Author Archives: Rabbi

     Let us posit that violence against innocent people, or damage to the property of other innocent people, is wrong, criminal and worthy of punishment. Such has been inculcated in all decent people since our earliest youth. Much has been made in the last few months of alleged “settler violence” against innocent Arab residents of Judea and Samaria and undoubtedly some of these alleged actions have occurred. Critics and moralists contend that this violence has threatened Israel’s international standing, ruined its good name, undermined the settlement enterprise and reflect the poor education and abandonment of Torah values by these Jewish miscreants.

       Less discussed, and seemingly less disturbing to these critics and moralists, have been the incessant attacks on innocent Jews and their property for many years, and something that persists on a daily basis. Hardly a day goes by without the stoning of Jewish vehicles, physical attacks on Jews, the burning of their fields and property and the encroachment on their (and state) land. The lawlessness in Judea and Samaria has extended to the Negev and the Galil, with the government evincing little desire to arrest it and a profound interest in making the problem go away by acquiescing to it. These crimes are documented and available to all, although they only receive media attention if there is a death or serious injury involved. Conversely, Jewish perpetrators of minor crimes are castigated and hunted down, while Arab perpetrators of major crimes are rarely pursued.

      In the Shimon Hatzadik neighborhood of Yerushalayim just this week, one Jewish resident’s car was torched for the ninth time. Crimes against Jews and their property usually go unprosecuted and unpunished, as if they were taking place in Manhattan and not Yerushalayim, Israel’s eternal capital. The theft of vehicles in central Israel that are then driven and disappear into Ramallah – a veritable plague – is not even investigated. How do we understand this blatant discrimination – and is all the hand-wringing justified?

     One persistent problem is the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” a phrase coined in the United States to reflect the paternalistic attitude on the left that civilized behavior cannot be expected from what they deem to be the lower classes. Where theft, plunder and violence are construed are normal modes of expressing frustration or ways of idling away time on a boring day, then we cannot expect any better or more productive forms of behavior. Few dare to express this openly but it underlies the anger against violent Jews but not against violent Arabs.

     Additionally, there remains the prevalent notion on the left that Israel is an occupying nation, which after all prior Israeli governments essentially conceded during the disastrous Oslo Accords. As such, Arab violence tends to be rationalized but is always understood. Jewish crimes, such as they are, are never tolerated, born as they were in the original sin of victory during the Six Day War. Thus the disparity in treatment lingers and distorts our perception.

      Nonetheless, there is a more fundamental misconception that needs to be addressed. Jewish settlers are castigated because of their alleged perpetration of crimes. The law bans attacks on people and property, and to the extent that these actions occur, they are violating the law and are subject to punishment. But there is another way of approaching these matters, one that strikes me as essentially true, that puts an entirely different perspective on these events, and one that behooves us to understand well.

     Rather than analyze these actions as alleged crimes that should be adjudicated in the criminal justice system, what if we perceived them to be what they really are: belligerent acts that are taking place in the context of an ongoing war? For that is indeed what they are.

      There are wars that are fought with armies, aircraft, tanks and infantry, all of whom share the objective of weakening the enemy’s aggressive capabilities and/or seizing the enemy’s territory. A war for territory is effectuated with the advance of one’s forces on to the enemy terrain, seizing it and holding it. The loss of a nation’s land to its adversary signifies it defeat. That is the traditional type of war fought since time immemorial.

     There is a war going on today in the land of Israel but it is not being fought with armies, aircraft, tanks and infantry. It is a war (also over territory) that is being fought with bullets, stones, Molotov cocktails and matches. In Judea and Samaria, every Jewish vineyard that is torched and every Jewish field that is laid waste is a victory in battle for the enemy. Every dunam that is illegally seized and farmed – in the Negev and Galil, as well – is territory that is intended to be lost to the Jewish people, and in the short term is lost. Every attack on a Jew in an outpost is an attempt to remove him from our land. Every military destruction and evacuation of an outpost is a victory to the enemy because it is land lost to the Jewish people and state.

     It matters not at all whether land is seized by an army – or by farmers and shepherds, by stone throwers and arsonists. It is all land that is lost to the State of Israel. Since the enemy has no viable military option, all that remains in their militant toolbox is the opportunity to disrupt Jewish settlement and to commandeer as much land as they can before the Jews wake up. If they wake up.

      The grievous error that is being made is adjudicating the acts of the settlers as crimes that need to be prosecuted rather than defense of the homeland. To be sure, wanton acts of violence against innocent people are unpleasant and unseemly, but war too is unpleasant and unseemly. It was Cicero who said that “In times of war, the law falls silent.” His point does not preclude the existence of conventions that attempt to regulate the conduct of war but rather to assert that conduct in war does not fall under the jurisdiction of the civilian criminal justice system.

      The current conflict is not perceived as a war but instead as a series of unfortunate crimes by misguided youth because our government has an interest in the latter assessment and none in the former. If we understood that a war for territory is being fought right now then the government would have to take affirmative steps to protect Jewish land, promote settlement, encourage vigilance, and weaken the enemy. (In fact, the early Zionist settlements over a century ago developed in just such a way.) But neither this government nor the prior one is interested in that, preferring to try to keep a lid on a boiling pot even as land is lost, sovereignty is diminished, and most unfortunately, in the absence of effective governance, people are compelled to defend themselves and engage in a private war on behalf of the nation. That is a long term formula for chaos – but Israeli governments have long been noted for prioritizing short term “stability” (even if it appears feckless) over long term instability.

       Prosecutions don’t work, as normal people will always defend their lives and property, and rightly so. No one will show restraint in the face of relentless assaults on people and property. Similarly, appeasement also doesn’t work, as if the problem will wither on its own (or be displaced by newer and worse problems). Paralysis that results from fear of bad press, tendentious UN resolutions or riots is appeasement.  Ideally, the government should assert itself and its sovereignty over the land of Israel it is sworn to protect. It is futile to pretend that a struggle over the land of Israel is not occurring before our eyes, one that we can win or lose. Leon Trotsky may have been wrong about many things but about this he wasn’t: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

    Israel can fight the war (a low level conflict that is surely preferable to the alternative), deny the war or fight the people who are fighting the war (the current policy). But denying the conflict will not make it disappear nor will it dissuade those constantly assaulted from defending themselves. The downside is that violence often begets more violence in which even more innocents suffer, and uncontrolled violence is simply chaos. The upside is that this is a war that is fought and won not with guns and tanks but with fields and houses, by farmers and shepherds.

     Perhaps it is our fate today to be a light onto the nations in the appropriate manner of waging asymmetric wars. But it is surely a “war” that can be preempted if it is “fought” cleverly, with determination, insight, and moral strength. And this will render vigilante justice superfluous and unnecessary, and our light can then illuminate the world in the pursuit of justice, peace and godliness.

(I start a third year answering reader questions in this Jewish Press forum, now renamed “Is It Proper?” Each one, along with my colleagues’ answers, are available at Jewishpress.com)

Is it proper to jaywalk?

It is certainly inadvisable for any person who cherishes life, the preservation of which is a fundamental Jewish value.

From a halachic perspective, there is a principle of chamira sakanta me’issura (Masechet Chullin 10a), we apply greater stringencies to dangerous situations than we do to legal prohibitions. As such, we have to be even more careful of not endangering ourselves than, for example, of avoiding non-kosher food. And we need not even entertain the principle of dina d’malchuta dina, “the law of the land is law,” which generally doesn’t apply when the law in question is not enforced. And jaywalking is certainly not enforced.

Yet, there is an even greater standard that should inform our judgment: the rule of common sense. We are mandated to be a wise and understanding people, a nation that uses its wisdom and common sense to find appropriate responses to life’s questions when the Shulchan Aruch does not address them specifically. This is one such example. Traffic regulations, as irritating as they can sometimes be, are designed for our protection. They generally work. “Crossing at the green and not in between” is not just a ditty we (should) teach children but something that makes sense and saves lives.

It goes without saying (all right, I’ll say it) that far more pedestrians in Israel are killed every year by vehicles than there are victims of terror. Of course, not all these pedestrians are jaywalking but vehicles are such a prevalent danger that we need to take special heed – not only not to jaywalk but even to look both ways before crossing at a green light.

Is it proper? Don’t even think of it.

Should a person stop someone from telling a racist joke?

No one should tell, hear or tolerate a racist joke. But why stop there?

No one should tell a joke about any ethnic, religious or national group. No jokes about blacks, whites, Hispanics, Poles, Turks, Russians or Asians. No jokes about Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Zoroastrians. No jokes about parents, husbands or wives, in-laws, siblings, and certainly not children. No jokes about men or women or any other permutation that people with vivid imaginations have today fabricated.

There should be no jokes about occupations – whether rabbis, lawyers, doctors, carpenters, bankers, plumbers, teachers, postmen, soldiers, police officers, fire fighters, first responders, second or third responders and not even jokes about those who don’t respond at all.

No license should be given to members of one group to poke fun at their own. Jews, for example, should not tell jokes about litvaks, yekkes, Polish, Russian, Hungarian, Galician, Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Yemenite, Moroccan, Syrian, Ethiopian, Persian, Iraqi, Egyptian or Libyan Jews.

There should be no jokes about pets. Dogs, cats, hamsters and fish apparently have feelings too. No jokes about inanimate buildings (the builders might take offense) nor jokes about trees, fields or flowers (which, after all, were planted by someone).

Jokes that are intended to be mean-spirited, cruel, humiliating or bullying should never be uttered.

In short, we must ban all forms of humor, lest someone, somewhere, sometime be offended. Perhaps we have arrived at that enlightened stage already? And aren’t we better off for it? Maybe not. Maybe we all need to relax a little, not to be so uptight, laugh once in a while, be kind, sensitive and tolerant, and not succumb to the intolerant word police who are ready to arrest and prosecute anyone even slightly jocular – because tyranny of thought is no joking matter.

Is it proper to play board games on Shabbat? 

The halachic answer is simple, even as the hashkafic answer is a bit more complex. One must always bear in mind that the purpose of Shabbat is to provide us with a day that is set aside for tefilah and Talmud Torah, for prayer, Torah study, time with family and friends and a complete break from the mundane activities of the weekdays. It is not a day to be frittered away in pursuits whose primary purpose is to kill time, even if they do provide moment of pleasure.

That being said, the answer in the first instance must age, background, temperament and spiritual potential. Children will certainly have fewer limitations because they are not yet of age to appreciate the sublimity of Shabbat. Thus, it is horrendous if children, teenagers for sure, find Shabbat boring or stifling because, lacking a mature spiritual sensibility, they cannot find any permissible outlet for their energies. Similarly, there might be adults as well who struggle to observe the laws of Shabbat but persevere. They too need an appropriate venue to provide Shabbat enjoyment.

Under those circumstances, games provide a healthy vehicle if they do not involve a violation of halachah. Chess (or checkers) are permitted by many poskim (beginning with Rema in Orach Chaim 338:5), as is Scrabble if the letters remain loose and are not affixed to the board. Monopoly and other games that involve play money or keeping score are frowned upon, although some clever people keep score by using pages in books. More specifics need to be discussed with your local Rav.

It is worth reiterating that playing these games should be a temporary pause from the more spiritual pursuits of the day – and not the focus of Shabbat itself. That focus is properly divine service and the perfection of our souls.

Is it proper to shun traditional fried foods on Chanukah (latkes, sufganiyot) because of health concerns (not due to any specific existing condition)? 

Two points should be made at the outset. Firstly, anyone with particular health issues should discuss them with a healthcare professional before eating any food that might be problematic. Secondly, eating must be done in moderation. Anything in excess has the potential to be harmful. By the same token, abstaining completely from the occasional pleasurable food might, for some people, significantly impair their enjoyment of life. 

Many Jews, in particular, struggle with healthy eating. We sit down to at least two major (Thanksgiving style) meals per week, that is, every Shabbat. And those meals are often supplemented by a sumptuous Shabbat kiddush, not to mention the many smachot to which we are frequently invited at which, in effect, several meals can be served in one sitting. “V’nishmartem me’od l’nafshoteichem” is both a halachic mandate and a major concern. And there are specific times of the year in which the foods that symbolize the holidays and evoke important ideas can pose health concerns.

 The best, and to me the most reasonable, approach is to strike the right balance. Abstention can lead to frustration and even overeating when our willpower weakens. But pure indulgence and a blithe disregard for good eating habits is deleterious in both short term and long term. That “God watches over the simple” (Tehillim 116:6) is true but small comfort when repetitive risky behavior – in defiance of Torah norms – has its inevitable consequence. 

For most people, eating one latke or sufganya is tolerable, will not jeopardize their health, and will add to their enjoyment of Chanukah. Wolfing down mass quantities is inadvisable and is glutttony masquerading as some sort of religious fulfillment. We must learn to exercise self-control in all aspects of life, especially eating. 

Is it proper to embark on a long trip (whether by car or otherwise) on a short Erev Shabbos?

Chazal distinguished between a person who is traveling for a mitzvah or business reasons and one who is traveling for pleasure. The former can generally depart on Erev Shabbat, the latter cannot. Nonetheless, it should be underscored that it is rabbinically prohibited to place oneself in a situation in which Chilul Shabbat is possible. That constraint applies to everyone. Observance of Shabbat is such a fundamental principle of Judaism that forethought is indispensable even before Shabbat so an unforeseen event does not derail us.

Thus, a person who embarks on a two hour journey 90 minutes before Shabbat starts is an obvious sinner. He cannot claim that pikuach nefesh (preservation of life) justifies his subsequent Shabbat violations. Similarly, one who embarks on a two hour journey exactly two hours before Shabbat is reckless and if he doesn’t make it in time, he is also a Shabbat desecrator. Enough time must be allowed even for short trips, not to mention long ones, that the effects of accidents, traffic, delays, storms and breakdowns are considered. In these situations, always be a pessimist and not an optimist, especially since there is also a mitzvah to enter Shabbat with peace of mind, not harried from a frenetic and intense journey.

Just recently, two people flew from South Africa to Israel, landing on Friday, in order to fulfill a Mitzvah. The exaggerated vagaries of the Coronavirus caused a change in the entry regulations while they were en route. When they landed in Israel, they were turned away and forced to board a return flight to South Africa on Friday night. The rejection was despicable, to be sure. But when it comes to Shabbat, never assume! Travel on Thursday – or leave early Friday morning for a two hour trip. The sanctity of Shabbat deserves no less.

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

      If as Minister Matan Kahana, and supporters of his conversion reforms, repeatedly state, that their proposals to transform the nature of conversions in Israel are “al pi halacha” (according to Jewish law), why then would the heads of the three leading mainstream Rabbinic courts in the United States oppose these reforms?  This is no small matter.  The opposition of the leaders of the rabbinic courts (the Beth Din of America, the Chicago Bet Din and the California Bet Din), not to mention that of the Haredi and Yeshivish rabbinic establishments in America, carries the implication that the bulk of Orthodox Jewry in America will not accept Israeli conversions. That prospect foreshadows such an unimaginable rupture between the Jewish people in Israel and those in the Diaspora that one hopes saner minds will prevail. But why is there such antagonism to these reforms if they are “al pi halacha”?

      The obvious answer is that “al pi halacha” is a mantra that has been poll-tested and approved by a public relations firm as the means to persuade the multitudes who do not want to delve into the details. It is a clever ruse. There are many practices that could be justified as “al pi halacha” that would render Judaism unrecognizable. Common practice and the Mesorah reject them. There are innumerable opinions in the Talmud, rishonim (early authorities) and acharonim (later authorities) that are part and parcel of the halachic system (“al pi halacha”) but are never practiced because they were not accepted as authoritative. I hesitate to give examples so as not to encourage spiritually reckless behavior but suffice it to say, one who drinks a cup of milk after eating a steak served to him by his concubine while he is bareheaded could make a plausible case that what he is doing is “al pi halacha.” But we would rightfully rebuke such an individual as a bad Jew and banish him from Jewish life, if we could.

     We do not assert that deviations from traditional Jewish practice are “al pi halacha” and abstain from providing details. Unfortunately, in this case, “al pi halacha” is being used as an advertising slogan but carries no substance when the details (sparse as they are) are analyzed. Waving the magic wand of conversion over thousands of people who are Israelis but uninterested in living a Jewish life mocks Judaism and the Torah which we hold dear.

    The proposed reforms invariably include a dilution of standards of conversion that have been practiced for generations. To be sure, there have been lenient opinions as well, but those lenient opinions were meant to deal with extraordinary situations (usually in the exile) and were never meant to be mainstreamed, certainly not in the Jewish state of Israel. To convert people who have no intention of observing Shabbat, kashrut or the laws of family purity – because their neighbors, friends and relatives who were born Jews do not – falls far short of the historical standard of conversion. After all, conversion is not the process by which we inflate the number of Jews in the world. Conversion is intended to augment the number of “avdei Hashem” – divine servants – in our midst. There is not even the slightest intimation that the new conversion standards will produce more avdei Hashem. Instead, it is admittedly intended to solve a social problem – what to do with the thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union who are not Jews according to Halacha?

       Conversion to Judaism requires true commitment, not the waving of a magic wand and the distribution of a certificate. For seven years, I headed the Bet Din L’giyur in Bergen County, New Jersey (included in our jurisdiction was New Jersey, upstate New York and much of Pennsylvania). Nothing was more rewarding, even thrilling, than bringing a human being, enthralled by the majesty of Torah and the grand epic of Jewish history, under the wings of the divine presence. Not every candidate was accepted. Some just could not assume the commitment to mitzvot that is expected of every Jew. But many could and did, and we are a better nation because of them.

      People often ask, why must the convert be held to the same standards of observance as the born Jew? But we do know the difference between the citizen and the alien. An American citizen, for example, is not stripped of his or her citizenship because of criminal behavior or even rejection of the US Constitution. But a foreigner will not be accepted for citizenship if such a person is a criminal or refuses to faithfully uphold the laws of the country. Becoming a Jew has different criteria than being a Jew. To ignore those prerequisites, for social reasons, cheapens Judaism and obviously will not be accepted by most religious Jews here or abroad.

     And what of the argument that there are so many immigrants who are not Jews but will marry Jews? What can be done to stem the tide of intermarriage in Israel?

       That question can be turned on its head in two ways. First, what does it say about the quality of the Jewish education in the Jewish state that a young man or woman can be educated here for 20-25 years, and live in an environment in which observance of mitzvot is facilitated – and still have no qualms about marrying a Gentile? Is Jewish – not Israeli – but Jewish identity so shallow and meaningless that there is such a pervasive failure to inculcate the basics of Jewish life and how the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Biblical and prophetic visions returned to the land of Israel after nineteen centuries of exile? Is the secular school system so devoid of Jewish content that Judaism is ignored, trifled or dismissed? That educational bankruptcy is a colossal catastrophe, with the attendant results before our eyes.

      Conversely, what does it say about the nature of religious Jewish life in Israel that after an immigrant, or child of an immigrant, lives here for decades, and is unmoved by the sight of religious Jews and knows nothing about the sweetness of Torah, the joy of mitzvot, and the meaningfulness of Jewish life? That too is a failure, and, among other things, we are harmed by religious Knesset members who scream, shout and hurl invectives at others, and thereby tarnish the Torah. Ideally, it should be impossible for anyone to live in Israel and not want to run to convert to be part of the Jewish nation. And yet, although some are running, most are not even walking.

     Indeed, it is a problem, but conversion should be the affirmative acceptance of Judaism and never just a technical means of avoiding intermarriage. If it would be the latter, then we can solve the intermarriage problem in America (73% outside the Orthodox world) by just declaring that anyone who marries a Jew is Jewish by definition. Undoubtedly, some would claim such a process is also “al pi halacha” because it is meritorious to be part of the Jewish people. But that too would not be sanctioned pursuant to Jewish law.

     Most troubling is the proposal to convert non-Jewish children by the thousands even if neither of their parents are Jewish! Traditionally, there has been a dispute over the level of observance of parents if a child is not Jewish (adopted, or the mother converted not according to Halacha). For example, the Rabbinical Council of America’s “Gerut Policies and Standards” (which I helped draft) requires the parents to be Shabbat and kashrut observant, belong to an Orthodox shul within walking distance and commit to send that child to yeshiva. But to convert a child of two non-Jewish parents?? The child then has almost no chance of living a Jewish life. The end result is the creation of a Jew on paper who will be rejected as Jewish by the overwhelming majority of religious Jews.

      The conversion of a child, too young to make a free-willed choice, is done “al daat Bet Din,” on the authority of the Jewish court that assumes the child will be raised observant. In such a case, conversion is a zchut, a benefit for the soon-to-be-observant child, and we can confer a benefit on someone even against their will. But traditionally, converting a child who will not be observant is not a benefit but a hardship and a hindrance. What advantage is it to welcome to the Jewish people a future Shabbat desecrator, put in that position entirely against his or her will? There is a minority opinion, being relied on in these reforms, that it is always a benefit to be part of the Jewish people. That is a minority opinion,  but minority opinions should not affect mainstream practice, and as noted above, would render Judaism unrecognizable if universally implemented.

     The long term solution to the problem of halachic non-Jews in the land of Israel involves education, outreach, kindness, friendliness, warmth and exuding the attractiveness of Torah. Not everyone will convert, of course, but many would, if they realized the beauty of Shabbat instead of fearing it and the bright light of mitzvot instead of perceiving only restrictions. In fact, all Israelis could benefit from this, even those born Jews.

     The consequences of these conversion reforms, if passed, will be dire. It is not just the split that will occur in the Jewish world. The current assault on Jewish identity arising from a number of different areas could lead even religious Jews to clamor for a separation of religion and state in Israel. Who, indeed, wants the government to decide questions of Jewish law? Not me.

       And once Israel ceases to be a Jewish state in everything but name, the road is then paved for the realization of the leftist fantasy of the state of Israel-Palestine, one state for all its citizens, which snuffs out the Zionist dream and derails (temporarily) the prophetic vision.

      It certainly sounds farfetched, and I don’t suspect many of the people leading the charge for these reforms of harboring such motives. But follow the money, see the groups who are funding the de-Judaization of Israel, and it might not be so implausible after all.

      Let us arrest the decline in Jewish life, provide positive images of Torah and its adherents, re-affirm our commitment to the Jewish state and its sovereignty over the entire land of Israel, and the problem will ultimately solve itself.

The writer was a pulpit rabbi in America for 35 years and lives now in Israel where he serves as Israel Region Vice-President of the Coalition for Jewish Values.

(First published on Israelnationalnews.com)

     The famed American novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote: “The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” Such intelligence would be helpful today but is unfortunately lacking.

     The Chaim Walder case has riveted much of Israel and the rabbinic world, yet another example of a Haredi individual who allegedly used a position of trust and influence to prey on children and women, and for years. The stories of abuse are horrific, and the inability of the legal or rabbinic world to deal with the criminal effectively is typical of the global problem in these matters. If one accusation against an individual can be attributed to malice, jealousy or mental illness (or can be true), dozens of accusations coming from disparate and unrelated sources substantiate each other.

      Let us posit that he was guilty of all these crimes. These deeds warrant the death penalty, which in a sense, was carried out. So be it.

       Beyond the abuser, we have to look to heal his victims who bear no responsibility for his death, and console his family (wife, children, grandchildren, parents, and siblings) who are also guiltless, assuming – as all current information indicates – that they knew nothing of the criminal’s predations.

      Chief Rabbi Lau’s shivah visit to the family has been criticized, hotly by some of the usual suspects like the Jerusalem Post, which never misses an opportunity to attack religious Jews, the Rabbinate or the Torah. But it was also criticized by some rabbis who need to be reminded of Fitzgerald’s quote above. Consoling the victims and the family are, indeed, opposed ideas, at least superficially. But these ideas can be kept in mind and still allow us to function, particularly in line with Jewish law and custom.

      Is it a rabbi’s place to show support for a family that just a few months ago was stable and well respected, and has now collapsed? Of course. The family is understandably broken. Those who think that Rav Lau should have contented himself with visiting or calling after shivah do not understand the importance of his visit, which was to emphasize that the family must not be ostracized or stigmatized. The only way to show that was to appear, in person, even knowing his visit would be castigated.

      It is neither the first nor the last time that doing the right albeit controversial thing leads a rabbi into hot water. Such is life. And to those who argue that he should have reached out to the victims, well, who says he didn’t? The tendentious media that trumpets its stories with all the subtlety, substance, accuracy and careful contemplation of the average Twitter user. Don’t believe it.

      That being said, reports of glowing eulogies at the funeral of this miscreant, if accurate, are disgraceful. To be sure, eulogies are meant to shed a positive light on the deceased, not to maledict him. On the other hand, exaggerating a deceased’s accomplishments in the face of the pervasive evil that was attributed to him is perverse. Sometimes it is better to say little or nothing. Going to console the mourners is not the same as attending the funeral – perhaps justifiable also as support for the family – but going overboard on the eulogies is sinful. Those who allegedly eulogized the serial abuser as a “persecuted tzadik” are clueless fools, if not worse. (That conclusion is as theologically sound as averring that he died for our sins.) Those whose only conclusion from this tragic episode is to rail against the sin of lashon hara are disconnected from reality and cause detriment to Torah. Surely, lashon hara is a grave sin – so is rape and molestation, and so is standing by while lives are being endangered.

       Those who continue to deny that problems of abuse exist in their community are enablers of the worst kind.

       Nevertheless, we should be accurate and circumspect in judging any group for the sins of an individual. Predators exist everywhere, since time immemorial. There are Haredi predators, Modern Orthodox, Dati Leumi, Conservative, Reform, unaffiliated Jews, and Catholic and Muslim predators. There are predators who are priests, rabbis and imams, journalists and politicians, doctors and lawyers, teachers and professors, police officers, plumbers and piano teachers, producers and directors, actors and actresses, parents and step-parents. And at first, and shamefully, each group always rallies around its own accused. We do a disservice, and even mislead, when we harp on one group as particularly prone to this malevolence. It is a uniquely toxic blend of sickness and evil that should be beyond the capability of those who should know better and even those who may not know better. And yet it persists.

       Its endurance points to the impossibility of its eradication, something that no decent person wants to hear and no rational person will deny. What then can be done to minimize its prevalence and dastardly effects? There are several elements of society to consider – the victims, the parents, the police, the clergy, and the media. Each of them do not possess the tools to stamp out this phenomenon either individually or collectively but approached properly could limit its horror.

      The first line of defense is the parents, who must educate their children as to acceptable boundaries and the impropriety of physical contact by others. Parents must impress on their children that no adult is ever allowed to tell them to keep a secret from their parents, and that children should never be embarrassed or afraid to share with their parents anything that has happened to them. Children – boys and girls – should be informed of the laws of yichud, and try to not to be alone behind closed doors with any person, even a respected authority figure. And children should cry out immediately, run from their assailant, and immediately inform their parents.

      Parents should immediately inform the police. The legal authorities are in the best position to investigate these types of crimes, even if their investigations and prosecutions don’t always bear fruit. Often, the police are unhelpful when there is insufficient evidence, as indeed are rabbis, untrained as investigators and unaccustomed to dealing with reprobates. For sure, there are false accusations as well, and these accusations can ruin someone’s life, but the likelihood of false accusations dwindles to near zero when there are multiple, unrelated victims. And immediate action often unsettles the perpetrator and itself inhibits future misconduct.

       Victims should be encouraged to prosecute, and immediately, not ten years later. No one likes to blame the victims for anything, and prosecution and testimony can be frustrating and stressful. But it also saves lives. Sadly, I have dealt with this matter for decades as an attorney and then a rabbi, and most victims, for one reason or another (usually, the desire to just move on) do not want to prosecute. And that allows the predator to go on and on and on.

        Instead of prosecution, we are living in the world of trial by media, one of the more execrable phenomena of modern life. The media are unbounded by ethics, evidence or substance, and therefore often choose their targets based more on their agenda items than on the nature of the evidence. It is one of the worst forms of street justice; even Don Corleone’s justice was more equitable, legitimate and principled. The role of the media should be limited to publicizing the formal prosecution of alleged abusers, not publicizing the accusations of anonymous victims. That alone will garner sympathy for any accused. And suing for libel or slander for unfounded accusations is a non-starter, as it is widely ineffective especially in jurisdictions that elevate freedom of the press over the rights of an individual.

      As even one victim of abuse is too many, so too one life ruined because of a false accusation is also one too many.

      Sadly, this evil will always exist. Even the Torah’s judicial system had such inherent limitations that the king of Israel was authorized to execute his own justice for the protection of society when the legal system failed. Centuries ago, English courts featured the Star Chamber, also used when the traditional court system was of no avail. Both point to the insolubility of some crimes through classical means. Since such means are not available to us, we have to use other methods to protect the innocent and thwart the wicked.

       What might help is parents educating their children properly, developing with them a warm and open relationship so children feel comfortable sharing anything and parents are acutely sensitive to changes in their child’s temperament. The authorities must be informed immediately and the victims must be encouraged to file charges and testify. The clergy should be supportive of the victims and never coddle the accused. The media should report fairly and objectively, not assail others while shielding their own degenerates. Society should be educated as to the existence of the problem and how it can emerge from any individual in any group.

      We might not end this scourge – but we can isolate it and burn this evil from our midst.