Some dangerous nonsense has been posted in comments, and it appears that at least one commenter imagines that mesiroh is some sort of peccadillo that can be winked at. This is not the case; mesiroh is a serious aveiro, one of the most serious a Jew can possibly commit. A mosser is worse than a chazer-fresser, worse than a thief, certainly worse than someone who keeps his neighbours up at night or evades taxes. It is practical halocho that a mosser may be killed, here and now in 21st century Australia, by anyone who is able to get away with it. Three times a day we proclaim ולמלשינים אל תהי תקוה.
A commenter claimed that mesiroh applies only if someone is put “in mortal danger”. Such dangerous am-horatzus must not be allowed to stand. It is clear in Gemoro, Rambam, Shulchon Oruch, and every single rishon that the class of mosser includes המוסר ממון חברו, one who hands over his fellow-yid’s money, not merely his life. Merely letting a robber know where someone has hidden his money makes one a mosser, with all that this implies. Anyone who teaches otherwise is מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה, and is guilty of זיוף התורה. Such a person is not a “posek”, and deserves no respect.
Mention was also made of a so-called category of “malchus shel chesed”. I must stress that halocho knows of no such category. It is a term that does not appear anywhere in any halochic source. It was invented by 20th century rabbis to flatter whatever regime they lived under, and belongs in droshos, not in serious halochic discussion. The Torah does not distinguish between the governments of Ancient Rome or Persia, the medieval princelings, the Czar, Kaiser, or Führer, and the modern liberal democracies of the West. דינא דמלכותא, to whatever extent it is indeed דינא, is so equally in all of them, and so does the issur of messiroh. As for the ערוך השלחן, he is not a reliable reporter on this subject, because he was writing for the censor. He applies this category of “modern enlightened civilised government to whom none of the ancient laws apply” to the brutal regime of the Czar! And he lays it on with a trowel, enough that any contemporary reader would realise what he was up to. If you have any doubts, look at his chapter title for hilchos gerus, which cannot be taken seriously by anybody, and which he can’t possibly have meant to be taken seriously.
There are a number of situations when halocho permits one to involve the authorities in a dispute with a fellow yid. When there is no doubt that one of these exceptions applies, one may act on them; when the application is not so clear, one must consult a rov, just as in any other area of halocho. If you would not dream of eating sofek treif without asking a shaylo, if you take it for granted that you must ask a shaylo in hilchos niddoh, if you ask the rov for a heter before eating on a fast day, then this area of halocho is no different.
So what are the exceptions?
- One is when the purpose of the call is not to get the other yid in trouble, but to abate an immediate and intolerable nuisance or damage. If a loud farbrengen next door is keeping you up, and your attempts to ask them politely to quiet down haven’t worked, you may call the police to get them to quiet down. If someone ends up in trouble because of this, that’s unfortunate, but you don’t have to continue putting up with the ongoing nuisance just to protect the other yid. Warn him that if he doesn’t quiet down you will call the police, and if he ignores your warning then go ahead. However, once the nuisance has been abated, if there is something you can do to protect him from facing charges without damaging yourself, you must do so.
- Similarly, if you wake up at 4 in the morning to find people with power tools engaged in making “unauthorised improvements” to your house, you may call the police to stop them. Once they’ve been stopped the situation can be sorted out in beis din, but you’re not obligated to wait while they’re damaging your property.
- Another exception: the victim of a physical assault is allowed to masser his assailant. If someone hit you, you can’t be expected to just take it and do nothing.
- There is a related heter: one may apply to a civil court for injunctive relief. If someone is causing you damage and you just want him to stop, a beis din is of limited use. You should try getting a rov or beis din to order him to stop, but if that doesn’t work you may go to court for this purpose. This does not constitute a violation of לפניהם ולא לפני נכרים, because you are not litigating the case in the ערכאות but merely preserving the status quo so that a beis din can sort out the rights and wrongs.
There is more to say about the subject, but this will do for now.
Boruch
5 April, 2011
@ Gerta
Jlaw has a reasonable article about this. Definitely worth a read.
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/mesiralaw2.html
gertbysea
5 April, 2011
You must understand that R Michael Broyde comes from a particular community and background, and has a particular agenda. He is loyal to the halachic process, but any argument he can find or make for his fargoyishte perspective he will make. One must ask whether he is a Jew or an American of the Mosaic Persuasion.
Yentl
6 April, 2011
Excellent post with good examples.
The article by Rabbi Broyde on rabbinic decrees on informing in a [presumed] just government is also interesting reading. Of the five opinions given, Rav Feinstein’s opinion, that the situation is unchanged by the government, seems to be the closest to Gert’s opinion.
I was interested to read that a pious person should not be a police man, tax assessor or judge criminal matters lest a yid be judged and face imprisonment. The issue of the moser compensating the yid’s monetary loss was also raised in the article: the Tur says: One who delivers another’s money into the hands of a bandit, whether the bandit is Jew or Gentile, must pay damages that he caused, since he caused a loss of money. Very interesting. I learned a lot today.
Fifth Chelek
6 April, 2011
So if a Yid comes into your store in Carlisle St and starts shouting & throwing things around, it’s OK to call the police? Would it also be OK to get a restraining order through the court if you fear for future such incidents?
zephaniah waks
6 April, 2011
what if the yid causing the nuisance says: “i’m not going to beis din with you, you go to council, whatever happens to me monetarily or otherwise happens”?
Yentl
6 April, 2011
Zephaniah has raised two interesting examples in the previous topic of the problems he has faced and their consequences:
“the original werd hall proposal we did object to, which caused ydg to stop coming to our simchas”. No-one wants retaliation for commenting on Council matters affecting their home. Surely one is not a moser for objecting appropriately so that problems can be prevented.
And then, several times, he was parked IN, meaning that he couldn’t leave his house in his vehicle; clearly this would cause problems for his family to get to work and so on and result in potential hardship as a direct result of another yid attending Werd Hall. Parking problems increase with new facilities being built, requiring good planning to provide adequate parking. Surely that is in everyone’s interest and not against halachah.
GertBySea
6 April, 2011
Fifth, if he is currently running amok, and you are afraid or unable to restrain him yourself, you may certainly call the police to restrain him. Once he has been restrained, if they give you the choice whether to press criminal charges you must decline. As for a restraining order, you should first try to get one from a beis din he will obey; if this doesn’t work, or it’s clear that there is no beis din he will obey, then you may go to civil court for injunctive relief. This is not mesirah, because he is not facing any sort of charges or penalty; he’s merely being stopped from causing further damage to you. If he then breaks the order, you may call the police again to restrain him, but you probably are not allowed to tell them about the order if they don’t already know about it. And you’re certainly not allowed to masser him afterwards for breaking the order. If they know about it and charge him, well, there’s not much you can do about it; that was the risk he took when he chose to disobey the order.
Zephania, whether you’re allowed to go to the council with the “defendant’s” permission is an interesting question. One may not take a dispute between yidden to ערכאות, even if both parties agree. It’s a chilul haShem. So if the council counts as ערכאות then the answer would be no. But the council is not a judicial body, it’s an administrative one, even though it has the power to impose fines. So it’s likely that it would not count as ערכאות, and in that case it would be permitted to go there if both parties agree.
Boruch
6 April, 2011
@ Gert
I think your assessment of Broyde borders on hysteria. Read his other articles. Pity he doesnt have a beardn or wears a kappota. He’d be 100% kosher then, wouldn’t he? Next point. If say a medical (or any other kind) emergency eventuated at ZW’s residence, and they were blocked in, then something heaven forbid went tragically wrong who would be liable? The driver/owner of the offending car? YC for not having supervised to the fullest extent their obligations despite no doubt, their argument they did the nest they could? Was it the best they could if say there was an on duty person directing traffic to ensure the concerns of the neighbours were never breached when functions were taking place? Everyone would be ducking for cover, but has anyone thought about the consequences of what could happen to any resident in A’Becket Street? I suppose they’d all be arguing “the masser had it coming”? Bottom line seems to be that ZW has put the centre on notice as to what he will do. Their response attitude seems to be, do as you please. He basically has their blessing. I’d say that as a minimum, when any day/night function takes place, an authorised person must be on duty full time until the last car has left the street. If his directions are not heeded, that person should call the council and arrange to have a parking fine issued. Not that it would help after the event, but it would be a deterrent for other inconsiderate bastards.
chaya
6 April, 2011
this is off topic, but it seems that after Herzog was banned from this website, he found another blog to post from:
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2011/04/neighborhood-now-hell-as-illegal-hostels-cram-30-people-in-one-small-single-family-house-123.html#comments
Boruch
6 April, 2011
@Chaya Just saw that link. And the creep is using my handle!
chaya
6 April, 2011
I know. from the many different alias’s, he’s actually also using “the fifth chelek”
why would he want everyone to know about his condition??
Daniel Kaffee
6 April, 2011
he uses 20 different handles – he must be an international man of mystery
who you gonna call? the rabbis? the beth din? we need herzog-busters!
(sorry if anyone doesnt get movie references)
Yentl
6 April, 2011
Halachic restraining order needed…Chaim “this time you are REALLY in trouble”
Boruch
6 April, 2011
The poor cretin hasn’t figured out that each time he makes a nuisance of himself, his parents are forced to raise the shidduch bounty by $25,000. But I will musser on him. To the RSPCA. Must be a law somewhere about feeding the incorrect brand of dog food to a puss.
Messira?
6 April, 2011
moderator/gert
you forgot to pour indignant scorn also on the Tzitz Eliezer who approves the Aruch Hashulchan’s ‘lenient’ view of mesira.
gertbysea
6 April, 2011
If the source is unreliable, what difference does it make who quotes it? By the way, do you happen to know what R Waldenberg did for a living? Do you think it might possibly be relevant?
Boruch
6 April, 2011
@Gert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Waldenberg
Wouldn’t call him a lightweight, but. He’s always being quoted at the YC. Pick and choose? Appears you don’t think too much of him unless he rules to your liking on a topic which suits you. Me thinks you are a little too disrespectful.
chaya
6 April, 2011
off the topic again:
http://community.yeshivahcentre.org/index.php?eid=3596&ybrc=1785&article=3597
1 down, 4 to go till only the main one will remain. the question remains, which one of the 5 will it be?
my bet is on the chairman, who practically runs the whole entity anyway.
dovid segal
6 April, 2011
if you want to know how far the din of “moser” can be used to protect criminals see here:
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/08/rav-menashe-klein-how-does-calling.html
Yentl
6 April, 2011
Thanks Dovid. Rav Klein’s view is inconsistent with the joint resolution of the Rabbinical Council of Victoria of which Dayan Telsner is a committee member. Their resolution is here:
http://www.rcv.org.au/images/docs/rcv%20resolution%20condemning%20child%20abuse%20-%20letterhead%205.pdf
Joe in Australia
6 April, 2011
Is there any reason to think that mesira applies to an organisation; a secular abstraction with no real place in halacha?
messira?
6 April, 2011
Joe, the flip side of your question is: does an organisation, corporation, trust, etc which is recognised in secular law as an independent entity have to behave al pi halacha? (not that I am advocating that should happen)
Yentl
6 April, 2011
Joe asks a good question: does mesira apply to an organisation?
Two principles of mesira are: putting yidden in danger (eg in prison) and causing a yid to lose his money to non-yidden as a result of informing on him.
When an association becomes an incorporated body, it is that secular corporate body which is legally liable and can be sued, instead of the individuals in an unincorporated association. Any complaint to secular authorities is unlikely to cause a yid to be in danger (eg in prison), but could lead to a chillul Hashem by having them brought before authorities (Council, government etc) and Jewish behaviour questioned. A yid in that association might lose money if financial penalties or repayment of grants or extra expenses occurred so from that point of view, the second aspect, yes it could be mesira – you would have to predict whether monetary loss to yidden might be a consequence.
With Trustees it is different as they can sell and deal with communal property or communal money themselves as individuals. They can be sued as individuals. So to inform on a Trustee could result in both danger to the Trustee and loss by many yidden and would be considered mesira on both counts.
Anyway that is just my opinion.
gertbysea
7 April, 2011
Boruch, R Waldenberg was a talmid chochom, but he’s no stronger than his source. His source is unreliable; how does his quoting it add anything? And on this subject, it is very relevant to know what he did for a living.
Yentl, Hmmm, the Mishneh Halochos v the Victorian Rabbinical Council, I wonder which should be taken more seriously.
gertbysea
7 April, 2011
Joe, massering a communal organisation may be worse than massering an individual. One of the most notorious mosrim in our history, Bar Kamtzo, didn’t masser any individual.
Yentl
7 April, 2011
Gert-by Sea says: “Yentl, Hmmm, the Mishneh Halochos v the Victorian Rabbinical Council, I wonder which should be taken more seriously”.
Your Morah D’Atra of course, although you may not agree :-)
We could say to the RCV, or in particular your Morah d’Atra named on their letterhead, “from where do you derive this?” and they should be able to tell us.
Messira?
7 April, 2011
Gert, the Tzitz Eliezer apparently had a different opinion than you on the reliability of the Aruch Hashulchan.
As you question whether his source of parnosso affected his view of what is mesira (though i doubt that it did) it is at least equally valid to ask whether the source of your parnosso affects your view of what is messira (a sensitive question perhaps?)
dovid segal
7 April, 2011
Yentel
rabbi telsner sat on the “beth din” that looked in the Mrs. Lauffer case that decided ship her out and not to report her to the police, and the members that signed this resolution knew about the case.
And many of the rabbonim of the rcv of today were rabbonim then, and we didn’t hear a whistle from them at that time.
The resolution of the Rabbinical Council of Victoria is not more than junk food.
dovid segal
7 April, 2011
Chabad Rabbi Gives Molester Plane Ticket, Sent Away – Later …
Yentl
7 April, 2011
Yes, Dovid, I read all the story on Aussie Echo at the time. There was tremendous debate of which I was part.
As a direct result of it, there was this resolution from the Rabbonim and a big advert in the Aust Jewish News.
It is because of the Leifer case and the exploitation of teenage girls that the Rabbonim studied and clarified it.
dovid segal
8 April, 2011
Yentl
I didn’t understand your last post, you wrote: “It is because of the Leifer case and the exploitation of teenage girls that the Rabbonim studied and clarified it”, what did they study, and what did they clarify? Did they care about the girls or about the “chillul hashem” that was the result of the case being publicized all over the world, (just search in goole: malka leifer), and where they in this case:
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2008/10/chabad-rabbi-gi.html
Was it to close to home?
Yentl
8 April, 2011
As in the link that you just gave, Chabad Rabbonim had been using the approach of firing alleged sexual abusers and sending them elsewhere. Anyone wanting to report the abuser would have been labelled a moser. Silence. Cover-up.
Have a look at the link you gave earlier to the opinion of Rav Klein on dealing with a child abuser: “after the matter has been clarified that he in fact committed the crime, nevertheless he can be stopped by firing him from the school and therefore he will not have the opportunity to do the crime again. Since the administration can stop him in this manner they have no right to punish him by given him to the secular government since he is no longer a rodef. Furthermore if he is now pursued after he has been fired then the victim becomes the rodef and the rodef becomes the victim. If it has been clarified before proper witnesses then there is an alternative way of dealing with him by firing him – it is prohibited to hand him over to the government.”
This is what had been happening; the way to “halachically” deal with an abuser was to send them away. Who knows if there had been other abusers and other victims.
As a direct result of the Leifer allegations becoming public knowledge on a blog site and the recognition that something was halachically amiiss, the outcry led to the Rabbonim (both Chabad and non-Chabad) making it very clear, as a group, that this is not halacha. There is no question that many Rabbonim, professional people and police behind the scenes cared and strived to do something so that such abuse should be dealt with differently. Who knows what other cases there may have been.
As to what sources the Rabbonim cited, I would need to search their public statements. Clearly, a person who is fired is not “stopped” as Rav Klein believed, but an ongoing risk to others here and elsewhere, so his halachic reasoning is faulty. And is the Rabbi who sent him elsewhere culpable for the further damage? Rav Klein does not place the protection of life above all. But this was the way they interpreted the law.
Yentl
8 April, 2011
I just looked at the Rabbinical Council of Victoria website. It has a video of Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik (Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Brisk) speaking at the Jewish Board of Advocates for Children seminar on the issue of child abuse but as the video does not open there, go to Youtube to see it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apGcxfhZ01U
He also says that we are dealing with a threat to human life.
messira?
27 April, 2011
Rabbi Yaakov Glasman to a lunchtime lecture on
JBD is advertising a talk by Rabbi Yaakov Glasman on:
“Whistleblowing vs Mesirah – when is it OK to tell?”
From dodgy backpacker landlords to a Jewish business or institution that may have crossed the line, when is it halachically permissible to either report them to the local authorities, or publicize/name & shame?
Query whether the choice of presenter is ideal given that he is a close relative of several senior staff at YC, the institution which used allegations of messira from the pulpit recently to try to silence dissent.
messira?
27 April, 2011
JBD is advertising a talk by Rabbi Yaakov Glasman on:
“Whistleblowing vs Mesirah – when is it OK to tell?”
From dodgy backpacker landlords to a Jewish business or institution that may have crossed the line, when is it halachically permissible to either report them to the local authorities, or publicize/name & shame?
Query whether the choice of presenter is ideal given that he is a close relative of several senior staff at YC, the institution which used allegations of messira from the pulpit recently to try to silence dissent.
Daniel Kaffee
28 April, 2011
@messira everyone in this community is connected to someone in some way. how many degrees of separation is enough for you to trust on this? or will you find an excuse for anyone? maybe you should consider glasmans own achievements before making silly judgements
Yentl
1 May, 2011
Great to see that a lunchtime lecture is planned.
If permitted by Rabbi Glasman, it should be taped for the Jewish Multimedia Library for a wide audience.
It would be a good topic for a lecture at Yarchei Kallah.
And let’s hope it gives guidance to many on the correct path to peace so our dear Mordy E. and others can sleep at night!
Fifth Chelek
5 May, 2011
There is a recording of Glasman’s lecture floating around
Yentl
16 May, 2011
It was great to be able to listen to the lectures, not only of Rabbi Glasman but also Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz via the podcasts on the Jews of the CBD website here: http://www.jbd.org.au/forum/topics/podcasts-1
Great lectures, great questions.
Many, many thanks!!
Isaac Balbin
13 July, 2011
Fifth Chelek: it is disgraceful to besmirch The Tzitz Eliezer because of his work. Next you will tell us he was a Zionist because of his job too. Perhaps your logic should imply that on Mesira we should not trust a Beis Din of Badatz because they don’t recognise Israeli Police anyway. The Malchus shel Chessed is discussed by Gedolei Haposkim. I heard it from their mouths. The aruch hashulchan is certainly a matter of conjecture. Perhaps u think that his ruling on women without head coverings was also for the censor?
I haven’t read Rabbi Broyde’s article but you should at least apply your own rules to it. You said the Tzitz Eliezer was only as good as his sources. I wait with bated breath to read your learned sources rebutting Rabbi Broyde. You ad hominem attack on him was a transgression of how many Lavim, fifth Chelek?
Isaac Balbin
13 July, 2011
In my comments I meant gertbysea, although on the last part fifth Chelek shares in the Lavim