Must husband be informed of wife's adultery II - Ben Ish Chai

[See previous post of Rav Fisher and Rav Wosner]    Rav Pe'alim (E.H. 1:1): ... Question: A man sinned with a married woman a number of times and afterwards repented. He came to a talmid chachom to be told how to properly repent for doing this sin. He told the talmid chachom that he had been involved in an adulterous relationship and the question arises as to whether the lover is obligated to tell the husband that his wife had committed adultery. Perhaps he would believe him and divorce his wife and thus be saved from sinning through ignorance. Furthermore if the lover absolutely refuses to tell the husband because of a number of reasons – is there an obligation of the talmid chachom who heard the confession to tell the husband because he might be believed and therefore divorce his wife. Or alternatively should the husband not be told since it will lead to fights and conflict. That is because if the husband believes the accusation he will obviously have to explain the reason he wants a divorce and his wife will definitely deny the accusations and thus there will be fights and arguments – especially if she has children from her husband. Thus it will result in a stain on the family reputation and who knows what will result from this controversy. Consequently it is necessary to see whether there is a leniency that can be relied upon not to reveal the adultery or not. Answer: I saw that the Noda B’Yehuda (1:35) was asked a similar question. A person who was involved in an adulterous relationship and now is married to the daughter of the woman. He wanted to know whether he had to tell his father in law that he needed to divorce his wife or was it better to remain silent since the family was a distinguished family and they had children who were important in Torah and with high reputation. Consequently there is concern that the revelation would destroy the reputation of the family. Therefore in order to avoid the severe embarrassment to them it would be best that this repentant sinner should do nothing and not tell his father in law anything. The Nodah B’Yehuda replied that is was obvious that human dignity can only be considered when a person is not actively sinning.... He added that when the person sinning i.e., the husband – is unaware of the sin it is a major dispute between the Rambam and the Rosh concerning a person who is unaware that he is wearing kelayim in the street.... Therefore according to the Rosh it is best to be silent because of the degradation of the family while the Rambam would obligate notifying the husband to prevent him from sinning... It is important to note that the Noda B’Yehuda is generalizing from the case of kelayim. However it appears to me that there are significant differences between the two cases. In the case of kelayim the person directly sees that the person is wearing kelayim but in the case of adultery he doesn’t see the transgression since intercourse doesn’t take place in front of him. Perhaps the husband doesn’t have relations with his wife at all because of some other factor that interferes. This is also reasonable to assume in the case of the Noda B’Yehuda since the husband was already an old man. There is an additional doubt in that we are not sure that if the information is revealed to the husband that he will believe it and if he doesn’t then it doesn’t help as the Nodah B’Yehuda mentions himself. Thus we have a double doubt. 1) The first is whether the husband is actually going to have intercourse with his unfaithful wife for whatever reason. 2) And even if you say he will have intercourse it is uncertain that he will believe it and divorce her.            Furthermore the Noda B’Yehuda wants to distinguish between the obligation to tell the husband between the lover himself who created the problem and people in general. But it is also not clear that this is true. Because it is possible that the woman committed adultery before this with another man and thus she was already prohibited to her husband before the present adulterous relationship. Furthermore there is basis to object to the approach of the Noda B’Yehuda in learning the halacha from kelayim – but I don’t have time to go into detail.  Briefly, where there is disgrace to the family then the halachic reason of human dignity exists and because of the concern that the husband might not believe the information and therefore will not divorce her.  Consequently there is a need to find a leniency for both the lover and the talmid chachom who heard the confession not to reveal the information. A possible basis is the Maharish (Sho’el U’Meishiv Kama #262) that some rishonim hold that if the adultery was not witnessed then she is not prohibited to her husband and therefore the husband does no sin when he has relations with his adulterous wife. He cites the Bnei Ahuvim (Chapter 24 of Hilchos Ishus) that has an extensive discussion of this. Consequently regarding the case of the Noda B’Yehuda where the husband doesn’t know about his wife adultery and there were no witnesses she committed adultery – the lover is not obligated to tell the husband. That is because it is possible to rely on these rishonim who hold that there is no prohibition for the husband to have relations with his adulterous wife when there are no witnesses and surely this is true when this is combined with the reasons mentioned before of disgrace of the family and embarrassment. An additional factor is that the lover does not see with his own eyes that the husband is having relations with his wife because perhaps there are reasons that he is no longer able to. Finally there is the reason that it isn’t certain that the husband will believe him. I am surprised that the Nodah B’Yehuda does not mention the reasoning of the Maharish that there are gedolim who say that the wife is not prohibited to the husband when the adultery has no witnesses. I also surprised to see that the Chida (Chaim Shaul 2:48) also doesn’t mention the Maharish... You should also be aware that you cannot utilize the view of the Ran (Nedarim 3) who says that when the husband doesn’t believe the wife assertion that she committed adultery that the Kiddushin is abrogated and she becomes like an unmarried woman- because the Ran himself rejects this reasoning as the Chida points out. However based on those who say that if she committed adultery without witnesses she is not prohibited to her husband when combined with the other reasons we mentioned – she is not prohibited to her husband. Consequently concerning our question, we can state that the lover and surely the talmid chachom who heard his confession – do not have to reveal the adultery to the husband - based on all the reasons we have mentioned...

Accused former YU staff resign or placed on leave

Forward   Rabbi George Finkelstein has resigned his position at the Great Jerusalem Synagogue after the Forward reported that he had sexually abused students at Yeshiva University High School for Boys in Manhattan during the 1970s and ‘80s.

“He sent us an email saying he’s resigning because he does not want to expose the Great Synagogue to embarrassment,” Zalli Jaffe, the synagogue’s vice president, said in an interview. Finkelstein had served as the institution’s executive director since 2001; last month, he began serving as its ritual director. [...]

Around the same time as Finkelstein resigned, senior staff of the Orthodox Union in America and Jerusalem held a teleconference regarding the position of the other Y.U. high school staff member investigated by the Forward, Rabbi Macy Gordon. They decided to impose a “leave of absence” on Gordon’s teaching duties at the OU Israel Center in Jerusalem, where he gives a weekly class on the laws of the Sabbath, Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, OU executive vice president emeritus, told the Forward on December 16.

He said that the unilaterally-imposed leave of absence will last until the OU can “clarify exactly what happened.” This is in spite of the fact that the OU has “to presume that he’s innocent until we find out more about it.”

Should your child be reading child abuse posters?

Seattle Police Detective Bob Shilling

Seattle Police support Bob Shilling/

Father Gordon MacRae - imprisoned for abuse payoff?

Wall Street Journal    By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ April 28, 2005

[Update on the story 2012]

Nine years after he had been convicted and sent to prison on charges of sexual assault against a teenaged boy, Father Gordon MacRae received a letter in July 2003 from Nixon Peabody LLP. law film representing the Diocese of Manchester, N.H. Under the circumstances -- he was a priest serving a life term -- and after all he had seen, the cordial-sounding inquiry should not perhaps have chilled him as much as it did.

". . . an individual named Brett McKenzie has brought a claim against the Diocese of Manchester seeking a financial settlement as a result of alleged conduct by you," the letter informed him. There was a limited window of opportunity for an agreement that would release him and the Diocese from liability. He should understand, the lawyer added, that this request didn't require Fr. MacRae to acknowledge in any way what Mr. McKenzie had alleged. "Rather, I simply need to know whether you would object to a settlement agreement."

Fr. MacRae promptly fired a letter off, through his lawyer, declaring he had no idea who Mr. McKenzie was, had never met him, and he was confounded by the request that he assent to any such payment. Neither he nor his lawyers ever received any response. Fr. MacRae had little doubt that the stranger -- like others who had emerged, long after trial, with allegations and attorneys, and, frequently, just-recovered memories of abuse -- got his settlement.

By the time he was taken off to prison in 1994, payouts for such claims against priests promised to surpass the rosiest dreams of civil attorneys. The promise was duly realized: In 2003, the Boston Archdiocese paid $85 million for some 54 claimants. The Portland, Ore., Archdiocese, which had already handed over some $53 million, declared bankruptcy in 2004, when confronted with $155 million in new claims. Those of Tucson and Spokane soon did the same. [...]

If the events leading to Fr. MacRae's prosecution had all the makings of dark fiction, the trial itself perfectly reflected the realities confronting defendants in cases of this kind. For the complainant in this case, as for many others seeking financial settlements, a criminal trial -- with its discovery requirements, cross examinations, and the possibility, even, of defeat -- was a highly undesirable complication. The therapist preparing Thomas Grover for his civil suit against the diocese sent news, enthusiastically informing him that she'd had word from the police that Gordon MacRae had been offered a plea deal he could not refuse, and that the client could probably rest assured there would be no trial. On the contrary, Fr. MacRae would over the next months refuse two attractive pretrial plea deals, the second offering a mere one to three years for an admission of guilt.[...]

Having given his reasons, the judge then sentenced the priest, now 42, to consecutive terms on the charges, a sentence of 33-and-a-half to 67 years, Since no parole is given to offenders who do not confess, it would be in effect a life term. [....]

In the years since his conviction, nearly all accusers who had a part in conviction -- along with some who did not -- received settlements. Jay, the second of the Grover sons -- who had, Detective McLaughlin's notes show, repeatedly insisted that the priest had done nothing amiss -¬came forward with his claim for settlement in the late '90s. And in 2004, the subject in the Spofford Hospital incident, Michael Rossi -- "This is confession, right?" -- came forward with his claim.

"There will be others," predicts Fr. MacRae, whose second appeal of the conviction lies somewhere in the future. His tone is, as usual, vibrant, though shading to darkness when he thinks of the possibility of his expulsion from the priesthood -- a reminder that there could be prospects ahead harder to bear than a life in prison.

Forward investigated alleged abuse by Y.U. staff

Forward    A Forward investigation into allegations that two staff members at Yeshiva University High School for Boys’ Manhattan campus sexually abused students during the late 1970s and early ’80s has led to a startling admission by the university’s chancellor: The school dealt with allegations of “improper sexual activity” against staff members by quietly allowing them to leave and find jobs elsewhere.

For years, former students have asked Y.U., the premier educational institution of Modern Orthodox Judaism, to investigate their claims that a former principal had repeatedly abused students in the all-male high school that is part of the university. Another former high school student said Y.U. covered up for a staff member who sodomized him.

Y.U. President Richard Joel said in a statement issued on December 3 that the school was “looking with concern into the questions” the Forward had raised.

But Norman Lamm, who was president of Y.U. from 1976 to 2003 and is now chancellor, indicated in an interview December 7 that he knew about some of the allegations and chose to deal with them privately. In one case, a suspected abuser of high school students was allowed to leave for a position as dean of a Florida school.

No law enforcement officials were ever notified, despite “charges of improper sexual activity” made against staff “not only at [Y.U.’s] high school and college, but also in [the] graduate school,” Lamm said. “If it was an open-and-shut case, I just let [the staff member] go quietly. It was not our intention or position to destroy a person without further inquiry.”

Asked whether in the case of staff assaulting minors the abuse should have been reported to police, Lamm said. “My question was not whether to report to police but to ask the person to leave the job.” [...]

Yeshiva University President Richard Joel has issued a statement of apology in response to a Forward story describing how Y.U. failed to report claims of child abuse made against staff members during the 1970s and ‘80s. Joel’s statement, released this morning, offered victims who were allegedly abused by members of YU’s faculty and administration “my deepest, most profound apology.”
====================

 President issues apology

Yeshiva University President Richard Joel has issued a statement of apology in response to a Forward story describing how Y.U. failed to report claims of child abuse made against staff members during the 1970s and ‘80s. Joel’s statement, released this morning, offered victims who were allegedly abused by members of YU’s faculty and administration “my deepest, most profound apology.”

What means are permissible in fight against abuse?

I just received this letter. I think it raises some very important issues and would like an open discussion.

Rabbi can you clarify this on the blog. If catching child molesters is our obligation and we must work with law enforcement to accomplish this end is it alright to sit with news media hostile to the frum community and Israel? What purpose does this serve other than create a huge Chillul Hashem? Is it alright to become partners with people like Vicki Polin to accomplish these ends. Basically do the "ends justify the means".To me they obviously don't but I am no posek .I have learned so much from what you post and the answers to questions I have posed .The blog is excellent .We see that what is reported is sometimes false as the twitter story was. So giving information to unreliable sources doesn't seem like a good idea.Thank You.

First of all if you are asking whether compromises are permitted if needed - the answer is obviously yes
 For example Rav Moshe Feinstein was asked regarding a community in South America where the leader who had done much good was a doctor married to a non-Jew. The question is could this community honor him to encourage him to continue. The answer was yes - but that there were restrictions on how they could honor him.

The issue of abuse is complicated. As Rabbi Zweibel of the Aguda has acknowledged - significant work to get the issue dealt with was the result of blogs - some of which are strongly anti-Torah and involve direct insults to Torah and its Sages. Realistically if it hadn't been for bloggers and people willing to speak to newspapers - such as the New York magazine - nothing would have happened. So on the one hand there was little chance of change without publicizing the matter in the secular or non-Orthodox press. But there is an additional heter for causing this chilul hashem.That is because the coverups themselves are a greater chilul hashem then the existence of abuse. So you have on the one hand the chilul haShem of exposing that abuse does occur in the Orthodox world as it does in other communities. But by covering it up and allow abuse to happen - when it is going to eventual be revealed - is a much greater chilul hashem. It is one thing for a warped individual to abuse but when the community leadership and rabbis in the name of Torah betray the victim in the name of religion - it is much worse.

So again it is a question of whether there was an alternative which would not involve chilul hashem of associating with problematic individuals and media exposure? As the issue becomes more mainstream the need for making compromises is significantly reduced.

The Weberman Trial By 5TJT Staff

Five Towns Jewish Times  The horrifying saga of the Nechemya Weberman trial and the guilty verdict on 59 or 60 of the consolidated counts has caught the attention of the world.

If the allegations are true, as guilty verdicts tend to indicate, and as the existence of 11 other victims too fearful to step forward indicates, then what we have here is truly sickening.

We have a 12-year-old girl that did not quite meet the standards of the community around her. The school officials refused to admit her back into the school unless her parents pre-paid for therapy—to the tune of $12,900.

And then she suffers three years of horrifying abuse at the hands of the very “therapist” that the school had required her to meet with regularly. Imagine the pain of such a girl who must endure the sickest of acts—with the knowledge that no one would believe her if she told of what was being done to her.

The Navi cries out, “Bagda Yehuda v’soaivah ne’esasa b’Yisrael!” Our schools are named after our heilege imahos and avos. And the matriarch, Mama Rachel, is crying now. Of that there is no doubt.

Our schools have handed over these precious souls to monsters for abuse. And then, when they ultimately come forward, we vilify them and their families. We exclude them from our camps and our schools.

Hakezona ya’aseh es achoseini?

And this was aided and abetted by the kehilah leadership, rachmana litzlan! The kehilah leadership! Not even a brush full of the blackest of paint could put such horrors on a canvas!

Has there ever been such a parallel in our entire history? [...]

Our reaction must be to immediately dissolve this Vaad HaTzniyus which forced Yiddishe girls into the hands of a monster. Their names should be recorded and never again must such people be put in charge of such grave matters of responsibility. A vaad of tzniyus must only be direct representatives of choshuvah and leading poskim well respected throughout the Torah world. And no matter who it may be, which meyuchasdika person, we must never forget the holy words of Chazal, “Ein apitropus l’arayos—no one, absolutely no one can be trusted alone in matters of arayos.”

Rabbi Ronnie Greenwald's view of Weberman verdict

The following is an email I received from the well-known community activist  Rabbi Ronnie Greenwald     See the post of his talk about children at risk
=============================



In response to  the numerous phone calls I have received regarding the verdict of Nechemia Weberman, below are my thoughts.

 "Today is not a day of joy or simchah, it's a day of reflection and making a cheshbon."

We in Klal Yisroel must make a serious attempt to prevent and stop  this plague which is rampant in our community.  It begins with educating our children at the earliest possible age, not only about being a potential victim,  but also unfortunately growing up as a perpetrator.

It is critical that if there is a reason to suspect that a young girl or boy has been violated, we must use our legal resources.

Finally, it is interesting that it took 12 non Jews to believe a dear Jewish daughter.  I was hoping there would be 12 Chassidim who would believe her as well.

                                             Sincerely,

                                         Ronnie Greenwald

Mother of Weberman's Victim:" Her childhood was robbed"

NY Daily News   She never told me face to face until this got out. She never told me, she never told us.

We got a call from the police station. They said come over right away. I was so shocked. I called my husband right away.

The therapist [at the new school] had called the police. That school made every girl get therapy once a week. My children told me, 'You have to believe her.' She is my youngest.

Her childhood was robbed. She was such a bubbly child.

I lost a couple of years with her. After what shea went through hopefully she will pick up.

She wasn't a rebel at all. She was a shy, very smart child. She likes to know. Very bright child. She is a very good child.

The principal (at the Satmar school) could have answered my daughter's questions (about God). Not screamed apikoros (heretic). What, because she asked a question?

My husband called the teacher. He said 'You don't know the answer?’

‘Listen to (my daughter) and say, 'I don't know the answer. I will get it tomorrow and find out and then tell you’.'

They (the teachers) started picking on her. Picking on her!

She would say, ‘The principal hates me. I don't know why.'

A teacher came (to the house) and investigated if I had a computer with Internet. I feel tznius (modest), but not to their extent.[...]

Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg attacked with bleach

NY Times   An outspoken advocate for child sexual abuse victims in the Satmar Hasidic community was injured by a chemical he believed to be bleach that was thrown in his face as he walked down the street in his Williamsburg, Brooklyn, neighborhood on Tuesday. 

The advocate, Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg, who runs a Web site and telephone call-in line that publicizes claims of sexual abuse in the ultra-Orthodox community, said in an interview at the hospital where he was treated that he was walking on Roebling Street about noon when a man came up behind him and tapped him on the shoulder.

“He has a cup of bleach,” Rabbi Rosenberg said, adding that he recognized the man. “And then he says ‘whoops’ and throws it in my face and walks off.”

Mother of Weberman's victim reacts to verdict [VIDEO]

WPIX