Q&A: Rabbi Tau’s Letter Following the Chaim Walder Affair
Rabbi Tau’s Letter Following the Chaim Walder Affair
Question
Hello Rabbi,
It was published that Rabbi Tau holds that he did nothing wrong. I didn’t come to ask about that (and presumably you don’t have an explanation for that either).
Following these statements, Rabbi Tau published a letter that, in my opinion, raises an important point, and I wanted to ask what the Rabbi thinks about it. I’m attaching the letter (it isn’t very long), and I’d be glad if you could invest two minutes in reading it (if you haven’t already read it).
https://www.srugim.co.il/634045-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%98%D7%90%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%91%D7%A8-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%9C
Answer
What important point does he raise? I didn’t notice any such point in what he wrote. A completely banal letter, which any sensible person understands and doesn’t think otherwise. But when this is presented as a clarification of his remarks, that is of course just demagoguery, because it does not clarify his previous statements in any way. The man urgently needs a psychiatrist, and I see no point or value in discussing the nonsense he spews out.
I already explained this in the talkbacks on the column about the Walder affair.
Discussion on Answer
As I wrote, these are simple things, to the point of banality. Clearly, if everything were conducted properly, then in many cases there would be no need for publication. But what can you do—things are not conducted properly, and publication is needed to make sure they are conducted properly. And indeed, publication itself sometimes interferes with the investigation, and a kangaroo court sometimes passes judgment without data and evidence. All of these are obvious things, and I saw nothing new there that requires any discussion.
There’s no need to say that he himself passed judgment without data; the defect he attributes to others is his own.
Thanks for the answer, Shabbat shalom
As for the fact that it doesn’t clarify his remarks, I agree, and I meant to remove that from the discussion in the first line I wrote in the question.
The point he raises is the question of public discussion and public discourse about the wrongs of a person accused (even when there is substantiation for the claims) of offenses. According to him, such discussion is harmful for several reasons detailed there: a. it harms the ability to reach the truth and to allow the accused to defend himself. b. the purity of speech and of public engagement. c. giving power brokers the ability to decide a person’s fate. And more generally, the public improperly taking on the role of the police and the religious courts, including causing punishment beyond what that person deserves.
I’m not speaking about this specific case; I only wanted to ask whether, in your opinion, this position is not correct in principle. In your opinion, is it right to conduct every such affair publicly (to the extent that it were under our control)? Thanks.