The British Press on How Jews Deal with Abuse

The Guardian-
Catholicism doesn't have a monopoly on child abuse scandals, as the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community has discovered


The uncovering of sexual abuse perpetrated by religious leaders in the Catholic church is mirrored within the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community. As with the Catholic church, where the abuse was uncovered early on in the US, institutional child sexual abuse is starting to be prosecuted in New York. And as with the Catholic church, which has begun to change its stance on prosecuting priests, ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders are beginning to permit the reporting to police of these crimes. As with the Catholic church, Jewish victim support groups and advocates have brought these crimes to the public's attention. The question is whether, as with the Catholic church, this is far too little far too late.

A little known Jewish law called mesira, found in the Talmud with some scriptural support, forbids a Jew from reporting another Jew to the gentile authorities. The law was in response to non-Jewish governments whose courts were staffed by antisemites. According to Jewish leaders, those courts looked for any excuse to find against a Jew. Many rabbis took a rather dim view of gentile legal processes, advocating that their courts were flawed, antisemitic and less capable than Jewish courts. Mesira essentially allowed Jewish courts to retain control over all disputes, ensuring that religious law prevailed.

In today's society, where there are proper, transparent and just courts of law, the law of mesira has largely been abandoned. Most Jewish communities recognise the legal system of the countries where they live; saving relatively few disputes, mostly centring on religious issues such as divorce, for the Jewish courts. However, the ultra-Orthodox communities still use mesira to prohibit any Jew being reported to the non-Jewish authorities.

As can be imagined, this is a pretty dangerous stance to take, particularly in terms of violent criminals. Perpetrators of, for example, domestic violence, child abuse, or sexual crimes, are often protected by the ultra-Orthodox communities and dealt with "in-house". They are sometimes beaten up by the self-appointed Jewish "police", and often moved to areas where there is no knowledge of their crimes.

Perpetrators of child sexual abuse within ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities have been afforded similar protection to Catholic priests. Rabbis have continued to teach, in their own or in new institutions.Yehuda Kolko allegedly had his crimes covered up by the Yeshiva Torah Temima school where he taught for over 25 years. Communities have shielded fugitives, such as Nachman Stal, who fled charges in Israel and was protected for almost a decade by the North London ultra-Orthodox community.

As with the Catholic church, silencing the victims has kept secret, at least from the wider public, ongoing abuse within ultra-Orthodox Jewish institutions. Various Jewish laws have been twisted and misused to threaten victims with divine retribution for reporting crimes. Families are told that their other children will not be given suitable matches for marriage, or won't be accepted by good schools, if the boat is rocked. Similar threats of communal ostracism were used by the Catholic church in Ireland to silence the many people who knew of abuse in Christian Brothers' institutions.

Within many closed, religious communities there is fear of communal repercussions, religious leaders, and ultimately of God. Fears are exploited to allow grave crimes to be covered up, and to continue within religious institutions. Motives of religious leaders may be hard to prove, but there are clear financial incentives as well as issues of power and control that have influenced the positions taken towards perpetrators of child sexual abuse.

There are huge financial implications for admitting abuse and permitting court cases. In the US alone, the Catholic church has paid over $2.5bn to victims. Little wonder then that ultra-Orthodox rabbis opposed New York's Markey bill which sought to extend the statute of limitations for criminal and civil cases about child sexual abuse. Now that abuse is coming to light, the financial implications could be devastating for institutions that covered up allegations and continued to employ abusers.

Similarly, leaders, seeking retain a tight grip of control over their communities, covered up scandals to avoid schisms, splits or defections. Yet these tactics have backfired. In silencing victims and protecting perpetrators, these religious communities face a crisis beyond anything they could have imagined.

As in the Catholic church, things are starting to change in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish world. Top rabbis, such as Rav Elyashiv, have come out in support of reporting abuse to the police. Indeed, they have emphasised that prosecution is necessary to keep communities safe and to protect children. Self-appointed Jewish "police" in Flatbush have now told their community to report all abuse directly to the gentile police. Clearly, the ultra-Orthodox Jewish world is learning from the recent spate of cases, the Catholic church's experience, and listening to the victims. But can it be enough to say that the institutions will change only once the scandals have broken, or is a Catholic-style crisis of faith about to hit the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community?

When to Turn Away Students from Orthodox Schools

Emes Ve'emunah


What should the parameters be for accepting a child into a religious school? 

What if a parent pulls a child out of an Orthodox day school sends that child to a Conservative day school to finish elementary school and then applies to an Orthodox high school? Should the school accept the child? I have been told by an acquaintance that this happened to a parent. The parent was told that there were other reasons for denying but she denies that there were. She ended up sending her child to a public school. 


There are several issues here. Is public school a better alternative than sending a child to a religious elementary school where heretical ideas are accepted? On the one hand I would think such a school is forbidden. On the other hand, I would think that in the lower grades where there is no discussion about those ideas and only the basics are taught, it might be better than a public school where there is hardly a trace of Judaism with the possible exception of Chanukah as a co- holiday with Christmas.


One thing is certain. If a child attends a Solomon Schechter elementary school and then an Orthodox high school, there is a far greater chance of successfully integrating into the religious community – since the basics will have been learned. On the other hand it is possible that the seeds of a heretical idea may have somehow been planted into a child’s mind and that can warp essential Jewish belief in the future – and possibly expose others to those thoughts.(Continued...)

Taking the Rabbis to Church: Learning a Lesson on Dealing with Abuse

WE MIGHT HOPE to be be frummer than the Pope, but we're certainly not infallible. And we might even stand to learn a thing or two from the European Catholic Church when it comes to soul searching.


As reports of sexual abuse by catholic clergy continue to sweep through Europe, so do the searches for answers. What is remarkable about these inquiries is their boldness—how deep they are willing to look for the causes of the abuses and how high up they are willing to look for who is responsible. 


A German investigation that has come increasingly close to the pope has resulted in a senior church official’s acknowledgment that an archdiocese there, while the pope was its archbishop, made “serious mistakes” in handling an abuse case. In Austria, two leading archbishops’ calls for an “unflinching examination” of the roots of the problem of priests abusing children have brought them to question the very institution of priest celibacy and the issue of celibate priests’ “personality development.” As the Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schönborn stressed in a recent article, it is time to acknowledge that this examination “requires a great deal of honesty, both on the part of the church and of society as a whole.”
 
COMPARE THAT response to the one offered by the Orthodox leadership, and it begins to seem like some confession might be in order. 


It has been nearly four months since Agudah's Chaim Dovid Zwiebel acknowledged to the press and before a packed convention hall that the way that sexual abuse is dealt with in the Charedi (so-called "Ultra-Orthodox") community must change. During that time, the lack of substantive action toward that end has all but confirmed what advocates had warned at the time: that those words were just that and nothing more.  


As Survivors for Justice's Ben Hirsch points out, even the government seems to be more concerned about abuse in our community than our own leaders. Even as Governor Patterson approved $500,000 for Orthodox abuse victims, our rabbonim have remained silent. 



IN AN AGE when our leaders are being bullied and mislead, standing up to a defensive and complacent public is a difficult task, especially when it pertains to such an ugly truth. But, those in the community who recognize the seriousness of this issue must demand more of our leaders, both our "sarei mei'ot," our shul rabbis and menahalim, and our "sarei alaphim," the gedolim and prominent leaders. 

Parents must ask their principals why they haven't adopted the Torah U'Mesorah guidelines for dealing with reports of abuse in schools. (Unless, you happen to be dealing with the ONE school that has actually adopted them. Of course, these guidelines are only a small start, but they are something!) Congregants must ask their rabbonim what their protocols are for reporting abuse to the police and for supporting those who come forth and their families. If they have none, then why not? 

We do not have to resort to angry finger-pointing. But we do, as individuals and as a community, have to make ourselves heard. We cannot continue throwing our hands up and hiding behind the gravity of the issue. Until the community and its leaders establish and uphold viable policies for dealing with the abuse in our midst, we will be left with a vacuum that will only continue to foster denial, secrecy, and the invalidation of reporters and victims.

IN HIS OPENING REMARKS at the Agudah convention, R' Zweibel quoted Rav Elya Svei as saying of our times, "The problems are becoming greater and greater, and the [number of] people to deal with the problems are becoming smaller and smaller." That might be true, but it can no longer be an excuse. It's time to confess that our community's handling of sexual abuse has been flawed and must be changed. Each of us, leaders and laymen alike, have to step up the efforts toward a safe and supported community. For the problems may be great now, but I shudder to think what they will become the day that we stop trying to fight them.

The Real Story of Purim

by Rabbi R. Y. Eisenman (Reprinted from his daily "Short Vort" e-mail)

My son was asking a riddle on Purim. The riddle, which of course was being told in jest, went as follows: Why did Haman want to kill all the Jews if it was only Mordechai who was guilty of not standing in the presence of Haman? The answer my son offered in jest was: Haman was not in the mood to receive 49,000 emails from Jews all over the world. It was therefore simpler to just kill all the Jews.

The reference which the riddle covertly refers to is of course the unfortunate episode of the execution of Mr. Martin Grossman which occurred the week before Purim and the attempt of Jewish leaders to rally 50,000 people to email the governor for a pardon. If you find the riddle humorous or not is not my concern; if you involved yourself in the campaign on behalf of Mr. Grossman is also not germane to this Short Vort. However, what is important is my son’s question.

Indeed, why did Haman want to kill all the Jews? After all, it was only Mordechai who was insubordinate to him? What was the reason Haman had to kill all the Jews? I could not get the question out of my mind the entire Purim and Shushan Purim. I was aware and recognized that Chazal felt that this was indicative of the anti-Semitic attitude of Amalek and is a manifestation of the concept “Eisav Sonei Yakov”- Eisav hates Yakov (the Jewish people). However, on a simple text level, why did Haman want to kill all the Jews? Indeed, from the Megillah it seems clear that Mordechai was an individual with little if any popular support. The verse states: "All the royal officials at the king's gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him. But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor." (3:2) It seems clear that only Mordechai was not being compliant to Haman; why the need to kill all the Jews?

Let us take a step back and ask and even more basic question. What did Haman care so much that Mordechai refused to bow and kneel down to him? Obviously the simple answer is that Haman feared that Mordechai’s insubordination could spread and ultimately undermine his power. However, if so, the question returns, why didn’t Haman just kill off Mordechai? If he was able to convince the king to obliterate an entire nation, he certainly should not have had much resistance on the part of Achashveirus to kill off one Jew; especially one who is so flagrantly disobeying the prime minister’s decrees! 

Indeed, the decree had the backing of the king himself as the verse states:

"All the royal officials at the king's gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him. But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor." (3:2) If so the question becomes stronger and stronger: Why did Haman want, or need to kill off all the Jews? Why not kill Mordechai himself and all would be fine? The other Jews were not bothering Haman. Indeed, they were subservient and docile, why mix them in? 

Inside the Mind of Haman

The answer is the following. Haman mixed in all the Jews to his hatred of Mordechai was not because Mordechai was an excuse to kill his real enemies; namely, all the Jews. No, quite the opposite; the reason Haman mixed in all the Jews was to cover up his real and only enemy, Mordechai. Meaning, Haman’s accusations against all the Jews were simply a smoke screen to get at his real and only enemy- Mordechai.

"Please run that by me again."

Here we go.

Haman was using the Jewish people as a veil to conceal his true intent, namely to destroy and kill Mordechai; not the other way around.

I don’t get it. If Haman only wanted to destroy Mordecai, why not kill him right away?

Why did Haman use the ruse of:

"There is a certain people dispersed and scattered among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom whose customs are different from those of all other people and who do not obey the king's laws; it is not in the king's best interest to tolerate them. If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy them, and I will put ten thousand talents of silver into the royal treasury for the men who carry out this business."?

If his real intent was just to kill Mordechai, why not tell the king to kill Mordechai right away? The answer is because Haman could not do that. The king would not have agreed.

Why not? Let’s go back in time.

Haman and Mordechai were once both officers in the army of Achashveirus. Achashveirus had distributed money for the officers. Haman- being a person who always needed immediate gratification- spent his money on his carnal needs right away. Later in the campaign when Haman was broke and needed bread, he came begging to Mordechai for his basic needs: bread and water. Mordechai, who conserved and saved his provisions, would only agree to supply Haman with his needs if Haman would agree to enslave himself to Mordechai. Haman agreed and even signed a document testifying to the sale. (Yalkut Shemoni; Esther; Remez 1,056)

Therefore, Mordechai was not being haughty or hubris-like by not bowing to Haman. After all, as the Talmud teachers, ‘whatever a slave acquires, his master acquires’ (Pesachim 88b). Mordechai was legally correct in not bowing to Haman. Therefore Haman could never just ask Achashveirus to kill Mordechai (although eventually his irrational hatred would finally convince him to do just that- to his own demise). If Haman would ask Achashveirus just to kill Mordechai, the king would ask why. Even a superficial investigation would reveal the deep dark secret of Haman; and Haman not Mordechai would be humiliated. 

As does any abuser of power and of people, Haman had to divert attention from himself by discrediting his intended victim and his victim’s family! By discrediting the entire Jewish people, Haman would be successfully diverting attention from himself, while simultaneously showing how Mordechai is a product of an entirely dysfunctional family unit that has to be destroyed.This is why he claims: "There is a certain people dispersed and scattered among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom whose customs are different from those of all other people”; in other words, they are one big dysfunctional family unit!

Haman is the ultimate abuser. It makes no difference if the abuser is a pedophile, a wife beater, a controlling spouse or parent; the modus operandi is always identical. The abuser realizes that the victim knows a secret evil which the abuser has committed. In the case of Haman, he knew that Mordechai was aware of his sordid past as one who had squandered the king’s wages and that as he was not a respectable prime minister; but rather a despicable and lowly servant of Mordechai.

In a case of pedophilia, only the child knows that the ostensibly respected authority figure is in truth a lowly and basely beastly worthless low life; notwithstanding the abusers standing in the professional world. In the case of spousal or child abuse, it is the spouse or child who knows the secret evil which the ‘respected’ spouse and or parent are perpetuating in the privacy of the home.

However, one thing is always the same as it was with Haman. Just as Haman realized that in order to buttress his attack on Mordechai, he had to distract attention from his crimes through intimidation by discrediting his victim and the victim’s family by declaring the supposed dysfunctionality of the entire Jewish people, so does today’s pedophile attempt to distract attention from himself by claiming that the victim and/or their family are dysfunctional, strange and that they are the real criminals. Although Mordechai and the entire Jewish people were always loyal citizens to the crown, this did not deter Haman from claiming that Mordechai and indeed the entire Jewish people are ‘different’ from everyone else.

So too, the abuser will always attempt to discredit the victim and their family. By discrediting the victim’s family he hopes to silence his true enemy, the victim. I can recall in dealing with various cases of abuse, how the abuser would attempt to discredit the victim’s family by claiming exaggerated and outright false accusations against the victim and their entire family. This is nothing less then the evil legacy of Haman. The case against the Jewish people was nothing more than the modern day’s abuser attempt to create a smoke screen which simultaneously attempts to deflect attention from the abuser and their hideous deeds and discredit the victim by defaming the family of the victim.

However, ultimately, Haman is undone by himself. Ultimately, Haman cannot even wait until Adar when- by order of the king- he and everyone will be allowed to kill the Jews. After Haman sees Mordechai once more he is filled with rage and anger. Let’s see the episode inside the Megillah:

"Haman went out that day happy and in high spirits. But when he saw Mordecai at the king's gate and observed that he neither rose nor showed fear in his presence, he was filled with rage against Mordecai. Nevertheless, Haman restrained himself and went home. Calling together his friends and Zeresh, his wife, Haman boasted to them about his vast wealth, his many sons, and all the ways the king had honored him and how he had elevated him above the other nobles and officials. "And that's not all," Haman added. "I'm the only person Queen Esther invited to accompany the king to the banquet she gave. And she has invited me along with the king tomorrow. But all this gives me no satisfaction as long as I see that Jew Mordecai sitting at the king's gate. His wife Zeresh and all his friends said to him, "Have a gallows built, seventy-five feet high, and ask the king in the morning to have Mordecai hanged on it. Then go with the king to the dinner and be happy." This suggestion delighted Haman, and he had the gallows built. (Chapter five)

Haman states: “But all this gives me no satisfaction as long as I see that Jew Mordecai sitting at the king's gate.” Why is that? Why is it that “all this gives me no satisfaction as long as I see that Jew Mordechai sitting at the king’s gate”? This is strange; after all, Mordechai would have been wiped out based on the king’s decree that all Jews will be killed by Adar. Why couldn’t Haman let matters take their natural course and wait until the following Adar when Mordechai will be killed along with the other Jews? The answer is found in the words: “as long as I see that Jew Mordechai sitting at the king’s gate”.

As long as Mordechai was seen by Haman, Haman could no longer contain himself for even one more day. Why not? Mordechai represents the deep dark secret of Haman. Mordechai who represents the ‘victim’ is the only person on the face of the Earth who knows about Haman’s murky past. He is the only one who stands in the way of his further climb on the ladder of power and fame. As long as Mordechai is alive and well, Haman the abuser is never safe. He cannot claim he is great, wonderful and honorable without being contested. As long as that one person is still alive and well, Haman’s plans for grandeur could be stifled at any minute. Mordechai must be silenced and must be silenced today!

Although Haman had hoped by discrediting and destroying the entire Jewish people, Mordechai would also be destroyed; he could not wait the eleven months, his evil mind would not let him rest. This is the typical of the pedophile and of the abuser. When attempts at distracting attention from the crime by discrediting the family are not sufficient, the abuser becomes a caged animal who will stop at nothing to destroy his prey. 

However, these efforts at destroying Mordechai were ultimately what led to the downfall of Haman; as on the exact tree which he prepared for Mordechai he was hung. So too as well, last ditch attempts by abusers to destroy the credibility of the victims will be their undoing. I recall the historic event we had at the Shul on Erev Yom Kippur when brave victims of abuse stood up and declared unabashedly: "'Who is he? Where is the man who has dared to do such a thing?' And Esther said, 'The adversary and enemy is this vile Haman.'"(7:5, 6)  

After the event there were those who attempted to protect the abusers. They called me and ‘reported’ to me how this victim is ‘unstable’ and that victim is ‘not normal’. However, as time has gone on, it has become clearer and clearer that everyone was indeed telling the truth and it was those who deny that such things are going on who were wrong. These last ditch attempt by the abuser or by his cohorts to destroy the victim will ultimately be their own demise as it was with Haman.

At the end of the day, truth and tzedek, justice, will reign.

Just as the Megillah ends on a happy note with Haman’s demise and Mordechai’s elevation, so too we daven that all abusers will be eliminated from our midst and the true victims will one day receive the recognition they truly deserve. 

Blaming the Victim: The "Catch-22" of Trauma

The U.S. military surrendered today, accepting for the first time the claims of thousands of combat veterans that they are finally, if you will, "crazy enough" for the army to care about. This seems like the right time to dust off an old, overused metaphor, if only out of solidarity for our young, overworked troops. 


Joseph Heller's eponymous "Catch-22" is an exasperating legal clause that keeps his protagonist, Yossarian, stuck in a war zone in which the ever-increasing mission requirements keep any soldier from being sent home. To escape the risk of being killed on the battlefield, after watching a friend die in his arms, Yossarian tries to get discharged by convincing the army that he is insane. The "Catch" is that it's the army that gets to decide if he is sane or not—the same army that is trapping him indefinitely to fight its gruesome war—and to them, if he is sane enough to claim insanity to avoid the line of fire, then he is too sane for discharge. 


For the last six years, our own, "real life," military has been pushing traumatized soldiers into an illogical double-bind of its own in which traumatized soldiers were considered too disabled to be useful to the army but not disabled enough to deserve being helped with benefits pay after their discharge. A  "Catch-22" for the 2010's: soldiers terrorized by the war on terror are left to suffer on their own homeland by a cynical military that cuts them and runs.
   
Until now. Over the next few days, under pressure from a court order in a class action law suit, the army will be notifying 4,300 veterans that they might be able to adjust their benefits, in some cases by hundreds of dollars each month. 


This reversal of policy is worth cheering on its own, but it's also important to us because of the way it so vividly brings into focus the illogical cruelty of an organization or community that turns its back on its trauma victims. When we withhold our assistance from victims—whether because of some policy or some fear—and place the burden of healing squarely on the victims, we tell them not only that we don't care, but also that if they don't magically "make it through" then they have only themselves to blame. 


This is a cruel way for anyone to treat a person in distress. The more so when those pointing the finger have a share in the responsibility for that person's pain. Like the army—on whose missions the soldiers became traumatized to begin with—our communities themselves have helped to develop some of the traumas our members face. The single component of a trauma experience that has the greatest impact on the victim's ultimate level of traumatic stress and prognosis for emotional recovery is that person's experience NOT with the event itself, but with the first reporting of it. A child who reports an abuse event to a teacher only to be rebuffed and isolated will likely become traumatized far more profoundly than would the same child under the same circumstances who is taken seriously and supported when he or she reports.


That makes communities that are unsupportive of trauma victims no better than the army that sends its troops out into the line of trauma and dumps them when they get hit. In fact, it makes us worse. For, unlike the military, when we share in the traumatization of our children it's not because there is a war being waged that someone needs to fight. No, when community leaders turn their backs on our children it is simply because they choose not to deal with them. 


Until our community gets truly serious about developing policies for handling abuse claims in a responsible and humane manner, we will be perpetuating our own "Catch-22," waiting to ensnare anyone with the courage to come forward with a claim. The choice that we offer: either stay quiet and continue to be traumatized as you have until now, or come forward and become traumatized by a whole new set of perpetrators that you thought were on your side.


Now that's crazy.