[Avodah] Sad Story: Let's Talk Tachlis

[Akiva Blum]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org 
> [mailto:avodah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Israel
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:38 AM
> To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
> Cc: Samuel Svarc
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.)
> 

Not so. There is a different benchmark for tzadikim as for benonim, and for
reshoim. Even where all the parties deserve DLZ, they are not necessarily in
equal measure.

> 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).

Then we should look at the claim itself, not individually, but whether the
problem exists within the community. We can still remain without any conclusion
as to the specific case.


> 
> 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.


How about, I have no idea if ploni is guilty or not, unless we have some sort of
reason to really believe he is innocent, then say that you actually think he's
innocent. It's the truth..


> 
> 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.

True, but if DLZ could also say innocent, as may be the case here, it would we
be an avla to suffice with 'mitigating factor'.


> 
> 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. 


In our case, it's not so much the evidence per se is so strong. Rather it is
based entirely on the credibility of the accusers. After all, non of us have
actually seen the evidence. So that just gets us back to DLZ.


 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 preferable). 
> 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.
> 

DLZ is always an issue of common sense. It is reasonable to assume that an
average religious Jew is not committing and aveira. Even if it appears that way,
common sense says to ignore what you see and factor in the likelihood of this
person doing an aveira. The Torah obligates us here in common sense. That's why
the benchmark is higher for a tzadik. Even if the evidence is heavily against
him, nevertheless, it makes more sense that what is really happening is a very
unlikely scenario.


Akiva