Mesira if it results in punishment greater than prescibed by Torah?

 Rabbi Hershel Schachter (Dina Di'Malchusa Dina 1:103 118 (1981) J. Halacha & Contemporary Society): One critical point should however be added: there is no problem of "mesirah" [informing] in informing the government of a Jewish criminal, even if they penalize the criminal with a punishment more severely than the Torah requires, because even a non-Jewish government is authorized to punish and penalize above and beyond the [Jewish] law . . . for the purpose of maintaining law and order. However, this only applies in the situation where the Jewish offender or criminal has at least violated some Torah law.

Mesira if required by government?

 Igros Moshe (C.M. 1:92): Is it permitted to take a job as a government financial auditor when there are times when he will find fraud and therefore he would have to inform (moser) on the transgressor to the government which will punish the tax cheat more than the proscribed by the Torah? Yes it is permitted since the job of government auditor is to find transgressions. It is clear however that if this person did not accept the job there will obviously be others to take the job and they will find the transgressions. Consequently the transgressor suffers the same loss  whether this person takes the job or not or someone else takes the job and he doesn’t cause him any harm.. Therefore if no one is actually harmed by his taking the job it isn’t relevant to prohibit taking the job…. And this is exactly our case when the government orders someone to bring their account books to be examined by an auditor because the government already controls the situation to find his fraud and will find it through any one of their auditors. Therefore this is another reason for exempting any particular auditor when they find fraud…. And even if they don’t force him to testify but he is required to testify about the fraud because this is like the case of someone designated to testify for a non‑Jews and he is fact required because of chillul hashem that would result if he didn’t testify. This is the accepted  halacha (C.M. 28:3)

Shock in Jerusalem community as rabbi outed as undercover Christian missionary

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/shock-in-jerusalem-community-as-rabbi-outed-as-undercover-christian-missionary/

 

Family supported by ultra-Orthodox community after mother dies of cancer, father worked as scribe and mohel; investigators say they faked being Jewish to move to Israel

חשיפת 'בחדרי': זהותו של הגוי שהתחזה לאברך הייתה ידועה זה שנים

 https://www.bhol.co.il/news/1212095

 עסקנים המתמחים בפעילות נגד המיסיון מאשרים את הפרשייה שנחשפה הבוקר ב'בחדרי חרדים'. "ידענו מזה כבר לפני שש שנים" | "בעקבות פנייה שלנו הוא נזרק מכולל מקובלים" | "האברך" בשיחה היום עם 'בחדרי חרדים' גמגם לנוכח הפרסום | פרטים נוספים על הפרשייה המסעירה

Aguna?

 

Shidduchim

 Rabbi Aharon Rakefet(Personal communication): Rav Aharon Kotler  gave a shiur at Chevron Yeshiva. All were very attentive to his brilliant Torah analysis - except for one. There was a bachor sitting in the back who seemed bored and inattentive - sitting with his feet propped up. Rav Aharon Kotler angrily walked to the back of the room to confront this arrogant young man. Rav Aharon Kotler had a deep impatience with anyone who was not interested in Torah - especially to his own insights which he had worked for hours to understand properly. [My brother – Rav Dovid Eidensohn - who learned in Lakewood under Rav Aharon told me that he had a special briefcase to carry his chidusshim. When he was finally given permission to leave communist Russia with minimum belongs - he personally carried that briefcase. At the border he was stopped and the official perused the papers and asked him whether they were state secrets. When Rav Ahron told him it was Torah chiddushim - the guard laughed and told him he could keep the "nonsense" and cross the border to freedom. Rav Ahron was furious and started yelling at the official for his chutzpah and contempt for Torah. Fortunately there were others who quickly got him past the check point - or he probably would have been sent to jail or worse.] Rav Aharon stood over the bachor and demanded to hear what he thought of the shiur. Rav Dov Schwartzman nonchalantly replied, "The Kletzer is a great Torah genius - but his shiur is based on an error. He forgot an explicit mishna." Rav Aharon fainted from the shock and when he recovered said -"that is the one I want as my son-in-law."

Need to speak lashon harah

 Pischei Tshuva (O.C. 156): I want to note here that while all the books of mussar are greatly concerned about the sin of lashon harah, I am greatly concerned about the opposite problem. I want to protest about the even greater and more common sin of refraining from speaking negatively when it is necessary to save someone from being harmed. For example if you saw a person waiting in ambush to kill someone or breaking into someone’s house or store at night. Is it conceivable that you would refrain from notifying the intended victim to protect himself from the assailant - because of the prohibition of speaking lashon harah?  By not saying anything you commit the unbearable sin of transgressing the prohibition of Vayikra (19:16): Do not speak lashon harah [but] do not stand idly by when the blood of your fellow man is threatened? By not speaking up, you violate the mitzva of returning that which is lost to its owner Devarim (22:2). Now if you can understand the obvious necessity of speaking up in these cases then what is the difference between a robber breaking into someone’s house or store or seeing that his servants are secretly stealing from him or that his partner is deceiving him in their business or that another person is cheating him in commerce or that he is lending money to someone that you know doesn’t repay? How is this different from stopping a proposed marriage to someone you know is a wicked person who would be a horrible husband. Saving a person from these situations is clearly included in the command (Devarim 22:2) to return to the person himself or his money. From where do we get the mistaken idea that in the case of murder, I will speak up but that it is prohibited to say anything in other situations where someone is being harmed? The general principle is that these are matters which depend upon the speakers motivation. If the informant’s intent in relating these matters is entirely to cause harm that is lashon harah. However if his intent is to bring about benefit to the other person and to save him and to protect him – then it is a great mitzva. In my opinion this is the underlying intent of the Yerushalmi which the Magen Avraham brings which says that it is permitted to speak lashon harah about people who cause disputes. … It is obvious that even concerning those who cause disputes it is not permitted to speak lashon harah gratuitously about them in all matters. It is only permitted for those things directly related to the particular dispute. It is only permitted concerning that which they are trying to harm others. In such a case it is permitted to reveal degrading things about them in order to save others. … Unfortunately I have seen many times where someone witnesses another person trying to cause harm to someone – and he suppresses the information and says, “Why should I get involved in a matter which isn’t my business…However one needs to be very careful about these and similar matters. Our Sages have said – when the permissibility depends on motivation - it says, “And you should be afraid of your G‑d.”

Execute a Jew because the goyim expect it

 Rosh (7:8): Question: Let it be known to our teacher, may he be well, that there was a very serious incident that happened here in Cordova. The ears of all those who hear about it become singed.  There a certain low person who was arrested by the non‑Jews on certain charges. He made a deal with them to go free in exchange for money. Some of his friends went to console him. He went out to greet them and stood at the entrance of his courtyard. One of them said, “Blessed is He who frees prisoners.” He reacted by blaspheming and reviling his King and G‑d…. The prince agreed that this wicked person should remain in prison until the Responum of my teacher will arrive which will instruct us what to do with him…Response: … Your asking me concerning capital punishment is very strange. That is because in all the lands that I have heard about, no one judges capital cases anymore– except in Spain. I was very astonished when I came to Spain. How were they able to judge capital cases without Sanhedrin? They explained to me that it was because the king had authorized it. Another consideration is that if the Jewish courts don’t judge these cases than a much greater amount of blood would be spilled if they were tried by non‑Jews. Therefore I permitted them to continue with this practice of trying capital cases. However I never explicitly agreed with them on a particular case involving execution. Nevertheless I see that all of you have agreed that it is necessary to destroy this evil from your midst. There is no question that he has profaned the Name of heaven in public and that this has already been heard amongst the non‑Jews who are very strict in any matter concerning their religion and faith. There would be even greater profanation of G‑d’s name if he weren’t executed for blasphemy for the sake of the order of society (migder milsa). Furthermore it is imperative that they sanctify G‑d’s name by executing this wicked man. Therefore you do what you think is best because I know that your intent if to sanctify G‑d’s name.

Punishment needed for deterrence

 Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:41): Concerning the punishment of those who sin against others, the general rule is that it should be done to him exactly as he has done to the other person. If he damaged the other person’s body then he should be punished physically. If he caused monetary damage he should pay for it with money. However the one who suffered monetary damage should be ready to forgive and be lenient. It is only in the case of murder that we are not lenient at all and we don’t take a monetary payment for the crime.  Therefore even if the victim of the attack lived for an hour or days and was able to speak and he requested that his assailant be forgiven because he had forgiven him – we don’t listen to him. We are required to take life for life and there is no distinction made whether it is the life of a child or an adult, a slave or a free man, a scholar or a fool – because there is no greater sin than this. If someone caused the loss of a limb then he must be punished with the loss of his limb. Vayikra (24:20) says, As he has caused a blemish in a man so shall it be done to him. Don’t be bothered by the fact that this is never done but rather a monetary penalty is always imposed. Our purpose in this composition is only to give the reason for the Torah verses and not the reason for the Talmudic practice. Nevertheless I have what to say regarding the view of the Talmud but will only communicate it in private. Those injuries which can not be done exactly to the assailant as he did to his victim are compensated by monetary payment as it says (Shemos 21:19), “Only he shall pay for the loss of his time and full payment for medical expenses. Someone who has damaged another’s property should pay back exactly the monetary amount that he damaged. An important principle is that to the degree that a sin or transgression is more frequent and more probable to be committed – the more severe must the punishment be in order to serve as a deterrent. In contrast that which rarely occurs receives a lighter punishment. … There is a basic principle that the greatness of the punishment and how painful it is depends on the following four factors. 1) The enormity of the sin. Those actions which bring about great loss have severe punishments, while those actions which produce little harm have minor punishments. 2) The frequency the crime occurs. Those crimes which happen more often need to have more severe punishments to deter them. In contrast to the degree that a crime is rare to that degree the punishment is reduced because that is sufficient to deter it. 3) The degree of temptation. A crime of great temptation – either because the lust for it is great or people are accustomed to do it or the crime causes a great reduction pain – then it is obvious that there will be no deterrence unless there is a fear of severe punishment. 4). The ease of doing the crime secretly and hidden from detection and unnoticed by others. Deterring such acts can only be done by fear of a great and severe punishment…

Rodef - violating traffic laws

 Rav Sternbuch 1:850): Question: A Jewish driver who normal speeds or doesn’t have a license – is it permitted to report him to the police? Answer: It states explicitly in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 388:12) that if someone is engaged in counterfeiting and is thus a danger to the community – he should be warned to stop. If he doesn’t listen to the warning it is possible to report him to the police. The Gra there says that the counterfeiter has the status of a rodef (pursuer) even though he does not intend to harm others and even though the harm is an indirect result of his actions and even though the danger is only a possibility not a certainty. There is nothing more dangerous than a reckless driver who is speeding or one who has no knowledge of proper driving skills - as indicated by the fact he has no license. Such people are likely to kill other, chas v’shalom and therefore they have the halachic status of rodef (pursuer).  That is why in fact the secular law that requires a skilled driver with a license is in fact a just and obvious law for the welfare of society and we are fully obligated to observe these laws. Anyone who treats these laws with contempt and disobeys them, we are concerned that such a person can come to kill and therefore he deserves serious punishment – even imprisonment. (See Tashbatz 3:168 regarding having non-Jews imprison a Jew as punishment and also Maharshdam C.M. 55.6). However it is appropriate not to hand him over to the government immediately but only after he has been warned first by the rav of the community or the beis din. They should tell him that if he continues violating traffic laws they will report him to the police so that he will be punished appropriately. (It should be done this way because if he is simply warned he will not believe that he will be reported to the police.). If despite the warning he insists of violating traffic laws and showing contempt for the community he should be reported. (R’ Yaakov Kaniefsky was very angry with those who violated traffic laws whose purpose is to protect the lives of the members of society.  I heard that someone once came to him because he was worried that he was about to receive a very severe punishment because he had violated the traffic laws. He wanted to receive a beracha that he would be free of the punishment. R’ Kaniefsky replied with a very sharp admonition and told him that in truth he deserved to be punished!) (This was even though R’ Kaniefsky was not necessarily in agreement with the secular laws in general). Therefore it would appear that if the person is considered a danger to society and since we can’t punish him ourselves, he should be reported to the police – with the permission of beis din or the rabbi of the community. This is in fact a mitzva since it is saving the community from harm and possible death.

 Minchas Yitzchok (8:148): Is it permitted to report to the police reckless drivers who are a danger to other motorists and pedestrians? Concerning the question regarding motorists who drive their vehicles in a manner which endangers all those who are on the road with them by means of the means different scenarios that are described in his letter. Is it permitted to report them to the police? This will typically result in a monetary punishment or the cancellation of their driver’s license for a fixed period or incarceration in jail and it serves as a deterrent to actions which endanger others. Answer: Even though halacha prohibits causing a Jew to be given bodily or financially to the secular justice system, nevertheless a Jew who endangers other people is not included in this prohibition. This is explicitly stated by the Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:11) and Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 388:12): “All those who disturb the community and cause it distress it is permitted to give them over to the secular government to be punished whether by beating, imprisonment or fines…” It is obvious that all those who drive carelessly and in a wild manner, endanger the lives of all those are near them. We in fact have been commanded to avoid danger and to prevent it from happening. Perhaps by taking actions against these drivers it will prevent danger and reduce the number of accidents. There is a difficulty however. The Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:9) states that it is prohibited to hand over a person to the secular government whether physically or financially even if he is wicked and even if he disturbs and distresses… And then the Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:11) states, “And thus all those who disturb and distress the society it is permitted to hand them over to the secular government to be beaten or imprisoned or fined..” What is the source of the distinction that the Rambam makes between those who disturb individuals and those who disturb the community? I could not find a source in the standard commentaries on the Rambam. However I found a source in the Chasam Sofer and his son the Ksav Sofer on their commentary to Gittin (7) and this supports the view of the Rivash (239). The Rivash notes, “If someone is disturbing and distressing the community then he should be punished according to what the beis din sees fit as we find in the Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:5): ‘All those who disturb and distress the community it permitted to give them to the judges to be beaten, or jailed or to be fined - while if it only concerns an individual it is prohibited.’ And similarly when the beis din sees a need to restore order to that generation…and the needs of the time require and they want to punish more than the halacha specifies for the sake of preserving society… they are permitted…” This ruling of the Rivash is cited by the Rema (C.M. 388:15). Thus we see from the Rivash- based on the explanation of the Rambam by the Chasam Sofer and the Ksav Sofer - that for an individual who is only being verbally abused it prohibited to report his abuser to the secular authorities. But that verbal abuse of the community is sufficient justification to call the police or surely to have him punished by a Jewish court…. However the Sema (C.M. 388:30):“This that the abuser is not reported to the secular authorities is only when he is verbally abusive but if he causes financial loss and surely if he beats him or causes bodily suffering it is permitted to report him to the secular authorities as is stated in the Rema and the Darchei Moshe. See also the Tur (C.M. 425:2).” This distinction is readily seen according to the Chasam Sofer’s explanation of the Rambam… Rashi also would seem to support the idea that if the abuser caused a loss of money and forgery then it is permitted to report him… The Rambam (Chovel u’Mazik 8:11) seems to being saying that only when it is verbal abuse that the abuser is not reported to the police but if he causes actually loss than it is permitted to prevent him suffering a loss. This is also the Rema (C.M. 388:9) and the Shach (C.M. 388:59-60)…The reason that the moser can be reported to the police is because he has the status of a rodef (pursuer) - as we find stated in the Rema (C.M. 388:12) and in the Sema (C.M. 388:29). The law of rodef is discussed in Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 425:1). Every Jew has the obligation to save others from a rodef according to the procedure discussed there. The Rema (C.M. 388:12) states that the rodef is someone who endangers the community such as a counterfeiter and it is permitted to report him to the police after warning him to stop…. Returning to our question, it is obvious that someone who drives at excessive speeds and thus cannot stop quickly enough when needed without causing an accident - has the status of a rodef (pursuer) even if his behavior was much less serious. … If after warning him he continues to act in this way, it is permitted to report him to the police. It is obvious that this is true for the other behaviors mentioned such as stopping at stop signs which enable pedestrians to cross the street or if he is dangerously tailgating the car in front of him. The same applies if he is driving without a license – all of these are in the category of rodef which endangers himself and others. Even if he doesn’t intend to endanger others he is still considered a rodef. Also included is if he stops his car in a way that endangers pedestrians or by parking on the sidewalk which forces the pedestrians to go into the street or any of the other ways that that are described in the letter. All of these are equivalent to digging a pit in the public area… However as is explicit in Shulchan Aruch in all these laws – whether it is rodef (Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425) or moser (Shulchan Aruch 388:10) or whether it counterfeiting – before the perpetrator is reported to the police he needs to be formerly warned. Also in our case he should not be reported without beis din first warning him. Therefore those who are involved in this mitzva of life saving should first go to beis din and to present their claims before them…

International Extradition: A Guide to U.S. and International Practice

 https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/2020/11/international-extradition-a-guide

Extradition treaties are intended to operate like contracts and obligate the parties to arrest and surrender a person to a foreign treaty partner upon request, provided that the treaty's requirements are met and no exceptions apply. Extradition treaties are individually negotiated and may vary in order to accommodate the legal systems and priorities of the negotiating countries, but they generally share common elements. They establish requirements for both the country sending the extradition request (the "requesting state") and the country receiving the request (the "requested state").

How Jewish American pedophiles hide from justice in Israel

 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-jewish-american-pedophiles-hide-from-justice-in-israel/

 A CBS News investigation has found that many accused American pedophiles flee to Israel, and bringing them to justice can be difficult.

 Jewish Community Watch (JCW), an American organization that tracks accused pedophiles, has been trying for years to find Karow and help bring him to justice. 

JCW says Karow and other wanted men and women have been able to exploit a right known as the Law of Return, whereby any Jewish person can move to Israel and automatically gain citizenship.

Since the small organization started tracking accused pedophiles in 2014, it says more than 60 have fled from the U.S. to Israel. Given its limited resources to identify these individuals, JCW says the actual number is likely much larger.

Brooklyn child-molest monster ‘got away with it’ after fleeing to Israel

https://nypost.com/2012/06/03/brooklyn-child-molest-monster-got-away-with-it-after-fleeing-to-israel/ 

Here is Avrohom Mondrowitz, New York’s most notorious child molester — living scot-free in Israel.

Called the “Bin Laden of pedophiles” by one victim, the bogus rabbi and self-proclaimed psychologist fled the United States in 1984 just before cops broke into his Borough Park, Brooklyn, home with a search warrant. They found a cache of kiddie porn and lists of hundreds of names of local boys, most referred to Mondrowitz by Jewish families and child-service agencies for counseling and his yeshiva-style program.

“He was known in the insular community as the go-to therapist, child mentor,” said an outspoken victim, Mark Weiss, whose parents sent him to Mondrowitz at age 13. “He had a certain knack with kids.”

 

Silence and self-rule: Brooklyn's Orthodox child abuse cover-up

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/29/brooklyn-orthodox-jews-child-abuse-cover-up-feature

 Last summer the rabbis on the Crown Heights Beit Din even ruled that reporting child abuse is not mesirah – the ancient taboo against informing on another Jew – and that cases must not be taken to them, but to the secular authorities.

 As it is, the rabbinic leadership shows little sign of acting on its own accord.

When Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind first started using his radio show to discuss child sexual abuse some questioned his right to interfere, he says. "So I told the leader of a major Jewish organisation in the religious community: 'I will stop doing everything I'm doing if you commit to me that you will take charge of this and do what needs to be done. If you accept my offer, please call me and I will be out of it.'" That was five years ago. Hikind is still waiting.