Responsa sobre Proverbios 26:18

And this is what I responded: in truth, I have already written at length in a responsum that to disqualify a person it is necessary that there be two kosher witnesses. And I cited the words of Pri Hadash and Ritva that disqualifying a person requires two kosher witnesses, as it is like capital matters. If so, in this case, where they were minors at the time of the act and they are only believed to testify in their adulthood about what they saw in their childhood for questions of rabbinic law [not biblical], as explained in [Shulhan Arukh] Hoshen Mishpat §35. Here, then, to disqualify a person they are certainly not believed. However, according to what Maharik and Terumat Ha-deshen state, and as established by Rema on Shulhan Arukh, in a case where kosher witnesses are not necessary, even a woman and a minor child are believed. And if so, in this matter, where it is definitely impossible for there to be adult men, and it is impossible for there to be testimony in the matter, for without a doubt this man, even if he is wicked and corrupt, acts in secret and only amuses himself with young children. He is like a “madman shooting flaming arrows” (Prov. 26:18) who says “I am only playing.” If so, it is obvious that they are credible to testify. Moreover, do we wish to disqualify him from testifying or taking an oath? We are merely saying that perhaps he. And the [Sages] already said (Niddah 61) that a bad report need not be accepted, but one must be suspicious. And in Moed Kattan 18 they said that a bad report is, in any event, partially true. If so, then, woe unto us that in our days such a thing arose, that a man like this would be a teacher of young children of the study house, the breath of whose mouth is pure, and there is a concern that the breath of his unclean mouth will defile them. And therefore, in my opinion, it is appropriate to remove the crown of education from his head, and they should worry for their lives until he fully repents with mortifications, as appropriate. Then he may once again accept the status of a full community member, and it will be atonement for his sins. And as long as he does not confess his sins, repentance is inapplicable, as Tevu'ot Shor §2 states, and as I wrote at length in a responsum to Drohobych concerning a ritual slaughterer there. And I was told in the name the great and eminent, pious and righteous Rabbi David, of blessed memory, author of Ahavat David Ve-Yehonatan, that he explained as a moral allegory the statement in Shulhan Arukh: “One who urinates from Mt. Scopus and in [toward the Temple] should not sit facing the Sanctuary.” He explains that this refers to one who ejaculates and says that it is from “Scopus” and “within” – the eyes and the heart, the two facilitators of sin. On this it says that “he should not sit” (lo yeshev), i.e., that repentance (teshuva) is ineffective, if he faces the Sanctuary. The words of the wise bring joy.