Suspected Child Molesters As Teachers

There is an important Mishna, and related gemara, in Kiddushin 82a:

דף פב, א משנה לא ילמד אדם רווק סופרים ולא תלמד אשה סופרים רבי אלעזר אומר אף מי שאין לו אשה לא ילמד סופרים ר' יהודה אומר לא ירעה רווק בהמה ולא יישנו שני רווקין בטלית אחת וחכמים מתירים:

דף פב, א גמרא מאי טעמא אילימא משום ינוקי והתניא אמרו לו לר' יהודה לא נחשדו ישראל על משכב זכור ולא על הבהמה אלא רווק משום אמהתא דינוקי אשה משום אבהתא דינוקי

Mishna:
A bachelor should not teach children, nor should a woman teach children.
Rabbi Eleazar says: Also one who does not {presently} have a wife should not teach children.
Rabbi Yehuda says: A bachelor should not graze animals, nor should two bachelors sleep under one cloak.
And the Sages permit.

Gemara:
What is the reason {for prohibiting bachelors teaching}? If you say because of the children {that they are suspect of sleeping with} -- but they learnt {in a brayta}: They said to Rabbi Yehuda: Israel is not suspect on sodomy, nor on bestiality. Rather, a bachelor because of the mothers of the children; a woman because of the fathers of the children {who come to drop them off and pick them up from school}.

Thus, the Tanna Kamma states that bachelors and women should not teach children. This Tanna Kamma is presumably identical to the Chachamim who argue with Rabbi Yehuda in the end of the Mishna. Yet those same Sages, in a brayta, argue to Rabbi Yehuda that bachelors should be allowed to graze animals, or sleep under a single cloak, since "Israel is not suspect on sodomy, nor on bestiality." Therefore, the reason bachelors and women may not teach children must be something else, and the gemara concludes that it is to avoid fraternizing with parents of the opposite sex.

From the shakla veTarya of the gemara, it appears that if there would indeed be chashad, suspicion, of bachelors that they would commit sodomy, this would be sufficient cause to disallow them from being teachers. Thus, according to Rabbi Yehuda, there is no question why bachelors should not be teachers. However, we are trying to understand the Tanna Kamma. Yet, in other situations where there is indeed genuine chashad, of course it makes sense to disallow them from interacting with the children. Therefore, in a case where serious allegations have been made by multiple students, even in the absence of valid witnesses (or to cite one case, where there was no penetration), there would be chashad and we may well say that they should not be teachers any more. The Chachamim were just saying that Israel in general are not suspect on sodomy, and being a confirmed bachelor should not be sufficient to remove him from that general category.

Where in the world does the gemara get this alternative cause? From the continuation of the Mishna, though in our Bavli it is separated by a piece of gemara. That continuation in the Mishna is:

כל שעסקיו עם הנשים לא יתיחד עם הנשים

It is therefore easy to extrapolate from that the problem is fraternizing with women.

However, I do not believe that this is the correct interpretation of our Mishna, and would offer an alternative.

The Sages permit bachelors to graze animals and to sleep together under one cloak, because, as the brayta says, as Israelites they are not suspected of sodomy. But they say that bachelors and women, and according to Rabbi Eleazar, men who do not have a wife, may not be teachers. Why is this so? Are they not free of suspicion of sodomy?

I would proffer a few answers:

1. Bachelors are not suspected of sodomy, but they are indeed suspected of pederasty -- that is, sleeping with young boys. In ancient times, and in modern times as well, these are two different things. Thus, Greek men would sleep with women and young boys. And it often occurred in an educational structure, as a ritual part of education. Citing again,
   

   Pederastic relationships were dyadic mentorships. These mentorships were sanctioned by the state, and consecrated by the religious establishment. See Mythology of same-sex love. The pederastic relationship also had to be approved by the boy's father. Boys entered into such relationships in their teens, around the same age that Greek girls were given in marriage. The mentor was expected to teach the young man or to see to his education, and to give him certain appropriate ceremonial gifts.

2. Bachelors are not suspected of sodomy, and in usual cases are not suspected of pederasty, but a bachelor who seeks out specifically the profession of teacher would indeed be suspected of pederasty.
   
   
3. Bachelors are not suspected of sodomy in general. However, the protection of innocent children is such an important aim that, while the slight chashad would not be sufficient to disallow work with animals or sleeping under a single cloak, this slight chashad would be sufficient to disallow teaching of children.
   

If so, bachelors, women, and perhaps men who do not {presently} have wives should not teach male children for the immediately obvious reason, based on the context in which it appears -- so that they should not sleep with the children. And we may expand this set to include any teacher who is seriously suspected of inappropriate behavior.

While discussing this sugya, we may as well analyze the parallel Yerushalmi, in Kiddushin 47b:

ולא ילמד רווק סופרים ולא תלמד אשה סופרים רבי אליעזר אומר אף מי שאין לו אשה לא ילמד סופרים ר' יהודה אומר לא ירעה רווק את הבהמה ולא יישנו שני רווקים בטלית אחד וחכמים מתירין

It is Rabbi Eliezer rather than Rabbi Eleazar.
The gemara on this {48a} states:

פיס'. ולא ילמד רווק סופרים ולא תלמד אשה סופרים כו'.
תני ר' אלעזר אומר אף מי שיש לו אשה ובנים. ואינן עמו באותו מקום לא ילמד סופרים.
ר' יודן בי רבי ישמעאל עבד חד מתניין הכן.
פיס'. ר' יהודה אומר לא ירעה רווק את הבהמה ולא יישנו שני רווקין בטלית אחד וחכמים מתירין.
יאות אמר ר' יודה. מה טעמא דרבנין. חס ושלום לא נחשדו ישראל לא על הזכור ולא על הבהמה.
והתנינן לא ילמד רווק סופרים. משם שאמו באה עמו אחותו באה עמו

This has the same discussion as in the Bavli. Rabbi Eleazar's position, cited in a brayta, is that even if he has a wife and children, but they are not with him in that particular place, he should not teach children.

Why mention "and children" in this brayta? It would strongly seem that suspicion of homosexual tendencies is at issue, despite the conclusion of the gemara. You might think that having a wife and kids would take him out of the realm of suspicion, for not only does he have a wife, but she is not a beard, for he has fathered children by her. Even so, when his wife is not present, his yetzer may get the better of him.

We could also read it according to the gemara's conclusion. Rabbi Eleazar's reason is that the issue is not suspicion of sodomy, and so the existence of his wife and children helps nothing. Rather, since he is presently unattached, he may flirt with the mothers bringing their children.

The Yerushalmi confirms and understands Rabbi Yehuda's position about grazing and sleeping under one cloak. Yet, because of a parallel to the Bavli's brayta, that chas veshalom that Israel is not suspect of sodomy or bestiality, what are we to make of the Tanna Kamma's prohibition on a bachelor being a teacher? The Yerushalmi answers that it is because of the mothers and sisters who come along with the child. The Yerushalmi does not make any explicit extension to this being the reason women are not to teach children.