Seminary Scandal: Rav Aharon Feldman's role - and why both sides are attacking him

One of the mysteries of the Seminary Scandal is the role of Rav Aharon Feldman. Rav Aharon Feldman is well known as the Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Israel of Baltimore and as someone well acquainted not only with the Torah world of learning but the real world of people and their concerns. But in a recent letter from the Israeli Beis Din and from one of its dayanim - Rav Malinowitz - Rav Feldman is strongly criticized for his involvement and his apparently trying to bridge the gap between the Israeli Beis Din and the Chicago Beis Din.  It is also well known that one of the blogs - Frum Follies has attacked Rav Feldman in very harsh terms. My concern has been trying to understand why he is being attacked and to reconcile this with the fact that he is a rav whose reputation is not to create disputes but to resolve them.

I had the occasion to speak with a few people today that have fragments of the picture. They agree in one aspect - that Rav Aharon Feldman was sincerely trying to make peace between the two warring beis dins - especially by making them into a joint beis din. It also seems that he was a bit too credulous (with all due respect) in assuming that his sincere commonsense would be enough to reconcile the differences between strong personalities with strong differences of opinion. The new development of pending criminal and civil claims seems to have made this joint beis din impossible.

I was also given a letter which I was told could be published. The letter was written by Rav Aharon to a lawyer who represents two of the victims who accused Rav Aharon of meddling in the case when he was not authorized by any of the victims. The letter is interesting in that he clearly states that he was only appointed by the Israeli Beis Din as the pro forma plaintiff. [I was just informed that the Chicago Beis Din had also requested that he represent the victims so he obviously was acceptable to both sides.] Thus he had no significant role in determining the course or the focus of the beis din activity.  It is important to note that he says the Israeli Beis Din was concerned primarily with monetary compensation to the victims and whether the principals of the schools were liable also.

His attempt at smoothing over differences with the Chicago Beis Din explains why he was criticized harshly by the Israeli Beis Din even though he was officially recognized as being a participant in the process of the Israeli Beis Din. His main concern was to make peace in order that the primary focus of the dayanim on both sides would be to help the victims as well as to improve the manner in which the seminaries deal with these issues so that there would not be a repetition of this tragedy. On the other hand the Chicago Beis Din is not happy with his attempt to have them rescind their advisory not to attend the seminaries and as well as his concern for the continued existence of the seminary and their teachers. Thus his attempt at compromise is viewed as betrayal by both sides. Not a good place to be.

This is only a brief discussion without touching on the many unresolved questions. For example  why there is no mention of the possible negligence of the senior seminary staff in not stopping Meisels(even though they are discussing whether they owe compensation)?  Or why there is no formal confession by Meisels and well as an apology? Were psychologists and education experts consulted by either beis din? What was the controversy over who should buy the seminaries? What was the role of R Gottesman? And what impact does pending criminal and civil suits have to do with the ability of the beis din to resolve the matter successfully- if at all? Why do both beis dins seem to be unconcerned with how their fight is undermining emunas chachomim - as Rav Aharon pointed out in his letter to the Israel Beis Din?

====================================

From: Rav Aharon Feldman
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:13 AM
To: B. C.
Subject: RE: Mr. Meisels - Israeli Beis Din

Dear Mr. C.

In reply to your letter to me of July 16, 2014, I would like to state the following:

1.       I was appointed by the Israel Beis Din to act as the pro forma plaintiff (to’en) necessary for initiating a din torah (a trial held in accordance with Torah laws). I specifically stated at the beginning of the proceedings that I did not represent anyone who does not want me to represent him, which referred to the two clients whom you represent.

2.       The counsel for Elimelech Meisels began his defense by claiming that I was not empowered to represent anyone. The Chief Dayan (the head of the Beis Din) replied that he is technically correct but this is immaterial since Meisels had already confessed and that the din torah was to establish the amount of compensation to be paid the victims and to decide if the principals of the schools are liable to pay damages as well. Counsel agreed to this and to continue the din torah.

3.       Having performed my pro forma duties I left the proceedings after one or two people were called to testify since my presence was no longer needed. I had nothing to do with the judgment issued at the end.

4.       The din torah was not related to Meisel’s guilt, as you seem to have assumed. This had been  established by his previous confession, as above. Consequently, your suggestion that the Beis Din “whitewashed” Meisels has no basis in fact.

Respectfully,

Aharon Feldman