Originally published 7/24/11, 5:53 pm.
I recently received an email that directed me to the Survivors for Justice site, which presented what would seem to be the position of R. Shmuel Kamenetsky and the Agudah that one must check with a rabbi before reporting child abuse to the authorities.
In response, SFJ attacks the Agudah position and calls upon its lay and rabbinic leadership to retract it. In this regard, they further quote Rav Elyashav who states that one must report abusers to the authorities.
Something, though, did not make sense. In the first place, on sensitive matters of this nature, the charedi world is usually very cautious about presenting disagreements. I further found it difficult to believe that the Agudah would advocate any position contrary to R. Elyashav. I then listened to the recording that SFJ had of R. Kamenetsky's words.
What I heard R. Kamenetsky say was somewhat different than the way it was reported. True, he did say that a person should consult a rav but the tone was, in my opinion, somewhat different. He also seemed to make some comment about those under a legal obligation to report, implying that they had to follow the law to report. It would seem that R. Kamenetsky was simply saying that one, before reporting, should practice some introspection and make sure that there indeed was a basis for reporting any incident to the authorities.
There is no doubt that an abuser must be reported but there would also seem to be an obligation to ensure that the one you are accusing is actually worthy of the accusation. Don't just go on hearsay. Speak to a rav -- or another intelligent person -- to think about it. There is no doubt that if you have clear evidence, you have to go to the police.
The problem is when you have to make a judgement call in the situation -- of course you have to report an abuser but make sure to the best of your ability that you are not reporting an innocent man. Whether R. Kamenetsky used the term rav or not, that seemed to be what he was saying.
And it also seemed to be what R. Elyashav was also saying. There was no real machloket. The fact is that this really is a sensitive issue -- and I pray that I never have to be in a situation where I would have to make such a judgement call. The strange thing is that I actually would also call some other rabbonim -- not to get permission but to talk it out.
I, of course, would not want to let an abuser escape but I would also not want to accuse an innocent person. Would I apply the standard to the secular criminal system -- beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly not, but I would think about. And that is all that I think is really being said.
But then why all the rhetoric? It would seem that this simple understanding of the words of poskim is not the general understanding -- and I must wonder why not? It seems somewhat sensible. The problem is the language that is used and the further reaction that is found in the response to this language.
The statement consult a rav is not understood to simply mean -- consult a rav . Talk about it with somewhat whom you respect, who can help you further contemplate what to do honestly, sensitively and intellectually. On one side, it is understood to mean -- let someone else make your decision. And on the other side, the reaction is: no I can make my own decision.
No doubt SFJ is responding to all those who yell that someone has to consult a rav before going to the police within a declaration of don't make your own decision. In turn, though, it seems to be responding with another simple declaration -- make your own decision.
Why can't we just get together on this and simply put out a call to THINK. We should just want to make sure that if we are accusing someone of this crime, there is a basis. It should not be just gossip. On the other hand, we must take very seriously the consequences of not reporting some who is an abuser.
Maybe it really is not a bad idea to consult a rav -- after all isn't a rav supposed to be a wise person who can help you in a decision making process of this nature.
Of course, if the answer is so obvious (do you ask a rav if you can eat a Big Mac?), then there is no reason to consult a rav. But a little bit of self-doubt when appropriate would make sense.
That seems to be all that is really going on here. So why does it not seem to come out like that?
It really is a sad statement on how we view rabbanim for we do not see them anymore as wise people who can assist us in our contemplation of issues. That is really sad -- and can only lead to greater problems.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
2 comments:
I cannot speak for the legal situation in the US but in Canada suspicions of child abuse are reported to the Children's Aid Society or Family & Child Services. Based on what the person reporting says they decide whether an investigation is warranted and whether the police should be informed. The law is also reasonably clear: any suspicions are a basis for reporting including Person X coming in and saying that Person Y beats his child. We have a responsibility to report just that to the CAS and it is up to them to decide whether or not to investigate.
So no, "thinking" is not part of the legal process for reporting. However it certainly is part of the process for investigating.
I am wondering if you are speaking as a doctor. In that case, we are talking about suspicions based upon your examination and the removal of "thinking" at your level of reporting. I believe that R. Kamenetsky implies that this law is not to be challenged. The case I believe that he is talking about in terms of consulting a rav would not be such a case with such evidence -- i.e. direct evidence from a physician's investigation. What should someone, though, do if he/she thinks that his/her neighbout is abusive without any real tangible evidence similar to a doctor's examination? Do you go directly to JF&CS or do you speak to someone to get another person's perspective on the facts? I am not sure -- but that is the case and the rav is just simply another person with intelligence (hopefully).
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment