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.