Agudah Spokesman: Haredi Rabbi Convicted Of Fraud Who Refuses To Give Government Information About Co-Conspirators "Selfless," "Principled," "Laudable"

"A common misconception about chillul Hashem is that it includes anything that is looked down upon by people. But for something to qualify as chillul Hashem it must first be a sin; and the fulfillment of an obligation" – like refusing to commit mesirah against another Jew, even in a democracy where Jews are treated fairly by the legal system – "cannot, by definition, be a chillul Hashem.…committed Jews need make no apologies for what the Torah teaches."

 

New York - Mesira Analysis By Rabbi Avi Shafran
Rabbi Avi Shafran • Ami Magazine

New York - Last Wednesday a small group of Jews was present in a Los Angeles courtroom as U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow heard arguments on whether a 64-year-old frum Jew should be found in contempt of court for his refusal to testify against other Jews before a federal grand jury.

After completing a two-year sentence in regard to a tax evasion case on behalf of a group of religious institutions, the man was served with a subpoena to testify before a grand jury in the government’s continuing investigation of the case, and now finds himself facing the possibility that the judge will rule him in contempt, a decision that could result in additional incarceration. The case at issue concerns the group’s network of institutions, which apparently accepted donations from wealthy contributors but issued receipts in excess of what was actually received, allowing for donors’ tax breaks on the larger amounts.

At the heart of the man’s current situation is the Jewish prohibition of mesira, literally, “handing over”—the forbiddance, codified in Jewish religious law, of informing on a fellow Jew to secular authorities.

“Because the transgression of mesira is so dire,” the man asserted to the Los Angeles Times through a Yiddish interpreter, “my mind won’t change until I die.”

His attorney, Michael Proctor, said the man had obtained Jewish legal decisions that the serious prohibition of mesira applies in his case and that, as a result, he should not testify.
“It’s not conceivable,” Mr. Proctor told the judge, “that he is going to, quote, ‘break’.”

On the other side of the issue stands Assistant U.S. Atty. Daniel O’Brien, who argued that such a religious stance, if not punished, could serve as a “convenient tool” for law- breakers to hide behind. Because there are other Jews, Mr. O’Brian contended, whose testimony will be vital to the case, permitting the Jewish man to avoid testifying could “stifle” the investigation.

Prosecutors have also reportedly contended that the man’s position is unsupported by Talmudic law.

The Los Angeles Times quoted Rabbi Michael Broyde, an Emory University law professor and a member of the Beth Din of America, as contending that, in the paper’s paraphrase, “a commonly held view is that the principle doesn’t apply in a just, democratic state.” There are, how- ever, other views among respected decisors of Jewish law.

In any event, the Jewish man’s attorneys assert, what matters is not whether the rabbi is correct in his interpretation of Jewish law, but the fact that his belief is sincere and that he is committed to it. Finding him in contempt and sending him to jail, they say, will be “vindictive rather than coercive.”

The judge has postponed her decision for now.

ANALYSIS
Reaction has been varied to a frum Jew’s continued refusal to share information about fellow Jews with government authorities because of his belief that to do so would violate the prohibition of mesira. The mainstream media have largely reported the case straightforwardly (although a reporter for a major Jewish news service asked this writer if the “tactic” employed by this man is a common one; the response he received was that a religious conviction is not a tactic).

On the street, and in the even grimier blogosphere, however, a broad range of perspectives has been aired, many of them deeply critical of the Jewish man’s stance. Among common reactions have been assertions that the man is endangering Jews by his stubbornness, and that he has created a chillul Hashem (desecration of G-d’s Name) by his refusal to name names.

It is important to separate the issue of mesira from a crime that is committed. Dealing dishonestly, whether with Jews, non-Jews or governments like ours, is forbidden by halacha. The sources are clear about the requirement incumbent on a Jew to heed the law of the land—dina di’malchusa—with regard to monetary and other civil matters.

Also worth recognizing is that the prohibition of mesira does not always apply, particularly in a society with a justice system like that of the United States, which does not systematically treat Jews badly and whose laws are generally fair and just. In cases, for example, where a Jew poses a threat to others—such as a violent criminal or child abuser—and cannot be controlled by communal efforts, decisors are in agreement that the prohibition of mesira is trumped by concerns about the potential harm the wrongdoer poses to the public.

Cases like this man’s, however, are not in that category. His implication of other Jews in the crime for which he has paid his debt to society will not remove any threat to society; it will only create the likelihood that other Jews may come to harm. Although there are halachic decisors who might not consider mesira as applying at all in a country like the United States, there are certainly many—including Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l—who have stated clearly otherwise. The rabbi has consulted with his personal rabbinic guides and received a similar determination.

A common misconception about chillul Hashem is that it includes anything that is looked down upon by people. But for something to qualify as chillul Hashem it must first be a sin; and the fulfillment of an obligation cannot, by definition, be a chillul Hashem. Were society to suddenly see circumcision as a barbaric and terrible rite, practicing bris mila despite the societal disapproval would constitute a kiddush Hashem, a sanctification of G-d’s Name, not its opposite. The man’s refusal to inform on others, rooted as it is in halacha, is laudable.
American history includes a long and illustrious history of citizens putting personal conscience before the law of the land. The civil disobedience of the 1950s and 1960s in the face of racial discrimination is rightly celebrated today. Dedication to a religious ideal deserves no less respect than dedication to a secular one. If a person is willing to give up his freedom in the service of a higher ideal, he should be respected for his selfless and principled choice.

The prohibition of mesira might strike some, even some otherwise halacha-respecting Jews, as discomfiting. The idea of a requirement that a Jew seek to protect the well-being of other Jews, especially when they may have committed crimes, may stick in some contemporary craws. But even leaving aside the fact that many religious and ethnic groups display special concern for “their own” (just as families are more protective of family members than strangers—a fitting comparison here), committed Jews need make no apologies for what the Torah teaches.

Whatever the judge decides, one thing is clear: the man ready to be jailed for his principles intends no contempt of any earthly court, only to honor the Heavenly one.

[Rabbi Shafran is an editor at large and columnist for Ami Magazine]

To be fair, I most open my remarks by noting that I have believed for years already that Rabbi Avi Shafran is an unmitigated ass.

His list of gaffes and horrible statements – especially those denying the extent and severity of child sex abuse in the haredi community – seem almost endless.

And in this case of mesira or not mesira, Shafran doesn't disappoint.

He understates the rabbi's crime, fails to mention the rabbi's name, even though he was convicted and even though his major co-conspirator – the Spinka Rebbe – admitted his crime, pleaded guilty, spent time as he was awaiting his sentence telling haredim not to steal, and is now a resident of Otisville's federal lockup.

Shafran must think there is virtue in hiding those facts from his haredi readership.

I think showing haredim that a hasidic rebbe is a convicted felon who was caught defrauding the US Government has a lot of value – not the least of which is to show haredim that the government is not afraid to arrest, convict and imprison even their leaders if those leaders commit crimes. Certainly, if the government is willing to do this to haredi rabbinic leaders, it will do it to rank and file haredim, as well.

But Shafran would rather mask the facts to protect the reputations of convicted felons and the haredi community that he would tell the truth.

Note that Shafran even downplays the crimes involved.

What the Spinka Rebbe and his gabbai, Rabbi Moshe Zigelman, the rabbi who now refuses to tell the government what he knows, did is different from what Sharan claims.

The solicited "donations" from wealthy Jews and returned to those wealthy Jews 90% to 95% of each donation as laundered money.

This meant these wealthy Jews could claim tax deductions far in excess of what they were legally entitled to, which cost the government a lot of money.

It also meant that men trying to cheat their business partners or investors or shareholders could do so, taking the Spinka-laundered cash and hiding it under their mattresses or in offshore bank accounts.

And, of course, it allowed men to do the exact same thing to wives they were divorcing.

Shafran does note that "dealing dishonestly, whether with Jews, non-Jews or governments like ours, is forbidden by halacha. The sources are clear about the requirement incumbent on a Jew to heed the law of the land—dina di’malchusa—with regard to monetary and other civil matters."

But he also notes that the Spinka gabbai's refusal to give information to the government about his fellow thieves is "laudable," because it is halakha's position, and halakha's position can never be a chillul HaShem.

In other words, a Jew is forbidden to steal even when stealing is defined according to civil law (more about this in a moment), but he is forbidden to tell the government what he knows about his fellow Jewish thieves if the government catches him.

What Shafran does not tell you is that there are prominent haredi rabbis – Menashe Klein chief amomg them – who rule that a Jew can steal from non-Jews, especially from corporations and from the government – without breaking Jewish law.

This means that Shafran's apparent blanket statement that halakha forbids this type of stealing is false.

Indeed, Klein's opinions are what the Spinka Rebbe in part relied on to run his scam.

But worse than this glaring omission is Shafran's claim that halakha would forbid the Spinka gabbai from telling the government what he knows. "[Rabbi Rabbi Moshe Zigelman's refusal to inform on others, rooted as it is in halacha, is laudable," Shafran says.

But it's not.

Halakha actually has a provision on what should be done when the government knows the names of Jews who have broken the law but needs testimony from another Jew to convict them or to recover the stolen property.

Because the crimes are already known, because the government already knows Jews did this – they stole, cheated, and defrauded – telling the government what you know about these crimes is no longer a violation of mesira.

In fact, it is mandatory, something that must be done to protect the wider Jewish community from being branded as thieves and from creating exactly what Shafran wrongly says can't be created here – a massive chillul HaShem.

In fact, the only potential way out of that halakha is to say that America is not antisemitic, that its courts are fair, that Jews get the same treatment in them everyone else does, and that American law is just and fair.

Of course that would obviate the reasons behind the halakha of mesira, making the halakha moot – unless a rabbi wants to attach meaning and import to the halakha of mesira that does not exist in classical sources, thereby raising mesira above the actual reasons the halakha was instituted and holding the halakha as some type of inviolable totem on par with the unity of God.

In other words, because America won't hate Jews for their refusal to inform on other Jewish criminals, this strain of halakha would say that we should exploit that kindness and fairness and refuse to testify.

As you might guess, the rabbis who hold this way are overwhelmingly haredi, and a disproportionate number of them appear to support Menashe Klein's permit to steal.

That Shafran picks and chooses his halakha, that he is extremely intellectually dishonest, and ethically and morally bankrupt is nothing new.

Rabbi Moshe Zigelman is not standing up for his God and his God's law.

Rabbi Moshe Zigelman is dragging both down into the sewer with him.

And Agudath Israel of America's spokesman, its butt buddy of crime, fraud and child sex abuse, is helping him do it.

Related Posts:

Spinka Fraudster Could Go Back To Prison Because He Refuses To Testify Against Fellow Haredi Criminals.

In Court, Hasidic Rabbi Still Refuses To Testify.

[Hat Tips: HonestlyFrum, the Lion.]

Comments

[jancsipista]

let him go to jail for as long as it takes who does he think he is above the law?

[The Real Joe]

I don't see the problem I hope he doesn't end up needing to sit but if he does he won't be the first guy to do that yes he was involved in criminal acts but its an honor code not to rat in prison such people are respected I wish him the best

[seymour]

Posted by: The Real Joe | September 19, 2011 at 01:39 PM

if he would say i am not a rat maybe i can respect him

but to use religion and halacha is disgusting, and dishonest and makes Judaism look like the mob

[ah-pee-chorus]

good analysis, shmarya.

shafran is also the amoral fool who praised bernie madoff while minimizing the actions of capt. (sully) sullenberger, and arrived at the conclusion that madoff might be more worthy of praise.

His implication of other Jews in the crime for which he has paid his debt to society will not remove any threat to society; it will only create the likelihood that other Jews may come to harm.

how do you know that, shafran? these other people may still be involved in the very same crimes. and regardless, if criminals think their co-conspirators are unlikely to testify against their fellow jews, they are MORE LIKELY to engage in criminal activity. its the same principle at play in the mafia and every other organized crime group. if everyone believed there was a strong likelihood that their friends would testify against them, far fewer would take the risk. so by not testifying, this guy is INCREASING the risk to society.
and lastly, shafran can spin the halachic definition of 'chillul hashem' any way he likes, but what he cannot do is deny the fact that this lowlifes refusal to answer the subpoena will definitely increase animosity to jews, and lower the perception of jews as law-abiding citizens and patriots. so a choice must be made to protect either those involved in defrauding the govt. or protecting innocent jews from being tarred with the same brush, and the repercussions that may bring. if that doesnt mean anything to shafran, we can add to the list of shafrans complete lack of judgement. its already quite long.

[seymour]

mesira not as cut and dry as the herdia would have you believe

By the same token, the Shulchan Aruch ruled that a person who is a nuisance to the community, such as a counterfeiter, may be handed over to the authorities if he persists in the behavior after being warned to stop. This ruling becomes important in the cases regarding harboring predators, as discussed above.

III. Mesira in a Fair and Just Country

A. Not Applicable

The discussion of mesira has focused on handing Jews over to their oppressors. What rules apply in a just society such as the United States? The Aruch Hashulchan, in the 19th century, said that the rules of mesira were drafted in an atmosphere of oppressive governments, and do not apply in the context of a fair government that protects property, such as that offered by the King of Britain or the Czars (source sheet III(A)). This ruling was cited by Rav Eliezer Waldenberg in the Tzitz Eliezer, where he held that if a government is fair and does not discriminate against Jews or try to loot money from the innocent, the rules of mesira do not apply. The Tzitz Eliezer would go so far as to say one may inform on a tax evader, though other authorities disagree.

The counterargument was offered by Rabbi Yaakov Yeshaya Blau in his Pitchei Choshen. He contended that prisons are so brutal and violent that the result of incarceration is punishment beyond that merited by the crime, and therefore that testifying against a Jew constitutes mesira. Rabbi Kermaier noted that it is difficult to determine the state of prison violence, since there are apparently tendentious studies that take conflicting views, but it does appear that Rabbi Blau’s factual predicate may be questioned, insofar as prisons seem to have become less violent, e.g., featuring homicide rates lower than in the general population.

Rav Shmuel Wosner of Bnei Brak, in his Shevet Halevi, argues that the rules against mesira do not apply when the government is legitimately carrying out its duty of protecting society. He applies the principle of dina demalchuta dina (the law of the land is the law): secular law is sanctioned by halacha even if it is not based upon halacha. Rabbi Ephraim Greenblatt of Memphis sent a question to Rav Wosner: May a Jew become a tax auditor? Rav Wosner ruled in the affirmative. Inasmuch as the auditor is not placing the taxpayer, who was obligated to follow the law, in an unjust situation, the auditor is not guilty of mesira. He added, however, that such a job has awkward aspects to it, so it might not be ideal for a tzaddik to take it. Rav Moshe Feinstein, on the other hand, viewed mesira as a principle that still applies in a fair society. Nevertheless, he ruled that a Jew may become a tax auditor, because someone else will take the job if the Jew does not, so the tax cheater will be caught in any case and the Jewish auditor is thus not causing him harm. Rav Hershel Schachter agreed with Rav Wosner and added that turning an individual over to the authorities does not become mesira merely because secular law offers a more severe punishment than halacha would (e.g., secular law but not halacha calls for incarceration of thieves). One of the seven Noahide laws is for society to establish a legal system, so the government is doing the right thing when it prosecutes crimes.

[steve]

In cases, for example, where a Jew poses a threat to others—such as a violent criminal or child abuser—and cannot be controlled by communal efforts, decisors are in agreement that the prohibition of mesira is trumped by concerns about the potential harm the wrongdoer poses to the public.

As usual, Shafran throws in his two cents worth of garbage. Even when it seems like he is finally approving of reporting child molesters to the police, he adds this ridiculous condition, "and cannot be controlled by communal efforts". In other words, the rabbis have to decide that they cannot control the child molester. If they feel that they can handle the matter "internally", like they have been doing for the past 50 years or so, then it is "mesira" and it is assur to report the child molester! This conniving, two faced liar needs to shut up already.

[Deremes]

So we having a Machlokes between the Aguda spokesman and a blogger,no big deal both are not poskim.

This whole idea about a Jew to inform on another Jew came about in the last 10-15 years and lately even more.
Going back 20-30-40 years ago nothing would do that a Jew should put another Jew in prison.

NO noted accepted rav from today or any previous gadol helds that its allowed to inform on another Jew. Even though they write it in a Tshuva they mean it in that particular case and you cant apply it to any other case. And if anyone is in that state it needs to be asked by a rav.

[steve]

Avi, how many child molesters have been "controlled by communal efforts"? You mean the way Kolko, Colmer, Eiseman, Leibovits, Brier, et al were "controlled"? Is it humanly possible to "control" a serial child molester who acts on his impulses? Every pronouncement he makes gets sicker and sicker.

[junarchist]

I dont know anything about this black hat wearing fool and I dont really care much either, but the US gov't defrauds me every single day. Hell if i care if someone does the same to them.

[p]

Lets see, we are allowed to "take the fifth" i.e. "the act of refusing to testify under oath in a court of law or any other tribunal (such as a Congressional committee) on the ground that the answers that would be given could be used as evidence against the witness to convict him or her of a criminal offense." We also have "Love your neighbor as yourself" so if you put the two together one can begin to understand the bad taste in being instrumental in bringing down one who you "love". Imagine if your testimony will result in a lifetime of hardship to an entire family. The authors of the constitution understood the need to protect oneself, the ultimate witness, from bringing harm upon oneself, it is not to difficult to see how this can be expanded when a little religion is thrown into the mix.

[seymour]

Posted by: Deremes | September 19, 2011 at 02:09 PM

wrong

read my previous post

you are talking about protecting criminals not Jews

I forgot beard pious eat kosher, steals still a Jew

eats non kosher but is honest not a Jew

funny frum Jews always say they do not want to be treated differently but when it is to there benefit, I want to be treated differently

interesting

[jancsipista]

seymour-right you are they always try to use religion shamelessly whenever it suits they purposde especially in money mattersthis is the ultimate chillel hashem, by the way seymour havent seen you lately good to see you back.

[jancsipista]

junarchist- give me one case were the us gover. defrauds you, you dont sound sane to me.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: p | September 19, 2011 at 02:24 PM

Pleading the 5th does not absolve you from punishment, and it has no particular value as an honored thing to do – in fact, quite the opposite is true.

But I don't expect someone like you, a rank apologist for every haredi criminal out there, to understand the halakha or the ethics of this or any other situation.

[Deremes]

seymour,
All your info i suppose you took from rabbi Michael Broyde.
I have here some email exchanges that someone just had with him challenging him and the way he quoted his sources.

All of you here who are non religious why would you even quote halacha that mesirah is allowed? Just throw the bums in jail and case closed. But even the halacha sources are not accurate. The religious ones here i challenge you to aks any noted accepted rav if someone is not a rodef if it allowed to inform.The answer will be from anyone one big NO.

[seymour]

Posted by: Deremes | September 19, 2011 at 02:31 PM

only heridie black hat rebbies

the same buns who excuse criminal actions

[seymour]

Posted by: Deremes | September 19, 2011 at 02:31 PM

I see if I bring sources you just claim they are wrong because it does not fit you believe system

to bad

it just proves over and over that some in the frum community do not follow halachcha and pick and choose which posek and halacha they will follow like the what they claim the reform does

[lion]

shafran is a disgrace
in florida aguda misrepresented themselves to the florida state legislature that they represent the orthodox jewish community

[Guest]

But it's not.

Halakha actually has a provision on what should be done when the government knows the names of Jews who have broken the law but needs testimony from another Jew to convict them or to recover the stolen property.

Because the crimes are already known, because the government already knows Jews did this – they stole, cheated, and defrauded – telling the government what you know about these crimes is no longer a violation of mesira.

In fact, it is mandatory, something that must be done to protect the wider Jewish community from being branded as thieves and from creating exactly what Shafran wrongly says can't be created here – a massive chillul HaShem.

Posted by Shmarya

Shmarya,

Please state your source for this.

Thanks

[ah-pee-chorus]

Lets see, we are allowed to "take the fifth....

We also have "Love your neighbor as yourself" so if you put the two together....Posted by: p

twisted logic as usual. you would like to combine one aspect of US law with a broad ,vague, and ill defined concept from jewish law and use that to defend this creep. since US law also requires one to testify under subpoena, you chose to disregard that part. this isnt a game of 'one from column A and one from column B.'
lets see how that would work. i assume you like and respect the concept of marriage. and american law recognizes homosexual marriage (in many states including NY) as being marriage. therefore, using 'love thy neighbor' you must love and respect all marriages including gay jewish homosexual marriage.
did you call your elected repres. to ask him to support it?

The authors of the constitution understood the need to protect oneself,

and they also understood that the legal system couldnt function without the ability to force people to testify about what they know of criminal activity as long as they are not incriminating themselves. but you dont like that part so you ignore it. par for the course for haredi apologism.

[joe]

The Italian mafia feels the same way as this man. Regretably the government disagrees and has taken the position that if you break the law in the United States of America you will be arrested, charged with a crime, prosicuted and if convicted you will pay a fine or go to prison or both. Special religious provisions that allow a criminal to commit crimes and evade or avoid prosicution don't carry much weight here.

[Bas Melech]

Shmarya, good article and analysis.

Posted by: seymour | September 19, 2011 at 02:06 PM
Very interesting additional info on mesira.

Also, I agree that many people have general opinions and beliefs and use religion to support their actions. It should be that a religious belief motivates the action.

Spinka are very much mafia, so I've heard over the years. (Also protective of molesters) This "rabbi" is afraid of to open his mouth, probably because he is more afraid of the mafia than halacha.

[steve]

All of you here who are non religious

Speak for yourself.

[Adams]

Has shafran every condemned anything crime done by so called haredim?

[ultra haredi lite]

Yes. He condemned Sully.

[yudel]

Seymour well put. And yes the constitution protects people like him. So you can take the fifth like the mafia did or any other person who believes it is better to protect other criminals who stole and cheated. Same applies to sex crimes of course.

The frum world is dead. The poskim are nothing more than boxes of teeth and as far as the uninformed person who says follow your posek NOW...clearly he never read any of Rav Moshe Feinstein tzl rulings where he would go if necessary back to other opinions in the gemora to ease the suffering of others. Oh excuse me, I forget the Torah world wants all of us to suffer. Basic principle of tyranny and power at work here.

[just the truth]

Seymour you are a nut.
when you study the Talmud for many years and really understand the rules of Judaism only then should you comment on such a complex subject as this. But you don't care, since you could write what ever you want and no one could stop you. That's what makes this a great country, you could publish what you want and show you true Jew hating colors.

[junarchist]

jancsipista - who ever said I was sane? I also dont waste time with sheep. now get back in line.

[Garnel Ironheart]

No, the definition of Chilul HaShem right now is quite easy: Avi Shafran

[Barry]

A chilul hashem by definition is wider than strict Halacha. It is an act that though technically not unlawful, is unethical and immoral.

A good example would be the case of Rabbi Israel Weingarten d'Satmar. The US courts have held that the incestuous acts he committed in their entirety in Belgium were not against US Law since they fell outside US jurisdiction. That does not mean that these acts were not immoral and disgraceful.

Lets imagine that instead of being a Satmar rabbi, Weingarten was a well known and high ranking US official. Again the rape of his daughter in Belgium would not have been unlawful under US Law but it would have been hugely embarrassing to the US. It would be a Chillul America.

Again, imagine if the allegations against Strauss Kahn had been true. He would not have been guilty of breaking French law (for the same reasons as Weingarten d'Satmar was not guilty of breaking US Law) but his actions would have deeply embarrassed the French people. He would have been guilty of Chilull France.