Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

It is significant that this week’s Torah portions, Achrei-Mot and Kedoshim, both touch on the insidious problem of child abuse and pedophilia. Arguably, the sin against children must be universally decried as the worst sin of our age. The fact that the Torah delineates this section is indicative it has always been a problem in human society.

I came across an interesting article at the failedmessiah website today that was written by one of the most creative Orthodox rabbinic scholars today, Professor Marc B. Shapiro. I thought it would be intriguing to focus a little bit on this question, primarily because the problem continues to grow within the Haredi community.

He writes:

“…There is another theory as to why the sectarian hasidic world in particular has had so many cases of covering up and defending child sex abusers. It is that they simply do not regard these people as so terrible. The evidence for this appears obvious, in that in case of after case we see that they continue to allow sex abusers to teach and refuse to turn them over to the authorities and warn the parent body. Had they caught the rebbe eating at McDonald’s, you can be sure he would have been fired, but not so when it comes to fooling around with kids. The question is why do they have this outlook, and how come they don’t regard child sex abusers as so terrible? Here is a possible answer (which a wise person suggested). Look at where these societies get their information about human nature, the information that they regard as authentic and true. It does not come from modern psychology, but from Torah sources and folk beliefs. If you look only at traditional rabbinic literature, you won’t conclude that child sex abuse is as terrible as modern society views it. Yes, it is a sin and the person who commits it must repent as he must do with all sins, but there is nothing in the traditional literature that speaks to the great trauma suffered by the victim. How do we know about this trauma? Only from modern psychology and the testimony of the victims. Yet this type of evidence does not have much significance in the insular hasidic world (unless it is your own child who has been abused). Certainly modern psychology, which is often attacked by figures in that community, is not given much credence, especially not when they are confronted with an issur (prohibition) of mesirah (informing upon Jews to the secular authorities). This theory makes a lot of sense to me and I am curious to hear what others have to say.”

Is the professor correct?

It is written in the Mishnah: “A girl of three years and one day is betrothed (as a woman is acquired) by intercourse…if one of those forbidden to have relations with her according to the Torah does have relations with her, he is killed because of her, and she is exempt. If she is younger than that, (less than three years and a day), it is as one who sticks a finger in the eye” [1]

Maimonides similarly rules:

“When an adult male enters into relations with any of the women forbidden in connection with the above transgressions who is three years and one day old or more, he is liable for execution, koreth (“excision,” i.e., premature death or spiritual death in the hereafter) or lashes and she is not liable unless she is past majority. If she is younger than this, both participants are not liable, for the act is not considered as sexual relations.”

Note that neither the Talmud nor Maimonides prescribes lashes for sexually molesting a young infant girl under the age of three. This law shows how antiquated the ancient world looked upon this type of behavior; it also explains why little stigma was placed on adults who sexually abuse children in this way.

Maimonides continues: “Similarly, when an adult woman enters into sexual relations with a minor, if he is nine years and one day old, she is liable for execution, koreth, or lashes and he is not liable. If he is younger than nine years old, they are both free of liability.” [2]

Here too, it is not enough to simply state that such behavior is “free of liability,” corporeal punishment would have been a much more apropos way for a medievalist like Maimonides to rule. Note, however, only if it is a male child who violated at a young age, Maimonides recommends that corporeal punishment be administered! He writes further:

“If a minor of nine years and a day or more is involved, the man who enters into relations or has the minor enter into relations with him should be stoned and the minor is not liable. If the male minor was less than nine years old, they are both free of liability. It is, however, appropriate for the court to subject the adult to stripes for rebellious conduct for homosexual relations although his companion was less than nine years old.” [3]

In defense of the ancients, they simply did not realize the evils of pedophilia like we do today—plain and simple. The study of human psychology hardly existed in the rabbinic world as a discipline like it is today.

Thus far, Professor Shapiro is certainly correct. However, there is a more basic explanation that deserves consideration.

The Haredi attitude and thinking really believes that revealing sexual scandals about its inner circle constitute a far greater sin than a specific incident of pedophilia. The same phenomena can be seen whenever there is also a spousal abuse, or child abuse-especially when it results in the wrongful death of a child.

Simply put, the Haredi leadership is terrified that their religious world could unravel. As is often the case with family dysfunction, keeping secrets about its sordid behavior is vital in order to maintain the “appearance” of normalcy. I would argue that the tendency to look for newer stringent decrees in Halachic minutia reflects a desperate psychological attempt to mask their more insidious problems. After all, it is much easier to worry about bugs in lettuce or schach than it is to deal with the real hard issues that confront their society like pedophilia and child abuse.

As with the case of the famous story of the “Emperor’s New Clothes,” the Haredi rabbinic leaders would much rather act as if everything is really “normal” in their society, but unfortunately, it is not. Once the Haredi communities adopt a zero-tolerance approach like the Catholic Church seems to be trying, I believe they will have taken one major step in solving this terrible moral disease that has infested their yeshivas and homes.

With respect to the Catholic Church, the Pontiff missed a golden opportunity when his associates failed to define pedophilia as a “mortal sin.” Religious leaders need to take ownership of their sins of omission/commission, cowardice, and apathy. Our hands will never be collectively clean until we protect society’s most defenseless citizens and victims.

===========

Notes:

[1] Mishnah Niddah 5:4.

[2] Maimonides, MT, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 1:13

[3] Ibid, Halacha 14.