Q&A: Rules of Thumb for Those Defending Potential Offenders
Rules of Thumb for Those Defending Potential Offenders
Question
Following the story about the suspicions against Rabbi Tau, and especially in light of the reactions of those close to him, the following question occurred to me. What can be expected of people close to him, who have lived and worked in the orbit of a certain person for many years, sincerely believe in his path, and perhaps truly never saw any flaw in his conduct that even slightly resembles the serious accusations against him? On a superficial level, it seems to me that expecting them to say something like, “We are suspending our relationship with him until his innocence is proven,” does not seem fair. So what is fair? Maybe they should say something that expresses their attempt to thread the needle.
What do you think?
Answer
Obviously. What’s the question? As long as the facts have not been clarified, there is no reason for any step to be taken against him. And in general, all those people who remove so-and-so’s books from the house because he did something are just populist demagogues. By the way, this is a very common practice in the “Kav.”
And of course, if you know someone well, it is natural and legitimate for you to have a view about how likely it is that he did these things. But you still have to remain open to the possibility that you were mistaken.