Mesira permitted for danger to community

 

Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:11): …. Similarly all those who distress the community and harm it – it is permitted to hand them over to the non‑Jewish government to be beaten, imprisoned and punished. However if the person is only disturbing an individual and not the community – it is prohibited to hand him over. It is also prohibited to cause the loss of the property of the moser – even though it permitted to cause the death of the moser himself. That is because his property belongs to his heirs.

Zealots

 Toldos Aaron Rebb (BaKehila 14^th of Tammuz 5768 page 12): Concerning Rav Amram Blau, one saw that in reality that all the cracks in the wall of Yiddishkeit caused him great pain. His protests were an expression of his love of Jews and his fear of G-d. It hurt him that another Jew would sin and that pain - caused by his concern for others - brought him to protest. In contrast, the kano'im of today are motivated by the desire to destroy. They wake up in the morning with the single concern of what they can destroy that day. Their heads are not focused on serving G-d or how they can increase the honor of Heaven. They spend their days obsessed with wall posters and slander of others. There are no great men and leaders of Israel that they don't slander. This is not kana'us! This is the lowest form of degenerate personality. Someone who truly want to be concerned with G-d's honor knows that before any activity it is required to first ask a posek and talmid chachom to clarify if this particular activity is permitted by the Torah or not. We are Jews and therefore our path has to be that of the Shulchan Aruch. These hotblooded young men mistakenly think that their acts of destruction magnify the glory of G-d. I am telling you that this is not the path of kana'us! That is because true zealotry comes only from the motivation of truly loving Jews. When a Jew is hurt by the sins of another Jew he is not allowed to make any public response without first asking the guidance of gedolim concerning possible actions and he must submit to their views. However we have never seen before the approach of these modern zealots. These men are immersed in their evil ways and their sole concern is how to cause damage.

False court testimony to protect Jew from going to jail

 Steipler Rav (Within the Domain of Gedolei Torah Vol 2 page 557-560): The rav of Komemiyus, Rav Binyamin Mendelson approached Rav Shlomo Lorenz concerning someone who had committed a crime in the past. Then he had been sentenced to a number of years of jail – but had been placed on probation and wasn’t imprisoned.  However the person eventually committed the crime again and now was being tried a second time. Rav Mendelson said that he knew this person and felt he deserved mercy - especially for his wife and children. Therefore he said there was an obligation to try to keep him out of jail - not only for the sake of his family - but because it was obvious that being in jail with hardened criminals would not serve to rehabilitate him. Therefore Rav Mendelson asked me to testify as a character witness at the trial to try and stop the jail sentence.

Rav Lorenz told him that while normally he would readily agree to whatever he asked. However in this case he knew that his testifying in court to aid a criminal would become public knowledge. This would cause a chilul HaShem because it would create the impression that the representative of the Torah world not only identified with the criminal but also offered him assistance. Therefore he told Rav Mendelson that he wanted to consult with the Steipler Rav before he did anything. Rav Mendelson agreed but requested that the Vishnitzer Rebbe also be consulted.

When Rav Lorenz told the story to the Steipler Rav, the Steipler screamed, “A Jew who sins and repeats that sin, it is better that he be punished in this world and not – G‑d forbid – in the World to Come.” He explained, “The punishment in this world is minor compared to what happens in the World to Come. Furthermore if you succeed in stopping the jail sentence he will continue to repeatedly commit this crime. It is better that he receive his punishment and perhaps learn self‑restraint…In addition if I give you permission and you testify for his benefit it is obvious that every newspaper and all the public media will publicize the matter and it will also be a chilul HaShem when he sins again…”

Rav Lorenz then went to the Vishnitzer Rebbe and told him what the Steipler Rav had said. The Vishnitzer Rebbe replied, “There is no question that the Steipler Rav is correct in every detail and I absolutely agree with him. But there is also the concept of ‘Going beyond the letter of the law.’ There is also the attribute of mercy. Therefore I think there is reason to have mercy on his wife and children…However I only have one problem – the issue of chilul HaShem which the Steipler mentioned…. Therefore you need to find a way of testifying that won’t cause chilul HaShem.”

Rav Lorenz told the Steipler Rav the words of the Vishnitzer Rebbe. He gave a long sigh and said, “It is possible to do as the Vishnitzer Rebbe requested, even though my opinion is that the person should be punished rather than be helped. However this can only be done on the condition that the testimony is not public so that it won’t –G‑d forbid – cause chilul HaShem.”

Rav Lorenz complied with their wishes and contacted the judge and told him he had a highly irregular request to make that he was doing on the behalf of gedolim to avoid chilul HaShem.  He met with the judge and told him that the Vishnitzer Rebbe asked for mercy for the criminal not to give him any jail time at all. The judge replied that since the criminal had violated probation that was impossible. Furthermore he agreed with the Steipler Rav that if the criminal were not imprisoned he would continue committing the crime. So he did not see how he could simply set the man free.

Rav Lorenz told the judge that Rav Mendelson had said that the criminal would not go unpunished. Rav Mendelson said that the rabbis would punish him according in the manner that was normal in these cases such as forty days of fasting and other such things. Rav Mendelson felt that this punishment would be more beneficial in rehabilitating the criminal than being sent to prison with hardened criminals. While the judge agreed with this he said he still had the major problem that freeing him was clearly against the law. Rav Lorenz told him that he was sure that the judge would figure out something – which he did. The criminal was again placed on probation.

However as predicted the criminal was not able to withstand temptation and he committed the crime again. This time he was sent to jail where he died.

Torah law can be harmful to society

Aruch HaShulchan (C.M. 2:1-3): 1) Even though the Jewish court does not judge cases involving capital punishment or flogging or fines outside of Israel – but if the beis din sees that the times require it - because there is a breakdown in law and order – then it is permitted. Everything depends on the judgment of how serious the problem is. Not only can the court judge these cases when there is community lawlessness but even when a single individual sins it is permitted to punish him if they think it is necessary - as long as they do it for pure motivation. This ability to judge these cases in emergency situations is even when there are not valid witnesses but only a reasonable basis that it is true and constant rumors are heard when there are no enemies who would create them. Thus if the times require that this case be tried it must be done if we have the ability.  That is because if we insist that everything be done in accordance with the laws of the Torah - and we require 2 valid adult witnesses and proper warning not to commit the crime – the result will be that the world is destroyed. In fact Jerusalem was not destroyed except for the fact that the courts insisted in totally compliance with the Torah law [Rashba 3:393]. Thus in times of need, the courts have the right to administer corporal punishment and to give monetary punishments according to what they see is needed to correct the problems of society. If the litigant is a powerful person then he can be reported to the secular government to be tried and the secular authorities will order him to comply with what the Jewish religion requires of him. Anyone who has the power to make a protective fence to the Torah and doesn’t do it, he will have no protective fence either in this world or the next nor will he have descendants or remnants in his dwelling [Beis Yosef citing Zohar]. Similarly we are obligated to make sure that there shouldn’t be anyone with thoughts of rebellion – even unexpressed against the government of the Czar and his leaders. Our Sages said that G‑d made us take an oath not to rebel against the governments which rule us (Kesubos 111a)… 2) This ability to judge and punish - not according to the laws of the Torah - is only for the greatest Torah scholars or for the community leaders. That is because community leaders have the same power as that of the Great Sanhedrin.  Thus in our days the obligation is on the rav and the community leaders to fix the breaches in society with all of their ability. Thus every tax they impose, the community must comply and pay it – even though it means that some benefit from it while others suffer a loss. That is because this is important to correct community problems or take care of some other urgent need. Whoever interferes with this – is considered like Yeravam ben Nevat. One should not go against the decisions of community leaders even if there are scholars who support the opposition. That is because it is likely that those who are opposed to the community leaders have no fear of heaven. Investigate and you find it to be true. 3) However any matter which is not needed for the welfare of society or for emergency correction – the community leaders have no power to deal with against the wishes of those involved. All they can do is try and persuade the community to follow traditional practices or to collectively accept a particular action. Thus if a practice is firmly accepted by the community, the community leaders can force compliance with it…. Without either being an emergency matter for the community or having been fully accepted by the community – the leaders cannot do anything beyond the Torah law when there is gain for one party but loss for a second party. Alternatively if the community has an accepted practice that the leaders can do what ever they think is good or the community has fully accepted that the leaders can do whatever they wish – then in fact they community leaders can do whatever they see fit even if there is benefit to one party but loss to a second party. The leaders of the community should have their hearts directed to the desires of heaven and G‑d should help them. That is because someone who wants to achieve perfection receives Divine assistance.

 Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 2:1): Every court – even those that do not have semicha from Israel – if they see that the see that the people is corrupted by sin (and thus it is an emergency situation) can issue judgments whether concerning capital punishment or financial matters or any other punishments even without testimony according to Torah standards. If the transgressor is a powerful person than it is possible to punish him through the agency of non-Jews. Furthermore the court has the power to appropriate his money and to do with it what they see fit to strengthen the community. All the activities of the court need to be for the sake of heaven. This license to go beyond the letter of the law is specifically only for the greatest rabbis of the generation or the community leaders. It has been the practice in every place that the community leaders have the status similar to that of the Sanhedrin in that they can give beatings and punishments as well as appropriate a person’s property – all according to the local practice. Even though there are those poskim which disagree and say that the local communities authorities do not have such powers but can only pressure the community according to the local practices or their actions need to be agreed upon by everyone. However according to these poskim they have no power to make any changes in law in situations where there is benefit to one party and loss to another or to appropriate someone’s money without his agreement. Nevertheless one should follow the practices of the city. And surely these powers exist in fact everyone member of the community accepts that the leaders have these powers. The achronim mention in their responsa that some who is deserving of lashes should give 40 gold coins as a substitute for the 40 lashes. This is not according to the letter of the law but is only an emergency measure. Therefore the court has the emergency power to administer lashes or to take money according to what they see are the needs of the times (migder milsa).

Extradition in Jewish Law

 https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/extradition_in_jewish_law.html

 In summary: As we have seen, it is indisputable that in principle, just as one should not return a runaway slave who has fled to freedom, so one should not harbor criminals who have fled justice; rather we are obligated to see that they face trial. The source of this double principle is in the Torah itself: "Do not deliver a slave to his master," on the one hand; and "He shall be taken to die from my altar," on the other. The principle of just punishment is especially fundamental in the case of a murderer: "Nothing is as objectionable to the Torah as bloodshed... which entails the destruction of society."

Mesira - reporting tax fraud

Rav Wozner (Shevet HaLevi 2:58): 1) Question: Concerning someone who works for the tax department and he discovers someone cheating the government and is required by law to report it to the justice department. He wants to know whether he is considered an informer (moser) according to halacha or do we say that “the law of the land is the law” and thus he would not be an informer? Answer: Concerning the issues of taxes – there is no halachic authority who denies that this is included in the principle “the law of the land is the law.” This is true even for those who disagree with the Rema (C.M. 369:8) as to the nature of “the law of the land is the law.” See the Shach and Levush and the responsa Hashiv Moshe… 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. The Be’er HaGola (C.M. 388) writes that it has already become accepted practice that the leaders of the community supervise that there should not be any fraud or deception against the secular government. The community leaders have announced that it was permitted to publicize and reveal those men who were cheating the government. A person who wishes to escape paying taxes owed to the government and another Jew reveals this – this is not considered the crime of informing. Even though the Rema states that revealing this information is bad because it is like returning a lost object to a non‑Jew – but that is only concerning an individual non‑Jew. But that which is applicable to the government and the tax auditor was appointed to discover fraud – there is no prohibition in revealing the fraud. However it is best if a person should not work as a tax auditor which requires revealing this type of information. Even though revealing the information is permitted – it is not a pious thing to do as we see from the Yerushalmi. 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….

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Ve'aleyhi lo Yuval, volume 2:113-114 from R’ M Broyde’s Informing on other’s): R' Yehuda Goldreicht said: “I asked Rav Auerbach about a particular Jew who stole a large sum of money and he was caught by the police in America. He was sentenced to a number of years in prison in America. Was it proper to assist in the collection of money for him [we were speaking about a large sum of $200,000] in order to fulfill the mitzvah of pidyon shvuyim to have him released from prison? When Rav Auerbach heard this he stated "Pidyon shvuyim?! What is the mitzvah of pidyon shvuyim here? The mitzvah of redeeming captives is only when the goyim are grabbing Jews, irrationally, for no proper reason, and placing them in prison. According to what I [Rav Auerbach] know, in America they do not irrationally grab Jews in order to squeeze money from them. The Torah says "do not steal" and he stole money -- on the contrary, it is good that he serve a prison sentence, so that he learns not to steal!”

Slander for sake of peace

 Rema (#7): [We have a situation that if the reputation of one distinguished and innocent Torah scholar is destroyed than a horrific dispute will be ended. … Our Sages tell us of the importance of peace – even allowing lies to be said to preserve peace] So we can develop a logical proof from this concerning our matter. Just as we see that the prohibition of erasing G‑d’s name is permitted for the sake of peace [between husband and wife] but it is not allowed to slander a decent person, so therefore the creation of peace which permits the sin of erasing G‑d’s name would also permit slandering. If the bringing of peace between man and his wife can be accomplished in this way so surely it is permitted to bring peace between family, villages and towns. It is clear in halacha that it is better to cause a deterioration in the physical well‑being in our country rather than to give one Jew to be debased and ridiculed and slandered for something he didn’t do. And surely we need to suffer financially so as to not cause the sacrifice hundreds of distinguished community leaders for debasement - which is what is happening in the current situation. Nevertheless it appears to me that even in our current situation we should not deviate right or left from the path and do a physical action. However we need to distinguish between handing an innocent person directly to be killed or degraded to save others which is prohibited and the mere use of words which in this situation is nothing and would be permitted…. Thus we have brought conclusive proofs that it is permitted to speak lashon harah and slander someone for the sake of peace in the community. However perhaps this gives permission only for speaking slanderously against someone but how do we know that it is permitted to put the slander into writing and to posken like this?… Nevertheless it would seem that we don’t make a distinction between speaking and writing. Since speaking slander is permitted than slandering someone in writing is also permitted…

Reporting crime to police Mesrira

 Tzitz Eliezer (Nishmas Avraham): If the case is rape of young children in school when the teacher does a disgusting act on either boys or girls. It would appear that since in the case of boys, the act of sodomy is liable to capital punishment from a beis din – therefore this is a case of rodef and thus it is permitted to informed the secular authorities as it is in the two previous cases [which were classified as rodef.] However in a case where the teacher is molesting girl it would appear that it is permitted for the doctor who discovers the abuse to expose the matter and to inform the principal of the school. If the principal doesn’t do anything then it would be permitted to report the matter to the police – even outside of Israel. That is because a person who molests more than one person is someone who harms the community and there is no prohibition of informing the authorities (mesira).  In fact, not only is it not prohibited as informing (mesira) but there is an obligation to inform the authorities so that the teacher will not continue his evil deeds – not only in this school but also in other schools. It is absolutely clear that in all cases that the doctor is not to take any action without first being convinced that his facts are correct and before he consults with a major rabbinic authority – because this is a life and death situation [not only for the children but for the teacher].

Gedolim shouldnt report crime to police

 Maharam Shick[1](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)…

---

[1]  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 ...