Section 1 - Sources & Rationale
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ מָר עוּקְבָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּנֵי אָדָם הָעוֹמְדִים עָלַי וּבְיָדִי לְמׇסְרָם לַמַּלְכוּת מַהוּ שַׂרְטֵט וּכְתַב לֵיהּ אָמַרְתִּי אֶשְׁמְרָה דְרָכַי מֵחֲטוֹא בִלְשׁוֹנִי אֶשְׁמְרָה לְפִי מַחְסוֹם בְּעוֹד רָשָׁע לְנֶגְדִּי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָשָׁע לְנֶגְדִּי אֶשְׁמְרָה לְפִי מַחְסוֹם שְׁלַח לֵיהּ קָא מְצַעֲרִי לִי טוּבָא וְלָא מָצֵינָא דְּאֵיקוּם בְּהוּ שְׁלַח לֵיהּ דּוֹם לַה׳ וְהִתְחוֹלֵל לוֹ דּוֹם לַה׳ וְהוּא יַפִּילֵם לְךָ חֲלָלִים חֲלָלִים הַשְׁכֵּם וְהַעֲרֵב עֲלֵיהֶן לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְהֵן כָּלִין מֵאֵילֵיהֶן הַדָּבָר יָצָא מִפִּי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וּנְתָנוּהוּ לִגְנִיבָא בְּקוֹלָר.
Mar Ukva, [the Exilarch in Babylonia,] sent a letter to Rabbi Elazar, [who was in Eretz Yisrael, in which the following was written]: With regard to people who stand over [and torment] me, and I have the power to deliver them into the hands of the government, what is the halakha? [Rabbi Elazar] scored parchment and wrote to him the following verse: “I said: I will take heed to my ways, that I do not sin with my tongue; I will keep a curb upon my mouth, while the wicked is before me” (Psalms 39:2). (This means:) Even though “the wicked is before me,” “I will keep a curb upon my mouth.” [Mar Ukva sent word to him [again]: They are tormenting me a great deal and I cannot stand them. [Rabbi Elazar] sent to him [in response]: “Resign yourself to the Lord, and wait patiently for Him” (Psalms 37:7). (This verse indicates:] “Resign yourself to the Lord,” (i.e., do not do anything), and He will strike them down as many corpses. Rise before and stay later than them [in] the study hall, and they will disappear on their own. [The Gemara relates:] The matter emerged from the mouth of Rabbi Elazar, and Geneiva, [Mar Ukva’s tormentor], was placed in a neck iron [kolar], [as one sentenced by the government].
[Rav Naḥman] said to him: [This individual’s liability is written explicitly in] the mishna, as we learned in the mishna: If [thugs took the field] due to the robber, he is obligated to provide [the owner with a different] field. And it was established [that the mishna is referring to a case] where an individual showed [the field to thugs, who later seized it. So too, in this case, the one who showed the Exilarch’s wheat pile to the thugs is obligated to pay for them].
ר' אלעזר ב"ר שמעון אשכח לההוא פרהגונא דקא תפיס גנבי אמר ליה היכי יכלת להו לאו כחיותא מתילי דכתיב בו תרמוש כל חיתו יער איכא דאמרי מהאי קרא קאמר ליה (תהלים י, ט) יארב במסתר כאריה בסוכו דלמא שקלת צדיקי ושבקת רשיעי א"ל ומאי אעביד הרמנא דמלכא הוא אמר תא אגמרך היכי תעביד עול בארבע שעי לחנותא כי חזית איניש דקא שתי חמרא וקא נקיט כסא בידיה וקא מנמנם שאול עילויה אי צורבא מרבנן הוא וניים אקדומי קדים לגרסיה אי פועל הוא קדים קא עביד עבידתיה ואי עבידתיה בליליא רדודי רדיד ואי לא גנבא הוא ותפסיה אישתמע מילתא בי מלכא אמרו קריינא דאיגרתא איהו ליהוי פרונקא אתיוה לרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון וקא תפיס גנבי ואזיל שלח ליה ר' יהושע בן קרחה חומץ בן יין עד מתי אתה מוסר עמו של אלקינו להריגה שלח ליה קוצים אני מכלה מן הכרם שלח ליה יבא בעל הכרם ויכלה את קוציו יומא חד פגע ביה ההוא כובס קרייה חומץ בן יין אמר מדחציף כולי האי שמע מינה רשיעא הוא אמר להו תפסוהו תפסוהו לבתר דנח דעתיה אזל בתריה לפרוקיה ולא מצי קרי עליה (משלי כא, כג) שומר פיו ולשונו שומר מצרות נפשו זקפוהו קם תותי זקיפא וקא בכי אמרו ליה רבי אל ירע בעיניך שהוא ובנו בעלו נערה מאורסה ביום הכפורים הניח ידו על בני מעיו אמר שישו בני מעי שישו ומה ספיקות שלכם כך ודאית שלכם על אחת כמה וכמה מובטח אני בכם שאין רמה ותולעה שולטת בכם ואפי' הכי לא מייתבא דעתיה אשקיוהו סמא דשינתא ועיילוהו לביתא דשישא וקרעו לכריסיה הוו מפקו מיניה דיקולי דיקולי דתרבא ומותבי בשמשא בתמוז ואב ולא מסרחי כל תרבא נמי לא סריח כל תרבא לא סריח שורייקי סומקי מסריח הכא אף על גב דאיכא שורייקי סומקי לא מסריח קרי אנפשיה (תהלים טז, ט) אף בשרי ישכון לבטח ואף ר' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי מטא כי האי מעשה לידיה פגע ביה אליהו אמר ליה עד מתי אתה מוסר עמו של אלקינו להריגה אמר ליה מאי אעביד הרמנא דמלכא הוא אמר ליה אבוך ערק לאסיא את ערוק ללודקיא.
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, found a certain officer [parhagavna] whose responsibility was to arrest thieves. He said to the officer: How are you able [to arrest] them? Aren’t they likened to beasts, as it is written: “[You make darkness and it is night,] in which all the beasts of the forest creep forth” (Psalms 104:20)? There are those who say that he said to him [a proof] from this verse: “He lies in wait in a secret place as a lion in his lair, [he lies in wait to catch the poor; he catches the poor when he draws him up in his net” (Psalms 10:9). [Since the wicked are so devious,] perhaps you apprehend the righteous and leave the wicked alone? [The officer] said to him: But what should I do? It is the king’s edict [harmana] [that I am following]. [Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,] said to him: Come and I will instruct you how you should do it. At the fourth hour [of the day] enter the tavern. When you see someone drinking wine, holding his cup in his hand, and dozing, inquire about his background. If he is a Torah scholar and is dozing, [assume that] he rose early in the morning for his studies. If he is a labourer, [assume that] he rose early and performed his work. And if his work is at night [and no one heard him working, it is possible that this is because] he draws [copper wires, which is a form of labor that does not produce noise]. And if he is none of these, he is a thief, and you should arrest him, [as it can be assumed that he was awake the previous night because he was stealing, and that is why he is now dozing off]. This matter [of the advice of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,] was heard in the king’s palace. [The king’s ministers] said: Let the reader of the letter be its messenger [parvanka], (i.e., since Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, offered this advice, he should be the one to implement it). They brought Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon and he proceeded to arrest thieves. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa sent [Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, the following message: You are] vinegar, son of wine, (i.e., you are wicked in comparison to your father, the righteous Rabbi Shimon, just as vinegar is spoiled wine). Until when will you inform on the nation of our God to [be sentenced to] execution? [Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,] sent a message back to him: I am eradicating thorns from the vineyard. [Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa] sent back to him: Let the Owner of the vineyard (i.e., God) come and eradicate His own thorns. One day, a certain laundryman met [Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon], and called him vinegar, son of wine. [Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon], said: From the fact that this man acted so insolently, one can conclude that he is a wicked person. He told the authorities: Arrest that man. They arrested him [and condemned him to death]. After his mind settled, [Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, regretted his decision,] he went after [the laundryman in order] to ransom him but he was unable to do so. He read the verse about him: “Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue, keeps his soul from troubles” (Proverbs 21:23) (i.e., had the laundryman not issued his derogatory comment he would have been spared this fate.) [Ultimately,] they hanged [the laundryman]. [Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,] stood beneath the gallows and wept. [Those who were present] said to him: Our teacher, let it not be bad in your eyes, he and his son [both] engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman on Yom Kippur. [Upon hearing this, Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon] placed his hand upon his his innards, and said: Rejoice, my innards, rejoice! If your mere suspicions are so [accurate], all the more so your certainties [must be correct]. I am assured about you, [my innards,] that worm and maggot will not affect you. Nevertheless, his mind was not calmed. [He arranged for people] to give him a sedative to drink, and they brought him into a house of marble, [where surgeries were performed], and cut open his belly. They removed baskets upon baskets of fat from it, placed them in the sun in [the summer months] of Tammuz and Av, and [the fat] did not putrefy. [The Gemara questions what the proof was: This is not sufficient proof, as] all fat [that is not attached to flesh] does not putrefy. [The Gemara answers: True,] all fat [not attached to flesh] does not putrefy, but the red veins within the fat do putrefy. Here, [by contrast,] although there were red veins [in the fat], they did not putrefy. [Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon] read the verses about himself: “[I have set the Lord always before me…therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices;] my flesh also dwells in safety” (Psalms 16:8–9). [The Gemara relates:] And a similar incident also occurred to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei (i.e., he too was appointed head officer). Elijah [the prophet] encountered him and said to him: Until when will you inform on the nation of our God to be sentenced to execution? [Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei,] said to [Elijah]: What should I do? It is the king’s edict [that I must obey. Elijah] said to him: [Faced with this choice,] your father fled to Asia. You should flee to Laodicea.
There was a certain man who desired to show another individual’s straw [to the gentile authorities, who would seize it]. He came before Rav, who said to him: Do not show it and do not show it, (i.e., you are absolutely prohibited from showing it). The man said to him: I will show it and I will show it, (i.e., I will certainly show it). Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav, [and, hearing the man’s disrespectful response], he dislodged the man’s neck from him, (i.e. he broke his neck and killed him). [Seeing Rav Kahana’s action,] Rav read the following verse about him: “Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net” (Isaiah 51:20). Just as with regard to this antelope, once it falls into the net, [the hunter] does not have mercy upon it, so too with regard to the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him, (i.e., the Jew).
כִּי הֲוָה נָפֵיק, אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַהוּא גַּבְרָא: עָבֵיד רַחֲמָנָא נִיסָּא לְשַׁקָּרֵי הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רָשָׁע, לָאו חֲמָרֵי אִיקְּרוּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׂר חֲמוֹרִים בְּשָׂרָם״. חַזְיֵיהּ דְּקָאָזֵיל לְמֵימְרָא לְהוּ דִּקְרִינְהוּ חֲמָרֵי, אֲמַר: הַאי רוֹדֵף הוּא. וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: אִם בָּא לְהׇרְגְּךָ — הַשְׁכֵּם לְהׇרְגוֹ. מַחְיֵיהּ בְּקוּלְפָא וְקַטְלֵיהּ.
As he was leaving, that man said to [Rabbi Sheila]: Does God perform such miracles for liars? He replied: Scoundrel! Aren’t [gentiles] called donkeys? As it is written: “Whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys” (Ezekiel 23:20). [Rabbi Sheila] saw that he was going to tell [the Persian authorities] that he called them donkeys. He said: [This man has the legal status of] a pursuer. [He seeks to have me killed.] And the Torah said: If one comes to kill you, kill him first. He struck him with the staff and killed him.
והרודף למסור ממון חבירו ביד אנס השוו חכמים לרודף אחרי גופו להרגו מהאי קרא בניך עולפו שכבו בראש כל חוצות כתוא מכמר מה התוא הזה כיון שנפל למכמר אין מרחמין עליו אף ממון של ישראל כיון שנפל ביד אנסין אין מרחמין עליו נוטלין היום מקצתו ולמחר כולו ולבסוף מוסרין אותו והורגין אותו...
R' Asher ben Yechiel (1250-1327)
And the sages equate one who pursues to hand over his friend's money to the hand of a bandit (i.e. A moser) to one who pursues his body to kill him (i.e. A rodef). This is on the basis of the verse “Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net”; just as with regard to this antelope, once it falls into the net, [the hunter] does not have mercy upon it, so too with regard to the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him. [Rather], they take a bit from him today and tomorrow [they take] everything and ultimately one hands him over and they kill him...
Section 2 - Mesirah in Halacha
אסור למסור לישראל ביד עכו"ם בין בגופו בין בממונו ואפי' היה רשע ובעל עבירות ואפי' היה מצר לו ומצערו: וכל המוסר ישראל ביד עכו"ם בין בגופו בין בממונו אין לו חלק לעולם הבא: מותר להרוג המוסר בכל מקום אפי' בזמן הזה ומותר להורגו קודם שימסור אלא כשאמר הריני מוסר פלוני בגופו או בממונו אפי' ממון קל התיר עצמו למיתה ומתרין בו ואומרים לו אל תמסור אם העז פניו ואמר לא כי אלא אמסרנו מצוה להורגו וכל הקודם להרגו זכה:
R' Yosef Caro (1488-1575)
One is prohibited from handing over a Jew to an idolater, whether it’s the Jew’s physical person or his money, even if he was wicked and a sinner and even if he caused him pain and suffering. Whomever informs on a Jew to an idolater, whether it is his person or his money, receives no share in the next world. One is permitted to kill an informer in all places, even today. One is permitted to kill him before he informs. As soon as he says he is going to inform on so and so’s person or money, even if it is a small amount of money, he has given himself up to be killed. We would warn him and say do not inform. If he is brazen and says he still plans on informing, there is a mitzvah to kill him. Whomever kills him first would receive the merit.
Heterim 1 (Non-Verbal) & 2 (Moser)
אסור למסור לישראל ביד עכו"ם בין בגופו בין בממונו ואפי' היה רשע ובעל עבירות ואפי' היה מצר לו ומצערו: הגה ודוקא בדברים בעלמא אבל אם מסרו מותר למוסרו דהרי יוכל להרגו בדין במקום שיש חשש שיחזור וימסרנו (הרא"ש כלל י"ו סי' א' וב' ותשו' רשב"א סי' קפ"א) או אם אי אפשר להציל עצמו בדרך אחר אבל אם אפשר להציל עצמו בדרך אחר הוי כשנים שמסרו זה את זה וכל מי שהפסיד חבירו יותר חייב לשלם המותר בנזק שלם (מרדכי פ' הנ"ל ותשו' מיימוני הנ"ל)
One is prohibited from handing over a Jew to an idolater, whether it’s the Jew’s physical person or his money, even if he was wicked and a sinner and even if he caused him pain and suffering. This is only where he caused him pain with mere words. If he informed, however, the victim may inform on him, because legally he may kill him in a situation where there is a concern he may inform again or where there is no other way for him to rescue himself. If there is another way to rescue himself, however, it is like two individuals who each informed on each other and whomever caused the greater loss would pay the full amount of the difference.
מפני צער יחיד אסור למסרו. והיינו דוקא מפני צער דעלמא אבל אם מסרו בממון וכ"ש אם יסרו במכות ועונשי הגוף מותר כמ"ש בס"ט בהג"ה...
R' Yehoshua Falk (1555-1614)
This is specifically regarding mere pain, but it is permitted to inform on him in a monetary case and all the more so in the case of beatings and physical abuse, as written in sub-section 9 in the [Rema]...
Heterim 3 (Tzaar l'Tsibbur) & 4 (Nezek l'Rabbim)
(יב) כל המוסר הצבור ומצערן מותר למסרו ביד עכו"ם להכותו ולאסרו ולקנסו אבל מפני צער יחיד אסור למסרו: הגה (וע"ל סי' תכ"ה ס"א) מי שעוסק בזיופים וכדומה ויש לחוש שיזיק רבים מתרין בו שלא יעשה ואם אינו משגיח יכולין למסרו לומר שאין אחר מתעסק בו אלא זה לבד.
If one informs on the community and causes them pain, one may inform on him to the gentiles to strike him, to imprison him or to fine him. One cannot inform on him, however, because of an individual’s pain. If someone is involved in forgery or something similar, and there is a concern he will damage the masses, we would warn him not to do it. And if he does not heed their warning, they may inform on him by saying nobody else is involved other than him.
Heter 5 - Dina Demalchuta Dina
המוסר ממון בידי אנס בין אנס עכו"ם בין אנס ישראל חייב לשלם מהיפה שבנכסיו כל מה שלקח האנס אע"פ שלא נשא המוסר ולא נתן בידו אלא הרגיל בלבד ואם מת גובים מיורשיו כשאר כל המזיקים...ואם נשא ונתן ביד אע"פ שהוא אנוס חייב לשלם שהמציל עצמו בממון חבירו חייב כיצד הרי שגזר המלך להביא לו יין או תבן וכיוצא בדברים אלו ועמד מוסר ואמר הרי יש לפלוני אוצר יין או תבן במקום פלוני והלכו ולקחוהו חייב לשלם.
R' Yosef Caro (1488-1575)
If one hands over money to a bandit, regardless of whether the bandit was a gentile or Jew, he would be required to pay from his best properties whatever the bandit took, even if the informer did not physically take and give the properties but just spoke. If he dies, we would collect from his inheritors like any other tortfeasor....If he physically took and gave the properties, even if he was compelled he would be required to pay, because one who rescues himself with another’s money is liable. How so? If the king decreed to bring him wine or straw or anything similar, and the informer got up and said so and so has a storehouse of wine or straw in such and such place, and they went and took it, he would be liable to pay [compensation].
הרי שגזר המלך להביא לו כו'. היינו בענין שאין בו דינא דמלכותא כגון שגזר על איש ידוע וכה"ג וכדלעיל סי' שס"ט ס"ח וע"ש:
R' Shabbatai Hakohen (1621-1662)
This is where dina demalchuta dina is not applicable, such as where the decree applied to a specific individual and that kind of circumstance, see above 369:8 and see there
Section 3 - Case Study: Abuse
Approach 1 (The Correct One!!!!!) - Obligated to Report Immediately, Without Internal Consultation
Office of the Chief Rabbi, 18 February 2015
We have an obligation to safeguard the children of our community and we have to accept that, even within our own communities, there are those who steal the innocence of our children through criminal activity.
We are acutely aware that sexual abuse can, (apart from being inherently abhorrent), destroy lives and cause a breakdown in relationships. At its worst it can be the cause of suicide, death from drug overdose and mental illness.
It is therefore essential that when abuse has occurred, the police must be informed without delay. Local communities should not attempt to deal with the situation internally. Delays in reporting abuse can cause vital evidence to be lost, allowing the abusers to continue violating our children. We must all ensure that the children of our communities will be protected by reporting abuse to the authorities wherever it takes place.
As you have previously been informed, the United Synagogue’s Child Protection Officer is David Frei. Should you encounter or be informed about any situations which raise concerns, please refer to him in the first instance for advice.
Approach 2 - Obligated to Report Immediately, Potentially With Internal Consultation
Rabbinical Council of America Press Release of July 26, 2011
RCA Reaffirms Importance of Referring Suspected Child Abuse or Endangerment to the Authorities Without Delay
The Rabbinical Council of America has today reaffirmed its position that those with reasonable suspicion or first hand knowledge of abuse or endangerment have a religious obligation to report that abuse to the secular legal authorities without delay. One of the unique features of Jewish law is that it imposes upon every member of the community an obligation to help others avoid danger. The biblical verse "do not stand by while your neighbor's blood is shed" is understood by Jewish Law to mandate that one must do all in one's power to prevent harm to others - even if monetary harm, but certainly physical harm. Consistent with that Torah obligation, if one becomes aware of an instance of child abuse or endangerment, one is obligated to refer the matter to the secular authorities immediately, as the prohibition of mesirah (i.e., referring an allegation against a fellow Jew to government authority) does not apply in such a case. As always where the facts are uncertain one should use common sense and consultations with experts, both lay and rabbinic, to determine how and when to report such matters to the authorities. False accusations are harmful to those falsely accused - but unreported abuse or endangerment can be life-threatening, as we have recently been tragically reminded. In addition and as a separate matter, those within the Jewish community whom secular law deems to be "mandated reporters," must certainly obey the particular reporting requirements, which vary from state to state in the United States. A person covered by mandatory reporter laws must comply with those laws, even in a case in which Jewish law might otherwise not require a person to report such child abuse or endangerment.
Approach 3
שו"ת ציץ אליעזר חי"ט סימן נב
X
Tzitz Eliezer Section 52
R' Eliezer Waldenberg (1915-2006)
X
x
Nishmat Avraham, Vol. 4, pp. 100-102
R' Avraham Sofer (1935-)
A child or infant who is brought to a hospital with symptoms of being a battered child... it is prohibited, after an investigation to return him to his home as they will continue to beat him until he might die. Because of the real danger, it is obligatory for the doctor to inform the courts, and with an order from the court, place the child with a foster parent or agency. There is no problem of informing since we are dealing with danger to life and the parents are the pursuers. This is permitted even if they will place the child, due to no choice, with a family or agency that is secular. It is incumbent upon the Jewish court to do everything in its power to insure that the child is placed with an observant family or agency. Particularly in the diaspora it is important that the Jewish court work to insure that the child not be placed with a Gentile family or agency. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach agreed with all of the above.
Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv recounted to me that it is permitted for the doctor to inform the authorities even if it is possible that the child will be placed with a family or agency that is not Jewish ....
Rabbi Waldenberg wrote "if there is a real risk that the parents will continue to hit the child .... it is obligatory for the doctor to report the matter to the police..." Sexual abuse (of either boys and girls) is no different than physical abuse. [Rabbis Waldenberg, Elyashiv and Auerbach agree that reporting is mandatory also.] Rabbi Elyashiv writes "there is no difference between boys and girl since one is dealing with a seriously life wounding event (pegiah nafshit) and a danger to the public ... this is much more serious than theft and one certainly must report this matter to the school administration and if nothing is done, even to the police even in the diaspora.
Approach 4 - Permitted to Report if (1) Can't Stop It (2) Raglayim l'Davar (3) On Advice of Talmid Chacham If Deleterious Spiritual Impact
קובץ תשובות ג:שכא
השאלה אחד יודע שמישהו מתעלל בילד או בילדה בעניני מין, ובאופן שאין בידינו לעצור בעדו שלא ימשיך במעשיו הרעים, האם מותר להודיע על כך לפקיד הממשלה. והנה ז"ל הרשב"א בתשו' ח"ג סי' שצ"ג "רואה אני שאם העדים נאמנים אצל הברורים רשאים הן לקנוס קנס ממון או עונש הגוף הכל לפי מה שיראה להם וזה מקיים העולם שאם אתם מעמידין הכל על הדינין הקצובים בתורה ושלא לענוש אלא כמו שענשה התורה - נמצא העולם חרב...בכל מקום ומקום דנין לגדור את הדור וכן עושין בכל דור ודור ובכל מקום ומקום שרואין שהשעה צריכה לכך - והנה אמרו דרב הונא שהיה מבבל קץ ידא - ולפיכך ברורים אלו שעשו זה אם ראו צורך השעה לתיקון המדינה - כדין עשו, - וכ"כ בדאיכא הורמנא דמלכא וכענין שעשו ר' אלעזר בר"ש בר"פ הפועלים"
מתוך דברי הרשב"א שמעינן דבדבר שיש בה משום תיקון העולם יש כח לחכמי ישראל שבכל דור ודור לגדור גדר ולעמוד בפרץ גם במקום שאין לנו צירוף של הורמנא דמלכא וממ"ש הריטב"א בחי' לב"מ [פ"ד ב'] משמע לכאורה דכחו של הורמנא דמלכא הוא וזל"ש "אמר להו תפסוהו, והא דדאין בלא עדים והתראה, ושלא בזמן סנהדרין, שאני הכא דשליחא דמלכא הוא ומדיני המלכות להרוג בלא עדים והתראה לייסר העולם כמו"ש בדוד שהרג גר עמלקי ושלוחו של מלך כמותו -", אך כפי האמור בדבר שיש בו משום תיקון העולם א"צ בקבלת הורמנא דמלכא.
אכן כ"ז להתיר להודיע לממשלה הוא באופן שהדבר ברור שאכן ידו במעל, ובזה יש משום תיקון העולם אך באופן שאין אפי' רגלים לדבר, אלא איזה דמיון אם נתיר הדבר לא רק שאין בזה משום תיקון העולם אלא הרס העולם יש כאן ויתכן שבגלל איזה מרירות של תלמיד כלפי המורה מעליל על המורה או בגלל איזה דמיון שפא מכניסים אדם למצב שתוב מותו מחייו, - על לא עול מכפו, ואין אני רואה שום היתר בדבר.
Kovetz Teshuvot 3:231
R' Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012)
The question [asked was where] one knows that someone is sexually abusing a boy or girl, and where we do not have the means to stop them from continuing, whether it is permissible to inform on them to an officer of the state. And here the Rashba writes in his teshuvot 3:393: "It seems to me that if there are trustworthy witnesses regarding something clear then they can impose a monetary fine or bodily punishment, all according to what appears [proper] to them. And this sustains the world, for if one maintains everything on the laws fixed in the Torah and only punishes as the Torah prescribes, one will find that the world is destroyed...in every place they judge to set bounds for the generation and so should be done in every generation and every place where they see that the hour requires it. And they said that Rav Huna who was from Babylon cut off the hand [of a habitual thief, see Sanhedrin 58b]. And therefore these matters are clear that one does this if they see the hour requires it for the good of the country - act according to din - and so too is written where there is loyalty to the government, as with the matter which R' Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon did [in Bava Metzia 83b].
From the words of the Rashba we infer that where there is something concerning tikkun haolam the sages of Israel in every generation have the power to fix boundaries and stand in the breach also where the principle of loyalty to the government is not applicable. And from what the Ritva writes in his comments to Bava Metzia, he implies seemingly that it is attributable to the strength of loyalty to the government, as follows: 'He said to them to seize him, and as for [how he could do this] without witnesses or warning, and at a time when there was no Sanhedrin, it is different here for he was an agent of the king and from the laws of the kingdom [one can] kill without witnesses and warning to enforce punishment [in] the world, as is written regarding David who killed the Ger Amaleki, and the agent of a King is like [the king] himself". However, as stated above, where tikkun haolam is applicable, there is no need [to rely on] loyalty to the government [to justify extrajudicial action].
Thus, all this [i.e. the argument above] only permits informing the authorities in a situation in which it is clear that [the person in question] did in fact do this deed (yado ma’al) and in this case there is in fact an aspect of tikun olam (fixing or maintaining the world). However, with regard to the question of whether to permit [reporting] where there is not even raglayim le-davar (lit. “legs to the matters,” i.e. reasonable cause to suspect wrongdoing) but merely some vague suspicion (dimyon, lit. imagining) , not only is there no tikun olam but rather there is destruction of the world in this case as it is possible that because of some student’s grudge against a teacher, a student may [falsely] accuse the teacher or because of some baseless suspicion (dimyon shav) a person could be placed in a situation in which he is better off dead, though he is innocent of wrongdoing and I see no place to permit this.
ישורון, חלק טו, ניסן תשסה
ע"ד השאלה במקרה וההורים מתעוללים בילדיהם [מכות לילד] והחוק מחייב למסור הדבר לפקיד הממשלה והממשלה עלולה להוציא הילד מבית ההורים ולהשיבם בבתים אחרים אף בבית של נכרי, עד שיברר הדבר האם רשאים למסור הדבר לממשלה באופן שאכן אמת נכון הדבר.
הדבר תלוי בכמה גורמים, ואם הילד נמצא בבית שומרי תו"מ ומתחנך בבתיהם הרי ע"י מסירת הילד לבית נכרי ואף לביד חילוני ה"ז בגדר מסירת זרע ישראל למולך כי אין ספק שזה יפגע בנפש הילד גם אם זה לזמן קצר וזה ישפיע על חינוכו של הילד בעתיד [מדובר במקרה שאין בהתעוללות ההורים משום פקו"נ] יש גם לשקול בגדר של ההתעוללות, שבהשקפה שלהם היא אחרת לגמרי משלנו.
ובכן איפוא על כל מקרה ומקרה צריך שיקול דעת והכרעה ע"י ת"ח גדולים בתורה ויר"ש.
Yeshurun, Part 15, Nissan 5765
R' Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012)
Regarding the question of a situation where the parents are abusing their children [hitting the child] and the law requires one to inform on the matter to an officer of the state and the state may take the child from their parents' home and move them to another home, even the home of a non-Jew, [is it] permitted to tell the authorities where this is the case.
The matter depends on multiple factors, and if the child is found in a home that keeps Torah and mitzvot and educated in their home then by handing over the child to the home of a non-Jew or even the home of a chiloni that is within the boundaries of handing over the seed of Israel to molech, for without doubt that will hurt the soul of the child [even] if it is for a short amount of time, and it will hurt the education of the child in future. [This regards a situation where the parents' conduct does not involve pikuach nefesh] (but) one also needs to evaluate the [nature] of the conduct, where their view is completely different from ours.
As such, in each and every case an evaluation and ruling [are required] from scholars (Talmidei Chakhamim) who are great in Torah and fear of heaven.
Section 4 - Structural Approaches Today
Approach 1 - Mesirah Does Not Apply Under a Just Government
הערה: ידוע לכל קוראי הדורות שבזמן הקדמון במדינות הרחוקות לא היה לאיש בטחון בגופו וממונו מפני השודדים והאנסים אף שנשאו עליהם שם משרה כידוע גם היום מאיזה מדינות מאפריקא השוד והחמס שפחות הממשלה עושים ועל טוב יזכרו מלכי איירופא וביחוד אדונינו הקיר"ה מרוסיא ואבותיו הקיסרים ומלכי בריטניא שפרשו כנפי ממשלתם בארצות הרחוקות למען יהי לכל איש ואיש בטחון על גופו וממונו באופן שהעשירים לא יצטרכו להסתיר עצמם שלא ישללו ממונם ויהרגו אותם ועל זה סובב הולך כל דיני מסור ומלשין שבש"ס ופוסקים כאשר נבארם בס"ד כי המוסר ומלשין את חבירו לפני שודדים כאלה הלא רודפו בגופו וממונו ולכן ניתן להצילו בנפשו.
R' Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829-1908)
Note: As is widely known, in times of old in places far away, no person had any assurance in the safety of his life or money because of the pirates and bandits, even if they took upon themselves the form of government. It is known that this is true nowadays in some places in Africa where the government itself is grounded in theft and robbery. One should remind people of the kingdoms in Europe and particularly our ruler the Czar and his predecessors, and the kings of England, who spread their influence over many lands in order that people should have confidence in the security of their body and money. The wealthy do not have to hide themselves so that others will not loot or kill them. On all of this hinges the rules of informing [moser] and slandering [malshin] in shas and poskim, as I will explain infra: These rules apply only to one who informs on another to bandits and so endangers that person's money and life, as these bandits chase after the person's body and money, and thus one may use deadly force to save oneself.
Informing on Others for Violating American Law: A Jewish Law View
R' Professor Michael J. Broyde (1964-)
While one can dismiss the words of the Aruch Hashulchan as put in for the censor, there are at least three logical reasons why one might conclude that the words in the text actually reflect the normative Jewish law view of the Aruch Hashulchan. They are:
(1) All apologetic remarks for the benefit of the censor in Choshen Mishpat in the Aruch Hashulchan are found in star footnotes in italics at the bottom of the page. This passage is found in the text and not in italics.
(2) His mention of the British government is unexplainable if directed to the censor. Britain and the Czar were not allies at this time, and he is clearly referring to the British democratic tradition.
(3) The Aruch Hashulchan give a logical and halachic explanation for his view, which he never does when speaking to the censor.
Indeed, this writer notes that one could almost state that if there is a hand of the censor, it is not in terms of the principle that informing does not apply to just governments, but to the Aruch Hashulchan's remark that the Czar is such!
Dr. Moshe Simon-Shoshan, 'Mesirah: Two Contemporary Views'
I would also like to add that R. Aharon Lichtenstein has repeatedly stated that he accepts the position that he received from his father-in-law and teacher, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik (“the Rav”), in the name of the Rav’s father R. Moshe Soloveitchik, that in democratic countries the laws of mesirah simply do not apply. Thus, while in the Chareidi world this position is viewed as marginal, in the Modern Orthodox world this position can clearly be accepted as a mainstream, if not normative position. (This can be heard here at 36:30)
Approach 2 - Mesirah Does Not Apply to a Jewish Government Where Beit Din Lacks Authority
שו"ת ציץ אליעזר חי"ט סימן נב
עוד שתי נקודות, והמה:
1. בודאי שאלת כבו' בשאלה הנוספת בנוגע לדין מוסר היא לא בנוגע למסירה אפילו בערכאות של ישראל, דבכה"ג נראה דבודאי מותר מכיון שהמציאות היא שכהיום אין כח בי"ד לדון על כך, אלא כוונת שאלתו היא בנוגע למקרה של מסירה לערכאות של עכו"ם, ודכמודגש באמת בחו"מ שם בסע' ט' בלשון: אסור למסור לישראל ביד עכו"ם וכו'. ורק גבי מסירת ממון מידי אנס כתוב בסעי' ב' שם "בין אנס עכו"ם ובין אנס ישראל" ע"ש.
2. גם בערכאות של עכו"ם נראה שיש חילוק בזה בין מדינות פראיות לבין מדינות נאורות, וכדמצינו שמחלק בכזאת הערוך השלחן בחו"מ שם בסעי' ז', המעיר שם וכותב, שכל המדובר בדיני מסור בש"ס ופוסקים הוא בכגון מדינות הרחוקות שלא היה לאיש בטחון בגופו ובממונו מפני השודדים והאנסים הגם שנשאו עליהם שם משרה, כידוע גם היום באיזה מדינות מאפריקה וכו', משא"כ במלכי אירופא ע"ש, ומוכח מהערוה"ש שם שלא כוון בדבריו רק משום מלכות, כי בפרט והולך שם לדוגמא גם שמו של מדינות שהיו מרוחקים מרחק רב מאד ממקום מגורוו ומהמלכות שהיה חי בקרבה כדיעו"ש. כאמור כתבתי זאת לשם הבהרה כללית בנושא זה של מסור.
Tzitz Eliezer Section 52
R' Eliezer Waldenberg (1915-2006)
There are two further points, as follows:
1. Certainly the question [in this case] regarding the law of mesirah does not relate to mesirah even in Jewish courts, for in that case it seems that it is certainly permitted [to inform] since the situation today is that beit din does not have the power to adjudicate in such a case. Rather, the intent of the question relates to the case of mesirah to non-Jewish courts, as is in fact emphasised in choshen mishpat there in sub-section 9 as follows: It is forbidden to hand over a Jew into the hands of a non-Jew etc. And it is only regarding mesirah of money to a bandit that it is written in sub-section 2 there "whether a non-Jewish or Jewish bandit", see there.
2. Also for the non-Jewish courts it seems there is a distinction here between countries of savagery and countries of enlightenment, and we find such a distinction in the Aruch Hashulchan in Choshen Mishpat there in Section 7. He notes there and writes that everything said regarding the laws of mesirah in shas and poskim is applicable to distant countries where a person does not have bodily or monetary security because of the robbers and bandits who preside over them, as is also the case today in some countries in Africa etc.. This is in contrast to the kings of Europe, see there. And it is clear from the Aruch Hashulchan there that he does not only have in mind [his] kingdom, since he goes on to specify as an example also the name of countries that were very far from the place and kingdom where he lived, see there. As mentioned, I wrote this as a general clarification regarding this matter of mesirah.
Approach 3 - Not a Rodef But Still Asur
פתחי חשן ו:ד:א, הע' א
ובספרי הפוסקום מצינו שלימדו זכות על מלכויות ושלטונות בזמננו שאין בהם דיני מוסר. אבל ידוע שבהלכות אלו שלטה יד הצנזור, ולפעמים נכתבו (או הושמטו) דברים מפחד הצנזור או השלטון. ועכ"פ משום איבה, כך שקשה ללמוד מדברים אלה, ומ"מ נלענ"ד שיש גם צד בהלכה בזה, שכיון שעיקר החומר במוסר ממון הוא משום שיבאו להרגו, יתכן שבמדינות שיש שם שלטון מתוקן, אע"פ שלכתחלה ברור שאסור, מ"מ אם ברור שאין חשש שיהרגוהו אינו אלא כמזיק ממון, ולא שייך בו כל החומרות שנאמרו במוסר גופו...
Pitchai Choshen Volume 6 Chapter Four, Section 1, Note 1
R' Yaakov Yeshaya Blau (1929-2013)
In the writings of many decisors we have seen that they found some merit (lamdu zechut) on the kings and governments of their time that the rules of informing did not apply. But it is widely known that in these kinds of works the hand of the censor is present. In circumstances they wrote (or left out) matters out of fear of the censor or the government, or at the least because of hatred of the Jews (aiva), and it is thus hard to learn from these sources. Nonetheless, in my humble opinion, there is an acceptable aspect of this view [that informing does not apply in just society] since the essence of the prohibition to inform even on monetary matters is 'lest they come to kill you.' It is clear that in a country where the government is just, even though informing is clearly prohibited, nonetheless there is no fear that they will kill you. Thus an informer is no different from any other damager of the property of another, and none of the strictures concerning informing which can result in physical duress apply...
Approach 4 - Mesirah Still Applies Because Secular Punishment is Anti-Halachic
שו"ת אגרות משה (חושן משפט חלק א סימן ח)
קבלתי מכתבכם בדבר הרשע בא כח של בית חרושת כשר אשר זייף חותמות ותלה אותם על נבלות וטרפות ומכר ליהודים בתור כשרות, שהנידון הוא אם למסרו לערכאות המדינה שידונו קשה בכסף ובמאסר, או שידונו אותו הרבנים בדיני ישראל.
לע"ד אף שפשעו גדול מאד וכנראה אינו בעל תשובה כלל, מ"מ כל זמן שלא ראינו שדייני ישראל אינם יכולים להפסיקו אין לדונו בערכאות משני טעמים.
חדא דאפילו לא ידונו בערכאות אלא כדיני התורה אסור לדון בערכאות כדאיתא בחו"מ ר"ס כ"ו.
ועוד הא ודאי הם ידונו במאסר ובממון שלא כדיני ישראל שאז יש לחוש לאיסור מסור, שאסור למסור ישראל ביד עכו"ם בין בגופו בין בממונו ואפילו היה רשע ובעל עבירות כדאיתא בחו"מ סימן שפ"ח סעיף ט'...
Iggrot Moshe, Choshen Mishpat 1:8
R' Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986)
I received your letter with regard to an evil doer who came into a kosher factory and forged the kosher symbol, placed it on non-kosher items, which he sold to Jews as kosher. The question is can one inform on him to the secular authorities who will judge him severely with either a fine or prison, or must the rabbis judge him according to Jewish law? In my opinion, even though his sin is great, and he shows no repentance, nonetheless so long as we cannot say that the Jewish judges cannot judge him, one may not turn the matter over to the secular authorities for two reasons. Firstly, even if the secular courts only judge him according to Torah law, it is forbidden to judge him in secular courts as written in Choshen Mishpat 260:26. In addition, since it is certain that the secular authorities will adjudicate the matter through incarceration or a fine inconsistent with Jewish law, one must be fearful of the prohibition of mesirah, as it is prohibited to inform on a Jew to the secular authorities, whether through danger to his body or his money, even if he is a rasha and a sinner, as is written in Choshen Mishpat 388:9...
(Written in 5721)
שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ה סימן ט
אם מותר למסור גנב לערכאות המדינה
ובדבר גנב שגנב ס"ת וכלי כסף מביהכ"נ, אם מותר למסרו לערכאות המדינה ולמשטרה (פאליס), שידוע שהם דנים ביסורי הגוף במאסר הרבה שנים, הנה לכאורה פשוט שאין שייך להתיר. אף אם לא היה כלל איסור לידון בדיני המדינות לפני שופטי המדינה, אבל הא אין לנו למוסרו לדונו בדברים שלא שייך בדיני התורה, שהוא ממון כפי שומת הבקיאין, והם דנים ביסורים שזה לא חייבה תורה. ועיין במו"ק דף י"ז ע"א, בעובדא דר"ל הוה מנטר פרדיסא...
חזינן דאף על גנבא אסור להחמיר יותר מדינו שחייבה תורה.
Iggrot Moshe Orach Chaim 5:9(11)
[Regarding] whether it is permitted to inform on a thief to the secular authorities.
Regarding a thief who stole a sefer Torah and silver utensils from shul, [regarding the question of] whether it is permitted to inform on him to the secular authorities and police, when it is known that they judge with bodily harm of imprisonment for many years, here it seems clear that it is not appropriate to allow [informing on him]. Even if there is no prohibition at all of judgement before secular courts [and] secular judges, we do not inform on a person for a matter where the punishment is unfounded in Jewish law. In Jewish law, theft is resolved through restitution as measured by an expert, and secular law punishes through suffering [of imprisonment] which the Torah does not obligate. And see in Moed Katan 17a the incident where Reish Lakish was guarding an orchard...we see that even in the case of theft it is prohibited to be more stringent than the punishment mandated by the Torah...
(Written in 5740)
Reish Lakish was guarding an orchard when a certain man came and ate some figs [that were growing there]. Reish Lakish raised his voice [and yelled at him], but this man paid no attention to him. Reish Lakish said: Let that man be in a state of excommunication. [The man eating the figs] said to him: On the contrary, let that man, (i.e., Reish Lakish), be in a state of excommunication, [for even] if I have become liable to you for payment (for eating the figs), have I become liable to you for excommunication? [Reish Lakish] went to the study hall [to inquire about the halakha with regard to this man]. [The other Sages] said to him: His decree of ostracism is [valid, but] your decree of ostracism is not.
Approach 5 - Plus Ça Change
Dinnai Mamonut 4:2:5n.1 at page 86
R' Ezra Batzri (1937-)
Do not be surprised by the rules in this chapter, and think that they are inapplicable nowadays since governments are enlightened and democratic, a beacon for people to travel. This should be thought true of only by the very naive, as even in democracies, in truth when there is a matter that involves the government, the matter is treated as out of the normal protocol as happens when matters relate to security of the state. All rules of informing are applicable even currently. Anyone who knows and understands and sees not only what is externally visible, and what previously was, will see that only the external appearance has changed -- the outside has changed -- but the central characteristic [of government] has not changed. Even if they bring all matters to court, it is clear that, through interrogation and the police, government can destroy people and in many places they do, in fact, destroy people.
חלקת יעקב חו"מ" סימן ד
...זה דוקא בזמן שרודפים הישראלים ואם מוסר חברו אז מענישין אותו משום שהוא יהודי, ואם נכרי יעשה זה הדבר אין מענישין, אז נקרא מסור, או אפילו בזה"ז שאין רודפין ישראל בדין, ואם הנכרי יעשה זה הדבר מענישין אותו משום שבפשע למלכות, האם ג"כ נקרא מסור לכל הני מילי דבסי' שפ"ח.
המעיין בשו"ע ופוסקים יראה להדי' דאין חילוק, ואף כשהולך לערכאות להוציא את שלו, מחלוקת בסימן שפ"ח בסע' ה', והש"ך שם דעתו דמקרי מסור, ובברכות נ"ח...ואפה"כ' קתלי' ר' שילא משום מסור. ואף דיש לחלק דבשם ידע ר' שילא דודאי יענשוהו על הזלזול שאמר כלפי המלכות...אף ממון של ישראל כיון שנפל ביד עכו"ם אין מרחמין עליו והובא בשו"ע והפוסקים להלכה לא נשתנה הדין בזה, וחסד לאומים חטאת כתוב, והעובדות שראינו בעינינו גם בימינו אלו יוכיחו ע"ז...
Chelkat Yaakov, Choshen Mishpat Section 5
R' Yaakov Briesch (1895-1976)
Is the prohibition of informing specifically when they are chasing after Jews, and thus if one informs on one's friend they punish him because he is a Jew, but if a gentile did this they would not punish him, then one is called an informer (moser), or it is even nowadays, when they are not pursuing Jews through law, and if a gentile had violated the law they would punish him as what he did is a crime, is that too called informing as defined in Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 388
One who looks in Shulchan Aruch and other decisors will see explicitly that there is no difference, and even when one who uses secular courts to reclaim his own, the matter is in dispute in Choshen Mishpat 388:5 and the Shach views such a person as an informer. A similar view is taken Brachot 58a concerning . . . [a person who slandered government] and such a person became a pursuer [to destroy the government] and he was killed. Even though it is certain that if a gentile had done the same thing and called the government bitter they would have punished him, still Rav Shelai considered him an informer (moser) and killed him; while it is true that this case is different in that Rav Shelai was certain that they would be punished for mocking the government...Even the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hands of a gentile, they show no mercy on it, as is quoted in Shulchan Aruch and other decisors, and as a matter of normative halacha this did not change...That which we have seen in recent times [the Holocaust] provides proof to this.
(Written in 1965; R' Briesch lived in Switzerland and the questioner, R' Yisrael Yitzchak Markowitz, lived in Antwerp)
Addendum: Other Relevant Teshuvot
שו"ת שבט הלוי חלק ב סימן נח
באחד שעובד במשרד המכס וכשהוא רואה מי שרימה את הממשלה צריך למסור אותו בבית המשפט ורצונו לדעת אם הוא בגדר מלשין או דינא דמלכותא דינא.
הנה בעצם דין מכס לית דין ולית דיין שזה נכנס בגדר דינא דמלכותא דינא...
ולענין למסור למלכות הנה מש"ס ב"מ פ"ג ע"ב בעובדא דר"א בר"ש דהוי מסר גנבא למלכות מוכח דהוא מותר משום הורמנא דמלכא, ואף על גב דאמרו לי' עד מתי אתה מוסר עמו של אלקינו להריגה, היינו משום שנוגע לסכנת נפשות של ישראל וכן מש"כ אלי' זל"ט שם פ"ד ע"א לר' ישמעאל ב"ר יוסי, אבל מעיקר הדין משמע דגם בכזה איכא דין מלכות...וע"ש ברמ"א סי"א, מי שרוצה לברוח ולא לשלם לעכו"ם מה שחייב לו ואחר גילה אין בזה דין מוסר וכו' ואעפ"י שמסיים רמ"א דמ"מ רעה עשה דהוי כמשיב אבדה לעכו"ם היינו משום שמיירי מעכו"ם יחידי אבל מה שנוגע למלכות והוא ממונה על כך אין בזה איסור כנ"ל, אלא דלכתחלה כדאי שלא לקבל משרה כזאת דצריך למסור אפילו בהיתר דלאו משנת חסידים הוא וכדאיתא גם כן בירושלמי סופ"ח דתרומות בכיו"ב...ועוד, ופשיטא דאינו דומה לנ"ד דהתם מיירי שיבא לידי סכנה אם ימסרוהו לגוים משא"כ כשמטילים עליו עונש בעלמא ואינו בא לכלל סכנה לעולם.
Shevet Halevi, Pt. 2 Section 58 (Yoreh Deah)
R' Shmuel Halevi Wosner (1913-2015)
In the matter of one who works in the tax offices, and when he sees one who defrauds the government he has to report him to the courts. That person wants to know if he is in the status of an informer or "the law of the land is the law [and is thus proper]."
It is clear that according to the halacha, taxes -- without dispute or controversy -- are covered by dina demalchuta dina...
On the question of informing to the government, it is clear from the incident discussed in Bava Metzia 83b with Rabbi Eleizer who informed upon a person to the government, that this conduct was permitted because of loyalty to the government; even though they said to him "how long will you hand over God's nation to be killed?" that is because this matter relates to the danger to the life of a Jew. So too, that which Elijah recounts to Rabbi Yishmael [that he should cease informing] is applicable, but the technical halacha appears that this matter has a benefit to the government....See also Rama [Choshen Mishpat] 388:11 who notes that if one wishes to flee to avoid paying a gentile what he actually owes him, and another reveals this information, the latter person lacks the status of an informer. Even though that Rama concludes "nonetheless, bad was done, as it is analogous to returning the a lost object to a pagan," that is limited to returning the lost object to an individual pagan. However, that which is relevant to the government and its designee, there is no sin [either of informing or returning lost objects improperly]. Nonetheless, ab initio it is better not to accept an appointment to engage in such activity, since it entails informing on one even in a permissible way, which is not the conduct of the righteous, as is noted in the Jerusalem Talmud Teruma 8:4...Furthermore this case is not analogous to other cases as those cases involve danger to life when the gentiles are informed; this case is different because punishment imposed on the violator nowadays never involves mortal danger.
קובץ תשובות א:קצח
ואשר לשאלה השני' עיין בשו"ת פנים מאירות ח"ב סי' קנ"ה מ"ש בנידונו בא' שמצא תיבתו פרוצה ונגנבה מתוכה הון רב ויש לו אומדנות המוכיחות שאחד ממשרתיו עשה המעשה הזה, אי שרי לי' למוסרו לערכאות והוכיח מהא דב"ב כס"ז ומב"מ כ"ה דמצוה על הדיין להכותו וליסרו ע"ף אומדן דעתו שיודה באמת, והביא שם מעשה רב מהגאון ר' העשל והש"ך עיי"ש אלא שלבסוף הוא מסיק "וחוכך אני מאוד שלא למסרו לערכאותיהם וכבר אמרי רז"ל כתוא מכמר יש לחוש שאם יודה ידונו אותו למיתה" ומכאן דזה לא שייך בזמנינו, הרי מן הדין רשאים לפנות למשטרה, אולם לפי"ד כת"ר עלול להיות חילול השם, ואין בידי להביע דיעה ע"ז הואיל ואינני יודע את הענין, והדבר נתון איפוא לשקול דעת כת"ר.
Kovetz Teshuvot 1:198
R' Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012)
See Responsa Panim Me'erot 2:155 dealing with our matter of one who found an open chest, and much was stolen from it. There is reasonable grounds to believe that one of his workers did this act of theft. Is it permissible to inform on this worker to the secular authorities? He proves from Bava Batra 117 and Bava Metzia 25 that there is a religious duty on the judge of this matter to hit and punish based on the knowledge that he has, when his knowledge is correct. He then quotes from the incident with Rabbi Heshel and the view of the Shach but he ends he concludes "nonetheless I [the author of the Panim Me'erot] say that is it improper to report him to secular authorities, as our Talmud sages recount 'they treat him like a caught animal' and one must be afraid that they will kill him." From this it is clear that such is not applicable in our [Rabbi Elyashiv's] times. By the halacha it would be proper to report him to the police. But, you ponder the possibility that this will lead to a desecration of God's name, and it is not in my ability to evaluate this, since I do not know the facts.