Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Seminary Scandal: Summary of the views of the Israeli Beis Din on all major issues

The following is my personal understanding of the views of the Israeli Beis Din (IBD) on all major issues - from documents and from discussions with people close to the IBD. I would welcome someone presenting the view of the Chicago Beis Din (CBD) and I will publish it – if appropriate - in a future posting. Please note that this is not the official view of the IBD - so I welcome corrections.

I would like to thank Rabbi Yosef Blau - mashgiach ruchani of Yeshiva University – for suggesting that it would be helpful to publicly clarify the views of the IBD on the major issues.
===========================================================
1) Any danger related to Meisels has been removed by his total dissociation from the seminaries

2) The sale is an absolute sale and was supervised by one of the gedolim. The claim of the CBD that it is a sham sale because Yaakov Yarmish is an old buddy is simply false as they didn't have anything to do with each other until about a month ago. Yaakov Yarmish clearly is a successful business man with a reputation of honesty and integrity. He is not a puppet of Meisels. Meisels has no connection with the school and will not return

3) The claims of the involvement of senior staff in the improper behavior were dealt with by extensive grilling of the senior staff by the dayanim of the IBD who are very experienced in these issues. The staff passed the interrogation with flying colors.

4) The claims of the CBD that there were senior staff that were complicit is bizarre for two reasons a) if the CBD considers them a danger than they are violating at least 1 doreissa prohibition in not sharing the information b) if in fact the CBD is not sharing the information when they are certain that there is a present danger - when required both by halacha and commonsense - it strongly undermines the credibility of the CBD and their words have no significance.

5) The claim of the CBD that information of any and all types including the complaints of students cannot be shared because of the lawsuit - contradicts what lawyers have told the IBD and in addition the secular law doesn't excuse the CBD from following the obligation of halacha - especially if they view that there is a clear threat of danger or psychological harm

6) Given that a) the CBD is not credible at this point because of their - inexplicable and without any explanation or forewarning - reneging on their agreement on the whole setting up of the IBD (and not only to share information) before any decision was reached. And because they refused explicit requests - countless times - for the information before any sort of decision was reached. And also because they inexplicably refused to be made part of a broader beis din (as suggested by Rav Aharon Feldman) in which they would have become full-fledged members of a reformed beis din and all the evidence would have been heard together. b) the IBD has carefully examined the staff and found no problem and c) the school staffs are now under close supervision and new protocols (as recommended by secular experts) are in place - and therefore the likelihood of the staff presenting a danger to any student is insignificant.

7) If in spite of the danger being insignificant, it is determined that there is a problematic staff member  - one that had been undetected from before or one who develops a problem or a new staff member is discovered to be a problem - such staff will be terminated as would be done in any other well‑run seminary.

8) Regarding the claim that the IBD is preventing transfers or the acceptance by other seminaries - that is categorically false. If there is an actual fear to transfer because of misunderstanding or timidity - the IBD will issue a public statement that there is no prohibition against this - only active recruiting is prohibited.

9) Regarding the refund of deposits based on a claim of mekach taus. This is not a simple issue because the seminaries have a legitimate claim that they have no reason to cause themselves severe financial damage or bankruptcy when it has been clearly established by the IBD that there is no danger. Thus it is a case of monetary dispute where halacha requires that a beis din decide or at least a neutral posek recognized by both sides. This is the issue of the Pischei Teshuva regarding eating meat that a question arose and a rav paskened it was kosher. If in fact the posek or beis din decides that the money must be refunded - it will be even if it causes severe financial damage or bankruptcy.

As an illustration of the problem of the deposit:
What would happen if you ordered 20 thousand dollars of beef from Argentina a number of weeks ago? You put down a non-refundable deposit. The supplier invested the deposit in order to obtain the meat. Sometime during shipment an incident happened that raised serious questions about the meat. The question was brought before the gedolim and they ruled that the meat was kosher l'chatchila. You decided however that you didn't want to eat meat that was questionable and required a psak and you demanded your money back. The seller says the gedolim clearly paskened it was kosher. You say I don't care because maybe they were wrong.

Would you still declare it was a lack - of even an ounce of yashrus - for the supplier to refuse to return the money which would cause him bankruptcy in order to fulfill your demands for meat that never had a question? The meat is not transferable because all those who wanted meat had already bought it - so it can't be sold to recover the loss.

60 comments :

  1. It's all pretty much speculative for outsiders as only the cbd and ibd have the facts. And even with regards to the batei din one bd might have a different set of facts than the other.

    What is clear to outsiders is the reaction of the seminaries themselves. The heads of each seminary can take steps to gain the confidence of the public. Admit what happened. Be transparent. Publicize what's being done to ensure it won't happen again. Offer a refund of deposits. The batei din don't matter much at this point... it's what the seminaries do that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I remain wholly confused both by the IBD and the CBD.

    I can't understand why the CBD (assuming they did so) would pass the case to the IBD and then withhold all the information. If they didn't trust the IBD, why couldn't they find a different beit din in Israel they did trust? Or just not deal with an Israeli Beit Din at all. It seems from their p'sak that R. Meisels agreed to their jurisdiction; if they wanted him to sell (or leave the boards of, if they are really non-profits) the seminaries themselves. And if they didn't ask for the IBD involvement why did they mention them in the initial letter?

    And I still can't understand how the Israeli Beit Din heard a case without a toveiah (plaintiff) or an authorized representative of one. Rav Feldman said he was to serve as a liaison between the battei din (although what good a liaison with no information is, I can't fathom) and Rav Safran appointed him as a nominal to'en knowing he had no information. What use could that serve? And if the IBD lacked crucial information (i.e. the claims of the victims) why and how did they pasken anything? Why didn't they just tell the CBD (assuming it was the CBD who asked for their involvement) they couldn't do anything without the information and disband? How much can you accomplish by questioning the staff without knowing specifically what the victims claim the staff (and which staff members) either did or was negligent in not doing?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry , but your illustration about the meat
    is IRRELEVANT to "the problem of the deposit"
    because
    REGARDLESS of the ibd psak, the fact remains that the parents registered their daughter for an ACCREDITED sem. if it no longer is accredited, then there IS halachic grounds for a refund.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here, the rabbis of Chicago gave a psak the meat is not acceptable. Since this meat is an export transaction, the seller took upon himself the buyer's rav. ?(of course, the chicago rabbonim accepted upon themselves the IBD, then reneged on their acceptance, besides issues of corruption. N

    Nevertheless, you can't sell this meat in america, except as "sug bet" ( = second class), or more properly third / fourth class, w. (I'm writing about parents who paid overblown tuition in past years.) when the meat was originally sold as sug aleph.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's my understanding of the relationship between the CBD and the IBD:

    HKBH promises that wickedness will not prevail forever in the halls of His justice.

    על כן לא יקומו רשעים במשפט

    He has arranged matters so that R' Shafran's beis din of true dayanim, yirei shomayim, has become an obstacle in the path of the rishus being perpetrated by the CBD and Gottesman, who otherwise would have had things all their own way. May these דיינים אמתיים see success in protecting these מקומות התורה and the people who work there. And may the CBD be exposed for the false and corrupt institution it is.

    כי יודע השם דרך צדיקים ודרך רשעים תאבד

    ReplyDelete
  6. the comments here, and this overview seem so much more balanced than the wild statements made heretofore. As an upcoming parent, I do hope that the comments of elamdan are now eventuated, and quickly. Time for the schools to be forthcoming

    ReplyDelete
  7. I find it hard to imagine that they will do so. I know for a fact that at least one seminary head insists that there was no sexual contact at all, only "kalus rosh."

    ReplyDelete
  8. I doubt that the heads of the seminaries will do any such thing. I know firsthand that at least one of them claims that there was no sexual contact, just "kalus rosh."

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think there was another very choshuve' point not mentioned, and it is a point that was specifically mentioned in the IBD letter to RAF.
    That point is that there are a number of seminaries of those four that no one ever claimed to have had complaints from, and as mentioned in the letter meisels didn't even teach there and hardly ever walked in and he was strictly a business owner/ Why is this going against all of the seminaries as a whole because it was owned by a bad guy?????? There is absolutely NO REASON that because an owner did something that whatever he owns is now all of a sudden dangerous!!!! Just as an example Do you know who OWNS BJJ??? Not Rebetzin David!!! And do you know who OWNS every company and school??????
    All this makes it sound a little too much that there are personal aggendas here against either meisels or someone that wants (actually wanted) to buy these schools as a package deal!!!!!!!!!1

    ReplyDelete
  10. I cannot understand why a few refunds should ruin a seminary. The new "owner" just "bought" it, so he might have to invest a bit until the reputation is restaured. But how should 5 or even 10 refunds "ruin" a seminary? If this is the case, it was not financially solid to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Yehoshua - that is all that Meisels confessed to and any other charges are not accepted as true until there is a conviction either in beis din or secular court. Any normal person obviously has to act as if they are true to protect him - but no one can say the other charges have been proven in beis din or secular court and he is guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  12. re posting my comment on the issue of refunds
    VO:yarmush is an opportunist who is busy boasting to his buddies how he is going to trash r Fuersts name to allow his "lucrative" investment to succeed he bought a seminary that the rabbonim of chicago said is not safe and is now complaining that they wont allow it to remain open that's chutzpa
    until he does the right thing and gives an immediate refund to anyone who signed up and now says this is not what i was paying for refund my deposit he deserves respect from no one (this is not a situation that came up after the parents paid in which case you tell them to bad this was there and hidden from parents as they made there choice to send)

    DT: Are you claiming to be a parent who is being denied the deposit? Is so why not take him to beis din to have the matter resolved?

    VO:i know from parents who have been trying to get there deposits back that Yarmush made clear that he will not refund, it is very hard to take the sems to a BD when r gartner is the sem appointed arbitrator and he is saying the sems do not have to refund the money the only thing harder than getting stolen money back in a B"D is doing it when the thief already hired a B"D saying they don't have to return, unfortunately our B"D system only works if both parties are acting in good faith yarmush has a less than sterling reputation for yashrus considering his refusal to refund parents (yes they should drag him to a din torah if they can but the fact that he is making them do that in a case like this were it is very clear that they were mislead into buying into these sems reflects very poorly on his character and judgment)

    DT: not refunding the money doesn't show that he is lacking in yashrus. He is relying on indepdendent authorities that the seminaries are safe. Why should he bankrupt his seminaries before they start?

    VO:I think any one with an ounce of yashrus sees that these parents only signed up for these sems because they were kept in the dark about the going ons at the sems if they had known when they were considering these sems they would of had the power to decide if the sems were a safe place and somewhere they were comfortable sending there daughters .now that they were misled and the sems took there money the right thing to do is give them back the right to decide if they want to send to say that now that they were tricked into signing up they lose there power to decide and now only the IBD rabonim can decide is extremely krum

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am not talking about what Meisels has admitted. I am saying that if eLamdan, or anyone else, is waiting for transparency from the seminary heads, they will have to wait a very long time. Also, my impression is that the CBD has stated to anyone that will ask that it went far beyond kalus rosh.

    ReplyDelete
  14. r doneil there are two obvious problems with your analogy 1. the sems knew there were problems when they sold it originally
    2. kashrus (halachik permissiblity of eating) of the meat depends on a rabbi saying it is so (at which point there is eid eched and a mitzvah to accept the psak of a rov similar to lo sasur), on the other hand safety of a seminary is a metzius that a psak cannot create it is the right and obligation of every parent to make sure they are sending there daughters to a safe place if the sems took money while withholding information that the parents would have based there decision on they should not lose the right to make that decision. when a rov passkens on an isur veheter shillah unless I am a learned fellow I have a mitzvah to follow his psak how ever when I have a question if something is safe there is no reason to follow a rav any more than anyone else's opinion. Regardless of whether they could drag the money out of the sems in a Din Torah the proper thing to do is refund those who do not feel it is safe this is not a piece of meat that a rabbis psak should by deciding for them

    i find it hard to believe that you are so morally obtuse as to not see this is a clear wrong way to act

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Mimedinat HaYam - the Chicago Beis din did not say the meat is not acceptable - but that thehy don't advise it at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  16. BG - the illustration is clearly relevant as is the requirement to go to beis din to resolve it. The likelihood that your argument would prevail in beis din is irrelevant to the requirement to go to beis din to resolve the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  17. for an extended shaklevataria http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/seminary-scandal-summary-of-views-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. you alleged " Yaakov Yarmish clearly is a successful business man with a reputation of honesty and integrity" to make people drag you to B"D to recover something that you should very obviously be returning is certainly not honest or integrate

    ReplyDelete
  19. @vafsi ode - a legitimate monetary dispute does not mean that one or both parties are lacking honesty and integrity. The fact that you view it is obvious - doesn't preclude that others don't view it as obvious. This is a legitimate dispute that most business man encounter at some time in their career. Your condescending and contemptuous attitude doesn't help the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Yehoshua - I agree with your impressions - but that doesn't constitute a trial and conviction - just accusations. If the CBD really believed fully the allegations it is criminal that they haven't goe to the police - either in America or Israel and filed charges.

    Please note that the CBD kept silent for at least 2 months after they got involved in the case and not only did not go to the police but they kept silent. Why didn't they warn the students that they were in danger because of Meisels and that there were staff that might have been involved - as they are doing now? Why was the CBD involved in an active coverup?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have heard that Meisels stopped his involvement in the schools several months before the end of the year, so that the CBD felt (correctly or not) that the students were not in any danger. I don't know that the CBD has any standing to go to the police in Israel or the U.S. without the actual victims filing charges, I am not sufficiently well versed in mandatory reporting laws in both places. In Israel, I am pretty sure that it is only if the victim is in the category of "chaser onim," which would apply only to minors or those mentally disabled.

    ReplyDelete
  22. while your questions on the CBD's conduct are very valid i would not be so quick to draw conclusions without knowing what happened. it is entirely plausible to me that the CBD was strung along by Meisels as he feigned cooperation, and requested from them in return some time to make the sems a safe and stable place before things come out in public, and he loses all the students and sems go bankrupt, when the CBD later saw he was using these stall tactics to try to undermine there efforts they made there findings public

    ReplyDelete
  23. the point of the "simple jew" goes to the heart of the matter. As an upcoming chedvas parent, this issue has made my daughter into a victim= no place to go.
    Meisels has not been in the school for 2 years at least. Furthermore, it is very likely that Kehane[ no I am not defending Kehane, his letter, or anything else about him personally] moved Chedvas out of the Peninim building because there was something about it that was not quite right. So why is Chedvas being punished??
    And, if there was any evidence that someone is actually involving all 4 schools just so that they can pressure the schools to close and open a different school, the current law suit won't be the only one filed.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you meant to reply it is cut off, unless "H" is a new emoticon I don't know of.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The May 19th document from the beit Din in Chicago seems to give permission to go to court. One can argue that the CBD shouldn't have given it, perhaps, but I don't think you can say the victims went to court without permission.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thank you for responding to my questions. However with the best of intentions of the Israeli Beis Din questioning the administrators and staff alone is not an investigation that can determine whether there were enablers or a coverup of abuse. I have been questioned at length in two separate investigations of institutions after serious allegations of abuse. In both cases professional investigators worked for months gathering information from those who claimed to have been abused or witnessed suspicious behavior or reported to authorities and were ignored. After having specific charges every person connected to the institutions whose name were mentioned was questioned.
    The further discussion about refunds is based on the determination that there is no danger. Parents who are concerned with their daughter'a safety have every right and responsibility to rely on a different Beis din that had actually heard from victims. Any complaints about how one or the other Beis din has acted is irrelevant to the role of parents .

    ReplyDelete
  27. The parents can't rely on a different beis din to force a refund if the institution didn't submit to the other beisdins jurisdiction and has this beis din ruling it isn't obligated to give a refund.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ofcourse the parents should go to a competent rav or beit din. my point is that there is an issue of " i was told you - the sem. is offering quality A & i paid for quality A, & now you are only giving me B". THIS is NOT addressed in your illustration!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. And therefore it has no / little value on the marketplace.

    Its only value is to sell it to shoprite / othets regular treif meat.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dear fellow bloggers,


    After reviewing most of the blogs and comments on this issue, I would like to share my point of view as I have not seen any comments writing with my thought process.


    First of all, I think we should all trust that both Beis Din's have the best intentions, and are both paskening according to halocha, I know there is enough gray area for both to be right.


    Nevertheless I disagree with the comment about comparing these seminary's to questionable meat, this is not a product, this is an experience, at this time no bais din can ever restore full confidence in any way shape or form, even hypothetically if Meizels should have been retroactively fully vindicated, this school is not the same, there is a reason spreading false rummors is such a grave sin, see what Hashem did to Korach and his people.


    If cleaning up house would be enough, "Enron" ,"World Com", would have been saved, Billions of dollars have been lost because of the scandals at those companies, make no mistake, they were real companies, they had real customers, they had honest employees, but but, the CEO and some upper management had deceived the public, and lost the trust, it doesn't mean that everyone in upper management was involved, it makes no difference, it was collateral damage, from the moment suppliers and customers doubt the credibility of management there is no chance.


    Tyco international, had a problem with their CEO, who in my opinion was a great guy that did some stupid things, they got rid of him very quickly, changed the company in many ways, they survived, upper management had nothing to do with the allegations of the old CEO, but the new
    CEO got rid of the old upper management, I think that was key to restoring confidence and helping the company survive.


    There are so many examples of other great companies that should have survived, with bright and honest people eg: Lehman brothers, Bear Sterns, Washington Mutual, it was a classical run on the bank.


    There is no way in the world after the first day this scandal came out this seminary can offer the same experience as they had in the past, it was wishful thinking, I don't even know what to compare this too, almost like a Dr or nurse, who you have to put total trust in, once there is a question if they are psycho and enjoy hurting or killing people would anyone dream of leaving their loved one in their care. Never, No chance.


    I think the money should be returned immediately to every person, anyone that would like to reapply it would be their choice.


    In my opinion the only chance of survival of all these seminary's, would be to fire everyone in upper management and change the names of the seminary's.


    Why would any parent send their daughter to a seminary where the talk among the girls will be all about this scandal, all upper management will always be questioned, who needs it.


    Bottom line, this has nothing to do with halocha, you can do all the investigations in the world, with out a miracle like we would see in the time of the bais hamikdash regarding a "sotah", not enough if she did not blow up and die, she had to be blessed in an open way so people should have no doubt, there should be no reason to try and save these seminary's, hashem will help those that loose their jobs, hashem will help the students with new plans, and all the people that lost money.


    Collateral Damage

    ReplyDelete
  31. He is not saying the parents can use the beis din to force. He is saying the parents are entitled to the money and the institutions should pay. I'm not supposed to wait for a beis din to force me to pay every time I owe someone money!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bd is just a halachic means to get money that is owed. But the parents should not have to take the sems to bd. If the sems had any brains and morals they would realize they owe the money and would pay. Making someone take u to beis din isn't always the right thing to do!

    ReplyDelete
  33. If a major sex scandal and a beis din questioning the sems safety is not an obvious reason to get a deposit back then what does qualify? How is it not obvious?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Here is a suggestion:
    Many people are suggesting that it is a straw sale - based on the time frame (the IBD got the case and announced the sale 8 hours later) as well as the non-profit aspect of the entity types etc. Why doesn't the IBD and Yarmish PUBLICIZE the full details of the sale, as well as make the documents of the sale public?

    ReplyDelete
  35. That's incorrect. They can go to any beis din they please to force a refund. If the defendant argues for a different venue, there are procedures to follow in choosing one. No reason they could not be followed.

    ReplyDelete
  36. it is entirely plausible to me that the CBD was strung along by Meisels as he feigned cooperation

    A beis din that can be strung along [for two months] and fooled is an absolutely incompetent beis din. Period.

    when the CBD later saw he was using these stall tactics to try to undermine there efforts



    Please be so kind as to tell us what was it that was undermining their efforts. Please be very specific - no ambiguous accusations. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. You're not explaining, in any way, the CBD's turnaround.


    What happened between May and July?

    ReplyDelete
  38. you are comparing proverbial apples to oranges.

    Perhaps a fairer example would be if I hired a therapist (or lawyer or accountant) through their personal corporation because I trusted them and wanted them to do the work or at a minimum oversee it. I struck a deal with them for $20,000 worth of services to be paid in advance and paid the company.
    then the company was sold and the old owner completely distanced himself from any activity involving the company

    The new owners have letters of approbation from every governing board of their profession attesting to their competence and professionalism.

    Technically I am probably not entitled to a refund since I hired the company and the company was still there.

    I don't think anyone will argue that the right thing to do is refund the money to anyone who does not want to deal with the new owner.

    This is different than buying meat or contracting for printing services where it can be argued that the product is the same regardless as to the owner. these fields rely on trust and faith in the person yo are dealing with. When entrusting one of our children to someone we need to have trust and faith in the person we are entrusting our children to. that person can not just shift the trust to someone else.

    Based on my belief that Meisels did most of the recruiting and my first-hand knowledge that at least two of the schools other than Pninim boasted that they were under the auspices of "Rabbi Elimelech Meisels" it is clear to me that this more like the therapist and less like the butcher.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Why do they have to divulge this personal information. Secondly, do you think for a moment that if the info is divulged it could clear this up to those that are opposed to it? Please create the hypothetical sale that would be acceptable? There isn't any.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Collateral Damage


    Why did the CBD originally not feel the need to destroy the seminaries and the collateral damage? What enlightened them to this view in those two months? Did you convince them?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'm not waiting for anything. My point is that the batei din are largely irrelevant at this point except for those who are interested in rabbinic politics. If the seminaries want to turn themselves around they can do so - and blaming a particular b"d for not saving them when they can take steps to save themselves does not make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The IBD got the case weeks before the sale was announced. Don't know where you get this 8 hour thing you keep repeating.

    ReplyDelete
  43. If there is a dispute about whether you are owed the money, you need to go to beis din. In this case, there are grounds for a dispute. It's not an open-shut thing.

    ReplyDelete
  44. No doubt. But that has yet to occur. And until a beis din issues an order demanding a refund, the institution has no halachic obligation to give a refund.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Very good points.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The institution denies they owe a refund. Therefore there is a economic dispute between the parent(s) demanding a refund and the institution. That monetary dispute can only be resolved in a beis din trial. Until there is a beis din trial and verdict that a refund is due, the institution has no halachic obligation to give it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Just a little sidepoint. Worldcom *was* saved. They were purchased by Verizon.

    ReplyDelete
  48. he undermined them by getting the IBD to come and step in and say they are kosher

    ReplyDelete
  49. you forgot to mention the loss of accreditation/gov funding and a principle who was one of the major draws to the sem

    ReplyDelete
  50. he undermined them by getting the IBD to come and step in and say they are kosher


    Nice. You assert that
    1) Meisels controls Rabbi Shafran, Rabbi Milnowitz and Rabbi Gartner.
    2) That the CBD was foolish and incompetent in handing over the reigns to the IBD, a B"D that's controlled by Meisels.


    Weird assertions!
    Either way you are asserting that the CBD is incompetent.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I would imagine they thought it was in the best interest of the girl's to keep it open, when they realized that the public would not feel comfortable, they thought it's not fair to force parents to send their girls to a school with such a stigma.

    ReplyDelete
  52. If you consider that saved, then I get your point, in my view, all of those companies were wiped out, only the buyers benefited from the customer base and some of the employees, none of the goodwill was saved.

    The proof is, they don't market anything under those names, the accounts were taken over by trustworthy companies.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I don't understand what you're saying. Why did they change their mind? Who created the atmosphere of stigma? How does this fit in to your explanation of collateral damage?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Neveyackyack, excellent point. As a past Chedvas parent, I actually will defend Kahane as long as you brought him up :). He is a phenomenal mechanech and runs an excellent school. My daughter had a life changing experience there and I would recommend the school to anyone. The staff members are gems as well. We are all scratching our heads at the fact that an issue in one or two of the other schools was blamed on all four. My daughter and her friends don't even know who Rabbi Meisels is!! Doesn't seem fair to include them in the psak.

    ReplyDelete
  55. And here shareholder Meisels was wiped out only leaving the employees and customer base (students). So it worked just the same in the seminary case as above once Meisels was out.

    ReplyDelete
  56. That is based on their "evidence" that they seemingly lack the confidence to release...

    ReplyDelete
  57. I learned under Gedolim Reb Aharon Kotler, Reb Moshe Feinstein, Reb Yaacov Kaminetsky, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev all of them zt"l and other great sages of the past and present generation. One thing I heard directly from Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt'l is that when a Beth Din coerces a GET, he takes away from it Chezkas Beth Din. This means that we no longer assume that the Gittin it issues are valid. A recent Sefer that has been placed for free in the shulls in Erets Yisroel has the written opinions of Gedolei HaDor today Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner, Rav Nissim Karelits and his Beth Din and others shlit"o that one who received a GET from such a Beth Din needs another GET. I am in touch with the leading Botei Dinim in the world, and I say this: In the next generation there will be many who will not accept the children of some divorced ladies. And some will consider the children born of such a GET as possible mamzerim. My point in all of this right here is that we have today many Beth Dins that are not worth of that title. This is mainly because there is no Gadol at least in America to reign them in. I understand that some children became irreligious over the battle of the Beth Dins. I know one of the people in one of the Beth Dins, and I know that he fits perfectly into the category of what Rav Elyashev zt"l told me. Whoever sites with him sits in an unvalid Beth Din.
    Dovid Eidensohn.845-578-1917

    ReplyDelete
  58. Few batei din will want to get involved / take the case.

    Bateii din try to avoid controversy. Esp in a small claims case such as this.

    And as a practical matter, you'll have to band together with other parents.

    That's why you will have to go to IBD. Maybe CBD, but new owner won't agree.

    ReplyDelete
  59. A friend of mine used to work for AIG. That is a major liability for him, even though she worked in a very profitable department. She tells me many former coworkers deleted AIG from their resume, it is so despised in the industry.

    ReplyDelete
  60. AIG is alive and well today and has 64,000 employees. They don't seem to be quitting their jobs.

    ReplyDelete

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