Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
A number of deeply uncomfortable discussions surrounding attitudes to reporting sexual abuse within the Jewish community in the UK and overseas have recently appeared in both Jewish and mainstream media. They have called attention to the reality that for some British Jews, admitting that domestic and child abuse occur within our community, albeit at no greater frequency than in any other sector of society, remains unthinkable. It is understandably difficult to accept that members of ones own tribe could be involved in such abhorrent activities and it can be devastating when faced with incontrovertible evidence or even persistent rumours of sexual abuse by a family member or religious leader. These exposs, as well as a number of unsavoury highprofile allegations, have focused on the conduct of certain members and leaders of the strictly Orthodox (haredi) community and have consciously highlighted their attitude to reporting sexual and domestic abuse to the police and social services. And while the issue is not unique whistleblowers have often been treated with contempt in, for example, the military, universities and businesses, Orthodox informers must also contend with accusations of mesirah informing on a fellow Jew and their ramifications. In this paper, I will explore the thorny issue of mesirah and ascertain how it applies to allegations of domestic or sexual abuse and determine appropriate Jewish juridical guidelines for reporting that are responsive to the demands of Jewish law, contemporary sensitivities and mandatory requirements.
Background
Even a cursory examination of early Jewish sources produces an overwhelmingly negative picture of reporting a fellow Jew to nonJewish authorities, whatever the alleged offence. The Talmud lists the moser (informer) among the worst sinners apostates and those who incite others to sin and declares that they descend to Gehinnam (Hell) and are judged there for many generations.1 Although Rashi, the foremost talmudic commentator, narrowly defines informers as those who hand Jewish money to idolators,2 the informer was understood to be someone who reported any actual (or fabricated/exaggerated) wrongdoing of his or her coreligionists to nonJewish authorities. The Talmud itself explains that nonJewish authorities were ruthless when dealing with Jews who were handed to them for even minor infractions and actually sanctions eliminating informers, in extremis, where they pose a direct danger to the Jewish community.3 Maimonides (d. 1204, Spain and Egypt) codifies a broad understanding of the term: there are two types of mosrim (informers) (a) one who hands a fellow Jew to gentiles who will kill or beat him; (b) one who hands the property of a fellow Jew to gentiles neither has a portion in the World to Come.4 This antagonistic attitude to reporting reflects the political and social realities of Jewish life under the Roman Empire and during the Middle Ages. However serious the allegation against a Jew, the consequences of reporting him or her to unprincipled, exploitative and often Jewhating authorities,
1 TB Rosh HaShanah 17a. 2 Rashi ad loc. 3 TB Bava Kamma 117a. 4 Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) Laws of Repentance 3:12.
Page 1/9
5 Responsa haRosh 17:1. 6 Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 388:910. 7 See Martin Gilbert, In Ishmaels House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010).
Page 2/9
Page 3/9
(B) Are Classic Sources About Mesirah Germane to Sexual Abuse Allegations?
A careful examination of classic texts reveals that the extreme animus directed towards the moser may never have applied to situations in which the alleged offender poses a risk to individuals or to society. Numerous classic sources from the Talmud onwards, identify someone who threatens the physical welfare of members of the community as a rodef a pursuer, who must be eliminated by whatever means necessary, and certainly, when it will be effective, by handing him or her to the civil authorities.12 This applies even when there is a doubt as to whether the allegation is true, and, therefore, whether the person concerned is, in fact a rodef. This implements the biblical requirement not to stand idly by ones brothers blood.13 According to Maimonides,14 even someone who harasses the community may be handed to the authorities; it is obvious that sexual abuse is far worse than mere harassment.
8 See, for example Pithey Hoshen (Blau) vol. 5 4:2, which asserts that the full force of the law of the moser applies even today.
See also Diney Mamonot (Batzri) 4:93, which claims that even in a jurisdiction in which they bring all matters to the court, through interrogations and police, people can be destroyed. Despite the rather reactionary tone of these 20th/21stcentury sources, it would be naive to assume that even in the great democracies, all people are treated fairly by the police, courts and prison systems. 9 Arukh haShulhan (Epstein) Hoshen Mishpat 388:7. 10 R Epstein published the Hoshen Mishpat section of his work in the 1880s, during the reign of the autocratic, reactionary Alexander III. 11 Responsa Tzitz Eliezer (Waldenberg) 19:52. Even though R Waldenberg accepts that R Epstein wrote his statement for the government, he accepts R Epsteins central principle. 12 See TB Bava Kama 117a, TB Berakhot 58a, Responsa haRashba 1:181, Responsa haRosh 17:1. 13 VaYikra 19:16. 14 Mishneh Torah Laws of Injurer and Damager 8:11.
Page 4/9
have debated for centuries whether this principle applies to all areas of law, only just laws or merely to financial law, as well as what to do when the law of the land explicitly contradicts Jewish law. 20 Responsa Shevet haLevi (Wosner) 2:58. 21 Rabbi Sternbuchs approach to reporting allegations of abuse will be discussed in detail in the next section.
Page 5/9
The Position of Rabbi Moishe Sternbuch and other Leading Haredi Authorities
Rabbi Sternbuch, the vicepresident of the rabbinical court of the Edah Haredit (strictly Orthodox separatist authority in Jerusalem), is well known for his outspoken opinions about reporting allegations of abuse. While far from being a lone voice in the haredi world, he has written and pronounced widely on the topic, making his view especially instructive. In this matter, R Sternbuch is aided by Rabbi Dr. Daniel Eidensohn, a psychologist and author of three published volumes on the issues of child and domestic abuse in the Jewish community which incorporate and promote R Sternbuchs opinions.22 The following summary of R Sternbuchs opinions is drawn from his written responsa and also from R Eidensohns understanding of R Sternbuchs position as presented in his own works on child abuse. By way of introduction, R Sternbuch acknowledges that there have been serious errors in dealing with abuse allegations within the observant community. Some people were concerned that publicising such incidents would harm the reputation of the community and its institutions, others mistakenly believed that those who had been molested would get over the abuse in time and that the damage to the reputation of others was more harmful and embarrassing than the hurt and shame experienced by victims.23 Adding to this the fear of the crime of mesirah, it was not unusual for community leaders to force an abuser to move districts, or a teacher under suspicion to switch schools, yet direct the victim and his or her family not to reveal the reason for the change, especially to the secular authorities. It was not unheard of for the family of a victim who had chosen to report a molester to be ostracised and driven from the community for supposedly disregarding its welfare. Rejecting this approach as horribly mistaken, R Sternbuch offers welldefined, unequivocal guidelines. He makes it clear that (a) the majority of Jewish authorities permit going to the police when there is a clear threat of physical or sexual abuse; (b) this is the only correct course of action in sexual abuse cases, and the community should not attempt to handle such allegations internally; (c) historic abuse
22 Daniel Eidensohn, Child and Domestic Abuse, 3 vols. (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: vols. I & II 2010, vol. III 2011). Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn has been most helpful in revising and improving this essay, something I gratefully acknowledge. 23 While to those familiar with contemporary thinking about the devastating longterm consequences to the victim of sexual abuse, this attitude seems absurd, it was common throughout society (not just within religious communities) until relatively recently. It is also important to note that contrary to popular belief, most abuse is perpetrated by someone known to and trusted by the victim. As such, the victim often assumes that noone will believe the accusations. This is compounded by the fact that rabbis often dismiss charges against pillar of the community types, such as rabbinical colleagues, doctors and teachers, because they know them and cannot believe that they are capable of such heinous acts.
Page 6/9
The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) and the Court of the Chief Rabbi
In 2010, the leading rabbinical organisation in the USA, the RCA, issued a stronglyworded statement about reporting abuse allegations: The lives and futures of many of these victims and their families are harmed in significant ways: suicide, post traumatic stress syndrome, inability to form healthy relationships, inability to develop healthy intimate relationships, etc. Many victims of abuse in our community still remain silent and do not come forward to accuse perpetrators or seek help for fear of stigma, personal and familial consequences, or perceived halakhic concerns. The Rabbinical Council of America has resolved through past resolutions its condemnation of abuse and its censure of abusers and has affirmed, under the guidance and direction of its poskim (rabbinic decisors), that the prohibitions of mesirah (reporting crimes to the civil authorities) and arkaot (adjudication in
24 Responsa Teshuvot veHanhagot (Sternbuch) 5:398. 25 Yeschurun, vol. 15. 26 Although there is controversy surrounding Rabbi Belskys position, it is clear that he advocates reporting to the authorities; see <http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105755>, accessed 08/13. 27 See < http://daattorah.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/childabusecallingpoliceraveliashiv.html>, accessed 08/13.
Page 7/9
Conclusion
In this brief study I have attempted to explain the deeply hostile attitude prevalent in some traditional circles to those who report fellow Jews to the authorities, even for the most serious crimes. I have demonstrated that this attitude exists at the complex interface between genuine religious imperative rooted in classic sources, communal politics and the realities of historic persecution. Yet I have clarified that the law of the informer may not be relevant to those who live within equitable, just democracies, especially those that have statutory reporting obligations and certainly does not apply to people whose behaviour renders them a threat to others. Based on these principles, I have shown that major contemporary Jewish legal experts, as well as leading rabbinical authorities in the
Page 8/9
Page 9/9