Monday, April 26, 2021

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 ...

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

Sunday, April 25, 2021

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…