BBC Broadcaster Rabbi YY Rubinstein Resigns After 30 Years Over 'Inexcusable' Antisemitism

 https://www.newsweek.com/bbc-broadcaster-rabbi-yy-rubinstein-resigns-after-30-years-over-inexcusable-antisemitism-1665376

BBC Broadcaster Rabbi YY Rubinstein announced he would resign from the broadcasting corporation due to "inexcusable" antisemitism on Monday.

Rubinstein posted his resignation letter on Facebook, writing it is "a very sad moment" for him. He wrote that his resignation was sparked by the broadcaster's coverage of a group of Jewish teenagers being attacked on a bus in London.

Many have accused the BBC of falsely reporting the group of teenagers used anti-Muslim slurs during the attack.

Case Against Andrew Cuomo Weakens as Nursing Home, Forcible Touching Probes Collapse

 https://www.newsweek.com/case-against-andrew-cuomo-weakens-nursing-home-forcible-touching-probes-collapse-1665329

The cases made against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in his final months in office are crumbling as separate investigations into the conduct of his administration have been and are expected to be dropped by two district attorneys in the state.

An Expert Explains the BITE Model with Steven Hassan, PhD

KA says any beis din can do anything they think they must do to accomplish their goal- just like Mendel Epstein?

Week into trial, Bennett claims 4th vaccine shot provides major immunity boost

https://www.timesofisrael.com/week-into-trial-bennett-claims-4th-vaccine-shot-provides-immunity-boost/ 

The fourth Pfizer vaccine shot causes a significant boost in antibodies within a week after taking it, according to interim data from Israel’s landmark study on the matter made public Tuesday by Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.

Bennett heard the partial results during a tour of Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv, telling reporters that a week after receiving the fourth dose, recipients had almost five times more COVID-19 antibodies in their blood.

However, since the trial began just a week earlier, there is no data on whether the number of antibodies maintains itself over time after the first week, or whether the antibodies provide better protection against catching — or developing serious illness from — the Omicron variant, which has shown an ability to break through other vaccine defenses.

Manhattan DA won’t charge Cuomo in nursing home probe, lawyer says

 https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/whiteboard/2022/01/03/manhattan-da-wont-charge-cuomo-in-nursing-home-probe-lawyer-says-1403639

Prosecutors in Manhattan have concluded former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo did not break the law when his administration misled the public about the number of Covid-19 deaths tied to nursing homes, the Democrat’s former attorney said on Monday.

Witnesses in abuse cases Sho’el U’Meishiv (1:185): is not to determine guilt but only the possibility of guilt

 From my book Child and Domestic Abuse Volume II. this is accepted as halacha l'maaseh

Sho’el U’Meishiv (1:185): Rumors spread about a certain teacher who had lived in that city for 8 years. Children that he had taught while they were young and now were 13 years or more older testified that he had sodomized them when they were younger. The previous summer a certain G d fearing man found out about this and was outraged and informed the rav of the community. However the rav did not want to accept this testimony… However the Maharik and the Terumas HaDeshen wrote and the Rema rules in Shulchan Aruch that in a situation where kosher witness are not necessary - then even a woman or child is believed. If so, in this matter it is definitely impossible for there to be adult males and it is impossible for there to be testimony in the matter. That is because without a doubt this man – even if he is wicked and dissolute – keeps his deeds secret and he only amuses himself with small children and claims he is only playing with them. Therefore it is obvious that they should be believed. However we are not trying to disqualify him from being a witness or making an oath but we only want to be able to say whether he perhaps did this. Our Sages said in Nida (61) that while it is prohibited to believe lashon harah, the concern aroused by it is required. And in Mo’ed Koton (18) they said that regarding bad talk – at least some of it is true. Therefore woe is to us that in our days such a thing happened that a man like this should be a teacher of children who are pure creatures and there is concern that he violated them. Therefore in my opinion it is appropriate to remove the crown of teacher from his head. They need to be concerned for their souls until he completely repents with appropriate afflictions and only then can he considered a full member of the community and it will be an atonement for his sins. Furthermore as long as he hasn’t confessed his sins then repentance is not possible as the Tevu’os Shor wrote in siman 2…. But in this case where there is testimony – even though it is not from kosher witnesses it is worth more than rumors and it is obvious he should be prevented from getting students to teach.

Sex offenders II - Treatment in Chareidi Society

Haaretz reports: This is the English version of a Hebrew article posted before

Around five years ago, Rabbi Yehuda Silman, a dayan (rabbinical court judge) in Bnei Brak court, approached Doron Agasi, a religious social worker, and asked for assistance in dealing with sex offenders. The request seemed like a call for help and Agasi, the principal of a boarding school for children-at-risk in Bnei Brak was acquainted with the problem first-hand. He proposed treating the offenders. He recalled the youth probation office's success with group therapy, which was offered as an alternative to imprisonment to youths who were sex offenders.

The proposal fell on open ears. The principle behind this method - that offenders are not removed from the community, that is, sent to jail, and no police file on them is opened - seemed like a solution that the ultra-Orthodox leadership could live with in peace.

That is how, with the full backing of rabbis, Agasi founded the Shlom Banayich (welfare of your sons) association for children-at-risk. Behind the somewhat vague name stood the first clear-cut social program to expose the dimensions of sex offenses in the ultra-Orthodox sector and treat it. Violence against a sexual backdrop raises unbearable questions in a society that prides itself on its moral superiority. It seems that a professional like Agasi, who belongs to the Hardal (abbreviation for Haredi-Leumi, or ultra-Orthodox nationalist) stream and is well-acquainted with the ultra-Orthodox and secular worlds, was needed in order to achieve a breakthrough. With his yeshiva-student like appearance - without the sneakers and the large crochet skullcap - he might have looked like an average ultra-Orthodox man, and his sensitivity generated a lot of trust. He basically worked as an intermediary between the ultra-Orthodox community and Dr. Talia Etgar, an expert in treating sex offenders at the Elem Association for at-risk youth.

Last week saw the end of the first course of its kind - for ultra-Orthodox therapists - in group therapy for offenders. The course was the initiative of Shlom Banayich in collaboration with Elem. The association with Elem came about after five years of fruitless contacts with the Probation Service and endless entanglements in the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. Half of the funding for the course was finally obtained from a contribution (from the high-tech company, Check Point); the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs agreed to fill in the rest.

Thirteen therapists took the six-month course. Soon they will begin their practical work: every pair of therapists will spend a year and a half working with a group of five boys. The treatment is based on having the offender confront his responsibility and educating him about sexual behavior that is appropriate to the codes of ultra-Orthodox society. The group framework is meant to provide support and teach the participants to have mutual respect for others.

The potential participants in the group are ultra-Orthodox boys who are being monitored by the Youth Probation Service or those who are not obligated to check in with a probation officer (cases that are not included for various reasons in Amendment 26 of the criminal code). Working with them is dependent on the cooperation of the welfare officer and the rabbis. Every case is first reviewed by Elem's Center for Sexual Violence and then undergoes a risk evaluation, after which the boys are divided into groups.

The deterrent factor, according to Agasi, is the alternative: the boys know that if they don't take part in the group, a police file on them will be opened and they will be sent to jail. [...]

Child abuse R' Silman - force payment for therapy

This is from the current issue of Yeschurun

Child Abuse: R' Silman - force abuser to pay for therapy (translation)

This is my translation of part of the recent Yeschurun article.

R’ Yehuda Silman (Yeschurun page 589-590): Is there an obligation for the molester to pay for psychotherapy? One major talmid chachom questioned whether psychotherapy is included in the payment for ripoi (cure). That is because he claims that we know from experience that those who are molested as children or as teenagers are rarely cured. He says that in the majority of cases the treatment that takes place over many years only helps to deal with the associated problems [and isn’t a cure]. I disagree with this position. The fact is that in a large percentage of cases there is fact full recovery and in almost all cases there is at least benefit from the therapy and thus it is obvious in my opinion that psychotherapy is included in the category of ripoi (cure). Consider the case of someone who was physically assaulted but there is no cure to his wounds and consequently he is required to have treatment for the rest of his life – would anyone seriously think that this treatment is not called ripoi (cure) – of course not!

This answer would seem to be relevant only for those e.g., Sephardim who follow the view of Rav Yosef Karo. He states in the Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 1:2) that the contemporary beis din judges and exacts payment for unemployment (sheves) and cure (ripoi). However this apparently is not applicable for those who follow the view of the Rema who rules that we don’t judge and exact payment today in these matters. In fact there is no practical difference between the two positions. The Rema continues by saying, ”We force the assailant to placate the victim and we fine him according to what is deemed appropriate by beis din as is explained in sif 5.” There the Shulchan Aruch states, “Even though judges who don’t have semicha in Israel do not collect fines nevertheless we ostracize (nidoi) the assailant until they placate the victim and when they give the appropriate amount then we free them.” Today when we don’t ostracize (nidoi) the advisable approach is to put pressure on the assailant that he is to be ostracized in various ways as a substitute for nidoi. In the case where the assailant has signed an agreement which includes the right of the judge to decide what is best then it is also possible to obligate him to pay money.

Also a good suggestion is that where there is communication between the sides such as in the case of teachers (the majority of cases of abuse are these types) – one should insert an explicit clause in the agreement between the two sides which states that the abuser is obligated to pay according to the decision of the judge. It is also a good idea to specify that the plaintiff is the parent of the child and where that is not possible or if they don’t want to - then the principal should be listed.

Jailing a Jewish criminal helps prevent chilul HaShem

Weberman's supporters have been stunned by his conviction. They keep repeating that he wasn't convicted according to proper witnesses or evidence according to the Torah and even if he was a pervert the Torah doesn't provide for imprisonment - especially life imprisonment. These claims show a shocking and dangerous ignorance of normative Jewish law. 

I will repeat a point I have made countless times before. A child molester or rapist is a danger to the welfare of the community. He is reported to the secular authorities as preventative act of protection. The fact that the secular court will try him based on rules and procedures that are different than Torah or that they will punish differently then the Torah - is not a reason for not using them for protection. This fact is repeated by many gedolim - some of which are listed below. Many additional sources are found in my books on abuse - especially volume II. Furthermore not only circumstantial evidence is permitted but conviction based on a standard of less then absolutely certainty is also permitted - sofek rodef is treated as a rodef. [additional sources are in the commentary section]

In addition this case involved a mandated reporter who is required by secular law to report the alleged abuse. BM 83 provides a basis for requiring a Jew to comply with mandated reporting law. These issues have been discussed many times in many posts on this blog - as well as my 3 books on child abuse.
========================================
Steipler Rav (Within the Domain of Gedolei Torah Volume 2 page 557-560): … 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 Moshe Halberstam (Yeschurun 15 page 646): Let’s return to the original question concerning a wicked molester whose evil inclination forces him to sin and be wicked and it is possible to turn him over to the government in order that he be incarcerated in prison for a number of years until he calms down and returns to G‑d wholeheartedly. According to the sources we discussed before it is clear that there is no sin or transgression in handing him over to the authorities. In fact the opposite is true – it is a mitzva because by doing so he is caused to stop from doing the disgusting deeds. In addition we know that the government will not execute him. Therefore the essence of his punishment is that he will be forced to dwell for a number of years in prison. This will be beneficial to him in that they will assign him a psychologist or psychiatrist who will supervise him  and his activities with a watchful eye. Perhaps he will be able to find a resolution of his torment by means of this treatment. So in such a case it is obvious that it is a good thing to save him and to save his family from his incestual attacks on them.

Rav Yehuda Silman (Yeschurun 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): …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. Furthermore in the original article it was concluded that that it is obvious that there is no need to have witnesses that meet the standards required by the Torah but even less than that is sufficient and I cited a number of rishonim. The reason is reporting the teacher to the secular authorities is not punishment requiring a beis din but is an action mandated by secular law (in the Diaspora) or in order to separate the abuser from committing sin. 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….some say just the opposite and assert that it is not necessary to convene a beis din with both sides present and that in fact a beis din or even a rav is not needed at all. Rather what is needed is to involve the government authorities as soon as possible since only they have the legal right and actual ability to deal with these matters…. On the one hand concerning the legal requirement - 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

Rav Yehuda Silman (Yeschurun 22): 4) 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, 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…

Reporting even a suspected abuser to the police

For those who wish to see additional sources they are in my books on child abuse

Rav Yehuda Silman(Yeschurun volume 15 page 662): 5) It is obvious in these matters of child abuse that it not necessary to have formal witnesses. As we see in Bava Metzia (83) that R’ Eliezer bar R’ Shimon had the Romans arrest those who were drinking in the tavern and were sleepy. … 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 15): Nevertheless the decision to report the perpetrator to the police is not given to everyone to decide. Rather as the Yam Shel Shlomo has said it is given to a rabbi or to a distinguished layman who will judge the matter objectively.[ R' Gottesman of the Aguda said we posken like this Yam Shel Shlomo and don't require a beis din]

Rav Yehuda Silman(Yeschurun 22): Question: I had previously received a query from America concerning the issue of informing the government authorities in a case of a teacher sexually abusing his student. The question was whether it is permitted or even a mitzva to be involved in reporting the matter to the secular authorities. I replied [Yeschurun 15 page 661] that there are number of different ways to judge the matter. 1) Viewing the abuser as a rodef (pursuer) [I mentioned in the previous article that this does not apply in the case of a male above the age of 13 or a girl above the age of 12 when the adult does it with their consent.]. 2) Stopping the abuser from sinning. I brought the dispute between the Ketzos and the Nesivos HaMishpat…and the Yam Shel Shlomo and the Chasam Sofer. However it is agreed by all of these sources is that a person of distinguished status (chashiv) is able to stop another from committing a prohibited act. 3) The position of Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 2) that a beis din is able to flog and punish in order to protect society – in a manner which is not prescribed by the Torah. Therefore in a case like ours in which experience has shown that a sex abuser is able to ruin many people – everyone agrees that beis din can punish in ways not prescribed by the Torah.[In the earlier article I pointed out there are significant differences between these approaches. If you take the perspective of separating the abuser from sinning then if the teacher is fired then there is no longer a need to act since he has lost his primary opportunity to sin but of course it depends on the nature of the crime. In contrast if the concern is protecting society then the perpetrator should still be reported even if he has been fired.] 4) 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. I brought the dispute amongst the rishonim was to whether or not the halacha is in accord with R’ Eliezar or not. 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.

  

Rav Yehuda Silman(Yeschurun volume 15 page 663): The laws that have emerged from our discussion concerning child molesters. We see that there are two separate issues 1) Concerning removing the perpetrator from his job. In this issue we establish that the halacha follows the view of the Sho’el u’Meishiv that it is enough that there are bad rumors and there is concern because of doubts. It seems that in such a case where there seems to be a basis for these rumors it is possible to remove him from his job even in the middle of the year and he does not receive any compensation for the remainder of his contract or for loss of job. 2) Concerning reporting him to the secular authorities. If the circumstances are that it is sufficient to remove him from the job and there is no concern that he will continue attacking children, then that is what should be done and he should not be reported. 3) However if there is a concern that he will continue to molest children, then at least because of the requirement to stop him from sinning it is permitted to report him even if he does not molest in a way that he transgresses actual Torah prohibitions and is therefore not considered a rodef. But since in our days prison is not considered life threatening it is permitted to cause him to be imprisoned. 4) However the decision as to whether to report a molester is not given to everyone as the Yam Shel Shlomo said Rather it is given to a dayan or an important person.  5) Furthermore, the understanding of the facts of the situation as to what actions are needed can be based upon the evidence of children or any other evidence which arouses a serious question such as tape recordings, letters, or polygraph tests. In general without this - if there is no evidence even according to what is accepted by secular law – there can be no punishment. The point is that there is no requirement that the evidence must be valid according to the Torah. 6) However if the suspect is prepared to accept therapy that will make him better - such as psychotherapy, or chemicals which suppress his sex drive – if it seems to the dayan that he will do what he promised [and sometimes with appropriate supervision] then treatment is preferable to reporting him to the police. However even if the molester is given the alternative of treatment and supervision instead of jail - he needs to quit his job which involves contact with children. 7) Outside of Israel where secular law is relevant there are additional reasons to be lenient and allow reporting to the police. 8) It is a good idea to establish a dayan or a beis din to make the decisions about the above issues and therefore men should be selected for this purpose who are experienced in these matters because of the serious of the matter which requires special expertise.

Hearsay Evidence and other invalid testimony

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from an under-oath witness who is reciting an out-of-court statement, the content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "hearsay evidence rule") unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

https://torah.org/learning/halacha-overview-chapter80/

 

It is forbidden to give false testimony or testimony based on hearsay, as it says “You shall not answer against your friend as a false witness”.2

Testimony cannot be accepted from women, children, or persons who are blind or not in full possession of their mental faculties; from sinners [as it says “You shall not set your hand with an evil man to be a wicked witness”7]; from ignoramuses unless they are known to be righteous; from relatives [as it says “Fathers shall not die because of sons”8]; or from persons who could derive benefit from the verdict. (All such persons are also disqualified from being judges. A proselyte, an old man, a eunuch, a person blind in one eye, a bastard, and a friend or enemy of the defendant are also disqualified from being judges in capital cases.) Testimony must be given orally; but in purely monetary matters (not involving fines) written testimony can be accepted.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi9ivXjkZj1AhX6gv0HHSbJBlsQFnoECB4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F80411162.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1uIH9Yqas0M14wuySezhaW

The Establishment of a Rule Against Hearsay in Romano-Canonical Procedure

By the thirteenth century. Continental jurists enshrined in law a deliberate value judgment that rested on the authority of much older Roman and canonical texts: hearsay should be rejected regardless of who the factfinder is, because a reliable verdict must be based on first-hand testimony at trial, subject to testing before the factfinder. The English jury system may provide a means to assure enforcement of the English hearsay bar, but the rejection of hearsay does not depend upon the jury for its rationale or for its origin in \Vestem legal culture. I

Rabbi Tao: “Rabbi Eliyahu is engaged in persecution”

 https://middleeast.in-24.com/News/542180.html

The rabbi later referred to the publication of the accusations against Velder and attacked the tribunal and Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu. “There was no court for it. Rabbi Shmuel suffers from McCarthyism, after what happened to Scheinberg in Safed he lost all boundaries. There is really no court, do not listen to him in this matter, everything is a bluff, a lie and a lie.”

“Everything you have heard is fabricated and invented,” the rabbi claimed in the summary. “The tribunal is one big laugh, do not believe it. Everything is a lie, and whoever whitens the face of his friend in public has no part in the next world.”