Shades of Contrition Regarding Betrayal of Young People Miketz

“But we are guilty regarding our brother, that we saw his distress when he pleaded with us but we didn't listen…” (1). These words were read in Australian synagogues last Saturday, just one day after the release of a report - from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse - about the betrayal of children (2). These words of contrition were spoken by the brothers of a defenceless young person who had been cruelly betrayed by them. The brothers of the Biblical Joseph had stripped him of his striped tunic, violently thrown him into a pit with snakes and scorpions (3), and then sold him into slavery (4). Both - the Biblical brothers of Joseph and religious leaders in our time - have offered apologies. However, contrition can be tricky to get right. In this post I explore the remorse of Joseph’s brothers and the implications for today.

As I read the Torah reading last week, I was struck by an apparent reversal of the brothers’ admission of guilt. Only seven verses after they accepted responsibility and linked their troubles with their crime, they seem to abdicate responsibility (5). The brothers found money in the bags of grain that they had bought from Egypt and assumed the money was planted there as part of a plot to accuse them of theft. They cry out “what has God done to us?!” This phrase is interpreted as them asking why God is punishing them “for no fault of their own” (6).  

   

The stark contrast between the contrition the brothers expressed and their complaint is discussed by various commentators (7). Some of these offer some technical, “very labored” (8) answers, giving reasons why the brothers felt they did not deserve any further punishment  after their ordeal in Egypt (9). Alternatively, the brothers thought that the main blame lay with the two key perpetrators, rather than those who had supported their deeds (10). For me, there are also simpler, more obvious implications of their cry, which relate to the difficulty of sincere and sustained contrition.  

A clear critique of the brothers’ complaint, quoted in the Talmud (11), was articulated by a young boy. He was an orphan and a nephew of the leading sage of that period, Rabbi Yochanan.“[The boy’s uncle] Rabbi Yocḥanan found the young son of [his brother in law] Reish Lakish, when he was sitting and reciting the verse: “The foolishness of Man perverts his way, and his heart frets against the Lord” (12).  The child told his uncle that the complaint of Joseph’s brothers when they asked “...What is this that God has done to us?” exemplifies the proverb that when one sins and encounters troubles, they often foolishly question why it is happening to them - despite their obvious guilt (13).  

It's hard for religious leaders to acknowledge the failures of our heroes. One of the men I most admired since I came to Australia, a leading Rabbi, was implicated in the royal Commission process as having failed to protect children. Similarly, in the Talmudic story, the senior religious leader appeared displeased with his young nephew’s critique of the iconic sons of Jacob. In contrast to the sages who praised the brother's contrition (14), this child drew attention to the weakness of their repentance. The senior sage Rabbi Yochanan “raised his eyes and stared at the boy. At this point, the boy’s mother came and took him away” to protect him from his uncle's “gaze”.

Some earlier attempts at apology (by representatives of the institutions where sexual abuse occurred) were described by Mr Manny Waks - a survivor of sexual abuse and campaigner on this issue - as “so qualified in its terms that he found it to be insulting” (15). Rabbi Moshe Gutnick was also less than impressed, making the comment that it was an “apology perfectly timed only a few days before the Royal Commission in order to maximise the PR effect”. He added, “and how did that make victims feel? They knew it was empty, they knew it wasn’t real…” (16).  

Last week the representative body of Orthodox Jewish clergy in Australia and New Zealand (RCANZ) issued an emphatic expression of contrition for the way we - collectively - responded to the betrayal of children and youth in terms of sexual abuse. It stated that “ The findings [of the royal commission] ... in relation to the failures of the rabbinic leadership of Yeshiva Sydney and Melbourne, must shake us to the core… We can make no excuses and any apology we may make at this time must not be mere platitude.  ...We must truly absorb the horror, that the Royal Commission has found, that instead of being protectors of the weak and innocent, Rabbis were directly responsible for the sexual abuse that occurred to children. There can be no greater shame, and no greater admonition to all of us, than that failure…. We of the RCANZ have resolved to do everything we can so that the light we generate dispels once and for all, the darkness that is the abuse of children and the abuse of survivors” (17).   I pray that this time the contrition is deep and enduring, and results in ensuring no child is ever betrayed by Jewish Australian religious institutions again.

We dare not backpedal on our confession, that indeed ‘we are guilty regarding our brothers [and sisters], that we saw their distress when they pleaded with us but we didn't listen…’

Notes:

1. Genesis 42:21
2. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report
3. Talmud Shabbat 22a, cited in Rashi on Genesis 37:24
4. Genesis 37:23-28
5. Genesis 42:28
6. Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel on Genesis 42:28,
    “וּנְפַק מַנְדַע לִבְּהוֹן וְתַוְהוּ גְבַר לְאָחוּהִי לְמֵימַר מַה דָא עָבַד יְיָ וְלָא בְּחוֹבָא דִילָנָא:”
7. Maharsha, on Talmud Taanis 9a, Maharshal in Yeriot Shlomo and Tzeda Lderech on 42:28
8. Torah Temima on 42:28 writes about the Maharsha טרח מאד
9. Maharshah on Taanit 9a, Seforno and Tzeda Lderech on 42:28
10. Maharshal/Yeriot Shlomo on 42:28
11. Talmud Taanit 9a
12. Proverbs 19:3
13. Maharshah on Taanit 9a,
14. Midrash Hagadol on 42:21 cited in Torah Shlaima, p. 1583, 77, Rabbenu Bchaya p. 341, Mosad Rav Kook Edition.
15. https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/final_report_-_volume_16_religious_institutions_book_3_0.pdf, p 195 (in the printed version, p. 205 in the online pdf version).
16. https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/final_report_-_volume_16_religious_institutions_book_3_0.pdf, p 195
17. Statement of the Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand

http://www.jwire.com.au/royal-commission-report-shaking-us-to-the-core/

Linking religion to misbehavior: Abuse & shunning secular authorities - Mishpatim

As I sit down to write this, I am afraid of upsetting people, but also of doing the wrong thing. I have been listening to opposing arguments relating to cultural and religious diversity and seeing how each is true for the people who hold them. A binary paradigm would demand that I simply take one side and ignore the other. I don’t think a binary approach is working. Despite all the good intentions of advocates we are seeing the triumph of “Trumpism”[i], rising anti migrant sentiment in Europe and the Australian High Court ruling that allows asylum seeker families, including children, to be returned to Nauru[ii].  On the other hand, attempts at acknowledging the fears people have of the “other”, such as an article I wrote for an Australian tabloid, The Daily Telegraph, have met with a backlash. Along with positive feedback, there was a torrent of criticism ranging from thoughtful and partly justified, to defamatory. I apologised sincerely and got it taken down, but there are some principles worth considering regarding thinking and talking about out-groups.

Discriminatory talk is a serious moral hazard. The pursuit of justice must start with protecting those with less power from those with more power[iii]. Laws concerning freeing slaves come first[iv] in a series of practical laws in our weekly reading.  To deprive people of freedom is like “murdering them while they are still alive[v]”.  Yet, there are limits on supporting the vulnerable. We are instructed not to glorify the poor person in his fight[vi]. Justice for the vulnerable does not mean that the vulnerable can do no wrong.  Censoring discussion about tensions between members of minorities and majority groups is a well-intentioned but ultimately destructive posture.

A student leader at a rural retreat, a girl in year 11, told her peers and my team who were running the session that the best strategy for dealing with tensions between groups is just to “pretend it is not happening”. However, “pretending” will often fail. Anti-racism literature insists that “Participants must feel ‘safe’ to speak honestly and frankly, including talking about negative experiences. If people feel under attack and think they will be labelled as racist, they are less likely to listen or engage”[vii]. One effective conflict resolution strategy is referred to as adopting the “and stance” which seeks to understand both sides of a dispute because both stories matter. Acknowledging the others’ stories can make it easier for them to add your perspective to theirs[viii].

One critic of my approach, author Randa Abdel Fattah, questions the difference between saying race (of religion) has everything to do with these crimes, and saying it has something to do with it.  The answer for me is in the benefit and truth of the latter vs. the harm and falsehood of the former

An example of this is the way we should talk about the failure of some Australian Rabbis to turn to Secular authorities in cases of suspected child sexual abuse.  It is wrong to say that the Jewishness of the Rabbis was to blame for their behaviour. This is simply not true as we can see that other Jews, including religious Jews, have trusted secular authorities to deal with these problems.  Blaming Judaism falsely taints a community with the wrongful deeds of some people and institutions.

Yet it would be reasonable, and not anti-Semitic, to look beyond the question of assigning blame, and instead explore whether the Jewish faith was a “contributing factor”[ix] in these terrible choices. People and their decisions are multi-faceted and multi-determined.  Although there were factors affecting individual Rabbis’ choices other than faith, such as concern about institutional reputation, personal loyalties, poor personal judgement that also contributed, these do not negate the validity of discussing the role of faith as one factor among others.

One part of the puzzle is the teaching that demands that Jews go to a religious court rather than a secular court even if there is no concern about the specifics of their laws[x]. Going before a court of “the worshipers of stars and constellations” is seen as first denying G-d and then denying the Torah[xi]. But the practical application of religion is often more complicated. Despite this preference for a religious court called a Beit-Din, if a Jew refuses to attend a Beit-Din, one can get dispensation to go to a secular court. Similarly if a litigant did appear before Jewish court but then refused to abide by the judgement one is permitted to turn to non-Jewish authorities to force him/her to do what the Beit-Din ruled[xii]. This demonstrates a hierarchy of imperatives. The preference for a Jewish court is of lesser imperative than justice.  This approach of course should have prevailed in cases of suspected child sexual abuse.  Further questions can be asked about other contributing religious factors such as the emphasis on respect for authority and the lack of sex education in some religious schools[xiii].

The other advantage to seeing faith as a factor is that it means one can think about how faith could be harnessed to influence people to make the right choices.  It would be perfectly reasonable to call on Rabbis like me to try to use religious arguments to persuade a recalcitrant colleague to fall into line and report suspected abusers to police. In fact this is exactly what was vigorously attempted by senior colleagues in Australia years before this scandal became public, but to our great shame, not early enough to protect the vulnerable, and not strongly enough to persuade absolutely everyone completely.  

We need to move beyond the binary approaches where conflicts are attributed entirely to culture and religion or not at all linked and completely irrelevant. We need to move away from accusing those who want to explore faith as a contributing factor of being prejudiced. There is a complexity in the human spirit and complexity when humans with varied needs and assumptions meet in a rapidly changing world.  I don’t believe there are whole cultures or faiths that are incompatible with my own. It is just that mutual curiosity and effort are required for fostering understanding and coexistence.  

---

[i] Beinart, P. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/rubios-surge-is-a-triumph-for-trumpism/459339/ Trump may have lost in Iowa but Trumpism won. The fact that the moderate in the GOP race is now peddling a version of The Donald’s message testifies to how profound his effect has been. …In the final weeks before Iowa, Rubio grew markedly more anti-immigration…

[ii] http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/02/04/un-warns-australia-on-nauru-kids-2.html#sthash.gAwOinqQ.dpuf

[iii] Ibn Ezra commentary to Exodus 22:20

[iv] Exodus 21:2, Abarbanel, p. 339, first paragraph argues that despite the principle of “there is no Mukdam or Me’Uchar in Torah” eg. not everything is chronological, and that we cannot read too much into things on the basis of proximity (View of Rabbi Yehuda in Berachos 21b), still it is implausible that there would not be significance in the order of elements within a passage or section.

[v] Abarbanel, p. 340, last paragraph

[vi] Exodus 23:3

[vii] Pedersen, A., Walker, I., & Wise, M. (2005). Talk Does Not Cook Rice: Beyond anti-racism rhetoric to strategies for social action. Australian Psychologist, 40, 20-30

[viii] Stone, D. Patton, B, Heen, S. 1999. Difficult Conversations. Penguin Books.

[ix] Stone, D. Patton, B, Heen, S. 1999. Difficult Conversations. Penguin Books.

[x] Talmud Gittin 88b, cited in TS p9, 28

[xi] Midrash Tanchuma, cited in Torah Shlaima p.9, note 28

[xii] Mechilta, Nezikin 1, cited in Chizkuni p. 261

[xiii] http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/mishpatim-judaism-abhors-child-abuse

Responses to Sexual Abuse and attitudes to the secular - Mishpatim

The suffering inflicted by sexual abuse is horrific. The Jewish religious leadership in Australia has stated that the belief by some that involving secular authorities in situations of child protection is contrary to Torah is wrong. To ostracise or mistreat vulnerable people because of their speaking out in pursuit of justice and healing is both vile and a terrible sin. To protect criminals is to be complicit in their crimes. To say these things is useful, but I think it is not enough! We can’t just wash our hands of the unacceptable viewpoints that were expressed at the royal commission into Institutional Responses to Sexual Abuse. Instead we must reflect on how someone who is part of the same faith community as we are, can come to hold such views. 

One element is in this is the attitude that some religious people have to the secular world. In the Torah reading this week, laws relating to damages and similar matters are introduced with the phrase: “these are the laws you shall put before them” (1).   The words “before them” are interpreted as referring to a Torah court. "Even in cases where secular law (“of idol worshippers”) is identical to the laws of Israel, it is forbidden to use them (2)”.

Let’s look at this Torah reading a little more closely. In the first instance, context is critical. There is some value in monetary disputes (within faith communities) being resolved with the assistance of learned people familiar with the principles held dear to both parties to a dispute. The case of child sexual abuse is completely different, as has been pointed out by many Australian rabbis. The obligation to protect the innocent is paramount and must be handled by those suitably equipped, namely the police and the courts. It is outrageous that anyone could be so attached to religious authority (and mistrustful/disrespectful of secular authority) as to disregard the obvious imperative of child protection by secular authorities.    

As religious people, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge the capabilities of the secular society that we are so fortunate to live in. Our tradition teaches that "while the Torah is to be found among Jewish scholars, wisdom is found among people of all nations" (3). When confronted with allegations of sexual abuse, we must call on those with the expertise to deal with it and the power to lock perpetrators away.

The cries of the abused are heard by God, and the response foreshadowed in the Torah is harsh and merciless. “If he cries out to me, I will surely hear his cries and my anger will flare up, I will kill you with a sword and your wives will be widows and your children orphans (4)”. I feel some sadness for one of the perpetrators, who I know. However, the welfare of survivors (and the protection of potential victims) is far more important than the suffering of the perpetrators. Our sages teach that “those who are merciful to the cruel will ultimately be cruel to the merciful” (5).

Many years ago, Jewish law developed the concept of a “Moser”, which refers to "one who hands over a Jewish person to the authorities". This law developed during a period when governments were extremely corrupt and bigoted against Jews. A Jew could not expect a fair trial. This is not the case in Australia.

My prayer is that with all the problems exposed, my community will enjoy the benefits of a culture that fosters safety for young people, encourages whistle blowers, and fosters appropriate respect for secular wisdom and authority.

(1) Exodus 21:1
(2) Talmud Gittin 88b
(3) Midrash Eicha Rabba 2:13
(4) Exodus 22:22-23
(5) Midrash Tanchuma, Metzora 1, Yalkut Shimoni, 247

The Humanity of Perpetrators

I have been thinking about three people who can be described as perpetrators of crimes: one, who inspired me in Bondi last week; another is a member of the group of men and boys who attacked several Jewish people on a Friday night in Bondi. The third case involves a man we will call H who was arrested this week and charged with sexual abuse. I also seek some insights about these events from the Torah reading that tells of a villain named Esau and the context of his upbringing.

Last week, I encountered a young man named Jimmy, with an inspirational story: Jimmy has a history of crime, stealing his first car when he was 12 years old. Jimmy is of Aboriginal heritage but knew nothing about his heritage growing up. Later, he was reticent about telling anyone about his heritage because he thought they would think he was looking for a handout. He was ashamed of being Aboriginal. He told his mother he was disappointed with his first 8-month jail sentence. He considered it too short for him - he actually preferred a longer sentence which would have given him some status. Some years later, now the father of a young girl, he received an 8-year sentence. During this period, he made a choice to go straight because “I didn’t want to not be there for my daughter - to be the kind of dad that my dad was, never being there for me”.


Jimmy got permission for day release from prison to work in the community- based “Our Big Kitchen” in Bondi, where he was welcomed. He developed a talent for baking Challah (the Jewish Sabbath bread).  He was very shy at first, even running away when asked to talk to a group of pre-school children, but eventually his confidence grew. Last week he addressed a group of Muslim, Jewish and other students at an interschool program I led under the banner of Together For Humanity. He powerfully illustrated the idea that every human being should be thought of as a human being; the crimes or lesser sins committed by people are one important element of who they are, but not their essence. Jimmy is rising above his crimes by his choices.


The second case is far from inspiring. I have known the Jewish family who were attacked on a Bondi street since the 1990’s; one teaches at a school my children attend. She is a warm, kind and personable woman.  I am disgusted by the attack on them and especially about the significant anti-Semitic nature of the attack.

I was saddened to learn that some of the perpetrators of the attack on this lovely family were apparently Pacific Islanders , although somewhat relieved that the attackers were not Muslims. The organisation I lead, Together For Humanity, works intensively with Arabic Muslim and Pacific Islander teenagers not much older than this alleged perpetrator. There are significant challenges for these boys who are coming from a different world, where there is a great emphasis on family and different ways of showing respect. Pacific Islander students show respect by looking down and “not answering back” in a culture (ours) that values eye contact and verbal communication when dealing with a problem (see embedded video that features Pacific Islander Academic Dr Jioji Ravulo taken from  http://www.differencedifferently.edu.au/prof_learning/) . Newspapers quoted the boy’s mother talking about his problems with alcohol. Like Jimmy, he has spent time in Juvenile Detention, and - I suspect - sought glory or pleasure in “badness”. Unlike Jimmy, he has not yet made a choice to turn his life around.

Very disturbing in a different way is the recent arrest for sex offences of a man I knew in the 1990’s as a fun, dedicated, altruistic, somewhat wild, community volunteer, always smiling, often busy helping people with Mezuza scrolls and making their homes Kosher. Normally, when I hear about sexual abuse, I think about the terrible ordeal of the victims, the perpetrators being viewed as one- dimensional, evil monsters. Yet, this man H, whatever terrible harm he has inflicted on his young victims and the absolute primacy of justice for the current and potential victims, is a multi-dimensional human being. In addition to the tragedy and the terrible costs borne by his victims, it is very sad for him and his family. I shudder to think about what darkness in his soul drove him to commit the acts he allegedly committed. 


Esau, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, is generally thought of as a villain in Judaism. Unlike Jimmy, Esau’s father is not absent. In fact, we are told that he loved Esau although the love is conditional upon the meat he is able to hunt and bring to his dad . Still, it is not smooth sailing. We are told that his mother Rebecca loved Jacob. This is understood to mean that she did not love Esau because she recognised his wickedness . It is further suggested that it is, only when the “the lads grow up ”, that anyone pays attention to their unique natures: Esau was a man of the field while Jacob sat and studied in tents. The parents fail to recognize or notice Esau’s character, with all the “strength, energy, agility, and courage that lie slumbering in this child ”. Esau was the first born son in a culture in which the first born was to be treated with a measure of deference. Esau is further alienated when Jacob figures out a way to free himself from these customs  by purchasing the Birth-Right for a pot of lentils , legally displacing Esau from his elevated position.

In many conversations about offences, there is an either/or approach to the issues. One is either tough on crime with mandatory sentences, pink prison clothes and throwing away the key, or one is a bleeding heart, soft on crime, caring only about the perpetrators and not the victims. This is a false choice. We can forcefully condemn crimes against people because of their race and the exploitation of children, and insist that, no matter what their circumstances, people are responsible for their choices. At the same time, we can also recognise the humanity, the struggles and social context of those human beings who have chosen at certain moments of their life to be perpetrators . May we succeed as a community to maintain justice and order while also improving the conditions in which young people and older people find themselves, so that they are less likely to be drawn towards choosing to do evil.






References
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/the-mother-of-the-boy-accused-of-racehate-attack-in-bondi-works-in-a-jewish-nursing-home/story-fni0cx12-1226748562990
  video by Dr Jioji Ravulo at http://www.differencedifferently.edu.au/prof_learning/
  Genesis 25:28
  Seforno
  Genesis 25:27
  Samson Raphael Hirsch
  Radak
  Genesis 25:30-33
  Do  not judge your fellow until you have been in their place, Pirkey Avod 2:4 as discussed in Tanya 30

Attitudes to sexual abuse and women: the case of Dina

The crime of sexual abuse and religious institutional responses to it is on the agenda in Australia. On a practical level, abuse must be dealt with by reporting alleged perpetrators to the police, following due process and unequivocal support for victims. There must also be a willingness to confront past wrongs, not a whitewash. This post is not about the practices or prevailing attitudes in the Jewish community in the 21^st century on this issue, nor is it a commentary on the position of women in traditional Jewish communities today. Rather, this is an examination, mainly, of our centuries’ old texts as these relate to current issues. 

There are four main elements explored in this post. 1) The repugnant suggestion that abuse or rape should be linked to the victim’s behaviour or dress. 2) The attitude to women’s participation in society. 3) The degree to which the needs of victims are prioritised over other concerns. 4) Whether religious communities are prepared to trust outside authorities to deal with abuse. This is an exploration of these issues in Jewish sources mostly related to the rape of Dina who by some accounts was only 8[i] or even 6[ii] at the time.

The Torah text seems straight forward enough. “Dina, the daughter of Leah, that she bore to Jacob, went out to see with the daughters of the land. Shchem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her, “laid her[iii]” and tormented her[iv]”.

Leaving the Home

One anomaly in this text is the way that Dina is introduced with an emphasis first on being a daughter of Leah then Jacob. One interpretation of this seems to blame Dina for her ordeal. “The text connects [Dinah] to her mother to teach: Just as Leah was an “out-going” person, so too [Dinah] was an “out-going” person[v]”. Her going out to see the daughters of the land, is taken to mean that she went out not just to see, but “to be seen[vi]”, to show off her beauty[vii], adorned like a prostitute, for promiscuity[viii]. There are references to uncovered meat being grabbed by either a bird[ix] or a dog[x] that also encourage women not to be seen. In these early sources, the story of Dina becomes a morality tale with a message that “every woman that goes out to the market place, in the end she will stumble (morally)[xi]”.

While the form of this guidance in blaming a rape victim is highly problematic, I think there are some benefits to dramatically less draconian ideas of modesty as well as some downsides to an “anything” goes attitudes. A silly example is a year 7 girl (aged 11-12) that I taught some years ago who told me she and a boy in the class have been sniping at each other ever since “they broke up” when they were in year 6 (aged 10-11).    

Well intentioned home-girl

Abarbanel, a 15^th century scholar, rejects any blame being placed on Dina, based on his understanding of the story and her character. “This [rape] did not happen to Dinah because she was an “outgoing” girl by nature; (on the contrary)she was Leah's daughter and [Leah] was the one who stayed home all day whereas Rachel was the (outgoing) shepherdess… This teaches that [Dinah] didn't go out for wrong reasons, G-d forbid. [She went out] only to see the girls in the land… since there were no other girls except her in Jacob’s house, and she wanted to learn from them… as young girls tend to do[xii]”.

Gender Roles

Another source also defends Dina as a person ‘who would normally stay at home’, but Shchem enticed her out by organising musicians to play outside her house[xiii]. A third view is that Dina was essentially male, based on a teaching that her mother was originally destined to have a son but prayed for the sex of the child to change to female[xiv]. While these early teaching do not blame the victim for her rape, they do reinforce restrictive gender roles.  

Outgoing is good!

The idea that women should be confined to the home is strongly rejected by recent commentary, most creatively by the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson. As leader of the Chabad movement he advocated for women to have an influence beyond the conduct of the home to draw other Jewish women closer to Judaism. He argues that the characterisation of Dina as “outgoing” is meant as praise, and that her intention of leaving the home was to be a positive influence on the local young women[xv].  A similar argument is made by a recent article from another school within Orthodox Judaism[xvi]. Timeless principles of respect and ‘treating others as we would want to be treated’ are applied differently in our modern context to the way they were many centuries ago.

Priorities?

Putting aside questions of blaming the victim, a key issue is how people respond to reports of abuse. Some religious leaders have rightly been criticized for putting other considerations ahead of the needs of the victims. In some cases people known to have abused children were not reported to police. This was probably prompted at least in part by concern to the welfare of the perpetrator or their families. In terms of Jewish law, the over-riding concern would surely be the protection of the innocent and vulnerable[xvii]. This principle is expressed in the Torah itself in the words “do not stand (idly) by, on your brother blood[xviii]”.

Complicity

In the case of Dina’s attacker, Shchem, his father, Hamor, the local ruler is indifferent to the crime. The failure to bring Shchem to justice is seen by Maimonides as a grave offense, not just on the part of Hamor but of all the people of the town. He even goes so far as to justify the killing of the townspeople by the sons of Jacob as a fitting punishment for their failure[xix]. While the idea of collective culpability is disputed[xx] and Simon and Levi’s anger is eventually cursed by their father[xxi], the principle of communal responsibility for justice is not.  

Mistrust

One respected Australian Rabbi addressed one obstacle to reporting suspected offenders, namely traditional mistrust of the non-Jewish authorities. The authority insisted that laws against handing over a Jew to the authorities (Moser) were based on completely corrupt anti-Semitic governments officials in other times and places. There can be no justification of this mistrust in a modern context in countries that have essentially sound criminal justice systems. 

Conclusion

In practice, Sexual abuse of any form must be countered as effectively and forcefully as possible within the constraints of the law. We must utilise the secular institutions best placed to handle these matters including the police and we must confront the past honestly. The victim is to be supported, the responsibility and blame rests with the perpetrators and with those who could have prevented these crimes. There are a range of teachings from earlier times that do not sit well with the modern reader.  Creative ways of applying these teachings are leading to more open attitudes toward women.

---

[i] R. Bachai, Sechel Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima p.1319, note 13

[ii] Pirkey d’Rabbi Eliezer, Mecheta Sofrim 21, in notes to Meam Loez (Engish translation) there is a calculation based on some earlier sources  that she was 15½

[iii] The common translation is “he lay with her”, which implies two people doing something “with” each other.  The Hebrew text does not have this connotation, the words are וישכב = “and he lay” אותה = “her”, which can be taken to mean that he acted on her. 

[iv] Genesis 34:2

[v] Midrash Tanchuma – Vayishlach 7

[vi] Old Midrash Tanchuma Vayishlach 10

[vii] Midrash Agada, cited in Torah Shlaima p.1317, note 3

[viii] Sechel Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima p.1317, note 2

[ix] Bereshit Rabba 80, A few years ago there was uproar in response to Media reports that a Sydney based Imam implied that the way women dress was a factor in a rape case. He was said to have used an analogy of “uncovered meat” that is eaten by a cat. Yet, my own tradition seems to include teachings that echo that very sentiment.

[x] Old Midrash Tanchuma Vayishlach 19

[xi] Bereshit Rabba 8:12

[xii] Abarbanel – Genesis 34:1, translation adapted from Coppersmith D, http://www.aish.com/jl/b/women/Women-in-the-Bible-5-Dinah.html

[xiii] Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer 38

[xiv] Rashi commentary relating to Genesis 30:21 “And then [Leah] had a daughter and she named her Dinah.” Leah judged (din) herself, saying: “If this is a male, Rachel will not even be equal to the maidservants.” So Leah prayed and he turned into a female.

[xv] Likutei Sichos vol. 35, p.150-155

[xvi] Coppersmith D, http://www.aish.com/jl/b/women/Women-in-the-Bible-5-Dinah.html

[xvii] I am challenged by the inferences that can be drawn to the contrary - that protection of the innocent is not to be the overriding priority- from the following midrash. "And he got up that night and took his two wives and two maidservants and his eleven sons" (Genesis 32:33). Where was Dinah? [Yaakov] placed her in a box and locked her in. He said, “This evil man (Esav) has a haughty eye – lest he see her and take her from me.” God said: “You prevented kindness from your brother and as a result you suffered. Because if she had married Esav, she would not have been raped,” as it says later (Genesis 34:1) “And Dinah went out." (Breishit Rabba – Vayishlach 77:9), translation from http://www.aish.com/jl/b/women/Women-in-the-Bible-5-Dinah.html

[xviii] Leviticus 19:16

[xix] Maimonides Yad Hachazaka, laws of kings, 9

[xx] Ramban commentary to Genesis 34:13

[xxi] Genesis 49:7, Jacob’s last messages to his sons on his deathbed