Rabbinical Resources : Issues Relating to Sexual Violence/Victimization
(Incest, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, Rabbinical Sexual Misconduct, Sexual Harassment)
Rabbinical Statements About Reporting Childhood Sexual Abuse
Rabbi Mark Dratch (04/15/2003)
Rabbi Yosef Blau (07/2003)
Rabbi Benzion Y. Wosner (12/28/2005)
Rabbi Zev. M. Shandalov (05/22/2006)
Rabbi Yackov Horowitz (12/14/2006)
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (04/10/2007)
Rabbi Mitchell Wohlberg (05/24/2007)
Articles
Also See:
Books/Pamphlets
Rabbinical Ethics/Standards
859 Peninsula Boulevard, Woodmere
New York 11598-2498
(516) 295-0950 (516) 295-1050
April 15, 2003
To whom it may concern:
It is my opinion that it is halachically permissible and in may cases obligatory to call civil authorities (child protection services and/or your local police department) when you SUSPECT a child is being abused and/or neglected. "This does not constitute "mesirah". A sexual predator, molester, abuser, etc., is a "Rodef."
Respectfully yours,
Rabbi Hershel Billet
Young Israel of Woodmere, New York
(FYI: Rabbi Billet also serves as the President of the Rabbinical Council of America and a member of the Orthodox Caucus)
April 15, 2003
(Translations in English "in caps" by Na'ama Yehuda)
Based on the verse, "These are the judgments which you shall place before them: (Ex. 21:1), Jewish law prohibits adjudication by Jews in non-Jewish courts. (See Gittin 88b) Rambam, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 26:7, elaborating on the severity of this sin, claims that "whoever adjudicates in a non-Jewish court ... is wicked and it is as though he has reviled, blasphemed, and rebelled against the law of Moses." Many explain that the prohibition of "mesirah" (LITERALLY, GIVING AWAY TO), the reporting of a fellow Jew to civil authorities, is for the purpose of privileging the Jewish legal system over those of others. All legal matters concerning Jews should be redressed in a Jewish court according to Jewish law.
However, there are many reasons why this prohibition does not apply in cases of domestic and child abuse.
1) Arukh HaShulhan, Hoshen Mishpat 388:7, (THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT HALACHIC SET OF BOOKS) maintains that "mesirah" (GIVING AWAY, TO FORIEGN AUTHORITIES) was prohibited because of the nature of autocratic governments under which Jews lived throughout much of our history. Such informing often led to dangerous persecution of the entire Jewish Community. He (ARUKH HASHULHAN) posits that this injunction no longer applies in those communities in which the government is generally fair and non-discriminatory. Despite some claims that this position was reccorded only in deference to the censors, it is cited authoritatively by Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz in "The Abused Child: Halakhic Insights." Ten Da'at, Sivan 5748. p. 12. (TEN DA'AT--THE NAME OF THE BOOK, MEANS "GIVE WISDOM") Accordingly, it is obligatory in the Western world today to inform the civil authorities about child abusers.
2) The prohibition of "mesirah" applies only when testimony assists civil authorities in illegally obtaining the money of another Jew, not when it aids a non-Jewish government in fulfilling such rightful duties as collecting taxes and punishing criminals. When, however, the information concerns the criminal activities of a fellow Jew--as long as the Jewish criminal has also violated a Torah law, and even if the punishment will be more severe than the Torah prescribes (RaN to Sanhedrin 46a) -- the ban of mesirah does not apply. (Herschel Schachter, "Dina deMaIchusa Dina." Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Vol. 1, no. 1., p. 118.) THE QUOTES DESCRIBE THE TITLE OF AN ARTICLE, WHICH ROUGHLY MEANS: THE LAW OF THE LAND YOU ARE LIVING IN, IS THE LAW TO FOLLOW
3) Even should one hold that the prohibition of "mesirah" is relevant today, reporting abusers to civil authorities is nevertheless mandatory. According to Rema (A PROMINENT JEWISH SCHOLAR), even when the prohibition of mesirah is in force, "a person who attacks others should be punished. If the Jewish authorities do not have the power to punish him, he must be punished by the civil authorities." (Hoshen Mishpat 338:7 and Shakh, no. 45. See also Gloss of Rema to Hoshen Mishpat 338:9; B'nei Hayei and Maharam miRiszburg cited in Pahad Yitzhak, Maarekhet Hoveil Behaveiro---ALL THESE ARE SOURCES OF HALACHIC LAW AND CORRESPONDENCE AMONG THEM.) Our Batei Din today have neither the power nor the authority, and in many cases they lack the competence, to handle such matters.
4) Shulhan Arukh (THE HALACHIC TEXT MENTIONED PREVIOUSELY--IT'S TITLE MEANS, "THE SET TABLE" BUT IS NOT A LITERAL MEANING BUT MORE OF THE SYMBOLIC MEANING OF SETTING THE TABLE BEFORE HASHEM, OR THE "HOW TO" OF JEWISH LIFE) rules that the prohibition of mesirah restricts an individual who is being harassed from making a report to the civil authorities. However, when there is a "meitzar hatzibbur" (public menace--A PERSON WHO CAUSES MISERY TO THE PUBLIC), mesirah is permissible. ( Hoshen Mishpat 338:12 according to the text quoted by Shakh, no. 59 and Gra no. 71.) Abusers and molesters clearly endanger the welfare of many adults and children with whom they have contact. (See statement of Rabbi Waldenberg quoted in Nishmat Avraham, Vol. IV, p. 209.)
5) The concern of "hillul Hashem" (desecrating God's Name) has also been raised as an objection to the reporting of Jewish abusers, i.e., it would be disgraceful for a Jew to be tried publicly for such an offense and a "hillul Hashem" to resort to non-Jewish courts. However, the problem of "hillul Hashem" cuts both ways. Not reporting or testifying about such abuse, when such is required by civil law, is classified by Rosh as hillul HaShem. ( Baba Kamma, chapter 10, no. 14.) Although, according to Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 28:3.,(HALACHIC TEXT) the desecration of God's Name occurs only in those cases when Jewish witnesses have been specifically designated by the non-Jews to testify, Bach maintains that Rosh's position applies in our own day even when such witnesses have not been officially summoned because of the danger to Jewish lives that may subsequently ensue by withholding information. Certainly, in countries where physicians, teachers, and youth workers are required by law to report suspicions of child abuse, it would be a hillul Hashem and a violation of dina de-malkhuta dina to withhold such information. (I.E.--IT WOULD BE DESECRATING G-D's NAME AS WELL AS THE LAW TO FOLLOW THE LAWS OF THE LAND YOU ARE IN TO NOT REPORT).
The Mishnah, Avot 4:4, (A FAMOUS JEWISH TEXT, OFTEN STUDIED ON SHABBAT AFTERNOON AND IN PRACTICALLY ALL RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS OVRE THE YEAR) reminds us that sequestering a hillul Hashem will always be unsuccessful: "Whoever desecrates the name of Heaven in private will ultimately be punished in public, whether the desecration was committed unintentionally or intentionally." Hence, a conspiracy to conceal information about abuse will ultimately be made public, creating an even greater hillul Hashem. The greater severity of the hillul Hashem in concealing the information can be further supported by the Talmud, Yoma 86b, which maintains that "one should expose hypocrites to prevent the desecration of the Name. (See also Hilkhot De'ot 6:8) Rashi (ONE IF NOT THE MOST FAMOUS AND BASIC COMMENTATOR ON THE TORAH AND TALMUD) explains that the reason for this disclosure is that people, thinking that this person is righteous, may learn from his behavior. Rambam (ANOTHER PILLAR OF JEWISH COMMENRARY) is of the opinion that after unsuccessful attempts to correct the matter privately, public remonstration and broadcasting of the outrage is required. There is no concern about the hillul Hashem of exposing the offense.
I concur with my colleague Rabbi Hershel Billet who wrote:
It is my opinion that it is halachically permissible and in may cases obligatory to call civil authorities (child protection services and/or your local police department) when you SUSPECT a child is being abused and/or neglected. "This does not constitute "mesirah." A sexual predator, molester, abuser, etc., is a "Rodef." (RODEF--LITERALLY, A PERSON WHO IS CHASING ANOTHER IN A THREATENING, DANGEROUS MANNER. ALSO USED TO DESCRIBE PREDATORY BEHAVIOR.)
Rabbi Mark Dratch
Rabbinical Council of
America - Resolution Regarding Members Accused of
Improprieties
Adopted May 28, 2003
WHEREAS, in recent years there have been reported a number of incidents of sexual, physical and/or emotional abuse perpetrated by rabbis and teachers, including members of the Rabbinical Council of America, against members of the communities that they serve and others, adults and children, in violation of Torah law and of civil law; and
WHEREAS, failure to respond to such cases is a violation of the verse, "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (Lev. 19:16; see Hilkhot Rotseiach 1: 14); and
WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Rabbinical Council of America to protect the integrity and welfare of the members of the community that its members serve; to serve and help its members in times of crisis; to represent to the community the best of Torah values; and to protect the dignity of Torah and Orthodox Judaism; and
WHEREAS, events of the past have proven, to our great dismay, that organizations and individuals have not always dealt with these incidents in the best possible way; and
WHEREAS, rabbis must conduct themselves in ways that are exemplary in their religious, moral and interpersonal conduct, not only because of their personal obligations that are governed by the Torah and the Halachah, but in fulfillment of the ideal of ahavat Hashem, "And you shall love the Lord your God: that the Name of Heaven be beloved because of you" (Yoma 86a)., an obligation that calls upon each Jew to conduct himself/herself in ways that reflect nobly on the Torah and God, and to refrain from any improper conduct in all areas including, but not limited to, sexual, personal, and economic behaviors; and
WHEREAS, the verse, "And you shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel." (Numbers 32:22) extends the concerns of conduct to mar'it ayin and heshad, suspicious behaviors, and places a higher responsibility on personal and professional conduct of all Jews, especially rabbis; and
WHEREAS, improper behavior can cause a hillul Hashem, a desecration of God's Name, a transgression that it is more difficult to atone for than for any other sin, so that not even repentance, the atonement of Yom Kippur, and personal suffering can absolve one of this offense (Yoma 86a); and
WHEREAS, the Halachah recognizes that an adam hashuv (a prominent person) is held to a standard of behavior and morality higher than that to which others are held and must refrain from any improper behavior, even if not explicitly prohibited or illegal, lest he cause a hillul Hashem, a desecration of God's Name. An adam hashuv, a well-known and well-respected person, and a talmid hakham, a pious, learned scholar, are expected by others to live according to strict moral standards-therefore, the greater the desecration when they fail to live up to these expectations. Their failures reflect negatively not only upon their personal reputations, but upon the Torah that they claim to uphold and upon the God they represent. Among others, these behaviors include embarrassing one's colleagues due to the nature of the rumors that are spread about him(Yoma 86a), embarrassing one's colleagues by the less-than-dignified activities in which he engages (Rosh to Moed Katan, ch. 3, no. 11) and degrading the honor of Torah (Pesahim 49a); and
WHEREAS, the Mishnah, Avot 4:4, reminds us that sequestering a hillul Hashem will always be unsuccessful: "Whoever desecrates the name of Heaven in private will ultimately be punished in public, whether the desecration was committed unintentionally or intentionally." Hence, a conspiracy to conceal information about abuse will ultimately be made public, creating an even greater hillul Hashem; and
WHEREAS, the Talmud, Berakhot 19b, posits, "Wherever a profanation of God's Name is involved no respect is paid to a rabbi"; and
WHEREAS, R. Akiva explained the biblical verse, "And you shall love your friend as yourself (Lev. 19:18)" by positing, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your friend." (Shabbat 31a), we are obligated to respect and protect the integrity, welfare and dignity (kevod ha-beriyot) of our fellow humans;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The Rabbinical Council of America condemns in the strongest terms any act of sexual, physical or emotional violence, abuse or impropriety, perpetrated by any of its members against any child or adult and declares to all victims that the abuse is the responsibility and sin of the abuser and is not the responsibility or sin of the victim; and
The Rabbinical Council of America recommits itself to fulfilling its responsibility for the welfare of the members of the Jewish community at large and the general community as well, especially to those who have been victims or who claim to be victims of an act of sexual, physical or emotional violence, abuse or impropriety; and
The Rabbinical Council of America commits itself to reevaluating its policies and procedures in cases of accusations of acts of violence, abuse or impropriety made against any of its members and to develop and enact, in a timely manner buit no later than June 30, 2004, those policies and procedures that will effectively and responsibly respond to accusations made against any of its members including:
" a reevaluation of the role and function of the Vaad Hakavod;
" the adoption of standards, policies and procedures for the reprimand and censure of members of the Rabbinical Council of America, as well as provisions and procedures for the suspension and revocation of membership;
" the adoption of provisions for reporting convicted or admitted abusers to the Placement Committee so that they will be prevented from assuming positions that will place others in possibly harmful situations as well as to develop responsible means to identify abusers to those communities or institutions to which they may move;
" the development of plans to help members who have been involved in improper behavior find appropriate therapeutic support, as well as the development of procedures to help the families and congregants of these members deal with the very trying circumstances they face;
" the education of rabbis in proper conduct in interacting with others as well as in ways to being falsely accused of improper behavior. We are also concerned about the possibility of a false accusation made against a member and commit ourselves to develop means to evaluate the veracity of an accusation and to help and support a rabbi who is falsely accused. We recognize the great difficulties involved in evaluating an accusation and in determining its veracity. The Rabbinical Council of America commits itself, in developing these new procedures, to proceed with careful and responsible deliberation in developing guidelines for investigating and trying to determine the validity of accusations; to take into account the issues of confidentiality as it applies both to the accuser and the accused; to respect the need for integrity and timeliness in the investigative process; and to consult with such professionals as lawyers and psychologists, as well as with victims and their families who can contribute in many significant and important ways in formulating and executing these policies.
The Rabbinical Council of America maintains that reporting acts or suspicions of child abuse is not mesirah and commits itself and its members to reporting acts or suspicions of child abuse as required by civil law; and
The Rabbinical Council of America recommits itself and its members:
" to assert responsible leadership in publicly condemning acts of sexual, physical and emotional violence, abuse and impropriety and in formulating
" to execute educational materials and programs that will educate its rabbis and lay persons in the areas of sexual, physical and emotional violence, abuse and impropriety,
" to execute procedures and policies that will safely, sensitively and effectively protect the members of the community from violence, abuse and impropriety,
" to deal appropriately with its members who have perpetrated such violence, abuse or impropriety; and
The Rabbinical Council of America urges its members to assert responsible leadership in their individual synagogues, schools, organizations and communities in publicly condemning acts of sexual, physical and emotional violence, abuse and impropriety and
" in formulating and executing educational materials and programs in their synagogues, schools, organizations and communities that that will educate the members of their institutions and organizations in the areas of sexual, physical and emotional violence, abuse and impropriety.
" to establish and execute procedures and policies in their individual communities that will safely, sensitively and effectively protect the members of those communities, synagogues and schools from violence, abuse and impropriety, including the proper training and education of all staff members and the publishing of guidelines for acceptable behavior as well as guidelines for the reporting of suspicions and acts of inappropriate behavior, and guidelines for effectively dealing with those reports; and
The Rabbinical Council of America commends those organizations and individuals that have raised these important issues in our community; that have developed programs that have helped victims of violence and abuse to acquire therapeutic, psychological and legal help; that have furthered public awareness of these issues; and that have furthered the physical safety, emotionally integrity and spiritual well-being of individuals and of our community at large.
Rabbi Sexual Misconduct: Crying Out for a Communal
Response
by Arthur Gross Schaefer
Reconstructionist Rabbinical College
http://www.rrc.edu/journal/recon63_2/shaeffer.htm
Rabbinic Sexual Abuse: The exercise by rabbis of their trusted position to exploit others by means of sexual activity or suggestion. That these unwelcomed sexual behaviors are used to degrade, humiliate, control, hurt, and otherwise misuse another. And, that coercion, secrecy, and betrayal often play into this abuse.
Few of us would have predicated the continuing interest and publicity surrounding clergy sexual boundary violations in general and rabbinic sexual misconduct in particular. While many of us read The Scarlet Letter in high school, there were virtually no serious studies or discussions focused on clergy sexual misconduct until just a few years ago. Usually, this topic has been greeted with silence and denial. With the exception of a few recent articles, there has been little written about rabbinic sexual abuse. And yet, an unpublished survey of ministers undertaken in 1984 suggests that over 38.6% of those surveyed admitted having sexual contact with church members and 12.7% had intercourse. Moreover, the survey revealed that 76.5% of the ministers acknowledged knowing other ministers who had intercourse with a congregant.
While we have no surveys targeting the rabbinic community, most people working in this area believe that an examination of rabbis would reveal similar numbers to those ministers. This belief that the research found in the non-Jewish community appropriately approximates the rabbinic community is bolstered by the results in a recent survey involving women rabbis. This study found that 73% of the women rabbis who responded had experienced sexual harassment. In a similar survey conducted by the United Methodist Church in 1990, 77% of the clergywomen indicated encounters of sexual harassment in the church. If these limited statistics are to be believed, clergy and rabbi sexual abuse are certainly not a recent phenomenon. Why then are these surveys, books, articles, and the public's attention only now starting to be directed to this area?
An Emerging Discussion
Certainly some credit for the attention is due, in part, to the national publicity regarding sexual harassment from Anita Hill's allegations, the Tailhook scandal, hearings involving Senator Packwood, and the recent scandals involving the president of the United States. Moreover, the tabloid coverage involving television evangelists and the many reports of respected clergy having extra-marital affairs has certainly spotlighted clergy sexual misconduct. Beyond this publicity and the newspapers' willingness to highlight allegations involving rabbis, the increasing litigious nature of our society encourages plaintiffs to seek large awards (federal law provides up to $300,000 in damages plus punitive damages in cases of sexual harassment). Laity and insurance companies are beginning to demand that clergy begin discussing this subject and the need to take preventive actions.
In addition to the increasing publicity and attempts to reduce legal exposure, discussions of sexual abuse have been heightened by three other trends in our society. First, the increasing role of women as leaders and opinion makers allows for the reflection of how the dominant male society kept its power. In that perception, sexual abuse is viewed as a tool of domination and an exercise of power. Accordingly, heightened sensitivity to sexual abuse is part of the broader openness of our society to understanding the expanding role of women.
Secondly, our society has few heroes and seems almost obsessed with tearing down those in leadership roles. While some congregants place rabbis on a pedestal, there seems to be a growing number who are eager to knock rabbis down by pointing to this type of abuse.
Finally, rabbis themselves are beginning to articulate the unending pressures, conflicting expectations, and loneliness that they face. In these discussions, sexual abuse is brought up as a symptom of the malaise facing our spiritual leaders. These factors, as well as others, are all combining to raise the topic of rabbinic sexual misconduct on the agenda of the Jewish community.
Silence Has Not Served Us Well
Sadly, our community's reactions up to this point have been often based on keeping things quiet in an attempt to do "damage control." Fear of law-suits and bad publicity have dictated an atmosphere of hushed voices and outrage against those who dare to break ranks by speaking out. However, this conspiracy of silence does not serve our community well.
Silence allows the victim to become further victimized by the Jewish community. Victims tell me that no one really wants to listen to their story—not the board of directors, nor rabbinic colleagues, nor the Jewish community. No one wants to hear that a beloved clergy person has acted inappropriately. Other rabbis, either within the institution or outside, keep their distance and their mouths closed. And other institutional members usually shun, and begin blaming, the victim. As in many rape cases, it is the victim's character that is quickly put on trial—to both undermine the credibility of the allegations and divert attention from the acts of the offender. The victim becomes victimized again and again as his/her reality is denied. This sense of isolation and denial can lead to some of the injured blaming themselves. Through the powerful tool of silence, we continue the pain and abuse of the victims.
Silence may also encourage legal action against rabbis and our institutions. Unlike the heroine in The Scarlet Letter, who buried the memory of her affair deep within her soul, today's victims are demanding that their stories be heard. Many survivors of clergy abuse have said that they began legal action only as a last resort when the religious institutions refused to seriously investigate their allegations.
Moreover, as rabbinic colleagues and lay leaders keep the "secret," the abusing rabbi can continue the violation either in the existing congregation or at the next with the belief that his actions will be kept a "family secret." In this way, colleagues, lay leadership, and religious institutions become part of the conspiracy which allows the abusive activity to continue. As Reverend Marie Fortune of the Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence teaches, when one remains a bystander in the area of clergy sexual misconduct, one stands with the perpetrator and allows the abuse to continue. Our religious and lay leaders can no longer be bystanders to victimization within our community.
Silence has allowed us to breach our communal obligation to insure that our institutions are safe environments and that our religious leaders adhere to high standards of moral conduct. Rabbis do represent our community and our Jewish tradition. Their actions, in the face of our silence, reflect on all of us.
Needed: A Comprehensive Response
It is time that we have more consistency and integrity by dealing with these unpleasant issues in an open and honest manner. We are compelled to place the topic of rabbinic sexual misconduct on the Jewish community agenda. While we trust our rabbinic organizations and seminaries to train and supervise our rabbis, we must also make them accountable to the general community. We expect rabbis to adopt an ethical duty to disclose information of abuse perpetrated by colleagues and that allegations and rehabilitation procedures become increasingly public. Rabbinic organizations should draft guidelines that clearly spell out how complaints are filed, investigated, and adjudicated. There should be rabbis specially trained to investigate and adjudicate allegations.
We need to learn from our sources and develop a process for rehabilitation that incorporates concepts of teshuvah (repentance) such as reaching out to those who were harmed. In conversations with survivors of clergy sexual abuse, I would always ask them what they require to help facilitate their healing. Usually, they would talk about the continuing pain from the silence of the offending clergy. They want to know that the offending clergy acknowledged and "named" the abuse and truly felt remorse. While I recognize the inherent legal and emotional problems involved, our tradition of teshuvah does inform us of the need to face those (in person or in writing) that we have wronged, as they deem appropriate, to help in their healing process.
And even then, we need to acknowledge that the position of rabbi is not a right but an honor which we bestow. Reverend Fortune asserts that while confession and/or acknowledgment of responsibility is an important first step, it should not be assumed that full restoration to pastoral ministry is guaranteed. Rabbi Patricia Karlin-Neumann argues that a bet din, a rabbinical court, must be convened to determine whether an offending rabbi who has gone through teshuvah can return to perform pastoral duties, and if so, in what contexts.
The Role of a Caring Community
As a caring community, we are challenged to reach out to the victims of abuse. We should appreciate that survivors of rabbi sexual boundary violations have experienced significant and long lasting trauma. Similar to victims of sexual abuse by a therapist, victims of clergy sexual misconduct experience a deception of a trusted relationship.
Moreover, when sexual exploitation is perpetrated by God's emissary, one also suffers spiritual abuse, which leaves one feeling totally alone and forsaken. As Rabbi Karen Fox, who is also a family counselor, noted, "shame permeates their feelings about the temple, the rabbi, things Jewish." The synagogue becomes a dangerous place and rabbis becomes untrustworthy. Quite often, victims feel that they must leave their religious community. For them, going to a synagogue or talking to a rabbi may forever be tainted by their experience. The Jewish community can reach out through seminars and programs designed for healing.
The Jewish community can also help do preventive work by insisting on continual education programs in our seminaries and for our rabbis. Like therapists, who are often required to distribute to clients pamphlets regarding sexual misconduct in the therapeutic relationship, we also can create and disseminate similar materials that provide warning signs, options for help and reporting such abuse.
We must make it clear that professional rabbinic conduct never includes sex. We must not be afraid to articulate that it is wrong for a rabbi to have sexual relations with a congregant. The rabbi is the professional who is expected to maintain the boundary between appropriate and inappropriate conduct. The rabbi must recognize and take responsibility for being in the dominant power position and act responsibly. There is no such thing as a freely "consenting adult" in this type of a situation; it is always the clergy person's responsibility to set and keep boundaries. We should clearly state that it is the duty of the rabbi to stop all sexual behavior with congregants whether it is wanted or not.
Institutional and Communal Responses
Finally, the Jewish community should more fully understand that abuse in a congregation or any other Jewish institution must be dealt with as a significant disturbance to that institution. Institutions are like families, and they, too, require assistance in recovering from a severe shock to their system. Special training needs to be developed for interim rabbis and rabbis taking over a pulpit or community position that has been vacated by a rabbi accused of sexual abuse. Public and private meetings with trained facilitators should be held to allow members of the community to explore their feelings of confusion in a safe and nourishing environment.
Unless the Jewish community chooses to break the silence, sexual misconduct by our rabbis will effectively be condoned by our inaction. The goal of responding to rabbi sexual misconduct is not to punish or to brand, but rather to protect and help insure healthy relationships with our spiritual leaders. We must recognize that when a rabbi violates a boundary, we are all diminished. When we help to create safe and nourishing leaders and environments, we are all enriched.
Rabbi Arthur Gross Schaefer is an attorney, C.P.A., and a professor of law and ethics at Loyola Marymount University.
The Physical, Sexual and Emotional Abuse of
Children
by Rabbi Mark Dratch
Originally published by the RCA Roundtable, Nissan 5752
http://www.agudathsholom.org/wrmd-physicalsexualemotionalabuseofchildren.htm#The%20Physical
Words from Rabbi Dratch...
This article also appears in the Domestic Violence Handbook of the Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles and in the Rabbinic Guide for DomesticViolence of Jewish Women International
Jewish children, like children everywhere, are the victims of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.1 Yet, we fool ourselves into thinking, "it can't happen to us." While recent reports in the media have made public that we are not free of this curse, most of the cases in our families, schools, and institutions go unreported or are hushed up and, hence, true statistics are unavailable. This denial has many sources: the incredulity that such ugly behavior can exist among our people always so proud of our exemplary home-life; the fear that it will bring Jews into disrepute; the apprehension that the child victim will have his/her reputation tarnished; and so on. But such a posture by the community remains inexcusable because we thereby shirk our responsibility to our children, denying the victims of abuse the safe haven of a caring and nurturing home and school, and preventing them from growing up with the physical and psychological security they need and deserve. It is for this sin of omission that our entire community must give din vi-heshbon, a complete and unequivocal reckoning. And it is to protect the bodies and souls of our innocent children that we must speak out and act.
What obligations does Jewish law impose upon us in order to protect our children from actual or potential abusers? May we inform civil authorities? Are there problems of lashon hara or hillul Hashem?
DEFINITIONS OF PHYSICAL, SEXUAL, AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE
Since corporal punishment was viewed as an effective means of shaping the characters of young children, hitting one's child or student as a tool in education and discipline was made an exception to this injunction against such physical assault.2 Verses such as "He that spareth the rod hateth his child, but he who loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24) appear to deem corporal punishment an acceptable, even preferred form of discipline.3 This dispensation is very limited and physical abuse4 and excessive physical punishment5 are prohibited by Torah law. The halakhic parameters of discipline, especially physical punishment, deserve significant attention beyond the scope of this paper.6
Abuse in the form of sexual relations between parents and children and between teachers and students whether consensual or forced, homosexual or heterosexual, are prohibited by the Torah! The Torah not only bans genital penetration, but any form of illicit fondling or inappropriate behavior for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire.8
Abuse, manifested in overly harsh criticism, name calling, and intimidating and degrading speech, is also biblically prohibited,9 even if the victim is a minor.10 Of great significance is the lifelong psychological trauma that impacts on the physical and emotional well-being of victims of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. The halakhic consequences of mental trauma were considered by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in evaluating the case of a woman who, by fulfilling certain mitzvot, might suffer dangerous psychological reactions and, hence, be considered pikuach nefesh. In one responsum Rabbi Feinstein permitted eating on Yom Kippur as well as the use of contraception.11 Although these dispensations were granted because of the potential physical harm this woman may inflict upon herself or others, the same apprehension was enunciated by our sages concerning the consequences of physical abuse.12 Thus, both the physical and psychological consequences of abuse must be addressed as cases of pikuach nefesh.
OBLIGATION TO ACT
How for does our obligation of pikuach nefesh in responding to physical abuse extend? The Talmud, Sanhedrin 73a, bases its requirement to save someone under attack upon two verses: "And thou shalt restore him to himself (Deut. 22:2), which dictates personal intervention, and "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (Lev. 19:16), which directs one even to hire others to accomplish the goal. In codifying this low in Hilkhot Rotseiach 1: 14 Rambam derives the obligation from only one verse.' He writes,
Anyone who can save (someone's life) and does not do so transgresses, "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor." Similarly, if one sees his brother drowning in the sea, accosted by robbers, or attacked by wild animals and can save him personally or can hire others to save him, and does not save him, or he heard non-Jews or informers plotting evil or attempting to entrap another and he does not inform him...transgresses 'Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.'
Thus, according to Rambam, both the personal and delegated responsibility enjoined by the "neighbor's blood" obligation require the same aggressive, full pursuit of the goal or saving the victim. Lo ta'amod requires a person to exhaust all means in order to effect the saving of the individual.14 This can be accomplished personally, by reporting the matter to the authorities, or by hiring others to accomplish the rescue. However, until the victim has been fully extricated from the dangerous predicament the obligation still obtains.
One who has information to report and fails to do so is in violation of the "neighbor's blood" obligation,15 and of "if he does not utter it then he shall bear his iniquity" (Lev. 5:1).16 While in monetary affairs the witness can wait until summoned, in other matters the witness must come forward voluntarily17 in order to "destroy the evil from your midst." 18
A child must be removed from his home if he is in imminent danger of abuse. The welfare of the child supersedes any right the parent may claim; this is a guiding principle in Jewish legal thinking in the area of child custody. Rema asserts that the general ruling placing daughters in the custody of their mothers is premised on the assumption that such placement is in the child's best interest. If, however, the court judges that a daughter would be better served in the custody of her father, she is placed with him.19 Even if removal from the parental home would lead to the child's placement in a foster home or institution which is not observant of Torah practices (although one must attempt to ensure that placement is in an observant environment if possible), the reporter does not violate "Thou shalt not place a stumbling block before the blind" (Lev. 19:14). Certainly, the physical safety of the child supersedes all other considerations.
Responsa Kiryat Channah, (R. Gershon Koblentz of Metz, printed in 1685), no. 22, holds the teacher financially liable for damages that the child incurs under his care, considering a teacher's salary to be sechar shimur, compensation to protect a child from harm. He maintains that the mitzvah exemption generated by the teacher-student relationship as described by the Mishnah, Makkot 8a, applies only to galut and not to financial liability. Responsa Shevut Yaakov, no. 140, disagrees, holding that the teacher is technically exempt from any liability. He posits that the mitzvah exemption applies to financial liability as well as to galut. However, he concurs that as a matter of social welfare, the teacher should be held responsible for financial compensation. Both authorities agree that this teacher be separated from his students. Thus, not only may we remove an abusive teacher from the classroom; we must remove him lest we be in violation of the biblical ordinance, "Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (Lev. 19:16). We have policies in our day schools, which remove a religious studies teacher who has violated Shabbat or other ritual practices, it would be absurd to refuse to remove a child abuser from his classroom. Are such teachers not in violation of the Torah as well? Is the sanctity of Shabbat that much more important to us then the innocence and safety of tinokot shel bet Rabban, our school children? Not only must abusive teachers be removed, but also their identities must be made known throughout the entire system of schools in order to prevent future abuse of other children.
The obligation to save those who are sexually abused are even more stringent. A parent or teacher who has intercourse with a child is considered a rodef (pursuer) and must be stopped. 21 This designation of the abuser as rodef mandates even killing him if that is the only way to prevent him from committing a sexual assault.22 Thus, one must certainly do everything possible to guarantee that children are protected from the abuser. Although one who molests children without genital penetration technically does not come under the category of rodef because of the sexual act itself,23 he is considered a rodef because of the psychological trauma and depression he causes to the victim as proven above. Additional obligations to rescue abused children may be derived from such verses as, "Thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbor" (Lev. 19:16), 24 "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Lev. 19:18),25 "Thou shalt not place a stumbling block before the blind" (Lev. 19:14),26 "Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (Lev. 19:16), 27 and the biblical obligation to remove potential dangers from our homes recorded in Ketubot 41b. 'R. Nathan said, 'Whence is it derived that a person may not breed a bad dog in his home nor place a shaking ladder in his house? It is said, "Thou shalt not bring blood upon thy house" (Deut. 22:8).'"
In addition to the halakhic requirements of pikuach nefesh and rodef, jurisdictions have laws which require anyone who works with children to report suspicions of abuse and, thus, dina de-malkhuta dina (the law of the country is binding) obtains.28 While dina de-malkhuta dina does apply when the demands of the state call for the violation of Jewish law,29 this paper proves that such reporting not only does not violate Jewish law, but that Jewish law makes such reporting imperative.
LASHON HARA
Is discussing or reporting an alleged abuser a violation of the laws against lashon hara? Consider the Talmudic case of Tuvya and Zigud (Pesahim 113b),
It once happened that Tuvya sinned and Zigud came and testified against him alone before R. Papa. He had Zigud punished. "Tuvya sinned and Zigud is punished!" he exclaimed. He said to him, "Yes, for it is written, 'One witness shall not rise up against a man' (Deut. 19:15), whereas you have testified against him alone; you have merely brought him into ill repute."
Since this testimony was inadmissible, Zigud has done no more than spread ugly rumors about the accused and has violated the prohibition, "Thou shalt not go as a talebearer" (Lev. 19:16).
However, R. Papa's actions in Pesahim seem to be contradicted by the Talmud (Baba Kamma 56a) which condemns even a single individual who withholds evidence as one who is exempt from human judgment but liable to the judgments of Heaven. Rashi observes that since the attestation of one witness can obligate the party to take an oath, such testimony is efficacious: such a statement is not lashon hara and its declaration is imperative. Rema extends the moral imperative of one witness to testify to all cases in which there is a benefit, including preventing another person from sinning.30 In fact, there is no contradiction. The case of Tuvya and Zigud teaches that if the sin has already been committed, the testimony of only one witness is prohibited, constituting a violation of motsi shem ra. Baba Kamma requires testimony because there will be a future benefit.
Despite the permissibility generated by the need to prevent future injury, Hafetz Hayyim prohibits the revelation of any information that would cause harm to the accused that is not based on bonafide evidence worthy of a court of Iaw.31 This prevents an innocent person from becoming the victim of false accusations and slander.32 This restriction severely hinders the revelation of instances of child abuse where the only confirmation of the abuse is the statements of minors whose veracity is unreliable, as they are generally considered as unfit witnesses,33 or circumstantial physical evidence. However, because confidential reports to agencies responsible for investigating such allegations will not harm a person's reputation and because the testimony of children, supported by significant suspicions, may be acceptable testimony,34 this restriction does not prevent the proper prosecution of abusers or endanger the well being of children. In addition, when physical and mental pikuach nefesh is involved, one must, after careful deliberation and consideration of the evidence and its consequences, reveal serious suspicions.
Thus, in cases of child abuse, where, after careful evaluation of the evidence it is believed that abuse has occurred, there is no prohibition of rehilut-- even outside of the judiciary process. On the contrary, it is a mitzvah to inform others so as to protect them and their families from possible harm. Hafetz Hayyim, rejecting the possible objections of those who would deem this an unwarranted leniency, states that withholding such information is tantamount to withholding testimony in a court of law and is prohibited by "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy brother" (Lev. 19:16).35 This obligation to reveal this information holds: even outside of court proceedings;36 even if the informer is the sole source of information; even if the statement is based solely upon hearsay; and even if the abuser promises not to harm anyone else if there is concern that he cannot be trusted.37
INFORMING CIVIL AUTHORITIES AND HILLUL HASHEM
Based on the verse, "These are the judgments which you shall place before them: (Ex. 21:1), Jewish law prohibits adjudication by Jews in non-Jewish courts.38 Rambam, elaborating on the severity of this sin, claims that "whoever adjudicates in a non-Jewish court ... is wicked and it is as though he has reviled, blasphemed, and rebelled against the law of Moses." 39
Many explain that the prohibition of mesirah, the reporting of a fellow Jew to civil authorities, is for the purpose of privileging the Jewish legal system over those of others. All legal matters concerning Jews should be redressed in a Jewish court according to Jewish law. However, there are many reasons why this prohibition does not apply in the case of child abuse.
The Mishnah, Avot 4:4, reminds us that sequestering a hillul Hashem will always be unsuccessful: "Whoever desecrates the name of Heaven in private will ultimately be punished in public, whether the desecration was committed unintentionally or intentionally." Hence, a conspiracy to conceal information about abuse will ultimately be made public, creating an even greater hillul Hashem. The greater severity of the hillul Hashem in concealing the information can be further supported by the Talmud, Yoma 86b, which maintains that "one should expose hypocrites to prevent the desecration of the Name.49 Rashi explains that the reason for this disclosure is that people, thinking that this person is righteous, may learn from his behavior. Rambam is of the opinion that after unsuccessful attempts to correct the matter privately, public remonstration and broadcasting of the outrage is required. There is no concern about the hillul Hashem of exposing the offense.
For those who maintain a stricter interpretation of the prohibition of mesirah, there is yet another means by which to enable reporting: if a case originally brought before a Bet Din is recommended by the Jewish court for adjudication in a civil court, the prohibition of mesirah does not apply.50 The Rabbinical Council of America should either authorize its Bet Din or establish a special Bet Din to hear cases of alleged abuse and to make appropriate recommendations.51
NOTES\
1. Two informative articles appeared in Ten Da'at, Sivan 5748: "Child Abuse: A School Meets a Crisis" by Rabbi William S. Atshul and "Identifying the Abused Child: The Role of Day School Educators" by Dr. David Pelcovitz.
2. Makkot 8a.
3. See also Proverbs 3:11-12, 10:13, 19:18, 19:29, 20:30, 26:3, 29:15, 29:17. For a collection of rabbinic statements concerning corporal punishment see Zvi Elimelekh Bloom, Hanhagot HaHinukh (Jerusalem, 5741), pp. 140-158.
4. Hilkhot Hovel uMazik 5:1; Yoreh De'ah 450:1.
5. Hilkhot Talmud Torah 2:2; Yoreh De'ah 240:10: Kitzur Shulhan Arukh 165:7.
6. The parameters and limitation of corporal punishment are briefly analyzed by Rabbi Gedclia Dov Schwartz in "The Abused Child: Halachic Insights," Ten Da'at, Sivan 5748.
7. Leviticus, chapter 18.
8. Shabbat 13a; Hilkhot Issurei Bi'ah 2 1:1: Sefer HaMitzvot, prohibition no, 353 and Megilat Esther; Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, prohibition no. 126: Sefer HaHinukh, no. 188; Even HaEzer 20:1. Others quote opinions that maintain that intimacy without penetration is rabbinically forbidden, see Ramban on Shabbat 13a and on Sefer HaMitzvot, ibid. (Ramban himself may hold that the prohibition is biblical): Zohar HaRakiah of Rashbatz, Prohibition no. 11. See Biur haGra 20: 1.
9. "And ye shall not wrong one another," Leviticus 25:17. See Me'irat Einayim to Hoshen Mishpat 420, no. 49.
10. Baba Kamma 90a; Hilkhot Hovel uMazik 3:5; Hoshen Mishpat 420:38.
11. Iggerot Moshe, Even HaEzer IV, no.68.
12. Masekhet Semahot, chapter 2: Kitzur Shulhan Arukh 165:7; Hiddushei R. Akiva Eiger, Yoreh De'ah 240:20.
13. Minhat Hinukh, no. 237 questions why Rambam ignores the "restoration obligation"..He offers no resolution. See Migdal Oz on Rambam and my article, "His Money or Her Life? Heinz's Dilemma in Jewish Law,' Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Vol. XX. Fall 1990.
14. Rashi, Sanhedrin 73a, s.v. lo ta'amod. Rambam, Hilkhot Rotzeich 1:15, adds both affirmative and prohibitive injunctions to this obligation: "And thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity' (Deut. 25:12).
15. Sifra, Arukh Hashulhan, Hoshen Mishpat 28:4
16. Hilkhot Edut 1:1.
17. Kesef Mishnah to Hilkhot Edut 1:1.
18. Rosh to Makkot, chapter 1, no. 1.
19. Even HaEzer 82:7. See also Radbaz 1: 123; Responsa Darkei No'am, Even HaEzer no. 126; Responsa Mishpetei Shmuel, no. 90. According to Tosaphot, Sanhedrin 72b, s.v. kan be-av al ha-ben, if a father clearly lacks compassion for his child, the child may kill him in self-defense. See also Maggid Mishnah to Hilkhot Geneivah 9: 10. See Gedalich Aharon Rabinowitz. "Takkonot Banim Mukkim al yedei HaHorim." in Halakhah uRefuah, Moshe Hirshler, ed., (Chicago: Bet Midrash Latorah, 5740), pp. 336-48.
2O. Dr. Abraham Abraham in Nishmat Avraham, Vol. IV, p. 208, cites Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg who allows placement of abused children in a non-observant environment because: 1) The reporter is only a gorem, he is not personally facilitating the placement: 2) There is a chance that the government agency will place the child in an observant environment: and 3) As a minor, the abused is not obliged to fulfill the mitzvot. At the age of Bar Mitzvah he may find himself in an observant environment. Rabbis Auerbach and Elyashev make similar recommendations. However. since physical and psychological pikuach nefesh is involved, such reasoning seems unnecessary,
21. Killing a rodef is permissible only to prevent future abuse, not to punish past crimes.
22. Sanhedrin 73a; Hilkhot Rotzeich 1:10; Hoshen Mishpat 425:3-4.
23. Sanhedrin 73a; and Tosaphot, s.v. hayavei keritut.
24. Arakhin 16b; Hilkhot De'ot 6:6-7.
25. Shabbot 31a; Hilkhot De'ot 6:3.
26. Avodah Zarah 6b; Hilkhot Rotzeiah 12:14.
27. Sanhedrin 73a;: Hilkhot Rotzeiah 1:14.
28. Gloss of Rema to Hoshen Mishpat 369:11, "Dina de-malkhuta dina applied ... where the legislation protects the welfare of the citizens.' See Shmuel Shiloh, Dina De-Malkhuta Dina, (Jerusalem: 5735). pp. 115, 147-149, 187ff.
29. Siftei Kohen to Hoshen Mishpat 73, no. 39 and Responsa Chatam Sofer, Hoshen Mishpat, no. 44.
30. Gloss to Hoshen Mishpat 28:1.
31. Hafetz Hayyim, Be'er Mayyim Hayyim, Hilkhot Rehilut, kelal 7, no. 20.
32. Be'er Mayyim Hayyim, Hilkhot Rehilut, Kelal 9, no. 20.
33. Hilkhot Edut 9:1; Hoshen Mishpat 35:1.
34. Gloss of Rema to Hoshen Mishpat 35:14 which, under certain circumstances, accepts minors as eidei birrur based on a Takkanat kadmonim ascribed to either Rabbeinu Tam or Rabbeinu Gershom Me'Or haGolah.
35. Be'er Mayyim Hayyim, Hilkhot Rehilut. kelal 9, no. 1.
36. Hilkhot Rehilut, kelal 9, no. 3.
37. Hilkhot Rehilut, kelal 9, no. 3 and Be'er Mayyim Hayyim nos. 9 and 10.
38. Gittin 88b.
39. Hilkhot Sanhedrin 26:7. For discussions of the prohibition of litigating in secular courts see Herschel Schachter, "Dina deMaIchusa Dina." Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Vol. 1, no. 1. and Simcha Krauss, "Litigation in Secular Courts.' Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Vol. 11, no. 1.
4O. Arukh HaShulhan, Hoshen Mishpat 388:7. This source is cited authoritatively by Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz in "The Abused Child: Halakhic Insights." Ten Da'at, Sivan 5748. p. 12.
41. RaN to Sanhediin 46a. See, however, Responsa Rema, no. 88, who maintains that according to Tosaphot, Baba Kamma 114a, s.v., ve-lo, if the punishment is greater than the Torah prescribes, there is a prohibition of mesirah.
42. Herschel Schachter, "Dina deMalchuso, Dina," p. 118.
43. Hoshen Mishpat 338:7 and Shakh, no. 45. See also Gloss of Rema to Hoshen Mishpat 338:9; B'nei Hayei and Maharam miRiszburg cited in Pahad Yitzhak, Maarekhet Hoveil Behaveiro.
44. Hoshen Mishpat 338:12 according to the text quoted by Shakh, no. 59 and Gra no. 71.
45. See statement of Rabbi Waldenberg quoted in Nishmat Avraham, Vol. IV, p. 209.
46. See Responsa Binyamin Zev, no. 282 and Responsa Ba'i Hayi, Hoshen, Mishpat no. 158.
47. Rosh to Baba Kamma, chapter 10, no. 14.
48. Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 28:3.
49. See also Hilkhot De'ot 6:8
50. Hoshen Mishpat 26:2.
51. Some have raised the objection of reporting child abusers for fear of the dangers of sexual molestation or life-threatening attacks they may face in jail. First, is it better not to report, allow him to remain free, and to subject innocent children to more certain abuse by this criminal? Second, reporting suspicions of abuse, and even testifying in a civil court, is not the proximate cause of such risk: Too often the system fails to incarcerate these perpetrators; the reporting only starts a long process that may lead to incarceration: whatever attacks occur are perpetrated by another person. The restriction of "Thou shaft not place a stumbling block" (Lev. 19:14) does not obtain. (For a discussion of the parameters of the prohibition of lifnei iveir see my 'The Politics of Selecting a Political Candidate,' Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Vol. XI, Spring 1986, pp. 5-18.) In addition, the reporter is merely a gerama (indirect cause) for any subsequent difficulties that may occur and holds no liability. For a discussion of the parameters of gerama see my "suing Your Rabbi: Clergy Malpractice in Jewish Law," Journal of Halachah and Contemporary Society, Vol. XVIII, Fall 1989, pp. 5-18.
By Rabbi Zev. M. Shandalov
May 22, 2006
Over the past few days, there have been a number of items that have been printed in the mainstream press and in the "Jewish" press regarding stories of sexual abuse of children and alleged cover-up of said abuse and the perpetrators. The purpose of this email is to address this situation.
Abuse: I am not going to discuss any of the allegations in the articles or those that are floating around on the Internet. I do wish though to comment in general terms.
ANY abuse perpetrated against a child no matter how "minor" or seemingly "insignificant" can be damaging for life for the child; is illegal; is assur (prohibited by Torah law) and can potentially be actionable in a court of law. In addition, anyone seeking to protect the abuser, including but not limited to rabbis, professionals, community leaders, institutions, etc. are themselves culpable in the crimes that the alleged perpetrator commits after discovering the crimes and seeking to cover them up. The covering up of such offenses not only is in itself a Chillul Hashem (a profanation of the name of Hashem) but also adds to the abuse of the victims after the fact. Delivering information to the police in order to remove the offender from the streets and to protect further abuse is a Mitzva incumbent upon all who have knowledge of abuse. Additionally, the Mitzvah of "Al ta'amod al dam re'acha" (One may not stand idly by while another is being injured) is found in the Torah to make it everyone's responsibility to help another in jeopardy.
I hope that this has helped to clarify a very disturbing issue. WE MAY NOT REMAIN SILENT WHEN ANYONE IS BEING ABUSED AND CERTAINLY NOT WHEN THE PERSON BEING ABUSED IS A CHILD!
Rabbi Zev M. Shandalov
Congregation Kehilath Jacob Beth Samuel (KJBS)
Chicago, IL
Many Midrashim claim that the sea split in the merit of
Yosef
by Rabbi Gottlieb
Shomrei Emunah - April 10, 2007
http://www.shomreiemunah.us/Pesacheighthdaydrasha.htm
Below is an edited write-up of the drasha delivered after Mussaf on the last day of Pesach 5767 (4/10/07).. Because so many of you who were away for Yom Tov have asked me for a copy of the speech I am presenting it here.
I gave the speech with very basic notes and therefore had to reconstruct it almost all from memory. I have done my best but undoubtedly this is not a "word-for-word" transcription. It is my hope that the drasha will be read in the same spirit that it was given – as devarim ha-yotzim min ha-lev.
§ § §
Confronting a Painful Reality
I want to talk with you this morning about the problem of sexual abuse in our community.
When I say "our community" I mean both the American Orthodox community and, specifically, the Baltimore Orthodox community.
I am sorry to have to speak about this topic at all and I am particularly sorry to have talk about it on Yom Tov. But I am doing so in advance of a letter that you should all be receiving later this week. The letter is a statement adopted by the Vaad HaRabbonim addressing the issue of abuse in our community.
As difficult as it may be, we feel it is important to address this topic openly and directly because ignorance and silence are two of the greatest allies of abusers. Hidden under the cloud of silence individual acts of abuse can become long-term abuse and small problems can grow into full-blown crisis. And the best antidote for a cloud is sunshine.
§ § §
I would like to frame my remarks in the context of an enigmatic comment made by Chazal about the central event we are celebrating on these last days of Pesach, Kerias Yam Suf.
A number of Midrashim (see, for example, Bereishis Rabbah 87:8, Mechilta, Beshalach, "Va'yehi" #3) maintain – based on a common word choice – that God split the sea in the merit of Yosef refusing the advances of Potifar's wife.
Many meforshim struggle to understand what deeper connection presumably exists between these two seemingly unrelated events. Perhaps the best explanation is that overcoming natural instinct is central to both of these stories. Yosef was confronted by temptation and his natural instinct would have allowed him – as it would for most of us – to yield to her advances. But Yosef's greatness is that he restrained his natural instinct and overcame his temptation. Similarly, the natural state of water – in a sense, its "instinct" – had to be overcome as the sea split apart and allowed the Jewish people to cross through.
Similarly, I believe, when it comes to the sensitive issue of abuse, we must resist a number of – what may be – natural instincts.
§ § §
First, we must resist the instinct of denial – in all of its forms.
For many, I believe that this instinct comes from a "good place." We believe that a life based on Torah is holy and ennobling. When confronted with allegations that people who appear to be dedicated to Torah may have engaged in dark and destructive behavior there is an instinct to deny that such a thing is even possible. There is a further instinct to deny – even if it is acknowledged that something may have happened somewhere, maybe, to someone – that this constitutes a "problem in the community."
These instincts must be overcome because they are simply inaccurate. Of course the truth and beauty of Torah is axiomatic in our lives! But human beings are still human beings and some are, unfortunately, sick in a way that tempts them to harm others.
I am not aware of any reliable statistics about the exact number of abusers in our community. But based on my own knowledge, my discussions with more experienced rabbis, and my consultations with mental health professionals who serve the community, it is clear that we have a problem.
It's important – and this I must stress – not to be alarmist or to exaggerate. There aren't abusers lurking around the corner in every day school or behind the tree in every playground. But they do exist and we must confront this painful reality.
In a related way, there are some people who do not fully appreciate the serious and long term harm that can be inflicted by sexual abuse. Questions are sometimes asked about why the survivors can't just "get over" their abuse; after all, it was so long ago and other survivors seem to be just fine and aren't "clamoring for attention."
While it's true that, Baruch HaShem, some victims of abuse have been able to emerge relatively unscathed from the trauma – largely aided by supportive family and friends – unfortunately, many have not been so fortunate.
I have met with victims and have seen and heard about the damage that abuse caused. Many of them have had their lives shattered – emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. The fallout from abuse leads to higher risks of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, other self destructive behavior. It is also becoming clearer that much of the "teens-at-risk" problem in our community stems from abuse.
It should therefore come as no surprise that all of the major poskim that I know of, across the spectrum of Orthodoxy, view this as sakanas nefashos and the abuser as a "Rodef," and believe that virtually any method can be employed to stop future abuse.
§ § §
A second instinct that we must resist is the temptation to hide behind cherished the halachos of Kiddush / Chillul Hashem and Lashon Hara.
Again, this in instinct comes from a "good place" as we are certainly right to remain committed to these core values. But we must make sure that our instincts are guided by appropriate application of the halachah.
Regarding Kiddush / Chillul Hashem, even if dealing with something quietly will prevent a Chillul Hashem, one must carefully question whether halacha would choose that outcome if it came at the expense of "lo sa'amod al dam re'acha" and preventing future abuse. Unfortunately, experience has shown that "quiet arrangements" to deal with abusers, even when made with the best of intentions, have all too often been ineffective in protecting the community.
Either way, as Americans if not as Jews, we should have learned by now that it simply doesn't work. The overwhelming majority of time that information of this sort is initially kept quiet it eventually comes to light. Any successes are short lived and any prevention of Chillul HaShem is only temporary. And when the information eventually emerges it causes a far greater Chillul HaShem than it ever would have if it was addressed clearly and publicly at the outset.
Some may have the instinct that these topics – and certainly allegations about a specific abuser – should not be publicized or reported because to do so would be in violation of the laws of Lashon Hara or related prohibitions. Here too I believe this to be mistaken.
The Chafetz Chayim himself (Hilchos Lashon Hara, sec.10 and Hilchos Rechilus, sec.9, especially note #1) makes clear that these halachos were never intended to enable wrongdoers to harm unsuspecting victims. It is no coincidence that the very same pasuk (Vayikra 19:16) that starts with "lo selech rachil b'amecha" ends with "lo sa'amod al dam re'acha" as the latter is meant to qualify the former. The Chafetz Chayim therefore rules that even if it is only to avert a loss of money, let alone to protect someone's safety, the obligation to do so is paramount.
It seems clear, therefore, that the prevention of future abuse – which often requires publicity and reporting – is the primary halachic obligation even if it requires us to do things which would – in a different context – flout the regulations of Lashon Hara.
I must add an important caveat: None of this permits useless gossiping and rumor mongering. This "hetter" is limited to situations which are productive and will have concrete benefit (to'eles).
Furthermore, we absolutely must be sensitive to the possibility of false accusations. After all, it is impossible to overstate the harm that is caused by a false accusation. Nothing that was mentioned above sanctions Motzi Shem Ra which is always prohibited.
But this concern cannot paralyze us and cause us to reject out of hand any accusation of abuse. Rather, this demands that all claims and counterclaims are thoroughly investigated so that we can be as sure as possible about the veracity of any accusation. Complete and thorough investigations are the best defense against false accusations. If a claim is unsubstantiated then, "hitzdiku es ha-tzaddik," we must make that clear. But when accusations are credible then, "hirshiy'u es ha-rasha," we must be prepared to confront the awful truth.
§ § §
Third, I implore you to resist the temptation to avoid talking about abuse with your children. I know that this is a difficult topic to discuss and that for many of you this will be an uncomfortable conversation. But it is a conversation you must have.
It is absolutely critical that we talk to our children in a sensitive and non-alarming manner and educate them about inappropriate touch. It can be very confusing for a child to understand that certain things are really inappropriate when there is an adult involved and especially when that adult is a role model. By speaking with them we can give our children not only the clarity, but also the strength, to recognize if something wrong is happening and, hopefully, to prevent abuse from happening. And if, Heaven forbid, abuse does occur, our prior discussions will give them the knowledge that they have their family to turn to for support.
§ § §
Before looking toward the future we must first confront the past.
In a sense, this is the most painful part of the drasha for me to discuss. But as a member of the rabbinate, the "shevet ha-rabbanus," I think it is critical for it to be said.
Commenting on the pasuk (Vayikra 4:22) "asher nasi yecheta," Rashi cites the teaching of Chazal that "Fortunate is the generation whose leader is concerned to bring an atonement for his inadvertent transgression – all the more so that he regrets his intentional transgressions."
It must be acknowledged that in the past, when allegations of abuse were presented to community leaders, mistakes were sometimes made in handling these situations. Abusers and the nature of abuse were simply not fully understood and other genuine considerations, such as the desire to prevent Chillul HaShem, were perhaps too heavily weighed. These mistakes – even when arising from the best of intentions – have tragically allowed the toll of victims to rise. The fact that similar mistakes may have also occurred in other places in and outside of the Jewish community is of little solace. We, as a rabbinate, must seek atonement even for these unintentional errors.
§ § §
Going forward, we can once again look to the Torah's account of the Jewish people's exodus from Egypt for inspiration.
As we know, the Bnei Yisrael panicked when they realized they were trapped by the raging sea in front of them and the charging Egyptians behind them. They complained bitterly to Moshe, who, after trying to reassure them, was apparently davening. And then, amazingly, Hashem admonishes Moshe, "Mah titzak eilai" – Why do you cry out to Me; "daber el Benei Yisrael v'yisa'u" – tell the Jewish people to go forward!" (Shemos 14:15)
The Kotzker Rebbe understands this to be, not only a command to Moshe, but a timeless lesson for all generations. Obviously Hashem wasn't downplaying the importance of tefillah; prayer should always be central to our lives. But He was teaching us that "l'kol zeman v'es" – there are times where what is needed isn't tefillah but v'yisa'u, not talk but action.
When considering our current challenge I feel that this is just such a time. The letter you will receive from the Vaad HaRabbanim is an important statement and I hope that this drasha is beneficial as well.
But in the end, a letter and a speech are a lot easier – and a lot less important – than action.
What we need and what you have a right as community to expect from the rabbanim is action.
The next critical step, which we will begin, iy"h, after Yom Tov, is to develop a community-wide action plan to better educate and protect our community. There are numerous ideas which can be implemented and I think we should consider all possibilities.
In fact, we are blessed to have had with us for Yom Tov – and sitting here this morning – Rav Gedalyah Dov Schwartz, shlita. R. Schwartz, as you all know, is the Av Beis Din of Chicago, and a number of years ago Chicago became the first city to develop protocols for dealing with abuse. We will look to Chicago – and other cities – to see what ideas we can learn from them and adapt for our community. In Chicago, for instance, they set up a special Beis Din to take care of abuse related issues. This may be right for our community as well.
Another important element of the effort in Chicago – and R. Schwartz asked me to stress this – is that it has been led by both R. Schwartz and Rav Avraham Chaim Levin, shlita, the Telshe Rosh Yeshiva. They are both committed to dealing with this problem and by working together it has assured all parts of the community that they are represented and given their effort the widest possible support. This is a model which I believe we should adopt.
§ § §
The issue of abuse is painful and complex but it one which we must confront.
There may be some difficult moments for our community in the near future but if we take the necessary steps and make lasting improvements then I am hopeful that we will look back on this time as a pivotal and positive chapter in our communal history.
May Hashem grant comfort and healing to the victims of abuse and may He give all of us the necessary strength and siyata dishmaya we need to protect our children and to rid our community of this scourge.
Any questions about the speech or the general topic it discusses can, of course, be addressed to Rabbi Gottlieb, either by phone (410-358-8604) or by email rabbigottlieb@shomreiemunah.us .
http://jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com/2007/06/rabbi-mitchell-wohlberg-sermon-on.html
The following sermon was given by Rabbi Mitchell Wohlberg as a reaction to the case of Rabbi Ephraim Shapiro being published in the Baltimore Jewish Times and the letter that was created by the Vaad of Baltimore.
Shavuot Yizkor Sermon
(Sermon on Sexual Abuse in the Baltimore Community)
May 24, 2007
By Rabbi Mitchell Wohlberg
For 23 years not I've paused at this moment to say Yizkor for my father. And so many different memories of him are recalled. Today for the first time, I pause to say Yizkor for my mother, or blessed memory. What memories did she leave me? Well, this I can tell you: the memories that I will always have of my mother are going to be quiet different than the memories Ale Baldwin's daughter is always going to have of her father.
Even those of us who usually are not caught up in the latest Hollywood gossip or scandal could not help but take note of what recently took place with the actor, Alex Baldwin and his daughter. As upsetting as it was, it can serve a positive purpose in helping us better understand the strange rabbinic commentary and verse in The Book of Ruth we read this morning, will help us better understand the meaning of God and the giving of the Torah we celebrate on Shavous. It will also help us better understand the tragic affects of sexual abusers and will help us better understand the purpose of the Yizkor memorial service we are about to recite.
Alec Baldwin is divorced from his wife, actress Kim Bassinger. They have been involved in a bitter custody fight over their 11 year old daughter, Ireland. On April 11th Alec Baldwiin called his daughter and when she wasn't there to answer, he called her a "thoughtless little pig" and went on to say, "Once again I have made a ____ of myself trying to get you on the phone. . . I don't give a damn that you are 12 years old or 11 years old or a child, or that your mother is a thoughtless pain the ___ who doesn't care a your ___ out." It is a terrible thing for any father to say to a child under any circumstances. But here the circumstance made matters even worse because everything Alec Baldwin said to his child had been recorded on the phone's answering machine. And it is suspected that Baldwin's ex-wife, Ms. Bassinger, - atstaska in her own right -- made the recording available for the world to hear.
You have to wonder if Mr. Baldwin would have spoken differently if he had known that his words would go public. According to our sages, he most certainly would have! Our sages expressed this thought in commenting on an incident in The Book of Ruth we read every Shavuot. The story of Ruth is a beautiful, moving and touching one; a story exhibiting the goodness and devotion of plain and ordinary people. Ruth, a Moabite woman, widowed, was a devoted daughter-in-law, a righteous convert of our people. One day, searching for food in a time of famine, she meet a true gentleman named Boaz who generously gives of his own food to her, described by the Bible with the touching words, "Vayitzavat la koli v'tochal vatisba vatotar -- these words our sages in the Midrash, recognizing the generosity of Boaz, still go on to say, "Had Boaz known that the Bible would eternally record that he gave Ruth some parched grain to eat, he would have given her a royal banquet." Yes, Boaz, you didn't realize it but your actions were being recorded. Sure it was nice that you gave Ruth something to eat . . . but you would have given a lot more than "parched corn" if you knew people would be reading about it until the end of time. If only you had realized it, you would have acted differently. And that's what the Torah means when we are told, right in the beginning of Genesis: "Zeh sefer toldot ha-Adam-- this is the book of the story of man." Just as the story of adam and Abraham and Moses and Boaz are recorded in this book, so too all of our lives are being recorded. As we are told in The Ethics of the Fathers: "V'chol maasecha b'sefer nichtavim - all of your deeds are being recorded in a book." It's not just Alec Baldwin speaking to his daughter. . . it's all of us in our day to day existence whose words and actions are being recorded.
Many of our children, when asked to choose a reading for their Bat Mitzvah service, have recently started choosing a reading called "When You thought I Wasn't Looking:"
When you though I wasn't looking, you hung my first painting on the refrigerator, and I wanted to painting another.
When you thought I wasn't looking, you fed a stray cat, and I thought it was good to be king to animals.
When you thought I wasn't looking, you baked a birthday cake just for me, and I knew that little things were special things.
When you thought I wasn't looking, you said a prayer and I believed there was a God and that I could always talk to.
When you thought I wasn't looking, you kissed me goo-night and I felt loved.
When you thought I wasn't looking, I saw tars come from your eyes and I learned that sometimes things hurt -- but that it's all right to cry.
When you thought I wasn't looking, you smiled and it made me want to look that pretty too.
When you thought I wasn't looking, you cared and I wanted to be everything I could be.
When you thought I wasn't looking, I looked . . . and wanted to say thanks for all those things you did. . .
When you thought I wasn't looking,
The poem makes a very important point. . . whether we know it or not, we're no different than Alec Baldwin. Everything we say and do is being recorded by our children: the amount of charity we give, the excuses we offer for not giving, the comments we make behind the back of friends, our business ethics, our moral behavior, what we eat, drink and watch on TV . . . all of impact that had on us, she would look puzzled and say it was not big deal. But, God Almight, what a big deal it was! What it said to us, how it made us feel, what it meant to us. . . can never -- and will never -- be forgotten.
The poet-Laureate of our people, Chaim Nachman-Bialik, captures this feeling in his poem "Shirati" where he tries to trace the origin of the sigh, the sob, the krechts, so frequently found in his poetry. He describes the misery of his childhood; his father died when he was very young. His mother slaved in a little store supporting his brothers and sisters. Only inn the evening could she begin her cooking, cleaning and sewing. late one night the little boy rose from his bed and saw his mother cooking in the kitchen. In utter exhaustion she was weeping as she kneaded dough for bread. As she baked by candle light, her lips moved in prayer, "May I bring my children to be God-fearing. May they be true to Torah. May they never disgrace me." As she prayed, the tears rolled down her sweet, tired lonely cheeks. She did not realize it, but her tears mixed with the dough. Little Bialik saw this heart-rendering sight and returned to bed. The next morning he ate this very bread. "as I ate, I swollowed my mother's tears. Part of my mother was in that bread! And now I know why there are tears in my eyes, why there is a sigh in my breast."
I exaggerate not. A portion of our parents is implanted within us. Unbeknownst to them, they made indelible impressions on us that have been permanently recorded into our very beings. Their obituaries do not lie buried in some old newspaper. It is recorded and alive in our hearts and souls!
In describing death, the Bible frequently uses the phrase, "he was gathered into his people." that's were we wind up - in people. People wind up in people, not in the ground. This, then, is a basic truth of human experience. Whether we like it or not, we are being recorded all the time. Our obituaries are constantly being written and are opened for all of us to see. In the biographies of our loved ones and fellow human beings, in the record of the general community, in the chronicles of Judaism, we are constantly making entries.
In these moments before Yizkor when we remember the entries of those who preceded us, let us ask: "What entries are we making, what actions are being recorded in the lives of those that will follow us?" In the moments before Yizkor I remember countless moments of joy shared with my mother. . . the warmth and love she enveloped me with. What will my children remember? What are they seeing when I think they aren't looking? Yizkor beckons. We pause to remember: "T'hey nishmosom tsurorom b'tsror hachayim - May the souls of our dearly departed be bound up in the bond of eternal life." And let us add the additional prayer: "T'hi nishmosi - God, allow my life to be bound up in the lives of others who are living so that after the fullness of my days, others will gather to bless my name for having lived and shared and given and cared." Amen.
Orthodox Rabbinical Group Issues Halachic Proposal on Child
Abuse
By Judith S. Antonelli, Judith
The Jewish Advocate - May 29, 1992, V.182; N.22 p. 6
A modern Orthodox think tank has issued a proposal on the physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of children in which it asserts that "it is a mitzvah to report a child abuser to the civil authorities."
The think tank, known as the R.C.A. Roundtable, functions under the Rabbinical Council of America, the national organization of Orthodox rabbis.
"We are firmly centrist," said Rabbi Jeffrey Woolf, executive chairman of the Roundtable. "Our purpose is empowerment, to provide Jewish legal guidance to modern Orthodox rabbis."
Other topics addressed by the Roundtable have included: a halachic ban on cigarette smoking, conversion for purposes of adoption, and the parameters of honoring one's parents in light of Alzheimer's disease. The Roundtable also plans to deal with a number of women's issues in Halacha.
The following excerpts are from the child abuse proposal, authored by Rabbi Mark Dratch of Shaarei Shomayim Congregation in Toronto.
Definition of Abuse
Physical: Although corporal punishment of children was an exception to the general injunction against physical assault (Makkot 8a), this dispensation is very limited. Physical abuse and excessive physical punishment are prohibited by Torah law.
Sexual: Abuse in the form of sexual relations between parents and children and between teachers and students, whether consensual or forced, homosexual or heterosexual, are prohibited by the Torah. This includes not only genital penetration, but any form of illicit fondling or inappropriate behavior for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire.
Emotional: Abuse, manifested in overly harsh criticism, name-calling, and intimidating and degrading speech, is also biblically prohibited (Lev. 25:17), even when the victim is a minor. Both the physical and psychological consequences of abuse must be addressed as cases of pikuach nefesh (saving a life).
Obligation to Act
Anyone who can save a life and does not do so violates the commandment, "You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (Lev. 19:16). A person is required to exhaust all means in order to effect the saving of the individual. This can be accomplished personally, by reporting the matter to authorities, or by hiring others to accomplish the rescue. The obligation holds until the victim has been fully extricated from the dangerous predicament.
A child must be removed from the home if he/she is in imminent danger of abuse. The welfare of the child supersedes any right the parent may claim; this is a guiding principle in Jewish legal thinking in the area of child custody. Even if removal from the parental home would lead to the child's placement in a foster home or institution which is not Torah-observant, this does not violate "You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind" (Lev. 19:14). The physical safety of the child supersedes all other considerations.
An abusive teacher must be removed from the classroom. We have policies in our day schools which remove a religious studies teacher who has violated Shabbat or other ritual practices; it would be absurd to refuse to remove a child abuser from the classroom. Not only must abusive teachers be removed, but their identities must be made known throughout the entire system of schools in order to prevent future abuse of other children.
The obligation to save those who are sexually abused is even more stringent. A parent or teacher who has intercourse with a child is considered a rodef and must be stopped, even if that means killing him. Although one who molests children without genital penetration does not technically come under the category of rodef, he/she is actually considered a rodef because of the psychological trauma and depression the abuse causes the child.
In addition to the halachic requirements of pikuach nefesh and stopping a rodef, dina de-malkhuta dina (the law of the land is the law, as long as it does not transgress Jewish law) also applies, as many jurisdictions require anyone who works with children to report suspicions of abuse.
Discussing or reporting an alleged abuser is not lashon hara (gossip). On the contrary, where after careful evaluation of the evidence it is believed that abuse has occured, it is a mitzvah to inform others so as to protect them and their families from possible harm. Withholding such information is tantamount to withholding testimony in a court of law. The obligation to reveal the information holds 1) even outside of court proceedings, 2) even if the informer is the sole source of information, 3) even if the statement is based solely upon hearsay, and 4) even if the abuser promises not to harm anyone else.
Civil Authorities And Chilul Hashem
Jewish law prohibits adjudication by Jews in non-Jewish courts. Many explain that the prohibition of mesirah, reporting a fellow Jew to civil authorities, is for the purpose of privileging the Jewish legal system over others'. All legal matters concerning Jews should be redressed in a Jewish court according to Jewish law. However, there are many reasons why this prohibition does not apply in the case of child abuse.
Mesirah was prohibited because of the nature of autocratic governments under which Jews lived throughout much of history. Such informing often led to persecution of the entire Jewish community. This does not apply in the Western world today.
The prohibition of mesirah applies only when testimony assists civil authorities in illegally obtaining the money of a Jew, not when it aids a non-Jewish government in fulfilling rightful duties such as collecting taxes and punishing criminals. The ban does not apply to criminal activities of Jews, as long the as the crime also violates Torah law and even if the punishment will be more severe than the Torah prescribes.
If Jewish authorities do not have the power to punish a criminal, the civil authorities must do so. Our rabbinic courts today have neither the power nor the authority to handle such matters.
Mesirah is permissible in the case of a public menace, and child abusers and molesters clearly endanger the welfare of many children.
There is thus no chilul Hashem in publicizing a Jewish child abuser and resorting to non-Jewish courts. In fact, to not report or testify about such abuse would be chilul Hashem. If such information is concealed and later made public, it would create an even greater chilul Hashem. Yoma 86b maintains that "one should expose hypocrites to prevent the desecration of the Name."
Proposals
Schools, synagogues, and youth organizations must adopt policies which mandate the dismissal of abusive teachers and childcare workers from their positions, and the notification of future potential employers of the circumstances of their dismissal.
It must be publicized that it is a mitzvah to report a child abuser to the civil authorities. All interested parties must cooperate, including testifying in a civil court of law. The Rabbinical Council of America should either authorize its Bet Din or establish a special Bet Din to hear cases of alleged abuse and to make appropriate recommendations.
Synagogues and schools should run programs which educate parents, teachers, and youth workers to recognize the signs of possible abuse. Curricula must be developed for our schools to train children in how to recognize abuse and avoid it.
Clinics and other resources should be established to aid the abused who seek help and to provide help for the abusers in order to prevent future incidents.
By Rabbi Emily Feigenson (Rabbi Emily Feigenson is the rabbi of Adat Chaverim in Los Alamitos, CA.)
Union of American Hebrew Congregations - December 24, 1996
http://uahc.org/torah/issue/961124.shtml#RAPE
In the tale of the rape of Dinah (Genesis 33:18 - 34:31) the Torah gives an astonishingly clear picture of people's confusion in responding to rape. People are especially confounded when the rapist feels affection for his victim.
Similar ambivalence characterizes contemporary society's responses to rapes that occur in the context of a relationship and/or affection: Date rape and marital rape are examples of forced sex in which affection can exist before or after the abuse. The perpetrator's affection confounds those who attempt to respond to the violation. There are parents like Jacob: When a son-in-law offers a daughter financial security along with the occasional abuse, they remain silent and hopeful. There are men like Shechem, who give sincere gifts of affection to the women they have attacked. There are those like Dinah's brothers, who hope a relationship that initially includes violence will ultimately evolve into a healthy marriage. And there are women like Dinah: Having ventured into the world and been attacked, they are left silent amidst the whirlwind of people's reactions.
1. Explore each character's response to the mixture of violation and affection; organize a choral reading of the passage. Assign all the roles, including that of a narrator. Other participants stand in back of each role to give voice to that person's internal fears, reactions, feelings, thoughts. Listen carefully for the way Jacob, Shechem, Simon/Levi, other brothers, and Dinah comprehend the meaning of the rape.
2. In their book From Generation to Generation, Rabbis Mowshowitz and Orenstein note that the rabbis of Bereshit Rabbah assign blame not only to the rapist but also to others: Jacob's passivity, Dinah's brothers' duplicity and uncontrolled anger, and Dinah's dress and going out are all criticized. Discuss the ways society blames people other than the perpetrator. Is it appropriate to blame those who stand silent in the face of abuse? Should the victim share responsibility for the breakdown of civility?
3. Clearly the rape is seen as something very wrong in the Torah. How does each character attempt to "fix" the sexual violence, to make the world right again? Examine contemporary ways of making the world right again after a rape, including the use of the mikveh for new cleansing rituals for sexual abuse victims.
For Further Reading:
Women and Jewish Law, Rachel Biale, New York: Schocken Books, 1984.
Board of Jewish Education (BJE) rabbi honored for
role in fight against child abuse
By Joshua Brandt
Jewish Bulletin - August 25, 2000
V.104; N.33 p. 10A
Last month, Rabbi Jay Miller of San Mateo became the first clergy member named to the President's Honor Roll of the American Professionals Society on the Abuse of Children.
His battle against child abuse began almost accidentally.
The year was 1976, and the then 29-year-old rabbi was invited by a friend to a San Diego symposium on issues concerning children. To say that Miller was surprised by the discussions that took place is an understatement.
"I had no idea that child abuse was going to be the subject," he recalled. "It was really gut-wrenching stuff, and I felt like bolting for the door."
But Miller opted to stay. And fighting child abuse has continued to be one of his prime concerns. Last month, Miller was acknowledged along with 10 other recipients by the APSAC, which has some 3,500 members.
The rabbi, who is the director of school services at the S.F.-based Bureau of Jewish Education, has been speaking out against child abuse for 24 years, serving as a link between faith-based agencies and social service providers. He also chairs the clergy committee of the California Office of Child Abuse Prevention.
Over the years, Miller has seen a pronounced increase in media coverage on child abuse..
"There used to be a quest for acceptance that motivated people to keep things within the community -- whether that community was Jewish, African-American, Asian or otherwise," said Miller. "But all we have to do is look at [vice presidential candidate Joseph] Lieberman to see that Jewish issues are now national issues."
In addition, he said, the prevailing belief in the 1970s was that people of faith couldn't possibly be abusers.
"The thought was that a religious person wouldn't do something horrible like that," he said. "It was as if a religious person who abused children suffered from some deep clinical problems -- everything was shoved under the rug."
Miller said the Jewish community's acknowledgement of child abuse has grown tremendously -- although the dialogue is still lacking a clerical voice.
"I think I'm one of the few rabbis openly talking about this issue," said Miller, who served as the rabbi for campus Hillels in Miami and San Diego for 20 years.
"And there aren't too many other religious leaders attacking the problem."
Some of Miller's most fulfilling moments occur when he addresses the issue of child abuse from a pulpit.
"Every once in a while, I have people come forth from the audience who tell me they were molested when they were children. It's a real breakthrough for them -- something that they can share in the deepest of confidences," he said.
"We need to make sure that we're a community that's supportive of people that have gone through those experiences."
Additionally, Miller has a good vantage point for combating "toxic theology," which he said can perpetuate abuse.
"There's a history of biblical scriptures being quoted out of context on the subject," said Miller. "The whole `spare the rod -- spoil the child' concept is taken far too literally."
Nonetheless, he said, "there isn't a religion in existence that doesn't recognize the imperative need to protect a community's children."
By Marilyn Silverstein
Jewish Exponent May 30, 1996
V.199; N.22 p. 10
A power imbalance exists in all helping relationships, but especially in the relationships between ministers or rabbis and their congregants, said Rev. Dr. Wally Fletcher.
"[These] relationships are based upon an implied promise that the minister or rabbi will only use...their power to be of help to the client and for no purpose based on benefiting themselves," said Fletcher, a psychotherapist and Presnyterian minister, who is director of consulting services for the Samaritan Counseling Center in Ambler.
"And since the minister or rabbi is in a position of power, there is another implied promise," he stressed. "We, by virtue of our role, accept full responsibility for what occurs - especially in maintaining boundaries and preventing abuse."
Fletcher was addressing his remarks to some 20 rabbis, cantors, chaplains and other Jewish professionals attending a recent daylong conference, "Preventing Sexual Abuse: A Conference for Rabbis and Cantors," at the Germantown Jewish Center.
Appropriate boundaries
The conference, sponsored by the Board of Rabbis of Greater Philadelphia, explored the responsibilities of religious leaders in maintaining appropriate boundaries with congregants and in preventing sexual misconduct by their employees, their volunteers and themselves.
Keynoting the conference with Fletcher was Rabbi Julie R. Spitzer, regional director of the Reform movement's union of American Hebrew Congregations is New York and a leading educator in the Jewish community on the subject of clergy sexual abuse.
The program also featured presentations by Fredda Satinsky and Jonathan Harmon, assistant director and director of social services, respectively, of Federation Day Care Services, a constituent of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.
Satinsky and Harmon outlined the proactive training program designed by FDCS to prevent abusive behavior against the approximately 1,000 children the agency cares for at its 14 sites.
"If people walk out of here just thinking about the issue...I will feel we have accomplished something," Satinsky observed.
Rabbi Sanford H. Hahn, interim executive director of the Board of Rabbis, agreed.
"We saw this as a priority item," Hahn said in an interview.
"I think what motivated our getting into this was the disclosure of a number of cases in the area in which rabbis were involved, and the awareness that there are problems of sexuality among Jewish professionals vis-a-vis their clientele."
The Board of Rabbis sees the issue of preventing sexual abuse in religious contexts as an essential part of its educational program for clergy, Hahn added.
"It's also to make the public aware that we're not putting it under the rug," the rabbi said. "The public is eager to see this. I think they want to see there's response in the Jewish community to handle a rather delicate issue."
Spitzer called upon the gathering to be mindful of the vulnerabilities of those to whom they minister.
"We are engaged very often in a very intimate way with those in our congregations," she said. "We always have to take a step back and remind ourselves of our responsibility to maintain the boundaries in those types of relationships.
`A sacred trust'
"I think to think of this as a sacred trust," the rabbi continued. "It really is a sacred responsibility when we are in the role of rabbi or cantor in our institutional settings."
The sacredness is rooted in the concept of b'tselem Elohim, Spitzer observed - the biblical idea that we are all created in the image of God.
"The kiddusha (holiness) inherent in each individual makes it our responsibility to protect the sanctity of the other," she said. "With a word or a touch, we can do a great deal of harm as well as a great deal of good."
Certain things exacerbate the power imbalance between clergy and their congregants, said Fletcher, a member of the Ethics Committee of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors.
"When the minister or rabbi is male and the congregant is female, we can't ignore... the cultural power imbalance between men and women," the minister said.
"This ups the ante in these relationships."
Adding to the potential for abuse in clergy-congregant relationships, according to Fletcher, is the special access clergy members have to people in times of high vulnerability - times of illness, death and divorce.
"Another thing that ups the ante is that vulnerable people often see security in congregations," he said. "Part of our religious tradition is this ethic of caring about the oppressed.
"We open our doors. We say, `Come in. You can be safe here.' The tremendous violation that occurs when someone abuses that promise is tremendously tragic for everyone."
Fletcher also cautioned those gathered to be aware of how easy it is to mistake religious longings for erotic feelings.
"[Both] have to do with core issues of dependency, of being held, of being cared about, of acceptance," he said. "They go to primal levels of our experience."
Themes of sexuality
In religious art music, for example, "themes of sexuality are sort of all over the place," Fletcher observed.
"We sort of intuitively sense this connection and see it explored in art and literature. I think it's a very important issue. It's an area that needs more work."
As the session broke for lunch, Rabbi Marc Margolius, religious leader of Congregation Beth Am Israel in Penn Valley, said he believes everyone in the Jewish community needs to work on the issue of sexual abuse.
"The Jewish community has been behind the curve in understanding the boundaries we've been talking about," Margolius said.
"I think there's been a lot of denial about domestic abuse, substance abuse, sexual abuse. The first step is to own up to it."
Yael Shuman, executive director of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, said she was at the conference to expand her understanding of the issue of clergy sexual abuse.
"I think there's a very honest, very determined attitude about dealing with these issues in the Reconstructionist movement," Shuman said. "We're very committed to not ignoring what's there and really dealing with it.
"It's important for the safety of our congregants and the safety of Jews everywhere."