[Avodah] Sad Story: Let's Talk Tachlis

[Daniel Israel]

Over and over we seem to have the same discussion on A/A.  Some Jewish 
is accused of something (generally these discussion come up when the 
accused is frum).  One side goes through any contortions to be dan 
l'chaf zechus, regardless of the possible impact of the wrongdoing.  The 
other side cries, "Chillul HaShem," assuming that what is reported in 
the paper is basically true.

The unfortunate reality is that dealing with public reporting of 
wrongdoing by Jews is a shailah that comes up far too often, and it is 
not clearly dealt with in Sefer Chofetz Chaim, or in any other sources I 
am familiar with.  I think it is important for us to deal with it on a 
basic halachic level, rather than hashing through the same ad hominem 
arguments every time.

First, let's clarify what we are talking about.  When we read something 
in the newspaper, there is rarely much we can do about it, at least 
directly.  If a frum person is a judge or a police officer, he will 
encounter difficult shailos, which make a fascinating study, but which 
are theoretical do most of us, so I won't raise them here.

In those rare occasions when we are in a practical position to help (for 
example, someone personally reports to us information about a wrongdoing 
by someone whom we are in a position to intervene to stop), clearly we 
need to collect the facts, and then do what we can.  Preferably speaking 
to a Rav first, and, for those time critical cases, reviewing the 
appropriate halachos so we know what to do.  The basics for this 
situation are covered in Sefer Chofetz Chaim.

What about the most common case?  We read in the paper that a certain 
Jew is accused of wrongdoing.  We have no personal involvement, and 
there is essentially nothing we can do.  How should we respond?

The basic halacha is obviously that we must be dan l'chaf zechus, and 
assume the person is innocent.  Or, at least, that the accusation is 
exaggerated, that there is some innocent reason for the action, etc. 
However, this same obligation applies to all parties.  Meaning we also 
must be DLZ on the accuser, the police, the newspaper, etc.  (For the 
time being, assume everyone is Jewish.)

So is that it?  It would seem that this takes care of everything, all we 
need to do is internalize that we really have no reason to come to a 
conclusion about the vast majority of the accusations we hear.  However, 
I would suggest there are some other considerations.

First, while it may not be important to draw a conclusion regarding each 
individual, it is important to know how prevalent true versus false 
accusations are collectively.  We do need to be informed as to whether 
accusations against Jews broadly reflect anti-Jewish attacks (which we 
need to defend ourselves against, and which would have consequences for 
whether, for example, dina malchusa dina applies in that place) or 
reflect real problems in the Jewish community (which obligate us to try 
to fix ourselves).

Second, if when speaking to others (non-frum or non-Jewish) we always 
turn a blind eye to Jewish wrongdoing, this itself is a chillul HaShem. 
  In certain cases it may be possible to explain the concept of DLZ, in 
general if we always respond, "I don't believe Ploni is guilty," it 
sounds like we have no midah of tzedek.  Again, we have to find a way to 
reflect a realistic evaluation of the news media and the criminal 
justice system (with all there flaws, but also their real value) in our 
speech, without being oveir DLZ.

Third, I would like to hear some sources as to at what point, if any, 
media reports or decisions of a secular court in a just country can 
constitute enough evidence to overcome DLZ.  E.g. CC 8:7 talks about 
someone being established as a rasha based on reports, but is clearly 
not referring to witnessing first hand or the decision of beis din. 
Clearly the halacha does not require us to be DLZ to the point of being 
stupid.

Fourth, I want to point out that, as far as the case that sparked this 
thread, sometimes DLZ is not saying that the person didn't do what he 
was accused of, but that there is some mitigating factor.  In that 
light, saying someone has clinical psychiatric problems sometimes is 
being DLZ.

Finally, much of the recent discussion on Areivim centered on 
conflicting reports attributed on one side to a frum person, and on the 
other side to an aino-dati.  Leaving aside the question of whether the 
description of one side as not frum was fair, even in such a case, it is 
not black and white that we accept any statement of a frum person over 
that of a non-frum person.  First of all, from CC 3:7-8, it would seem 
that if the evidence of wrongdoing is very strong, one is not required 
to be DLZ m'ikar hadin, but should try to not be convinced of 
wrongdoing.  Second, even on a person who is a mumar, and who is outside 
of amisecha, it is therefore permitted to believe LH about them, and 
there is a mitzvah to be m'vazeh them for the purpose of keeping other 
from imitating them.  (I'm deliberately leaving out the whole tinok 
shenishba issue.)  However, there is no mitzvah to be dan l'chaf chov. 
In absence of a mitzvah of DLZ, one presumably falls back on common 
sense to evaluate their actions.  So in the case of conflicting reports 
from a frum and a non-frum person, it would seem that if the evidence is 
equivocal, one should be DLZ on the frum person (although if there is a 
way to view both positively, this would generally be preferrable). 
However, if the evidence looks much better for the non-frum person, it 
would seem to me it is entirely appropriate to suspect the frum person.

At least, that's how it looks to me.  I think this is a very important 
topic, and welcome further careful discussion of these halachos, 
especially if anyone is aware of sources.

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1 at cornell.edu