The Agudah's Disconnect With Rabbonim On Reporting Child Abuse

In the ongoing debate of whether a possible molester should be reported to authorities [i.e. the police and/or social welfare and/or child protection services] or only to rabbonim, I think it is worthwhile pointing out the post released by Avi Shafran in which he states the policy of Agudath Yisrael of America on reporting suspicions of child abuse.

Shafran writes on Cross-Currents:

Agudath Israel of America has received several inquiries in the wake of misleading claims that have recently been made about our stance on reporting suspected child abusers to law enforcement authorities. We take the opportunity to clarify our position.


As Torah Jews we live our lives in accordance with halacha. The question of whether and under what circumstances one is halachically permitted or required to report to the authorities suspicions of child abuse (including sexual molestation) has attracted the attention of a number of our generation’s most prominent rabbinic authorities. Many of their responsa have been collected in the respected Torah journal Yeshurun, Volumes 15 and 22. As elaborated at a recent Halacha Conference sponsored by Agudath Israel of America, these responsa make clear that when certain standards have been met it is not only permitted but in fact obligatory to report suspicions of abuse or molestation. The general principles that emerge from these responsa are as follows:


1. Where there is “raglayim la’davar” (roughly, reason to believe) that a child has been abused or molested, the matter should be reported to the authorities. In such situations, considerations of “tikun ha’olam” (the halachic authority to take steps necessary to “repair the world”), as well as other halachic concepts, override all other considerations.


2. This halachic obligation to report where there is raglayim la’davar is not dependent upon any secular legal mandate to report. Thus, it is not limited to a designated class of “mandated reporters,” as is the law in many states (including New York); it is binding upon anyone and everyone. In this respect, the halachic mandate to report is more stringent than secular law.


3. However, where the circumstances of the case do not rise to the threshold level of raglayim la’davar, the matter should not be reported to the authorities. In the words of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, perhaps the most widely respected senior halachic authority in the world today, “I see no basis to permit” reporting “where there is no raglayim la’davar, but rather only ‘eizeh dimyon’ (roughly, some mere conjecture); if we were to permit it, not only would that not result in ‘tikun ha’olam’, it could lead to ‘heres haolam’ (destruction of the world).” [Yeshurun, Volume 7, page 641.]


4. Thus, the question of whether the threshold standard of raglayim la’davar has been met so as to justify (indeed, to require) reporting is critical for halachic purposes. (The secular law also typically establishes a threshold for mandated reporters; in New York, it is “reasonable cause to suspect.”) The issue is obviously fact sensitive and must be determined on a case-by-case basis.


5. There may be times when an individual may feel that a report or evidence he has seen rises to the level of raglayim la’davar; and times when he may feel otherwise. Because the question of reporting has serious implications for all parties, and raises sensitive halachic issues, the individual should not rely exclusively on his own judgment to determine the presence or absence of raglayim la’davar. Rather, he should present the facts of the case to a rabbi who is expert in halacha and who also has experience in the area of abuse and molestation – someone who is fully sensitive both to the gravity of the halachic considerations and the urgent need to protect children. (In addition, as Rabbi Yehuda Silman states in one of his responsa [Yeshurun, Volume 15, page 589], “of course it is assumed that the rabbi will seek the advice of professionals in the field as may be necessary.”) It is not necessary to convene a formal bais din (rabbinic tribunal) for this purpose, and the matter should be resolved as expeditiously as possible to minimize any chance of the suspect continuing his abusive conduct while the matter is being considered.

It seems the main issue is the need to determine if raglayim l'davar is present in any given situation. If there is any question, Agudath Yisrael says you must first check with your rav to determine if there is or is not. If there is no question of raglayim l'davar, one must go straight to the authorities, secular or otherwise.

Nowhere in the Agudath Yisrael guidelines is there a set of guidelines laid out by which the rav is going to conduct an investigation and act as an alternative to the police/welfar services. At most he is going to speak to professionals in the field about the details to determine if there is raglayim l'davar, and if he finds that there is he will tell you to go to the police.

This is very different than what we hear from many rabbonim. For example, a local RBS rav, a neighborhood where this has been a serious ongoing issue in the past 7 or so years, recently gave a shiur to his constituents, and has made the shiur available for download to the general public. It seems an ambiguous "sod Hashem L'Yerai'av" is more of a determining factor than determining raglayim l'davar.

Ignoring the accuracy of the details of what he says regarding this or that organization, his policy is nothing like what Agudath Yisrael of America dictates. Is he obligated to follow the policy of the Agudah? I guess not, but then what is he talking about when he describes "community", the need to work with the community, the style of the community, etc? Talking to an anglo community, one would think that the Agudah would be the main source of direction in most issues. So, either he is making up his own rules (not just this specific rav, but rabbonim in general who advocate their controlling the investigation) or else the Agudah is all talk but the rabbonim don't actually follow the policy.

I don't mean to pinpoint any one specific rav. I have heard the same regarding rabbonim all over, in the haredi community, both in chutz la'aretz and in Israel. They might say that ultimately one should go to the police, once it has been determined that there is definitely enough suspicion, but they will almost never follow that in practice. Instead of just seeking advice to determine raglayim l'davar, they will try to conduct full-scale investigations.

Does the Agudah not have any sway over rabbonim in the anglo-haredi community? Are the statements put out by the Agudah simply for public consumption but not actually meant to be followed? What is the point of the Agudah at all, if their own rabbonim don't follow their guidelines?