 |
| David Stav - Chief Rabbi of Shoham |
Before I wrote my primary
posts about the Malka Leifer episode, I wrote two preamble posts to set the
stage. The second of which is titled Thinking Like a Jew. This is basically a
digest of all the Halachic concepts that relate to this case, with sources and
everything. It was meant to serve as what people call a “moral compass”. If one
reads and understands the Halachic foundation, all of the positions I make fall
into place with Halachic support.
This is not the only time I
have written such a digest. Way
before I wrote Thinking Like a Jew, I wrote a very comprehensive two-part
Halachic digest on the halachos of mesira – the 3 Ps and the 3 Cs. And, even
before that, I wrote a comprehensive digest on the halachos of rodef titled Blood Labels.
The purpose of writing all these posts is two-fold: (1) To help
the reader understand all the relevant halachos that apply to these cases. (2)
To dissuade dissenters. Once these halachos are cited and catalogued, we have
established what a dissenter must dispute if he thinks otherwise. This ups the
ante and makes life harder for him.
Any lawyer, posek, dayan, or toen knows that anything he writes as
a claim or a ruling must reference the exact legal or halachic source material.
If one wants to file a lawsuit, he must write in the suit that the defendant is
in violation of Article 7, Section 2a, Subsection 8, Paragraph 6, Line C, twelfth
word, indicated by the comma, of the criminal code or the tort law or whatever.
He is even expected to quote it. And a respondent must do the same.
Same goes for Halachic litigation. The nitvah should say, “I am
not obligated because the Rema in Choshen Mishpat 123:4 (according to the SMA’s
clarification) clearly states that this is called an asmachta…” or say “kim li like
the distinction of the Noda Beyehuda cited in Pischei Teshuva 15 in siman 87:6
which says that the Shach is really arguing with the Mechaber…”
When a legal professional states: “The law says…”, or a posek says
“the Halacha is…” and they cannot quote the law or the Halacha, it’s as good as
saying “Dr. Seuss says…” or, as we did in nursery school, “Simon says…”
A lawyer or judge who cannot quote the law is a fraud and a
“Rabbi” who cannot source the Halacha is an am haaretz – especially if the true
Halacha says differently. Hence, when a genuine Orthodox Jew
says “Halacha”, he means what is stated in Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and Mishna
Berura and all those teshuvos seforim from renowned poskim – those guys. When an
“open” Orthodox Jew (i.e., a Hellenist) says “Halacha”, he means what it says
in “my book”.
In my travels through the laws of rodef, mesira, and extradition,
I have stumbled across a few charlatans who cannot quote Halacha. The main
culprits to date are the Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand
(RCANZ) who range from Open Orthodox to quite Modern. These am haaratzim
released a ridiculous statement in June of 2017 that posited my “Halachic
assertions” to be “fundamentally flawed” and “misguided”.
When I asked them very nicely to point out the “fundamental flaws”
and explain what is “misguided”, they went eerily silent and remain so to this
day. I am still waiting for them to explain or retract.
Well, it looks like the RCANZ
has a sister MO/OO organization here in Eretz Yisroel and it is called Tzohar,
run by David Stav, Chief "Rabbi" of the settlement of Shoham. Like most of the RCANZ members, I cannot call this fellow a
“Rabbi”. A Rabbi is one who knows and disseminates actual Halacha.
David Stav is an
ultra-liberal left wing “Rabbi” who is a colleague and disciple of
ultra-liberal Shlomo Riskin (Mr. Marriage Annulments). He serves in the
spiritual advisory board for Rabbi Riskin’s Ohr Torah Stone Institution. In
2013, David Stav announced his candidacy for Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of the
Israeli Rabbinate, R”L. At the time, he claimed, “I am flexible with people, I
am not flexible with Halacha.” Seems like he’s changed his spots.
The Sapper sisters who just
now concluded their visit, are having a hard time contending with folks like me
who can point out the Halachic infractions they are violating (as well as encouraging
others to do). To offset this, they are searching for someone who carries the
title of Orthodox Rabbi who can overlook everything it says in Rambam, Shulchan
Aruch and Chofetz Chaim and make up new halachos. And one who has very little
regard for the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel, owing that it is an essential factor
in this case. They certainly found one in Israel Chief Rabbi candidate David
Stav who seems to have become a bit more flexible with Halacha since 2013.
After a meeting with the Sapper
sisters, David Stav wrote a letter he should be totally ashamed of. The letter
was posted in Dassi Erlich’s Facebook page and hardly anywhere else. It is not
on Tzohar’s FB page, not on their web site, nor is it on David Stav’s FB page.
I couldn’t find a copyable version, so I needed to use Google Voice Typing (a
great tool!).
As I have done in the past,
I will first post the entire letter and then rewrite the key points with my
comments. Here is the letter:
Following a meeting
with Dassi Erlich, Nicole Meyer and Elli Sapper, three sisters from Australia
who have accused Malka Leifer of sexual abuse while the three were her
students, the Tzohar Rabbinical Council issued the following statement:
Halacha does not
allow us to forgo the pain of victims nor can we shamelessly protect the
actions of an accused criminal who has not been forced to face a system of
justice. Halacha requires that the accused be afforded a fair trial but that if
proven guilty they must be punished for their crimes. Halacha also mandates
those who are aware of abuse of any kind, to report this to the relevant
secular authorities.
In today's day and
age, it is the responsibility of secular authorities - the police and the
secular courts - to enforce and
prosecute crimes in the jurisdictions in which the alleged acts took place. In
this case, in the interests of Halacha and caring for Torah values and the
integrity of each and every person, we call upon the Israeli authorities to
immediately allow for Malka Leifer’s extradition to Australia.
The pain that these
sisters, and others, have experienced at the hands of this woman require that
all who appreciate justice and love their fellow man, support this campaign.
We call upon all
fellow rabbis, In Israel, Australia and across the diaspora to join us in this
effort and together bring Justice to the accused and a measure of closure for
the victims.
[Signed] Rabbi David Stav
Chairman of Tzohar
To lighten the mood, it’s
time for a joke:
Four youths were brought
to the security head of the local zoo for rowdy behavior. He wanted to create
“records” of these guys so he could inform their parents and maybe ban them
from future visits. So he asked each one for his name and why the security
officer brought him here.
Says the first: My name is
Steve, and all I was doing was throwing peanuts to the elephant.
Says the second: My name is
Bob, and all I was doing was throwing peanuts to the elephant.
Says the third: My name is
Ernie, and all I was doing was throwing peanuts to the elephant.
Says the fourth: My name is
Pete, but all my friends call me “Peanuts”.
End of joke. [Laugh now!]
I gather that David Stav has
a close friend whose real name is probably Simon who he likes to call by the
nickname “Halacha”. So when David Stav says “’Halacha’ does not allow…”,
“’Halacha’ requires…”, “’Halacha’ mandates…” he is really saying “Simon does
not allow...”, “Simon requires…” – “Simon mandates…”
Simon says...
I am past nursery school so
I don’t play this game. I don’t do things just because “Simon” says so even if
he calls himself “Halacha”. Simon, or Halacha, needs to display his credentials
and prove that he is authentic. David Stav doesn’t do this in his letter. He knows that the
unschooled masses (Dassi’s supporters) will blindly trust him. But a genuine
Torah scholar will not.
So let’s look at David
Stav’s Halachic chiddushim and check out their credentials:
Halacha does not allow us to forgo the
pain of victims…
What "Halacha" is he citing? Lets open Rambam and Shulchan Aruch
and try to find out. I am thus far totally stumped. What
does he mean by “forgoing the pain of victims?”
The true Halacha does not
allow us to address anyone’s pain or injury at the hands of another without a
din Torah.
ואצוה את שופטיכם בעת ההיא לאמר, שמע בין אחיכם ושפטתם צדק, בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו.
and
כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים ונגשו אל השופט ושפטום והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע.
There are two parties at odds
here and they are both just as Jewish. Halacha (real Halacha) does not allow us to lynch
anybody just because someone cries foul even if there are grounds to believe
them. But this is what spiritual advisor David Stav is “calling for”. (See my first preamble post - Justice is Blind) David Stav does not claim that he met with Mrs. Leifer who is sitting put in Neve
Tirtza. This is in Ramla which is a mere 16.5 km from Shoham (25 min in current
traffic) and only 5 km (walking distance) from Lod where Tzohar offices are. Mrs. Leifer is very accessible and I am sure she would love visitors,
especially if they are compassionate people and have any ahavas Yisroel.
Now I have seen many piskei
din from Batei Din and they usually begin with “לאחר שמיעת הצדדים” which means “after we heard all the
sides”. David Stav’s Halachic claim
makes no mention of such a thing. Note that the Chief Rabbi of Israel is
expected to be a dayan and know how to conduct a dispute between Jews!
What’s just as important is
that here is what the Halacha really says: If two people are having a fight and
a third party intervenes in favor of one side and takes measures that do not
need to be taken – i.e., below the belt (literally) – the interloper pays
dearly for this. In fact, according to the Sifri, Rambam, Sefer HaChinuch and
other rishonim, the interloper is called a rodef!
This is in the Torah I live
by (Devarim 25:11,12), but it must not be in David Stav’s Ohr Torah Stone
edition.
Now, he may be referring to the Halacha of Lo
taamod al dam reyecha, but it is hard to believe that even David Stav is
that misguided. Lo Taamod simply means that we must come to the aid of a Jew
who is in danger and make sure they are not harmed. Certainly, we cannot forgo their
distress of danger and cry for rescue. But nowhere does “Halacha” say that we
should not forgo someone’s lingering (self-perpetuating) pain for long ago
events to help them harass and prosecute a fellow Jew. It doesn't matter what he or she claims the fellow Jew did ten years ago.
nor can we shamelessly protect the actions
of an accused criminal who has not been forced to face a system of justice.
This one really baffles me.
When an accused criminal is actively
engaging in criminal actions, we ought not protect those actions. However, if
the accused criminal is no longer engaging in the criminal actions, then there
are no criminal actions to “shamelessly protect”.
David Stav is reframing the situation
in a very deceptive and distorted manner. This is disgraceful.
All this has little to do with the
accused criminal himself (or herself). In today’s day and age, we have no
authority to force anybody to face any system of justice. Today there are no
punishments of knasos (punitive financial cases). According to the very first
Halacha in Choshen Mishpat (1:1), we can only take a person to Beis Din – or any
court – for financial disputes, unpaid debts, spousal payments, inheritances,
and personal injury or property damage. We can also turn to courts to be mesalek
(neutralize) an ongoing damage or threat. This includes reporting an active sex
offender.
But for punishment or “justice” for
bygone events, we have absolutely no authority or permission. We cannot try or
report crimes that happened yesterday. Not in our generation. You don’t need to
hear it from me. You can take it from HRHG Dovid Cohen, one of the leading
advocates of turning in molesters, that we can only do this for protection and
not for punishment (3:30 and 4:16).
It’s a shanda that Israel Chief Rabbi
candidate David Stav does not know siman 1 of Choshen Mishpat and he doesn’t
know siman 388, either.
Halacha requires that the accused be
afforded a fair trial but that if proven guilty they must be punished for their
crimes.
I dealt with this just a minute ago.
There is no such Halacha in all of Shulchan Aruch. David Stav is living in the
past. In the past, Beis Din (and BD only) was authorized to punish people for crimes if they
were proven guilty. Not now. Regardless, we were never authorized to invite
non-Jews to punish any Jew for a crime under any circumstances in all of our
3300 years of nationhood.
But, let me play along with this for a
moment. My Torah tells us, even in the good old days, what punishments people get
for whatever crimes. And it says that if a woman should engage in another woman, this is
called “maaseh eretz mitrayim” and is punishable only by Rabbinic lashes after being
warned to desist. If a woman “molests” another, it’s no more than personal injury from a
Torah perspective. The Sappers and their supporters don’t like this, but this
is what the Torah and poskim say. See Rambam Issurei Biah 21:8.
David Stav must have a different
version of Rambam.
In any case, it is forbidden and
disgraceful for any Jew to advocate using the goyim to carry out punishments
for crimes at any time under any circumstances, and more so, if the punishments
are way, way, way beyond what a Beit Din would do in Talmudic times. Prison is much worse than getting Rabbinic lashes and going right back home.
Halacha also mandates
those who are aware of abuse of any kind, to report this to the relevant
secular authorities.
“Halacha” mandates nothing of the kind.
Perhaps Simon “Halacha” but not Shas and poskim. I mentioned Choshen Mishpat
388 which clearly states in seif 9:
It is forbidden to turn in a Jew to the
hands of the non-Jews neither his person nor his property and even if he is
wicked and even if he causes an individual personal distress…and anyone who
turns in a Jew…has no share in the world to come.
This is the default. It was written a
mere 500 years ago and nothing about it has changed. There are indeed
conditions where we may overrule the default which basically hinges on the
halachos of a rodef. So when there is abuse that meets the criteria of rodef,
there is an exception to the law of mesira. But when it does not meet the
criteria of rodef, it does not overrule the law of mesira. And one who performs
it is subject to the repercussions stated in Shulchan Aruch (R”L).
This is the Halacha.
As such, David Stav is quite wrong when
he writes that the Halacha mandates those who are aware of “abuse of any
kind, to report…” It only applies to the “rodef” kind. Not the
not-rodef kind. I already wrote why there is certainly no rodef in Australia (as
if such a discussion should really be necessary).
What is just as troubling is that David
Stav writes “those who are aware…” Now, a victim can be considered aware, but
one who is not a victim is certainly not aware even if they heard things second
hand or from a victim. The Chofetz Chaim writes this as does Rav Elyashiv,
ZT”L. This is what is called Halacha.
Of course, we know that many governments
mandate such reporting, but the Halacha does not. Mandated reporting is a very
complicated sugya. I haven’t covered it yet, but it may be next on my list (I
haven’t finished techeiles or prenups). In a nutshell, the halachos of mesira
that I covered in my posts stand firm. When the mesira is permitted it is
permitted with or without mandated reporting laws and when it is forbidden, it
is forbidden with or without mandated reporting laws. One cannot be moser
another Jew to keep himself out of trouble. This will obviously cause a number
of cases of people in tight spots and in each and every case, a qualified Rav
must be consulted. This is clearly stated by Rav Elyashiv ZT”L. There are no
blanket global hetterim and no shortcuts. Sorry.
In today's day and age, it is the
responsibility of secular authorities - the police and the secular courts
- to enforce and prosecute crimes in the
jurisdictions in which the alleged acts took place.
I do not think David Stav grasps that
precisely because "it is the responsibility of secular authorities
to enforce and prosecute crimes in the jurisdictions in which the alleged acts
took place", that this is why the Halacha forbade us from voluntarily cooperating with these
authorities. This is called “mesira” and it is unequivocally forbidden anywhere
in the world for the sake of “justice”, punishment, or closure. It is
only permitted for protection from continued activity, when there are no other
options.
So, from our perspective, the hetter
for mesira, when it is permissible, is on account of potential future
activities, not past ones. Thus, the only secular jurisdiction that we are
allowed to cooperate with is that of the potential future
activities, not the secular jurisdiction of the past activities.
Now that we have cleared this up, here
comes the most horrendously appalling issue with David Stav and what he calls
“Halacha”.
David Stav actually once upon a time
announced his candidacy for Chief Rabbi of Israel. Of Israel! Sounds a bit nationalistic, doesn't it? One would expect
such a person to at least know the halachos that pertain to kedushas haaretz
and harbor a love for this land. One who does not, sincerely deserves the epithet “am haaretz”.
So, all throughout this episode I have
been incessantly quoting the Halacha clearly stated in Yoreh Deah 267:84-5. The
Halacha clearly states as follows:
(84) A canaani servant who wishes to
immigrate to Israel, we force his master to go with him…if the master wants to
emigrate from Israel, he cannot force the servant to go unless he agrees. This
law applies even in our times when the land is under the rule of the non-Jews.
(85) A servant who fled from the
diaspora to Israel, we do not send him back. And this is the Torah prohibition
of Lo Tasgir eved…
From these two Halachos together we
learn that:
·
A “partial” Jew (canaani servant) cannot be forcibly extradited from the land.
·
This is not just a
Rabbinic “Halacha” but an overt Torah prohibition (לא תעשה מדאורייתא).
·
This even applied in pre-1948
and certainly it applies after 1948.
A Torah prohibition on a partial Jew
that is clearly in effect today! Is a full Jew any less protected?
In case you may believe so, in defiance
of all logic (see Choshen Mishpat 420:1), let me cite another Halacha that I have thus far overlooked (hat
tip my soldier son, Eli). It is not in Shulchan Aruch, it is only in the Rambam
from the gemara Makkos 7a. Rambam states (Sanhedrin 13:8):
One who was convicted in a Beit Din in
chutz l’aretz and he flees to another Beit Din in Eretz Yisroel, his verdict is
automatically overturned and he must be tried anew [in Eretz Yisroel]…
Jurisdiction “in which the alleged acts
took place”?? David Stav, are you kidding me? Even if the accused was totally convicted
in the “jurisdiction in which the alleged acts took place”, if he comes to Eretz
Yisroel, he gets a brand new trial here in Eretz Yisroel! How much more so if he
(or she) was never tried in the first place and is now here in Eretz Yisroel!
Mr. Stav, do you have another version
of Rambam? Do you have another version of gemara Makkos? Do you know any
Halacha whatsoever?? (I am quite a bit perturbed at this point!)
In this case, in the interests of
Halacha and caring for Torah values and the integrity of each and every person,
we call upon the Israeli authorities to immediately allow for Malka Leifer’s
extradition to Australia.
No, my friend. You are not speaking in
the interests of Halacha or kedushas Eretz Yisroel. You are speaking in the
interests of yourself and of the Sapper sisters. And, don’t you dare speak for
the integrity of genuine Torah observant Jews.
The pain that these
sisters, and others, have experienced at the hands of this woman require that
all who appreciate justice and love their fellow man, support this campaign.
Ahem, how do you know they suffered any
pain at the hands of this woman? Were you there? Did you hear the case from
both sides? Did this woman confess? Is there any physical evidence?
In any case, neither the Halacha nor
their pain requires this campaign to violate our Halacha forbidding extradition.
I am done with this letter. But to
conclude, I want to comment on what David Stav said in a J-Wire interview:
"I don’t have the words to express my
embarrassment for people who would use Torah to defend the actions of people who
have acted in such a way,” he said. Comparing sexual abuse to a type of
emotional murder, Rabbi Stav said, “Those who prohibit a man or woman to
complain to the police are responsible for future cases. They will not be
able to say we didn’t know. The blood of the future victims is screaming
from the earth to say ‘you are responsible’”.
I will, for now, skip the first line and
deal with the rest.
Comparing sexual abuse to a type of
emotional murder,…
Romantic comparisons are nice, but one
cannot turn them into Halacha if they are not genuine.
Murder means when you kill someone and
they are dead. Not breathing or eating or maintaining a normal family (re:
Nicole), or jet setting and taking holidays to Ventnor, Phillip Island and going around
making public appearances and TV documentaries. DEAD! These girls are very much alive physically and
emotionally (though not spiritually, but that is their own doing). Nobody was
murdered. Not physically, not emotionally. At best, injured, but not murdered.
The Torah compares some types of sexual
abuse to murder to teach the laws of rodef but there are two main stipulations:
it must be giluy arayos, and it must be forced. Neither of these apply here.
“Those who prohibit a man or woman to
complain to the police are responsible for future cases…etc.
It is the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and
Chofetz Chaim and even Rav Elyashiv who prohibit a man or woman to complain to
the police in cases such as this. If you wish to blame them for future cases,
be my guest, but do so at your own riskin’.
Now, the first line:
“I don’t have the words to
express my embarrassment for people who would use Torah to defend the actions
of people who have acted in such a way,”
I do have the words to express my
embarrassment for people like David Stav. Disgraceful, appalling and מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה.
Here, once again, David Stav is reframing the situation
in a very deceptive and distorted manner. This is equally disgraceful.
My friend, nobody is using Torah to
defend the alleged actions of 2002-2007. I am only using Torah to criticize the
actions of the Sapper sisters and their supporters in 2018 and to bemoan the wanton
and unjustified chillul Hashem that is occurring as a result of these 2018 actions.
Sof davar, I call on (Rabbi) David
Stav, if he has any Halachic integrity and any regard for kedushas haaretz, to
either verify his Halachic assertions in the face of my challenges – i.e.,
refute my Halachic sources – or to retract his letter.
As for the Sapper sisters, if they want
to make a Halachic case to justify their activities, they need to find someone
who is really a Rabbi and really Orthodox.
כי הנה הסתיו עבר הגשם חלף הלך
לו...וקול התור[ה] נשמע בארצנו!
Posts
