Rabbi Eidensohn Questions the RCA “Clarification” About Rabbi Belsky

Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn updated his Daas Torah blog post “RCA Issues Clarification of Its Position on reporting Abuse – Kolko case & Rav Belsky” to question the RCA for not addressing some critical problems with Rabbi Belsky’s stance. He writes,

 The RCA acknowledges it is bothered by the fact that Rav Belsky’s position on the Kolko case is inconsistent with the official position of the RCA [to go directly to the police with reasonable suspicions]. However they allow him to deviate in the Kolko case – because he claims he has investigated the matter and knows Kolko to be innocent. It fails to explain on what basis Rav Belsky has come to conclusion that Koko is innocent – despite the president of the RCA writing me that,

Concerning the Kolko case, Rabbi Belsky made it clear, based upon his involvement in the case, that he believes the defendant to be innocent of the charges and that the accusers are actually the guilty parties. He is convinced of this position, in spite of what seems to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The RCA clarification also fails to deal with the fact that Rav Belsky has done much more than simply cling to the belief in Kolko’s innocence “despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

1) There is no basis in Jewish law for calling someone a moser [snitch] if he has gone to beis din and received permission to call the police. 1) There is no basis in Jewish law for calling someone a moser if he received a psak that it is obligated to go to the police. In this case he received a written psak from   Rav Moshe Sternbuch that he was obligated to report the abuse  [update and correction]

2) Rav Belsky not only has proclaimed Kolko innocent but he accused the victim’s father of sexual abusing his own son and said that the victims’s father reported Kolko to the police only to avoid being blamed himself. This astounding slander – which has no basis in fact – does not seem to bother the RCA – why not? Rabbi Goldin claims – contrary to the obvious translation of Rav Belsky’s defamatory letter that

Rabbi Belsky did not accuse the father of abuse-but rather of rishus [wickedness]. He claims that the allegations were trumped up and that Kolko was framed and forced to accept a plea deal”.

Even if Rabbi Goldin’s reading is accepted – Rav Belsky has presented no evidence to justify this slander.

Why does the RCA allow Rav Belsky to continue to slander a great talmid chachom [rabbinic scholar] without any apparent justification?

In sum – How can the RCA make this “clarification” without addressing the elephant in the room of Rav Belsky’s obscene public slander of the father of the victim?

In a nutshell, Rabbi Eidensohn is raising the following problems:

  1. The RCA accepts Belsky’s claim that Kolko is innocent without even specifying how or why he reached that conclusion.
  2. The RCA has disregarded the grave offense of Belsky’s slander of the father of the victim,  a great talmid chochom (rabbinic scholar of distinction).
  3. The RCA is disregarding the fact that the father  reported to the police with the consent of a properly constituted local beit din and the approval of a major posek, [Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, av beit din of the eidah chareidis in Jerusalem). Thus there is no halachic justification for labeling the father a moser (snitch).
  4. The RCA cannot simultaneously claim to oppose victim intimidation while not challenging Belsky and even claiming that Rabbi Belsky agrees with the RCA policy.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Rabbi Eidensohn Questions the RCA “Clarification” About Rabbi Belsky

  1. Thr RCA has unfortunately imade tself into a laughing stock with its completely nonsensical hypocritical position the lacks any moral courage or backbone or empathy for victims of child abuse.

  2. “There is no basis in Jewish law for calling someone a moser [snitch] if he has gone to beis din and received permission to call the police.” And if he didn’t, G-d forbid, ask beis din first (especially since we know how good they are at getting these things right)?

  3. Shimu Shamayim malchei Eretz veRoznim, Shomu Shamayim, kaMayim nishpach Damam!Eretz, al techasi et damam. Al ka’ele ani bochiyo. Vayahar.. vezadon chasidei elyon, Al ken Tzion bemar tivkeh, virishalayim titen kolah, Libi Libi al chalelehem, me’ay me’ay al chalelehem. Ahoy!, oy, oy, oy. Aval ashemim anachnu al Achinu asher rainu TSARAT NAFSHO behitchen’no elenu velo shamanu, al ken ba’ah alenu haTsara hazot. Va’ani ana ani ba???

  4. Dear Harav Eidensohn S’hlita’,

    Toda Raba, meimka deLiba. At beyerushalayim, umtsudatcha prussa al Kol haGola Kula. Sahadei Bamromim, sheharbeh assita bishvil sheYichye Bni, venero Yair veYofia.

    Hada hi dichtiv:
    Hamatsil afilu nefesh achat meYisrael keilu kiyem olam male, hamkayem nefashot ad sof kol hadorot, al achat pi kama vekama tova kfula umchupelet. Yekum purkan min shmaya, shetishma kolech misof ha’Olam ad sofo.

    Bameh avarechecha? Perotecha metukim meod, Tsilcha naeh veyafeh ad leMeod, Amat haMayim overet tachtecha, Ela halvay, shekol netiyot shenotim mimcha ( Netuyo tartei mashma) yihye natui “l ‘DAAS TORAH”, vehalvay halvay sheyirbu kemotcha be” Y*I*S*R*A*EL* “, no pun intended. Zchutcha merube misfor!

    Shlomchon yassgei,Yishge veYifrach, shenishma venitbasser Kol Tuv ach kol hayamim – amen. Thanks again for your voice and and Advocacy.

    With tons of Love,
    The Kindertransport

    TT- your apologies are accepted–Yerachmiel Lopin

  5. Yerachmiel, thanks for your work. In all these “clarifications” there was one thing that may be clouding some statements. I’ve heard there are Rabbanim who differentiate between inappropriate contact and anal sex. I would like Rabbi Belsky to clarify that the “he favors the reporting of credible suspicions of abuse directly to the civil authorities” in all cases. I would also like this view to be publicized in all hareidi institutions (Lakewood, Agudah, Torah Umesorah, etc.) and accepted as policy, not just by the RCA/OU damage control unit.

    • Careful what you wish for. Belsky may or may not believe in reporting abuse, in some cases, when he decides the charges are credible. But he definitely is on record intimidating the family of a victim of abuse. How can someone with that track record, help when it comes to this issue?

See Commenting policy ( http://wp.me/pFbfD-Kk )

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s