Case of Rabbi Mordechai Willig

Case of Rabbi Mordechai Willig

ALLEGED ENABLER OF SEX OFFENDERS

Rosh Yeshiva - Talmud & Contemporary Halacha, Yeshiva University - New York, NY

Rabbi, Young Israel of Riverdale Synagogue - Riverdale, NY
Deputy Av Beit Din, Rabbinical Council of America - New York, NY
Head of Special Beit Din (Jewish rabbinical court) investigation, Rabbi Baruch Lanner - NJ
 

Rabbi Mordechai Willig has been accused of manipulating members of a special beit din in New Jersey back in 1989 that handled the case involving Rabbi Baruch Lanner and covering up evidence.  The three highly respected members of the special beit din included Rabbi Yosef Blau, mashgiach ruchani (or spiritual guidance counselor) at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary at Yeshiva; Rabbi Mordechai Willig, a rosh yeshiva at the school; and Rabbi Aaron Levine, a professor of economics. 

Critics of Rabbi Willigs accused him of conducting an unfair trial; advancing the impression over the years that Rabbi Lanner was not found guilty of any serious charges; serving as a reference for Rabbi Lanner; and refusing to discuss the issue.

A group of former NCSY employees and victims stated they met privately with Willig and urged him to give an accounting of his behavior, asserting that his public silence amounted to a tacit approval for Rabbi Lanner to continue to work with teens between 1989 and 2000. 

On February 19, 2003, Rabbi Willig publicly apologized for the "mistakes" made during the 1989 Bet Din proceedings. He noted that since the Bet Din did not have experience adjudicating matters of abuse, they should not have agreed to take the case.  According to many of those who were sexually and physically victimized by Baruch Lanner, Rabbi Willig  has never personally apologized, nor has he ever offered any type of financial compensation to them for the pain and suffering he cased them and their family members..

Rabbi Wilig was born in New York.  He received an undergraduate degree in mathematics in 1968 from Yeshiva University, and a graduate degree in Jewish history in 1971 from Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies.  He also was a student of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves if the resources meet their own personal needs.

 

Table of Contents:

2003 

1. Lanner controversy surfaces at childrearing talk - Rabbi Mordechai Willig spoke to a packed room at Cong. Beth Abraham here on Sunday night (02/07/2003) 
2. Still Waiting For Answers  (02/07/2003) 
3. An Injustice That Still Lingers (01/30/2003)
4. Critics Charge Rabbinic Court Covered Up Lanner Abuse  (01/30/2003)
5. Willig talk draws protests because of Lanner link (01/30/2003)
6. Victims: Rabbi failed to protect children - They criticize his handling of sex scandal  (01/31/2003) 
7. Group opposes lecture by rabbi (01/31/2003)
8. Lanner controversy surfaces at child rearing talk: Rabbi Mordechai Willig spoke to a packed room at Cong. Beth Abraham here on Sunday (02/07/2003) 
9. Letters to the editor: New York Jewish Week (02/07/2003) 
10. Lanner Attorney Deplores `Guilt By Innuendo'  (02/12/2003) 
11. Rabbi Mordechai Willig - Statement and Sichas Mussar (02/19/2003) 
12. Lanner Bet Din Rabbi Apologizes  (02/20/2003) 
13. Learning From Rabbi Willig  (02/26/2003) 
14. Top Rabbi Admits Errors In Handling Lanner Case (02/28/2003) 

Also See:  

• The Case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner

Other Cases involving Yeshiva University

• Case of Rabbi George Finkelstein
• Case of Rabbi Macy Gordon
• Case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner 
• Case of Rabbi Marc Gafni (AKA: Mordechai Winiarz)
• Case of Rabbi Mordechai Willig (enabler of sex offenders)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

  

Beth Din of America - Bio


Rabbi Mordechai Willig, Segan Av Beth Din. Rabbi Willig is the Rabbi Dr. Sol Roth Professor of Talmud and Contemporary Halachah and the Segan Rosh Kollel of the Kollel L’Horaah Yadin Yadin at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS), an affiliate of Yeshiva University. Since 1974, he has been the rabbi at the Young Israel of Riverdale in Riverdale, New York. Rabbi Willig is an authority in Jewish law, with particular expertise in Jewish divorce and beth din matters.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Lanner controversy surfaces at childrearing talk

by JOANNE PALMER

Jewish Standard - Feburary 7, 2003

 

BERGENFIELD – Rabbi Mordechai Willig spoke to a packed room at Cong. Beth Abraham here on Sunday night.

 

Rabbi Mordechai Willig - Accused of enabling a sex offender

In a firm, measured voice, Willig talked about Jewish parenting, the scheduled subject of his talk. Before and after that discussion, he addressed the issue that had drawn much of the audience that evening — the 1989 bet din that considered abuse charges against Rabbi Baruch Lanner. Members of TorahWeb, an organization of roshei yeshiva and faculty at Yeshiva University's Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, he and Rabbi Herschel Schachter were in town to discuss "chinuch habonim" - Jewish parenting. The talk was sponsored by four Teaneck shuls and Beth Abraham. Although the topic was not controversial, the combination of subject and speaker raised strong emotions in the Orthodox community here and in neighboring Teaneck. Willig had been a member of the bet din that Lanner called to defend himself against charges brought by Elie Hiller, then of Teaneck. In a letter circulated to the community in response to the possibility of Lanner's getting a local pulpit in 1989, Hiller accused Lanner of physical abuse; he included the charge that Lanner had pulled a knife against his brother. The bet din made Hiller write a second letter in which he apologized for the first one. It found Lanner guilty of three of the charges, but sealed the verdict, making in available only on a need-to-know basis. Lanner, for 30 years an employee of the Orthodox Union's National Council of Synagogue Youth, did not get the Teaneck post. The job was at the Roemer Synagogue, now called Cong. Keter Torah, one of the sponsors of the evening. (The others were congregations Bnai Yeshurun and Rinat Yisrael and Kehillat Tzemach Dovid.) Lanner went on to abuse teenagers sexually, physically, and verbally for 11 more years. In 2000, New York's Jewish Week's editor, Gary Rosenblatt of Teaneck, wrote an article allegling Lanner's abuses; Lanner never returned to NCSY. Later that year, OU commissioned a panel that investigated both Lanner and the OU's own structure, which the panel found had contributed to the abuse by not paying enough attention. In June, Lanner was sentenced to seven years in prison for having sexually abused two young women who had been students at the Hillel Academy in Deal,where he was principal. He is now out on bail pending appeal. When a group of people who had been affiliated with NCSY — most of whom had lived locally at some point — learned that Willig would be speaking here, they protested. Some of them met with Willig and his advisers for many hours in January; another meeting had been planned but scheduling difficulties caused its postponement. They sent a letter to the presidents of the five shuls, asking them to reconsider their sponsorship of Willig's talk because "in light of Rabbi Willig's public history regarding parenting issues, we do not believe that he is an appropriate presenter on the topic and we want to urge you to reconsider your shul's sponsorship." The shul presidents did not change their plans; the talk went ahead as planned. Last week, Willig, along with the other two rabbis who sat on the 1989 bet din, Yosef Blau and Aaron Levine, faxed a statement to The Jewish Standard and other Jewish newspapers. It read, in full: "Several weeks ago, we met at length with Elie Hiller and a group of concerned individuals to discuss their perceptions, concerns, and expectations. "The group conveyed to us then its strong feeling that some perceive that in 1989 our bet din had vindicated Baruch Lanner and vilified Elie Hiller. On the contrary, we never intended this regretful result. In fact, we informed the group that Lanner was guilty of a number of charges. "Our commitment to meet with Elie and members of the group remains steadfast. We do not think it is appropriate to comment publicly at this time."

 

On Sunday night, about 200 people showed up to hear the talks. The audience, which rose to show its respect each time any rabbi approached or left the bimah, was quiet as Schachter and then Willig spoke. Schachter's hour-long talk on Jewish parenting stressed moderation. Parents who force their children to skip developmental steps, Schachter said, will leave their children "scarred for life." Each person is "betzelem Elohim," he said — made in God's image — and like God each person is unique. Children must be taught to respect their parents and their teachers, Schachter said. Parents must not tell their children that "the rabbi is an idiot — even if it happens to be true. You have to be careful, to try to cover up a little bit. It's part of the chinuch," he said. Children should not be taught through fear. It's acceptable to "give patsch" — to strike children — but it should be done in moderation, it should not be done in anger, and it should be made clear to children that it is done out of the great love the parent has for the child.

 

Willig was the next speaker. He said that although he had not been planning to discuss the controversy, he had come to think such a discussion would be appropriate. He read the statement he had faxed the Standard earlier in the week, adding that although it was impossible for him adequately to express all his feelings on the subject, there were a few things he'd like to say. "Abuse is wrong," he said. "It's wrong if it's done by a teacher, a counselor, a spouse, or a parent, and if a member of the clergy perpetrates it that's far worse. It hurts the victim, hurts the community, hurts God's name.

 

"Anyone who knows of abuse most report it to the appropriate authorities," he continued, even if those authorities are secular. And "no one should vilify a person who appropriately reports abuse to the correct authorities." He said that two things were clear: "Elie Hiller showed a great deal of courage, and in the aftermath he unfortunately paid an unfair price." He said that he never intended such an outcome, and felt regretful about the vilification Hiller endured. "About Elie and the other victims," he said, "one can say that from a strong, unpopular stand can emerge something strong and good.

 

"We believe that in the end, haShem always sits with the victim, and does not allow any undeserved punishment to befall him," Willig said. In the main part of his talk, Willig said that the Torah's approach to positive parenting is "discipline only to teach him gently. That's all — the rest is commentary. "Chinuch is al long-range project. Punishment is a quick fix. Love is the only option," he said. Discussing up till what age a parent can spank a child — some sages say 24, some 13 — he said that some modern definitions put that age at 3, while others say that even a 3-year-old is too old to be spanked. Many young children can be damaged for life by spankings, he said, and physical punishment often leads to rebellion and long-term alienation from Jewish life.

 

Returning to the bet din, he prefaced his next set of remarks by saying that although Torah itself is unchangeable and immutable, changing circumstances can lead to new understandings of its unchanging truths. New times can demand new approaches, he said, which "are not against halacha but are instead halachic responses to new situations." The procedures of the bet din should be reexamined, he said; in fact the OU organization that oversees betai din was restructured in 1994. Among other changes, the sessions are now taped; such recordings discourage false statements and protect participants from "blurred or revisionist versions of what had been said." Now psychologists are sometimes consulted, and some of the judges, like Bnai Yeshurun's Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, are lawyers. And betai din are now more community-based and they are charged with following up on some of their decisions.

 

The problem of abuse, Willig continued, is "complex." In the general culture, there is now a new understanding of the problem of abuse, including how difficult it often is for victims to report it. The 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, where Anita Hill publicly charged him with sexual harassment, changed public perception, he said. "During that time, Torah society began to come to grips with the realization that those problems exist in the Torah community. Regrettably, they're not just isolated incidents." Some Orthodox children can be victims of pedophilia, rape, and incest. "Our rabbis must learn about their to protect our children," he said.

 

Orthodox psychologists can help by getting information about abuse, Willig said, and the community should demonstrate greater compassion even when there is not enough evidence to make a strong case against an abuser. "I'm committed to the do the right thing," Willig said. "We will think creatively within halachic parameters. We will struggle to solve these complex problems, and we pray for the Almighty's guidance and the community's active support."

 

After the talk, the floor was open for questions; the audience was told that both men and women should feel free to ask. The first questioner was a woman. The seating had been separate; all the woman but one had sat in the upstairs women's section. By far most of the men sat downstairs, but a few latecomers took seats upstairs when the men's section was full. The questioner, Laurie Kurs of central New Jersey, had sat in the small women's section at the back of the main sanctuary, so she was able to get to the center of the floor quickly. "Do you take any responsibility for not informing parents?" she demanded of Willig.

Willig reread his statement. "Had you commented in the past 12 years, maybe my child wouldn't have been abused!" Kurs said. Willis did not reply. "What, more silence," she said. There was no response. There were a few more questions asked of both speakers. Most dealt with chinuch, but one man said that he has learned that "the individual is subservient to the community. I wonder if that maybe got in the way. An individual comes to the bet din, but you have to consider how if would affect the community."

 

Willig paraphrased part of his statement in reply. "Our dialogue with Elie is ongoing," he said. "I don't think it is appropriate to comment at this time."

 

In a telephone interview with the Standard on Monday, Kurs said that she spoke because "I'm a mother bear whose cub has been hurt. My claws have been out and my teeth are showing. I want justice."

 

She hadn't planned on saying anything on Sunday night, she said, but "the hypocrisy of what Willig was saying, what he was participating in — it was just more than I could bear. I was sitting in the women's section downstairs — I was looking at him through the bars, and when he finished that horrific speech, it just occurred to me at that moment that if I wanted anyone to say something I would have to say it. And I'd have to say it just then."

 

Kurs said that although the OU commission's report said that the bet din had found Lanner guilty of three charges, "I found out about the bet din's decision only in the past few weeks. If the bet din didn't clear Lanner in 1989, then Willig knew something about him. He knew enough to warn the parents, so they could protect their children. By not telling me, he put a stumbling block in front of me. He did not allow me to protect my child. He didn't tell me, so I couldn't protect him.

 

"You've got to do what's right," she said. "You can't let the consequences hold you back. It's pikuach nefesh. In not telling parents, Willig has no leg to stand on.

 

"Either you're an abuser or you're not," Kurs added. "I have absolutely no use for these men, who think that they can use these words to soften the problem, to make these bitter problems sound sweet."

 

Shirley Feldstein of Teaneck was at Beth Abraham on Sunday night. "First of all," she said, "I was impressed, and I think the audience was impressed, with the great erudition that both rabbis showed. There's no question about their halachic knowledge. I was impressed and gratified that Rabbi Willig devoted as much time as he did to the Lanner case, and I was further impressed by his point that although halacha is immutable, changes in history frequently lead to changes in interpretation. Most important of all, I was glad that he spoke of the hurt that Elie Hiller experienced. "However," she said, "while Rabbi Willig might have been sincere in his feelings he did fall short of apologizing. He fell short in apologizing to Elie, in asking for forgiveness and thereby acknowledging some responsibility for the role he might have played in hurting him. That was unfortunate.

 

"How wonderful if would have been — what a great cap to his talk — if he had apologized! Especially considering that he was talking about chinuch — childrearing and parenting. He could have helped parents and children to see that sometimes mistakes are made, and that you can apologize for these mistakes. You can admit to them and thereby be forgiven. "What greater thing for a kid to hear than a mother saying, `Gee, I made a mistake. I'm sorry!' What an important lesson that could have been for him to teach us, as parents and as people," Feldstein concluded. Linda Karasick of Teaneck, an account executive for the Standard, is saddened by the entire situation. "I've known Rabbi Willig and his family for over 35 years; his wife and I were at Stern College together," she said.

 

"He is a very well-respected talmid chacham. He is a soft-spoken, gentle human being; he's such an innocent, pure person that he would never want to hurt anyone. He is just so zeiss," so sweet.

 

Karasick finds it easy to understand how Willig knew nothing about Lanner's continuing abuse. "Rabbi Willig wasn't an NCSY person," she said. "Whatever information was given to him was all that he had to work with. I'm sure that he regrets the decision that was made. "It was an unfortunate, terrible chapter in our youth group's history," Karasick added. "But it's over. We should put it to rest, and pray that it never happens again." 

___________________________________________________________________________________

Still Waiting For Answers

Gary Rosenblatt - Editor And Publisher

The Jewish Week - Febuary 5, 2003

Rabbi Willig skirts critics' questions on why Lanner bet din guilty ruling was kept secret; his backers say public confrontation `not the way.'

There was one brief but telling moment of dramatic confrontation Sunday night between Rabbi Mordechai Willig and one of his critics over his conduct as the lead judge in a 1989 bet din dealing with abuse charges against Rabbi Baruch Lanner.

 

At the end of his 30-minute presentation on Jewish parenting at Congregation Beth Abraham in Bergenfield, N.J., and the outset of a question-and-answer segment, a woman in the standing-room-only audience of several hundred stepped forward to ask the rabbi, a highly respected rosh yeshiva at Yeshiva University, if he takes any responsibility for not warning parents that Rabbi Lanner abused children.

 

Rabbi Willig responded by re-reading a brief, prepared statement that he had read at the outset of his remarks, noting that it is not "appropriate to comment publicly at this time" since he was in the midst of meetings with a group critical of his behavior on the bet din, or rabbinical court.

 

When the woman, who is part of the group, repeated her question and said her child had been a victim of Rabbi Lanner years after the bet din had met, Rabbi Willig did not respond.

 

"More silence," she said angrily, as her words hung in the air.

 

The group of 19 former NCSY employees or victims last week accused Rabbi Willig of withholding from the public the bet din finding that Rabbi Lanner was guilty of abuse. The decision, they said, endangered another generation of young people in the 1990s. The 19 said they chose to speak out now in response to Rabbi Willig giving talks on Jewish parenting without mentioning what they believe is his flawed role with the bet din.

 

Rabbi Lanner was convicted in June of sexually abusing two female students in the 1990s. He was sentenced to seven years in prison and is now free pending an appeal.

 

Another questioner in the audience Sunday night, a local psychiatrist, respectfully asked if the bet din's "concern for the individual" — Rabbi Lanner — might have "gotten in the way of concern for the community."

 

Rabbi Willig's response was to refer again to the prepared statement, making it clear he had nothing further to say on the matter after mentioning the 1989 bet din for the first time in public.

 

In his remarks, Rabbi Willig said all abuse was wrong and should be reported to Jewish authorities, and in some cases to secular officials. He said that abuse by clergy is "far worse" because it damages not only the victims but God's name.

 

Rabbi Willig also implied that the 1989 bet din was not sufficiently aware of the nature of sexual abuse, noting that in the 1990s society came to better understand sexual violence and abuse.

 

Many innovations have been adopted in recent years, he said, by the Bet Din of America, the religious court of the Rabbinical Council of America, with which Rabbi Willig works closely.

 

After the presentation, several of the group of 19 who were interviewed expressed deep frustration and disappointment with Rabbi Willig's handling of their concerns. They felt he used the fact that they had met with him, and wished to meet again, as an excuse not to be more forthcoming in public.

 

"We had asked for a full account of what went wrong and what went right [at the bet din]," said Howard Sragow, of Riverdale, who worked for the National Conference of Synagogue Youth and testified against Rabbi Lanner in the 1989 bet din. "Why the secrecy?"

 

Deborah Baron of Teaneck, N.J., another co-signer, said she was "deeply disappointed" that Rabbi Willig did not address why the bet din's psak, or ruling, effectively was sealed, allowing the public to believe Rabbi Lanner was not guilty of any serious wrongful behavior.

 

At the rabbi's trial in June in Monmouth County, N.J., his attorney asserted in his summation to the jury that Rabbi Lanner had been exonerated by a religious court in 1989.

 

"What we have witnessed here tonight is a tremendous missed opportunity," said one Teaneck resident, who noted the air of deep respect for Rabbi Willig in the audience. "All he had to do was say he was sorry — especially to the woman who said her child was a victim — but he wouldn't or couldn't do it. What a lesson it would have been for the many yeshiva students to see their role model admit a past mistake."

 

Many defenders of Rabbi Willig, who appeared to be the large majority in the audience, believe it is wrong to criticize a Torah scholar in a public manner and disapprove of the critics' letter against Rabbi Willig.

 

"They have an old grievance and they just can't let go," said one Yeshiva University senior. "This is not the way."

 

For others, some of Rabbi Willig's remarks may have raised more questions than answers. He had words of praise for Ellie Hiller, the whistle-blower whose letter to the Orthodox community in Teaneck at the time charged that Rabbi Lanner was an abuser of young people and unfit to take the pulpit he had been offered there.

 

Rabbi Willig said Hiller, a former NCSY employee, "demonstrated great courage in stepping forward" and "paid an unfair price for his actions."

 

But he did not explain why the bet din castigated Hiller and forced him to write a letter of apology to Rabbi Lanner, asserting that his characterization of him was "false."

 

"The `unfair price' he [Hiller] paid for speaking out was at the hands of the bet din," a Teaneck woman said later, "but Rabbi Willig didn't say that."

 

Others questioned why the bet din would not have seen to it that Rabbi Lanner not work with children once they had found him guilty of abuse.

 

Hiller, who was not at the Sunday talk, said he is not looking for an apology from Rabbi Willig or the bet din. Rather, he would like Rabbi Willig to "make a clear statement to those who look up to him that Lanner is untouchable and should never be involved in communal life, and that the people who lied to the bet din should be looked into."

 

Hiller said "it would be a powerful statement for Rabbi Willig to stress to future rabbis the severity of what Lanner did" and to note "the severity of the results of the mistakes made over the last 13 years in enabling Lanner to go on."

 

The statement Rabbi Willig issued last week, and read Sunday, said the members of the bet din met with a group of critics, who expressed "that some perceive ... our bet din had vindicated Baruch Lanner and vilified Elie Hiller. On the contrary, we never intended this regretful result. In fact, we informed the group that Lanner was guilty of a number of charges."

 

The statement said the rabbis were committed to continue meeting with the group.

 

But one member said the purpose of the meetings had been to ensure that Rabbi Willig explain the bet din's actions in a full and open manner at Sunday's event.

 

---------

 

Letters to the Editor (02/07/2003)

Search For Truth

 

I was shocked and saddened by Gary Rosenblatt's disrespectful attack on Rabbi Mordechai Willig, one of our Orthodox community's exemplary Torah scholars ("An Injustice That Still Lingers," Jan. 31).

 

It is a terribly sad commentary on our generation when an obsession with a particular story, albeit a truly painful one for all of us, can cause a talented journalist to lose total sight of derech eretz and respectfulness for our Torah leadership. Anyone who can even begin to understand the inner soul of a true scholar knows that he is guided by an eternal search for truth.

 

I am sadly reminded of the biblical story of Korach and his crew attacking Moses in what they thought to be a perfectly legitimate manner. I guess there is nothing new under the sun. Where are we headed with all of this? I am truly afraid to ponder the answer because it is God who is the ultimate judge of us all.

 

-- Jane Zylberman - Englewood, N.J.

 

Speaking Out

Rabbi Baruch Lanner was until very recently protected by people like Rabbi Mordechai Willig ("An Injustice That Still Lingers," Jan. 31). They all knew about Rabbi Lanner's shameful behavior, but to them his word was worth much more than any of the people who spoke up against Rabbi Lanner.

Unfortunately this behavior still continues today and Rabbi Willig and others are not willing to admit it. Good for you, Gary Rosenblatt. Congratulations for speaking out against such terrible conduct.

 

-- Erika Potasinski - Bayside, N.Y.

 

Self-Improvement

In his continuing crusade to seek and destroy anyone related to the Lanner situation, Gary Rosenblatt has requested that Rabbi Willig publicly address personal issues unrelated to the topic on which he has been asked to lecture ("An Injustice That Still Lingers," Jan. 31).

 

My only knowledge of Rabbi Willig's expertise in parenting is based on my familiarity with his own sons, and I can assure you that they have all benefited from their father's erudition and skill in the area of raising children. This, however, is not the real issue. Rabbi Willig has been hired as a speaker in order to educate his audience on Torah subjects and to help foster self-improvement.

 

Perhaps Mr. Rosenblatt should step off his own "high horse" and devote his considerable talents to discussing many of the same issues instead of merely criticizing others.

 

-- Jay Balsam - Flushing, N.Y.

 

Wrong Forum

Gary Rosenblatt's column of Jan. 31 ("An Injustice That Still Lingers") was a hatchet job, plain and simple. Could you not have found a better way to move Rabbi Willig in the right direction? A public and one-sided drubbing hardly seems fair. Unlike in the case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner himself, there is no imminent danger to the community.

 

This seems like an abuse of your soapbox. It is difficult to imagine there is no personal element involved in this.

 

I respect and admire the reasoning and cogency in Rosenblatt's pieces, this one included. His content and demands are on the mark. However, the forum is wildly inappropriate and can only serve to damage the community.

 

Amitai Bin-Nun - New York, N.Y.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

An Injustice That Still Lingers

by Gary Rosenblatt - Editor and Publisher

The Jewish Week - Thursday, January 30, 2003 / 27 Shevat 5763  

Rabbi Mordechai Willig, a highly respected rosh yeshiva at Yeshiva University, has an opportunity to make amends this weekend for a mistake in judgment (at best) made more than 13 years ago that hurt a number of people — and the reputation of the bet din, or religious court — in ways that are still being felt. 

 

Rabbi Willig is scheduled to speak at Congregation Beth Abraham in Bergenfield, N.J., on Sunday evening on the subject of Jewish parenting. For those who have been upset about the role he played as the chief judge in a 1989 bet din dealing with Rabbi Baruch Lanner and charges that the youth leader was involved in abusive behavior toward teens, having Rabbi Willig speak about parenting in Bergen County, the epicenter of the Lanner scandal, is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. 

 

Rabbi Lanner was sentenced in June to seven years in prison for the sexual abuse of two female students. He is free on appeal. 

 

After numerous attempts to have Rabbi Willig either withdraw from the program or promise to use his religious authority and influence to take responsibility for past actions and speak out on the subject, an ad hoc group of 17 former NCSY teens and/or employees has written a letter to the local Orthodox synagogues asking them to "withdraw" their "sponsorship of the evening." The 17 say they represent victims and their families, as well as many others who chose not to go public. 

 

Their decision to go public apparently was made reluctantly, after a five-hour private meeting with Rabbi Willig and other negotiating attempts were inconclusive. A copy of the letter the group wrote to the synagogue presidents, dated Jan. 24 and shared with the press, outlines their grievances and concerns. 

 

They recount how Ellie Hiller, then in his mid-20s and an employee of Rabbi Lanner for several years at NCSY, the youth arm of the Orthodox Union, wrote a letter in the summer of 1989 to members of the Orthodox community of Teaneck recounting Rabbi Lanner's abusive behavior. Hiller cited numerous examples as proof that Rabbi Lanner was unfit to assume the pulpit of the local Orthodox shul that was considering hiring him. 

 

Rabbi Lanner, claiming his name had been maligned, brought Hiller to the three-rabbi bet din. The court's ruling was never published or made public, but Hiller was forced to write a letter of apology — apparently drafted and edited by Rabbis Willig and Lanner — saying that his initial letter's characterization of Rabbi Lanner was "false." And on the Shabbat after the bet din was held, and before the final decision had been made, a number of Orthodox rabbis in Bergen County took to the pulpit and publicly chastised Hiller for writing the first letter. 

 

According to the letter from the group of 17 and other accounts, the bet din was a travesty of due process. The letter asserts that Rabbi Willig demanded Hiller write a letter of apology even before the hearing took place; that Hiller, the defendant in the case, was barred from the proceedings except for his testimony; that several witnesses later said they felt they were the ones on trial; and that one teen witness said that after Rabbi Willig asked her if Rabbi Lanner had raped her and she said no, Rabbi Willig just shrugged his shoulders. 

 

In addition, Hiller has said that Rabbi Willig spent the last two hours of the one-day trial heatedly chastising him for besmirching the honor of the rabbinate. 

 

One of the other judges, Rabbi Yosef Blau, also of Yeshiva University, later became convinced that witnesses had been tampered with, pressured not to appear and/or lied to the bet din. Rabbi Blau sought to reconvene the court and notify officials of the OU but without success. 

 

Rabbi Willig has refused to discuss the case publicly, and does not speak to the press. Last March, though, he gave a "Torah perspective" on the topic of sexual abuse at a workshop for professionals and volunteers at Mount Sinai Hospital, sponsored by its SAVI (Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention) program. It was open to the public, and I attended. The rabbi asserted that Jewish law was "unequivocal in its condemnation" of various forms of this "terrible crime." He was insistent that victims be supported and protected, and that perpetrators be held responsible for their crimes because "there is zero tolerance in Jewish law." 

 

Though he was slated to take questions at the end of his presentation, Rabbi Willig begged off, left in a hurry and, when I caught up with him in the hallway, gently but firmly refused to speak with me about the seeming contradiction between his message and his own behavior in the '89 bet din. 

 

What is so frustrating to his critics is that he increasingly is seen as an expert on abuse when, in at least in this one key case, he acted to protect the abuser rather than the abused. Just last month Rabbi Willig addressed a West Coast OU conference on "Halachic Parameters of Domestic/Sexual Abuse." 

 

At the five-hour meeting several weeks ago with some of his critics, Rabbi Willig said that the bet din did conclude Rabbi Lanner was guilty of physically abusing teens, according to Howard Sragow of the Bronx, a former NCSY adviser who was at the meeting. 

 

"He [Rabbi Willig] told us they decided to divulge that information only on a need-to-know basis," presumably to Rabbi Lanner's employers at the OU, Sragow said. 

 

This news is even more disturbing than the notion that the bet din was duped. To see and hear evidence of what Rabbi Lanner was doing to young people and not speak out about it or ensure that he was removed from his position is at best a monumental error in judgment. Further, given its public censure of Ellie Hiller, the bet din apparently concluded that publicly criticizing a rabbi is a more serious offense than child abuse. Or as the letter from the 17 people this week put it, "in the end, the desire to protect a colleague's reputation trumps parents' rights to protect their children." 

 

This is a grievous wrong that has festered under the surface for more than 13 years and finally may be coming to a head at what could be a public confrontation Sunday evening. 

 

One irony here is that Rabbi Willig has played a key role in reforming the Bet Din of America, the religious court of the Rabbinical Council of America, the rabbinic arm of the OU. Thanks in large part to his efforts, the court now allows and at times relies on the expert witness of outside specialists, including psychologists. 

 

Perhaps Rabbi Willig has put his unfortunate experience with the ad hoc 1989 bet din to good use. But the fact is that until now, he has never expressed regret, explained or taken any responsibility for the harm caused to victims (including those from after the 1989 ruling, when presumably the bet din had cleared Rabbi Lanner of any serious wrongdoing). He has the opportunity to do that Sunday evening. 

 

Last March, at the SAVI session, Rabbi Willig spoke forcefully about "the obligation of the bet din to protest and uproot" sexual abuse and harassment. "There is no room for equivocation," he said. 

 

One hopes he will take his own words to heart. Perhaps he can explain the disconnect between his powerful rhetoric and his own past actions. If that's not possible, a simple but direct apology — and statement about Rabbi Lanner's guilt — this weekend would help restore faith in Rabbi Willig's judgment, and in the authority of the rabbinate and bet din he so fiercely sought to protect. n 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Victims: Rabbi failed to protect children - They criticize his handling of sex scandal

BY ANA M. ALAYA, Star-Ledger Staff

New Jersey The Star-Ledger - Friday, January 31, 2003

Victims and critics of convicted sex offender Rabbi Baruch Lanner have written a letter lambasting a highly regarded rabbi, claiming that he withheld for more than a decade a religious tribunal ruling that found Lanner guilty of sexual abuse.

 

The group criticizes Rabbi Mordechai Willig, a faculty member at the Yeshiva University's rabbinical seminary in New York, for sealing the tribunal's findings and doing nothing "to remove (Lanner) from the children."

 

The Jan. 24 letter was sent to four synagogues in Bergen County that are sponsoring a symposium on Jewish parenting on Sunday at the Congregation Beth Abraham in Bergenfield. The letter was written in protest of Willig's scheduled appearance.

 

"It doesn't seem to make sense that Rabbi Willig is speaking about parenting when he failed to allow thousands of parents in New Jersey to fulfill their most basic responsibility of parents, and protect them against Lanner," said Howard Sragow of New York, who testified against Lanner in court and was one of 19 people who signed the letter.

 

Organizers of the parenting symposium could not be reached for comment last night.

 

Lanner, of Fair Lawn, the former principal of Hillel Yeshiva in Ocean Township, Monmouth County, was convicted in June of fondling two teenage girls and was sentenced to seven years in prison. He is free on appeal.

 

The group of victims and critics decided to protest Willig's involvement at Sunday's parenting symposium after a private meeting with him last week.

 

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Star-Ledger, the writers urge the synagogues to remove Willig from the symposium unless he apologizes for his conduct as head of the 1989 beit din, or religious tribunal, that oversaw the Lanner matter.

 

"Rabbi Willig kept the community in the dark even after Lanner's supervisors did absolutely nothing to remove him from children," the letter said. "Rabbi Willig prioritized the reputation of a rabbinic colleague -- a colleague who he knew was abusing kids -- ahead of the safety of children."

 

Willig, head of a post-rabbinical institute at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, could not be reached for comment yesterday. But a letter that he and two other rabbis who sat on the tribunal sent to several Jewish newspapers, published in the Forward yesterday, stated:

 

"Several weeks ago, we met at length with ... a group of concerned individuals to discuss their perceptions, concerns, and expectations.... The group conveyed to us then its strong feeling that some perceive that in 1989 our beit din had vindicated Baruch Lanner. ... On the contrary, we never intended this regretful result. In fact, we informed the group that Lanner was guilty of a number of charges."

 

Lanner's victims came forward after a June 2000 article in the Jewish Week newspaper accused the rabbi of having sexually, physically and emotionally abused scores of youngsters during his 28-year career as a teacher and as a director in the National Conference of Synagogue Youth. The conference's parent organization, the Manhattan-based Orthodox Union, the largest Orthodox Jewish organization in the world, conducted its own investigation and concluded there was "extensive, disturbing, graphic evidence" that Lanner had abused women and teenagers during the 1970s and 1980s. The investigative panel's 332-page report blamed Jewish leaders for ignoring Lanner's conduct.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Critics Charge Rabbinic Court Covered Up Lanner Abuse

By NACHA CATTAN

FORWARD - JANUARY 30, 2003

Nineteen critics of convicted sex offender and former Orthodox Union youth leader Rabbi Baruch Lanner have signed a letter excoriating a respected rabbi, saying that he withheld for more than a decade a 1989 rabbinical court ruling that found Lanner guilty of abuse.

 

The January 24 letter accuses Rabbi Mordechai Willig, a highly regarded spiritual leader at Yeshiva University's rabbinical seminary, of sharing the rabbinical court's findings against Lanner only with select individuals who apparently "did nothing to remove him from children." It also accuses Willig of pressuring one of Lanner's accusers, Elie Hiller, to write a letter of apology.

 

According to the letter, Willig, who in 1989 led the New Jersey-based rabbinical court, or beit din, fed the public perception that Lanner was innocent while Lanner continued to have contact with children. Signed mostly by alleged Lanner victims and their families, the letter comes after a meeting earlier this month in which attendees say Willig stated, for perhaps the first time in so public a forum, that Lanner was found guilty of some of the charges brought against him in 1989.

 

"Rabbi Willig prioritized the reputation of a rabbinic colleague — a colleague who he knew was abusing kids — ahead of the safety of children," says the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Forward.

 

Willig, head of the Wexner Kollel Elyon, a prestigious post-rabbinical institute at Y.U.'s affiliated Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, denied the charges in a January 28 statement sent to the Forward. The statement was signed by Willig and the two other members of the rabbinical court, Rabbi Yosef Blau, spiritual counselor to students at Y.U.'s seminary and Rabbi Aaron Levine, professor and chair of the economics department at Y.U.

 

"Several weeks ago, we met at length with Elie Hiller and a group of concerned individuals to discuss their perceptions, concerns, and expectations," the rabbis say in their statement. "The group conveyed to us then its strong feeling that some perceive that in 1989 our bet din had vindicated Baruch Lanner and vilified Elie Hiller. On the contrary, we never intended this regretful result. In fact, we informed the group that Lanner was guilty of a number of charges.

 

"Our commitment to meet with Elie and members of the group remains steadfast. We do not think it is appropriate to comment publicly at this time."

 

And in a separate development, famed Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz has been serving as a consultant to Lanner's defense team, according to Dershowitz's brother Nathan. Nathan Dershowitz is one of Lanner's full-time attorneys. Lanner is appealing his July conviction that he sexually abused two teenage girls while he was their principal during the 1990s at Hillel Yeshiva high school in Ocean Township, N.J.

 

Lanner, 54, of Fair Lawn, N.J., received a seven-year prison sentence and is out on bail pending an appeal. Nathan Dershowitz said his brother Alan might join Lanner's defense team full time. "It depends," he said, without elaborating.

 

The letter criticizing Willig is addressed to four Orthodox synagogues in New Jersey. It urges them to reconsider their sponsorship of a February 2 lecture at Congregation Beth Abraham in Bergenfield, N.J., in which Willig will speak on Jewish parenting.

 

A report prepared in 2000 by a special commission appointed to investigate the O.U.'s role in the Lanner affair stated that Lanner sexually abused women and teenage girls and physically abused boys and girls while he was a leader for decades at the O.U.'s National Conference of Synagogue Youth. The report also cited the failure of members of the O.U. and NCSY leadership to take effective action, allowing Lanner's conduct to "continue unchecked for many years."

 

The commission report also stated, for the first time in public, that while the beit din exonerated Lanner of some of the charges, "it also found some troubling allegations to be true." The commission found that members of the O.U. and NCSY leadership "misrepresented" the findings of the beit din ruling as being "an affirmative approval for Lanner to continue his employment with NCSY."

 

Before the commission report, the beit din had only shared its findings against Lanner with certain organizational and community leaders involved with the employment of Lanner.

 

Willig is one of three candidates frequently mentioned as possible successors to Rabbi Norman Lamm as the spiritual head, or rosh yeshiva, of the Y.U. seminary, according to sources within the seminary. Willig, spiritual leader of Young Israel of Riverdale, N.Y., is considered one of the world's leading authorities on issues pertaining to the agunah, a Jewish woman who cannot obtain a religious divorce because of a recalcitrant husband.

 

The chairman of the board of Y.U.'s seminary, Julius Berman, lauded Willig's role in the Jewish community. "He's a phenomenal rosh yeshiva," Berman said. "He's helping mold the future leadership of Modern Orthodoxy and he's doing a real good job."

 

Nevertheless, at least one signatory of the January 24 letter called for the ouster of Willig from his post at the seminary. "He is culpable for allowing Lanner to continue," said Shayndee Hiller of Hollywood, Fla., the mother of Elie Hiller. "I think he should step down."

 

Rabbi Moshe Tendler, professor of biology at Yeshiva College and professor of Talmud at the seminary, defended Willig and the rest of the beit din. Tendler said if indeed Lanner was found guilty of abuse by the rabbinical court it was up to the O.U., and not the court, to follow through with the ruling by keeping Lanner away from children. But Tendler added that if members of the beit din convicted Lanner and were informed that Lanner continued to have contact with children — as the letter writers allege — "it certainly would've been their responsibility to do something about it."

 

But Tendler also believes that Lanner's sentence was "overly severe," especially since Lanner now comes under the provisions of New Jersey's Megan's Law — requiring him to register as a sex offender when he is released from prison. "He has been lumped together with the Catholic Church scandal," Tendler said.

 

The letter regarding Willig was drafted after the January 8 meeting between members of the 1989 beit din and Lanner critics, most of whom have spoken out against the O.U.'s handling of the Lanner incident. According to those attending the meeting, Willig stated publicly, to everyone's surprise, that the rabbinical court found Lanner guilty of some of the charges. His statement caused those in the audience to question why the results of the beit din hearing were never made public.

 

The letter urges the four Orthodox synagogues in New Jersey to pull their sponsorship of the February 2 lecture unless Willig apologizes and addresses these matters. The other three synagogues, all located in Teaneck, N.J., are Congregation Rinat Yisrael, Congregation Keter Torah and Congregation Bnai Yeshurun. Bnai Yeshurun has refused to pull its sponsorship, according to the synagogue's rabbi, Steven Pruzansky. "It's not even being considered," he said. Pruzansky called the letter "highly inappropriate."

 

"It seems discordant he's giving speeches on parenting," said one signatory of the letter, former NCSY participant Howard Sragow of the Bronx, who testified in the 1989 beit din. "Obviously the most basic responsibility of parenting is keeping children safe, and it seems to me he has little authority to speak on this issue."

 

But those who signed the letter also distinguished between Willig and the other two members of the beit din. They claim that unlike Blau, who has been a highly vocal critic of Lanner since the beit din hearing, Willig has not come forward until now.

 

"Of the three of them, Rabbi Blau has done the most to try and right the past," said another signatory of the letter, Jordan Hirsch of Teaneck, N.J.

 

The January 24 letter also protests Willig's actions during the beit din hearing. It claims Willig demanded that Hiller, Lanner's main accuser, publicly apologize for lambasting Lanner in a letter even before Willig heard any testimony. After the hearing, Willig and Lanner drafted a letter of apology for Hiller to sign, in which Hiller apologizes for "brutal language" and "unintentional factual errors." During the hearing, Willig barred witnesses from hearing rebuttals against their testimony and credibility, the letter states.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Willig talk draws protests because of Lanner link

By JOANNE PALMER

THE JEWISH STANDARD, TEANECK - January 30, 2003

 

A controversy with its origin in the Baruch Lanner affair is arousing strong emotion in parts of the Orthodox community in Teaneck and next-door Bergenfield. 

 

On Sunday at 8 p.m., Rabbi Mordechai Willig, a member of the 1989 bet din, or court, called by Rabbi Lanner, is scheduled to speak about chinuch habonim — loosely translated as Jewish parenting — at Cong. Beth Abraham in Bergenfield. Some current and former area residents are protesting his talk because of his connection with that case.

 

Willig and Rabbi Herschel Schachter are both listed as speakers at Beth Abraham; both scholars are on the faculty and roshei yeshiva at Yeshiva University's Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. They are members of TorahWeb, a group of RIETS faculty members whose writings are available on the Internet. Their talk is being sponsored by Beth Abraham and congregations Bnai Yeshurun, Keter Torah, Rinat Yisrael, and Tzemach Dovid, all in Teaneck.  Lanner is the former Orthodox Union employee who has been accused of sexually and physically abusing some of the teenagers with whom he worked for more than 30 years. In June he was convicted of sexually abusing two young women who were students at the Hillel Academy in Deal, where he had been principal, in the mid-1990s; he is now out on bail pending appeal. In 1989, Lanner sought to clear his name against allegations of abuse made by Elie Hiller, then of Teaneck, who had circulated a letter making public some of the charges that had simmered against the charismatic rabbi. The bet din, according to the NCSY Special Commission the OU had charged in 2000 with unraveling the story, "concluded that Hiller's allegations were `unsubstantiated or highly exaggerated,'" although it also concluded that Lanner had "kneed teens in the groin, used `salty' language and engaged in `crude talk with sexual overtones.'" According to the commission's report, when its members interviewed witnesses, "Many of the members of the OU and NCSY leadership familiar with Lanner, as well as all the members of the beis din, told the commission that, in their view, Lanner either engaged in conduct unbecoming a rabbi, was not someone they would have hired or was not someone they wanted their children to have as a role model."

 

The decision, or psak, of the 1989 bet din was not made public; instead, it was released on a "need to know" basis. Instead, misinformation abounded. The NCSY report found that "a senior professional of the OU and NCSY misrepresented the findings of the 1989 beis din as being an affirmative approval for Lanner to continue his employment with NCSY. This individual also falsely suggested that the beis din was responsible for continuing to monitor Lanner. This unfounded and exclusive reliance on the beis din caused the organization to abdicate its responsibility to investigate Lanner's conduct and to take action against him.

 

"The description of the beis din's September 1989 psak (the beis din chose not to issue its psak in written form) as a complete exoneration of Lanner and as a mandate for allowing Lanner to continue his work for NCSY was simply not true....

 

"These inaccurate representations about the findings and role of the beis din continued over the course of the next 10 years."

 

In 2000, Gary Rosenblatt of New York's Jewish Week wrote an article about Lanner; it caused an uproar. Lanner's employment with the OU ended the day after the article appeared; the OU commissioned the report, assembled by a group headed by Richard Joel, now head of Hillel and soon to become president of YU. The article led to changes at the OU and to the court case in Monmouth County.

 

When Willig's talk in Bergenfield was announced, a group opposed to his appearance tried to have it stopped. People on both sides set up a marathon meeting where they attempted to come to some understanding. Despite what have been described as good-faith efforts to reach a compromise, none was reached. People on both sides say they hope to continue the conversation, but so far scheduling difficulties are said to have interfered. 

 

This weekend, The Jewish Standard obtained a copy of an open letter being sent to the presidents of Beth Abraham, Bnai Yeshurun, Rinat Yisrael, and Keter Torah. The letter, signed by 19 people, all of whom have had some connection with NCSY, says, "We are writing because, in light of Rabbi Willig's public history regarding parenting issues, we do not believe that he is an appropriate presenter on the topic [Jewish parenting] and we want to urge you to reconsider your shul's sponsorship."

 

The letter goes on to say that the 1989 bet din "demanded that Hiller publicly apologize for his statements, apparently prejudging the case in Lanner's favor. Had he permitted the Beit Din to function fairly, perhaps Lanner could have been stopped a decade and many victims earlier. More troubling is Rabbi Willig's silence since the proceeding, which fed (and continues to feed) the impression his Beit Din created: that the Beit Din vindicated Lanner and found against Elie Hiller....

"Actually," the letter continues, "the Beit Din found Lanner guilty on three charges, including physically abusing children entrusted to his care.... The Beit Din knowingly sealed its psak to protect Lanner's reputation, refusing to release its written decision publicly...."

 

The writers say that they have chosen to speak now because "Rabbi Willig has delivered several addresses over the last two-and-a-half years on issues of child-rearing and/or sexual abuse. He has had ample opportunity to share with the community the hard lessons of that Beit Din from long ago. But he has never sought to explain his actions or offer his perspective on what happened at the 1989 Beit Din and afterward, so that as a community we can make sure the mistakes are not repeated."

The Jewish Standard telephoned Willig to ask if he would care to address the situation. He faxed a statement to the newspaper. Signed by all three of the rabbis who sat on the bet din — the other two are Yosef Blau and Aaron Levine — it reads:

 

"Several weeks ago, we met at length with Elie Hiller and a group of concerned individuals to discuss their perceptions, concerns, and expectations.  "The group conveyed to us then its strong feeling that some perceive that in 1989 our bet din had vindicated Baruch Lanner and vilified Elie Hiller. On the contrary, we never intended this regretful result. In fact, we informed the group that Lanner was guilty of a number of charges. 

 

"Our commitment to meet with Elie and members of the group remains steadfast. We do not think it is appropriate to comment publicly at this time."

 

Over the phone, Willig said that he is not comfortable talking to the press, but Leon Meltzer, who has known all three of the rabbis on the bet din since the mid-1980s and counts them all as friends, acted as his spokesman. "About the three rabbis — these are three good guys," Meltzer said. "No malice was ever intended. They are respected by their communities, they are respected by their students, they are respected by their colleagues. They would never defend actions they had found to be wrong.

 

"Elie Hiller demonstrated a lot of courage in stepping forward," he added. "And unfortunately, in the aftermath of the din Torah he paid a price for his heroism."

 

Emphasizing the NCSY Commission's report on the bet din, he pointed out that the bet din, which met only for the Lanner case, had disbanded. It had no ongoing role as Lanner's overseer. What followed the issuing of the psak was miscommunication, according to Meltzer.

 

He said that the rabbis, who do not live in New Jersey and do not move in the circles frequently by NCSY members or their parents, did not know that their psak was misunderstood. "I never heard these stories either," he said. 

 

"As far as I know, no one ever told them."

 

Two of the shul presidents who received the letters did not return the Standard's telephone calls, and one is out of the country. Mike Roth of Bnai Yeshurun did return a call. He said, "I would not pull my sponsorship. There's not enough time to investigate, and I feel no need to investigate. I don't feel that we have enough information at this point to do anything. This is opening up an old wound. It's finished. Lanner's going to jail. I would just drop it at this point. There's no proof in the letter, and no one in any other community is making an issue of it. Inasmuch as that's the case, we're not looking into it any further."

 

Rabbi Michael Taubes of Kehillas Tzemach Dovid, who is also menahel of the Mesivta of North Jersey, was forceful in his disapproval of the situation, and of this newspaper for writing about it.

"It seems that certain people have a grievance in terms of Rabbi Willig," he said. "The letter wasn't addressed to the newspaper, and it shouldn't have been sent to the newspaper. I'm sure lots of people write letters about lots of things that don't appear in the newspaper. In what way is this a public issue?"

 

He dismissed the controversy as having no merit. "I don't know if there is a real issue," he said. "It seems to me that people are looking for a platform to make a big issue. The letter indicated that the people who were involved spoke with Rabbi Willig in person. Okay, they weren't satisfied with the response. How does that make it a public issue? What does that have to do with the rest of the community?"

 

"Whoever sent in the letter sent it in because he or she or they knew that this is a way for it to become a public issue. I believe they're looking for a soapbox, and I find this is wrong."

 

The people who signed the letter are all connected to NCSY, mainly as former members or staffers. They are Deborah and Todd Baron, Teaneck; Robert Dinerstein, Commack, N.Y.; Daniel Geretz, Highland Park; Nechama Goodman, Bergenfield; Shayndee and Dani Hiller, Hollywood, Fla.; Jordan Hirsch, Teaneck; Mindy Chassin Horowitz, New York, N.Y.; Marcie Lenk, Cambridge, Mass.; Laurie and Steve Kurs, East Windsor; Tova and Avi Sacher, North Miami Beach, Fla.; Aubrey Sharfman, Beverly Hills, Calif.; Allen Sragow, Long Beach, Calif.; Howard Sragow, Bronx, N.Y.; Murray Sragow, Teaneck; and Daniel Wildman, Edison.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Group opposes lecture by rabbi

By JOHN CHADWICK, Staff Writer

NORTH JERSEY NEWS - Friday, January 31, 2003

 

The case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner, a convicted sex offender, is once again stirring emotions in North Jersey's Orthodox Jewish community.

 

A group of 19 people - including some who say they were Lanner's victims - has recently taken four Bergen County synagogues to task for sponsoring a lecture this weekend by a rabbi they say shielded Lanner from child-abuse allegations.

 

Rabbi Mordechai Willig headed a panel of three rabbis that investigated Lanner in 1989, more than a decade before Lanner was convicted in a Monmouth County courtroom of sexual misconduct charges.

 

Lanner was sentenced in October to seven years in prison but is appealing his conviction and is free on bail.

 

Critics say the 1989 panel of rabbis failed to make its findings public, acted in a hostile way toward accusers, and forced one of them to publicly recant his allegations. They sent letters to the presidents of each synagogue, asking they reconsider their sponsorship of the lecture.

 

The accusations are the latest chapter in a case that has shaken the Orthodox Jewish community where Lanner worked for decades.

 

Willig, a noted Orthodox Jewish scholar who teaches at Yeshiva University's rabbinical school, will discuss Jewish parenting Sunday at Congregation Beth Abraham in Bergenfield.

 

The focus on parenting is infuriating Lanner's accusers. "It seems odd he is speaking on parenting when he failed at allowing parents to perform their most basic responsibility - keeping their children safe,'' declared Howard Sragow, one of Lanner's former students and among 14 people to testify before the rabbis.

 

Willig couldn't be reached for comment. In a statement he released to The Forward - a Jewish newspaper in New York City - he and the two other rabbis insist they had found Lanner guilty of a number of charges.

 

Critics acknowledge that's true but say the panel should have gone further and alerted parents and the community at large.

 

Meanwhile, a rabbi at one of the four synagogues sponsoring the lecture said the criticism of Willig is unfair.

 

"To try to impugn anyone associated with Lanner is outrageous,'' said Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of B'nai Yeshurun in Teaneck. "Not everyone acted improperly or unethically just because they were unable to rein him in.'' The Lanner case, which came to light several years ago, has been a dark chapter in the Orthodox community. Lanner, a former resident of Fair Lawn and Paramus, was a teacher at The Frisch School in Paramus and served as regional director of the National Conference of Synagogue Youth.

 

When the allegations against him finally became public, an Orthodox Jewish commission found that his colleagues in the Orthodox Union knew of his abusive personality but failed to stop him.

 

The 1989 rabbinical proceeding was set into motion after Lanner was offered a job at a Teaneck synagogue. One of Lanner's former students, Elie Hiller, wrote a letter to the synagogue and other Jewish organizations that detailed a litany of abusive behavior by Lanner against his students and his wife.

 

The letter accuses Lanner of attacking Hiller's brother with a knife, kicking Hiller in the groin, and making crude, profane, and sexually charged remarks.

 

Lanner, outraged, denied the accusations and brought the matter to the rabbis. Rabbinical courts generally oversee theological issues and settle disputes within the Orthodox Jewish community.

 

Hiller and 13 others testified. Hiller, who lives in West Orange, declined to comment Thursday.

 

But others who testified said they felt that Willig and Lanner had put them on the defensive. "It felt like they were taking his side,'' Sragow said. "There were four rabbis and I was all by myself. If felt like they were trying to trip me up.''

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Lanner controversy surfaces at child rearing talk

JOANNE PALMER

Jewish Standard - Febuary 7, 2003

 

BERGENFIELD – Rabbi Mordechai Willig spoke to a packed room at Cong. Beth Abraham here on Sunday night.

 

In a firm, measured voice, Willig talked about Jewish parenting, the scheduled subject of his talk. Before and after that discussion, he addressed the issue that had drawn much of the audience that evening — the 1989 bet din that considered abuse charges against Rabbi Baruch Lanner. Members of TorahWeb, an organization of roshei yeshiva and faculty at Yeshiva University's Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, he and Rabbi Herschel Schachter were in town to discuss "chinuch habonim" - Jewish parenting. The talk was sponsored by four Teaneck shuls and Beth Abraham.  Although the topic was not controversial, the combination of subject and speaker raised strong emotions in the Orthodox community here and in neighboring Teaneck. Willig had been a member of the bet din that Lanner called to defend himself against charges brought by Elie Hiller, then of Teaneck. In a letter circulated to the community in response to the possibility of Lanner's getting a local pulpit in 1989, Hiller accused Lanner of physical abuse; he included the charge that Lanner had pulled a knife against his brother. The bet din made Hiller write a second letter in which he apologized for the first one. It found Lanner guilty of three of the charges, but sealed the verdict, making in available only on a need-to-know basis. Lanner, for 30 years an employee of the Orthodox Union's National Council of Synagogue Youth, did not get the Teaneck post. The job was at the Roemer Synagogue, now called Cong. Keter Torah, one of the sponsors of the evening. (The others were congregations Bnai Yeshurun and Rinat Yisrael and Kehillat Tzemach Dovid.) Lanner went on to abuse teenagers sexually, physically, and verbally for 11 more years. In 2000, New York's Jewish Week's editor, Gary Rosenblatt of Teaneck, wrote an article allegling Lanner's abuses; Lanner never returned to NCSY. Later that year, OU commissioned a panel that investigated both Lanner and the OU's own structure, which the panel found had contributed to the abuse by not paying enough attention. In June, Lanner was sentenced to seven years in prison for having sexually abused two young women who had been students at the Hillel Academy in Deal,where he was principal. He is now out on bail pending appeal. When a group of people who had been affiliated with NCSY — most of whom had lived locally at some point — learned that Willig would be speaking here, they protested. Some of them met with Willig and his advisers for many hours in January; another meeting had been planned but scheduling difficulties caused its postponement. They sent a letter to the presidents of the five shuls, asking them to reconsider their sponsorship of Willig's talk because "in light of Rabbi Willig's public history regarding parenting issues, we do not believe that he is an appropriate presenter on the topic and we want to urge you to reconsider your shul's sponsorship." The shul presidents did not change their plans; the talk went ahead as planned. Last week, Willig, along with the other two rabbis who sat on the 1989 bet din, Yosef Blau and Aaron Levine, faxed a statement to The Jewish Standard and other Jewish newspapers. It read, in full: "Several weeks ago, we met at length with Elie Hiller and a group of concerned individuals to discuss their perceptions, concerns, and expectations. "The group conveyed to us then its strong feeling that some perceive that in 1989 our bet din had vindicated Baruch Lanner and vilified Elie Hiller. On the contrary, we never intended this regretful result. In fact, we informed the group that Lanner was guilty of a number of charges. "Our commitment to meet with Elie and members of the group remains steadfast. We do not think it is appropriate to comment publicly at this time."

 

On Sunday night, about 200 people showed up to hear the talks. The audience, which rose to show its respect each time any rabbi approached or left the bimah, was quiet as Schachter and then Willig spoke. Schachter's hour-long talk on Jewish parenting stressed moderation. Parents who force their children to skip developmental steps, Schachter said, will leave their children "scarred for life." Each person is "betzelem Elohim," he said — made in God's image — and like God each person is unique. Children must be taught to respect their parents and their teachers, Schachter said. Parents must not tell their children that "the rabbi is an idiot — even if it happens to be true. You have to be careful, to try to cover up a little bit. It's part of the chinuch," he said. Children should not be taught through fear. It's acceptable to "give patsch" — to strike children — but it should be done in moderation, it should not be done in anger, and it should be made clear to children that it is done out of the great love the parent has for the child.

 

Willig was the next speaker. He said that although he had not been planning to discuss the controversy, he had come to think such a discussion would be appropriate. He read the statement he had faxed the Standard earlier in the week, adding that although it was impossible for him adequately to express all his feelings on the subject, there were a few things he'd like to say. "Abuse is wrong," he said. "It's wrong if it's done by a teacher, a counselor, a spouse, or a parent, and if a member of the clergy perpetrates it that's far worse. It hurts the victim, hurts the community, hurts God's name.

 

"Anyone who knows of abuse most report it to the appropriate authorities," he continued, even if those authorities are secular. And "no one should vilify a person who appropriately reports abuse to the correct authorities." He said that two things were clear: "Elie Hiller showed a great deal of courage, and in the aftermath he unfortunately paid an unfair price." He said that he never intended such an outcome, and felt regretful about the vilification Hiller endured. "About Elie and the other victims," he said, "one can say that from a strong, unpopular stand can emerge something strong and good.

 

"We believe that in the end, haShem always sits with the victim, and does not allow any undeserved punishment to befall him," Willig said. In the main part of his talk, Willig said that the Torah's approach to positive parenting is "discipline only to teach him gently. That's all — the rest is commentary. "Chinuch is al long-range project. Punishment is a quick fix. Love is the only option," he said. Discussing up till what age a parent can spank a child — some sages say 24, some 13 — he said that some modern definitions put that age at 3, while others say that even a 3-year-old is too old to be spanked. Many young children can be damaged for life by spankings, he said, and physical punishment often leads to rebellion and long-term alienation from Jewish life.

 

Returning to the bet din, he prefaced his next set of remarks by saying that although Torah itself is unchangeable and immutable, changing circumstances can lead to new understandings of its unchanging truths. New times can demand new approaches, he said, which "are not against halacha but are instead halachic responses to new situations." The procedures of the bet din should be reexamined, he said; in fact the OU organization that oversees betai din was restructured in 1994. Among other changes, the sessions are now taped; such recordings discourage false statements and protect participants from "blurred or revisionist versions of what had been said." Now psychologists are sometimes consulted, and some of the judges, like Bnai Yeshurun's Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, are lawyers. And betai din are now more community-based and they are charged with following up on some of their decisions.

 

The problem of abuse, Willig continued, is "complex." In the general culture, there is now a new understanding of the problem of abuse, including how difficult it often is for victims to report it. The 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, where Anita Hill publicly charged him with sexual harassment, changed public perception, he said. "During that time, Torah society began to come to grips with the realization that those problems exist in the Torah community. Regrettably, they're not just isolated incidents." Some Orthodox children can be victims of pedophilia, rape, and incest. "Our rabbis must learn about their to protect our children," he said.

 

Orthodox psychologists can help by getting information about abuse, Willig said, and the community should demonstrate greater compassion even when there is not enough evidence to make a strong case against an abuser. "I'm committed to the do the right thing," Willig said. "We will think creatively within halachic parameters. We will struggle to solve these complex problems, and we pray for the Almighty's guidance and the community's active support."

 

After the talk, the floor was open for questions; the audience was told that both men and women should feel free to ask. The first questioner was a woman. The seating had been separate; all the woman but one had sat in the upstairs women's section. By far most of the men sat downstairs, but a few latecomers took seats upstairs when the men's section was full. The questioner, Laurie Kurs of central New Jersey, had sat in the small women's section at the back of the main sanctuary, so she was able to get to the center of the floor quickly. "Do you take any responsibility for not informing parents?" she demanded of Willig.

 

Willig reread his statement. "Had you commented in the past 12 years, maybe my child wouldn't have been abused!" Kurs said. Willis did not reply. "What, more silence," she said. There was no response. There were a few more questions asked of both speakers. Most dealt with chinuch, but one man said that he has learned that "the individual is subservient to the community. I wonder if that maybe got in the way. An individual comes to the bet din, but you have to consider how if would affect the community."

 

Willig paraphrased part of his statement in reply. "Our dialogue with Elie is ongoing," he said. "I don't think it is appropriate to comment at this time."

 

In a telephone interview with the Standard on Monday, Kurs said that she spoke because "I'm a mother bear whose cub has been hurt. My claws have been out and my teeth are showing. I want justice."

 

She hadn't planned on saying anything on Sunday night, she said, but "the hypocrisy of what Willig was saying, what he was participating in — it was just more than I could bear. I was sitting in the women's section downstairs — I was looking at him through the bars, and when he finished that horrific speech, it just occurred to me at that moment that if I wanted anyone to say something I would have to say it. And I'd have to say it just then."

 

Kurs said that although the OU commission's report said that the bet din had found Lanner guilty of three charges, "I found out about the bet din's decision only in the past few weeks. If the bet din didn't clear Lanner in 1989, then Willig knew something about him. He knew enough to warn the parents, so they could protect their children. By not telling me, he put a stumbling block in front of me. He did not allow me to protect my child. He didn't tell me, so I couldn't protect him.

 

"You've got to do what's right," she said. "You can't let the consequences hold you back. It's pikuach nefesh. In not telling parents, Willig has no leg to stand on.

 

"Either you're an abuser or you're not," Kurs added. "I have absolutely no use for these men, who think that they can use these words to soften the problem, to make these bitter problems sound sweet."

 

Shirley Feldstein of Teaneck was at Beth Abraham on Sunday night. "First of all," she said, "I was impressed, and I think the audience was impressed, with the great erudition that both rabbis showed. There's no question about their halachic knowledge. I was impressed and gratified that Rabbi Willig devoted as much time as he did to the Lanner case, and I was further impressed by his point that although halacha is immutable, changes in history frequently lead to changes in interpretation. Most important of all, I was glad that he spoke of the hurt that Elie Hiller experienced. "However," she said, "while Rabbi Willig might have been sincere in his feelings he did fall short of apologizing. He fell short in apologizing to Elie, in asking for forgiveness and thereby acknowledging some responsibility for the role he might have played in hurting him. That was unfortunate.

 

"How wonderful if would have been — what a great cap to his talk — if he had apologized! Especially considering that he was talking about chinuch — childrearing and parenting. He could have helped parents and children to see that sometimes mistakes are made, and that you can apologize for these mistakes. You can admit to them and thereby be forgiven. "What greater thing for a kid to hear than a mother saying, `Gee, I made a mistake. I'm sorry!' What an important lesson that could have been for him to teach us, as parents and as people," Feldstein concluded. Linda Karasick of Teaneck, an account executive for the Standard, is saddened by the entire situation. "I've known Rabbi Willig and his family for over 35 years; his wife and I were at Stern College together," she said.

 

"He is a very well-respected talmid chacham. He is a soft-spoken, gentle human being; he's such an innocent, pure person that he would never want to hurt anyone. He is just so zeiss," so sweet.

 

Karasick finds it easy to understand how Willig knew nothing about Lanner's continuing abuse. "Rabbi Willig wasn't an NCSY person," she said. "Whatever information was given to him was all that he had to work with. I'm sure that he regrets the decision that was made. "It was an unfortunate, terrible chapter in our youth group's history," Karasick added. "But it's over. We should put it to rest, and pray that it never happens again."

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Letters to the editor
Jewish Week - February 7, 2003

Search For Truth: 
 I was shocked and saddened by Gary Rosenblatt's disrespectful attack on Rabbi Mordechai Willig, one of our Orthodox community's exemplary Torah scholars ("An Injustice That Still Lingers," Jan. 31).

It is a terribly sad commentary on our generation when an obsession with a particular story, albeit a truly painful one for all of us, can cause a talented journalist to lose total sight of derech eretz and respectfulness for our Torah leadership. Anyone who can even begin to understand the inner soul of a true scholar knows that he is guided by an eternal search for truth.

I am sadly reminded of the biblical story of Korach and his crew attacking Moses in what they thought to be a perfectly legitimate manner. I guess there is nothing new under the sun. Where are we headed with all of this? I am truly afraid to ponder the answer because it is God who is the ultimate judge of us all.

Jane Zylberman - Englewood, N.J.


Speaking Out
Rabbi Baruch Lanner was until very recently protected by people like Rabbi Mordechai Willig ("An Injustice That Still Lingers," Jan. 31). They all knew about Rabbi Lanner's shameful behavior, but to them his word was worth much more than any of the people who spoke up against Rabbi Lanner.

Unfortunately this behavior still continues today and Rabbi Willig and others are not willing to admit it. Good for you, Gary Rosenblatt. Congratulations for speaking out against such terrible conduct.

Erika Potasinski - Bayside, N.Y.


Self-Improvement
In his continuing crusade to seek and destroy anyone related to the Lanner situation, Gary Rosenblatt has requested that Rabbi Willig publicly address personal issues unrelated to the topic on which he has been asked to lecture ("An Injustice That Still Lingers," Jan. 31).

My only knowledge of Rabbi Willig's expertise in parenting is based on my familiarity with his own sons, and I can assure you that they have all benefited from their father's erudition and skill in the area of raising children. This, however, is not the real issue. Rabbi Willig has been hired as a speaker in order to educate his audience on Torah subjects and to help foster self-improvement.

Perhaps Mr. Rosenblatt should step off his own "high horse" and devote his considerable talents to discussing many of the same issues instead of merely criticizing others.

Jay Balsam - Flushing, N.Y.


Wrong Forum
Gary Rosenblatt's column of Jan. 31 ("An Injustice That Still Lingers") was a hatchet job, plain and simple. Could you not have found a better way to move Rabbi Willig in the right direction? A public and one-sided drubbing hardly seems fair. Unlike in the case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner himself, there is no imminent danger to the community.

This seems like an abuse of your soapbox. It is difficult to imagine there is no personal element involved in this.

I respect and admire the reasoning and cogency in Rosenblatt's pieces, this one included. His content and demands are on the mark. However, the forum is wildly inappropriate and can only serve to damage the community.

Amitai Bin-Nun - New York, N.Y. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Lanner Attorney Deplores `Guilt By Innuendo' 
In letter to Jewish Week, Nathan Dershowitz says `assumptions of guilt' are `unfair' to his client.
By Gary Rosenblatt
The Jewish Week - Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / 10 AdarI 5763 

Rabbi Baruch Lanner's attorney this week went public in seeking to portray his client as the victim of an "atmosphere" that fosters a sense of "guilt by innuendo."

In a lengthy letter to The Jewish Week, Nathan Dershowitz of the New York City law firm Dershowitz, Eiger & Adelson sought to distinguish between the criminal charges Rabbi Lanner faced in New Jersey last year and other accusations that have been made against him.

Dershowitz questioned the veracity of the two young women who accused Rabbi Lanner of sexual abuse in the criminal case, and characterized a 1989 ad hoc bet din [religious court] ruling as one that cleared the rabbi of "all aveiros chamuros [serious sins]."

Dershowitz seeks to counter "the significant confusion in the public mind about these two different matters," pointing out that Rabbi Lanner expects to be exonerated in the criminal case and that the bet din findings did not relate to "serious criminal sexually abusive behavior" on the rabbi's part. (See page 6 for a shortened version of the letter.)

Rabbi Lanner was convicted of sexual abuse against the two former Hillel Yeshiva High School students in Ocean Township, N.J., and sentenced to seven years in prison. He is free, pending appeal, and according to Dershowitz, "anyone who reads the record in that case must conclude that there are serious factual questions as to whether his two accusers were telling the truth."

Two appellate court judges ruled that Rabbi Lanner should be released on bail since there are sufficient legal issues to be reviewed on the appeal.

In the case of the bet din, which became the subject of renewed interest in recent days after a group of former National Conference on Synagogue Youth employees and alleged victims criticized the lead judge for its conduct, Dershowitz wrote that Rabbi Lanner was found to have used "inappropriate ... salty language" and engaged in "horseplay with youngsters," but was "exonerated" of all "serious sins."

Aside from the two young women in the criminal case, Dershowitz said he has seen no allegations of Rabbi Lanner sexually abusing females "during the last 20 years."

And he noted that two of the rabbis on the three-man bet din, Rabbi Mordechai Willig and Rabbi Yosef Blau, recommended Rabbi Lanner "for various positions" even after the bet din.

Dershowitz charged that "the assumptions of guilt because of atmospherics is [sic] unfair to Rabbi Lanner, to the bet din, and to the organizations with which Rabbi Lanner was affiliated." He concluded by wondering, "if and when" Rabbi Lanner is cleared of criminal charges, "who will stand in line to give him back his reputation."

Apparently not Rabbi Blau, who criticized the Dershowitz letter as "clearly a manipulation on Baruch Lanner's part" in a "pathetic" attempt to position himself as a respected member of the community should he be exonerated in the criminal case.

Rabbi Blau pointed out that the letter made no mention of The Jewish Week articles in the summer of 2000 chronicling Rabbi Lanner's years of alleged abusive behavior toward teens or the December 2000 findings of a special commission of the Orthodox Union, whose extensive report concluded that the youth leader was guilty of a wide range of abuse of teens — physical, sexual and psychological — over many years.

According to the OU report, 10 women testified "that Lanner engaged in sexually abusive behavior toward them in his NCSY career" and "credible testimony" came from witnesses "describing abusive sexual conduct by Lanner toward 16 additional girls."

The report characterized the findings of the 1989 bet din as substantiating that Rabbi Lanner "kneed teens in the groin," used "salty language" and "engaged in `crude talk with sexual overtones.' "

Rabbi Blau said that in a meeting within weeks after the bet din, when confronted with letters from women describing past sexual and physical abuse, Rabbi Lanner admitted to him and Rabbi Willig that such incidents took place in the past, but asserted he had received psychological help and was no longer a threat.

Rabbi Willig did not return phone calls Tuesday and has a policy of not speaking to the press.

"The reason I believe the two women who came forward and brought charges" in the New Jersey criminal case, "even though I don't know them," said Rabbi Blau, "is that they were totally consistent with and follow the same pattern of behavior as that [of how Rabbi Lanner treated] the many women I do know and have spoken with."

Rabbi Blau said he did recommend Rabbi Lanner for a position as principal of a school in Australia in 1991, two years after the bet din met.

"It was a mistake on my part," Rabbi Blau said, "and part of the learning process for me to understand how sick Baruch was."

Rabbi Blau said he was motivated by the belief in teshuvah, or repentance, and noted that Maimonides instructs a person seeking to repent to start over in a new environment.

"I thought it would be a good idea for Baruch to start over, far from here, but I was wrong. It was very hard me as a rabbi to accept that a person, especially a rabbi, probably is incapable of changing," Rabbi Blau said.

Dershowitz told The Jewish Week in a phone interview that the OU report was "very, very vaguely written" and he has "problems" with it. He said he was prompted to write the letter now because of the "totally misleading" sense, from recent articles and reports, that Rabbi Lanner has been "a predator" of females "in the last 20 years."

The leaders of the Orthodox Union, Rabbi Lanner's employer for 30 years, have made clear that regardless of the results of the criminal trial in New Jersey, they believe he has a long history as an abuser and is not qualified to work with young people.

Harvey Blitz, president of the OU, told The Jewish Week on the eve of the June 2002 New Jersey trial that "Lanner did terrible things. Our views are not changed on that, and it is inconceivable to me that anyone would hire him to work with students. We're not walking away from our responsibility."

Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Weinreb, executive vice president of the OU and a clinical psychotherapist, said scientific evidence makes clear that sex abusers cannot be rehabilitated.

Richard Joel, the chairman of the OU special commission, said there is "voluminous and irrefutable evidence" that Rabbi Lanner engaged in "horrific behavior." He noted that the New Jersey trial was "about one specific incident" and "not the Lanner history."

Critics of Rabbi Willig, the lead judge in the 1989 bet din, are hoping that he, too, will publicly endorse the OU findings and declare Rabbi Lanner guilty not only of the narrow findings of the religious court but of being an ongoing danger to the community.

They accuse Rabbi Willig of conducting an unfair trial; advancing the impression over the years that Rabbi Lanner was not found guilty of any serious charges; serving as a reference for Rabbi Lanner; and refusing to discuss the issue.

A group of former NCSY employees and victims met privately with Rabbi Willig in recent weeks and urged him to give an accounting of his behavior, asserting that his public silence amounted to a tacit approval for Rabbi Lanner to continue to work with teens between 1989 and 2000.

At a public lecture on Jewish parenting last week, Rabbi Willig praised Elie Hiller, the whistle-blower in the bet din case, but did not address the actions of the court.

Rabbi Blau has said in the past that the court was ill equipped to deal with the case, should never have taken it and was misled by many of those who testified on Rabbi Lanner's behalf.

He came to regret the court decision and took it upon himself to monitor Rabbi Lanner's behavior for more than a decade, acknowledging that he was less than successful in effecting change, though he did counsel many young people who felt bitterness or remorse over the outcome. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Rabbi Mordechai Willig - Statement and Sichas Mussar  
Yeshiva University - February 19, 2003

The following is an edited version of Rabbi Willig's remarks delivered in the Beis HaMedrash of Yeshiva University on Wednesday, February 19, 2003. Although this was not a TorahWeb event, we are posting it because many of our subscribers have asked to see it.

Part I is a statement signed by Rabbi Yosef Blau, Rabbi Aaron Levine, and Rabbi Mordechai Willig. Part II is Rabbi Willig's own text, delivered as a Sichas Mussar.

This is also available as an MP3 audio file.

Part I
In 1989, we convened as an ad hoc bet din to adjudicate charges of inappropriate behavior that Elie Hiller lodged against Rabbi Baruch Lanner in a letter that Mr. Hiller disseminated throughout the Teaneck Jewish community. Our tribunal did not have an av bet din (chief judge), and none of the judges had ever heard before a case of this type. Our explicit mandate was to investigate the charges in the letter. Although we found three of the charges to be unsubstantiated, we concluded that Rabbi Lanner was guilty of three other offenses.

At that time, we decided, based on the accepted norms of rabbinical tribunals, to share our findings only on a need-to-know basis. This decision, as well as the pesak itself, was unanimous. Under this criterion, we read the pesak to the litigants; members of the Rabbinical Council of Bergen County, the group that convened the din torah; a representative of the Orthodox Union, which employed Rabbi Lanner; and a representative of the Roemer shul, which had just appointed Rabbi Lanner as its rabbi.

The December 21, 2000 Public Summary of the Report of the NCSY Special Commission placed in the public domain the matters of which we found Rabbi Lanner guilty, namely: kneeing teens in the groin; using salty language; and employing crude talk having sexual overtones in his interaction with female students and female NCSYers.

In this public statement, we desire to go beyond our 1989 mandate as a bet din and state our opinion as three individuals. We state categorically that, in our opinion, Rabbi Lanner, based on the misdeeds of which we found him guilty and our understanding of abuse in 2003 (which was inadequate in 1989), is unfit for communal and youth work. The numerous affidavits that corroborate Mr. Hiller's charges of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse against Rabbi Lanner, stated in the 2000 Summary Report, cited earlier, reinforce our opinion. Although the compilers of the Report do not have the halakhic status of a bet din and, therefore, their Report does not constitute a pesak, we nevertheless feel that we may rely on it for our opinion.

During the last six weeks, we met twice with Mr. Hiller and a number of concerned individuals. In the intensive interactive dialogue with this group, encompassing 11 hours, we tried to reconstruct the 1989-bet din experience. We have learned new facts and gathered new insights from these encounters.

For the record, our hearing in 1989 spanned eighteen hours. We reached our conclusions based on the information we had and deemed credible at the time. We, however, realize now that at that hearing we made errors in judgment and procedure that caused unnecessary pain and aggravation. We accept responsibility for those mistakes. Furthermore, members of the bet din made mistakes in organizing the din torah.

More fundamentally, with the hindsight made possible by the deepened understanding of abuse that has emerged in the last decade, we now realize that the diverse charges appearing in Mr. Hiller's letter fall under the rubric of abuse of various sorts, including physical, psychological, and sexual. Although we had responded many times as a unit to the call of the RCBC to serve as a bet din in monetary matters, in retrospect we should have refused to hear the abuse case Mr. Hiller's letter precipitated. We did not realize that abusive behavior could inhibit potential witnesses and distort the testimony of those who do appear.

We take responsibility for our mistakes. We apologize to Mr. Hiller, his family, and anyone else who was hurt because of our mistakes, be they witnesses and other victims, or their families.

We express our heartfelt empathy with the young people who have suffered from sexual, physical, and psychological abuse. Our empathy extends to the parents and families of the victims as well.

We wish Mr. Hiller and his family, and all victims and witnesses who testified to support Mr. Hiller's allegations, and their families, berakha ve-hatzlaha. We commend them for having the courage to come forward. Similarly, to those critics whose intentions were le-shem shamayim, we wish berakha ve-hatzlaha. And if there were any critics who did not act le-shem shamayim, nevertheless, we offer them a complete mehilla.

Let us look to the future. We must do everything in our power to protect potential victims from abuse. This includes reporting accusations of abuse to Jewish and, at times, to secular authorities. When a potential victim of abuse faces imminent danger, there should be no doubt that the principle of lo ta'amod al dam rei'akha, "Do not stand idly by as the blood of your neighbor is shed" (Leviticus 19:6), overrides other halakhic concerns, and one should immediately report the allegations to the secular authorities. In this brief statement, it is impossible to summarize the intricate halakhot of when to report abuse to secular authorities. We hope, however, that soon one or more of us will address the public on this question.

If there is anyone who wants to discuss any aspect of the 1989-bet din and its aftermath, we encourage him or her to contact us.

Once again, we apologize for the mistakes that we made.

Yosef Blau (212-960-5480, yoblau@ymail.yu.edu)
Aaron Levine (alevine@ymail.yu.edu)
Mordechai Willig (mwillig@juno.com)

---------------------------

Part II
Every human being makes mistakes. I am no exception.

There are many things that I see now, which I did not see in 1989. Some are facts that I did not know or uncover then. Some are insights that even experts did not know then. After all, ein le-dayan ella mah she-einav ro'os: (1) a judge, or any expert, decides only on the basis of what his eyes see.

My field of vision also contained blind spots, which, while I did not see, I should have seen. These represent mistakes in judgment for which I bear responsibility. These mistakes continued after 1989 as well. I apologize for all of my mistakes, and regret any negative consequences that they may have caused.

The recent criticism of the beis din's actions, and my role in particular, enabled me to discover the biggest blind spot of all. A person is blind to his own faults. "Kol ha-nega'im adam ro'eh chutz mi-nig'ei atzmo," "All nega'im a person sees except for nega'im of his own," (2) which literally refers to tzara'as, extends, homiletically, to all blemishes. (3)

How does one not see his own mistakes? Let us go back to history's first mistake: the sin of eating the forbidden fruit. Adam, instead of admitting his own mistake, blamed Chava, who, in turn, blamed the serpent. (4) In the 1989 case, it is easy to blame others.

In history's second mistake, Cain, like Adam before him, initially was not confronted with his mistake. He was merely asked, "Where is Hevel your brother?" When he failed to acknowledge his sin, Hashem told him how terrible murder is. (5)

I thank Elie Hiller and his concerned friends and supporters for helping me during the last six weeks to understand my mistakes. I wish we had spoken earlier.

Let us look at mistakes of kings in Sefer Sh'muel. The Talmud contrasts Sha'ul and David. Sha'ul sinned once, and lost his kingdom and dynasty. David sinned twice but maintained his kingdom and dynasty. (6) Why?

Maharsha explains that David admitted his mistakes, whereas Sha'ul did not. (7) Why not?

First, Sha'ul's sin was unintentional, as his failure to destroy Amalek was based on his understanding of Talmudic logic, a kal va-chomer, which was, in fact, wrong. (8) Second, the people had mercy on Agag and the best of the sheep, and were not willing to destroy them. (9) When Sha'ul finally confessed, he still justified his behavior by saying, "I feared the people." (10)

By contrast, David confessed immediately and unconditionally. In one case, the sin of counting the people, he realized the mistake on his own. (11) In the other case, his taking Batsheva and his role in the death of Uriya, he confessed his sin as soon as Nasan Ha-Navi explained it to him with a parable of a rich man taking a poor man's only sheep. (12)

In the 1989 case, I believe my mistakes were unintentional.

Furthermore, I listened to the people who supported me. For example, my talmidim, whose loyalty I very much appreciate, reacted sharply to the ad hominem attacks, ascribing all sorts of motivations and hidden agendas to my critics. This led to self-denial of even the smallest mistake.

Let me be clear. I bear no grudge against any of my critics, be they victims, supporters, or journalists. I wish them b'racha ve-hatzlacha, and I beg, even command, that my talmidim do the same. After the primary goal of protecting our children, my next goal is to restore shalom in our Yeshiva and beyond. I hope that in four weeks, on Purim, we will all dance together to the music of Jordan Hirsch, and with all our neshama, in the spirit of shalom.

I thank my closest friends and colleagues, no more than a handful, who helped me in this painful process of recognizing the mistakes that I made. They were my Nasan Ha-Navi.

My first apology goes to Elie Hiller. In reconstructing the events of 1989, although I only said things that I thought were accurate, I now see that some of them were not.

Aside from the passage of time, I repressed certain facts. This is the blind spot of which I spoke. I now understand how people who were totally committed to truth and honesty could make an objectively false statement. In their minds, it was true.

When confronted, my first response was, "It could not be true. How could I have done that? It must be false." It took corroborated, objective facts to open my eyes.

Some people go through life in such denial. I do not fault them. I did the same. But now I learned more about human nature. In life, I have committed countless errors, and have tried to admit to them when I realize them. But, until very recently, I did not realize that what I insisted and believed to be true was definitively not true.

One day all of us will have to give a reckoning, in the Court that I fear the most, for all of our words and actions. The records there are complete and eternal: ayin ro'ah ve-ozen shoma'as ve-chol ma'asecha be-sefer nichtavim. (13) Thanks to Elie Hiller, I have a chance to beg forgiveness in this world.

My second apology is not limited to Elie. It relates not to a sin of the mind but to a sin of the soul.

Al tadin es chavercha ad she-tagi'a li-mkomo, do not judge your fellow until you have reached his makom, his place. (14) My Nasan Ha-Navi told me this. Indeed, he acknowledges that it is likely that in 1989 he would not have ruled any differently in my situation. Moreover, my defenders said that those who had the benefit of hindsight were unfair for ignoring this rule. Indeed, all of this may be true.

Yet, I am guilty of a similar mistake. Until last month, I could not understand why the victims and their concerned supporters were complaining so harshly about me. Had I spoken to them earlier, however, I believe that I would have understood their complaints. To his credit, Rabbi Blau has spent the last few years speaking to and empathizing with the victims and, therefore, he reached their makom much earlier. In contrast, I did not speak with them until last month, and, therefore, I am only trying to reach their makom now.

On my journey to their makom, I am beginning to realize the terrible pain that my deeds or words inflicted on Elie Hiller; the witnesses whose testimony supported his claims; the victims; and the families of all of the above. Moreover, my aggressive questioning of witnesses, who may have been abused, was not an appropriate style for this case, although it may be proper in cases involving commercial transactions. Even last month, in our first meeting, I did not understand the special sensitivities of such victims. I am still learning. I apologize to all victims to whom I was insensitive. I regret any pain my action or inaction caused.

It tortures me that my deeds or words caused Elie such terrible pain, and that he suffered stoically for years, while I was completely oblivious to it. I am devastated by the fact that I caused another person such searing pain and that, for so long, I did not even realize it.

This is a sin of the soul, and Elie is its primary victim. My soul, my neshama, my heart, is broken. I pray that he finds a place in his heart and soul to forgive me.

However he responds I owe him a b'racha. As Rabbi Levine said to him last week, may the verse, "Samcheinu ki-mos inisanu," "Gladden us according to the days You afflicted us,"< (15) be fulfilled for him and his family. B'racha ve-hatzlacha be-chol ma'asei yedeichem.

I now understand that although our p'sak contains findings of sorely inappropriate behavior referred to in our joint statement, there were many other complicating elements. After rereading the p'sak in 2003, I now realize that it should have placed greater emphasis on the inappropriateness of this behavior. In 1989, an honest person hearing the p'sak might have readily concluded that the sorely inappropriate behavior, in the broader context of the p'sak, was insufficient to disqualify a person from communal or youth-oriented work. Again, to his credit, Rabbi Blau recognized this before I did.

Some general statements about beis din procedures are in order. So that there is no misunderstanding, the organizers of the beis din should inform the litigants, in advance and in writing, when the session(s) will take place. Furthermore, notwithstanding the ultimate p'sak, the dayanim should treat the litigants and witnesses with respect and appropriate sensitivity. Moreover, the dayanim should make every effort to ensure that all material witnesses be given the ability to testify. Last, it is improper to order a litigant to issue a formal written apology before completing the beis din proceedings.

This Shabbos, we will read about the cheit ha-egel, the sin of golden calf, a sin for which Am Yisrael suffers to this day. (16) The Talmud links this sin with that of David and Batsheva. (17)

Both David and Am Yisrael were on a high spiritual level. They had overcome the yetzer ha-ra (evil inclination), and, as such, should not have been overcome by it. Logically, they should not have sinned.

Hashem decreed that the yetzer ha-ra should rule over them and cause them to sin. Why? So that no one should say, "I will not be accepted." Neither an individual such as David, nor a community, such as Am Yisrael, should feel that t'shuva is impossible. According to this interpretation, based on Rashi, these two sins were specifically chosen because of their gravity.

May I suggest a somewhat different interpretation? These sins were selected because of their subtlety. Many explain that the Golden Calf was not meant to substitute for Hashem, chas ve-shalom, but merely to be an intermediary, not unlike the k'ruvim in the Mishkan. (18) The Talmud teaches that whoever says that David was technically guilty of adultery is mistaken. (19)

In this light, we are taught a crucial lesson. Hashem ordained these sins so that every individual and every community should be able to recognize misdeeds rather than rationalize them. This, after all, is the first step in the t'shuva process.

For me, this is the most important lesson to be drawn from this entire ordeal. Perhaps my experience will assist you, my talmidim, especially those of you who will become rabbanim, to try to eliminate the blind spots of self-denial. And, when you become aware of a mistake on your own or through your Nasan Ha-Navi, admit and take responsibility for it immediately and unconditionally. Even if the mistake was unintentional, and even if you share the blame with others, if you contributed to it, say chatasi.

Yesterday, after reading a draft of this sichas mussar, I suddenly remembered something.

On motza'ei Shabbos, January 25th, I led a kumsitz here on campus. Many of you were there, and we sang together, "David melech Yisrael chai ve-kayam," "David king of Israel is alive and enduring." I asked: "Why?" I answered: because he accepted responsibility for his actions. This distinguished David from Sha'ul, and enabled David's kingdom and dynasty to endure.

I said this just a few days before a new round of criticisms of me became public, but it was not until yesterday, after I finished preparing and writing a draft of this sicha, which refers to the same idea, that I remembered having said it. Why? Because when I said it, I did not see that it relates to me!

At that time, I asked: "From where did David receive the strength of character to make an embarrassing confession?" I answered: "From his progenitor, Yehuda."

Yehuda was confronted-- not by Hashem, as were Adam and Cain, not even by a navi, as were Sha'ul and David. Nor was he confronted directly. He was simply presented with objective proof of the facts. (20)

His response was, "tzadka mimeni," she is more righteous than I. (21) As the Rambam explains, Yehuda had done nothing against halacha, and correctly sacrificed valuable personal items to avoid public discussion of sexual matters. (22)

Tamar, the potential victim, was ostensibly guilty of deception. (23) Nonetheless, since her intention was le-shem shamayim, Yehuda said: she is more righteous than I. (24)

Targum Yerushalmi adds to Yehuda's admission: better for me to be ashamed in this world than in the future world. Better for me to burn in the weaker fire of embarrassment in this world than in the all-consuming fire of the World to Come. (25)

Yehuda's statement was so powerful that it enabled his brother Re'uven to confess his own sin publicly for the first time. (26) And, if my p'shat is correct, it enabled Yehuda and his descendant David to merit an enduring dynasty. Let us all learn the enduring lesson for life of this live and enduring king, to accept responsibility for our actions.

1. Sanhedrin 6b.

2. Nega'im 2:5.

3. Midrash Sh'muel Avos 1:7.

4. B'reishis 3:11-13.

5. Ibid. 4:9-10, Rashi 4:9 and 3:9.

6. Yoma 22b, Rashi, s.v. "Kama."

7. Op. cit.

8. Yoma 22b, Tosafos Yeshanim ad loc., s.v. "U-le-Divrei."

9. I Sh'muel 15:9,15,21,24.

10. Ibid. 15:24.

11. II Sh'muel 24:10.

12. Ibid. 12:1-13.

13. Avos 2:1.

14. Avos 2:5.

15. Tehillim 90:15.

16. Sh'mos, Chap. 32; see Rashi 32:34.

17. Avoda Zara 4b-5a; see Rashi. See also Michtav Mei-Eliyahu I, pp. 165-66.

18. Ramban Sh'mos 32:1, Beis Ha-Levi Parshas Ki Sisa.

19. Shabbos 56a.

20. B'reishis 38:25.

21. Ibid. 38:26.

22. Moreh Nevuchim III:49.

23. B'reishis 38:14-16.

24. S'forno 38:26.

25. B'reishis 38:26.

26. Sotah 7b, Rashi s.v. "Yehuda." 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Lanner Bet Din Rabbi Apologizes
by Gary Rosenblatt
The Jewish Week - Feburary 20, 2003


Rabbi Mordechai Willig, speaking for himself and on behalf of a 1989 bet din critics felt was too lenient toward Rabbi Baruch Lanner, has acknowledged the religious court "made errors in judgment and procedure that caused unnecessary pain" and accepted "responsibilities for those mistakes."

The highly respected rosh yeshiva at University offered a full and highly personal apology before hundreds of students and others at Yeshiva University on Wednesday night.

Rabbi Willig had come under heavy criticism in recent weeks from a group of victims of Rabbi Lanner and their supporters. The group mobilized after Rabbi Willig began making public presentations about parenting without addressing his role in the bet din that appeared to absolve Rabbi Lanner of serious wrongdoing while censuring Elie Hiller, a former NCSY employee who sought communal action against Rabbi Lanner.

First speaking for the bet din, Rabbi Willig said that its members now believe Rabbi Lanner to be "unfit for communal and youth work," and endorsed the findings of the Orthodox Union special commission report of December 2000 that found Rabbi Lanner guilty of widespread and long-term sexual, physical and psychological abuse of teens while helping to lead the OU's youth arm, the National Conference of Synagogue Youth.

Rabbi Willig's critics faulted him for not speaking out over the years against Rabbi Lanner's behavior, adding to the impression that the youth leader was innocent of abusive behavior. Rabbi Lanner was convicted of abusing two teenage girls in the 1990s and was sentenced in June to seven years in prison; he is currently free pending an appeal of the conviction.

In his personal comments, Rabbi Willig acknowledged that he had "blind spots" over the years that "represent mistakes in judgment for which I bear responsibility. These mistakes continued after 1989 as well," he said, apologizing to Hiller and his family and all Lanner victims. He said he "bear[s] no grudge against any of my critics, be they victims, supporters or journalist, and I wish them bracha v'hatzlacha [blessings and success], and I beg, even command, that my talmidim [students] do the same.

He said it was only very recently that he realized that "what I insisted and believed was true was objectively untrue." Further, Rabbi Willig faulted himself for not speaking to Lanner victims and their supporters until last month. He credited his colleague, Rabbi Yosef Blau, the spiritual adviser to students at YU and one of the three members of the bet din, for speaking to and empathizing with the victims for many years. Now, Rabbi Willig said, "I realize the terrible pain that my deeds, or words, inflicted on Elie Hiller and other victims as well.

"My soul is broken," he continued, "and I pray that he [Hiller] finds a place in his heart and soul and forgives me."

Hiller, who was not at the talk, told The Jewish Week on Thursday he would like to "thank Rabbi Willig, on behalf of my family and me, and I accept his apology and hope it was meant for the other 14 witnesses as well" who testified against Rabbi Lanner at the bet din.

At the time, Hiller was castigated by Rabbi Willig, and later by Orthodox rabbis in Bergen County, N.J., for going public with his complaints about Rabbi Lanner's behavior.
___________________________________________________________________________________

 Learning From Rabbi Willig
 By Gary Rosenblatt
Jewish Week - February 26, 2003

An e-mailed Letter to the Editor received last Tuesday from a student of Rabbi Mordechai Willig at Yeshiva University was addressed: "Dear Inspector Javert," a reference to the villain of "Les Miserables," the obsessive policeman who spends years tracking down the play's innocent hero.

I realize that in calling on Rabbi Willig to apologize for his behavior in conducting a 1989 bet din that appeared to absolve Rabbi Baruch Lanner of serious charges of abuse, a group of critics and I were perceived as unfairly hounding the highly respected Yeshiva University rosh yeshiva and Riverdale spiritual leader.

But a day after Rabbi Willig's detailed, emotional apology for his actions at the time, and for his subsequent silence on the Lanner matter (see story, page 8), I received a letter expressing regret from another YU student who had earlier criticized my reporting. "Rabbi Willig's talk tonight was moving and inspiring," he wrote. "I hope it will initiate a wave of healing both in the community and on our campus."

To which I can only add, Amen.

The impact of Rabbi Willig's act of contrition — on his students and many others who revere him for his scholarship and good works — cannot be overestimated. He not only made an important statement in endorsing the findings of the Orthodox Union special commission report of December 2000, that Rabbi Lanner was guilty of physically, sexually and psychologically abusing youngsters in his charge over many years, but he offered up a powerful first-hand lesson in the act of teshuva, or forgiveness.

Here was a leading Orthodox rabbinic figure publicly acknowledging, in front of hundreds of students and others at Yeshiva, that he had, until "very recently," a "blind spot" that led him to deny the truth. Who could not be moved to hear him apologize to the whistle-blower in the case and plead for his forgiveness?

Beyond the particulars here, Rabbi Willig was underscoring that rabbis — even Torah scholars — are human, make mistakes, and are accountable to the community. This is a vital message for Modern Orthodox Jews, some of whose leaders have moved closer to the haredi concept of Da'at Torah, the belief that a rabbinic authority's views must be followed on virtually every issue, not just those dealing with halacha, or Jewish law. Rabbi Willig was instructing, by example, that we are all fallible and prone to poor judgment at times. No one is beyond reproach.

Part of the problem, we recognize in hindsight, is in equating Torah scholarship with exemplary ethical behavior. But that, alas, is a mistake. Many of Rabbi Lanner's rabbinic colleagues, aware of his brilliance and depth of knowledge, assumed that a man of such faith and Talmudic expertise simply could not be guilty of the accusations made against him. They were dazzled, and blinded, by his rabbinic standing. They need to follow Rabbi Willig's brave example in implicitly acknowledging that reverence for a rabbi's erudition can be a stumbling block to the truth.

There is a lesson here as well for Jews of all denominations who have seen a few rabbinic leaders violate the sacred trust of their congregants and yet be protected by the great reluctance — well meaning but misguided — of followers to take appropriate action against clergy, even to safeguard their children and community.

To suggest, in the 21st century, that rabbis are only human may not seem like a great revelation. But at a time when segments of the Jewish community remain in denial over cases of rabbinic failure, and even abuse and criminal behavior, it is time to confront these issues directly.

Let me be clear here. Rabbi Willig was, at worst, an enabler. But there are still abusers at large, and we must ask ourselves: Are we any better prepared to deal with the next Rabbi Lanner than we were three years ago? Too often the pattern is to spirit away the perpetrator, allow him to leave his pulpit or school quietly so as to avoid a scandal rather than alert the authorities. But the result, inevitably, is that he reappears somewhere else, perhaps with another name but with the same compulsions that led him to abuse in the first place. And it is only a matter of time until he repeats the behavior that got him in trouble at the outset.

To allow this to happen — for a community to fool itself into thinking it has solved the problem when in fact it has only diverted it toward another unsuspecting group of innocents — is short-sighted, selfish and unethical. Unless and until the pattern is stopped, we will have learned nothing from the pain of past abusers and victims.

We should take a page from the medical and legal professions, which have established healing programs for doctors and lawyers who have gone astray. A lengthy article in The New Yorker several years ago, entitled "When Good Doctors Go Bad," describes a program that evaluates physicians with addictive behavior, recommends them for treatment in long-term care facilities, and establishes criteria that must be met before they can return to their profession.

The Jewish community needs such a program for clergy, as evidenced by the latest reports of rabbis in trouble with the law for sexual deviancy, alcohol or gambling. Harriet Rossetto is ready to offer her services toward "prevention, intervention and redemption" in dealing with troubled rabbis. She is the director of Beit T'Shuvah in Los Angeles, the only Jewish addiction rehabilitation program for adults in the country, where at least three of its current 100 residents are rabbis.

"The more you hide it, the worse it gets," says Rossetto. She was speaking of the yetzer hara, or evil inclination, which according to Jewish teachings struggles constantly with the yetzer tov, the positive spirit, within each of us. But her adage could apply as well to the danger of keeping these issues under wraps.

In his talk at Yeshiva University last Wednesday night, Rabbi Willig went a long way toward clearing the air, redirecting us toward teshuva by describing his own struggle and encouraging his students and followers to learn from what he called his mistakes. He cited the Talmudic comparison of King David and King Saul. They each sinned, but David was forgiven; he kept his throne while Saul did not. The difference, Rabbi Willig noted, was that Saul justified his behavior while David realized his mistake and confessed fully.

One can only hope our community will be more open and honest in acknowledging our blind spots. We must recognize that the only way to resolve our problems is to confront them with sensitivity and humility, knowing full well that to ignore them is to sentence the next generation to untold shame and suffering.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Top Rabbi Admits Errors In Handling Lanner Case
By Nacha Cattan, Forward Staff
The Forward (NY) - FEBRUARY 28, 2003


A revered Orthodox rabbi accused by critics of withholding information about convicted sex-abuser Rabbi Baruch Lanner apologized last week in front of hundreds of students at Yeshiva University for his "mistakes" and "blindspots."

Rabbi Mordechai Willig, head of a prestigious post-rabbinical institute at Yeshiva University's rabbinical seminary, addressed a packed religious study hall February 19 in Manhattan to "beg forgiveness" from Lanner's alleged victims. Willig came under fire in recent weeks by alleged Lanner victims and their families for keeping from the public for more than a decade a ruling of a 1989 rabbinic tribunal that found Lanner guilty of abuse. Willig's critics accused him and the two other members of the 1989 rabbinic tribunal, or beit din, of perpetuating the misconception that Lanner was innocent while Lanner continued to have contact with children.

"I regret any pain my actions, or inactions, caused," Willig told some 400 students in his 45-minute speech. "Until very recently, I did not realize that what I insisted, and believed was true, was objectively untrue."

In a statement issued on behalf of the 1989 rabbinic tribunal, Willig said, "we made errors in judgment and procedure that caused unnecessary pain and aggravation. We accept responsibility for those mistakes."

Several alleged Lanner victims and their families said they were satisfied with, and even moved by, Willig's apology. But some said Willig did not go far enough, and they protested Willig's assertion that abuse be reported to Jewish authorities and only "at times" to secular authorities.

Observers, however, noted the significance of the publicity-shy rabbi admitting his mistakes to the future rabbis of the Orthodox community regarding so controversial a subject. It is especially momentous, said some at Y.U., at a time when critics claim the school's spiritual leaders are increasingly seen as flawless and divinely guided, a sign, critics say, of a rightward shift at Modern Orthodoxy's flagship institution.

In his statement, Willig said: "Perhaps my experience will assist you, my talmidim [students], especially those of you who will become rabbanim, to try to eliminate the blind spot of self-denial."

"Rabbi Willig's apology has the educational value of teaching students that great people make mistakes, acknowledge them and grow from them," said Rabbi Yosef Blau, who served on the 1989 rabbinic tribunal with Willig but has since become a vocal opponent of Lanner. "It's certainly a statement of responsible leadership that doesn't claim infallibility, which some have accused [Y.U.] of moving in the direction of," said Blau, who is a counselor to students at Y.U.'s rabbinical seminary.

Lanner, a former leader of the Orthodox Union's National Conference of Synagogue Youth, was convicted in June 2002 of sexually abusing two teenage girls during the 1990s, while he was their principal at Hillel Yeshiva high school in Ocean Township, N.J. Lanner was sentenced to seven years in prison by a Monmouth County court but is out on bail pending an appeal.

A report prepared in 2000 by a special commission appointed to investigate the O.U.'s role in the Lanner affair stated that Lanner had sexually abused women and teenage girls and physically abused boys and girls while he was a leader at NCSY. The report also cited the failure of members of the O.U. and NCSY leadership to take effective action, allowing Lanner's conduct to "continue unchecked for many years."

The commission was chaired by Richard Joel, international director and president of Hillel, who will succeed Rabbi Norman Lamm as president of Y.U. and its rabbinical seminary in June.

"What [Willig] did was terrific," said Elie Hiller of West Orange, N.J., an alleged Lanner victim whose public accusations about Lanner's behavior sparked the 1989 rabbinic tribunal. "Rabbi Willig clearly articulated that child safety precedes all other concerns whether they be halachic or otherwise," said Hiller, whom Willig named in his apology as the primary victim of Willig's "sin of the soul."

But some family members of alleged Lanner victims were less than satisfied with Willig's apology.

"I see no reason to put Willig on a pedestal and offer him absolution just because he figured out at this late date if he wants a future he better speak up," said Laurie Kurs of East Windsor, N.J., whose son was allegedly abused by Lanner when he was a student at Hillel Yeshiva. Kurs told the Forward it is too late for Willig to apologize, but "not too late to clear up mistakes. He needs to call up people who are victims and call the court and say Lanner" was not exonerated by the beit din.

But other critics of Lanner said Willig's motives should not be questioned and that although not perfect, Willig's statement was revolutionary.

"Was it everything it should have been?" asked Rabbi Eliyahu Teitz, associate dean of the Jewish Educational Center school system in Elizabeth, N.J. "No. The comment about reporting to Jewish authorities hurts. Deeply. But there was an admission of movement on [Willig's] part. Of acknowledging his personal mistakes," Teitz wrote in an e-mail. Teitz is a member of the Parental Oversight Committee of the Etz Chaim region of NCSY in New Jersey, a group formed in response to the Lanner affair.

Another member of the parental oversight committee, Murray Sragow, praised Willig's speech but added that the community, and particularly the Y.U.'s rabbinical seminary, should take follow-up steps to ensure Willig's message is not lost. Sragow said the seminary should instate sensitivity training courses on sexual abuse.

The dean of seminary, Rabbi Zevulun Charlop, said the rabbinical school offers courses and mandatory lectures that tackle abuse detection and intervention. "We continue to review and update our rabbinic training program in all subjects, including sexual abuse," Charlop added.

Willig said in his speech that after the "primary goal" of protecting children, his next goal is to "restore shalom in our yeshiva and beyond."

Several observers said the remark pointed to rifts between Willig's students and supporters and those who spoke out against Lanner, such as Blau.

Willig did not return phone calls seeking comment.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

FAIR USE NOTICE

Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. 

 

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 

 

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________