The following translation was sent to me by a reader of this blog - he acknowledges that it is not a precise translation. But he felt that the basic ideas needed to be presented to those who don't read Hebrew and therefore don't grasp the significance of the protest of talmidei chachomim against the heter to remarry without a Get.. Hopefully translations of other letters will be made available in the near future.
Thursday, August 24, 2023
English translation of Rav Gestetner's letter regarding Tamar Epstein's heter to remarry without a Get
The following translation was sent to me by a reader of this blog - he acknowledges that it is not a precise translation. But he felt that the basic ideas needed to be presented to those who don't read Hebrew and therefore don't grasp the significance of the protest of talmidei chachomim against the heter to remarry without a Get.. Hopefully translations of other letters will be made available in the near future.
Avoda Zarah - changing
Sanhedrin (29a) R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R. Jonathan's name: Whence do we know that we do not plead on behalf of a Mesith? — From the story of the ancient serpent. For R. Simlai said: The serpent had many pleas to put forward but did not do so. Then why did not the Holy One, blessed be He, plead on its behalf? — Because it offered none itself. What could it have said [to justify itself?] — ‘When the words of the teacher and those of the pupil [are contradictory], whose words should be hearkened to; surely the teacher's!’
Rabbi Avraham Auerbach states there is an obvious problem. The din of mesis only applies to Avoda Zara- so how can it be relevant to the deeds of the Serpent? In Peschei Avraham he explains that originally all rebellion against G-d's will was considered AZ.After Adam sinned the laws of AZ became what we see in the gemorah
Talmid chochom is not necessarily kind and merciful
Taanis (24a) Thereupon R. Ashi enquired: Did you not frequent the discourses of R. Jose of Yokereth? He replied: Yes. R. Ashi then asked him: Why did you leave him, Sir, and come here? He replied: How could the man who showed no mercy to his son and daughter show mercy to me?
What happened to his son? Once R. Jose had day-labourers [working] in the field; night set in and no food was brought to them and they said to his son, ‘We are hungry’. Now they were resting under a fig tree and he exclaimed: Fig tree, fig tree, bring forth thy fruit that my father's labourers may eat. It brought forth fruit and they ate. Meanwhile the father came and said to them, Do not bear a grievance against me; the reason for my delay is because I have been occupied up till now on an errand of charity. The labourers replied, May God satisfy you even as your son has satisfied us. Whereupon he asked: Whence? And they told him what had happened. Thereupon he said to his son: My son, you have troubled your Creator to cause the fig tree to bring forth its fruits before its time, may you too be taken hence before your time!
What happened to his daughter? He had a beautiful daughter. One day he saw a man boring a hole in the fence so that he might catch a glimpse of her. He said to the man, What is [the meaning of] this? And the man answered: Master, if I am not worthy enough to marry her, may I not at least be worthy to catch a glimpse of her? Thereupon he exclaimed: My daughter, you are a source of trouble to mankind; return to the dust so that men may not sin because of you. He also had an ass. When it was hired out for the day [the people who hired it] would place, in the evening, the hire on its back and the ass would make its way home to its master. If, however, the money was too much or too little, it would not go. One day a pair of sandals were left on its back and the ass would not move until they were removed and only then did it proceed.
Shabbos (33b) For R. Judah, R. Jose, and R. Simeon were sitting, and Judah, a son of proselytes, was sitting near them. R. Judah commenced [the discussion] by observing, ‘How fine are the works of this people! They have made streets, they have built bridges, they have erected baths.’ R. Jose was silent. R. Simeon b. Yohai answered and said, ‘All that they made they made for themselves; they built market-places, to set harlots in them; baths, to rejuvenate themselves; bridges, to levy tolls for them.’ Now, Judah the son of proselytes went and related their talk, which reached the government. They decreed: Judah, who exalted [us], shall be exalted, Jose, who was silent, shall be exiled to Sepphoris; Simeon, who censured, let him be executed.
So they went and hid in a cave. A miracle occurred and a carob-tree and a water well were created for them. They would strip their garments and sit up to their necks in sand. The whole day they studied; when it was time for prayers they robed, covered themselves, prayed, and then put off their garments again, so that they should not wear out. Thus they dwelt twelve years in the cave. Then Elijah came and stood at the entrance to the cave and exclaimed, Who will inform the son of Yohai that the emperor is dead and his decree annulled? So they emerged. Seeing a man ploughing and sowing, they exclaimed, ‘They forsake life eternal and engage in life temporal!’ Whatever they cast their eyes upon was immediately burnt up. Thereupon a Heavenly Echo came forth and cried out, ‘Have ye emerged to destroy My world: Return to your cave!’ So they returned and dwelt there twelve months, saying, ‘The punishment of the wicked in Gehenna is [limited to] twelve months.’ A Heavenly Echo then came forth and said, ‘Go forth from your cave!’ Thus.’; they issued: wherever R. Eleazar wounded, R. Simeon healed. Said he to him, ‘My son! You and I are sufficient for the world.’
Eiruvin(21b) His locks are curled. This, said R. Hisda in the name of Mar ‘Ukba, teaches that it is possible to pile up mounds of expositions on every single stroke [of the letters of the Torah]; and black as a raven: With whom do you find these? With him who for their sake rises early [to go] to, and remains late in the evening [before returning home from] the schoolhouse.1 Rabbah explained: [You find these only] with him who for their sake blackens his face like a raven. Raba explained: With him who can bring himself to be cruel to his children and household like a raven, as was the case with R. Adda b. Mattenah. He was about to go away to a schoolhouse when his wife said to him, ‘What shall I do with your children?’ — ‘Are there’, he retorted: ‘no more herbs in the marsh?’
Jewish Calculus of Suffering:Stop sin or suffering?
from my book Child and Domestic Abuse vol II
I have spent much time researching and analyzing the issue of abuse and reaction to suffering. The issue that keeps reoccurring is why is so little being done to alleviate or even give comfort to abuse victims. Originally I assumed that the issue was a simple halachic issue - the problem of mesira or chillul hashem or the complicated halachos of lashon harah.
While these reasons obviously play a part I have come to the conclusion that what is at work in our community is a theological attitude or value. This issue is stated clearly in Sanhedrin (73a) concerning the issue of stopping a rodef (someone pursuing someone to kill or rape). The Mishna says, “these are those who are saved by their lives”. This is an ambiguous statement. Who is saved? There are commentaries that say the reference is to the pursuer - we kill this pursuer to save his soul from sin. Others say that it means we save the potential victim by killing the pursuer.
It seems that we have two alternative lenses for evaluating these events. Are we preventing someone from sinning or are we saving a person from attack. As I have used these two lenses over a wide variety of issues - it seems in fact that this is the answer to my original question. Are we concerning with stopping sin and thus we are concerned with maximizing the spiritual content of our universe? Or alternatively am I concerned with the human suffering of the victim.
A clear example of the orthogonality of these views is the well known story of Rabbi Akiva. He died a horrible death of his skin being shredded with iron combs. Rabbi Akiva was ecstatic that he could die such a horrible painful death because of its spiritual significance. In contrast his students and even the angels didn’t understand this. They were bothered by the human element that he was suffering a horrible death.
Another example is Sma (C.M. 421:13) who mentions that a person is allowed to save another person from being beaten - even if it entails beating the assailant. He says that is because we need to stop the assailant from sinning. However he says if a person normally ignores such events and in general doesn’t stop assailants from beating other people it shows he is not concerned about stopping sinning. Therefore he says he can not intervene or rather if he intervenes he needs to pay because his motivation was not to stop sin but rather he hated the assailant. (The Taz comments on the Sema and says he doesn’t understand what relevancy the intent is. As long as the victim is saved from beating - that is sufficient to allow the rescuer to beat the assailant.)
Correspondingly the Chofetz Chaim says that even though lashon harah can be said if it brings benefit - but even if there is a beneficial outcome to speaking lashon harah - it is prohibited to say lashon harah. The Klausenberger explains that the evilness of lashon harah is dependent on the intent of the speaker - not the consequences. This would mean that if a woman is raped and she is driven by hatred to destroy the reputation of her rapist - she is not allowed to tell others what happened to her!
There are many other situations which seem puzzling but become clear once the question is asked - are you focusing on the net spiritual consequences or on stopping suffering? In fact both views are viable Jewish views. The distinguishing factor is whether the focus is on saving the person or on saving him for the proper motivation.
An additional issue of theological lens is how does one look at someone in need? Do you say this person needs my help and if I don’t help him he will suffer? Or do I say, “It is a mitzva to help people but if I don’t help then someone else will since G‑d determines whether a person suffers or not. Even if I refuse to help all it means is that I lose the merit of helping another person.”
This is a dispute in Bava Metzia (83b) as to whether man needs to take action against injustice and crime – when the Torah parameters don’t help. The Meiri says that one can not use methods which were not permitted by the Torah and therefore it is G‑d’s job to solve the problems. The Rashba and others say that one must use techniques that work – even if they don’t conform to the prescriptions of the Torah. Man must do something.
Schlesinger Twins: A friend testifies about the intimidation of those who want to help Beth
Wednesday, August 23, 2023
Is a worker superior to a talmid chochom?
Rabbeina (Yona Avos 2:2)And all [study of the] Torah in the absence of a worldly occupation comes to nothing in the end: Like the matter that they said in our treatise (Avot 3 17), "If there is no flour, there is no Torah." The matter is like its simple understanding - when he neglects work, it brings him to poverty and it drags along several sins and its evil is great. As on account of it, he will 'love gifts and not live,' and flatter people even if they are evildoers, in order that they give to him. Also when the money from the gifts runs out, he will become a thief or a kidnapper (or gambler) and will bring 'home loot taken from the poor' so that he not die of hunger. And when a person reaches these traits, his spirit knows no restraint and he will not rest and not be still until he transgresses all of the commandments that are stated in the Torah, since 'one sin brings along [another] sin.' And about this, the sages said in Tractate Chullin 44b (see also Berakhot 8a), "Anyone who benefits from his toil, the verse states about him (Psalms 128:2), 'If you eat the toil of your hands you shall be happy and it will be good for you' - happy in this world, and good for you in the world (to come)." Therefore it is necessary for a sage to know a craft, as it is stated (Ecclesiastes 7:11), "Good is wisdom with an inheritance."
Can a Jew lose his status as Jew?
Rambam (Avoda Zara 2:5)An Israelite who worshiped idolatry, behold him, he is in everything to be judged as an idolater, and not as an Israelite who violates a prohibitive commandment punishable by stoning. A convert to idolatry, behold him, he is rebellious against the whole scope of the Torah. Likewise are infidels of among Israel not to be judged in aught as Israelites, nor should they ever be received as penitents, for it is said: "None that go unto her return, neither do they attain unto the paths of life" (Prov. 2.19). The infidels are they that absorb themselves in the swerving fancies of their heart about the brutish matters hereinabove spoken of, as a consequence whereof they transgress by stepping upon the vitals of the Torah with spite, soul-sickening and high-handedness, and proclaim that therein lies no iniquity. It is forbidden to converse with them, and to answer any argument concerning them, as it is said: "And come not nigh the door of her house" (Ibid. 5.8). As a rule the thought of an infidel drifts toward idolatry.
Rambam (Commentary to 10th chapter Sanhedrin) And when a person upholds all these foundations, and his belief in them is true, he enters into the group of Israel and it is an obligation to love him, and to have compassion for him, and all that Hashem commanded us regarding love and brotherhood for each other. And even if he has done what can be of the sins due to his desires and the overpowerment of his evil inclination, he will be punished commensurate to the greatness of his rebellion but he still has a portion and he is of the sinners of Israel. But when a person doubts one of these foundations he has left the group, and denied God, and is called a sectarian and a heretic and a cutter of shoots, and it is an obligation to hate him, and of him it is said "do I not hate those who hate you, Hashem?"
Mamrim (3:2-3)מֵאַחַר שֶׁנִּתְפַּרְסֵם שֶׁהוּא כּוֹפֵר בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה [מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ] וְלֹא מַעֲלִין וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הָאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹסִין וְהָאוֹמְרִין אֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהַמּוֹסְרִין וְהַמּוּמָרִין. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ אֵינָם בִּכְלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לֹא לְעֵדִים וְלֹא הַתְרָאָה וְלֹא דַּיָּנִים [אֶלָּא כָּל הַהוֹרֵג אֶחָד מֵהֶן עָשָׂה מִצְוָה גְּדוֹלָה וְהֵסִיר הַמִּכְשׁוֹל]: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאִישׁ שֶׁכָּפַר בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ וּבִדְבָרִים שֶׁנִּרְאוּ לוֹ. וְהָלַךְ אַחַר דַּעְתּוֹ הַקַּלָּה וְאַחַר שְׁרִירוּת לִבּוֹ וְכוֹפֵר בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה תְּחִלָּה כְּצָדוֹק וּבַיְתּוֹס וְכֵן כָּל הַתּוֹעִים אַחֲרָיו. אֲבָל בְּנֵי הַתּוֹעִים הָאֵלֶּה וּבְנֵי בְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁהִדִּיחוּ אוֹתָם אֲבוֹתָם וְנוֹלְדוּ בֵּין הַקָּרָאִים וְגִדְּלוּ אוֹתָם עַל דַּעְתָּם. הֲרֵי הוּא כְּתִינוֹק שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה בֵּינֵיהֶם וְגִדְּלוּהוּ וְאֵינוֹ זָרִיז לֶאֱחֹז בְּדַרְכֵי הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא כְּאָנוּס וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁמַע אַחַר כָּךְ [שֶׁהוּא יְהוּדִי וְרָאָה הַיְהוּדִים וְדָתָם הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאָנוּס שֶׁהֲרֵי גִּדְּלוּהוּ עַל טָעוּתָם] כָּךְ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ הָאוֹחֲזִים בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתָם הַקָּרָאִים שֶׁטָּעוּ. לְפִיכָךְ רָאוּי לְהַחְזִירָן בִּתְשׁוּבָה וּלְמָשְׁכָם בְּדִבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם עַד שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ לְאֵיתָן הַתּוֹרָה:
Yevamos (17a)
The Gemara asks: Aren’t there Jewish girls who were captured by gentiles, whose children are considered to be Jews? And Ravina said: Learn from this that the son of your daughter from a gentile is called your son. If so, the descendants of Jewish women captured by gentiles would indeed be Jews. The Gemara answers: This is no concern, as it is learned as a tradition that the girls from the ten tribes of that generation became barren and did not give birth to any offspring, whereas some of the exiled men of the ten tribes married gentile women. Consequently, all of the children born there were gentiles.
Shemittah and bitachon
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz (Sichos Mussar 5731 Bitachon): Concerning the mitzva of Shemitta (leaving land fallow on the seventh year)… It is a very demanding and difficult mitzva. However, it is not just for the sake of spiritual elevation alone - since we see that the sin of neglecting the mitzva is the cause for the Jewish people being exiled from Israel… This is indicative of the greatness of Israel. All are required to being like the angels and if they don’t succeed they are punished severely with exile. But why? Of the different reasons offered for this mitzva - the most important one is that it serves to implant in the heart of every Jew the attribute of bitachon - trusting G‑d. Once in seven years, it is required that all Jews live one whole year in a highly transcendent manner - without any clear material and natural basis. They are required to rely entirely on G‑d to provide for them and to trust Him. This year of Shemitta implants within each Jew bitachon in G‑d. The spiritual flame thus created burns until the next Shemitta year. This attribute is absolutely required for the People of G‑d. That is why its consequences are so severe.
Bitachon
R’ Chaim Shmuelevitz (Sichos Mussar 5731 - Bitachon): It is the view of many rishonim that the obligation of bitachon means without any exertion in a natural manner. This is expressed by Yermiyahu (2:2): You followed after me into the unplanted Wilderness. From this we see that the ideal bitachon means that the person should not even lift a finger to accomplish his goal. Similarly we find in Rashi(Shemos 16:32): “In the days of Yermiyahu when Yermiyahu chastised them for not studying Torah - they replied: How can we leave our work and study Torah? What will be the source of our livelihood? He showed them the container of manna from the Wilderness and said: See the word of G‑d. He didn’t tell them to hear the word of G‑d but to see it. With this our ancestors were sustained. G‑d has many messengers to provide sustenance to those who fear Him.” Yermiyahu clearly indicates that the requirement of bitachon is without any effort since he said: G‑d has many messengers. Thus just as our ancestors were provided for in the Wilderness and they lacked nothing - that is the way we need to conduct ourselves and not to worry at all. However this approach is not relevant to everyone. The story of the wagon driver and the Alschich is well known. The Alschich’s students complained that he had told them that one does not need to work but instead should learn full time and have bitachon that G‑d would provide all their needs - but it didn’t work. The only one who succeeded by having bitachon was the simple wagon driver. G‑d had provided him with a trunk full of gold coins. In contrast the Alschich’s students failed to have their livelihood provided by their attempts at bitachon. The Alschich explained to his students that the approach of relying entirely on bitachon works only for those who have total fail without any doubts at all. Only the simple wagon driver had the pure simple faith needed for the bitachon to work. On the other hand even those rishonim who say that bitachon requires effort - do not mean that the effort is the cause of the livelihood. That is obvious since everything is from G‑d. This is particularly true since the key for livelihood is not even given into the hand of an angel - but G‑d directly controls it. The reason that a person must exert himself in a natural way is solely because of the curse of Adam (Bereishis 3:19): By the sweat of your brow will you eat bread. This idea is expressed in Kiddushin (82b): “I have never seen a deer who works as a fruit harvester or a lion transporting merchandise or a fox who was a shopkeeper - nevertheless their sustenance is provided without suffering. I who was created to serve G‑d should surely be sustained without suffering. But it is because I have sinned and destroyed my livelihood… All the effort for earning a living in only the result of man’s sins and thus he can only obtain it through suffering and great effort. But it is obvious that the suffering and the effort themselves don’t provide the livelihood. Our sages say in Berachos (8a): Greater is the one who obtains his livelihood through his efforts than one who only fears G‑d. That is because the one who works see clearly that his efforts do not produce success. He sees that he exerts himself in one area only to find that his profit is coming from something else. Thus the worker sees Providence more than one who only fears G‑d. Therefore even though the one who fears G‑d believes in Providence but it is not as real to him as the one who works… Concerning Torah study, everyone agrees that success cannot occur without effort. The essence of Torah study is effort. But here also the effort is only a precondition for success but it does not cause it directly. Success even in Torah study is directly from G‑d. Thus Nidah (70a) states that success in Torah study will not happen without prayer in addition to the effort of study.
Rav Moshe's psak
There are two different approaches that Rav Moshe presents:
1)In his introduction to the Igros he essentiallly views himself as a teacher who presents data and reasoning for the approval or disapproval of the reader.
2) However in a later discussion [vol 8 y.d. 3 38.1] he acknowledges that not everyone will be able to follow his reasoning on their own and some would simply prefer to accept his conclusions. IIt was written to Rabbi Moshe Goldberger who originally published it his pamphlet on tying knots on Shabbos and personally told me it was real.
The background to the tshuva.
Rabbi Rakefet had written an index to the first 5 volumes. Rav Moshe found out about it and mistakenly thought he was making a summary of the Igros in English or a new shulchan Aruch based on Rav Moshe's teshuvos. R Rakefet's index was never published except for his introduction in his pamphlet for Russian Jews [ Rakafot Aharon page 58-71]. In fact this English introduction briefly summarized the Igros. Later a Sefer on Hilchos Shbbos was published which took the psakim of Rav Moshe summarized in English with those of the Debreciner and it had the written haskoma of Rav Moshe. Rabbi Goldberger wrote Rav Moshe asking him to explain his lenient attitude towards the latter and his extremely harsh attitude to the former (Rav Moshe had stated he was willing to go to court to stop its publication). The resulting tshuva was actually a composite tshuva - according to Tendler. A reply to Rabbi Goldberger's question and a general discussion about psak and in particular his own in the Igros Moshe.
שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ד סימן לח
R' M. Feinstein & Maharam Shick:Legitimacy of capital punishment
Here are the words of Rav Moshe Feinstein in a letter to the governor of New York explaining that the strict Torah law on execution only applied historically in the limited case of a well ordered society. But there is a legitimate use of capital punishment to defend society - even where the Torah law is not fulfilled. There are other issues such as aivah - the back lash against Jews which need to be considered. A secular society has the right to protect itself and that includes a secular or non-Jewish one. There is no question that it was legitimate to ask to the governor to convert the sentence to life imprisonment - but the assumption is that all is permitted to achieve that goal - it simply isn't so. It is also problematic that this cold blooded murderer is now being viewed and promoted as a martyr to inspire people to be sensitive to the laws of interpersonal relationships. Whether he truly did teshuva is for G-d to say - but there are no lack of more appropriate role models out there.
Igros Moshe(C.M. 2:68): … The Torah reserves capital punishment for those sins which are very serious such as murder, kidnapping, sexually prohibited relations and idolatry. The perpetrator in these cases is unrestrained and is capable of doing whatever disgusting and cruel acts in the world that are in his heart that he thinks are for his benefit. However the death penalty is not administered out of hatred to evildoers or fear for the welfare of society because Bava Metzia (83b) tells us that G‑d will punish transgressors. That in fact is the halacha as poskened by the Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:9) as well as all other poskim. So on the one hand the purpose of capital punishment is to let people know the severity of these prohibitions so that they will not transgress them. On the other hand the laws of capital punishment emphasize the importance of each soul and other concerns. Therefore we are commanded that only the Sanhedrin with proper semicha can judge these cases. Only the greatest people in Torah scholarship and other knowledge receives this semicha. In addition to their knowledge they also need to have perfected their character and be very humble as well as G‑d fearing people. They also need to hate money and love the truth as well as wonderful people who are beloved by all…They don’t have any imperfections or bad reputations and they are very merciful. That is why very old people are not appointed judges because they have forgotten the stress of raising children. Also people without children are not appointed because they lack mercy to some degree and they will be too angry at those who have committed sins.
Even these great and good people cannot judge unless they constitute a Sanhedrin of 23 people.However it is not enough there are 23 such people to make a Sanhedrin. They also need to have before them 3 rows of very great Torah scholars who are not yet great enough to be part of the Sanhedrin – but are almost great enough. This is to protect the Sanhedrin from making a mistake in judgment. That is because when these three rows of scholars think that the Sanhedrin is mistaken in their ruling of innocence they will protest and will not listen at all to their words. Another safeguard against making a mistake is that they do not convict based on circumstantial evidence – no matter how convincing. They only convict a person based on two valid witnesses who have not the slightest bias in the matter... Furthermore the witnesses are warned concerning the severity of the sin of false testimony as well as the seriousness of the sin of murder so that they are very afraid of mistakenly convicting or mistakenly declaring the suspected murderer innocent. Even with all of this the witnesses also have to warn the person against murder and the suspected murderer has to acknowledge the warning by saying that even though he is aware of the seriousness off the crime he is still doing it. As a consequence of all these safeguards, only once in many years would someone be convicted of murder. In addition it was impossible to judge capital cases unless the Temple existed and that the Sanhedrin of 71 of the greatest scholars was in session on the Temple Mount. In fact capital cases were not judged even in those countries where the king gave the Jews permission to judge their own people according to the law of the Torah.
As a consequence of these two factors there were almost no Jewish murderers because of the awareness of the severity of the prohibition of murder and because they were educated by means of the Torah and the punishments of the Torah to understand the seriousness of the crime. They were not simply afraid of punishment in the sense of getting caught but were afraid of the crime itself.
However this use of the Torah system to run society was only when the crime of murder was not common but was simply the result of someone’s great lust or some quarrel concerning money or honor. But when people killed simply because it was viewed as an insignificant thing and the murderer was simply a callous and cruel person or similarly if there was a great deal of murders and wickedness – then a different system of law was utilized that was concerned with the pragmatic question of stopping killing and the goal became saving the society.
Maharam Shick(C.M. #50): Concerning the incident in which a man’s brother suddenly died and his wife’s brother was suspected of having poisoned her husband. There was some circumstantial evidence as well as a partial confession. Also she was suspected of being involved with another man who apparently participated with her in the murder. You write that gedolim of our country have written to you expressing great surprise at the silence concerning this matter. According to them it is a mitzva to destroy the evil and not have mercy on them. The Torah’s principle is life for a life and one who spills the blood of another person his blood is required to be spilled… 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)…