How Should Rabbis Respond To Reports Of Child Sexual Abuse?

A rabbi tries to answer this question halakhicly but his answers prove again that rabbis are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The editor of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society has written an article on child sexual abuse.

While there is much good in this article, there is also much bad.

And that bad, I believe, shows why rabbis cannot be trusted to deal with child sexual abuse and similar crimes.

Here is a summary of the article, courtesy of Rabbi Gil Student:

Responding Halakhically to Reports of Abuse

The latest issue of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (LX) has a very important article by the editor, R. Alfred Cohen, titled “Judging Transgression in the Absence of Witnesses.” R. Cohen surveys the sources and views regarding how to respond to reports of abuse that lack qualified witnesses, or any proof. This article is groundbreaking and sets the standard of discussion for this issue. Below are some highlights and notes:

1. “[W]hen the community is in danger, the rights of the individual to be considered innocent until proven guilty have to defer to the overarching necessity of safeguarding the community” (p. 7).

2. How do you respond to an unproven allegation? Essentially kabdeihu ve-chashdeihu, do not take action in case it is wrong but take precautions in case it is right. “Perhaps a solution would be to transfer the teacher to some non-teaching position, where there would be no more opportunity for any infraction” (p. 12).

3. How do we respond to the testimony of technically invalid witnesses? “[A] bet din may accept the testimony of witnesses who are technically not qualified if they find it credible” (p. 15).

4. What about the suspected perpetrator’s family? If we are uncertain whether he is guilty then we must balance the community’s welfare with the family’s.

5. Must an accused perpetrator respond to false allegations? It is the responsibility of every person to act in a way that prevents suspicion and to respond to allegations if they arise. “While it may be extremely uncomfortable to have to defend one’s honor and answer challenges to one’s uprightness, that is what is owed to the community” (pp. 19-20).

6. Should we take rumors seriously? Persistent rumors that do not originate with people who have an agenda should be taken seriously.

7. Can you fire someone over persistent rumors? This is a very difficult issue. The Magen Avraham seems to rule you may while the Rema rules you may not. All agree, however, that you may refrain from hiring someone over unsubstantiated rumors.

8. Can you fire a communal rabbi who has sinned? “[T]he course of action has to be determined by what will produce the most benefit (or the least trauma) to the Jewish community… [T]he Aruch Hashulchan concludes that if the rumors swell and persist, leading to disrespect for Judaism and the Torah, then he must surely be publicly censured” (p. 29).

9. We need to judge good people favorably but not people who have shown contempt for Jewish law.

10. Cases of immorality need to be handled discreetly to avoid Chillul Hashem, which includes creating the impression that rabbis are generally immoral or that rabbis can get away with crimes. This requires judgment.

11. Unproven accusations can be believed if they are devarim hanikkarim — “apparently there is no other plausible way to explain the circumstances other than the scenario envisioned by the lashon hara” (p. 41).

12. We need to allow room for rehabilitation, for the repentant sinner to return to the community. However, “the reality of social experience has shown that some aberrations are almost impossible to expunge from the personality” (p. 44).

13. Regarding the Takkanah Forum (unnamed in the article): “It strikes me that these rabbis handled the situation masterfully and honestly” (p. 46).

A close reading of the summary shows several key things:

1. According to Rabbi Student, Rabbi Cohen deals with how to "respond to reports of abuse that lack qualified witnesses" – i.e., the witnesses are minors – or where there is no proof, only rumors.

2. Until rabbis determine a person is guilty, no action should be taken against the alleged perpetrator. That means police should not be called and the alleged perpetrator should not be fired.

3. Rabbi Cohen says an alleged perpetrator in the above situation should "perhaps" be transferred to a job away from children "where there would be no more opportunity for any infraction.” But schools are not the only place pedophiles have access to children – they have mikvas, synagogues, parks, and other locations to ply their trade. Yet Rabbi Cohen implies we should not do anything to warn the community because clear proof of the pedophile's guilt is lacking.

4. Rabbi Cohen says it is unclear whether or not a teacher or a rabbi can be fired over persistent rumors. But he also makes it clear halakha is opposed to calling police unless there is clear proof of guilt.

5. In other words, if the evidence against a person is clear and overwhelming, police should be called. But if the evidence is not as clear as that or, presumably, if there is evidence but it is not overwhelming, police should not be called.

6. This means Rabbi Cohen has cast rabbis in the role of forensic child sexual abuse investigators and professionals trained to deal with victims of child sexual abuse. Yet rabbis are neither of these things.

7. Following Rabbi Cohen's logic, these rabbis would be judging the guilt of their colleagues and friends – a situation that frequently leads to judgments biased in their friends' favor.

I'm sure Rabbi Cohen means well.

That said, rabbis cannot honestly or effectively deal with child sexual abuse. They have neither the training or the motivation to do so.

Their behavior amounts to obstruction of justice and puts defenseless children at risk.

But notice that Rabbi Gil Student, the head of the OU's book publishing arm, does not raise any of these points. He issues no criticism of Rabbi Cohen. He does not challenge him on any of these points.

He sees only the good in Rabbi Cohen's article – like “[W]hen the community is in danger, the rights of the individual to be considered innocent until proven guilty have to defer to the overarching necessity of safeguarding the community” – but not the bad.

Why?

Because, I think, in the end what matters most to Orthodox community leaders is not the safety of the children in their midst. They may, like Rabbi Student, talk the talk. But few walk the walk. If the safety of children was the most important thing, rabbis would view themselves as mandatory reporters and would report suspicions of child abuse to police.

But they don't.

How many more dead or emotionally crippled children will it take to change their minds?

[Hat Tip: Chaim1.]

Comments

[chaim1]

thanks.
I hope you dont mind if I quote the gemoro I also wrote on hirhurim blog. The translation is taken from the net and not very good. The English is terrible, so i have changed it a bit.
moed katan 17A
There was once a certain Collegiate whose
reputation was objectionable. Said Rab Judah, How is one to act? To put the nidui on him [we cannot], as the Rabbis have need of him [as an able teacher]. Not to put it on him [we cannot afford] as the name of Heaven is being profaned. Said he to Rabbah b. Bar Hana, Have you heard 'alight' on that point? He replied: ‘Thus said R. Johanan: What 'means the text', For the priest’s
lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the
Lord of Hosts? [It means, that] if the Master is like unto a messenger of the Lord of Hosts, they
should seek the law at his mouth; but if [he be] not , they should not seek the law at his mouth’.
[Thereupon] Rab Judah pronounced the nidui on him. In the end Rab Judah became
indisposed. The Rabbis came to enquire about him and that man came along with them. When Rab
Judah beheld him he (rav J) laughed. Said the man to him: Not enough for him that he put upon that man
[me] the shammetha, but he even laughs at me! Replied he [Rab Judah]: I was not laughing at you:
but as I am departing to that World [beyond] I am glad to think that even towards such a personage
as you I showed no indulgence. Rab Judah’s soul came to rest.(died) The man [then] came to the College
[and] said, ‘Absolve me’. Said the Rabbis to him, There is no man here of the standing of Rab Judah
who could absolve you; but go to R. Judah Nesi’ah7 that he may absolve you. He went and presented
himself to him. Said he to R. Ammi: ‘Go forth and look into his case; if it be necessary to absolve
him, absolve him’. R. Ammi looked into his case ....... Then . He went away
weeping. A wasp then came and stung him in the privy member and he died. They brought him into ‘The Grotto of the Pious’, but they admitted him not.They brought him into ‘The Grotto of the Judges’ and they received him. Why was he admitted there? — Because he had acted according to
the dictum of R. Il’ai. For R. Il’ai says, If one sees that his [evil] yezer is gaining sway over him, let
him go away where he is not known; let him put on sordid clothes, don a sordid wrap and do the sordid deed that his heart desires rather than profane the name of Heaven openly.

[Adam Neira]

It is very simple. Anyone proven conclusively to have sexually abused a child should be executed. No more equivocation. No more beating around the bush. Swift biblical justice administered without mercy. The crime is at the apex of evil acts. The purity, innocence and freedom of a child is one of the greatest blessings on the Planet. So many people are in karet because of this transgression. The consciousness, healing and awareness matrix on Earth at the moment is fascinating to behold. (I have been aware of people’s place in the healing spectrum for twelve years now.) We can't execute everyone who has committed this crime in the past, but there is a way for everyone to know what the punishment should be for such an act now and in the future.

[chaim1]

I have quite a lot to say but want to see what others say first.
Does anyone know where this r'mo and magen avrohom are that he quotes.
I do not believe it refers to a teacher.
The chazon ish is well known. He was against 'mussar'. One of his reasons was that it often goes against the Torah. This was his case in point. The gemoro says that one has to employ the 'best' teacher possible and every teacher has to realise that if a better one is found he loses his employment immediately, without any compensation. Those are his terms, (or should be.Compensation anyway has no place in Jewish law).

I would think this applies definitely to a teacher 'suspected' as well.

[harold]

Excellent collection of points and concerns from both sides. To me every thing points to one thing no matter what side of the fence that you take. The greatest crime one can do is to delay justice. The sooner one brings the case/situation or what ever you call it to trial/beis din or how ever you choose to handle it DO NOT DAWDLE you are doing no one a favor allowing this state of uncertainty to remain. It is an intolerable position, bordering on cruelty, for someone to be with such a cloud hanging over ones head. By this I mean all parties concerned, the accused, victim, school, community, families all are in this limbo of uncertainty.

[fakewood]

i think there is a very simple way around this halacha. if you suspect a child is being abused take him to the hospital to be checked out. if they see signs of sexual abuse they will call the police for you and its out of your hands.

[chaim1]

But notice that Rabbi Gil Student, the head of the OU's book publishing arm, does not raise any of these points. He issues no criticism of Rabbi Cohen. He does not challenge him on any of these points

In his reply to comments there now he does expand a bit saying according to 'gemmoros' one is not allowed. I wonder which ones they are.

[A nudnik]

fakewood:

Would the same rabbis who oppose calling the police oppose taking the child to the hospital because they know the hospital will call the police?

[Pierre]

There are those who consider themselves Torah true Jews who do not believe secular legal systems (non-Jewish legal systems), are just; YES, rabbis will state "there is the responsibility that 'noachides' have just legal systems" - but leave unstated (but KNOWN by insiders), that THAT is no proclamation that they are considered just or their decisions just! Plenty of RW rabbis will STATE they are not (I'm sure even some with JDs) - off the record (i.e., on Shabbat or away from recorders, etc).

And of course is the obligation to seek halachic legal recourse *halachically*, via bet din; for something to be WRONG with 'child abuse' (defined, of course, halachically), there's got to be something "halachically" wrong with it - and if so, it requires beit din. How is this not, in essence, their frame of mind? How in essence are they not treating it like any other call to esteem halachic legal means over secular legal means? If there is no unambiguous pikuach nefesh (something decided by JEWISH legal decision...), how can it NOT be treated ambiguously? Include also the call to dan lchaf zechut; they follow opinions that Jewish criminals/pedofiles/adulterers et al have "a disease" (goyim though, 'of course', are inclined to various arayot and averot) - and are thus to some degree not culpable; YES we separate them from potential victims, etc....but still I almost guarantee, there is the mentality of presuming a bizarre degree of non-culpability.

[Shmarya]

i think there is a very simple way around this halacha. if you suspect a child is being abused take him to the hospital to be checked out. if they see signs of sexual abuse they will call the police for you and its out of your hands.

fakewood, you don't realize that having a doctor _ who is a mandatory reporter – examine a child for potential child abuse is in the eyes of many rabbis mesira.

[A. Nuran]

In other words, protect the abuser, silence the witnesses, ignore the victims, shuffle the baby-rapers around and don't tell the police.

If that's rabbinical Judaism, to hell with the rabbis and to hell with halacha.

[steve]

How Should Rabbis Respond To Reports Of Child Sexual Abuse?

They should direct the victims to the local police precinct and instruct them to file charges. Nothing less, nothing more.
-Halacha 1.1, Criminal Law 1.1, Logic 1.1, Human Decency 1.1.

[Monsey Hocker]

How Should Rabbis Respond To Reports Of Child Sexual Abuse?

Rabbis should stick to what they know. When some miserable babushka finishes berating her husband for whoknowswhat, and she drops a milchig spoon in the chicken soup, by all means call a rabbi. These learned men have spent years pouring over volumes to figure out what to do when Yenta uses a cold knife to cut an onion that last week sat near the fleishige kishke. Untold hours and pounds of dandruff dropped from who knows how many stained white shirts figuring out what to do in such critical situations.

When you suspect child abuse call the cops. Period. Calling a rabbi in such a case is even more stupid than calling a rabbi when your transmission starts slipping.

Crime against children knows no religion.

[steve]

Rabbis today have no business judging dinei nefashos. When the moshiach comes, the temple is rebuilt and the Sanhedrin restored, then they can go back in adjucating these cases.

[A. Nuran]

Steve, that's not exactly accurate.

The proper thing to do is bring your concerns and your reasons for them to the police. Cooperate with the investigation. If there's enough evidence the District Attorney will decide whether or not to seek an indictment. It's not the police department's call.

[Maskil]

What I gleaned from this article, along with the many valid issues Shmarya pointed out, is that there is a heavily weighted issue - of technically minor consequence - preventing the right thing from being done: The stigma attached to suspicion or subjegation to investigations of child abuse. If this stigma could be lightened many doors would open, not just in the talk but also in the walk (as Shmarya put it).

The Talmud mentions great heads of yeshivot turning to their students and saying things like: "Keep an I on me while I tend to my daughter so that nothing unscrupulous occurs." They made a great effort to take the most vile and reproachable sexual misconduct both real and also taboo-free (i.e. without the attidute of "that doesn't happen here," or "that doesn't happen with people of this stature..."), so that not if but when the temptation arises no one has their head in the sand and crisis is more likely to be averted.

I am not a member of an Orthodox community. My social sphere is very limited, and my self esteem is very low. I would hope to believe that I would be steadfast in the face of a sexual misconduct inquiry of the most deviant accusations rather than becoming indignant (for the sake of other innocents whose dignity would be less harmed the more innocents are vindicated and for the sake of the victims as the more guilty are apprehended) - yet even I can't say I with certainty that I could, and I can hardly begin to predict the extent of negative, long-lasting, ramifications (not just on me but on my family and acquaintances etc.).

Shmarya, how willing would you be to be subjected to a police investigation to clear you of any ick-feh mikveh activity?

A. Nuran, it's easy to talk the talk, but how willing would you be to walk the walk: Would you be so complacent and cooperative if such an investigation into the most private aspects of your life transpires and lingers for months while you become a "pioneer" in the field of being an innocent under investigation, and all the while not fear for an unwarrented indictment, or the shame you and your family would feel all the while and the jeopordy to your social status and financial resources and employment opportunities which you would need to survive and come out cleared of any wrongdoing, and even long-term ramifications of the socially cast suspicion that you merely "skated" on the accusations due to technicalities?

I think that if innocent people would be willing to submit themselves to such investigations by the local police under a Gentile-majority regime, perhaps the stigma could be lifted and the only people feeling indignant and/or offended would be those with a criminal past, or at least criminal inclinations and would not endeavor to enter these posts.

Would it be possible to make, not just a background check but, a criminal investigation to remove the suspicion of child-abuse a mandatory measure for anyone seeking a position as a communal leader or school principal/teacher in the Orthodox community? Would the main obstacle be the willingness and resources of the local police chapter or the fear of the unaccused applicants for that which might come to light?