A true story of how gedolim dealt improperly with a pedophile

I recently met with some rabbis who have had extensive experience dealing with abuse issues in the frum community. The following is one of the stories that they told me regarding rabbinic incompetence dealing with abuse. The incompetent rabbis that were described are not community or shul rabbis but are genuine gedolim They had sufficient funds and access to experts who would have informed them that they should have called the police. However they relied on their own judgment and a disaster resulted. This is the story - with identifying details removed.

 There was a promising bochur. He was intelligent and diligent in his studies and handsome. He also had good midos and came from a distinguished family. He had only one problem - he was a pedophile. He had abused over a hundred children by the time he was 24 years old. When this was brought to the attention of seniors rabbis at the major yeshiva where he studied, they came up with what they thought was a brilliant solution to his problem. They arranged and encouraged a match with an orphan girl. It was the perfect match they thought. She got a real catch and he would now be able to manage his sexual appetite with his wife - rather than with little children. They picked an orphan because she would not be able to do serious back ground checking and would have to rely on the advice of these gedolim.  Of course she wasn't told about his problem - after all that would be lashon harah. Since they "knew" that the problem would be solved by marriage there obviously wasn't any reason to mention to her that this young man had destroyed the life of 100 children. They also didn't bother checking with a psychologist with expertise with pedophiles - after all what does a psychologist know?

Of course the young lady was ecstatic that gedolim had taken such a personal interest in her and she was overwhelmed with gratitude that the great men had devoted time and energy for her - a nobody but with a lot of emunas chachomim. It was just like the Artscroll stories that she read every Shabbos about great tzadikim. The marriage seemed to be in fact the solution to the problem. The young couple was very happy They eventually had several children. Unfortunately  however the young man still had his perverted lusts which did not go away with marriage. This was something that anybody with even a minimum knowledge of pedophiles would have predicted.

Periodically there were rumors of his activity but his wife didn't understand why she was treated coldly by the neighbors. The senior rabbis suggested that they move to Brooklyn where they would be able to start life fresh. The wife still didn't know her husband's problem - but the new neighbors did not know either because the rabbis knew that if they informed anybody the young couple would not get a chance for a new life.  Unfortunately, the change of neighborhood did not help his condition.  This time however she found out the hard way - by a visit from the police who were investigating charges against him for abusing children. As you may imagine she was traumatized. Not only was her husband a destroyer of children, but she had been betrayed by gedolim. In addition she feared for the safety of her own children. But what could she do - she had no family or friends and she had no money to pay for advice or a divorce.

Fortunately the rabbi who told me about this tragedy found out about this horror story and successfully raised money for the divorce. He even got one of the gedolim to write a letter to aid in fund raising because that gadol humbly acknowledged that he had made a serious mistake!

An abuse survivor's change of heart regarding the Rabbis

Cross-Currents by Pinny Taub

I reached a point that I cannot sit idly by and watch how the Jewish people are being stepped on, day in and day out, by none other than people who call themselves Orthodox Jews. The chillul Hashem (Desecration of G-d’s Name) that is being created is beyond words. The kind of garbage that is being thrown on our gedolim (leading Rabbis) and holy organizations has not happened since the days of the pogroms and it’s all coming from within. It hurts me to write this to the very same people I once believed were protectors of abuse victims in the Jewish community. It hurts me even more to write to the very same people I once called very dear friends and believed were helping my brothers and sisters in pain.

What is important is the truth coming from my broken heart.

I am Pinny Taub, who is a survivor of one of the most horrific crimes that has happened to a Jew by a Jew. My story is known and is not important to repeat at this time. Despite all that, I decided that I would not be a victim anymore and I would survive. Ever since I made this decision I have taken on a new role, by helping other victims and by educating those who don’t understand. I have spoken publicly, have done interviews, and have met with rabbonim (Rabbis), gedolim, leaders, policy-makers, law enforcement officials, and private citizens. While it was very painful for me to see how people have a hard time understanding this subject, I learned that I have a lot to understand about other people, as well. I have realized that change does not come overnight, but change will come when you present the truth and nothing but the truth. When I began reaching out to the leaders and our rabbonim, it was done with a great deal of anger and resentment. What I’ve learned by reaching out to them with respect is that they really do understand and do share the pain of those who were victimized, and show anger towards the criminals who destroyed so many precious lives. All of them want change in how we treat victims, deal with perpetrators, and implement prevention. Yes, there are major differences of opinion on certain subjects. There is no subject on the face of the earth on which all participating parties are of the same opinion, especially something as complicated as abuse, which involves understanding the long-term effects on a victim, legal issues, and halacha.

Self defense against one who is only a possible rodef

Ran(Sanhedrin 73a): Since it is a mitzva to kill the rodef in order to save his victim, why is there a need for the verse of “don’t stand idly by the blood of your fellow” It is clearly a mitzva to exert yourself to save him – such as if he is drowning in the river or being attacked by bandits? The answer is the verse that tells you that you can kill the rodef is only relevant when it is absolutely clear to you that he is intent on killing. Similarly if it is absolutely certain that he will drown in the river if you don’t save him. However in a case of where it is uncertain, we would not know that there is an obligation. Therefore the verse of “don’t stand idly by the blood of your fellow” teaches us that it is also a mitzva to try and save him even though it is uncertain [while the case of certain need is learned from rodef].

Rav Yehuda Silman(Yeschurun 15): Question: Is it permitted to kill someone that there are doubts whether he is in fact a rodef (threat to life)? I was asked concerning a security guard in a public place e.g., the entrance of a restaurant or a mall who notices a man approach and he appears suspicious. The person is acting strangely and appears to be an Arab. When the security guard approaches him, he begins to run. The security guards suspects that he is a terrorist. This is only a suspicion since it is possible that he is in fact a Jew and there are people in the world who act strangely. In addition it is possible that the suspicious stranger is running away simply out of panic. However it is possible that in a short time the stranger will in fact cause a serious terror attack. Is it permitted to kill the stranger when the facts are not clear? This is a common question and a similar question can be asked regarding a bank teller who is suddenly confronted with a bandit with a pistol in his hand. There are many times when it is later determined that the gun was only a toy and even if it were real the bandit didn’t intend to kill but only to scare the bank teller. Nevetheless there is a doubt whether the person is in danger. In such circumstances is it permitted to kill him? Answer:… Conclusions: 1) It appears that we hold in practice that it is permitted to killed a suspected rodef. In other words someone who is doing activities that endanger others even if there are doubts. … 4) Therefore in the two versions of the question that were asked concerning a suspicious person it is permitted to kill him. That is only in a case there are valid bases to suspect that he is trying to kill. 5) In contrast in the case of someone running in the forest or is shooting and there are doubts as to his intent[ - he is not to be viewed as a rodef because we assume he has a legitimate reason for doing these things (chezkas kashrus)

Rav Yehuda Silman(Yeschurun volume 15 page 662):. … The commentaries explain that the obvious reason for not needing witnesses but they could rely even on circumstantial evidence is because this was not a court procedure to punish wrongdoers. Rather it was either done to obey the law of the kingdom or it was to stop someone from sinning. The Rashba is cited in the Beis Yosef that witnesses are not needed in such a case…”. That is because we are concerned only with the knowledge of truth in order to stop the harm and to make protective measures against iniquity. Furthermore according to what I said that even a doubtful rodef is permitted to be killed, it is obvious that it is permitted for us to take protective action even if we have unresolved doubts.

Rav Yehuda Silman;(Yeschurun 22): The view expressed in Bava Metzia (83b) ;concerning R’ Eliezar bar Rav Shimon who was involved in capturing thieves because the king had commanded him to do so... In the original article I was inclined to the view that in the case of sexual abuse since the perpetrator is not executed but is imprisoned to protect society then perhaps all would agree that it is permitted to report him to the authorities... In addition according to the reason that even in the case of a possible rodef it is permitted to inform the authorities – it is obvious that is permitted without proper witnesses since all that is required is that there be the possibility that he is an abuser... it is clear that there is no need to convene a beis din in the presence of both sides since the basis of the permission to report the perpetrator to the secular authorities is either because he is a possible rodef (pursuer) or to separate him from sinning or because of the government mandates reporting. In fact these cases do not require a beis din and we need to merely consider the possible loss versus the possible gain. If the accusations are in fact true then we are dealing with a case of saving a person from being harmed. While if the accusations are in fact not true then in general then the government will free him. On the other hand it is certain that it is impossible that everyone can take responsibility for deciding whether to inform the secular authorities… 

8 Charged in Alleged $40M Fla Spiritual Advice Scam

NYTimes

Prosecutors say a South Florida family of gypsies amassed $40 million in a fortune-telling scam, warning victims that if they didn't follow their advice, terrible things would happen to them or their loved ones. Details spilled out in federal court Friday after eight people were arrested earlier this week.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Laurence Bardfeld said victims who were going through vulnerable phases forked over cash, gold coins and jewelry. The defendants promised victims they wouldn't spend the money, but then refused to return it.

Babies for sale: Producing babies for sale with surrogate mothers

Time

It's a money-making scheme that's been described in court as a “baby-selling ring,” which had brokered deals for at least 12 unwitting couples before being dismantled by the FBI. According to the Los Angeles Times, Theresa Erickson, a noted San Diego fertility attorney, and Maryland attorney Hilary Neiman, who is well-known in surrogacy circles, were charged with wire fraud; the coordinator, Carla Chambers, was charged with "monetary transactions in property derived from illegal activity." All three pleaded guilty over the last few weeks in federal court. They have yet to be sentenced. [...]

Rav Wosner: Mandated reporting of crime is permitted - even if results in death

Rav Wosner(Shevet HaLevi 2:58): … Concerning the issue of reporting the tax cheat to the government see Bava Metzia (83b) concerning R’ Eliezer the son of Rav Shimon bar Yochai. The gemora reports that he reported thieves to the government. This is proof that where the government has authorized a Jew to report thieves that it is permitted. Even though he was criticized “how long are you handing the people of our G‑d to be killed” – because the punishment for thieves in those days was death. This is relevant also for a similar criticism from Eliyahu Hanavi to R’ Yishmael which is reported in that gemora. However the actual halacha seems that even when it results in the death penalty it is considered “the law of the land is the law.”  See the Ritva on that gemora which is found in the Shita Mekubetzes. …Also look at the Responsa of the Alshech who states that a person is not considered an informant for those things required by the law of the land….It is also obvious that this is not comparable to the case of R’ Eleazar ben R’ Shimon (Bava Metzia 83a) which involved danger to the person arrested. In contrast in our case here when they will just punish the person arrested and there is never a threat to life.

Rashba:Destroy even a sofek rodef - for self protection

Rashba(1:181): Question: Regarding an incident described in Bava Kama (117a). A certain man wanted to reveal the straw of another to the authorities - knowing that it would be confiscated. He appeared before Rav who ordered him not to reveal it. The man responded that he wasn’t going to listen to Rav and that he would reveal it. R’ Kahana who was sitting before Rav killed the man by ripping out his windpipe… This raises a serious question. Just because a person insisted that he was going to inform the authorities about another person’s straw he deserved to be killed? Furthermore at that point it wasn’t certain that he was actually going to do that which he threatened. So how can he be killed on a doubt - perhaps he was simply making an empty threat? A moser (informer) is like a snake and whoever wants to kill him has the right. This that you ask how it is possible to kill him when it is not certain that he will carry out his threats. If he regularly informs then his threat is considered as if he will certainly do it. Thus the case of one who repeatedly informs is governed by the rule of self-defense, “you should kill someone who comes to kill.” Thus we see that Rav Shila (Berachos 58a) did not delay killing someone who threatens to inform on him. Furthermore all those who inform – even if it just involves money – is considered a murderer. We don’t say that we should wait till he murders and only then take him to beis din to be tried and executed. However even regarding a person who doesn’t habitually inform on others, if it is obvious that he wants to inform - as was the case of Rav Kahana where the person was told not to inform and he arrogantly said that he was going to inform – it is considered that we clearly know that he will do it. Even with this degree of uncertainty - the informer is killed. Even a third party can save the intended victim by killing the moser since it is equivalent to saving a pursued person by killing the pursuer (rodef). We don’t entertain the possibility that even though he is actively pursuing the victim that perhaps he will have second thoughts and not carrying out his threats.

Maharam Shick:Calling the police- even when permitted - is not for Gedolim

Maharam Shick[i](C.M. 50): [In the case of someone’s brother who had died suddenly and his sister‑in‑law is suspected of poisoning her husband. Based on Bava Metzia (83b) regarding R’ Eliezer catching Jewish robbers for the Roman the halacha would allow reporting her to the police.]. While that is the halacha, nevertheless that gemora itself indicates that it is inappropriate for gedolim to be the ones to report the transgressor to the secular authorities. This is also the view of the Rashba cited by the Beis Yosef (C.M. 388). An even greater proof against reporting transgressors to secular authorities – even when there is a possible danger in not reporting – is found in the Rambam. The Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 5:5) writes that if non‑Jews specify which Jew they want and they will kill all the Jews if he isn’t handed over – they should give him over. However the Rambam notes that if that wanted Jew deserves the death penalty he can be given over to save the others – but this halacha is not to be publicized. This is also the view of the Yerushalmi (Terumos 8:4)…. Consequently while one should not protest against those who follow the straight halacha and report the criminal to the authorities - which has many poskim to rely on - nevertheless the gedolim should not get involved in reporting these crimes but rather should be passive. This is as we saw with Shimon ben Shetach who did not have proper evidence that someone was a murderer - even though it was obvious – and therefore he did nothing. Also look at Sheilas Yaavetz (2:9)…

---

[i]  מהר"ם שיק (חושן משפט נ'): אמנם כל זה לדינא אבל מהתם עצמו מוכח דלכל הפחות אין לגדולי ישראל להתאמץ ולהשתדל וכמ"ש הרשב"א בתתשובה הנ"ל המובאת בב"י סי' שפ"ח. וגדולה מזה אפילו יש חשש סכנה לכלם כ' הרמב"ם דאפילו יחדוהו ואפילו חייב מיתה דאין מורין כן. וכמו"ש בפ"ה מה' יסודי התורה הלכה ה' והוא מהירושלמי (תרומות ח:ד), והגם דהב"ח בתושבה סי' מ"ג צידד בזה וכ' סברות לחלק ולדבריו יש גם כאן מקום לחלק ולהתירץ מ"מ הש"ך ביו"ד סי' קנ"ו סקט"ו לא ישרו בעיניו החילוקים עיי"ש. ולכך נהי דאין למחות לאחרינא ומאלה דעביד ומשתדל כדין עביד דיש לו הרבה פוסקים לסמוך עליהם. מ"מ עכ"פ אין לגדולי ישראל להשתדל בזה אלא להיות בשב וא"ת וכמו שאמר שמוען בש"ט ומה אעשה שאין דמך מסור בידי ועיין בשאילת יעב"ץ (ב:ט) וכעת אינו בידי כו' והמקום יפרע מהם וד' יגזור פרצת עמו בני ישראל ברחמים ...

Impact of access to seforim on computer/Internet and nature of halacha

Halacha and the Internet by Rabbi Ari Kahn 

Born in Brooklyn NY, moved to Israel in 1984. I teach and write about Torah topics. Author of "Explorations" on the weekly Parsha and "Emanations" on holidays - both published by Targum/Feldheim http://rabbiarikahn.com

While Jews, especially traditional ones, seem to have an aversion to the concept of evolution, halacha itself, the stuff of which Jewish observance is made, may be seen as evolving. We who accept that Torah is the Word of God, and that the Written and Oral Torah were given to us, through Moshe, are aware that, as new situations arise, halacha adapts – has always adapted -  in an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary fashion. 

At times, though, catalysts of more dramatic change present themselves: Cataclysms, especially those that cause massive population shifts, tend to impact halachic thinking and action in more discernable increments. Nonetheless, we may say that halacha is impacted and affected, rather than pointing to blatant, obvious "changes." Part of the impact is due to what and how people learn.[1]

Throughout Jewish history, catastrophe has often given rise to the perceived need to collect data, to preserve what runs the risk of being lost. Thus, after the destruction of the First Beit Hamikdash we find the canonization of Tanach. After the destruction of the Second Beit Hamikdash, the Bar Kochva rebellion and Hadrionic persecution, the Mishna emerged in an edited form. After a major earthquake destroyed the north of Israel, the Talmud Yerushalmi was edited. In the wake of the Spanish Inquisition, the Shulchan Oruch emerged. This reaction, which we may call "preservation as a means of self-preservation," is not always immediate, but the pattern of reactive codification and archiving is unmistakable.. [...]

Orthodoxy & homosexuality: Helping gay men marry lesbian women

Time Magazine

Rav Kook:Superior morality of masses, reporting sexual abuse & Aguda

 Seforim Blog New Writings from Rav Kook part 5. by Dr. Marc Shapiro 

[I wish to thank Dr. Shapiro for drawing my attention to the following]

Let me also return to the issue of the Jewish masses’ natural morality vs. the rabbinically tuned morality of the scholars, and how according to R. Kook the former is superior to that of the latter. I was asked if I can provide some examples of this. I think the most obvious such example is the response to sexual abuse that we have witnessed in the Orthodox world. While the natural impulse of the masses was that abusers must be immediately removed from any contact with children, many of the learned rabbis were able to come up with all sorts of reasons why this was not necessary, and why the police should not be called. Over time the view of the rabbinic class has evolved and many of them now advocate a strong response to sexual abuse. However, what took them a long time to get to was immediately understood by the Jewish masses, and they understood it intuitively. Years from now people will wonder how it was that rabbis refused to protect children. It will be incomprehensible to them how this could have happened. We who lived through this experience know that it was precisely the pressure on the ground, from the Jewish laypeople (and the bloggers and newspapers), that forced changes in this matter.[3] Here I think is a good example where talmudic learning led scholars לטהר את השרץ בק"ן טעמים, while the Jewish masses, with their intuitive natural morality, saw that evil must be exposed and they emerged victorious.[4]

 ---------------------

Footnote 3

A friend insists that there is no difference between Klein's position and that of Agudat Israel. This is not true at all. Whereas Klein states that someone can never be turned in to the police, the Agudah position is that a molester can be turned in, but only after a rabbi gives approval. The Agudah position continues to develop, and I have no doubt that in the end the Agudah will end up holding a position identical to that of the RCA. I also think that it is public pressure that will move Agudah in this direction, as public pressure has been responsible for all the adjustments in the Agudah's position that we have seen until now.

Yet even without public pressure, the current Agudah position is so untenable, that is will have to be updated. For one, it asks people to violate the law. The law is clear that some people are obligated to contact the police when they suspect child abuse. By insisting that a rabbi be consulted before doing so, mandated reporters are being put in the position of being told by a rabbi to refrain from doing something that the law requires. Do the Agudah constituents realize that listening to the rabbi in these circumstances can open them up to both criminal and civil penalties? [...]

Finally, unlike so many of the cynics in our community, I don't think the Agudah position is all about protecting rabbis, guilty or not. I really do believe that the Agudah recognizes that there is a problem. It is convinced that the rabbis it will charge with examining abuse cases will indeed make sure that molesters are turned in. The problem, however, is that we have seen all this before. We have seen over and over again that it is precisely the rabbis who have failed in this matter, often because they are not willing to turn on their own. It was precisely because of this that the community of laypeople rose up and said "No more." One doesn't need to be a prophet to see that by relying on individual rabbis to determine if an accusation of sexual abuse is credible, there will continue to be cover-ups. (Am I wrong in assuming that these cover-ups never would have happened if women were in charge? Would mothers ever have permitted child molesters to continue to prey on the young?)

The Agudah position is thus both a public relations and legal disaster in the making. The Church tried such an approach already and it doesn't work. I don't understand why such smart people in the Agudah don't see how their new position is doomed to failure.

Whose side is R Shafran taking? R J Rosenblum vs R A Shafran

Cross Currents

Do We Really Need Another Round of Shafran v. Rosenblum?

By Jonathan Rosenblum, on January 13th, 2011

One of my wittier friends commented that my recent exchange with Avi Shafran on President Obama’s Israel policy struck him as a mental health issue. “I mean its not like you and Avi are major players in the American foreign policy establishment, whose views are likely to have any impact of the Obama adminstration’s Israel policy,” he remarked.

I will confess I did not find any of the points made by defenders of the president’s foreign policy to be compelling or even very interesting — the defenders seemed far more eager to attribute low motivations to the president’s critics than to offer their own substantive defense. And I’m genuinely surprised that there were those who learned something new from Avi that they did not already know about Obama’s stance towards Israel. But I’m nevertheless delighted to find that the president has his defenders and that Orthodox Jews are not the victims of thought control or quite the automatons that we are caricacturized as being. Hopefully some of that independence of thought and multiplicity of viewpoints will reflect itself in communal debates, and not just in areas where our voices are not likely to have a major impact. In the meantime, it is always good to be reminded that no political party or politician embodies the Torah viewpoint or its opposite.

I do take to heart Avi’s admonitions about the difficulty of shaking oneself from settled views or even exposing oneself to counter viewpoints. All of us have a problem changing our minds once we have formed an opinion. That’s why we so badly need a chavrusah who is ever ready to contest our words and understandings with whom to learn Gemara. Similarly, any issue worth debating inevitably encompasses a number of perspectives. I’m therefore grateful that Avi has allowed himself to be pressed into service as my chavrusah on the Obama administration’s Mideast policy.

Avi now claims to have had a very modest goal in mind in his first piece on the subject: to provide readers with a few facts they may not have known about the actions of the Obama administration towards Israel. Had he done nothing other than point out some good things President Obama has done for Israel no one would have or could have disagreed, certainly not I. But his goal was larger than that. In his first piece, he only conceded that opprobrium towards the administration might be justified on fiscal issues, about which he professes to understand little. He did not concede any basis of criticism with respect to Middle East policy, about which, by contrast, he apparently considers himself to be sufficiently knowledgeable. I would respectfully submit it is Avi who has now gone far beyond his original “did you know these six things about President Obama and Israel” who is digging in his heals and putting forward a series of weak “terutzim” in response to my treatment of the major issues of the administration’s foreign policy, which found no place in his original piece.a

What Happened to Obama? Absolutely Nothing. He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president.

Wall Street Journal by Norman Podhoretz

It's open season on President Obama. Which is to say that the usual suspects on the right (among whom I include myself) are increasingly being joined in attacking him by erstwhile worshipers on the left. Even before the S&P downgrade, there were reports of Democrats lamenting that Hillary Clinton had lost to him in 2008. Some were comparing him not, as most of them originally had, to Lincoln and Roosevelt but to the hapless Jimmy Carter. There was even talk of finding a candidate to stage a primary run against him. But since the downgrade, more and more liberal pundits have been deserting what they clearly fear is a sinking ship.

Here, for example, from the Washington Post, is Richard Cohen: "He is the very personification of cognitive dissonance—the gap between what we (especially liberals) expected of the first serious African American presidential candidate and the man he in fact is." More amazingly yet Mr. Cohen goes on to say of Mr. Obama, who not long ago was almost universally hailed as the greatest orator since Pericles, that he lacks even "the rhetorical qualities of the old-time black politicians." And to compound the amazement, Mr. Cohen tells us that he cannot even "recall a soaring passage from a speech." [...]

Who is Rabbi Avi Shafran? : An interview with Baruch Pelta

 On the Mainline

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

An interview with Rabbi Avi Shafran about Moses Mendelssohn, Torah im Derech Eretz, Da'as Torah, Science and Torah and the Slifkin affair.

Here's a guest post consisting of a very interesting interview with Rabbi Avi Shafran conducted by Baruch Pelta. Below is the interview transcript. I will post another post shortly which will give some of the background info regarding the Mendelssohn article published in the Jewish Observer nearly 25 years ago, which may or may not be known to readers (update: see this post for some of that background, as well as links to the relevant articles).

This interview was conducted in Rabbi Shafran’s office at Agudath Israel of America’s Rabbi Moshe Sherer Headquarters on August 28, 2009. Rabbi Avi Shafran is the director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America. At the time of this interview, Baruch Pelta was an undergraduate student in Judaic Studies at Touro College. He is currently a graduate student in the same subject at Brandeis University. He blogs at Baruch's Thoughts.