Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Seminary Scandal: New letter from American Gedolim praises new spiritual supervisors of the 4 seminaries

A letter signed by American gedolim - including Rav Levin from Telz of Chicago, Rav Aharon Feldman of Yeshiva Ner Yisroel, Rav Aharon Schecter of Yeshiva Chaim Berlin, Rav Malkiel Kotler or Lakewood and Rav Yaakov Perlow - praises the four seminaries which were acquired by Yaakov Yarmish from Meisels. They express their clear approval of the new spiritual managment that will be closely supervising these seminaries. Certainly sounds that they do not agree with the psak of the Chicago Beis Din! I have verified that the letter is genuine.

update regarding the origin of this letter - by Arie B. Sept 2, 2014
I was intending not to post anything further in light of the fact that the issue is essentially moot. But there's an inaccurate perception here.
Rav Shafran was coming to America for other reasons, his trip was scheduled before this entire fiasco. He even had a public speaking engagement advertised beforehand.
During his stay here, he was under continuing harassment by various interests, with various "suggestions" and "proposals." His basic response was that if Yarmish wants to sell it's Yarmish's business, but whatever happens would have to be agreed to by the entire Beis Din, and he is only one member of three.
Apparently, the askanim who were running this campaign got several Roshei Yeshiva involved, primarily the Novominsker Rebbe (who has a very close relationship with Gottesman, as does Rav Feldman).
From what I understand, this letter represents the backfiring of the efforts of those askanim, because the Roshei Yeshiva spoke to those involved and roundly rejected the CBD's position, approach, and efforts.
Take it or leave it.
The schools are opening. The safety of the students has been assured, the ashukim have been protected, and a steamrolling of halachah has been avoided.
Having no vested interest here, I have every right to say that I leave it to the One Above to deal with the bloggers and commenters.
I will now go back to the constructive use of my time as those who choose to jabber continue on their own missions.
Official English Translation

76 comments :

  1. It is noteworthy that Rav Levin is -- at least in name -- a member of the Chicago Beis Din, although not part of the tribunal that heard this case.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent point. Note also that R' Aharon Feldman has signed as well. It's a clear repudiation of the position of the CBD that originally sent him to the EY beis din.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lol eidensohn. You have zero intellectual honesty. When 4 of these people signed a proclamation against your friend weiss/feinstein, they were idiots, now that they agree with you they are proof that you're right. You're a serious joke.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just curious if something recently changed. Or was this in the making for a while, and just took time to come into affect, or were they just giving the CBD time to come to their senses? Last were these gedolim in touch with the CBD?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The gedolim… are overjoyed to hear that these seminaries are now under the control of the wonderful (female) educator who will not be named. For tznius reasons, no doubt.

    Note that they do not endorse the IBD, they do not try to block the students from switching to other seminaries, and they certainly don’t have anything reassuring to say about the old guard. Just that we are sure the new unnamed administrator is great.

    Looking at the oversight board, I’m surprised to see Rav Asher Weiss – he is a real talmid chacham, a straight shooter, and not afraid of the 21st century. (ie- Torahbase.com) One wonders, 1. does he have time for this, and 2. does he realize what he is getting into?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Shmilda - your nasty note is not really helpful.
    The IBD is not blocking students from switching seminary - just predatory recruiting.

    Do you have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The very first signature is of Harav Avrohom Chaim Levin of Chicago, and the head of Torah U'mesorah's rabbinical board! There have been several posters who claimed that Rav Levin was supportive of the incomprehensible actions of the CBD. Here he clearly states otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The new mechaneches is Rebbetzin Birnbaum.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The gedolim were finally made fully aware of the truly terrible behavior of Gottesman and Chicago.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Who is the esteemed mechaneches (and why is her identity being kept a secret?)

    ReplyDelete
  11. please note that Rabbi Levin did not participate in this case because Meisels was a talmid of his. He had negius. I don't see that he has much credibility in signing this letter. As for the other signatories, did they talk to the CBD? did they interview the faculty to find out hat they knew? they did none of that. This is just a rubber stamp. It's no wonder people are going OTD in droves, they have zero confidence in our "leaders".

    ReplyDelete
  12. 2 weeks ago it was Rebbetzin Blimy Birnbaum. If she is still there, she is a great choice. kudos to DT for sticking to his guns.
    I wouldn't go so far as to make the inferences that Shmilda does[ very appropriate name based on your negative and nasty wriiting style. DT is very liberal to let you write on this site].
    it is not their job to write in a way that suits you.
    FYI, it is against their tznius standard to write in a lady's name. You can get it by calling any of the schools.
    The purpose of the letter is to establish a high road, and to make clear their principles. And that is what they did.
    This letter is a haskama. not a committment on their part to take an active role in the schools, which they will not.
    Their position is to be available for shaalos and challenges, not to manage the school.

    ReplyDelete
  13. WOW! These signatories must be really stupid. How did they ever get gadol status?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am having a hard time understanding why this letter is significant beyond some PR points for the seminaries in question. None of the esteemed rabbonim who signed the letter investigated either the original charges nor interviewed the current staff. In fact, they do not relate to any of the major issues, nor do they indicate how the 3 rabbonim mentioned will actually be involved. Does anyone actually believe that they will visit the schools on a regular basis to ensure that everything is OK? What are the takanos that they plan to implement ("if necessary")?


    I believe that this letter is genuine, but I would be interested to know who initiated it. Who spoke to the rabbonim who signed, and what were they told? What questions did the rabbonim ask, and what were they told? Perhaps DT can enlighten us about these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Am i the only one who finds it a little to much of a coincidence that on the same day most gedolim in the U.S come out with this letter some major news outlets like Chicago tribune and Jpost finally come out with this story? looks to me like it was leaked to them by the CBD as a last ditch effort to sink the schools. (which if true is a cause of a massive chillul hashem on their part by bringing it to secular news)

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Sheker - your name suits you well. The letter is a public repudiation of the Chicao Beis Din

    ReplyDelete
  17. R' Levine was involved in the case at different points. He was kept updated throughout. He is appalled at the behavior of his fellow BD members, and has been trying to get them to see reason. Boy does he have creidibility.

    Not to mention RAF, who was involved since early on, and has become intimately familiar with the dishonesty of the CBD. He is well aware of Chicago's true agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Michael - you missed the point of the letter. It is simply announcing that these gedolim are taking the side of the Israeli Beis Din against the Chicago Beis Din.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

    Your rejoinder to "Sheker" does not address his arguments, which I am going to state a little differently:

    1. Rabbi Levin recused himself from sitting on the Chicago Beis Din in this matter because of his relationship to the Meisels family. Therefore, how is it appropriate for him to have signed the letter posted today?

    2. Did any of the signers, including Rabbi Levin, speak to either the CBD, the faculty, or the victims?



    Dorron Katzin

    ReplyDelete
  20. Being a former rebbi of someone is not negius.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I apologize for being too flippant, but how to translate "שמוע שמענו, בשורה משמחת"?

    More substantively, I would disagree that they repudiated either position in this letter, but rather sought a middle road: a vote of confidence in the newly disclosed oversight board.



    Also, do you have any oversight on why Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky did not sign this letter? With him it would be the complete Agudah Moetzes.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I understood the point of the letter. My question is - based upon what information did they make this pronouncement?

    ReplyDelete
  23. It is particularly significant in that rabbi feldman signed it. It is significant in that they trust the oversight enough to keep the seminaries safe. However, it does not increase my confidence In educators who were unaware of or possibly chose ignore Meisels' actions

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Dorron Katzin - from what I have heard - the purpose of this letter was to chose between the approach of the CBD and the IBD. Rav Levin went with the approachof the IBD. This is not judging the case but the approach to the case. This applies to your second question as well.They were not functioning as judges of the facts but the process. i don't know whether they spoke with the CBD etc - but I don't think they viewed it as necessary to make their decision.

    As I mentioned in a post - the main issue has been who has jurisdiction of the case and secondarily how should the case be dealt with. These Gedolim clearly endorsed the approach of the IBD over that of the CBD.

    I

    ReplyDelete
  25. FYI, it is against their tznius standard to write in a lady's name. You can get it by calling any of the schools.

    while such a level of insanity wouldn't shock me i doubt that is the reason

    ReplyDelete
  26. It was a repudiation. Chicago was and is demanding that certain principals be fired. The gedolim rejected their demands.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So it's politics as usual. They don't even bother with the pretense that the "gedolim" signed on this letter have insight into anything substantive. At least the other batei din were investigating, or claiming to investigate, facts. All this letter says is that various random people of (prior) borderline respectability and illustrious lineage trust that their acquaintance will make important changes.
    No doubt R' Daniel and a couple other beis din junkies will see this as something vastly relevant. It saves jobs, I guess, which is nice if you're into that sort of thing. It makes things more difficult for people who justifiably feel cheated which is not nice. None of this was complicated, no matter how much R' Daniel keeps emphasizing the ancillary details.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rabbi Eidenshon,


    How could the letter be seen as not judging the case if it is known that certain faculty members had knowledge of what was going on and now they are endorsing these schools without having those faculty members removed?

    ReplyDelete
  29. The seminaries did a terrible thing in pushing for a psak like they did. If they really cared the psak should be that it is safe to go, but we understand people wanting to go elsewhere and we understand people wanting refunds. We have tried quite a few other schools and were turned down by the last one (because of Peninim) earlier this week. We were at deadlines for signing up at a local seminary and did so. You can debate all you want between IBD and CBD. There is doubt about the seminaries, but the parents for sure did nothing to deserve having our money held hostage. With such an extraordinary thing that happened, even if the CBD ruled it was safe, parents should be entitled to do what they want. I wish the individual girls well, but wish that these evil institutions go out of business after this year (which will happen when no money is held hostage)

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Chaim Z - no it is not politics as usual. There were 2 beis dins that could not agree as to who had jurisdiction and what the hierarchy of goals was.
    This letter shows that the American geodlim sided with the IBD's version.

    The issue was not and is not primarily about jobs. This is not very complicated and your nasty spin on things is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm sure we signed an agreement. That shouldn't mean that after the whole scandel and the loss of credits and a beis din saying it is unsafe (even if another says it isn't) they should stick with it. When my father was in Mir, his rebbe Reb Shmuel Brudny was discussing a case where a man is falling out of a building and part way through someone shoots him. Rav Brudney said something like "he is patur, but a besserer mentch he isn't. That is how I feel about this. By the way, Reb Daniel, do you really believe that anyone will willingly give them money after this year (the way they handled it)? If we would have had the option early on to switch or stay, we might have stayed. No one had a choice. Stay or lose your money.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Not every Godol has the time to look into every issue. Many American Gedolim did look into the issue and signed on to this letter supporting the IBD.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If it was necessary to make a decision then they surely spoke to the CBD and anyone else they needed information from.


    Meisel is no longer part of the seminaries. He is irrelevant to the future of the seminaries and how the seminaries and their student body need to proceed for this upcoming school year.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nothing of that sort is known or true. There are no staff members working at the seminary that knew about it. And no one has even alleged as such let alone determined as such.

    ReplyDelete
  35. According to the gemara, a rebbi wants to see talmid exceed him. How is that not negius. That being said this letter us in regards to the seminaries, and not Meisels.

    ReplyDelete
  36. " if it is known that certain faculty members had knowledge of what was going on"

    In fact, that is not known. To the contrary, that is precisely the question at issue. Chicago claimed they had evidence of staff knowledge, but when asked to produce it, they could not or would not. The IBD is prepared to investigate the allegation, but it is by no means something that is "known."

    ReplyDelete
  37. Asher pihem diber shavAugust 29, 2014 at 4:58 AM

    I am uncomfortable with this letter, as it doesn't have THE Gadol Hador R' David Feinstein's signature on it. I wonder what his opinion is on this matter ?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Despite the glee of the posters on this blog, a careful analysis of this psak is not quite as wonderful for the IBD as it seems.


    Let us first note that RAF was unsuccessful in his attempt to get the full Moetzes to sign on ths decision (as he has tried for some time). Instead we are left with five rabbanim who either have negius - Rabbi Levine - or terrible track records dealing with abuse. (Rav Perlow convened the first group of rabbanim that covered up for Yehuda Kolko. Rav Kotler vigerously defended Yosef Kolko and drove his victim and his family out of Lakewood. Rav Feldman continues protecting Moshe Eisneman, and Rav Schecher was responsibel for the abuse of Issac Hersch.) RDE - were you not so personally invested in this case, you would have harsh words for this particular group of rabbanim.


    While the signers clealry did not adopt the CBD's approach, they are not so happy with the IBD either. How else do you explain the removal of the IBD and the appointment of three new independent rababnim to oversee the seminaries. Where is the anger at the usurping of the IBD's authority? Is there a shtar that shows that they have ceded juristiction to these five rabbanim? Perhaps RAF really was as upset with the IBD as his letters indicated.


    Morevoer, if the staff of the seminaries were as fine as the IBD said they were, why is there a new menaheles (who happens to the wife of someoene who works at Pachad Yitzchak - the Israeli branch of Chaim Berlin where Rav Schechter serves as the Rosh Yeshiva)? Where is the support for the IBD's warning to other seminaries?


    What is interesting as well is that despite intense pressure neither Touro or Skokie have altered their positions so students attending these seminaries will still not be receiving real credits. (Not exactly the IBD's postion either.)


    In the end the letter reaffirms the position that RAF has taken from the start when he connected the CBD and the IBD after a meeeting with Rabbi Zev Cohen. He wanted to save the seminaries and protect the jobs of staff members and that is still his objective. He never spoke to any of the victims and sadly did not appreciate their concerns as the CBD did. He lost faith in the IBD and has now found a different way to accomplish his goal without them.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Why don't you ask him instead of attempting to make false insinuations,

    ReplyDelete
  40. If this letter is perceived as a "game changer", then I think it is indicative of many of the problems in the chareidi velt today. Does anyone really think these rabbonim investigated the matter closely - such as interviewing staff members? We all know that various askonim worked to get this letter signed, but we have no idea what the rabbonim were told. And considering that this is almost certainly the work of askonim working hard to get this statement, then why did key members of the Moetzes not sign, and why is it not on Moetzes stationary?


    The bottom line is - does anyone whose daughter is registered to go to Peninim really feel more comfortable because of this letter? I do not have daughters, just sons, but I can guarantee you that I would not want my daughter to go there until the issues are cleared up, with or without this letter.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Why don't you get this written up in the Chicago Tribune or another secular "news" source? Sounds like you're preparing for this anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Each seminary said that they aren't taking and that
    peninim is fine. They didn't ask us about particulars or even bother checking her out. This included Meor and Ateret. This has been the implication of the psak all along.

    ReplyDelete
  43. What does this have to do with the Moetzes or Agudah?
    If anything, it would be related to Torah Umesorah -- which is not the Agudah -- which had involved at least initially.
    In fact, however, it appears tha they signed this as individuals, not as an organizational or Rabbinic body. I would characterize this as an advisory, not a psak.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I notice that you ignored most of my points; can I assume shtika k'hoda and that you acknowledge they are all correct.


    Let me respond to your interesting post: RAF was of the opinion from the outset that it is a terribe thing for seminaires to close - that is not a great chiddsuh as he will tell you himself. (Just as he has directly told others.) It is important that we do not close insitutions that teach Torah unless it is absolutely neccessary. He has always believed that once the mushchas was removed, and with proper supervision, the seminaries would be fine. The CBD does not agree with him as they have a different (and in my opinion deeper) understanding of the nature of sexual abuse and the culture that enables it.


    RAF felt that the IBD was the right address to moniter the situation but he came to see that they were not up to the task which is why he replaced them. Is that really so complex? The lurid suggestions that you noted are sadly your own as they never appeared in my comment. Clearly there is a difference of opinion between rabbanim as to what constitutes a safe environment which is, of course, what everyone desires (RAF, the CBD, and the IBD). The question is who is most qualifeid to make that determination. I would go with those who have the best track record and who actually spoke with vcitms. You are free to make your own choice.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I notice that you ignored most of my points

    Which points? Kindly number them, and write clearly and concisely. Thank you.

    It is important that we do not close insitutions that teach Torah unless it is absolutely neccessary.

    Great. This is something we can all agree to. Good.

    So no closing institutions to teach lessons, right? Great.

    The following feel that there is no reason to close the seminaries:

    * Rav Avrohom Chaim Levine

    * Rav Aharon Feldman

    * Rav Aharon Schecter

    * Rav Yaakov Perlow

    * Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch

    * Rav Osher Weiss

    Among many others.

    Who feels they should be closed down:

    * Rabbi Shmuel Feurst

    * Rabbi Zev Cohen

    * Shlomo Gottesman

    Rabbis Feurst, Cohen and Mr. Gottesman all chose a Beis Din to deal with this. Yet, that beis din that they chose also concluded that the these institutions shall not be destroyed. They are:

    * Rabbi Shafran


    * Rabbi Malinowitz


    * Rabbi Gartner



    So you have the whole Torah world against Rabbi Feurst and Rabbi Cohn, as well as Shlomo Gottesman. Great. You're entitled to make your own decisions. I, and everyone else, are entitled to make our own.

    ReplyDelete
  46. No one ever tried to get the full Moetzes to sign this letter. They got enough signatories of the American Gedolim. They don't need all. Not every godol in the United States needs to look into the case and sign on. Anyone they asked to that looked into the issue signed the letter. Notably, no American godol signed any counter-letter supporting the CBD.

    Your openly expressed contempt towards multiple American Gedolim clearly shows you have no emunas chachomim required of a Jew and you hold yourself above and beyond the tzaddikim of our generation. We know what Chazal says about people like you.

    The signors did not remove the IBD at all in any sense whatsoever. They ADDED another layer of oversight. You ought to be happy about that and thanking these American Gedolim for it.

    Rav Feldman shlita is the only godol who had direct and intense connections to both the IBD and the CBD. With his experience and interactions between them we see he clearly holds the IBD is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Being on the moetzet is automatically a seat n TuM moetzet.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Let me make three basic points:


    #1I know from direct conversations with both people associated with the seminaries and members of the Moetzes that this was the goal (to get the whole Moetzes on board) and that was unsuccessful. You have no idea if there was an attempt for a counter letter so its absence is irrelevant.


    #2 The idea that three rabbanim have been slected to add another layer on top of the IBD is nice spin but not correct. The seminaries are not now accountable to two groups and that is defineitly not what the three new rabbanim believe.


    #3 It is a sad reality - as I showed by my examples - that many gedolim do not fully grasp the nature of these issues. They may be great in many areas but in this realm they have proven to be woefully deficient. You can hide behind frunkeit and attack my emunas chachomim but none of that will help the victims of the absuers that four of the five signers (of ths psak) protected.

    ReplyDelete
  49. If you did not understand my initial posting I suggest that you reread it as it was rather straightforward. Alternatively I suggest that you read my response to Catskills1 in which the key points are articulated. (The RICO suit has been discussed mutiple ttimes so it is not worth rehashing, other than to note that if you actually read it those luird claims were directed at Miesels; the other parties named to the suit were crticized for other reasons.)

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Avraham - contrary to your assertion the IBD is still in the picture. also contrary to your words the IBD and the involvement of the 5 American gedolim have added significant protection and safety of seminary students. The letter from the 5 American gedolim - even without the signatures of the whole Moetzes - represents the defeat of the CBD is this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  51. As you have noted previously, you may choose to believe what you will, but don;t post it as fact (like your various flip-flops reagrding you "fleshing-out" of teh CBD's claims)
    I happen to know from people "on the inside" that both 1 and 2 are untrue.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The IBD certainly was telling anyone who asked them -- I personally asked on behalf of one young lady -- that it did NOT mean what you assert they implied.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 1) You clearly backtracked from your original post. You had originally claimed that Rav Feldman was primarily concerned with saving jobs.


    You then backtracked to say that Rav Feldman was primarily concerned with saving a Torah institution.


    2) Being that you backtracked on the points I addressed, which point is it you would like me to answer. In fact, others have debunked you quite well.


    3) This seems to be very personal to you, and you seem to have a deep emotional involvement. A tone of care and concern for success of Bnos Yisroel is completely lacking in any of your posts. It seems to be all about "winning" over here. How sick is that?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Avrohom: I know from direct conversations with both people associated from all sides that NONE of the other non-signatory Gedolim have looked into this issue in depth and none of them have taken a position one way or the other.


    ALL the Gedolim that DID look into it and have taken a position one way or another have signed this letter effectively supporting the IBD.


    As RDE responded to you, the IBD IS still involved and the American Gedolim added an additional layer of oversight.


    The Gedolim are wiser than you in both halacha and in the ways of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The fact that you write about the "defeat" of a Bet Din as if this was a sporting contest or an election is very sad. For many of us the only question has been the safety of the girls in both physical and spiritual terms. To describe the issue as a contest or a battle reveals how invested you have become. I have no doubt that the involvement of the IBD etc. wiil assist in the physical safety of girlls attending the smeinaries. It does not mean that enough was done or that these are teachers whom girls should be exposed.to. If the environment that allowed Miesels to roam was not accknowledged, let alone changed, that is not a healthy place to send one's daughters.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Asher pihem diber shavAugust 29, 2014 at 7:42 PM

    I don't know him to ask him. I also don't have kids who are going to seminary. I also am not a fan of seminaries. I also don't care enough about this scandal. I assume, that wherever I leave my daughter, or wife for that matter, unattended, with whomever, regardless of rabbinic stature, that they will at the LEAST flirt with her/them. Ayn aputropus learayos!! That is why I don't leave them with men unattended !!!! I am shocked at the level of shock in this case. What did you expect ???

    ReplyDelete
  57. I"m shocked. Shocked.

    A dayan recused himself fro a case

    The av bet din of the CBD never excuse s himself from a case.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "I know from direct conversations with both people associated with the
    seminaries and members of the Moetzes that this was the goal (to get the
    whole Moetzes on board) and that was unsuccessful."

    A lie. No such effort was made.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Once again, nice try but not correct. I have not back tracked or changed from my original assertions. Here is my initial statement regarding RAF "He wanted to save the seminaries and protect the jobs of staff members and that is still his objective. " My further explanation is entirely consistent with that claim. Please show me differently.


    I have seen you post multiple times and know that you have been following this issue intently. As such when dealing with the RICO component I told you to go back to those discussions rather than waste my time rehashing old arguments. I also noted the key point of the matter just to make sure that the item was addressed. It is unfortunate that you did not understand my answer.


    Finally, we have the classic "kol haposel b'mumo posel". I have offered to share with RDE (offline) my information to verify that I am a rav and mechanech of 25 years that is not connected, in any way, to the CBD, IBD, Miesels or any of the individuals connected to this case. Can you do the same?


    Yes, the issue of sexual abuse in the frum world is an issue that I take very personally as should every one in our community. We have seen too many cover ups in this area for way too long. I have criticized the IBD for not writing once about the victims and that same critique applies to this new psak as well. I have never talked once about winning - that was the exact complaint that iI made to RDE - so it a sad commentary on your position for you to try to tar me with that brush. Please quote one statement that you have made showing any compassion for the victims of that mushchas. Who do you really care about?

    ReplyDelete
  60. To both Ari B. and kishkeyum I stand by my assertions and I challenge you both to prove that you are correct. Whom did you speak to that said that these were the only gedolim contacted to sign the letter?


    Sadly merely asserting the wisdom of the gedolim is not quite an answer to the cases i brought up that showed clearly where they failed. I wish it were otherwise but those are the tragic facts. If you have anything to say regarding those cases please share them with me.


    As to the new rabbanim roles vis a vis the IBD that is truly puzzling. I was wondering how these three distinguished chachomim would monitor the seminaries when they have no experience in chinuch habanos and have other responsibilities.So after doing some research I uncovered the answer. They were not asked to play that role what so ever. They merely agreed to answer shailos as they come up. So the idea that these rabbanim would provide any layer of oversight was simply disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Avraham, how do you come here demanding they prove their correctness and name their sources when you are the one who initiated claims to have spoken to anonymous sources and yourself have not proven your correctness or named your alleged sources?

    ReplyDelete
  62. It is correct and the duty of all to insure that a fellow Jew does not lose their job over unfair allegations. So kudos to RAF if that is one of his objectives.


    About the victims, no information has been released whether they are victims or were consenting adults making both parties culpable under Jewish law. And no information has been definitively released or even claimed that any activity would constitute a crime under secular law.

    ReplyDelete
  63. To both David and Moe I ask you a simple question: RDE has been quick to post numeorus communications from the IBD (or from people on their behalf) and yet none of us have seen one letter indicating they have adopted new protocols or made any staff changes, so why should any one believe that those have occurred? To David I add that there have been no expressions on their behalf to the victims either; which you shouldn't worry about anyway because you claim in the same post that there were no victims.


    Regarding your other points; i obviously have no desire to reveal my contacts having seen the desperate attempts to attack or reveal identities of anyone who dares disagree with your position. On the other hand isn't it strange that the five gedolim happen to be on the Moetzes but they are not the full group . Why were these five people asked and no others? How would any of the people posting be able to know that this is the case (that they were the only ones contacted) without having spoken to either RAF or one of the people running the seminary? I need to only have contacts with at least one gadol who was asked to sign but didn't, or know one loose lipped family member of the seminary owners who described the initial plan to know that i am correct.


    Finally, when you acknowledge that these gedolim are not providing any new oversight that you are admitting that the great excitement of their appointment is meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @Avraham - I have one simple question for you. Why are you demanding a greater stanard of openess from the IBD than you are with the CBD?

    Your comment about your contacts - simply reveals that you don't have a definitive answer but are guessing based on inferences. Not helpful

    Finally the issue of the structure of supervision and the role of the IBD and the vaad haChinuch as well as Reb Birnbaum - has not been explicated and yet you in your great wisdom proclaim it meaningless.
    Just state that you don't know what it is. The 5 gedolim who signed clearly think that it is a meaningulf addition to the seminaries. Are you calling them liars or perhaps not as wise as you are?!

    ReplyDelete
  65. 1) He wanted to ...protect the jobs of staff members and that is still his objective.

    The insinuation here is that Rav Feldman is concerned about peoples jobs at the expense of Bnos Yisroel.

    You then backtracked and said :" It is important that we do not close insitutions that teach Torah unless it is absolutely neccessary."

    This is very different.

    You did not answer my questions to this point.

    2) rather than waste my time rehashing old arguments.

    You wrote quite a bit without mentioning the arguments. This takes quite a bit of time. Why not use that time to either link the old answer, or "rehash" if briefly?

    You're willing to waste time saying you won't waste time?!

    3) I am a rav and mechanech of 25 years

    How is this relevant? If you are invoking your experience as a "rav" and "mechanech", then please share your credentials. If you are hiding your credentials, then you obviously don't feel them adequate as to make you an authority in this matter.

    What are you hiding? A little self confidence, sir!

    04)
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/beis-din-decides-seminary-owner-meisels.html#comment-1484721204
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/beis-din-decides-seminary-owner-meisels.html#comment-1487887669
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/beis-din-decides-seminary-owner-meisels.html#comment-1487559435

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/beis-din-decides-seminary-owner-meisels.html#comment-1495975471



    5) Please answer the questions, or don't bother.
    "If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen."

    ReplyDelete
  66. Are you calling them liars or perhaps not as wise as you are?!


    Well, they reveal their names and their exact credentials. "Avraham" claims to have 25 years experience as a "rav" and "mechanach", but is hiding those supposed credentials. For sure, for-sure this must make him wiser and and more righteous than them.
    (The fact that four of the five signatories each have at least fifty! years of experience - twice of what "Avraham" anonymously claims to have - certainly escapes him.)

    ReplyDelete
  67. You can stand by your lie all you please; it remains a lie. You challenge me to "prove" I'm correct? Why? Have you offered proof of your position? Not exactly.

    In any case, I was in touch with the people who were actually visiting the gedolim who signed. I know who they visited, and when and why. I know there was never an attempt or any interest in signing up the whole Moetzes. The gedolim they spoke to were well-aware of the issues, and the details. You are engaging in your usual "fleshing out" of the truth. In other words, lying.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Mealy-mouthed BS. If the CBD were acting in good faith as an actual BD, you might be right. But they are not. They are acting as Chicago gangsters. Such people need to be defeated.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I am puzzled by your response and your obseesion with the CBD. I merely noted that there have been many claims on the IBD's behalf but no statement from them. They wrote a psak but did not mention any of the steps indicated by their defenders. If other steps are being takne or have been takne why not mention them in an official letter?


    In terms of my contacts - i did not say that i was guessing but rather that I was protecting my sources. I made a logical point about how much easier it is to establish my position than the oppossing one without the various posters being in direct contact with RAF or the seminaries and that remains correct.


    Regarding the last point: The announcement of the five gedolim was trumpeted as a great accomplishment as the new rabbanim would be providing supervision etc. Sadly direct contact with members of the rabbanim revealed what they thought their role was to be and it had nothing to do iwith supervising the seminaries. I believe the rabbanim themselves and sadly lament that given the troubling track record of the five gedolim ( a point I note with profound sadness but which you have not challenged when I brought it up earleir ) I do not have confidence that they wil now put a better system in place.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I certainly challenge your libelous insinuation that these gedolim have a "troubling track record".

    ReplyDelete
  71. To both honesty and kishkeyum - you have added nothing to your previous posts so there ls little to respond to. Kishkeyum says that "i know " and "I was in touch" meaning that you have nothing to add but your word (which i do not believe) so i will stand by my assertions and let reasonable people make their own determinations.


    Ask to "honesty" - your classic snarky comnetys to

    ReplyDelete
  72. The moetzet never iss

    ReplyDelete
  73. Absolutely untrue.


    For example, Rav Dovid Fenstein was on the Torah Umesorah RAb before he was on the Agudah Moetzes, and Rav Yosef Frankel is on the Agudah Moetzes but not on TU's RAB.


    This is nothing new, the Rebbes of Bluzhev and Boston were on the Agudah Moetzes, but not on the TU RAB.

    ReplyDelete
  74. this letter was just sent all Chedvas parents, in Hebrew and English, along with the announcement that Rebbetzin Blimi Birnbaum is the overall Menaheles Ruchani

    ReplyDelete
  75. "Kishkeyum says that "i know " and "I was in touch" meaning that you have nothing to add but your word"

    Just as you do. It's laughable that you demand "proof" while providing none yourself. (Not that you every could, since you are prone to creative "fleshing out" of the facts.)

    "do not be excited if your rebuttals are not immediately commented on."


    Your falsehoods do not excite me. They disgust me. Feel free to stay away as long as you wish.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.