[Avodah] Reporting Child Abuse - A Clarification

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:27:15PM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
: Practically speaking, the only difference in their ruling for the
: lay public is whether a Rabbi must be called first before reporting
: first-hand knowledge or a reasonable suspicion of child abuse to the
: secular authorities.

... and if there is no immediate threat that can't wait the length
of the consultation.

There are also two versions of the Agudah statement. R Dr Klapper is
giving R' Zweibel's peshat. According to R' Shafran, if you harbor no
doubts, there is no need to go to a rav.

Also, the RCA also talks about consulting rabbis and professionals in
case of doubt.

The differance between the RCA and RAS's presentation of the Agudah's
position is more that one says "contact the police, consult with pros
and rabbis if you're unsure" and the other says, "contact your rabbi --
who presumably knows to consult professionals in the field -- unless
you are certain". A difference in tenor, and thus possibly in how the
instructions get followed lemaaseh.

BTW, it's leshitasam. MO, which sees Western Civ as tools for qedushah
first, and only then considers the risks involved, phrases it as calling
secular authorities unless you're in doubt. The norm is to work with
civil authorities (working with Western Civ), the need to ask a she'eilah,
the exception. The Agudah, which has the chareidi focus on Western Civ as
a challenge that once circumvented may still have some tools for avodas
Hashem, talks about speaking to a rav unless your sure. The shei'eilah
is the default, and only once checked does working with the Western Civ
authorities make sense.

Both are also very close to R' Meir Sternbuch's position, as presented
in RDEidensohn's sefer.

Changing tracks now to a 2nd sub-topic...

: There are other potential implications of the Agudah's ruling for mandated
: reporters, including Orthodox mental healts...

I don't understand why mandated reporting is all that relevent.

There are two conflicting sides: one the one hand, mesirah is a major
issue. OTOH, the risk to victims is a more primary issue, as is the
chiyuv of uvi'arta hara'ah miqirbekha. To quote citations posted on
his blog by RDEidensohn:

    Rav Yehuda Silman (Yeschurun volume 15 page 662):.... The commentaries
    explain that the obvious reason for not needing witnesses but they
    could rely even on circumstantial evidence is because this was
    not a court procedure to punish wrongdoers. Rather it was either
    done to obey the law of the kingdom or it was to stop someone from
    sinning. The Rashba is cited in the Beis Yosef that witnesses are
    not needed in such a case...". That is because we are concerned
    only with the knowledge of truth in order to stop the harm and to
    make protective measures against iniquity. Furthermore according to
    what I said that even a doubtful rodef is permitted to be killed,
    it is obvious that it is permitted for us to take protective action
    even if we have unresolved doubts.

and

    Similarly in BM 83. When Eliyahu complained that Rav Yosse was
    reporting Jews to the authorities and he replied that he was mandated
    to do so. Eliyahu didn't say that it was prohibited and therefore
    he should take the consequences. He just said to run away.

    There are poskim such as the Maharam Shick who say this is really
    not about the prohibition of moseir but rather about the propriety
    of squealing. The Maharam Shich says that we learn that a gadol
    doesn't do the reporting but that it is permitted for a lesser being.

Mima nafshach....

If there is sufficient risk / knowledge of ra'ah (uvi'arta hara'ah
miqirbekha) to matir any mesirah aspect, then one is chayav lehalakhah
to report even if not mandated.

And if the doubt is greater than that, or the abuse lesser, then it's
assur even if one is mandated by civil law. I would think the mandated
reporter would have to risk fines and jail.

Regardless of what you think the line is between those two possibilities,
AISI the halakhah ought to be the same whether or not it requires
violating civil law.

: In summary I will again quote Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, who can hardly
: be called a 'left-winger'. He recently wrote the following:
: 
:   It is time to forever bury the myth that reports of pedophilia can be
:   managed and dealt with by committees of rabbonim, even for a short
:   time. It is time to bury the myth that there is a serious halachic
:   barrier to going to authorities to deal with credible reports of such
:   behavior. Enough baalei halacha have told us that there is no barrier.

:   Choshen Mishpat 388:12 tells us that those who vex the public can
:   be handed over. Any pedophile does at least that, and poses a danger
:   of doing much more. Moreover, mesirah of a molester exposes him to a
:   safek of danger; pedophiles pose a much greater danger level to many
:   more victims.

This presumes the conclusion. Here all we're talking about is deciding
whether or not the claim of pedophilia is sufficiently based for RYA's
theory to apply to this particular incident.

Also, we're not talking about "managed and dealt with by committees of
rabbonim", but only deciding whether or not the threat is real enough to
warrant giving it to the civil authorities to manage and deal with. In
fact, the Agudah's statement's departure from status quo ante is that
they no longer expect the community to handle it themselves. Things were
reduced to only involving the rabbi to decide whether the accusation
is plausible enough to be acted upon. While some might feel the Agudah
didn't go far enough, they should realize that the Agudah's statement
is a huge step *toward* how they would like things to be.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
micha at aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine