The war of words in the Seminary Scandal has now reached a new low. The great blogger, newsleaker and defender of the CBD and R Gottesman - Yerachmiel Lopin - has published his "psak" - that this is not a truly a dispute between two beis dins but between a real beis din and a mere bunch of 3 corrupt Israeli rabbis!
Wow is this a gross and disgusting misrepresentation of the halachic status of the Israeli beis din as well as a deliberate slur against great talmidei chachomim who are recognized as having greater competence and integrity than the CBD. He apparently is just trying to distract from the ugly fact of the CBD's bizarre refusal to cooperate with a beis din that they themselves selected to deal with the scandal. Lopin - who has never manifested an expertise in halacha or even concern for observing it - now presents himself as a rabbinic authority in order to denigrate the opponents of the CBD.
Lopin fails to mention in his screed that the CBD sent one of their dayanim Rav Zev Cohen together with askan R Gottesman (from Torah U'Mesorah and the CBD) together with Rav Aharon Feldman to initiate this beis din for the express purpose of dealing with the Scandal. There is a detailed Shtar Berurin which I have published - that was witnessed by the above -which authorized the IBD to deal with the matter.
Were the purported great experts of the CBD unaware of the "facts" that Lopin is claiming when they arranged for the transfer of the case - if so they can't be considered experts. If they were aware that they were giving the case to "a corrupt group of rabbis" - then they were clearly derelict in their duty. Either the CBD was remiss in giving the case to the IBD or Lopin is seriously misrepresenting the facts. The reality is that the CBD was clearly aware of the integrity and competence of the IBD and Lopin's description is false.
Lopin has consistently misrepresented facts - such as claiming that the IBD prohibits students from transferring to another seminary when the IBD only prohibited predatory recruiting. He also has consistently falsely claimed that the sale to Yaakov Yarmish was a sham because Yarmish is a good friend of Meisels. The fact is that the first time they had real contact was only a month ago as a result of the scandal. The sale is real. Rav Aharon Feldman (who has been closely associated with both beis dins) has verified that fact.
Lopin slanders the Israeli Beis Din - whose members are recognized world wide as being superior to the dayanim of the CBD - as being focused solely on lying in order to protect the money investment in the seminaries and that they have no concern for the victims. Lopin stoops to ad hominem attacks because he has no real justification for the CBD's betrayal. The CBD has not only betrayed their commitment to the IBD - but in their supposed compassion for the seminary girls they have prevented resolution of the matter. This stalemate is creating a slander against all the girls who have attended or are attending these seminaries. Where is their compassion? Where is their concern for the victims.
His disgusting slander concludes with this "gem":
The 3IRs are not a Beis din. They are a business protection scam. Israel has its share of convicted politicians including an orthodox ex-president convicted of rape. Chicago has had more than its share of crooked politicians and gangsters. But it also has its untouchables. I applaud Chicago for standing its ground and not acquiescing to the shenanigans of the 3 Israeli Rabbis.Lopin - have you no shame?
I do not believe the CBD appointed Mr. Lopin as a spokesman, so you might reconsider your headline. I do think this war of words on your two blogs has passed the point of usefulness and decency.
ReplyDeleteI will say only that if either beit din were acting from the corrupt motives being attributed to them, they would be singularly incompetent, as in both cases their actions do not aid in achieving their supposed corrupt ends.
This whole affair has resulted in the denigration of several of the rabbonim/Batei Din involved.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Malinowitz of the IBD seems to have taken a lead role in this regrettable process. In his letter of 1st August he wrote to Rav Feldman which you published at DT, in which he refers to the Chicago Beis Din as "operating without authorisition" and referring to them collectively as "the Chicago rabbis" (which he repeats eleven times in one letter!) rather than recognising them as a legitimate Beis Din.
Lopin, by referring to the IBD as 3IR (Three Israeli Rabbonim) is merely following the unfortunate example of this talmid chacham.
In all this fracas from the IBD, where is human concern, support, regret, help and justice for Meisels victims?
Where is the issue of Meisel's accomplices and enablers, who may be (according to the CBD, Are) still be in the seminaries - which the IBD declared "entirely safe"?
No wonder, in the words of Rabbi Feldman: "people have lost their emunas chachomim".
Rabbi Eidensohn, why are you responding to graffiti on a bathroom wall. As long as Lopin hides behind an anonymous pseudonym his rants are no better than said graffiti. He can make up facts and spout anything he wants without fear or consequences.
ReplyDeleteWhere was your righteous indignation when the IBD referred to the CBD (in their long letter) as "the Chicago Rabbis"?
ReplyDeleteMeisels caused the chillul Hashem.
ReplyDelete@Jasper I answered that question before. In this matter the CBD does not have a standing of Beis Din. The Shtar Berurin establishes that the authority to deal with this case is solely with the IBD. There is no slight intended but people wjho can't accept that the IBD is correct keep claiming it. There is no valid justification for the CBD's behavior.no how much you admire Rabbis Feurst, Cohen and Schwartz
ReplyDeleteWhat is the role Rav Gedaliah Schwartz played? You don't hear a word from him.ls he just a figure head? Was he actively involved in this case, he is about ninety years old.?
ReplyDeleteNot to speak for others, but I think that Yerachmiel's point is that there is no shtar berurin. It was signed by Meisels and the seminary heads, with some imaginary representative on the side of the victims (Rabbi Feldman). You claim that one of the Rabbis from the CBD was in the room at the time, but there is still no real tove'a who signed on that paper. Instead of the two of you having a contest to see who could come up with more creative insults, if you (plural) would just acknowledge that this is the essential point of difference between you, that you view the shtar berurin as binding and he views it a "chaspa be'alma," we could all put our energies towards more constructive elements of this "affair."
ReplyDeleteJasper, calling them the Chicago Rabbis is NOT a denigration. It's a simple description. It does NOT at all imply that they are not a beis din.
ReplyDeleteBy the way Lopin in the comments there has reached even lower and has started to deny facts and things that everyone knows is true.
ReplyDeleteHe writes there that " i am not aware of any CBD member going to Israel to witness the June 19th signing by Rabbi Feldman".
TO WHAT LEVEL HAS HE REACHED!!!
this just shows that it is a blog that there is no more any reason to be gores since he just doesn't supply the truth!!!!!
But David M has a long history of attacking Rabbi Malinowitz.
ReplyDeleteAs long as Lopin does not disclose his identity all his "scholarly" discourse is worthless drivel.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the CBD appointed Mr. Lopin as a spokesman
ReplyDeleteThey continuously leaked info to him. They also gave him talking points. If he's not their spokesman, what is he?
Huh? How so? You actually believe what charges in the RICO?! Why hasn't the CBD produced the supposed "binding arbitration" agreement that the Rico claims Meisels signed?
ReplyDeleteThe worst part about that rasha untruthful mud-slinger frum follies is that just a few weeks ago he not only called them a beis din but he said this quote:
ReplyDelete"I am aware of the reputations of Rabbis Shafran and Malinowitz as men of great intelligence and integrity. This is not to say that they are right, but I do believe they are being honest to the best of their understanding."
Yerachmiel Lopin is not a defender of the Chicago Beith din, nor a spokesperson. In fact, he criticised the Chicago Beith Din quite vigorously (for failing to speak out clearly enough in their first publication about the Meisels scandal), but he criticised the Israeli Beith din even more, because the Israeli Beith Din really shows that they are interested in cover-up (e.g. by saying that people should not spread lashon hara about those wonderful seminaries)
ReplyDelete... (The IBD rabbis are) great talmidei chachomim who are recognized as having greater competence and integrity than the CBD.
ReplyDeleteI am certainly not qualified to judge who is greater. But don't you think it shows your won bias, R' Daniel, to constantly speak in such glowing terms about the IBD while speaking disparagingly about the CBD?
Have you ever met R' Gedalia Dov Schwartz? ...or R' Shmueli Fuerst - who is a Talmid Muvhak of RMF? FYI, R' Schwartz was called the Zaken Ha'Ir by no less a Torah personality than Telshe RY and Agudah Moetzes member R; AC Levin... who also publicly (I heard him) referred to R' Schwartz as a far greater expert in Halacha and Dayanus than he.
R eidensohn:
ReplyDelete1st- you have a number of valid points here (which i will not discuss seeing as many of your commenters do a good enough job tooting your horn-in this arena i have nothing to add, one more toot will not matter) which i do not dipute. I hope i just preempted a few replies to me with this.
2nd- However, it's disingenuous and misleading to claim in your headline that lopin is "CBD's spokesman" when he most definitely is not. When I specifically asked him he said he has not had contact with the CBD. He is one man writing his own views. It would be like saying that your supportive commenters here are your spokesmen. And yes words and headlines matter. Think of all the outrage every time the ny times has some terrible headline about israel even though reading the article the headline is understood as an exaggeration or a quote etc.
3rd- I still have not seen in all you've written (posts &comments) an answer to the simple question of how this shtar berurin binds the CBD. Watching someone else sign a shtar does not make me a signatory. Yes, even if i want it to, even if I agree with everything in it, even if I say it should. If RAF was not representing anyone then this case has no tovea, if there's no tovea there's no din torah. If there's no valid shtar berurin there's no enforceable psak. How can the IBD in their own words try "lihachriah betiviot kaspiot hakeshurot l'nidon..." with no tovea, with no kabbolas eidus etc.? At most what i see here is a reneging on a verbal commitment.
4th- although you keep saying the opposite, I think that we have seen enough testimony at this point to the fact that no other seminaries wanted to take these girls due to the psak. Yes they only prohibited "soliciting" (i think you exaggerate with "predatory recruiting") but i find it highly unlikely-almost impossible to believe that dayanim as experienced as these did not understand what the effect of their words would be.
5th- I don't think the "my rabbis are greater than your rabbis" argument adds anything or convinces anyone here. We should look at the facts and see who they support, regardless if they are the greater ones or not. We have enough petty squabbles here w/o that.
Unfortunately, the loss of emunas hachomim is only starting.
ReplyDeleteI have learned the Zvi Bloom[ not that I would call him from the chachmei hador] is the owner and Nachlas- a seminary that was started by him and in which he solicitied investors solely as a money making business.
This is the first seminary where anyone actually came out and said that was the raison d'etre.
This seminary openly went against the IBD and said they would take Pninim girls, no problems.
Ah hah- so what?
I will tell you so what. TZVI BLOOM RUNS TORAH UMESORAH. HE IS THE RIGHT HAND MAN OF FREUCHTHANDLER, THE FINANCIER OF TORAH UMESORAH, AND IS THE MAIN DECISION MAKER.
Putting him in charge of any investigation is completely unethical, immoral, dishonest and totally reprehensible. This is outrageous. Is this how a "ben torah" acts??? personally, I would be very frightened to put my daughter in a seminary run by this mafioso.
how can anyone believe one word he says about this. He is a complete nogeah bedavar. He wants pninim to close so that he can make money.. This is as clear as the nose on your face.
Is Gottesman a partner of his?????????????? I don't know. but we need to find out
Rav Schwartz is a full participant in the Beis Din from what I have heard. Rav Feuerst is mentioned in most comments attributed to the Beis Din and not Rav Schwartz or Rav Cohen
ReplyDeleteThat is a strange statement. But there are people here still saying that Meisels was only accused of and only admitted to a little hugging, when the members of the CBD have determined that it is much, much worse.
ReplyDelete@Harry - I have never denied that the members of the CBD are great tamidei chachomim. My description of them comes from conversations with poskim and dayanim - I am not competent to judge their relative stature.
ReplyDeleteReb Maryles - do you agree with the Lopin's disgusting description of the IBD? If you don't why didn't you mention that you disagree?
Reb Maryles why does it show bias of I am simply reporting the consensus of what I heard? Have you heard anyone say otherwise? That is a rather strange criticism. Saying the truth is not bias.
@Jaspers what in fact have they determined They have refused to share this infomration with the IBD and they are just allowing rumors to circulate without clarification. The only purpose this serves is to destroy the seminaries - rather strange. Please defend their behavior
ReplyDeleteI guess one of the things that keeps me glued to this blog is the breathtaking boldness of the IBD. Here are three scholars ready to put their reputations on the line by ruling that the seminaries are safe. All it will take is one girl --- one who met Rabbi Meisels this past year when he was recruiting students and who subsequently enrolled in Peninim-- to actually attend Peninim this year, and in the course of the year to make contact somehow with Rabbi Meisels, and to follow that contact up with a public accusation. The outcry would tar the IBD, no matter how much they could argue the girl's contact with Rabbi Meisels might have occurred even if the girl attended a different seminary. I admire the IBD for their willingness to discount entirely that remote, yet finite, possibility. I don't think I would want to expose my reputation that way if I were in an analogous situation. Why should I put a sword that can be used to kill me in the hands of a stranger, when I have nothing to gain? It seems to me that in this regard, the IBD has exhibited true character.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw what was going on in this seminary story, of which I know nothing and am happy about it, I called my brother and insisted that he talk with a certain expert. We spent an hour on the phone in a three way conference call, and this person made it clear that what my brother claims here is true. My brother has been in business confronting very prominent people for a long time, and there are often howls of these kind of comments on his blog how dare he, etc., but in the end, he is always right. That is why there are now around sixty thousand people each week on this blog, because these criticisms, although based on respect for prominent rabbis, are not going to change the facts my brother gets from reliable sources, and with documents and insiders who have no personal interest in hurting anyone.
ReplyDeleteI don't think my brother will publish this comment, because he has refused to publish two previous comments, because he doesn't want my kind of fire added to the flames over here. But I have a personal knowledge of one of the Dayanim here, and I have a very serious charge against the Beth Din that employs him. Unfortunately, my brother won't let me say what it is, but it is fire. I say this without the comment, because I want you to know that my brother has from me and from his original sources what to say about this matter but he doesn't want to bring things to that kind of a level, true or not, perhaps out of respect for the people who can't take it. And if they can't take it, believe me, I sympathize.
ReplyDeleteYou are making some very serious allegations. Do have any proof of this. Where have you "learned" this? Are you privy to the inside workings of TU? I'm not saying you're wrong but for ppl to believe you we need some proof.
ReplyDeleterabbosai this has to stop. while I suppose that technically hold his Lashon hara aren't being breached because login is a pseudonym, the degree to which the conversation has sunk has to be having a negative impact on the poster and reausers.while my gut says that the CBD Is right on their stand, login is way over any line with his comments. that being said, some of your comments are also out of place. Lopin doesn't purport to be a beam Torah. you are one. please let's keep this in mind. rule of thumb. if you wouldn't say it in public don't post it.
ReplyDelete3: Even if, hypothetically, there was no shtar berurin, why should CBD have jurisdiction over this case rather than IBD?
ReplyDelete4: If the IBD halachicly believes and paskens that no other seminary should solicit and/or take the girls away from the original seminaries, it has the right and duty to issue such a public psak.
How and why did this case go to a beis din in Chicago when it is regarding an institution in Eretz Yisroel (whose US office is in Lakewood)?
ReplyDelete3. R ZC and Gottesman were both in Israel for the signing of the Shtar, so obviously they think it has some meaning. ( this has been pointed out repeatedly but you keep repeating yourself)
ReplyDelete4. "Enough testimony "
How many people have reported this?
Do you have any way of verifying if their comment is true?
5. For the most part the discussion here is based on the details of the case. However when somebody like H. M. goes on about how amazing his hometown Rabbis are and therefore they are right, creats a need to set the record straight.
It is abhorrent to say things against talmidei chachamim. It is forbidden and disgusting. I am appalled that people post negative posts against talmidei chachamim.
ReplyDelete"The great blogger, newsleaker and defender of the CBD and R Gottesman -
ReplyDeleteYerachmiel Lopin - has published his "psak" - that this is not a truly a
dispute between two beis dins but between a real beis din and a mere
bunch of 3 corrupt Israeli rabbis! "
Fuerst and Gottesman say the same and worse without shame. The rishus of these people is עולה למעלה ראש.
"However, it's disingenuous and misleading to claim in your headline that
ReplyDeletelopin is "CBD's spokesman" when he most definitely is not. When I
specifically asked him he said he has not had contact with the CBD"
Oh, Lopin said. Then it must be true. Such naivete, nebach.
In fact, that's all he was accused of and all he admitted to. You are aware, I assume, that a recording of the CBD hearing exists. I know people who have listened to it. The CBD's claims beyond admissions of negiah are complete falsehoods. The lies of great dayanim.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the CBD hearing, Cohen made much of the fact that his BD was acting b'shelichus of TUM and R' Aharon Feldman. When RAF signed, he was signing on behalf of the CBD too, as was made clear by Cohen at that time.
ReplyDeleteHe's hand in glove with Gottesman.
ReplyDeleteHe participated in the original hearing. His name was on their "Guidelines" and their letter, although I've heard he was pressured into signing the letter. Since then he's out of sight. I doubt he's involved in the rishus being done by the others.
ReplyDeleteDoes what you write affect at all what I wrote? Once again R' Eidensohn is of the opinion that the presence of R' Cohen at the signing is sufficient to transfer the case to the IBD, Lopin is of the opinion that there needs to be a tove'a actually signed on the shtar. That is their difference of opinion, "ve'idach peirusha, zil g'mor."
ReplyDelete@Yehoshua - your summary is not accurate. Rav Feldman signed the shtar as representatives of the victim. The presence of Rav Cohen, R Gottesman and Rav Feldman showed that the CBD was transferring the case. Lopin mistakenly claims that nobody was there from the Chicago Beis Din and the IBD simply took it upon themselves to deal with the case without any approval or authorization of the CBD.
ReplyDeleteWho appointed CBD to this case? How (or does) CBD have any jurisdiction at all?
ReplyDeleteBecause the IBD puts truth and justice before the personal risks putting truth and justice puts them in.
ReplyDelete3. "R ZC and Gottesman were both in Israel for the signing of the Shtar, so obviously they think it has some meaning."
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't you write the following: R ZC and Gottesman are not heeding the shtar so obviously they think it has no meaning
To reiterate. What people "thought" has no bearing in halacha. Please find some posek who will say otherwise or even some obscure source. There might be a mechusar amana problem but obviously the CBD is not concerned with that. Repeating over and over that r cohen was there does not change the halacham,! When you have an answer to this fundamental problem I will be willing to listen.
4. No, i have no way of verifying it's true. I have no way of verifying anything in this whole story is true. It's all based on hearsay. I didn't see any pictures of abuse. But after enough ppl speak out it becomes more compelling to believe them than that there's some conspiracy going on. Same here- read the comments on here and on frum follies.
5. Fair point but I just reread what HM wrote and he doesn't seem to be saying that his rabbis are great and therefore right, just that you shouldn't be smearing them with titles like blood libel and cover up.
Reder,
ReplyDeleteYou say, "If you wouldn't say it in public don't post it." Well, Reder, this blog with fifty-sixty thousand people reading it every week, is "public."
Joseph,
ReplyDeleteThe three dayanim on the IBD, at least wto of them, are known as fanatics for truth. They let the chips fall where they may. I don't know if truth is popular, and they don't care if they are popular. If anyone wants to sue them, as some people have, these people will learn the hard way who they are dealing with.
3. Who says they should? The argument being made here is that they have no right and are not authorized to say anything. I am pointing out that without a valid shtar berurin I have no idea why not. They are not bound to anything and if they still feel that there's a sakana in going to these schools they have a chiyuv to publicize it.
ReplyDelete4.Correct. But of what relevance is this.
If chicago was not adjudicating monetary matters and was only acting in the capacity to remove a mazik of the rabim/prevent sakanos nefashos then why would they need a shtar. It was not a case with a tovea/nitva. In the teshuva from the shoel umeishiv you quoted i surmise there was no shtar berurin from the ketanim either.
ReplyDeleteGottesman and Bloom are very good friends actually. :) Now the pieces are coming together, for those who didnt figue this out already. If you close the Meisles schools, Bloom can start more schools and make more money. Obviously Gottesman will get a kickback for his help. (And Lopin for his...unless Lopin is Gottesman. Maybe he's Bloom...).
ReplyDelete@Yehoshua - are you claiming that Rav Cohen and R Gottesman flew in from America and attended the signing of the shtar - but this doesn't indicate as the letter of the CBD inidcates that they were giving the case to the IBD? In addition do you agree with Lopin's slander of the IBD?
ReplyDeleteI find it bizarre that you would accept Lopin's point that the IBD are a corrupt group of rabbis who took on a case on their own initiative and that that is the CBD point of view?
You focus on a question that Rav Feldman - one of our gedolim - raised and accepted that it was in fact valid to be involved pro forma. Rav Feldman accepted it was valid because Rav Shafran told him that was correc!! But of course you know better that Rav Shafran and Rav Feldman - together with the other two dayanim of the IBD who wrong - because they are a bunch of "corrupt" rabbis - according to "harRav HaGaon" lopin?!
@Moshe if the CBD was concerned with removing a mazik - the Mazik had alread been removed 2 months before. If they had concerns about staff - then they should have given those concerns to the IBD or to the Israeli Police. Or they should have formed a joint beis din as Rav Feldmaan suggested and the IBD agreed.
ReplyDeleteIn what sense were they being helpful by crying fire in the theater but then locking the doors?
By having "unwanted sexual contact" with a substantial number of girls. I believe that when the details come out, even the deniers like you will have to be modeh about the emes.
ReplyDeleteWhy form a joint beis din after being made aware that they had concerns about the staff? It's the seminaries' responsibility to remove the danger and to make potential parents comfortable. This is not a function of beis din anymore. Either the sems will make the changes or not.
ReplyDeleteWhy is this even an issue for the IBD? I understood, and I believe that many understand it the same way, that the IBD were in charge of choshen mishpat issues exclusively, and that's why they were approached. Obviously, the IBD doesn't see it that way and we have the situation that exists now.
But aside from the beis din issues, why don't the sems just open up about the changes that they've made, if they've even made them?
Please tone down the personal attacks. I am not claiming anything. I am trying to give an accurate assessment of what I understand to be the point of disagreement between you and Lopin. He thinks that the CBD would actually need to sign the shtar beirurin to transfer control of the case, you do not. He does not accept the legitimacy the concept of a pro forma tove'a, you do.
ReplyDeleteI did not "accept Lopin's point" or say that I "know better than Rav Shafran and Rabbi Feldman." I dod not call Lopin "Harav Hagaon" or call the IBD "corrupt." The attack dog posture that you take will only have the outcome of driving away reasonable people from commenting on your blog. If that is what you desire, by all means continue to do so.
No, i have no way of verifying it's true. I have no way of verifying anything in this whole story is true.
ReplyDeleteSorry, sir. I don't see why you have any business commenting then. If the basis of your claims as facts are frum follies' comments, and you argue this point so steadfastly, then what is it you're saying?
To reiterate. What people "thought" has no bearing in halacha.
Fine. Who ever appointed the CBD? Is there any shtaar? No, there isn't. Therefore, regardless of what the CBD thought or thinks, halachacly they have no jurisdiction and rights over this case. I'm sure you'll agree with this, as per your own logic. Thank you.
"Kol Haposel, mimumo posel"! Listen to your outrageous accusation very carefully. All the dayonim, the IBD and CBD have histories. The IBD has a stellar reputation. Some members of the CBD have had their share of scandals...
ReplyDelete@Jasper the seminaries and their new owener have agreed to follow the IBD's recommendations. The CBD has absolutely no standing on this issue. It is universal practice if an institution has had a crisis of this nature that they get an outside panel to objectively indicate what changes need to be done. Of course the seminaries have to implement these changes but why do you have problems with the beis din and their advisors - prescribing the necessary changes?
ReplyDeleteThe seminaries have agreed to an ongoing relationship of following recommendations - including change in the standard relationship of seminaries of male teachers and female students.
Furthermore the joint beis din makes sense - if the issue is that the CBD feels that it has a different set of priorities or greater sensitivity to the victims - they have absoutely no influence on the situation now without become part of a joint beis din. Why is that hard to understand?
Your request for a description of the changes is a good idea - has been suggested before and I believe they were planning on doing it
@Jasper please tell us some of the facts about the allaged crimes? In particular whether the transgressions were consensual or forcible? Furthermore please explain why the CBD is refusing to share any infomation with the IBD?
ReplyDelete@Yehoshua - presenting yourself as the objective bystander is not acceptable. You seem to see nothing wrong with Lopin's slander and spreading false statements but condemn me as being an attack dog - you clearly are not beling neutral. We are not dealing with a mere halchic detail but rather Lopin's campaign to besmirch and discredit rabbis based on conjecture and ignoring facts. He is working mightily within the framework that the IBD are corrupt Israeli rabbis concerned only with jobs and coverups. The CBD are "untouchables" concerned with the victim and fighting hard to change the system. This is nonsense but he keeps repeating it anyway.
ReplyDeleteBottom line - where do you stand.
@Moshe why did the CBD remain silent about this case for several months if they are so concerned about "sakana" Why haven't the contacted the Israel police if they are worried about "sakana".
ReplyDelete@ Moshe you are missing some elementary commonsense. You keep stating the the Shtar is worthless - at least to the CBD.
ReplyDeleteBut they flew into Israel for the establishment of a beis din to deal with the issue. If they came to the critical meeting where the shtar was signed - and yet they thought it was meaingless why didn't they protest? They weren't just passing by on the way to get pizza. They obviously were fully aware of what was going on. It doesn't take a mindreader to understand that their presence there and their lack of protest means that they agreed with what was happening. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Regarding HM he clearly is objecting to what he perceives as slandering of great rabbis. He doesn't contest that concealing knowledge of the abuse for several months is not a coverup. He objects to these rabbis being described as making a coverup. If you are I did the same thing he would have no problem of calling it a coverup.
Sorry, but with regard to the essential issue of which Beis Din has the authority to adjudicate the case, I do stand as an objective bystander. I do not call into question the motives of either the CBD or the IDB. It is obvious to me that there was some sort of understanding between them that the IBD, as being located in the country where the schools are, would be better equipped to deal with certain aspects of the case going forward. It is also clear to me that at a certain point the CBD, justifiably or not, lost confidence in the IBD's ability to carry that out effectively, and therefore issued rulings counter to that of the IBD. The apparent point of dispute between the two batei din is whether the transfer of authority was formal and irrevocable, or informal and tentative. In the absence of any clear documentation with regard to this point, I think that this question is as of now unanswerable.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing: I did not "condemn you" as "being an attack dog;" I wrote that you assume the posture of one. I wrote this because you wrote things, in response to my comment, such as "I find it bizarre that you would think," and accusing me of stating that I know better than Rabbis Shafran and Feldman, when I gave no indication of that being the case.
Why wouldn't they be able to pasken for their own people of Chicago who might go there?
ReplyDeleteOne of my attorneys here in the U.S. told me a a cautionary tale about his first client. I may not have all the details right here, but this is the general idea.
ReplyDeleteThe client was riding in the back seat of a car. At some point he became aware that the men in the front seat had decided to commit a robbery. The car stopped, and the men in the front seat went out to look for someone to rob. They got caught by the police.
The police then went back to the car, and arrested the client for "conspiracy".
Now this client had no intention to commit the robbery, did not participate in the robbery, and would not have benefitted from the robbery. Still, he was nabbed as part of the conspiracy.
The client could even possibly have made a cogent case that he tried to talk the others out of the robbery. Still, he was a co-conspirator under the law.
Getting back to the discussion at hand, a federal judge may yet allow the RICO case to move forward. Maybe the judge will allow this on the merits of the case. Maybe he will allow it because of the nature of the case. If the case moves forward, it appears to me that the plaintiffs may subpoena women who've made accusations against Rabbi Meisels. If the plaintiffs are working with the CBD, they may get access to the names of dozens of women who have made accusations.
If the plaintiffs can establish that Rabbi Meisels sexually assaulted girls over the course of years, it will certainly appear to the judge that Rabbi Meisels acted criminally. The sale of the seminary: does it include a clause that the seminary cannot be bought back by Rabbi Meisels in the future? If not, it may appear to the judge that the the buyer and those who facilitated the sale are in a criminal conspiracy, as defined under U.S. Federal law.
This is heavy stuff, especially if the defendants have assets in the U.S., and hope to travel to the U.S. Whether any of this scenario unfolds in a Federal court is the prerogative of a Federal judge.
Like a dreidel running out of steam, the chips are wobbling.
@Facts of Life - if you are aware of a danger in a school or from a person - you don't need a beis din to pasken - that is in the category or knowing about a rodef and you have an obligation to inform others to avoid the harm.
ReplyDeleteI have repeatedly made this point - if the CBD feels that the schools are unsafe because of certain individuals they not only have an olbigation to inform the public but they should also have gone to the police. If the police won't/can't act on thie information they should as a minimum share the information with the IBD so that preventative measures can be taken.
They can't have it both ways - claiming there is danger but just say stay away from the schools. In addition the CD said nothing about this information for months - until the IBD got involved. There is no excuse for covering up this information.
@ Joe Orlow - I think you are getting at something very important. This conspiriacy approach based on much imagination can theoretically be used to destroy the whole seminary system and the yeshiva system where boy live in dorms away from home.
ReplyDeleteIf we use the psychology of the lynch mob/McCarthy red scare - to raise question about any and everybody - and destroy based on rumors - the whole system will simply collapse.
If you read through Lopin's columns he makes assumption and accusation which may be true or some people think it is true. This in fact was the atmosphere in the 1980's when people first became aware of child abuse - there were many false accusations - some innocent people went to jail and other innocent people had their lives ruined.
You can't have a functioning society this way.. You can't allow every accusation to be viewed as true. With child abuse the majority of accusations are true if they are not part of a divorce dispute or if adults haven't asked leading questions. Once you get into teenagers and adults - there are definitely false accusations made and there need to be standards of making accusations public
Dles it include a clause: if he is being paid over time (as opposed to a one time payment at closing; details of which we are not being told), he automatically has right to come back, in case of default (and default usually has a broad definition).
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have the slightest idea what percentage of the expected student body has decided to withdraw from attending this coming seminary year?
ReplyDeleteYou can't impose your chosen beis din upon the opposing party to the case if he doesn't accept its jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, maybe r cohen made a mistake. Maybe he knew and did it purposely to have plausible deniabilty later. Maybe he acted deviously. Maybe there is some conspiracy. Who knows. But at the end of the day I don't see how this is a valid shtar, regardless of what ppl thought. R eidensohn, you are clearly a talmid chacham, if there is any mekor or precedent anywhere for this I am willing to listen, but I and everyone I spoke to are unaware of it and you have failed to provide one.
ReplyDeleteYou are the first to "call out" rabbanim and gedolim when you feel they are acting contrary to or with no basis in halacha in other issues (gittin, mamzerus, geirus, child &domestic abuse), WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN ARE YOU CHANGING YOUR TUNE HERE- either provide the halachic basis for this or admit there isn't one.
Just bc someone "agrees with what's happening" doesn't make it halachically binding. I am not saying the CBD didn't give there word, I am simply saying that now that they've changed their minds. Problem? Yes. Something the shtar berurin should preclude? No.
Regarding HM you have a fair point, I will not argue with it.
Good questions. I have no idea. If the CBD is engaged in some nefarious scheme then shame on them. But if they were i the middle of investigating still or didn't have evidence of the staff's complicity months ago (like you said, we don't make drastic changes just based on rumors) or if the girls refuse to speak to the police what other recourse do they have?
ReplyDeleteYou completely avoided my point. What in the world does this have to do with a shtar berurin?!
ReplyDelete"they have absoutely no influence on the situation now without become part of a joint beis din"
ReplyDeleteReally?! Then why is this still a discussion on the blogs after more than a month.
Is this a draft for a book release of an upcoming fictional plot?
ReplyDeleteFor the millionth time, the CBD was acting to remove a danger, as it has done many times in the past. RDE disagrees on tactics, but that's what it is.
ReplyDeleteyou are right. I need to focus on the primary issue now= my daughter and school. there will be time to expose this one.
ReplyDeleteAlright. When you do I'll be a willing believer.
ReplyDeleteIf he's being paid at all, it is problematic. Coarse metaphor warning -- I'm about to use a coarse comparison. Say someone had a candy shop and was luring some of the children into the back to try "heroin pops". The first owner sells the store to someone else who buys it with the intention of only selling candy -- but the second owner is well aware that in theory he could keep up the back room drug trade if he so chooses. The second owner has thus bought the goodwill of a criminal enterprise. I'm not sure at this point if that is legal or not, even though the second owner has the best of intentions to keep the only candy store in the neighborhood open. It gets really complicated when you consider that if the second owner had the worst of intentions, you can be sure he would act and talk like someone who had good intentions.
ReplyDeleteAre you a book agent? But you gotta move fast if you want to market this as fiction, 'cause it might become fact, Chas V'shalom, quicker than we think.
ReplyDeleteOver suspicion is probably already affecting Jewish education. I have all kinds of precautions I take when I'm teaching students, and these self imposed protocols detract from the learning. If at all possible, I only learn with students who might not have a teacher otherwise, since I am trying to limit my exposure to accusation. I never feel more alive than when I'm studying with the great kids I have the privilege to tutor, but the stress is there, too, because of the kind of society we have at this point.
ReplyDeleteBut Rav Feldman himself, in a letter you published, said that the victims did not authorize him to act on their behalf and that it was the Israeli Beit Din (or Rav Shafran personally, it wasn't clear to me which)
ReplyDeleteIf that was the case, why did they wait so long?
ReplyDeleteAlso, why aren't they transparent and clearly reveal the supposed danger?! Their refusal to reveal their evidence is irresponsible and dangerous as a lot of people don't trust them and are ignoring them. Many Rabbonim and Botei Din don't trust them because of their behavior in this case!
Zvi Bloom is the executive director of T.UM. and Gottesman works for T.UM.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a matter of dispute that Gottesman is very highly involved with the CBD.
Its also not disputed that Zvi Bloom is the only Seminary owner openly recruiting these girls.
As per the letter stating the original conditions by the CBD T.UM. is involved in this case.
Gottesman was actually acquainted with Horav Gartner as he was involved with the "yeshurun" of which Gottesman is the editor. It seems Gottesman mistakenly assumed Horav Gartner would go along with him.
At the very least the above information should disqualify any conclusions coming out of the CBD.
A bunch of ifs! The CBD has a very simple way around this - be transparent and share the exact evidence with many rabbonim. As long as they don't, they're clearly suspect and untrustworthy in this case. One thing about Judaism is that we don't engage in blind trust. We are responsible if we trust a novi sheker/false prophet - even if the novi sheker performed amazing miracles.
ReplyDeleteThe false prophets were a big part in the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. They assured us that all will be well - and that we should not listen to Yirmiyah and the other neviim. We can't have blind trust in the CBD - regardless of how special they were. If they're engaging in shady dealings then we may use all the "ifs" to judge them favorably, but we cannot act on their proclamations. We are required to disregard and ignore their proclamations.
Moshe,
ReplyDeleteWhat is you're saying? What in the world does this have to do with the blogs. The seminaries haven't accepted their authority. Neither did most of the world. Only certain bloggers have been bought into their party line. Now what? What does blogging have to do the way a legitimate Beis Din behaves?
After reading a few times what you wrote i still have no idea what you're saying.
ReplyDelete@Moshe - so try a few more times
ReplyDeletechedvas this morning [ august 18] said that only 1 girl had pulled out
ReplyDeleteThat's amazing. Considering everything that's a complete success on the part of the seminaries.
ReplyDeleteapproximately 10- 15 percent, almost all Chicagoans...
ReplyDeleteI was referring to the first year seminaries..
ReplyDeleteThey were called together by furst, they did request a psak..he held a meeting and told them he's paskening that they couldn't go to the schools, and therefore they have a heter to go to court, and in fact furst encouraged them to go....and he got a lawyer in Chicago , Nathan to file a RICO claim.
ReplyDeleteThank goodness there are yidden in Chicago who understand that one doesnt go to court so easily. no matter who encourages them..so almost none of them joined the lawsuit. I've been seeing that 6 did, but in fact, only 2 did, and two others from elsewhere joined it. It is a 28 page document full of lies, and ludicrous charges, too embarrassing to write here..
I hope this answers you a little bit Facts of life, by supplying you with some facts of life. ..
I was told this in the midst of a discussion with the administration, and I am sure that they were telling me the truth, as we discussed the grounds on which the 1 family pulled out. Just to play devil's advocate, since the deposit structure at Chedvas is different than the other schools, one could pull out practically up till the day the school opens and not lose a serious amount of money. So, others could be pulling out and they wouldn't even know about it.
ReplyDeleteThey can pasken anything they want to the inquirer. It may not apply to the world at large but they are certainly empowered to convey their daas torah to those that come to them.
ReplyDeleteI did not speak to the delay or whether they should or should have not gone to the police. They can pasken for anyone in Chicago according to their daas torah.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeleteWow!
They can pasken from today till tomorrow. But unless both parties are in beis din together and accepted its jurisdiction, if it "paskens" they are entitled to a refund, that does not obligate the other side to give a refund. Nor does it halachicly give them the right to utilize non-Jewish courts.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it doesn't obligate the other party to give a refund and they would have to find a mutually acceptable bais din to judge on that.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Chicago bais has the right to convey its own daas torah that they are entitled to go to the courts both for monetary issues and for redress of any harmful activity to their daughters.
A b"d cannot issue a heter arkaos if the opposing side is willing to accept a beis din.
ReplyDelete"I have no idea."
ReplyDeleteThose four words could serve as a perfect synopsis of all your comments on this subject. You could save time by just copy/pasting them in whenever you feel the urge to comment.
They called them "the Chicago Rabbis" to underline the fact that they do not have a beis din's jurisdiction in this case, as indeed they do not.
ReplyDeleteVery much on target on all points. I'd add only that throughout the May 19th hearing, CBD repeated that they were acting b'shlichus TUM. Connect the dots, people.
ReplyDeleteA willing believer of whatever is retailed by Lopin maybe.
ReplyDelete"By having "unwanted sexual contact" with a substantial number of girls."
ReplyDeleteAnd you know it was a substantial number how? B/c Fuerst told you. But in fact, it was a small number. The rest were invented by Gottesman and Fuerst of whole cloth. Their falsehoods are many, but not the actual cases of negiah.
"I believe that when the details come out, even the deniers like you
will have to be modeh about the emes."
I would like to believe the same of you poor deluded people who trust the so-called dayanim of the CBD, but I suspect you will never admit to the truth, no matter what proofs are offered. You are too heavily invested in idols with feet of clay.
They're not yet ready to reveal their evidence because they are still in the process of fabricating it.
ReplyDeleteo openly admitted that this is indeed my mum
ReplyDelete"for the right price i would do it."
@vafsi ode
ReplyDeleteEnglish please!