Q&A: Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor?
Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor?
Question
I have a neighbor who appears to be God-fearing and upright.
But I have seen two things about him that raise a question for me: is he in the category of a good neighbor that the Sages recommended one should attach oneself to, or the opposite…
- One of his rabbis in yeshiva, whom he esteems very, very highly, was convicted in court of indecent acts with boys. Then again, after serving his sentence, another indecent act became public…[but no formal complaint was filed…] Yet this neighbor organizes, together with his wife, his sons and daughters, and several other students—them, their wives, their sons, their daughters, and all that is theirs—a pilgrimage to that rabbi in order to encourage him… while ignoring the ruling and the unceasing public rumor about the continuation of his disgraceful acts…
2. He has no problem at all [and claims this is what he is going to do—God have mercy] voting for someone convicted of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Again, he ignores it and comes up with all sorts of theories such that an elephant would pass more easily through the eye of a needle than the likelihood of those excuses being true…
3. That wise and truly brilliant neighbor mentioned above organizes from time to time a gathering of several students at their rabbi’s home—they, their wives, their sons, their daughters, and all that is theirs… What’s the problem? Their rabbi was convicted in court of committing indecent acts… And a few years after he was convicted, there was again an unceasing public rumor, which also reached me, that this happened again [except that no complaint was filed with the law-enforcement authorities…] Bottom line: the aforementioned person ignores this, and continues to go up to his rabbi, he and all his offspring, and also organizes with other students like him. Just as in days of old, and he is not concerned about a desecration of God’s name…
It is hard to judge him favorably by saying he is one of the many weak-minded people around, since we are talking about someone who is genuinely a genius.
Bottom line, he is also a good neighbor [aside from the two flaws above] and a good friend.
Should I relate to him as good and attach myself to him as the Sages advised, or on the contrary flee from him because he is willing to corrupt the people and everything else, so long as he can satisfy his desires in the matter of honoring his rabbi and voting for someone he assumes is against the left? And he does not care about the corruption?
I really struggle with this anew every single day.
What is the Rabbi’s advice?
What would the Rabbi do in such a case?
Answer
You may disagree with his views and his actions, but there is certainly no obligation to distance yourself from him. On the contrary. There are many who think and act as he does, and usually at the root of it is their lack of trust in the institutions, not a justification of the acts themselves. If he were justifying those acts, that would be problematic. But if he has no trust in court rulings, that is his opinion and his right, and perhaps even his duty, to act accordingly.
Discussion on Answer
All those who received money from the state in connection with corona and unemployment received bribery.
There is no other word to describe it.
In a normal state of affairs, without bribery, the system should have collapsed.
2. “Voting for someone convicted of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust” — I assume the intention is voting for the Shas party under Deri. Since apparently the overall set of positions and interests of that voter aligns with the actions of the Shas party, it seems to me almost irrelevant to inspect party chairman Deri’s personal record. Especially since he is, all in all, a very successful politician who advances quite well the manifest wishes of his voters. All the more so if we are talking about Prime Minister Netanyahu and the particular tribes that would gather under the shelter of his future coalition.
One can propose all sorts of normative frameworks according to which it is “forbidden” even for a private individual to vote for a politician with a basket of bribery charges hanging behind him from thirty years ago, even if today he advances exactly what I want. But to think this is some supreme and self-evident postulate, such that anyone who does not accept it deserves criticism on the level that one “ought” not associate with him—that is already beyond bizarre (unless these are all tactical considerations, in which case that is a different matter). Would an exalted creature such as yourself be willing to socialize with someone who honks on the road after only 5 seconds have passed since the traffic light turned green and the car in front of him still has not started moving?