Monday, May 17, 2010
R’ Moshe Halberstam: Mitzva to imprison molester
Bottom line: If a child is in danger of being molested – the police need to be called. If there is any uncertainty – either regarding the facts or the seriousness of the incident – an experienced rabbi or professional should be consulted. However if it is clear that children are in danger of being molested – a rabbi does not have to be consulted. Rav Sternbuch concluded, “Let the molester rot in jail.”
To my dear friend…HaGaon Rav Shraga Feivel Cohen…?..
But according to what was said [above], in a case that entails tikkun hao/am, governmental authorization is not necessary. However, all of this, to permit notifying the government, is only where it is clear that he participated in the crime. It is in this case that there is an issue of tikkun haolam. But where there is not even circumstantial evidence (rag/ayim /adavar), but only some impression [that he is guilty], then not only is there no issue of tikkun hao/am, but [to the contrary] there is heres haolam (ruination of the world) here. And it is possible that because of a certain bitterness that a student feels toward the teacher and makes a false accusation against him or because of [someone’s] delusion, a person [i.e. the accused] will be put into a situation in which his death will be preferable to his life. And it will be through no fault of his own, and [in that case],4 I see no permit in the matter.
And with this I remain your friend seeking the welfare of your distinguished person of Torah,
Yasef Shalom Elyashlv.
I can copy and paste the entire translated letter if you want but I thought it would be too much. Please note that the Rav says that only when there is “circumstantial evidence or just an impression” that a person is guilty, then it should not be reported. And I think everyone in their right mind would agree. In such a case a person who is suspect should be quietly monitored without being exposed until he is proven innocent or proven guilty.
OK, here is the rest of it:
The essence of the question: A person knows someone who is abusing a boy or a girl sexually, and the case is such that we are incapable of restraining him ‘from continuing his evil deeds, is it permitted to inform an official of the government about this?
My view is that if the witnesses are found to be credible by the chosen judges, [those judges] are authorized to impose a monetary penalty or a physical punishment, however they see fit. This preserves the world, for if you will keep strictly to the laws fixed in the Torah and not punish except where the Torah has punished, we will confront a destroyed world. Thus will people breach the world’s [most fundamental] safeguards2 and thus will the world become devastated. And [we find precedents in that sages] have already instituted penalties for striking one’s fellow…In each and every locale, [the rabbinical authorities] exercise their judicial powers to safeguard
generation, and so has it been done in each and every generation and in each and every place where they saw that the hour called for this…
[See, for example, Sanhedrin 58b in regard to Rav Huna]…
Therefore, these chosen judges that did this, if they saw a need of the hour for the betterment of the province, then they acted legally. This Is true all the more so If there is a governmental authorization [for their actions], similar to the case of R’ Elazar Bar R’ Shimon in Bava Metzia 83b.3
From the Rashba’s words, we learn that in a matter that entails tikkun haolam (the betterment of the world), the Sages of the Jewish people in every generation are empowered to institute a safeguard and stand in the breach, even where there is no authorization from the government. Now, from what the Ritva writes (to Bava Metzia 84b) it appears that this [power] is [due solely to] the authorization of the government.
This is his language there:
He said to them, “Arrest him!” Now, that which [R’ Elazar bar R’ Shimon] exercisedjudicial power [in this way] without witnesses or forewarning, and not In the era of the Sanhedrin [which is forbidden]; It is different here, because he was [acting as] an agent of the king, and It is part of the laws of kingship [as opposed to the laws of a
Sanhedrin] to executea person without witnesses and forewarning to correct the world punitively, as it Is stated regarding [King] David who executed the Ger Amalekl [without witnesses, forewarning or the deliberation of a Sanhedrin}, and the agent of a King is the same as him [i.e. similar/y empowered}.
So what do we learn from this? Anyone can take anything and cut and paste it to make it sound the way they want it to sound. But in reality, the RAV did say that if it is a valid accusation the authorities should be involved because it is their jurisdiction. IF however the accusation is weak and it is just implied or you only have circumstantial evidence then it is not enough to get the authorities involved and take the chance to ruin a possibly innocent accused’s life.
Are we clear on that now?