Sunday, June 24, 2012

Yehuda Kolko faces 13 year old accuser

Jewish week  A 13-year-old boy who alleges he was molested by Rabbi Yehuda Kolko told a Brooklyn jury on Thursday that he felt “scared” when the rabbi -- whom he identified from the stand -- stared at him on the street on two occasions in late 2010.

Rabbi Kolko is currently on trial for violating an order of protection requiring him to refrain from having any contact with the boy. The order was part of a 2008 plea deal stemming from charges that Rabbi Kolko sexually abused the boy when he was a first grader in Kolko’s class (charges were also brought against the rabbi for allegedly abusing another boy).

Rabbi Kolko -- who has been dogged by child molestation allegations for over 30 years -- ultimately pleaded to lesser charges of child endangerment and received probation; he was not required to register as a sex offender.


  1. According to a letter by Rabbi Scheinberg zt"l, Rabbi Kolko is innocent.

    I take whatever Rabbi Scheinberg said very seriously.

    Can someone please explain?

    1. With all due respect for Rav Sheinberg ZT"L, this is one situation in which he erred. He was a great human, but humans never achieve perfection. The unanimity among poskim that disagrees with his statement about penetration is an indication of this. The fact that Rav Sheinberg lacked the experience to deal with this situation is glaring, and his conclusions may have their academic merit, while not standing the basic tests for psak halacha.

      In a comment elsewhere, there is a distinction made between the sexual crime, in which one would need to be oveir one of the prohibited relationships (for which penetration would be a criterion), and the damage to the emotional and spiritual life and health of a child. For the latter, it is irrelevant whether the molester was oveir the prohibition. All that matters is that he committed a personal crime of invasion of the child's privacy in a manner which has permanent damage. I consider it emotional and spiritual murder. For this, any form of invasion creates the violation, the damage, and the liability. This point is not one that is mentioned with any frequency in Shas, and thus would not enter the mind of the posek unless he was informed about the parameters of such issues. Maybe we can fault Rabbonim for attempting to pasken before having full information about the subject matter. But the approach to addressing that is not by protests or throwing bizyonos. Try educating them. It works.

    2. Destroy Evil,

      What would you call a man who is 6 foot 5, full of muscles, an IQ of 200, a great athlete, but has one extra eye on his forehead?

      Answer: A freak.

      This is why you can't have a godol make a statement that just because there is no penetration, there is no abuse, and still be a godol. Yet, Rabbi Scheinberg was a godol. This is why I am very skeptical of everything I have heard about the "no penetration" psak. There must be more to the story.

    3. You are right, there is more to the story. It was necessary to squash the story to prevent a chilul hashem and a lawsuit. Therefore it required stepping on a few people......

    4. Henoch,

      That is pure speculation.

    5. It is hard to face. I feel your pain.

  2. I guess there are two Kolko cases going on, Yehudah and Yosef? Is that correct?

  3. whats wrong with this pictureJune 25, 2012 at 5:49 PM

    I'm troubled. If the Torah is the wisdom for all times, how could it not have a way of criminalizing sexual abuse that does not include penetration, or even the sexual abuse of a premenstral girl by an unrelated man that does include penetration. In both instances there is (apparently) no "halacha" that is violated which makes the perpetrator guiltless. At least that is what I have been told. How could that be.

    1. I have discussed this issue a number of times. If child abuse produced no psychological problems - would you still say the same thing? It is possible that at one time there was no significant psychological trauma - but living in a world of psychologicl sensitiity and a highl level of self-reflection - this has changed.

      In fact the contemporary poskim have no problem applying the eternal principles of rodef and self protection - see C.M. 388 to permit causing a perpetator getting a long jail sentence.

      See Chasam Sofer regarding Gittin 7a.

      Basically my books on abuse deal with your question - so there is no need for me to repeat the whole thing here.

      not every crime is explicit in the Torah nor is every punishment.

    2. It is possible, but hihly unlikely, that sexual abuse would not produce negative consequences in different cultural contexts.

      For once, any sexual activity without marriage is forbidden. Marriage requires mutual consent.

      Young girls stopped going to mikwah to avoid them being raped. Any girl who never went to the mikveh is nidah, even before her menstruation cycle starts.

      We see that the rabonim put quite some safeguards in place to avoid sexual abuse. then there are all the tziuth rules. Iam sure they are broken also by male on male abuse, even though there is no penetration.

      The only cases where safeguards against abuse were not in place was a girl being sold into marriage - I don't know whether marriage without consent was possible in this case - and the case of the cananite slave used for reproduction purposes. and possibly the case of wife who no longer wants intercourse with her husband and who might or might not be coerced...

      Ans then, of course, there is the question how society deals with sinners and lawbreakers and how victims are compensated...

  4. I am NOT drawing a parallel, but I just found this and wanted to share..

    Abraham Mondrowitz v. State of Israel

  5. " but living in a world of psychologicl sensitiity and a highl level of self-reflection"

    Therefore even just slapping a child, your own child, will get you in jail AND they will remove ALL other children from your home. That is the Halacha in today's age. That same Halachah also REQUIRES you to report such 'abuse' to secular authorities only if you witness such.

  6. To Betzazel:
    >>> I take whatever Rabbi Scheinberg said very seriously.

    Can someone please explain? <<<

    I can explain very easily. You're pathetic and blind.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.