Q&A: Administering lashes on the basis of a bad public rumor
Administering lashes on the basis of a bad public rumor
Question
Hello Rabbi,
At first glance, this Jewish law seems unbalanced. It does not require real rules of evidence—not only in the halakhic sense, but even in the sense of the king’s law—but instead assumes that if there is a persistent public rumor, it is probably true. True, Maimonides qualifies this law so that it applies to a person who has no enemies, but even someone without obvious enemies can end up the subject of a false rumor—for example, if the complainant later regrets something that was done consensually.
Seemingly, this is criminal punishment, but with a burden of proof that fits civil law, and even that in the best-case scenario.
Are there additional limitations?
Answer
This gives the religious court a way to act against offenders outside the standard rules of punishment. The limitation is the court’s common sense. They need to be convinced that there is something real behind the rumor—a persistent public rumor—and even if the offense was not actually committed, the person’s behavior may justify lashes for educational purposes, both for him and for the public. They too know that rumors are sometimes baseless, so they have to use judgment before acting. This is discretionary, not mandatory, and that leaves the religious court free to act as it sees fit.