Rabbi's refusal to testify could send him back to jail

[rug]

By Victoria Kim, Los Angeles Times
September 7, 2011

Two years ago, Rabbi Moshe Zigelman went to prison rather than testify against fellow Jews in a federal tax-evasion case and receive a lesser punishment.

Now, federal prosecutors are threatening him with a return to jail unless the 64-year-old devout Hasid agrees to testify before a grand jury regarding the federal government's ongoing probe of tax evasion in his Orthodox Jewish sect. On Wednesday, they will ask a judge to order him to testify or be found in contempt.

His attorney says Zigelman, a teacher of scripture and son of Holocaust survivors, will again refuse, citing his religious principles.

Zigelman's unyielding religious stance has led to attorneys wrangling in a federal courtroom over the rare intersection of the modern U.S. legal system and the ancient Jewish doctrine of mesira, a prohibition for Jews against informing on other Jews to secular authorities.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rabbi-testimony-20110907%2C0%2C3564312.story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesirah

[mainegreen]

1. Good.

[MADem]

2. The only difference between religions is the terms they use.

Islam has a similar deal (and they also say, in Sharia, that non-Muslims cannot testify against Muslims), the RC's have the sanctity of the confessional to hide commentary...

I think religions should be taxed, just like movie theaters, stage plays, Shakespearean/medieval restaurants, or any other business that attracts a crowd and/or gives 'em a show.

I just don't understand how a guy (and it is usually a guy) can put on a dress (and you can call it a robe or a thobe or vestments or what-have-you, but it's a damn dress, often fancily embroidered and brightly colored) and a funny hat, and people believe that this guy has a secret, invisible line to "God"--like he's Ernestine the Operator, and only he can transmit your messages and gitcha some Jesus/Mohamad/Spaghetti Monster on the line.

I mean, come ON. It's just stupid!!!!!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dmallind]

3. I'm pretty sure a good reading of the mishnah would show this is wrong

I'm no Rabbi of course, but this seems clear in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 388:12 (yes I had to look it up!)

[rug]

4. From what little I read on it, the prevailing view is that it's meant for repressive governments.

[dmallind]

5. Yes I can see that - but repressive seems narrowly defined

We for example could not say that a Bush or even Bachmann government would meet the halachic standard of abusive governments just because we disagreed with them.

An abusive government must to my limited reading be one that is likely to punish the infraction infornmed upon above and beyond its own (secular) laws, or one driven to punish the informed-upon by anti-Semitism. Not just one that punishes more severely than Jewish law might. It's unlikely the current US government would qualify as abusive here, and as such should expect the informant to be compliant. The aspect of risk to the informant also helps. Not informing willingly may be questionable, but informing under threat of punishment is definitely lawful.

[Meshuga]

6. Or simply...

The rabbi (and the people he is protecting) committed chillul hashem which is the worst sin of all in Judaism.

Jewish Law simply states (about chillul hashem), "Woe unto the one who studies Jewish Law and is dishonest. See how perverse are his deeds, how ugly his ways." (Yoma 86a)

Jewish Law is "the Jewish way" and people are likely to judge Jews and Judaism by how the very knowledgeable in "the Jewish way" behave.

[Odin2005]

8. Another rabbi needs to take this one out to the metaphorical woodshed.