁ, דְּהַיְנוּ (כו) שֶׁהֵם מַגִּיעוֹת לְעִנְיַן הַסִּפּוּר, וְגַם רָאָה אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים בְּעַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הֵם רְחוֹקִין מִזֶּה רַק הוּא כְּעֵין דָּבָר הַנִּכָּר קְצָת, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים בְּעַצְמוֹ (כז) רַק שְׁמָעָן מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, אֵין לוֹ בָּזֶה שׁוּם יִתְרוֹן כְּלָל:

יב. וְדַע, דַּאֲפִלּוּ דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים מַמָּשׁ, אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל רַק לְעִנְיַן, שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה יִהְיֶה מֻתָּר לְהַאֲמִין בְּעַצְמוֹ אֶת הַדָּבָר שֶׁמְּסַפְּרִין לוֹ, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן לֵילֵךְ אַחַר כָּךְ וּלְסַפֵּר דָּבָר זֶה לַאֲחֵרִים, לֹא מְהַנֵּי (לֹא מוֹעִיל) דְּלֹא עָדִיף, מֵאִם רָאָה בְּעַצְמוֹ דְּבַר גְּנוּת עַל חֲבֵרוֹ, (כח) שֶׁאָסוּר לְסַפֵּר אַחַר כָּךְ לַאֲנָשִׁים, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁמְּבֹאָר לְעֵיל בִּכְלָל ד' סָעִיף ג' וְד'. וְדַע עוֹד (כט) דִּבְכָל אֹפֶן אָסוּר לִסְמֹךְ עַל הֶתֵּר זֶה שֶׁל דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים מַמָּשׁ (ל) לְהַפְסִידוֹ עַל יְדֵי זֶה בְּמָמוֹן (לא) אוֹ לְהַכּוֹתוֹ:

Rav Moshe Sternbuch - Elul

Elul

Obamacare & Death Counseling

Washington Post Charles Krauthammer

Let's see if we can have a reasoned discussion about end-of-life counseling.

We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in the Democratic health-care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate.

We also have to tell the defenders of the notorious Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 that it is not quite as benign as they pretend. To offer government reimbursement to any doctor who gives end-of-life counseling -- whether or not the patient asked for it -- is to create an incentive for such a chat.

What do you think such a chat would be like? Do you think the doctor will go on and on about the fantastic new million-dollar high-tech gizmo that can prolong the patient's otherwise hopeless condition for another six months? Or do you think he's going to talk about -- as the bill specifically spells out -- hospice care and palliative care and other ways of letting go of life? [...]