A lawsuit was filed last week by a woman against Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu demanding an apology for things that the Chief Rabbi of Safed published against her 20 years ago. That's how Wala found out. The lawsuit was filed by Sara, a pseudonym, claiming that Rabbi Eliyahu published on the "Kippa" website statements, according to which he doubted her story, according to which Rabbi Shlomo Aviner sexually harassed her and another woman as part of an investigation published by journalist Kalman Libeskind in Ma'ariv 20 years ago. Sarah, a woman in her 50s who lives in one of the religious settlements outside the Green Line, filed the lawsuit in the private court "Aretz Hamada".
The lawsuit was filed based on the words of Rabbi Eliyahu, the father of minister Amichai Eliyahu, on the Kippa site in October 2002 in response to a question he received. Among other things, he wrote: "The first and most important thing to know is that if the two conspirators were real - they would have had the opportunity to bring their claims to the Torah court before very great rabbis. They were offered this and they did not do so. I do not want to publish what I think about the motive of The women - I think you will hear their apology very soon. Just to remind you that a short time ago the district court ruled on a similar plot against Rabbi Ifergan. These women said that someone encouraged them to plot this plot. Now they are afraid of God and are repeating it ".
He also wrote: "The second thing that is important to note is that if we believe anyone who says "goat" without proof - we are not giving life to any creature. There were so many times that rabbis were told things about such and similar matters and it turned out that everything was a lie. The third thing that needs to be thought about is what Would you want your friend or others to think of you if someone made such a plot about you? This is the time of the test of 'love your neighbor as yourself'".
The statement of claim raises two questions: 20 years have passed since the publication in Ma'ariv and the statute of limitations in terms of criminal and civil law has already applied to Eliyahu's alleged words, as well as the fact that the claim is filed in a private court, which has no binding status as far as the state is concerned.
Sarah's complaint against Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a well-known authoritative figure in the Leumi religious community, president of Yeshiva Ataret Jerusalem and rabbi of the former Beit El settlement, was that the rabbi took advantage of the conversion relationship between them. Sara claims that she came to consult with Aviner about her married life, something that is accepted in certain circles in the national religious community and he touched her. Although the touching was not blatant or in modesty, but within the framework of mutual respect and in the internal codes of the national religious community, this is a very unusual act.
It should be emphasized that the police closed the complaint and the prosecutor's office decided not to file an indictment against Rabbi Aviner. Attorney Dan Eldad, who was the director of the economic department at the state attorney's office and handled, among other things, Rabbi Aviner's complaint, said in a conversation with Walla: "I remember the case. I don't remember his details. I remember that it was claimed that the rabbi advised the complainants on matters of relationship and sex and that it was claimed that in the consultation he dealt freely with the matters about which he was asked, and that the complainants claimed that a rabbi should not express himself that way. I remember that we thought it was not a criminal offense."
In addition to that, a lawsuit filed by Sara and her husband against Rabbi Aviner and the Jerusalem Regional Rabbinical Court was rejected on the grounds that it is "a frivolous lawsuit that has no substance and we do not know if it is indeed political and ideological as some speculate." An appeal to the Great Rabbinical Court, which is equivalent to the Supreme Court in the Rabbinical Courts, was also rejected not before the Rabbinical Court compared the rabbi's touch to the touch of a doctor: "A different kind of touch and closeness that is not a way of affection and pleasure like Israeli doctors feeling a woman's pulse."
Sarah carries with her the trauma of the publication of Rabbi Eliyahu, who even published a petition in which he was signed by those who were then considered the greatest rabbis in religious Zionism. "During a period that lasted about eight years, Rabbi Aviner harmed the plaintiff with a deceptive style of behavior and various sexual insinuations," the lawsuit states. "Abiner pretended that he was supposedly helping the plaintiff recover from childhood sexual abuse. Instead of rehabilitation, another, deep trauma was caused to the plaintiff, which does not give rest to this day. It is possible to detail and write in detail about the matter of the damage caused, which concerns various aspects of the plaintiff's life, but also without detail - understandable The seriousness of the accusation is so serious on the part of Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu. The accusation against the plaintiff is still published on a popular website. In addition, many still remember the rabbinical petitions that supposedly 'repelled' the complaints against Rabbi Aviner.
In addition, Sara points to the financial damage caused to her and her family. She refused to purchase an apartment that she was supposed to purchase at a much cheaper price than the market prices in the locality where she lives and her husband was also fired from his job. According to her there is only one explanation for what happened: her courage to stand up to Rabbi Aviner and also to Rabbi Eliyahu.
Sexual harassment in the national religious community
The publication in Maariv regarding Rabbi Aviner opened the door to a poignant public discourse in the religious-nationalist public about sexual harassment and abuse at the hands of rabbis. The most significant thing that has happened since Libeskind's publication in Ma'ariv is the establishment of the Tikna Forum, a voluntary forum that hears complaints about sexual harassment within the national religious community. The forum is not authorized by law to decide and investigate complaints, but due to the difficulty of the complainants to complain to the police against those who attacked them, especially when it comes to rabbis whom they adored, the forum is a listening ear.
One of the members of the forum is Rabbi Yehudit Shilot. At first Shilot did not believe Sarah's claims 20 years ago and she even wrote on the Internet on the heritage website a site that was popular at the time among the national religious public, a response in a strong talkback in which she attacked Sarah. About three years ago, a ruling was given in the rabbinic court of Eretz Hamada, the same court through which Sarah is now suing Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, in which it was agreed upon the wording of Rabbi Sheilat's letter of apology to Sarah with these words: that I published about 20 years ago regarding the case of your claims regarding sexual harassment by a rabbi with any spiritual and religious authority.
Beyond the fact that Sarah is currently asking the same court to assist her in obtaining recognition from the one who then did not trust her and allegedly attacked her verbally - Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu. Later in the letter appears an important sentence that may explain why Sarah is now asking for an apology and acknowledgment of her pain through the same court from Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu: "The handling of your case in the various systems did not know how to examine the issue professionally. Your pain that does not let up to this day. The establishment of a regulation forum on the public level to understand the issue of sexual harassment and also on a personal level will no longer hear firm responses from all those who complain about sexual harassment. The misunderstanding of your complaints by too many parties made the publication of things in the newspaper a possibility Your unit to inform the public and warn them on a publication day that is meant to warn the public of harm will be received differently than it was 20 years ago."
The case of Rabbi Tau
Shilot's words are very important to Sara on a personal level, but Shilot's assumption that a publication that today contains information to warn the public about sexual abuse will be received differently, is still questionable. This is the case, for example, with the suspicions that were made public about Rabbi Zvi Tao, the president of the Har Hamor yeshiva in Jerusalem and an influential and important rabbinical figure, by Dorit Lang and Nechama Thana who claim that Rabbi Tao sexually assaulted them.
Even today, just like in Rabbi Aviner's case, an important rabbinic figure is facing an examination by the prosecutor's office as to whether to file charges for sexual harassment or whether to shelve the case, and just like then, today too there is a vigorous campaign against the complainants, but it seems that the public itself is more open to discussing these questions and the possibility that the rabbis themselves "sin."
Rabbi Tau was investigated by the police and the case is being completed, however after the holiday the police are supposed to hand over the completion of the investigation they carried out and the prosecutor's office will have to make a decision whether to file an indictment or close the case against the rabbi. In addition, Rabbi Tao is quoted in the ruling of the Rabbinical Court that rejected Sarah's claim with these words: "Ever since I heard about the claims of the ladies Sarah and Ruth, I knew that they were imaginary and delusional also because things were taken out of context. And I warned Rabbi Shlomo Aviner to be careful with his words and be very careful about his devotion Encouraging the unhappiness will not be misused."
These things raise a great deal in relation to Shilot's unequivocal statement that today there is progress on the issue. As in Sarah's story, even today the two complainants do not receive full trust from the rabbinical establishment, but it is hard to say that there is no progress on the issue. In addition, Rabbi Tao is surrounded by a circle of students who sometimes protect him in forceful ways. An example of this we experienced myself when I asked to speak with a figure who knows the subject and he asked to speak off the record for fear of harassment. Because of this we preferred not to bring the quote from his mouth and bring only quotes from those who did agree to talk openly.
One of them is Rabbi Aviv Zagelman, who until recently headed the Hesder yeshiva in Holon. "I don't know Rabbi Aviner's story," he says in a conversation with Walla. "But I personally know Dorit Lang who complained against Rabbi Tao and she is reliable in my eyes and I believe her and I know about dozens of other victims. I know about them from different sources."
To the question of whether he complained to the police, Rabbi Zagelman replied in the negative, but clarified: "I am only following Dorit's story. I went to a former police officer, a lawyer who was responsible for the issue of sexual assault in the police, and he is the number one expert. He confirms our knowledge of dozens of victims." .
Comments
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu responded: "Here we operate a court that deals with dozens of cases of sexual assault. The complaints are examined and in most cases they are found to be justified and the treatment is firm and determined in cooperation with the competent authorities. In a small minority of cases there are false complaints. Just as it is our duty to deal vigorously with true complaints , thus it is our duty to reject false complaints."
On behalf of Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a response was given: "After both the State Attorney's Office on the one hand and the Attorney General on the other hand determined that the woman's complaints against Rabbi Shlomo Aviner were idle complaints, she and her husband decided to sue Rabbi Shlomo Aviner in the Rabbinical Court. The issue was discussed and exhausted in the court The couple appeared before the Jerusalem regional rabbi, as well as in the context of an appeal they filed against Peshad to the Great Rabbinical Court. The two above-mentioned courts rejected all the couple's claims, unequivocally stating that there was no fault with Rabbi Shlomo Aviner or his behavior, and that these were false and meritless complaints. The court was not content with merely dismissing the claim, but imposed an obligation on the complainants, as an integral part separated from the verdict, to publicly apologize to Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, to ask for his forgiveness, with the addition of a statement that if they do not do so, it is appropriate to take halachic sanctions against them. Because Rabbi Shlomo Aviner refrained from asking for this charge to be dropped on them. The judgments given after exhaustive litigation determined unequivocally that there was no fault in Rabbi Shlomo Aviner or his behavior, and that these were false and baseless complaints."
On behalf of Yehudit Sheilat, it was stated: "20 years ago, the subject of sexual abuse was opened up by those with spiritual authority in the religious society following the blessed and courageous activity of the Tikna Forum. This activity encouraged and allowed individuals and groups to feel secure and to know that there is a place where their testimonies will be heard and treated while establishing contact with the authorities of the law in the country Israel. This activity was also a role model for organizations and communities that learned about the meaning of community responsibility. I don't understand the need to involve us again and again in issues that have not been handled and examined by a regulation forum."
No response was given on behalf of Rabbi Tao.