Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh 3 – The Malka Leifer Debacle

 

Author's note - This post is the continuation on the series about The Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh Apocalypse. If you are not up to date on the topic, please see the opening post HERE, the Interlude post HERE and the previous post HERE.

 

 

Onward with the Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh Apocalypse.

So far, we discussed Horsemen 1 and 2. We will now embark upon Horsemen 3 and 4. All the Horsemen have a primary common denominator. In all the cases, it figures that to take the case directly to the law enforcement authorities is bound be counterproductive. That said, there are some important factors that distinguish the first two types, Horsemen 1 and 2, from the second two types, Horsemen 3 and 4.

The first distinction is merely technical.

The first two Horsemen are fictitious. They are dramatizations of scenarios that frequently occur in real life in various ways; nevertheless, the specific scenarios that were portrayed did not actually occur. As such, there is no way to tell how they were actually handled, since they weren’t handled, and what were the short-term and long-term results. They are not real events, so we can’t know how they really panned out. We can’t know who benefited and who “lost”.

Also, without real live occurrences, I cannot conclusively “prove my case”.

Conversely, the second two Horsemen are real-life events. And because they each really happened, we can take stock. In both cases, the alleged victims filed police reports. To the best of my knowledge, in neither of the cases did the complainant seek out objective Rabbinical advice before filing the complaints. Of the two cases, one ended in unmitigated disaster. For the other, the jury is still out, literally, but it isn’t going anywhere it should; I can tell you that.

A second major distinction is that the first two Horsemen portrayed situations where, arguably, mesira to authorities could be Halachically sanctioned. The first Horseman, the Shattered video from Amudim, was a clearer case of an active threat and one who could be considered a rodef and, theoretically, a “911 situation”. The second Horseman also indicates one who can be deemed as an active threat to the community under the banner of meitzar ess harabim, i.e., a Chaim Walder or Meshi-Zahav in the making. These types of cases may have Halachic support.

Even so, we determined that the conventional wisdom would be to refrain from running immediately to the police in each of the cases, as 21 out of 27 Rabbanim have told us.   

The second two Horsemen are both real-life cases where it clearly wasn’t a “911 situation” by any stretch. At the time of reporting to authorities, they were both events of several years in the past. Whatever claim of rodef or meitzar ess harabim that might have been made at show-time was long gone and there definitely were not enough grounds to assume them to be still in effect.

Although it could readily be said that this Kol Koreh wasn’t targeting these cases, it is hard to say that it did not influence what happened.

So, let’s now discuss these two Horsemen. We will resume with Horseman #3, the case of Malka Leifer.

Certainly, anyone who has followed my blog from June 2016 until early 2021 knows the basic details of the saga, as well as my position. For those who are clueless or would like to review it, the story is told in detail HERE. As a public service, I will reprint the basic timeline from this Dec. 2017 article:

2001: Israeli teacher Malka Leifer arrives at the Adass Israel girls school in Melbourne's south-east. The following year she is appointed principal.

 

March 2008: The school is alerted to sexual abuse allegations against Leifer by a social worker who Dassi Erlich has been seeing for treatment. The Adass community allegedly pays for Leifer and her family to flee Australia.

 

2011: Elly Sapper gives a statement to Victoria Police regarding allegations of sexual abuse by Leifer. Her sisters make statements shortly afterwards.

 

2014: Sapper receives a confidential out-of-court settlement after suing for damages. Victoria Police announce that Leifer is wanted on 74 charges of sexual assault and rape relating to girls who attended the Adass Israel school. Leifer is placed under house arrest in Israel as extradition proceedings begin.

 

2015: Erlich endures a two-week trial in the Supreme Court, after the school refuses to settle out of court. She receives a record $1 million payout for damages.

 

March 2017: Erlich launches her #BringLeiferBack campaign, an effort to pressure the Israeli and Australian governments over the extradition.

 

August 2017: Nicole Meyer is awarded a confidential out-of-court settlement for damages.

This timeline gives us some critical details. It says that Mrs. Leifer was accused and expelled from Australia in March 2008. After she had been gone from Australia for a full three years, and had totally ceased being any kind of threat, rodef, meitzar ess harabim or anything of the kind to anybody in Australia, the three accusers instigated an indictment in Australia.

Why?

It was so that she can be punished in Australia by the Australian goyim.

The timeline also says that all three sisters sued the Adass school and received judgements or settlements. In short, they all received financial compensation. Thus, they cannot claim they are seeking justice for their injuries. That claim already went to civil court and they have been financially compensated. Consequently, as of then, all they want is vengeance at the hands of goyim.

In February of 2018, Mrs. Leifer was re-arrested in Israel and held in an Israeli prison for three years. At the end of 2020, Israeli Judge Chana Lomp finally ruled that Mrs. Leifer can be extradited back to Australia. The extradition was carried out in January 2021.

Since that time, Mrs. Leifer has been incarcerated in Australia. There were some preliminary hearings in September 2021 and again in March of 2022, but the main trial was set to take place beginning August 1, 2022. It was expected to last five weeks. This was initially pushed off two days and then until August 22. Nothing seemed to happen even then, and on Sept. 12, it was announced that the trial will actually commence on February 7, 2023.

Don’t hold your breath.

We are now up to date.

I’ve been writing about this case since June of 2016 when Dassi Erlich and her supporters posted petitions by which to involve the unwitting public. My goals at that time were to educate the Orthodox world that extraditing any Jewish person from Eretz Israel is a strict Torah prohibition. This was in the hope that the Orthodox world would desist from voicing their support and perhaps the accusers themselves will come to their senses and desist from this colossal Chillul Hashem.

Here is a short list from among the numerous posts I have written which explain in detail what is wrong here:

Thinking Like a Jew - The Halachic premise for my position. The “moral compass”.

There is No Ex-Tradition in our Tradition – The keynote post that says it all.

Victim Turned Predator – As it sounds.

Judging the Judges Part 2 – Understanding the backgrounds of the accused.

Flirting with Danger – Where this is all leading us to.

Dassi’s Lament – What does HKBH think of all this?

By Your Hand - TheSin of Nov – What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

EinMerachamim B’Din – Why not to apologize.

Revisiting Kamtza and Bar Kamtza – Sinas chinam in our time.

As a public service once again, I will reprint the main points that were listed in the Flirting with Danger post which make this campaign illegitimate:

1. It has not been established on Halachic grounds that Mrs. Leifer is guilty of anything. There was no confession and there is even no evidence that there was a crime. Note that not one of her accusers reported an assault, not to the school and not to the authorities, at the time that it allegedly happened. And they were all capable of doing so.

 

2.   Even if she is guilty of what she is being accused of, the activities are not felonious by Torah standards and don’t call for any extreme penalties. Not even judicial flogging. Claims of emotional and psychological injury to the victims are only personal injury claims and are monetary and not criminal.

 

3.   It is strictly forbidden to turn over any Jew to secular authorities for punishment that is not called for in Torah law. This is called mesira and is one of the gravest offenses possible. How much more so if no guilt or crime has been established.

 

4.   Transporting a person away from his home for enslavement or imprisonment when not sanctioned by the Torah is called Gonev Ish U’Mecharo and is a capital crime.

 

5.   There can be dispensations to the above two Halachos in the case of one who is currently and actively endangering others (rodef). Yosef’s brothers [mistakenly] thought so about him. [Un]fortunately, in our case, there is no situation of rodef currently in effect.

 

6.   Even in a case where mesira and or imprisonment could be justified, there is an independent prohibition of transporting the subject outside of Eretz Yisroel. This is extrapolated from the Halacha of the eved canaani in Yoreh Deah 267:85. (Note this is an extension of clause 267:84 which tells us that this prohibition applies in our day and age).

 

All of this does not add up to a pretty picture. And when you add to all this that the efforts to violate the Halacha with this extradition campaign and all the publicity that it generates is causing a colossal chillul Hashem, R”L, it doesn’t really make this campaign look like a good idea.

 

These are not “Halachic assertions”. They are basic Halacha. There is no room for debate.

 

It is sad to see misguided advocates and Rabbinical councils misuse their prestige and stature to fundamentally flaw the primacy of Halacha in the eyes of the Jewish consumer.

 

Indeed, I noted in my previous post when I referred to the Chaim Walder and Meshi-Zahav cases, that Mrs. Leifer cannot be compared to them for at least three reasons. According to the above list, there are at least four. Point 1 says that there is no proof of guilt. Point 2 says that this is not a case of sexual offense by Torah standards. Point 5 says that there is no situation of rodef nor meitzar ess harabbim, certainly in Australia where the mesira took place. And point 6 says that we are talking about extraditing a Jew out of Eretz Yisrael and this is forbidden in itself.

Now, I did note in some posts that if one could genuinely determine that Mrs. Leifer is an active threat in Eretz Yisrael, there may be a hetter to approach law enforcement here in Eretz Yisrael. Not only wasn’t this done, but ironically, Shana Aaronson and her [then] JCW staff spent thousands of shekels of their donors’ money to have Mrs. Leifer followed and tracked for 200 hours by a private investigator. While the investigator was able to substantiate that Mrs. Leifer is not psychotic and can function as a normal human being, he did not manage to capture a single minute of molestation.

I want to dwell for a moment on Point 2 from the 6 points of the Flirting with Danger post. This is the one that says that her offense, even as accused by her accusers, do not meet the standards of sexual assault by Torah standards. I explained this clearly in my preliminary post about Thinking Like a Jew that any activity that does not involve an adult male, human or animal, is not an act of giluy arayos (sex). Two women cannot engage in sex.

In today’s Western, woke, egalitarian world, this is not acknowledged. They can’t even define a woman. But we must behave in accordance to the standards of our Torah. As such, it is worthwhile re-examining HRHG Rav Elyashiv’s directives on handling these cases as he wrote to HRHG Rav Feivel Cohen, Shlita.

In his first letter, Rav Elyashiv mentioned the basic rule that for anybody (presumably except for the victim him or herself) to get involved in support of prosecuting a suspected Jewish miscreant, there needs to be firm evidence of the perpetrator’s guilt at the level of umdenah d’mukchach (irrefutable circumstantial evidence. Note- some want to nitpick on the language that implies that a lesser level, raglayim l’davar, is sufficient. Regardless, both umdenah d’mukchach and raglayim l’davar refer to indications that come from sources outside the sole testimony of the accuser. When all we have is the testimony of the accuser which is compromised by being a nogeah b’eidusan, as in this case, then there is not enough neemanus even to establish a raglayim l’davar).

In the second letter, he wrote two more stipulations. One is what I have repeatably written that each specific case must be vetted out by a qualified Talmid Chacham. Yet, in that letter there is a second stipulation which all parties overlook and, thus far, I haven’t quoted it either. In his letter he writes:

גם יש לשקול בגדר של ההתעוללות שבהשקפה שלהם היא אחרת לגמרי משלנו.

It is likewise necessary to assess the definition of abuse which, in their viewpoint, is totally different than ours.

As Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, so keenly writes, the non-Jews have different definitions of “sexual abuse” than we do. We are not allowed to prosecute our own people by their definitions.

This sentiment, which is clear daas Toras, is not original. This was clearly stated in the Chofetz Chaim’s Hilchos Lashon Hara in Klal 10:2 where he lists the conditions that are required for reporting one to civil authorities. As condition number 7, he states that it is imperative that this report to authorities does not bring about any type of repercussion more severe than if this same infraction were reported to a Beis Din at the height of its power.

In other words, if this is an infraction which at most would incur makos d’rabbanan (judicial flogging, usually only carried out after a warning was ignored) in Beis Din, and one is now subjecting the subject to long-term imprisonment at the hands of the non-Jews, this is out of the question.

In addition to all the above, I want to point out that the Malka Leifer case does not involve small children, but rather older teens who actually extended into legal adulthood. By our torah standards, the “age of consent” for a girl starts at 12. This is basically the same age that the perverts of the western world want to allow people to decide for themselves that they are eligible for transgender surgery.

Whether the accused took advantage of their vulnerabilities or not, nobody was actually forced into anything. Despite the denials of the accusers, there were plenty of people at the school to complain to in real time. The proof is that these are the same people they later sued in civil court for being responsible for their ordeals.

What is even more astounding is that the youngest of the three sisters, Elly Sapper, admitted in this article that she ignored her older sisters’ advice and voluntarily went to Mrs. Leifer in full knowledge of what was in store. And, yes, this very sister, Elly Sapper, who voluntarily approached Mrs. Leifer, was actually the first of the three sisters to file a complaint to the Australian police (see timeline above), and as such, she is the one who initiated the illegitimate indictment.

All the above teaches us that the Malka Leifer episode does not meet the standards that can be justified with this appalling Kol Koreh. Of course, here again, the promoters can claim that the Kol Koreh has nothing to do with the Malka Leifer episode. After all, the Kol Koreh was written in 2015 and the Mrs. Leifer was reported to the Australian police back in 2011. That’s four years earlier.  Did the Kol Koreh have any influence in the Malka Leifer saga?

I believe so.

For one thing, although there was only sparse coverage of the case over the first six years (2008-2014), it was only in 2016 which was a half year after the Kol Koreh, that the supporters posted the petitions with which to draw in the general public. The Halachically illegitimate petitions had overwhelming success as I reported in some of my posts. I believe that the Kol Koreh contributed to this to a large extent.

Sure, one could claim that those who signed the petitions are the non-chareidi Westernized consumerist Jews who do not incorporate daas Torah into their decision-making. They are those who don’t even read Mishpacha magazine and do not need their imprimatur to sign petitions like these. But did it influence the chareidi world?

I am not sure how directly, but I do know that the universal plague of automatic presumption of guilt which is strongly promoted by this Kol Koreh has poisoned the chareidi mind no less.

I think that this is evidenced by the way R. Dovid Lichtenstein carried the story in his Headlines radio program on Sept. 23, 2017. In the part of his program where he interviewed Dassi Erlich, he presented her claims as undisputed fact. He didn’t say, “We’re going to hear from a girl in Australia who claims she was molested by Malka Leifer…” but rather, “We’re going to hear from a girl in Australia who was molested by Malka Leifer…”. He is so positive about it that he feels justified to tack on the epithet שם רשעים ירקב in regard to Mrs. Leifer not once, but twice. On air!

Reb Lichtenstein does not question her narrative in any way, nor does he claim that he even made any attempt to contact Mrs. Leifer or anyone on her behalf to see if there is another version of the story. To him, the accuser’s story is automatically all true, no questions asked, and the accused is automatically a שם רשעים ירקב!

What is so disturbing is that it is very clear that Reb Dovid Lichtenstein is familiar with the teshuvos of HRHG Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, to Rav Feivel Cohen, Shlita since he discussed them on air in his interview with HRHG Rav Nachum Eisenstein, Shlita, on Jan. 23, 2016. The Malka Leifer case does not have umdenah d’mukchach and it does not even have a raglayim l’davar if all we have is the accuser’s testimony, it does not follow the Torah’s definitions of abuse, and it was not vetted out by any qualified Rabbanim prior to being reported in Australia. Incidentally, the definition of qualified Rav is one who knows the other two stipulations put out by Rav Elyashiv as well as the conditions of the Chofetz Chaim.

On top of this, in her interview, Ms. Erlich duly noted how her experiences made her question her religion. Not once did she mention consulting with any Rabbinic authority – qualified or not – before she, or her younger sister who is also irreligious, were moser Mrs. Leifer in Australia. No question there was no Beis Din that heard the case and sanctioned this mesira.

Dovid Lichtenstein’s self-imposed mandate is to explain and promote the Halacha, not to abrogate it. Even if her story has important lessons, I think it is disgraceful for him to proffer any type of support to an irreligious aggressor who is clearly not acting within darchei Torah. But I suppose, the flawed Kol Koreh and the other flawed sources that he quoted on his program gives him the “justification” that he wants.

The last issue to analyze in this case is, once we are dealing with a real-life occurrence, what kind of damage has it really done?

Before we take it on, we need to revisit the words of the Chofetz Chaim in Hilchos Shmiras Halashon 10:2 condition 7 (noted above) that it is imperative that this report to authorities does not bring about any type of repercussion more severe than if this same infraction were reported to a Beis Din.

We noted that one who is caught engaging in illicit female to female activities is first warned to desist, nothing more. If the warning is violated, there are makos d’rabbanan. This is carried out at the local Beis Din (בכל שעריך), after which the miscreant is sent back home to family life.

Halachic judicial punishments do not incarcerate people. They do not break up families and they do not send people to other localities and most certainly to outside of Eretz Yisrael to the hands of non-Jews. They are meant to discipline but not to destroy, to chasten people while preserving their lives and dignity and general well-being.

And all this is strictly when the punishments are warranted.

Not so here. We see with our eyes the alleged miscreant hounded, shamed, tormented and literally destroyed, kidnapped from home, sent out of Eretz Yisrael, incarcerated among the non-Jews and deprived of a life. Her family is forcibly broken up. Loss of any kind of parnassah and tons of legal expenses on all sides that do nothing but make lawyers rich.

None of this is sanctioned by the Torah or any Halacha. There is no rodef. There is no meitzar ess harabim. There was no Din Torah. And there is no justification for extradition even if the previous factors were in effect. There is no excuse for this damage.

As for the accusers, even if there is no social or financial damage to themselves (and I suspect there is plenty), by walking into the police station in Victoria to moser a person who left the country three years prior, and more so by actually bringing her back, they have entwined her into their personal lives in ways that can never be undone. The extradition and subsequent trial are dragging on and on and on. The accusers will be picked apart by the defense team and any dirty laundry that can be found will be put on display. If they get their conviction, they will have to live with the fallout of their unjustified mesira for the rest of their lives. If they don’t get their conviction, they will probably need to pay for it.

There is also damage to the supporters on both sides of the aisle. Jewish Community Watch (JCW) is now totally defunct. Both JCW and Shana Aaronson are in the hot seat for lawsuits if the accused is acquitted.

On the other side of the aisle, people who stood up for due process of law, for basic compassion, and for the kavod of Torah and Halacha and kedushas Eretz Yisrael, and who were basically doing their moral and civic duties, were publicly defamed and maligned. This includes Mrs. Leifer’s legal team, Rav Yitzchak Grossman, Rav Mendel Shafran, Rav Yaakov Litzman and even yours truly.

Worst of all, all this has resulted in a horrific Chillul Hashem and bizayon Hatorah. The Satan is laughing and the Shechina is crying.

And the most horrifying thing is that most people I hear from are celebrating this wreckage and rooting for it. I suppose this includes Reb Dovid Lichtenstein, Reb Dovid J. Nyer, the promoters and signatories of the Kol Koreh, and even some close friends and relatives of mine.

Sadly, all who are in favor of this nezek and Chillul Hashem have a cheilek in it.

I will not.

Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh 2 – Rav Ratzon Arussi and the Media Ambush

Author's note - This post is the latest installment on the series about The Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh Apocalypse. If you are not up to date on the tpic, please see the opening post HERE.

 

Welcome back from our interlude (previous post). I apologize that it took way longer than expected to resume.

The interlude was meant to impress a very important lesson. When we turn over a case or an individual to the civil authorities, they are going to handle it their way. And their way may not always be the right way.

As we saw, the consequences may be above and beyond what is called for, it may be highly damaging in general, and in turn, it may be damaging to people other than the perp such as innocent family members of the perp, the alleged victim as well as family members of the victim, and a cast of thousands.

This damage may be extensive, devastating and irreversible.

Although there are teshuvos from prominent poskim that tell us that if this is what we must do, we cannot worry about the fallout; the same teshuvos either say or intimate that if this is not what we must do, it is to be avoided at all reasonable costs. The words of HRHG Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, to Rav Feivel Cohen, Shlita, reign supreme: “Each individual case must be assessed by a qualified talmid chacham.” In fact, Agudath Israel of America officially took this position in a Halachic Conference for Professionals on May 15, 2011. (From the link it appears that the liberal Orthodox criticized this.)

Wise rabbanim are aware of this. Those that are not as wise sign indiscriminate, broad-based Kol Korehs telling “Every individual” to “promptly notify secular law enforcement”. It’s amazing how the Halacha can change in a mere four years.

Fortunately, it hasn’t changed for everyone. In June of 2015, a pair of young liberal minded journalists from Ynet (Yediot Aharonot) embarked on an undercover sting operation to reveal that at least 21 out of 27 chareidi rabbanim in Eretz Yisroel have not lost their sanity – even though this isn’t how they reported it. As liberal secular-minded consumers, they evidently have a different definition of “sanity” than our Torah does.

This is because, as I wrote in the height of my Mesira series, consumerism impairs one’s ability to Think like a Jew. It makes one think like left-wing journalists. But rabbanim who have studied our Torah are not “consumers”. They are mumchim - experts. They (read: we) think very differently. They (we) think the way HKBH wants us to think. This is what we pray for when we say “Attah chonen l’adam daas…”. Daas is not just knowledge; it is logic and reason. And only those who aspire to it and pray for it, acquire it.

We continue our discussion of the Four Horsemen of the Kol Koreh Apocalypse with the saga of the “media ambush” (i.e., journalistic sting operation) of 27 chareidi rabbanim in Eretz Yisrael among whom is HRHG Rav Ratzon Arussi, Shlita. Note, the term media ambush was expressed by Harav Arussi himself.

It goes without saying (though I will say it anyhow) that the media ambush was carried out by the liberal Israeli secular press. In June of 2015, two investigative reporters for Ynet (Yediot Aharonot) named Ariella Sternbach and Yehuda Shochat embarked on an undercover vendetta to discredit chareidi rabbanim for not stooping down to their level. They approached 27 chareidi or chardali rabbanim to see if they are as narrow minded as they are. If you understand Hebrew or use Google Translate, you can see the complete report HERE.

For those who prefer English, the event was enshrined in a blog titled A Mother in Israel by Hannah Katsman. You can see it HERE.

It appears that the female of the species, Ms. Ariella Sternbach, then 25, posed as a 17-year-old chareidi girl who was visiting a friend and was molested by the man of the house, i.e., father of said friend, or by a teacher or Rav. I believe that in most cases, if not all of them, the fictitious petitioner said that her fictitious mother doesn’t want her to complain to police. In effect, the rabbanim were being asked not only whether to complain to police, but also, should the young girl actively overrule her mother in order to do so.

For some reason, Ms. Sternbuch does not believe that what a girl’s mother thinks about what is best for her daughter should carry any weight.

In any case, the results that they obtained, which were exactly what they were looking for and what anyone should expect, were presented as shocking and Sodom-like. It seems to them that about six rabbanim responded to their satisfaction, so those few are referred to as the “Tzaddikim in Sodom”.

We must note, as is evident with the narrative of Rav Arussi, that there must have been variations in each case. Firstly, the article says that she posed as a victim sometimes of a neighbor, sometimes of a Rav and sometimes of a teacher. Invariably, in all the cases the Rav being solicited asked some questions and, as all conjurers must, they needed to make up details as they went along. As is common in fictitious events, sometimes a detail made at one point conflicts with one made later. Clearly, each Rav heard a slightly different story.

The report actually names most of the 27 rabbanim with a one-line synopsis of their advice. Only a select few are singled out for detailed discussion. As the trailblazer for the group, they chose to target HRHG Rav Ratzon Arussi who, we can see, is an exceptionally rational and reasonable thinker.

Rav Ratzon Arussi is a Yemenite born talmid chacham as well as a law professor. He was born in Yemen in 1944 and immigrated to Israel in 1949 (B”H, he survived the horrific Yemenite children purges). He learned in some prominent Yeshivos and studied law at Tel Aviv university and is currently the Chief Rabbi in Kiryat Ono.

I would gather that most readers never heard of Kiryat Ono. Kiryat Ono is a tiny township located just south of the point where Ramat Gan, Petach Tikva and Bnei Brak converge. It is adjacent to Sheba Hospital at Tel Hashomer. Like most of suburban Tel Aviv, it is a predominantly secular township with its token religious population.

In any case, Ms. Sternbach called up Rav Arussi and said she was visiting a friend and when the friend went out on an errand, the friend’s father molested her. She noted that her mother does not think she should take this incident to the police because it may interfere with shidduchim “and such”. What does the Rabbi think?

The Rav asked her some questions to which she gave conflicting answers. No, he didn’t get to "the act", wait, yes he did, yes, she was touched intimately with real genital contact...but she is still a virgin.

Uh-huh.

The Rav clearly told her that this is a very serious incident and she has grounds to go to the police, but for her personal well-being, she should not.

What is interesting is the way he told her. He said, “Your mother is right”. He actually said, “to my consternation, your mother is right.” He wasn’t discussing whether it is permitted to go to the police or not. He certainly did not forbid it. In truth, that wasn’t her question. Her question was, should she obey her mother or not? Her mother certainly has a vote in this. After all, the girl is a minor besides being “chareidi”. And the mother already voted. She is asking the Rav whether she, the 17-year-old “victim”, should overrule her mother for altruistic or social reasons but at risk to herself.

As an aside, it is interesting that neither the fictitious victim, nor the Rav, was interested in the position of the girl’s fictitious father – who, in the fictitious scenario was probably not even informed. Regardless, he is also entitled to a fictitious vote.

In general, throughout the exercise, the rabbanim were remarkably consistent. It appears that in most of these cases, there are two very strong reasons not to report the event to the police at this point:

A.   Concern for the long-term welfare of the alleged victim

B.   Concern for the long-term welfare of the alleged perpetrator and/or those associated with him (or her)

As reported, some of the rabbanim put the emphasis on reason A and some of them on reason B. In most cases, both are in effect. As such, being light on the perp would not be coming at the expense of the victim since the victim stands to get hurt from police involvement just the same.

Subsequently, Rav Arussi was asked to publicly rationalize his advice. He did so in detail and he basically said all the above. He also added that the alleged perp could claim that the incident was consensual or seduction on the girl's part. I would add that since: (a) this happened on his turf and (b) there were no witnesses and (c) it fictitiously happened a month previously and (d) there was no complaint at the time and (e) there was no penetration or lasting physical effects, so long as he denies it, she won’t get very far with the authorities. 

To me, all this makes a lot of sense. thus, I find it shocking that both Ms. Sternbach and Ms. Katsman believe that Rav Arussi’s response (and those of his colleagues) was the wrong answer. To them, any Rabbi worth his frock should tell this or any 17-year-old girl, “Go ahead and defy your mother and put your entire future at risk and enter the unknown world of entanglement in criminal prosecution, not because it is best for you but because this is what Western society demands. Everyone else comes first and you come second.”

Liberals (consumers) are slaves to the dictates of Western society. They will shoot harmful drugs up their veins, and up those of their parents and children, just because they are told to by the "establishment" and by those who produce and sell those drugs, and they will disenfranchise those who question if it is safe and effective. It’s a common secular mindset that “the law” trumps common sense. I always thought that laws are supposed to reflect common sense.

I am also shocked at the shallowness of these two kalei-daas ladies who are totally oblivious to the non-practicality of filing a complaint (as explained a few paragraphs back). I suppose it’s all part of the liberal herd-mentality.

In her blog, Ms. Katsman initially responsibly presents both sides of the event. But in conclusion, she presents a very biased “summary” of “a few of the issues with Rabbi Arussi’s approach”. What she means is a “summary” (read: list) of the issues that she has with Rabbi Arussi’s approach. She totally ignores the reasoning presented by Rabbi Arussi and does absolutely nothing to explain why it isn’t sound advice.

Evidently, these journalists consider the approach that they personally advocate - self-sacrifice because reporting is automatically the "right thing to do" - to be the "compassionate" approach. Rabbis who think a molested girl going into shidduchim should look into her personal best interests clearly must be totally devoid of compassion and are Sodomites.

These modern women don’t seem to have the sense to figure out that if 21 out of 27 rabbanim who are all elderly and learned people, and who are community and family men, and who have daughters of their own, and have much more experience in human nature and the ways of the world than they have, are advising this person to take other measures (at least initially), maybe, just maybe, there is something to it and they may actually be able to learn from them.

At least we can learn from them, as Harav Arussi said in his response:

הנה צאו וראו, נתאר לעצמנו שיש מתלוננת שהיא בנפשה מאוד רכה ועדינה ולא יהיו לה את כוחות הנפש לעמוד בכל החקירות וכל הטענות שכנגד והיא עלולה להיות נפגעת נפשית בכל העניין, פושע מי שיגיד לה ללכת להתלונן, צריך לחפש דרך איך לפגוע באותו עבריין מיני אבל לא לחשוף אותה ולא לפגוע בה, כל מקרה לגופו של דבר, לכן כאמור זוהי עמדתנו.

Here, go out and see, let's imagine that there is a complainant who is very soft and gentle in her soul and will not have the strength of mind to withstand all the investigations and all the counter claims and she may be emotionally harmed in the whole thing, whoever tells her to go complain is negligent. We should look for a way to impair that sex offender but not to expose her and not harm her, each case on its merits, therefore as mentioned this is our position.

To me, this sounds a lot like the positions of Rabbi G. Shlita and HRHG Rav Elyashiv, ZTL. One thing is certain.

None of these 21 rabbanim would ever sign such an appalling Kol Koreh and probably not even the other six would.

Nor should they.