Q&A: The Proper Attitude Toward Ezra Sheinberg
The Proper Attitude Toward Ezra Sheinberg
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask how, in your opinion, one should relate to Ezra Sheinberg.
He is moving to Katzrin without, to the best of my understanding, having repented — an understanding based mainly on claims by activists in the protest against him.
Statistics say that 75% of sex offenders reoffend, and even more so among those who have not expressed remorse.
Now I’ll sharpen the question a bit:
It seems to me, on logical grounds, that the issue of "paying one’s debt to society" is irrelevant (what does that even mean?), and so I ask: why should *he* get the benefit of the doubt that maybe he won’t sin in the future, rather than the potential victims? (For example, if he were in prison until the end of his life, then every future victim would get the benefit of the doubt.) Especially since the statistics are apparently against him.
The claim is made that he has to live somewhere, and therefore even if the protest is justified, there is no better solution.
But even the idea of ostracizing him could still allow him some access to more vulnerable victims, and again the question arises: why give him any chance at all? Why give a chance for repentance at the expense of someone else who will pay the price?
Bottom line, I have no idea for any concrete course of action, and I also wanted to ask whether you have any reservations or thoughts about that.
A summary of the questions:
A. Why give him a chance? (A theoretical question, since nobody asked me…)
B. What do you think is the right practical thing to do?
Thank you very much
Answer
First, he too has to live somewhere. Second, since his name is already public and known to everyone, I do not see any concern about danger from him. Any woman who believes him and allows him to harm her deserves to be harmed by him, unless she is mentally incompetent and not responsible for her actions. In my view, all the protests against him are just for revenge and not out of any real fear.
Discussion on Answer
As for the danger to the public, time will tell. I hope you’re right, even though there are a thousand ways to harm. But actually the second part of the question is what interests me more — why is it legitimate, in the name of the possibility of repentance, to let a person return to the "space of the offense" when others will pay the price?
What does it mean, "to let a person return"? The space is his just like it is everyone else’s. There is no danger here, as the Rabbi explained, because all his power lies in words, and a reasonable person should not rely on him after his deeds became known. So what you are really saying is that in your view the punishment for such an act should not end with prison, but with exile from the city. That is a legitimate claim, but it should be said openly, and the law should be changed accordingly.
"Any woman who believes him and allows him to harm her deserves to be harmed by him""
A shameful response. No woman deserves to be raped or sexually harmed!
Avi, I’m not saying that, I’m asking. I don’t know what the right approach is, and I assume he could harm in the future and that he is responsible for his actions even if it’s someone weak/stupid/whatever you want. And again the question returns — what moral justification allows the offender to get the benefit of the doubt that maybe he will repent and maybe not, when there is someone who may pay the (heavy) price, and you could say the probabilities are against him. For the sake of clarity, I’ll say that this specific story doesn’t interest me that much (there are a million other problematic stories, but for some reason this brought this point to the surface for me).
After being ashamed, I’ll return and write that if a woman believes him and allows him to harm her after everything that has been published about him — then she absolutely deserves it. And I wrote that one should exclude someone mentally incompetent who is not responsible for her actions. A responsible person does not enter a place of certain danger, and even the Holy One, blessed be He, does not save him there (as is well known, the Talmud says that emissaries performing a commandment are not harmed because they are protected by the Holy One, blessed be He. But where danger is certain, there is no guaranteed protection).
Of course, that does not mean Sheinberg should not be judged if he does such a thing. I am talking about her contributory fault.
The same argument took place in the talkbacks on Column 117.
I’ll try one last time, because somehow I’m getting responses to everything except what really interests me — what is the moral justification for releasing the wolf to prey? More fully spelled out in my comments above.
Maybe you didn’t read, but it was answered. There is no justification for releasing him at the price of harm. But there will be no harm unless there is a woman who behaves in an especially stupid way. And then she deserves it.
The protests against him are meant to send a message to other women to be more careful.
There is always concern about other people.
In any case, I don’t know whether it’s true or not, but I understood that in the prison where he was incarcerated there were guards who literally asked him for blessings. So apparently he still has influence, and not only over women.