Monday, August 4, 2014

Seminary Scandal: Defense of the Israeli Beis Din & Rav Malinowitz against Rav Feldman's accusations of incompetence

Update Now includes the IBD response & Rav Malinowitz response

At this point it is not clear whether the CBD was acting as an agent for the IBD or the IBD is now acting as an agent for the CBD?!
Up until now there have been various accusation against the Israeli Beis Din (IBD) - either by the Chicago Beis Din (CBD) or from inferences or leaks from anonymous parties - accusing them of conducting a coverup of a terrible scandal of abuse and betrayal by the head and owner of the seminaries. The Israeli Beis Din did not defend itself well by just firing off didactic assertions that all is well, the seminaries are wonderful, the staff is wonderful and that no one should suggest girls go to a different school and that the IBD should be trusted to take care of the matter.

It is clear that the Chicago Beis Din [which initially investigated the charges] did not accept such claims since they explicitly stated that the seminaries were - for the time being - not safe and they were having funding cut off to girls going there. They repeated their claims in a letter which added that senior staff had been at least passively complicit in the disgusting activity of Meisels with the students.

In short the CBD came across as bravely standing up for the girls and disregarding the traditional response to abuse of making a coverup. In contrast the IBD looked as they were trying very hard to undo the work of the CBD and save the seminaries and the jobs of the staff at the expense of the students.

Today I received a letter strongly stating that the above picture was not true and that the IBD was being severely misunderstood or deliberately slandered by interested parties. It contained a number of letters. One is a letter by Rav Aharon Feldman accusing the IBD of incompetence - which seemed to reflect the common understanding of the situation from the viewpoint of the Chicago Beis Din. [Rav Feldman is officially listed as the representatives of the victims for the IBD. However there is no evidence that the victims in fact appointed him as such nor is there any evidence that he is in fact helping the victims in his communication with the IBD.]

Rav Feldman seems to be accusing the IBD of incompetence and seems clearly to be alluding to corruption or bias. This is very hard for me to accept based on my contact with Rabbi Malinowitz. He can be tough and opinionated and self-confident that he is right -  but no one would ever accuse him of being incompetent or concealing his true views. Similarly with Rabbi Gartner. To be more blunt - as somone who knows Rav Malinowitz, the accusations of Rav Feldman did not make any sense.

To give a better understanding of this scandal  I am posting Rav Malinowitz defense - followed by the full IBD response - which is clear and to the point - rejecting outright these accusations and saying there is clear documentation supporting his defense.

In addition a new issue has presented itself in these letters and that is the claim of the CBD that because there are criminal charges pending - the IBD at this point can't get involved directly in questioning the victims.

Thus at the present time the evidence has swung in favor of the IBD and I don't understand what the CBD is doing or trying to do.  If the CBD has evidence of staff complicity about Meisels crimes - they should share it with the IBD. Decisions as to whether the staff should be fired should be made soon as well as publishing the protocols the IBD says they have proposed to ensure the safety of the students.

As the IBD has said - there is no reason to destroy the seminaries - if the appropriate actions have been taken and clear safeguards put in place against it ever happening again.

Rav Aharon Feldman’s email to the Israeli Beis Din:


The Chilul Hashem r.l. is spreading; people have lost their emunas chachomim; I just heard of two girls who went off the derech because of this affair. We have to get the Chicago BD to rescind their letter. The only way to do this is to have a joint BD listen to the accusations. Is Rav Shafran willing to do this? They are not at present but I think I can convince them. bedieved I have the following:suggestion. if I get the accusers to come together, will Rav Shafran agree to listen to them bemoshav tlasa? This will not stop the effect of the CBD’s letter, but at least it will stop the charges against you that you refused to listen to the accusers. Would Sunday night be OK for this?

I was surprised that Rabbi Malinowitz said (as I understood him) at our conference call that I never apprised the BD that there are serious accusations. Rav Malinowitz asked me at that time (and so I immediately wrote myself a note, which I have) to supply the BD with the names of the accusers. Yet a psak was given out without this. I am sure there is a good reason for this, but it certainly needs an explanation, not a denial that it ever happened..

Furthermore, you never apologized for having said publicly that you asked the CBD many times to supply you with information about the accusations and they did not. You could have explained this was a misunderstanding but to insist that you did contact them when R. Zev Cohen claimed so forcefully that you did not (I don’t think a person like R.. Zev Cohen would be able to lie in this manner), made them lose trust in you. It would help if you would apologize to them for this.

Aharon Feldman
Rav Chaim Malinowitz response Friday August 1, 2014
לכבוד הרה"ג רב אהרן פלדמן שליט"א
אחדש"כ כראוי

א) באתי בשורות אלו להבהיר מספר נקודות הטעונות הבהרה לענ"ד – כי זאת למודעי, כשם שכב' קובע שלא נראה שאחד כר"ז כהן מסוגל לשקר בכזו צורה, כך דומני ותקוותי שכ"ת חושב וקובע גם כלפי אחד כרח"ז מלינוביץ...

אינני זוכר בדיוק את המלים בהם השתמשתי בשיחת הועידה של יום רביעי השבוע, אבל כוונת הדברים היתה ברורה, כדלהלן:
כ"ת לא הגיש בפנינו שום טענה או ראיה מפורטת או מנומקת, כ"ש לא בשם מתלוננת מסוימת, רק דברים ששמע מפי רבני שיקאגו שישנן מתלוננות – הא ותו לא מידי, וכ"ש מבלי לפרט מה בדיוק הוא תוכן התלונות.

במטותא מיניה ומכ"ת, את 'הידיעה' הזאת-שכך אומרים רבני שיקאגו-ידענו גם ידענו מזמן, ולא היינו זקוקים להגיע ל"מידע " זה. מתוקף היותו חתום על שטר הבירורין כנציג ואפוטרופוס התלמידות, קווינו אף ציפינו לקצת יותר מזה-ולדאבוננו ואף הפתעתנו כ"ת לא הוסיף מאומה בנידון, לא הביא באמתחתו שום כלום ממה שהתבקש כבע"ד להביא לדיון, ואף לא התחייב איזושהי התחייבות-ולו המינימאלית ביותר-ל"ספק את הסחורה" בעתיד הקרוב אף הרחוק.

כך שאני תמה על הפתעת כ"ת על אמרתי שלא הגיש לנו כלום.

למען הסר ספק, הנני מצרף שוב את הבקשות בכתובים לקבלת החומר שנאסף ע"י רבני שיקאגו (אגב, שלא כדין וללא סמכות כלשהיא, ועוד חזון למועד), בקשות שהועברו לכ"ת (ולר' גאטאסמאן נציג רבני שיקאגו)החל משבוע שלם לפני הדיון.ואני חוזר ואומר--יש לנו המסמכים שביקשנו מכבודו כמה פעמים(וכבודו הלא עמד בקשר עם רבני שיקאגו) וגם שלחנו הבקשה לר' גאטאסמאן.

ועכשיו אפרש את שיחי באר היטב, תוך שימת הדגש על מספר שאלות חמורות העולות לצערי הרב מאליהן – והן שאלות אמיתיות, ולא כאותן "שאלות" שהועלו בשיחת הועידה של השבוע, המזכירות לדאבוני את שיטות העבודה של עו"ד למיניהם המבקשים לבנות תלי תלים של "הלכות עקומות" ע"פ הוצאת מלה אחת או שתים מהקשרן האמיתי:

א. רבני שיקאגו ידעו היטב אשר אנו יושבים כסאות למשפט באותו לילה – אולי כ"ת יכול להסביר-ולו יהא לעצמו-- -למה הם לא טרחו ודאגו לשלוח לנו את החומר מבלי שאנחנו נבקש – כ"ש שבאמת בקשנו, וכנ"ל?

ב. עאכו"כ, שלפי השט"ב עליו כ"ת חתום-וכזכור בנוכחות ולבקשת ר"ז כהן ,וסביר להניח גם בידיעת ובהסכמת ר"ש פורסט-רבני שיקאגו לא הוסמכו להתעסק בקבלת טענות כלל ועיקר, ובקבלת עדויות רק לפי בקשת בית דיננו-א"כ אך טבעי הוא לצפות ולהאמין שאותו החומר שכן נאסף (אמנם שלא כדין וכאמור) אחת דינו להיות מועבר הישר אלינו.

ג. ומה פשר שני האי-מיילים המתמיהים (והמחוצפים) שנשלחו ע"י "ב"כ רבני שיקאגו" ר' גוטעסמאן, המנסה ,ללא הצלחה , "לנער" ולסלק ב"ד מוסמך כדין וכהלכה ממילוי תפקידו? וכי עולם הפקר הוא זה? ומה עם סמכות ביה"ד ותורה הנרמס לעין כל בחוצות? בדיון שהתקיים לפני כשבוע כ"ת הצהיר ששיגר מכתב מחאה לר' גוטעסמאן – וכי כ"ת סבור באמת ובתמים שיצא בכך י"ח מחאה,ובפרט לאור מה שנשתלשל מזה? והאם כ"ת מוכן עכ"פ עכשיו ברגע זה לעשות משהו ביותר לנסות ולתקן את העיוות?

ד. וכ"ז כלפי העבר, ומה לגבי העתיד – הרי אנו מבקשים ודורשים עדיין את החומר – האם רבני שיקאגו יעבירו את זה עכשיו?

ה. זאת עוד זאת, הצענו השבוע לרבני שיקאגו כמה וכמה פעמים בדרכים שונים-כידוע היטב לכב'-לצרף אותם לכדי ב"ד מורחב ולדון על כל הענין ביסודיות-תוך הקנאת סמכות ע"י תיקון שטר הבירורין!!!!!!!ונענינו ע"י עו"ד הבית שלהם-- בלאו!!! רבתי ומוחלט. מה אומר כבודו על זה?האם שלח להם מכתב לתבוע מהם מענה על התנהגותם?

ו. התבשרנו היום ע"י כ"ת כי הגדילו לעשות רבני שיקאגו וסדרו את העניינים שגם אם "ירצו" למסור את החומר, הם אינם "יכולים" מחמת הוראת איזה עו''ד (שמובטחני אינו מכין עצמו ללכת לדי''ת הגם שמדובר בדיני ממונות)

שאלות אלו הן שאלות של ממש, בניגוד לשאלות של עו"ד שבאו לעולם בכדי לנגח בלבד, לתפוס אדם במלה זו או אחרת.

יסלח לי כ"ת על היותי מדבר דברים קשים כלפיו, עאכו"כ בהיותי מכירו ומוקירו שנים רבות באמת ובתמים, אך חייבים הדברים להיאמר, ובבהירות.

החותם בצער ובדמע על כבוד שמים, תורה וחכמיה המתפלש בעפר

ובאעה"ח היום עש"ק ה' מנ"א תשע"ד (01.08.2014)

חיים זאב הלוי מלינוביץ

The complete IDB response of Friday August 1 20114

בס"ד פניא דמעלי שבתא לסדר ,,איכה אשא לבדי..." ה' מנחם אב תשע"ד (01.08.2014)
כב' הגר"א פלדמן שליט"א שלו"ר לאוהבי שמו
במענה למכתב דלמטה, ישבנו אתמול במותב תלתא והחלטנו:

א. אכן יש כאן חילול השם: צריך לעשות סדר בעניינים, במכתב מע"כ יש בו, למצער, הרבה אי דיוקים בעובדות כנראה שיש מי שמעוניין לסלף ולהביא בפניכם עובדות לא נכונות. אכן כדי למנוע חילול השם וכדי לתקן ולו במעט, נצטרך להעמיד דברים ועובדות על דיוקם ע"י פרסום פרטי ההתנהלות הדברים (לא ח"ו שמות המתלוננות), מגובה בתמלילים ומיילים בכדי שלא יוכלו להמציא דברים שלהד"ם. אבל בשלב זה אנו עסוקים בכיבוי שריפות שהם גורמים, ובהצלת הסמינרים לשנה הבאה גם אם לא הקונה אשר הם חפצים ביקרו ייקח אותם.

ב. כאמור כל זה יבוא במועד יותר מאוחר בתוספת תיעוד דייקני ומסודר, ומ"מ ההכרח לא יגונה ואשר ע"כ לעת עתה ראינו צורך לציין מספר נקודות, פן ישתמע כאילו שתיקה כהודאה בחלק העובדתי, וכ"ש שלא יאמרו הבריות מדשתקי רבנן ש"מ ניחא להו במגמות ו/או במהלכי אנשים אלו.

א. מי המציא את השקר, ועל סמך מה המציאו, שסירבנו לשמוע את המתלוננות? אדרבה, במכתב לכ"ת שליט"א מיום כ' תמוז (כהכנה לדיון המתוכנן), ואשר העתק ממנו הועבר לגוטעסמאן (המציג א"ע כלפינו בכתובים כב"כ ב"ד מיוחד בשיקאגו – להלן ולמען הקיצור: "שיקאגו"), ביקשנו הרי את טענות בע"ד ו/או עדויות צדדים שלישיים שאספו "שיקאגו" – רצוי עוד קודם לדיון המתוכנן, אבל לפחות ולמצער במעמד אותו דיון. הבקשה חזרה על עצמה במייל לכ"ת מיום כ"ד תמוז. למרבה הפלא פניות אלו לא זכו להתייחסות כלשהי, לא מצד כ"ת ולא מצד גוטעסמאן. כמו"כ בדיון שהתקיים אור לכ"ז תמוז, כ"ת הופיע מבלי חומר כלשהו בידו, ומעל ומעבר לאמירה סתמית במרוצת הדיון שישתדל לברר ולהמציא שמות המתלוננות נגד המנהלים ומנהלות-וגם זאת מבלי להתחייב על לו"ז כלשהו, לא הייתה שום בשורה של ממש מפיו בנידון מילוי מבוקשתנו הנ"ל.
גם אחרי הדיון הנ"ל והחלטתנו שיצאה בעקבותיו לא חדלו מאמצנו לקבל את החומר – כידוע היטב לכ"ת, וכדלהלן: אור ליום שני ר"ח מנ"א ולבקשת האב"ד הגרמ"מ שפרן, חבר ביה"ד הר"צ גרטנר שוחח טלפונית עם הר"ז כהן משיקאגו ובקש את החומר (ובנוסף הציג את הרעיון ולפיו יתקיים מושב ב"ד מורחב של ב"ד ישראל ושיקאגו, ועל כך בהמשך), הר"צ גרטנר אף העביר את תוכן ההצעה לכ"ת בשיחה טלפונית יום ג' ב' מנ"א, והדברים חזרו על עצמם בשיחת ועידה שהתקיימה יום ד' ג' מנ"א, בה השתתפו כ"ת והרבנים פורסט מלינוביץ כהן וגרטנר, וכן גוטעסמאן ומר שפרלינג (עו"ד של "שיקאגו").
למותר לציין שנכון לרגע זה לא הומצא לידינו חומר כלשהו (למעט חומר ראשוני שהומצא ע"י "שיקאגו" עובר למעמד חתימת שטר הבירורין ע"י כ"ת לפני קצת פחות מחודשיים), ולמען הסר כל ספק אנו חוזרים גם עתה ומבקשים את החומר הנ"ל.

ב. מי המציא את הסיפור שזיכינו את המנהלות בלי לשמוע את ההאשמות? מעולם לא זיכינו את המנהלות אבל גם לא האשמנו אותן (לא מאשימים ולא מזכים בלי לשמוע את המאשימים ואת הנאשמים, אותם סיפורים בדיוק נשמעים אחרת כשמוצאים אותם מן ההקשר ושלא בפני בעל דין). מכיון שלא קיבלנו את ההאשמות לא יכולנו לדון את המנהלות/ים אם היו אמורים לשים לב או אם העלימו עין. מאידך, שמענו אותן והתרשמנו לטובה מאישיותם ומדרך העבודה ויר"ש שלהן-ובמאמר המוסגר, כמה חבל שכ"ת מתוקף היותו חתום על שטר הבירורין כנציג ואפוטרופוס התלמידות, לא מצא זמן ועניין להישאר בכדי להתרשם אף הוא. את הבירור אם הייתה העלמת עין מצידן (כולן או חלקן) השארנו לשלב הבא (וכפי שרמזנו בסעי' 7 של פסק דיננו).
אבל איך שיהיה, דבר אחד ברור מעל לכל ספק: גם אם היו צריכות לשים לב לדבר מה וגם אם מעדו איך שהוא בחובת שמירתן, עדיין אין שום סכנה לשלוח לשם בנות, וזאת מכיוון שסילקנו את מייזלס מכל קשר עם הסמינרים, ובהתחשב גם עם כך שלפחות עתה אין ספק שהמנהלות מודעות היטב למה שיכול לקרות ועל חובת השמירה המעולה ומשנה הזהירות הנדרשת.
באופן שסוף דבר הכל נשמע, הסמינרים הם בהחלט כשרים למהדרין ואין שום סכנה לשלוח אליהם, וכפי שפסקנו אחרי שמיעת אנשי הצוות על התנהלות הסמינרים. והבירור אודות אנשי הצוות, מנהלות או שאר עובדות לא שייך לפסק הדין לגבי כשרות הסמינרים ויראת שמים והעבודה הנפלאה שהן עושות. כל ניסיון לקשור בין אלו הוא יותר מטעות והתלהמות שלא במקום הנכון ואינו שייך לדיינים ובתי דין אלא לעיתונאים ובעלי אינטרסים.

ג. ממתי רבנים סוגרים (ועסוקים לסגור) חדר, ישיבה, בית יעקב או סמינר אם נמצא שם פושע. האם נשמע כזה בארה"ב, מעוזו של גוטעסמאן, שסגרו חדר, ישיבה או בית יעקב, ופרסמו שאסור ללמוד שם אחרי שהחשוד סולק משם? מה שצריך לעשות הוא להוציא את הפושע/ החשוד ולתקן סדרים כדי שלא יקרה שוב – וכפי שאנו עושים באמת כעת, לתקן גדרים ולהוסיף שמירה על שמירה, מעל ומעבר לקיים מכבר. העיקשות לסגור מוסד הוא או נקמה או... בכל אופן עיקשות זו ובפרט המכתב הנוסף מלפני יומיים אומר דרשני...

ד. איך רבני שיקאגו השמיצו וממשיכים להשמיץ מבלי להבחין בין אלו מהסמינרים שלגביהם יש ויש תלונות ובין אלו שלגביהם אין ומייזלס כמעט ולא הי' דורך שם אם בכלל. ולמרבה התמיהה גם אחרי שהעמידום על טעותם אינם מוכנים לתקן הנזק שגורמים לסמינרים אלו. האם הם פוסקים "חיישינן לזילותא דבי דינא" גם כשטעו ובגלל טעות מותר להם להזיק ולהרוס מוסד שלא שייך לכל הנושא. למה אינם מפרסמים "נתברר לנו שסמינר פלוני או אלמוני מעולם לא הי' בו דופי ואינו שייך לכל הנושא". (לנו יש תשובה).

ג. הרעיון לקיים הרכב מורחב מקובל עלינו, כידוע היטב לכ"ת אנו הצענו כך וקיבלנו תשובה שלילית מוחלטת מעוה"ד הבית של "שיקאגו". ואנו עדיין אומרים כן למרות היסוסינו לעבוד עם מי שקובעים דברים מראש לפני שמיעת הנאשמים/ות. כמובן שאנו נצטרך לבדוק אם הצדדים מוכנים להתדיין בפניהם אחרי מה שנוכחו וראו התנהגותם. איך שיהיה, אם הם מוכנים אף אנו מצידנו מוכנים, וכמובן נצטרך לקבוע סדרי הדברים איך נפעל.

ד. יודגש, יצטרפו או לא, אנו מעוניינים לקיים דיון ביום ראשון, כהצעת מע"כ, במותב תלתא לקבלת טענות ועדויות של בנות המתלוננות על מחדלי המנהלים ומנהלות ו/או מעשי מייזלס, כמובן בדרך המקובל בב"ד ותיקים ומיומנים, ע"פ כל כללי וסדרי הדיון התקין, שמבררים את הדברים כיד ה' הטובה עליהם תוך שמיעת שני הצדדים ללא כל משוא פנים ו/או דעות קדומות או מוקדמות.

סדר הדברים יהיה:
א. הבת המתלוננת אינה חייבת להזדהות ואולי עדיף שלא תזדהה. רק תמסור מס' טלפון לביה"ד.

ב. ביה"ד יצטרך לדעת מראש באיזה סמינר/ים מדובר, וזאת בכדי להזמין את המנהלת/מנהל/אשת צוות עליו/ה מדובר, שישמע במה הוא מואשם וישמיע גרסתו ותגובתו, ובכדי לאפשר את בירור הדברים בדיוק מה הי', עד כמה שניתן בנסיבות העניין. ובמידה והעניינים גולשים מעל ומעבר לתפקוד המנהלים/ות ומגיעים להאשמות נגד מייזלס עצמו, יהיה צורך לשמוע גם אותו (הלא גם החייב מיתה מעידים בפניו ואפי' שור הנסקל, ולשבר אזני עוה"ד למיניהם הבוחשים בקדירה זו: גם בדיניהם). כאמור הבת לא חייבת להזדהות, אך מן העניין לציין כי הנאשם יזהה וידע מן הסתם במי ובמה המדובר.

ג. ר' שלמה גוטעסמאן יורשה להשתתף בדיון, אבל בהחלט לא יורשה לו לצעוק, להעליב, לאיים ולהטיח האשמות. אם לא יכבד את המעמד ויתנהג כבריון נגד התורה ונגד החוק נצטרך להוציא אותו מהדיון.

ד. בכל מקרה, וכפי שנהגנו עד עתה, הכל יהי' מוקלט, הן לצורך התיק וביה"ד, ובמקרה דנן גם כדי למנוע דיווחים כוזבים.

בברכת התורה וכט"ס
הרב מנחם מנדל הכהן שפרן, אב"ד
הרב חיים זאב הלוי מלינוביץ, דיין
הרב צבי גרטנר, דיין


  1. Wow! This letter is a bombshell! Rabbi Malinowitz a brilliant gaon (chief editor of the Artscroll Shas) and a person with a maverick reputation beholden to know one, has now layed down the hammer, accusing the Chicago beis din of not only a outright cover-up of how they arrived at their psak but also calling out the main rabbinic figure in the Chicago beis din as a blatant liar. He minces no words as he tells us how he has clear evidence documenting Rabbi Cohen's lies. Throw in that Gottesman has been trying to strong arm the Israeli beis din and folks we now have a Chicago psak that is corrupt and rotten.

  2. Lopin doesn't exist. It's Shlomo Gottesman who's the blogger, and he tried to steal control of the seminaries from the beginning, using the Israeli bd as patsies.
    I'm not saying Meisels is completely innocent, but the lies that CBD and Gottesman have been spreading about him are disgusting, and are merely a tactic to get him out of the schools, and take over themselves.
    Once Meisels transferred the schools to Yarmish, Lopin/Gottesman got all self-righteous about it being an illegal transfer.
    The guy is disgusting.
    And now he is writing about Reb Aron feldmans scandalous behavior on his blog.
    Biting the hand that feeds him.

  3. Now then, what a truly informative comment! Full of ad hominems against YL and the CBD, and zero substance.
    "When the truth comes out, boy are we going to be convinced!" OK big guy, instead of telling us, show us and we will all be more impressed.

  4. So they claim they don't have all the info that chicago has? Give it ti them. The only legal issue us that the israeli authorities might subpoena the IBD (its prob much easier for the israeli police to do this than americans authorities can.) And their goes the confidentiality that the accusers demand. Same problem in all abuse / molestation cases. And american batei din have a terrible record in keeping confidences.

  5. In a rambling post on his blog, Lopin appears to be going crazy about the truth about the Chicago Beis Din acting like, well, Chicago politicians, coming out. He well should be going crazy, because it will show that either he has been a fool, been used, or has lied to to us for the past weeks and cast blatantly false aspersions on an ehrlicheh Beis Din.

    That being said:
    1. I doubt the Lopin is Gottesman.His blog didn't start with this case.
    2. I agree that I don't trust Gottesman one bit, and have always found him to be an agenda-driven baal gaavah trying to ingratiate himself with Rabbanim and gedolim (regrettably a relatively easy feat for a wealthy fellow, as we know) so he can become a "player."
    3. While I might believe that Gottesman may have tried to bully Meisels into selling to him or to a buyer of his choice, if such a recording exists, have it professionally verified as undoctored present it to Rbbi Eidensohn to post.

  6. since when does daas torah allow sock puppeting?

  7. Before choosing a bet din, i'm sure chicago investigated what criteria the IBD will use in deciding, and what sort of decision the IBD would give, if they find the facts. (Make sure you do that when choosing a bet din.)

    Now it turns out the IBD only intended to give the usual israeli position of everything's OK, as opposed to the american position of abuse / molestation is a serious matter.

    So what is chicago complaining about? They got what they paid for.

    The only problem is, nobody cares that enrollment will go down drastically (maybe; hopefully.) So the schools have little value when sold. Its up to the meisel / tress family to ensure the schools value, by ... taking appropriate steps ... firing certain people ... ensuring the above. Obviously, they don't care.

  8. Wow, this confirms everything I've been hearing and what I've suspected.
    This can explain lopin/gottesman obsession with this case and him promoting his friend Zvi Bloom's despicable profiteering scheme to get a new seminary.
    Torah u'mesorah should be taken to task for having such a disgusting and corrupt person on their staff.
    I wonder what Torah U'mesora's Rabbinical board have to say about the content of lopin/Gottesmans blog.

  9. Not sure why my previous comment was censored while Yosef/Y Cohen's rants get through.
    Be that as it may:
    I disturst Gottesman and always have. Despite this:
    1. Does Yosef have any evidence that Gottesman and Lopin are the same person? I doubt that Gottesman -- who has made himself a "gavra" via "gedolim" like the Novomisker Rebbe and Rav Shmuel Kamentzky (those following this site are well aware of their great hanhagah) -- would publish sarcastic posts against the Agudah, as Lopin frequently does.
    2. Let him produce the recording.

  10. I am puzzled by this exchange. Indeed, far more so than I was before reading the exchange. What kind of Shtar berurin could Rav Feldman have signed? He wasn't any kind of litigant. Rav Malinowitz seems to say he was signed as the agent of the complaining women, but that is far from clear from Rav Feldman's letter. And how could the Israeli BD accept him as their agent if, as Rav Manilowitz claims, they don't even know who these women are? How could the BD know the victims appointed him? Further, if they felt the plaintiffs' agent didn't provide enough information, shouldn't they have withheld judgement until they heard from the women? Or at least got the information they were seeking from Rav Feldman or the Chicago Beit Din. And really they should be asking for it from the complainants themselves and not second hand. Further, it seems from the original Chicago letter that they were asking the Israeli Beit din to enforce their p'sak, while the Israeli BD, or at least Rav Malinowitz, seems to think it is supposed to evaluate the claims de novo. Which is it? And how do such prominent Rabbonim act in such an unclear fashion.

    Furthermore, unless the victims are attempting to claim financial damage from R. Meisels, they aren't litigants either. If what is being asked of the Israeli BD is to enforce the Chicago BD's p'sak to ensure the safety of the girls, the Chicago Rabbonim are acting, and asking the Israeli BD to act, as communal leaders to remove a public hazard. In which case there are no litigants, so what kind of shtar berurin would apply?

  11. Ari B - have not censored any of your comments. I would suggest you send it again. Disqus has eaten a number of comments or requires repeated approval sometimes.

  12. If you believe R. Malinowitz.

  13. Lopin may have been getting his material from Gettesman, but he is probably a different person. He has a completely different agenda.

  14. Rabbi Eidonsohn, if you have more information to post why are you holding on to it? Let us all see the information you have so we can make informed decisions. Releasing things piecemeal at best seems like you're trying to get more traffic to your site and at worst like a P.R. campaign that you're trying to control. THIS IS NOT A GAME. This whole scandal is just sickening and we shouldn't make it worse by adding theatrics.

  15. Verification of AddressAugust 4, 2014 at 1:46 AM

    Again what happened today that everyone's comment gets thru without being censored, but my comments (like 10 of them) are today all getting censored? Very strange! Why??? In the past you even took my comment and made it intoa guest post! So what happened now??? Where did I go so wrong????!

  16. I don't mean to sound accusatory but either let us see everything you have or explain what gain there is in withholding it. There is enough suspicion out there already don't make it worse.

  17. @Moshe you are being acusatory. If you don't like the way I do things - find another blog to read.

  18. I have just glanced at the letter and the comments and will post a full response tomorrow, my schedule permitting.

    for the record, I am not Gottesman and I definitely do not control the
    Chicago BD nor have I ever talked to Rabbi Shlomo Ronsald Gottesman esq
    in my entire life. At the time the
    Chicago psak came out I knew about the allegations against Meisels but had no idea that Chicago was taking on the issue. I
    was pleasantly surprised by the Chicago psak which they shared with
    almost all BY HS principals who in turn shared it with others. I still
    don't know where my source got their copy. But naturally I posted it.

    Now of course you can say, but "If Lopin was really Gottesman he would lie."

    I ask you this. I have about 950 posts spread over almost 5 years going
    back to October 2009. Would Gottesman would have had an interest in
    writing all those posts, many of which are crtical of Agudath Israel?
    Would Gottesman have been so scorching of the Haredi, Hasidic and MO
    establishment? Would he have even had the time and energy to create such
    a blog just as a sleeper for one dispute. And if he did, does he have
    my style of writing and my sense of humor for better or worse.

    BTW, Lopin is an
    anagram for Ploni. I am everyman, not a power broker who controls others. I do my work by exposing
    the truth and encouraging the public to understand and get involved in combatting sexual abuse inside the orthodox
    community. I don't care if an abuser or his enablers are Hasidic,
    Yeshivish, Modern Orthodox or Sephardi. I am an equal opportunity

    P.S. For
    the record, i was never on the grassy knoll and I don't know if someone
    besides Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

  19. Someone should produce a picture and some background on Lopin. Where he's from etc.
    where he learned, where he works. Something verifiable.
    Then we'll see that he exists.
    But it won't happen, because he doesn't exist- except as Gottesmans alter ego

  20. Rabbi Feldman could very well have been presenting the facts as setermined by Chicago without naming the accusers.

    The responses make the case that Israel was involved (i.e., both sides signed binding shtarei beirurin accepting its authority) and they asked Chicago to conduct "gevias eidus," and that's it.

    If that were the case, Chicago had no halachic or moral right to offer any opinions, issue any rulings, or not transmit the details of their sessions when requested to do so by the Israeli Beis Din.

  21. It bears noting that -- despite Lopin -- not only does the Israeli Beis Din acknowledge Meisel's guilt, they also state that they are prepared to take appropriate actions against others as soon s they are provided with evidence. If, as they claim, Chicago was acting only as their agent, this is a case of the tail insisting on wagging the dog,

  22. That's exactly the point. It shouldn't be about whose blog to read. There is terrible confusion out there and multiple versions of events. I'm sure you have valid reasons for what you're doing but this is a serious issue and can't just become another fight of the blogs. Why should a parent or student who probably has just days to make a decision that will affect the rest of their lives be put through this.

  23. Could someone please translate the letters?

  24. I, for one, was saying that you are NOT Gottesman.

  25. There is also a rumor (I know there is, because I'm starting it) that "Lopin" is a lamed-vavnik. After all, those are the first two letters of his pseudonym.

  26. Gottesman has a personal agenda re; sex abuse as a family member of his was molested.
    However that doesn't give him the right to wildly attack anyone and it certainly doesn't give him the right to Blackmail.

  27. Which we have every reason to believe him, as well as the other two daiyonim. Two of Chicago's dayonim have been involved in widely criticized annulments....

    Of note, they call Mr. Gotteseman's esq. behavior as that of a Baryon. A very harsh condemnation.

  28. "nor have I ever talked to Rabbi Shlomo Ronsald Gottesman esq
    in my entire life"

    Interesting how you so carefully chose the verb "talked." You are aware, I'm sure, that talking is exactly necessary for the efficient exchange of information. Emails serve perfectly well.

  29. You have a point. Everyone is free to open their own blog. I am disappointed that Rabbi Eidensohn linked and promoted readership of Frum Folies. However, it's my decision if I read this blog. It's Rabbi Eidensohn's decision on how to run his blog. He has a methodical way of exposing the truth in confusing matters. He has a track record of success.

  30. The need for you to post a response is rather interesting. Aren't you just a blogger getting fed some information??

    Additionally it is known that a family member of Gottesman was molested and therefore (understandably) he has a very personal interest in these issues. This "opportunity" just presented itself.

    Gottesman is also an editor for Yeshurun, so writing is in his bones.....

  31. All I know, Mr. Lopin, is that your blog shows complete disrespect for anybody you don't agree with. You and the comments you allow speak about great men in an extremely disrespectful way. And besides, there are halachos of Lashon Haroh, you know! One of the conditions is that you intentions are completely 100% toeles, with no other motive. If you are missing that one condition, it is completely prohibited, even if it was to save someone, and it would put you on the level of mesaprei lashon haroh which is k'ilu oved avoda zorah. From the style of your writing, and the comments you allow, it would seem you are missing this condition.

    This blog is presenting both sides. It is presenting each sides letters. Not like your blog where there is a clear agenda.

    I really doubt either beis din is making people go off the derech. Whether you agree with them or not,they are all acting l'shem Shomayim. If they would argue it out with each other, we would just here the end result and everything would work out fine. It is the blogs who degrade the stature of our Rabbis who cause people to go off the derech. And the Chofetz Chaim writes about this too! (Aren't you proud the Chofetz Chaim talks about you so much! You are the perfect example for his sefer!)

    Rabbi Feldman shlita is a tremendous Talmid Chochom and a genius in worldly matters. He does what he feels and knows is write. You talk about him in such a degrading manner. You post comments that he is acting because he must have relatives working there. Mr. Lopin, the same way a monkey cannot understand how a human thinks, you will never understand Rabbi Feldman. Period.

  32. After all the justifications the Israeli Beis Din acknowledges that it was aware that there are serious allegations and did not hear any of them before declaring the seminaries safe and the administrations fully trustworthy. The type of abuse that is alleged involved non-halakhic behavior by the head of the seminary that members of the staff were told about and should have known on their own if they were diligent. One gets the impression that the Beis Din is not knowledgeable about the process of grooming and the role of enablers.
    The authority of the Chicago Beis Din to deal with this case comes from it being a בית דין קבועה established fourteen years ago to deal specifically with allegations of abuse. Apparently The accused acknowledged its authority when he testified.
    As serious as closing a school might be the obligation that parents have to ensure the safety of their daughters has to be paramount. Not allowing the option of their sending their daughters to another seminary that the parents trust is unacceptable.

  33. If you read their letter, they make clear their assertion that they have asked for (demanded, even) it numerous times -- from Rabbi Feldman and from the Chicago BD -- but the material has not been sent.

  34. I wrote my post when there were just the letters from Rav Malinowitz and Rav Feldman. But I can't say I find the letter from the Israeli Beit Din clarifies much. I don't see how you can read it as the IBD having appointed the CBD to collect testimony, however. It seems that the CBD were the ones who requested the IBD involvement, not vice versa. And the IBD response makes pretty clear they would have been happy had Rav Feldman given them the facts without naming the accusers, but he came with "no material".

    1) What kind of case is before the Israeli Beit Din? Is someone making a monetary claim against someone else? If so, the parties should indeed have signed shtarei berurin. But it seems that that is not the case, and it is a question of removing a threat to the public (or at least the seminary girls), in which case there really aren't two parties, and the beit din is acting not as a court in dinei mammonot, but as leaders of the community to insure safety. In which case, they ave authority without shtarei berurin.

    2) The IBD seems to think Rav Gottesman is the agent of the CBD. If so, what is Rav Feldman's role? Far from clear. And if he has no formal role, why did he sign a shtar berurin and why does it matter if he did?
    3) It still seems to me from their original letter the only thing the CBD asked the IBD to do was find a way to enforce their p'sak that the seminaries must make significant changes to be safe. The IBD makes quite clear in their response that they think they need to review the charges and see if the p'sak was warranted. Are they an appeals court? If so by what authority and who appealed? It seems they were asked to get involved by Chicago, but Chicago surely didn't appeal their own ruling, did they?

  35. I can say I have proof you are a liar. But no one should believe me until I produce the proof.

    Malinowitz can write the IBD has jurisdiction ad meiah viesrim. But the IBD is not a beis din kavuah, it is an ad hoc beis din. So it only has jurisdiction with a tzad alef who signed a shtar berurin. Whos is tzad alef. They can scream at everyone all they want. IF it is true that feldman signed. then there is still no jurisdiction if he did not have proof he was designated by CBD or victims. But feldman as the sginer for Tzad alef says he did not have proof of representation and was relying on Malinowitz. Yes it was foolish for Feldman to rely on Malinowitz instead of getting his sign off from the horse's mouth. But to believe there was a tzad alef you have to believe that both Feldman and Zev Cohen are liars. Occam's razor applies. the simplest explanation is the best. It is easier to believe that Malinowitz is lying than that Feldman and Cohen are lying. Give me a motive. Malinowitz has a motive, which he states: saving the seminaries.

    Malinowitz makes believe like his BD's jurisdiction should be accepted as a given, but Chicago's finding is sujbect to his reevaluation. However, it is Chicago that is a BD kavua. It has been in existence since 2000 with the same members for addressing sex abuse. Its membership is accepted by the entire orthodox community of Chicago. One of the plaintiffs alleging abuse was from Chicago. They invited Meisels to testify and he agreed. They found Meisels guilty of abuse, the found the seminaries unsafe and found evidence that other staff looked the other way or were unable to notice evidence of abuse obvious to a number of students who complained to staff, So they wanted local Israeli help in transferring managements, cleaning house, etc and till that happened they suspended support for attending. The Shafran Beis din immediately took over beyond the boundaries of request by declaring everyting was hunky dory and he who should not be named was gone.

    all else is superficial detail. There is no Israeli jurisdiction to nullify the psak of a beis din kavua which ruled for its own constitutents not to attend Till the Shafran BD shows written proof of transfer of authority (not just a request for help) it has no more jurisdiction than the Timbuktu traffic court has on me.

  36. I am eager to hear myself on tapes that do not exist.

  37. Yes, Chicago politicians have been convicted of fraud, practically as a matter of routine. But the same is true of Israeli politicians including presidents and prime ministers. Israel has the added distinction of a president convicted of rape. Yet some say he cannot be guilty because he is an orthodox Jew.

  38. I have never in my life talked to Gottesman. In fact I was barely aware of who he was till this whole story unfolded. Now I am tempted to call him so I can talk to myself without having both sides using the same voice. Now when I talk to myself it will be more interesting.

  39. These seem to be private and sensitive correspondence between between disagreeing rabbonim.
    With all due respect, how the heck do you rationalize publishing these emails??
    -(Serious question BTW)

    There was clearly a misunderstanding as to which role the IBD was supposed to play, the CBD assumed that they are just there to implement the facts that the CBD found. Evidently, while the IBD did take the cbd's facts at face value regarding the main accusations, they were unwilling to just accept everything.
    Now they both feel slighted etc.
    Your publishing this spat turns a misunderstanding into a machlokes!

  40. If anybody needs to be convinced who Lopin is, just look how the well informed Lopin tries to obfuscate gottesmans role. Is it plausible that Lopin didn't know that gottesman was the lead man for the CBD?

    Yerachmiel Lopin says:
    07/24/2014 at 11:09 am
    That was the first rumor. The second was that a man named Yarmush was the prospective buyer. I believe that if Shlomo Gottesman bought, the Chicago Beis Din would have refused to lift their ruling. He is close to the Tress/Meisels family and would have just been a front for them.

  41. To think that just a few days ago many questioned the integrity, capacity, professionalism of the IBD, as many posted here and other sites. Now if you can read hebrew or get someone to translate it for you you will fall off your chair. Simply put ALL are shown how to properly proceed with integrity etc. and not to rely on speculations from hear say or bloggers to do the work that is entrusted to Bnei Torah alone.

    A quick translation of main points:
    From 1st letter
    1) CBD did not bother to send any of the material requested many times to the IBD.

    2) The CBD was requested by IBD to assemble an inquiry into the complaint and forward their findings to the IBD. They had no authority to do anything else. (seems IBD initiated this proceedings...after all)

    3) The IBD expected the CBD to uphold the honor of Torah by disclaiming some disrespectfull ('chutzpa') letter sent from chicago's finest...

    4) The IBD is still unclear if the CBD will transfer the material requested.

    5) The IBD was surprised (!!!!!) to receive a negative response by an in house lawyer(!!! -more exclamation marks) to assemble a broader BD with all Dayanim to discreetly resolve the matter.

    6) Seems that even if the Chicago Rabbis will "accept" to send the material the lawyer does not approve it, so they "can't".

    The very short version.

    Very sad.

  42. 2nd Letter goes more into details as far as the lack of agreement on the accuracy of the facts...SAD indeed!

  43. You write: "They repeated their claims in a letter which added that senior staff had been at least passively complicit in the disgusting activity of Meisels with the students."
    Can you enlighten us with your source?

  44. Or choose to believe an anonymous blogger that goes by Shlumiel Plony aka Yerachmiel Lopin aka etc....

  45. Sorry but you don't seem to know how to read!

    Can you translate this:

    "במותב תלתא לקבלת טענות ועדויות של בנות המתלוננות על מחדלי המנהלים ומנהלות ו/או מעשי מייזלס, כמובן בדרך המקובל בב"ד ותיקים ומיומנים, ע"פ כל כללי וסדרי הדיון התקין, שמבררים את הדברים כיד ה' הטובה עליהם תוך שמיעת שני הצדדים ללא כל משוא פנים ו/או דעות קדומות או מוקדמות"

    That text indicates clearly: no due process has been achieved on any level! as far as IBD is concerned.

  46. Are you Mr Lopin? read this post before. Did you copy it from a different post?

  47. thank you for comprehending my blog's traits and agenda. for the record, I have never talked to him or exchanged messages with him. Apparently on this case at this point we see things the same way, at leas to the extent of supporting CBD over IBD. To the best of my knowledge I have not been getting information from him indirectly. I have gotten some information from talking to victims of Meisels and from other students from the seminaries.

  48. No, it does not acknowledge any guilt whatsoever. There has not even been a witness presented to the IBD at all. The CBD can't disclose their material nor can the IBD access it. Seems it's in the hand of the CBD lawyer.

    Read point 6 on first letter & point 4 on second letter.

  49. כל הפוסל במומו פוסל."keep the bull" accuses me, who uses my own name, of being secretly Mr. Lopin. The Israeli Beis Din can't simultaneously object to the Chicago Beis Din not sharing the testimony it received and claim that the process used is not על פי הלכה. If the Chicago Beis Din is not sharing information how does the Israeli Beis Din know the process used. Remember the Chicago Beis Din has been responding to accusations of abuse , without any complaints for fourteen years.

  50. I posted this comment before RDE posted the IBD letter. Which by the way, specifically states the CBD signed a shtar berurin. What grounds does CBD now refuses to follow the (admittedly wrong, but binding on the CBD) psak of the IBD? You can't do that in a din torah (or in civil arbitration.) The ah bet din of the CBD is notorious for issuing seruvim for this reason, even before a shtar berurin. The IBD perhaps should consider issuing a seruv against the CBD, but that would interfere with the overall goal of resolving the seminary issue.

  51. i know for a fact lopin is working for gottesman, he sold out for money. he uses a blog for sexual abuse scandals but its really a front and takes money to present the side that pays him the most. ive been involved with him and saw it first hand. he makes up names like "truthseeker" and writes posts in accordance to his agenda. its all about money with lopin.. he couldnt care less about victims or at least the ones who pay him the most he cares about. he has tainted the entire picture regarding the IBD who are excellent dayanim all because gottesman paid him a heck of a lot to do it. everyone knows it and truth is coming out. fellow jews lopin is dishnest and destroys people for money!!!!!!!!

  52. If the CBD claims the iBD exceeded its authority (by not accepting witnesses, by not arranging a full fledged sale, etc) then the CBD / IBD shtar berurin must be disclosed (here.) If it says powers limited to ... whatever limits .. that's one thing. Otherwise, we have to assume full powers, at discretion of IBD

  53. @sunny you are a troll. If you have any real evidence produce it or I will block your future comments on the subject.

  54. "And american batei din have a terrible record in keeping confidences."

    Sad but seems true in light of all the leaks of correspondences on the internet, and the dismay of details strategically release - to what seems their inner circles - to justify their position by besmirching EVERYONE associated with ALL the seminaries.


  55. If the chicago beis din feels that there's sakanos nefashos involved with sending girls to the seminaries I don't see how it matters one iota what they said or signed (even assuming the facts align 100% with the IBD). They would be allowed and have a chiyuv to publicize their opinion regardless.

  56. Also why does everyone seem to be treating this as just another dinei mamonos spat. From what I understand the rabbanim and batei dinim who deal with sexual abuse NEVER follow the regular hilchos eidus etc.; lest we forget that all the accusers here are women (pasul) and many children who are molested are ketanim, eid echad, or kerovim. They treat abuse as safek pikuach nefesh or makin vi'onshin shelo min hatorah limigdar milsa. This fact seems so basic here.

  57. @Moshe you are correct the psak of the Shoel U'Meishiv is followed

    Sho’el U’Meishiv (1:185): Rumors spread about a certain teacher who had lived in that city for 8 years. Children that he had taught while they were young and now were 13 years or more older testified that he had sodomized them when they were younger. The previous summer a certain G d fearing man found out about this and was outraged and informed the rav of the community. However the rav did not want to accept this testimony… However the Maharik and the Terumas HaDeshen wrote and the Rema rules in Shulchan Aruch that in a situation where kosher witness are not necessary - then even a woman or child is believed. If so, in this matter it is definitely impossible for there to be adult males and it is impossible for there to be testimony in the matter. That is because without a doubt this man – even if he is wicked and dissolute – keeps his deeds secret and he only amuses himself with small children and claims he is only playing with them. Therefore it is obvious that they should be believed. However we are not trying to disqualify him from being a witness or making an oath but we only want to be able to say whether he perhaps did this. Our Sages said in Nida (61) that while it is prohibited to believe lashon harah, the concern aroused by it is required. And in Mo’ed Koton (18) they said that regarding bad talk – at least some of it is true. Therefore woe is to us that in our days such a thing happened that a man like this should be a teacher of children who are pure creatures and there is concern that he violated them. Therefore in my opinion it is appropriate to remove the crown of teacher from his head. They need to be concerned for their souls until he completely repents with appropriate afflictions and only then can he considered a full member of the community and it will be an atonement for his sins. Furthermore as long as he hasn’t confessed his sins then repentance is not possible as the Tevu’os Shor wrote in siman 2…. But in this case where there is testimony – even though it is not from kosher witnesses it is worth more than rumors and it is obvious he should be prevented from getting students to teach.

  58. This is exactly what I don't understand either. They never follow what would normally be considered the rules of Choshen Mishpot, because, in fact, these cases have to do with removing a public danger (mazik es ha'rabim).

    In fact, I understood they CBD was transferring to IBD the choshen mishpat aspects exclusively, particularly since they would not be able to supervise such things from America.

    Now, all of a sudden, IBD believes (and this I believe to be a complete and honest misunderstanding) they they are to be the exclusive venue for ALL aspects of the case, including kabbolas eidus, which they believe needs to be done in an oifen of normal bais din.

    Since when does a beis din in nowadays have control over anything besides monetary issues? The only thing the CBD do was to make sure that Meisels was gone and to provide a psak as to whether the sems in question were safe. Nothing more. And other issues would be dealt with by the appropriate authorities such as the police, if necessary.

    Another point that seems to be lost is that CBD is aware of many girls that complained to the staff of the sems who did absolutely nothing about the abuse. Therefore, they continue to agree that the sems are unsafe. The IBD (who incidentally, made a big to-do about the proper oifen for being mekabel aidus) THEMSELVES paskened that the sems were safe after hearing ONLY ONE SIDE.

    This strikes me mostly as a tragic miscommunication as well as a cultural difference, but the bottom line should be the safety of the girls rather than the viability of the sems.

  59. First sensible comments.

  60. Actually, we have to assume no IBD authorization till they show us delegation by CBD. If IBD had it in writing, they would have showed it. they are clearly quite willing to leak their positions and even their internal correspondence. Instead we get reams of words instead of proof. If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, verbiage is the last refuge of those who have no documents to prove their position. It is Chicago that has written simple clear statements.

  61. People like Rabbi Eidensohn and Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz of Monsey can verify that they have spoken to me and exchanged correspondence over the years and that I am not Gottesman. Let me make a suggestion to you to improve your argument. Just say, that perhaps Gottesman is leaking info which ends up through intermediaries in Lopin's blog. That is possiblle since I dont know where my sources get their documents. I just verify their authenticity and then post. However, for what it is worth, given your conspiratorial suspicions, I am not Gottesman, nor have he and I collaborated in any direct or conscious way in sharing an information related to the Meisels mayseh. I can't swear I never said sholom aleichem to him in shul since I still dont even know how he looks.

  62. I have never had any written communication with him by email, snail mail, text, or any comparable methods of electronic communication. Nor have I ever done morse code or sign language signing. Satisfied?

  63. The claim that Gottesman is Yerachmiel Lopin is absurd and I will simply not approve anymore of this nonsense.

  64. Basides complaining to the seminary staff, did they complain to their high school in america, once they came back to america, about the seminary the high school recommended. High schools, and guidance counselors / israel program advisors / whatever title, are very influential in helping a young lady decide where to go.

    Or is the CBD tryin g to cover up their negligence in not following up. Something s funny going on here.

  65. Kevin. this is one of those paradoxical traps. If I agree, I am no longer one. If I deny it, it is proof of modesty, but my critics will claim I am feigning modesty. ;-)

  66. There is not a shred of written proof, presented to the public and SIGNED by Chicago that CBD passed over authority to IBD. Rabbi Eidensohn, am I missing something or is my statement accurate?

  67. yes this is accurate at the present time

  68. Are you blaming the victims? Are you blaming the schools based on speculation?

    As to the CBD, they first became aware of the allegations on Pesach. They then spent the next several months investigating. Then they determined that the sems weren't safe. What type of negligence are you alleging? They actually did their job of protecting our holy daughters. The very same job that others should have done years ago. If anyone is negligent, it's the teachers and staff who heard complaints but did NOTHING.

  69. Perhaps "Y cohen" doesn't exist and it is really R. Malinowitz who is making the comment. ;-)

  70. This would only be if the testimony is deemed somewhat reliable. We still don't know what the testimony was and what the character of the accuser is. I think everyone would agree that if the accuser has a "history" and isn't credible than she should not be taken seriously

  71. Here it comes again! A bunch of wild allegations without a shred of proof. You don't answer a single point raised by the IBD. THe conduct of the CBD is completely incomprehensible. Creating a new story-line without the slightest bit of evidence or proof doesn't say much about you. Nor does it say much good about Gottesman when the IBD refers to his behavior as that of a Baryon. Many people will learn the Gemorah about the destruction the Baryonim brought about at the churban Habayis.

    We have a modern day Baryon and wants to be considered a Pinchos?! This is indeed outrageous!

  72. Do you agree that

    1. Gottesman is heavily involved with the CBD.

    2. Gottesmans very good friend Zvi Bloom is trying to use this to get the girls from these seminaries to switch over to his seminary.

    Therefore Gottesman needs to be totally removed from having anything to do with the CBD regarding this case.

  73. @Yerachmiel Lopin

    1) so what did the CBD mean when they wrote:

    "Because these institutions and Mr. Meisels are located in
    Israel and not the United States, a distinguished Israeli beis din consisting
    of Rabbis Menachem Mendel Shafran, Chaim Malinowitz, and Tzvi Gartner has
    assumed responsibility for this matter." ?

    What type of responsibility did they give over or explicitly allowed IBD to assume? If it was just to supervise the sale of the school, why did write such a broad statement instead of narrowing it down?

    If this was what the IBD was relying on, can they be blamed for thinking they had more authority?

    2) Who brought whom into the picture? CBD brought in the IBD or vice versa?

  74. Aactually the first. CBDletter specificaly refers the matter to the IBD, actually specifying by name three dayanim.

    The question is what authority did chicago delegate. In absence of specific statement, i assume a standard shtar berrurin delegating everything.

    When signing a shtarberurin / arbitration agreement, chicagomust have clarified what standards of evidence IBD will use, and if they fimdthe facts, what kind of psaq they wi issue. So chicago either messed up (just like they see to have messed up their (non)presentation of the young ladies testimony; the question is did they less up by accident or on purpose, which is what it seems.)

  75. Actually seems as if you are speculating. Did the CBD hear testimony from the staff??

    Is there something wrong with questioning the accuser?? Thats a basic when trying to ascertain whether they are saying the truth.
    The IBD seems to have strong suspicions that there isn't much of a case here.

    There are other people who were involved with the CBD and came to the opposite conclusion. (R Burzystn). I have heard additional Rabbonim from other cities have contacted the CBD and were unconvinced by what they heard.

    Just because someone makes an allegation doesn't give them an untouchable status.

    There are serious concerns regarding the CBD in regard to this Gottesman who is basically running the show. This is alluded to in the IBD letter which calls him out for acting like a Beryon.

  76. Protection holy daughters by disclosing the information in mid summer, when depositSaree paid, holy daughters are excited about going to xx seminary, and ruining their summer and fall.

    Another problem when doing a din torah: don't schedule in summer when rabbonim / witnesses are traveling to israel, the mountains, elsewhere.

    Did high schools know about this sooner? Ask holy daughters who came back last year.

  77. I propose a new solution. Find a parent to demand a refund of her deposit, and demand the IBD authorize other seminaries to recruit their daughter.

    A din torah of this type would be simpler, facts involved are not dependent on actual molestation, just on reputation / accusations of molestation. Meisels would have to prove the reputation is wrong, since proving the reputation is easier.
    And unless the parent messes up like these htoanim seem to have messed up (in my opinion, on purpose), the parent is not dependent on previous din torah, and we have a straight chosen mishpat cadet.

    Question is, what are the criteria for refunds?

  78. vsdgbhiakmp ctfsdyvgubhakmAugust 4, 2014 at 11:39 PM

    How can the IBD have already paskened that the seminaries are safe while they are simultaneously demanding evidence from CBD -- thereby admitting that they DONT know the facts of the staff's culpabiliy in covering up a pattern of abuse?!!!

    The IBD is CLEARLY admitting its own ignorance while having already made a far reaching psak assuring the safety of students. The IBD so-called "Psak" --- by their own admission without any evidence from either the victims or anything CBD heard --- smells of bias/corruption to protect financial interests and jobs at the expense of the safety and well being of Jewish neshamos.

  79. i was always taught to follow the money an important question to clear up here is who is hiring (paying) the IBD to be involved in this. you could ask that q about the CBD and we know the answer is this has been a BD working on these problems for 14 years and they are in well paid rabunus positions to lead the community's that they are employed by (if they are paid at all for this side BD responsibility of there's it is a small amount) contrast this with the IBD who the girls attending the sems are not from there communities, non of the daynim have solid well paying jobs, if suddenly they are hired to sit on a one time BD well there are a lot of chasunas to make it will save a trip to America... so it only makes sense that the IBD would only get involved if hired the CBD has no reason or budget to hire them so that leaves the meisels family that it would be kadie to spend a pretty penny to hire a BD to say the semanary is kosher this would explain why the IBD writes in its letter there main concern is to make sure the semas open also the whole confusion of who started the case and then contacted whom stems from this that the IBD (after being hired by meisels family) told the CBD that they are already taking care of this matter so the CBD does not need to get involved

  80. Kevin, what an uplifting rumor. I happen to think it has validity. Lopin selflessly fights abusers to save the souls of yidden of both sexes. Lopin is a lamed vovnik. IMHO, or deserves the nomenclature for his selfless battle. He does not even have a "gelt box" on his site as does another blogger (nothing wrong with that).

  81. Finally something that Rabbi Eidenson, Lopin, and I can agree upon wholeheartedly!

  82. forget the whole discussion about jurisdiction why can't the CBD deal with the IBD like people instead of ignoring them totally and why would R zev Cohen lie to R feldman straight out and say the IBD never asked them for info as it said in the letter from R feldman to IBD when the IBD clearly said they asked for info

  83. Its very clear that the blogs (not daas Torah- others that rhyme with "open" and begin with an L) have been severely and calculatedly misleading the oilam. There is a reason people are assuming YL is Gottesman, Personally, I don't care. But these letters deserve fair assessment like this blog is doing. Yasher koach for your honesty Rabbi E. I wish more blog sites (ehem..) would not develop information with fantasy interpretations which lead the readers to skewed interpenetrations. Don't people realize we are dealing with peoples' lives. Why exaggerate and misrepresent people in ways that will destroy them???? There is a whole other side to this saga that the IBD is revealing. Those honest will see it...

  84. " Meisels would have to prove the reputation is wrong, since proving the reputation is easier."

    Meisels would not have to prove anything, since he no longer owns the seminaries. The din Torah would be with Yarmish. He could argue that R' Shafran's beis din was machshir the seminaries.

  85. Gottesman first tried to get the seminaries and their assets transferred into his name. Next he tried to have them sold to his Torah U'Mesorah colleague Bloom. At that point, for some reason, it wasn't deemed necessary to close them down. Only now that they've been sold to someone else have they suddenly been transformed into a danger that cannot be allowed to remain open. Interesting.

  86. I would be if I believed a word you write.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.