Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Seminary Scandal: Harry Maryles fails to get his facts and halacha straight before he pontificates

While it is true that I said that it is time to move on in dealing with the Seminary scandal, Harry Maryles just posted an article attacking me that is so full of false analogies and distorted facts that I can't ignore it. Harry Maryles demands justice - but so does the IBD and myself. What is it that Harry doesn't understand? Because I respect Harry as a sincere person I will try explaining the facts one more time - in clear style with my point repeated a couple times - and hopefully this time he will understand.

First of all my statement that is was time to end the discussion of this scandal and get on with life is simple a recognition that the discussion has become repetition, shrill and is not accomplishing anything. It is not, contrary to Harry Maryles, comparable to Hillary Clinton's attempt to avoid facing facts and cover up events - before facts were known. That should be obvious to anybody who has read my many posts on the subjects and the comments that I have spent countless hours responding to all type of questions and criticism. That is called a cover up? Ridiculous!

Secondly it is elementary that a judge needs to pasken on the information he has been presented. When no new information is forthcoming the judge needs to make a decision based on the available evidence. This doesn't mean that he refuses to consider information that comes later. The Sanhedrin, acknowledging the possibility of error even in capital cases, even after they sentenced someone to death - still remained open to the possibility that new information would exonerate the one found guilty. They set up a communication system - that could stop his execution up to the last instant. Would Harry Maryles claim that the Sanhedrin was acting like Hillary Clinton because they said that they needed to arrive at a pask after no new information was forthcoming ?!

Thirdly a stalemate had developed in the situation between the CBD and IBD. The IBD requested the information that CBD had collected and the CBD refused.  The CBD issued a advisory not to go to the seminaries because they claimed some staff was complicit - but at the same time they refused the IBD's request to see the information needed to pasken whether  in fact any staff was complicit. The CBD has no ability to resolve this issue because the seminaries have signed a shtar with the IBD. (The CBD is in America and the seminaries are in Israel.That is why the CBD asked the IBD to take the case.) The seminaries thus could not clear their names according to the demands of the CBD but the CBD did not have the authority or ability to fire staff they claim had to go.

Contrary to Harry Maryles repeated claims, the IBD is not letting the seminaries go ahead knowing that there was staff that enabled  Meisels misdeeds. The CBD has not produced the evidence they claim incriminates some staff members. At this point, the IBD says the CBD lacks credibility. A beis din can only act on evidence that it has. Unsubstantiated claims of evidence that are not produced despite repeated requests - does not influence the judgment of beis din. Elementary rule of beis din.

Thus the CBD was holding the seminaries and the students hostage unless they were given total control. The seminaries and the IBD refused. Finally the stalemate was broken by the letter from the 5 American gedolim - including Rav Levine - who is a member of the CBD. The message was clear. Based on their intimate knowledge of the situation they declared - contrary to the CBD - that the seminaries were fine places to learn and safe. They added a Vaad hachinuch and Reb Birnbaum as overall director for added protection beyond what other seminaries have.

Again contrary to Harry Maryles' faulty understanding - this is no way comparable to Hillary Clinton's cover up. This was a move taken by 5 gedolim after careful consideration - that it was time to get on with life. His criticism of me is misplaced. I was simply reporting the message that is inherent in the letter of these gedolim. Harry doesn't like this or understand it because he is so committed to the CBD that anything against them has to be a signs of corruption, moral blindness or maybe plain stupidity. 
 Harry Maryles is wrong!

Until the CBD has produced evidence that the staff were Meisels enablers - these 5 gedolim are supporting the view of the  IBD  that the seminaries are safe. They are saying the CBD can not hold the seminaries hostage for their own selfish purposes. 

 I am capitalizing the following statement because Harry Maryles seems to have problem reading.  As I have stated this idea a number of times already in different posts.

 IF AND WHEN THE CBD PRODUCES EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE ENABLERS AMONGST THE STAFF - THEY WILL BE FIRED IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE CONFIRMED BY THE  ISRAELI BEIS DIN. FURTHERMORE IF AND WHEN EVIDENCE COMES FROM OTHERS SOURCES REGARDING THE STAFF OR VICTIMS - IT WILL BE EXAMINED CAREFULLY AND ACTED UPON ACCORDING TO THE HALACHA.

Contrary to Harry Maryles, this is not a cover up to save the jobs of kollel couples, it is not a cover up to prevent embarrassing the frum community, it is not a cover up for the sake of shidduchin - IT IS SIMPLY NOT A COVERUP BUT ELEMENTARY HALACHA!

Harry I think it is time that you move on from the rut you are in with your mistaken views that are based on your intense loyalty to the CBD.

93 comments :

  1. Mr. Maryles is an old-time hater of Chareidim, Gedolim and Talmidei Chachomim. Nothing is new here or unexpected coming from him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Thus the CBD was holding the seminaries and the students hostage unless they were given total control."

    Very true. And let us not forget that the IBD generously offered on more than one occasion to expand their beis din to include the Chicago rabbis, and/or other rabbonim Chicago would specify, and to work via skype, so as to break the stalemate. Every offer was rejected by Chicago, who was never really interested in fixing things, but only in breaking them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dovid Kornreich Voice from theSeptember 2, 2014 at 10:54 PM

    Yes, Rabbi Eidensohn, I'm wondering why you sound so shocked and betrayed by Harry Maryles attack on you and the IBS. As well as why you sounded shocked and betrayed by Yerachmiel Lopin.
    These bloggers are serial haters of the chareidi establishment and are completely bent on seeing everything they do as some sort of self-serving power play.
    Why are you so surprised that they don't let the facts get in the way of their judgment of the IBS or anyone defending them?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I stand by what I said in my post. I don't know why there is any reticence to make the enabling teachers name public.


    But it cannot be the case that not a single one of them knew there was anything untoward happening there. The victims have made claims that they confided in some of the teachers there. I believe them. I therefore agree with the CBD that until they are removed from their jobs, no one should send their daughters there. Would you?


    This has nothing to do with any kind of excessive loylaty to the CBD. It is just the way I see things after reviewing all the information I have.


    I stiil respect your view, Rabbi Eidensohn. I simply disagree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Dovid Kornreich - I am not suprised - just disappointed

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nice of you to say that David.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And I don't see why parents who have been turned off to these seminaries by this whole mess shouldn't get their front money refunded.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Harry maryles - hard to understand why you say you respect my view when you compare to Hilliary's coverup. That at least implies that you think I am either not moral or honest - hardly an indication of respect.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Harry Maryles - you say you respect my view. That means that you consider it sincerely held - even though you disagree with it. The Seminaries feel that they are provide a sefe and effective educational environement while some parents feel otherwise. It is basic in halacha that when there is a monetary dispute that you need to go to beis din. I am not claiming that no beis din would agree with them - just that it is a case for beis din.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anytime, Harry. I make it a principle of always relating the truth regardless of where or how difficult that may be for some.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It was a bad analogy, I admit. But in my defense I thought her response was a a 'let's move on' response just like yours. That's what I thought of before I wrote the post. but after fleshing it out the way I did, Others called me on it and they were right. Although I still thought the analogy was somewhat close in its 'Let's move on' context.

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way, Why did you let that nasty comment from David through? You know that I do what he accuses me of

    ReplyDelete
  13. Interesting about Gentle Harry.
    Check out his post here. Its all about "the chashuva rabbonim in chicago"
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/08/seminary-scandalwhy-did-chicago-beis.html#comment-1539033544



    Where is Gentle Harry on the YU abuse ruling?
    Is Gentle Harry paid by the "Center for the Jewish Future"?

    ReplyDelete
  14. If a bd can only act on the evidence it has and the ibd does not have the evidence, then why did they act at all?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Timeline question. Did the cbd cease cooperation with the ibd before or after the ibd declared the seminaries to be safe?

    ReplyDelete
  16. What would firing teachers do? They would likely go and teach elsewhere, so you'd just be migrating the risk from one school to another. And what guarantee do you have that any teacher you'd hire has never ignored complaints, or will not ignore complaints in the future? The best policy, short of my plan to totally revamp Jewish education, might be to train girls from a young age by ingraining in them the laws of Yichud, the value of remaining chaste, and how to fight off unwanted amorous advances. Let's talk about instituting such a plan. Call or email: torah104@gmail.com, (301) 754-1128

    ReplyDelete
  17. Harry, was that sarcastic? Was it a facetious comment? Do you feel otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Hmaryles - I have seen that you have let similar comments through on your blog - if it bothers you I will delete it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. They went to beis din. The CBD. Are you purposefully ignoring this fact?

    ReplyDelete
  20. @davidhame - aren't you aware of the elementary fact that a beis din can not pasken unless both sides agree to go to it and both sides present their view? The CBD has absolutely no authority to pasken that the seminaries must give back the deposit.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry. i deleted the comment as i remembered i didn't want to comment any more. Either repost it or delete your reply.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What hypocrisy.I can't believe you just wrote that. The IBD also has NO authority. The don't represent any victims and haven't even heard the evidence!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Are you implying that if a sex abuser refuses to be judged by a beis din he gets of free? Unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @davidhame - are you serious. you seem ignorant of the beis din system as well as the reality of what they can do. The CBD basically decides whether someone can go to the police.

    If we are dealing with the issue of the refund of the deposit - the beis din needs to hear both sides.

    If an alleged sex abuser refuses to go to beis din than the beis din can say to go to the police. What do you think they can do?

    ReplyDelete
  25. @davidhame - you are wrong. You obviously haven't been following this case. The IBD has a shtar signed that give them authority.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @davidhame - when you delete a comment in Disqus it labels the comments as Guest

    ReplyDelete
  27. They had evidence that inappropriate behavior occurred by virtue of an actual admission.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dovid Kornreich Voice from theSeptember 3, 2014 at 12:40 AM

    "The victims have made claims that they confided in some of the teachers there. I believe them."



    Why do you believe them? Because it fits neatly into your preconceived notions?
    Did these victims make these claims in the presence of the teachers they were accusing? What did the teachers say in their defense?


    It seems you like to rush to judgment without hearing both sides, Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Daas Torah - "your mistaken views that are based on you intense loyalty to the CBD" - Actually the motivating attitudes of Harry Maryles and others in the MO camp are probably not based strictly on loyalty to the CBD.

    The motivating attitude of many MO rabbis and laymen is clearly spelled out in Harry's post: "I am a feminist" ( http://dorfberger.blogspot.com/2014/08/an-open-letter-to-my-bais-yaakov.html ).

    Those who proclaim "I am a feminist" will reliably offer unqualified knee jerk support to women whenever any conflict arises between women and men, regardless of evidence supporting the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Are you being serious? The CBD did not (just?) make a ruling about the police. They made a ruling about the safety of the sems. A ruling that you find extremely convenient to completely ignore! What is your excuse for disregarding the only beis din who have heard the actual accusations?

    Both sides need to go to beis din? Are you implying that every single parent has to separately make cases against the sem? Is this a joke to you? Parents gave a deposit based on the sems fulfilling certain expectations. They went to a beis din. The CBD ruled that the sems were not safe. And you want to follow the beis din that the parents did not go to? And you have the chuzpa to tell them to go to a another beis din to get their money back?

    A very good question. What about when the people responsible for abuse, though not the abuser himself, are unhappy with the ruling of the beis din set up by the victims and so find a beis din who don't even represent the victims and magically find no fault with those responsible? What do you think an impartial blogger should do?

    ReplyDelete
  31. A financial dispute in beis din is far different than a criminal accusation in beis din.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Laws of yichud and values of remaining chaste are well taught in beis yaakovs.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @davidhame - the CBD did not pasken -it issued an advisory. If someone ignored the advisory there are absolutely no consequences. Touro decided to listen to the advisory - it it hadn't there would be no sin or other negative religious conseqences. If a parent sent his daughter to seminaary despite the advisory - there would be no sanctions or negative consequences.

    Why don't you simply state that you don't care about halacha or know nothing about halacha. I am writing based on halacha. you don't like it so go to another blog where halacha is not relevant.

    If the CBD heard from the victims of abuse and they paskened that the abuser was required to give the victim $50,000 and the abuser refused - what would happen next?

    There was a special beis din for abuse in Lakewood. They dealt with a teacher accused of abusing students. After hearing both sides they paskened that the teacher had to stop teaching. The teacher not only refused to listen but declared if they publicized their ruling that he would sue them for millions of dollars. What do you think the beis din did?

    It disbanded.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Signed by... the victims who brought the case? No. End of story. The IBD have no authority.

    As a point, the CBD didn't sign it either!
    In fact it is very clear the CBD do not support the IBD and refuse to share anything with them.

    Have you been following?

    ReplyDelete
  35. @davidhame - you are simply spouting nonsense. Rav Aharon Feldman who was appointed to represent the victims by the CBD signed the document, Rav Zev Cohen and R Gottesman - both attended the signing after they initiated the founding of the IBD. The CBD didn't sign because there was no halachic significance to their signature. The failure to share came only after they requested the IBD to take on the case.

    All this has been repeated many times - but you still don't understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. It's just that It's not true.

    ReplyDelete
  37. " I don't know why there is any reticence to make the enabling teachers name public."

    Because it's not known whether they were enabling. Isn't that obvious?

    ReplyDelete
  38. " They would likely go and teach elsewhere,"

    No, they wouldn't. Who would hire such a teacher? That's why you don't fire people without a proper and fair investigation. Unlike what the CBD wants.

    ReplyDelete
  39. A remarkably clueless comment!

    ReplyDelete
  40. You missed my point. I am a teacher/tutor for decades. Plus I went to schools for many years. There's plenty that is taught. Teaching doesn't necessarily imply learning. I used the term "train", "ingrain". The lessons have to become second nature.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Where is the official letter saying that rav Feldmen was appointed by the CBD for this purpose AND that the victims allow him to represent them. Until you produce this we just have an unaffiliated rabbi who signed a note. Never mind the confusion he records in his public letter.
    Going by the fact the CBD refuse to share any evidence with the IBD can you not consider that perhaps something isn't kosher? How can you believe that the CBD really transferred authority when the IBD themselves admit that the CBD have not provided the necessary information. Your whole argument rests on this shtar supposedly from the CBD but which the CBD obviously do not respect in any way.
    This has been repeated many times but you seem not to follow this.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @davidhame - sorry but you are wrong. I have seen direct evidence as well as been told information by a number of insiders regarding the relationship.

    You don't want to accept that - but it doesn't change realtiy.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Yes but they do not have all the information necessary to declare the place safe. Another bd has declared the place unsafe. They acted to overturn this bd without evidence. According to dt, since ein ledayan eleh mah sheh einov roiyos, the ibd had to overturn the cbd w/o hearing the cbds evidence. The 5 "gedolim" also were able to declare the place safe because if they don't have the cbds evidence then it doesn't exist. It is now ok to pasken all matters out of ignorance even when you are arguing on someone more knowledgeable than you. If I don't know all the details that went into the other guys pedal then they do not exist.

    ein ledayan eleh mah sheh einov roiyos should not be a defense for willful blindness.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Specifically how do you propose to accomplish the two points I discussed?

    ReplyDelete
  45. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/08/seminary-scandal-explanation-of-why.html

    ReplyDelete
  46. Oh, c'mon, man...the teacher who has not been rehired because he/she "enabled" -- or whatever term is used -- goes to a job interview and is asked why they left their last job.

    "I was terminated."

    "Terminated...?"

    "Yeah, fired. Totally unfair. You heard about Principal 'X', of course. So, naturally, there were reports about his behavior that came across my desk. But it was too fantastic to give any credence to. I mean, the man is married! Beautiful family, sterling record. [Earnestly, almost emphatically] He's done a lot of good, you know."

    "So, you didn't do anything wrong?"

    "Unless you call it wrong to allow myself to be scapegoated so the school could continue to function. I took a hit for the institution. I'm a team player. [Confidentially] That girl was on some heavy psychotropic drugs. Practically a zombie. [Voice drops to a whisper] Was I to trust her over the founder?"

    ReplyDelete
  47. How is this situation a "conflict between men and women"? It's a simple case of abuse. I think the fact that you see it in this way says something about your view of men and women.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Obviously the cbd disagrees with that as they not only paskened that the parents should get a refund but they further paskened that the parents could go to secular court to get the money. How do you explain that?

    ReplyDelete
  49. It was sarcastic of course. David is just plain wrong about me. People who really know me, know that I am not anti Charedi at all. My criticism of certain aspects of the Charedi world is meant in the most constructive way possible.


    If you read my posts often enough you would see that I believe the vast majority of Charedim are moderate and are virtually no different than me in lifestyle and values. We all worship the same God and observe his Torah. Hashkafic differences do not impact on our daily lives at all. I daven in a Shul that is 99% Charedi. Most of my friends are Charedi, including my best friend.


    I do not bash Charedim nor do I ever bash Charedi rabbinic leaders. When I disagree with them, I do so with the utmost respect.


    But people like David (and a few other commenters here) read a few posts and judge me by the conclusions they jump to... and generalize that I am a Charedi basher. Please do not fall into that trap.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Hmaryles - absolutely not - I have mentioned my admiration of you a number of times

    ReplyDelete
  51. Please read all the past posts. Your questions are not original and answered all over.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @gref - you either are deliberately distorting what I said or you have a comprehension problem. Information is not being deliberately ignored nor is the safety of the students. I have repeatedly discussed this and I don't see any purpose of another iteration.

    ReplyDelete
  53. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/beis-din-decides-seminary-owner-meisels.html#comment-1571381685

    Interesting post.

    The Novominsker Rebbe, on behalf of the Agudath Yisroel, notified Gottesman that he no longer has any affiliation with the Agudah and from this point on, he may not represent himself as part of the Agudah.



    Is this true?

    ReplyDelete
  54. "The Sanhedrin, acknowledging the possibility of error even in capital
    cases, even after they sentenced someone to death - still remained open
    to the possibility that new information would exonerate the one found
    guilty. They set up a communication system - that could stop his
    execution up to the last instant"
    I read a midrash a while ago, that says the opposite - that once the verdict has been decided, they cannot stop the execution, even in light of new evidence. Wonder if you can clarify please?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Obviously, the full answer to your question is not going to fit in a comment.

    Briefly: the same way we ingrain all other Mitzvos. By intense, continuous theoretical study and regular repetition. By generating books, CD's and DVD's geared to young children, as well as for young adults, on the subject matter. By play acting with children, creating artificial circumstances of Yichud for example, etc.

    Shocking as this may come to some readers, it's possible in America for a capable student, academically inclined, to receive a pre-school education, and go through a dozen years of Jewish schooling, and still emerge without the skills of reading Hebrew fluently, speaking Hebrew well, nor translating Hebrew accurately and precisely. What goes for Hebrew applies to a thorough knowledge of Yichud, even though practiced all around them. Ask me how I know.

    The goal: to have the child react to situations of potential Yichud and/ compromised modesty the way they react when faced with crossing a street, or getting dressed in the morning: as an exercise that is done correctly and attentively without overmuch conscious thought.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "The Sanhedrin, acknowledging the possibility of error even in capital
    cases, even after they sentenced someone to death - still remained open
    to the possibility that new information would exonerate the one found
    guilty. They set up a communication system - that could stop his
    execution up to the last instant"

    I had a discussion with a Rav about this, and th story of r Shimon ben Shetach's son. HIs response, as follows, contradicts the claims you make about the sanhedrin, so i am interested to get to the bottom of the issue:

    "the law states that once the final verdict has been issued, it cannot be rescinded. It is very difficult to reach a verdict of guilty in a capital case (as the Mishnah in Makos 7a mentions), and once the testimony of the witnesses has been found to corroborate in
    accordance with the standards necessary by law, and all other conditions
    have been met, and the verdict has been issued, the witnesses cannot
    retract their testimony and the verdict is executed."

    " Perhaps the son was guilty of the crime, but the witnesses did
    not see it but fabricated their testimony, and thus in the hands of Heaven
    he indeed was supposed to be killed. (Indeed, see note #22 of the
    Margoliyos ha'Yam to the Gemara here in Sanhedrin.)"

    The comments made in these references suggest the opposite, ie when a Sanhedrin reaches a decision, even if there is error or contradictory evidence, or false witnesses, somehow it is the right decision, and the executed party is guilty even if later proven innocent!

    ReplyDelete
  57. You said that the cbd is being ignored due to a failure to share evidence. I have elucidated not distorted your view

    ReplyDelete
  58. There exists an MO liberal mentality that explains the MO liberal contempt for Charedim. Not all MO Jews are liberals, but MO liberals typically:
    - believe Judaism discriminates against women

    - embrace feminism
    - believe homosexuals are victims of homophobic religious fanatics
    - believe man evolved from an ape
    - are uncritical of Western "culture" and "science"
    - believe the liberal agenda will save man from disaster
    - view Charedim as regressive, ignorant fanatics

    ReplyDelete
  59. Reuvain goes to doctor A. The doctor performs some non reproduceable medical tests and declares that revain has some disease. Reuvain goes to doctor b for a second opinion. Doctor b asks doctor a for reuvain's medical records. Doctor a refuses. Should doctor b tell reuvain that he is healthy because he doesn't have the records?

    ReplyDelete
  60. There also exists an extremist Hareidi mentality, that explains Ultra-hareidi contempt for everyone else. This isn't the position of all hareidim, but extremists typcially believe:
    -Everything secular ( education, science, new technology such as internet) is treif
    -That Medinat Yisrael is the work of Satan or Sam-a-l
    That Western culture is Edom, and America is Rome.
    -that MO, and MHareidi are apikorsim or reform
    -that reporting abuse is mesira
    -that only accepting the views of what a particular leader says will save the Jews
    -that even a Gadol who disagrees with their leader, even on the same BD is a Zaken mamre
    -that secular Yidden are essentially goyim and must not receive any rights.

    ReplyDelete
  61. A death penalty case in Sanhedrin allows for two appeals by the defendant if he has new evidence to prove his exoneration.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Bad moshul. A court is charged with only ruling upon the evidence presented to it. The court must rule.

    ReplyDelete
  63. A death penalty case in Sanhedrin allows for two appeals by the defendant after he was convicted of a capital offense if he has new evidence to prove his exoneration.

    ReplyDelete

  64. (1) משנה מסכת סנהדרין פרק ו
    (א) נִגְמַר הַדִּין, מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְסָקְלוֹ. בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל. אֶחָד עוֹמֵד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין וְהַסּוּדָרִין בְּיָדוֹ (וְאָדָם אֶחָד רוֹכֵב), הַסּוּס רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא רוֹאֵהוּ. אוֹמֵר אֶחָד יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵד עָלָיו זְכוּת, הַלָּה מֵנִיף בַּסּוּדָרִין וְהַסּוּס רָץ וּמַעֲמִידוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו. מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פָּטָרוּהוּ, וְאִם לָאו, יוֹצֵא לִסָּקֵל. וְכָרוֹז יוֹצֵא לְפָנָיו, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא לִסָּקֵל עַל שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה פְלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו, כָּל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹ זְכוּת יָבוֹא וִילַמֵּד עָלָיו:

    MISHNAH. WHEN THE TRIAL IS ENDED,1 HE [THE CONDEMNED] IS LED FORTH TO BE STONED.2 THE PLACE OF STONING WAS WITHOUT THE COURT, EVEN AS IT IS WRITTEN, BRING FORTH HIM THAT HATH CURSED.3

    A MAN WAS STATIONED AT THE DOOR OF THE COURT WITH THE SIGNALLING FLAG4 IN HIS HAND, AND A HORSE-MAN WAS STATIONED AT THE DISTANCE YET WITHIN SIGHT OF HIM,5 AND THEN IF ONE6 SAYS, ‘I HAVE SOMETHING [FURTHER] TO STATE IN HIS FAVOUR’, HE [THE SIGNALLER] WAVES THE FLAG, AND THE HORSE-MAN RUNS AND STOPS THEM.7 AND EVEN IF HE HIMSELF SAYS, ‘I HAVE SOMETHING TO PLEAD IN MY OWN FAVOUR’, HE IS BROUGHT BACK, EVEN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES, PROVIDING, HOWEVER, THAT THERE IS SUBSTANCE IN HIS ASSERTION.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Of course he is healthy. He will have to come to work and can not apply for any type of disability or get any money back based on his sickness since the other doctor doesn't know of his sickness. And if he applies for disability ,he could be sued for blood libel. He has no recourse and no chance of claiming that his first doctor checked him out and found out he is sick. Also, five different doctors concluded the same thing, and if you don't understand ,you are wrong and stupid, end of conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  66. No it doesn't have to rule. It could acknowledge that it has less information than the cbd and defer to them.

    ReplyDelete
  67. This "extremist Hareidi mentality" exists primarily in the minds of paranoid fantasists.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I have heard the same from fairly reliable sources.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @gref - could we please stop going around in circles. You are not raising any new issues just raising old ones that have been repeatedly discussed. You are not adding anything new in the conversation. The IBD is well aware of these types of arguments and rejects them. You don't agree. Therefore what?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Yes, it's all so easy. Let's be quick to destroy lives, b/c Joseph Orlow says it's no big deal.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hey you're the one that wrote an article defending the ibd. Now you're changing to a new attitude "they know of all possible taanos and need no defense". If that's your attitude then why did you post this in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Whuh? He tested positive for a disease. If deems himself healthy due to a lack of availability of his records, he'll die!

    ReplyDelete
  73. the story I referred to previously (taken from wiki)

    "In a significant case of an early witch-hunt, on a single day Simeon ben Shetach's court sentenced to death eighty women in Ashkelon who had been charged with sorcery. The relatives of these women, filled with a desire for revenge, brought false witnesses against Simeon's son, whom they accused of a crime which involved capital punishment; and as a result of this charge he was
    sentenced to death. While on the way to the place of execution, the witnesses recanted their testimony. Simeon ben Shetach sought to have the case reopened. Simeon's son protested that, according to the Law, a witness must not be believed when he withdraws a former statement, and he said to his father, "If you seek to bring about salvation, then consider me as a threshold [towards that goal]." The execution then proceeded. This sad event was probably the reason why Simeon issued a warning that witnesses should always be carefully cross-questioned"


    So was the Mishnah above a takkanah in response to the incident of Ben Shetach's son?

    ReplyDelete
  74. The cbd deferred jurisdication to the ibd. At that point the ibd had to rule. Especially since both parties didn't agree to release the ibd's jurisdiction.

    ReplyDelete
  75. @ralphmalf - I don't see what your problem is?

    The case of Shimon Ben Shetach is not relevant - because there was no new evidence - even though the witnesses lied- but they can't disqualify themselves. The Mishna that I cited is referring to making sure that if there is new evidence that it will be communicated. Shimon Ben Shetach's son pointed out that if he succeeded in finding a legal loophold to save him - it would cast doubt on the validity of the entire system.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @gref - you don't understand what is going on and i am not repeating myself

    ReplyDelete
  77. And he has been bounced from TuM too


    Wow. "Bemidah she'adam moded, moddedin lo".

    ReplyDelete
  78. A lot more would have to happen to this lowlife before the standard of "b'midah she'atah modeid" is reached.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Verification of AddressSeptember 4, 2014 at 5:01 AM

    Daas Torah .........
    Why don't you erase David's comment, since you agreed to hmaryles request to erase it ?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Verification of AddressSeptember 4, 2014 at 5:07 AM

    Hmaryles..............
    I strongly disagree as yourself in another comment, it's very not nice at all ! it's needed to be erased asap !

    ReplyDelete
  81. Huh?

    Your point, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a Bais Din should conduct a thorough and complete investigation of a staff member accused of being an "enabler". If the Bais Din then concludes that the staff member "enabled", then, and only then, the staff member should be fired for "enabling". You expressed a doubt whether anyone would hire such an "enabler".

    My point is that in practice, the "enabler" would be able to make the case to a new potential employer that he/she, the teacher, was framed, and he/she can present that because these kinds of cases are often complicated and nuanced. Thus, the "enabler" at the interview can spin it that he/she was a "team player"; he/she can cast a cloud of suspicion on his/her accusers by intimating the accusers are "crazy". He/she can drive home the point that he/she is the fall guy/gal by concluding: "Principal 'X' is going around raising Gelt for a new seminary with the backing of 'Gedolim', and I'm stuck being unemployed."

    In other words, I expressed the point that it would be possible for a talented and successful teacher to find employment teaching despite having been fired for "enabling" after a fair hearing.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Gref - not worth trying to convince with these guys. They want to transform this whole issue from a case of sexual abuse into a technical argument about legal jurisdiction. It is just a smokescreen.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I did erase it - unless Disqus messed up again. Will check

    ReplyDelete
  84. I did erase it and it remains erased but I just noticed a 2nd comment by a different David which I just erased. Thanks for pointing it out.

    ReplyDelete
  85. It appears we were talking at cross-purposes. I thought you meant they could be fired w/o a hearing, just on the accusation (as the CBD wishes), b/c hey, they'll get a new job easily! If you actually meant after a hearing, I withdraw my above comments.

    ReplyDelete
  86. The_Original_Bored_LawyerSeptember 4, 2014 at 5:52 PM

    "Harry Maryles fails to get his facts and halacha straight before he pontificates"

    In other news, the sun rose in the east this morning, dogs barked and cats meowed.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Glad to have found your site. Keep up the good work! DB Product Review

    ReplyDelete
  88. Time to move on? Check out the latest letter from Rabbi Schwartz, shlita. Where are all of the "it was just a hug" people? Where are all the "it was just one or two girls" people. You all bought Meisels lies, or were part of them.


    Just as R' Eidensohn asked people who bought the lies in the Stein/Weiss affair to beg mechila, I think the same standard should apply here. Not holding my breath for any takers, though.

    ReplyDelete
  89. That letter isn't mechadeish anything. If anything it certainly seems as if their claims are a lot less than "40 raped girls".
    The letter is long on rhetoric and short on details. It doesn't detail the number of accusers (although it sounds like a very small number). It doesn't detail what was done, only that to their "understanding ".... Hardly sounds open and shut...
    The letter says that the CBD didn't want to publish the letter... Yet it fails to explain why they felt it necessary to do so. It also fails to explain why they didn't mention anything regarding the staff until it was sold (Not to Gottesman).

    ReplyDelete
  90. Jasper, I'll take it even a step further. The way I approached the whole discussion here is that it is in the abstract. All the evidence presented here was just text on a screen. I didn't witness anything directly. My starting point is that there is a seminary with teachers and students. I never believed any of the allegations. The allegations are just that: allegations. My understanding is that at best the CBD interviewed students and teacher separately, so that even they are not allowed to believe the students' allegations. To the extent that the teacher's statements lined up with the students' allegations, they issued the rulings that have been publicized. So now, to whom do I owe an apology for my not believing? To the students who testified, to the teacher, to the Bais Din? To you? If there's anything I did to offend you, Jasper, I'm sorry. Please go through my comments which can be accessed by clicking on my profile graphic to the left and specify what I did, if anything, to offend.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Daas Torah:
    Not only has the CBD not brought forth any evidence incriminating the staff of the schools. Just like they fooled everyone into believing that; how can you believe them with the actual accusations of meisels This is not the first case in which the CBD has defamed and accused pple for no reason other than to advance themselves The only problem is that shmuel fursts downfall is very close. Give this a few months and all the skeletons will be out of the closet. In many cases they judged pple without ever hearing their tzaad. While I don't think you still have the entire truth out. I do believe that this post reflects the will of a person seeking the truth and living and judging according to our torah and halacha

    ReplyDelete

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