Tuesday, December 2, 2014

It is official!: Chicago Beis Din and Israeli Beis Din agree 4 seminaries are o.k.

update: The recent post by Frum Follies contains significant distortions and lies regarding this psak.  His statements regarding Rabbi Meir Kahane and Rebbetzin Ullman in particular are egregious lies aimed at obtaining through slander that which could not be obtained by open means.
"Seminary principals Rabbi Meir Kahane and Mrs Hindy Ullman are being demoted but this will not be stated officially."
I have clarified with a member of the beis din that neither has been demoted or punished in anyway - officially or unofficially-  nor were there any findings or information to warrant it on any level whatsoever.

Let Lopin produce evidence to support his slander. It is clear that the original claims of the Chicago Beis Din - that he constantly repeated in his condescending and derogatory attacks on the Israeli Beis Din -  have been shown to not be supported by the facts. This psak could have been obtained a long time ago. Now that it has been obtained - the obvious question is who is feeding Lopin the information he is publishing - in order to undermine it?


402 comments :

  1. Are all the above all of the rabbis from both botei din? If they sat together couldn't they sign the same paper? Really sloppy cut and paste job.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Proof that cash speaks LOUDLY.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think some answers are in order if anyone is to ever again trust the Chicago dayanim (yes, now that they joined the only legitimate Beis Din in this case, they actually became dayanim).
    These great advocates for "transpraency" owe the world an world exactly what, in reality, changed from the summer until now, so as to justify their nearly destroying the seminaries, dragging tamidei chachimim through the mud, making a vast chillul Hashem by encouraging the class action suit, tarnishing Mr. Yarmish, and many more avlos.
    Perhaps they should also explain why they agreed to this Beis Din murchav only after they did all this damage.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, who was fired?

    Where is Mr. Gottesman - did he get his way?

    Where is the Paul at Frum Folies?

    Where is silly Harry and his employer TCFJF?

    Are any of the above doing anything for Ms. MB, or are they discarding her like old trash?

    B"H this is fiasco is finally laid to rest. Others will claim that it has longa go been laid to rest. But, this has given members of the CBD back some legitimacy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, finally. The IBD offered this to the CBD months ago, at the very beginning of the controversy, but at that point, they still were trying first to extort the schools and then to destroy them. It took till now for them to what any honest BD acting in good faith would have done Day One. And lo and behold, all the bogeymen they claimed to see in the closet were in fact not there. Surprise, surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't know, if i had a daughter of sem age i still would not send her there, if the teachers did not know or worse made as if they did not know, i would look to send elsewhere, not to say that the new safe guards but in place will not be good, but the first protections is the other teachers and rabaim, who in this case dropped the ball big time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Dave you are assuming that the other seminaries never had any problems and still don't

    ReplyDelete
  8. I do not know if teachers in the other schools failed to protect their students i am sure there are places that are good and places that also had issues we do not know about. But i do know this place with these teachers dropped the ball.


    It is like hiring a employee that in the past was caught stealing, and saying "are we to assume that other employees don't steal"!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Dave - poor analogy - none of the staff members has been caught "stealing" This is evident from the fact that the Chicago Beis Din now agrees with the Israeli Beis Din that the seminaries are safe - no one was fired.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Woha!


    You can make all the silly decision you wish to make. You can tape up and seal up your windows, wear gas masks and all else in order to defend yourself from a nuclear explosion. That is certainly your right.


    #1) Three out of the four seminaries never, ever had any sort of issue, at all.


    #2) The one seminary that did have an isolated issue of negiah was not a case of the ball being dropped by the other staff members.


    Let's remember that the offending party completely cooperated some beth din half way around the world.


    This was an isolated case. That calls for his removal from being a teacher to girls. It does not call for anything else, as all judges have now publicly admitted.


    What's it like walking around with a hazmat suit to protect yourself from germs, Mr. Dave?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lol I can't help but comment (even tho I said I wouldn't anymore. This is too enticing).
    Eidensohn, I have a question for you- did you PURPOSELY leave out the other 5 extensive pages on this psak or were they just not given to you?

    I think new light will be heading your way to u and ur few commenters very shortly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If it was only one seminary that had issues, then why would they all be included in this memo and that that all had various issues "rectified?" If it was just one seminary - why they clarify that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. It says that things were RECTIFIED. That means they were REPAIRED. That means they were broken. If it was just a bogeyman, it would have said so. Dream on, mr. Ostrich. I pray your daughter isn't next because anyone who can still be in denial at this stage of the game can't possibly be relied upon in a crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It is blatantly clear that the signatures are not original, rendering this useless and possibly fraudulent.

    ReplyDelete
  15. while the analogy may be poor I think one can still take the point. If you would like a more potent analogy. if one had a company run by a manager and had an outside accounting firm auditing the company, and due to (gross) negligence they miss that an employee was embezzling money. afterwards will you still employ the same accounting firm if they made the changes to make sure that this error never happens again or would you find yourself a different firm . Would you assume, like I would that this accounting firm is just no good. While it's possible that a difference from make this a mistake, we have no reason to assume that all the accounting firms are this incompetent. To have girls calling their teachers father is a red flag, to have male teachers having private meetings with girl students behind closed doors is a red flag, if other teachers fail to notice or worse noticed and we're more worried about their own jobs he's a level of gross negligence that goes Way and beyond. was cared . It looks like the teachers are more interested teaching the material in teaching the students making sure that they grow into a true bas yisroel not you just into girls can learn and understand A ramban.

    all the CRC is saying is that now there is alternative procedure is being done that make up for the lack of supervision that should have been provided by the teachers.

    we also need to pick and choose better of which rabbis we have to listen to in which we could use our own common sense toto take what they say with a grain of salt if the rabbis from BMG can make mistakes as well as rabbi belsky why do I have tothink that the CRC is getting it right this time.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is there a report about the changes, if any. What are they, were any teachers (?others?) Let go. What particular policies? Did the ombudsman (forgot his name. Is he still there? Does he have a staff? Does he come into the schools? How are students given his phone number / address?

    How many reports did he receive? If any. If none, so state.

    Was the seminaries sold? Free and clear? The properties?

    Details of the "settlement". Did those who did not sue get reimbursement? Whole or partial?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Is this psak based on halacha or the guidelines of professionals. If it is based on the latter (that is what the CBD said they would follow) then I'd rather see the letter directly from them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bill Clinton also wasnt fired. Not being fired is no way the same as being innocent. Bill Clinton and his infamous intern was also O N L Y (sarcasm font) an isolated case of "negiyah" according to "Honest" 's grotesquely pervetted "logic".

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Mimedinat Hayam - excellent questions - answers coming soon.

    What is important is that the account published by Frum Follies is a hatchet job by someone who is not happy about the settlement and it contains some glaring falsehoods.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @E wabbi - the signatures are genuine as is the document - I have had it verified by a number of insiders

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ C.W. - sorry that is not what the document said or meant to convey. Hope to publish more details soon

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Truthseeker I am glad to hear that you actually read the document -unfortunately you don't seem to have understood what it means. Frum Follies has published some falsehoods regarding what happened.

    There will be additional information published in the near future. It is clear that this agreement could have been made in the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You're right.


    1) The tone of my question of who was fired did not come through. I meant to make he point you are making - that all is, and was good.


    2) As far as legitimacy to the CBD. The fact that they are openly and clearly reversing from their previous position does take a certain amount of integrity. It is never easy to admit having made a mistake (just look at the Paul at Frum Folies...) and, the CBD is admitting through this that their position lacked merit. This does give them something.

    ReplyDelete
  24. then why would they all be included in this memo


    Good question. This is undoing what the CBD previously wrote and did. They now admit that their previous position was mistaken.


    The rectification happened many, many months ago when the seminaries were sold! Ironically, the person behind wanting the seminaries to be sold was Rav Leine, who had signed the letter certifying that the seminaries are safe, good and healthy back in late August. The CBD originally did not even ask the previous owner to sell the seminaries. Please read all the previous posts and documentation! that Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn has posted. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Not being fired is no way the same as being innocent.


    Hmmm. It depends on who is doing the firing. Very weird comparison to Mr. Clinton, JFK etc.
    These seven signatories had every right and ability to fire anyone whom they felt may have been the slightest danger to the safety of the students.
    They didn't fire anyone!
    They didn't demote anyone!
    But, they did have the ability to, unlike with JFK, Mr. Clinton and so many other politicians (yeah, those in the Windy City included).

    ReplyDelete
  26. Eidensohn, u know nothing of what they did during the Bais Din meeting and how they interrogated the staff. U so nonchalantly say "it could have been done before." Wrong. Besides, the teachers refused to speak to the CBD during the summer. Surprise surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ari, u seem to be talented at turning things around. Let's start with the fact that Chicago was the first to take on this case and who personally saw that a powerful and dangerous man has now been taken off his high horse. Terrible that u did even mention that once.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Vera's question was rhetoric. She is trying to tell you- "if they went out of their way to say that things were fixed with all these seminaries, then obviously something needed to be fixed."

    ReplyDelete
  29. Honestly, I'm not sure if u realize but the entire point of this bias din was bc the IBD did not want to fire staff and the CBD did. The CBD did not have the power to simply fire these staff members. Talk abt 'making up facts'...you're doing it yourself..

    ReplyDelete
  30. the obvious question is who is feeding Lopin the information he is publishing - in order to [attempt to] undermine it?

    תָּמוֹת נַפְשִׁי עִם פְּלִשְׁתִּים

    ReplyDelete
  31. @truthseeker - you are obviously dependent on the information Lopin and his informant is providing.

    Did you read the 5 page psak - did you notice that it signifcantly disagrees with what Lopin has written?

    Are you aware that Lopins claim that Rabbi Kahane was demoted is a lie?

    Spreading ignorance and lies helps no one - especially when you are simply a groupie who parrots what you are told.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Lol of course I don't. No one who opposes you knows what they're talking about. Isn't that right? 😉

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wat does that have to do with anything I just said.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Whoa!
    Dave makes a very valid point.
    It seems to be acknowledged by all that Meisels acted inappropriately with student(s). As well, it seems that he was oiver hilchos yichud on a consistant basis.
    Dave is saying that the other faculty should A: have been aware, and B: done something about it. The fact that they didnt means that they are A: incompetent or B: more concerned about their employment than the safety and well-being of the students.


    Now, the batei din may have put all the safety measures in the world in place, to prevent Meisels or anyone else similarly afflicted with the same perversions, from doing this goinf forward, however if the same staff is still in place I would not send my daughter to that sem. That is my responsibility and achrayus as a father, to provide the best possible situation for my children.


    I am not saying that the seminaries are not safe - chas v'sholom. The IBD and the CBD have made sure that they are. But I would look for a lot more than "safe" when choosing schools for my children. I think that the entire sordid mess has cast major doubts in my eyes that they are quality schools, and I would look to find other schools that do not have this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If Bill-Clinton had been impeached by the Senate and the House as opposed to what happened where the impeachment was just sucessful in the House, then Clinton could have been fired.The pont is that there are -many powerful political forces in goverment-AND in the Orthodox polical leadership structure and these forces often dont allow for justice to be done. Therfore, not being fired is often a political accomodation that is in no way an indication of innocence.

    Also, it is an outrage that Honesty attempts to trivialize the depravity of muliple student victims of sexual assault as an isolated case of negiyah.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'd be interested in a response to TruthSeeker's question. You are implying that you did purposely leave out the other pages presumably to mislead people?

    ReplyDelete
  37. To this casual blogista and commenter, the phrase "damning with faint praise" comes to mind. "There is no danger or problem with sending students to study in these seminaries."

    Admittedly, the issue at hand was the safety of the seminaries. The Bais Din did not set out to investigate what was being taught at the seminaries, nor to compare them with any other seminaries. Still, the final Psak Din is rather cold and clinical.

    Perhaps a Psak Din should limit itself to the question raised and be concise and straight to the point. Nevertheless, I read a certain reluctance to recommend the schools into the final decision.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Debbie Gross was brought in to put protocols in place. She trained people in each seminary.

    ReplyDelete
  39. And she's back! Right after promising that she wouldn't comment here again. Not surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The_Original_Bored_LawyerDecember 3, 2014 at 6:28 PM

    You should have gone with your first instinct. Prior to this whole affair, parents were assuming the schools were safe and free of abuse. That is something that as a parent one takes as a given.

    OTOH, a school's hashkofos, level of academic rigor, and intangibles (e.g. a warm place vs. a more intellectual place) was very much an open issue, varies by school, and indeed is something different parents and different girls want different things for. Those kinds of things are something parents are expected to research themselves, based on their daughters' needs, their own hashkofos, etc. It is not something I would expect a beis din to recommend.

    ReplyDelete
  41. No one forced them to sign, right? These upstanding individuals did what they think is right, correct? Or are they not upstanding? Explain, please.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Safeguards were put into place to protect the students. Those safeguards were not previously in place. Thus, the problem was rectified.

    ReplyDelete
  43. They had another agenda originally -- extorting the seminaries -- destroying Meisels financially. Everything they did subsequently follows from that rishus.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Good thinking, Sherlock. But if you are correct, surely the dayanim would have protested the forgeries, no?

    ReplyDelete
  45. The only committee that deals with morality was the Arkansas bar association, which disbarred him. (The Clinton foundation is not a law firm.)

    The impeachment might have been a moral issue, but the senate dealt with the law, which they obviously felt he should get off (for political reasons.)

    ReplyDelete
  46. If a airplane had an Ebola patient on it and was then scrubed clean, would you feel safer on that plane or on a second one that did not have the issue in the first place, i am not saying not to fly, just not to fly of one rocker.

    ReplyDelete
  47. But I would look for a lot more than safe


    So, if you wish to walk around in an hazmat suit in order to make sure that you don't catch any germs, then that is your right and your choice. However, do not attribute this to be a good parent.


    If the personality of your daughter is best served by this school, then you'd better think long and hard before you send her somewhere else in order to satisfy your overprotective emotional senses. Just like you'd better think long and hard about sending your daughter to a school that does not serve her best, but that serves your desires as to which school you can say your kid attended.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The pont is that there are -many powerful political forces in ... the Orthodox ... leadership structure and these forces often dont allow for justice to be done


    Really, now? For you say this about about Rav Levine, the IBD, rav Brudny and all the others who have clearly supported the removal of Meisels, but the retention of the other staff is quite silly. If you think of these people as not having the best interest of the girls at heart and as their primarily motivation - then thats your issue. It is not an issue with those staff members or anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The Bais Din had an opportunity to meet with a number of the educators. Would it have been so inappropriate for the Bais Din to make an eensy teensy weeny concession to the general public's concerns and say, "We had an opportunity at length to interview the top educators at these schools and were impressed by their integrity and the way they comported themselves in the Bais Din, as well as by their sincere regret over the circumstances that led to this Bais Din's formation." If not the Bais Din, it would be nice to hear that from another source.

    As a teacher, if I worked for someone who seemingly repeatedly abused students, and I was totally out of the loop on it, I would be filled with shame and embarrassment. I would fault no one if they considered me clueless, because such would be the case, and so would I feel about myself. My confidence in myself, and perhaps my esteem in the eyes of others, would only be restored if someone learned and worldly that I trusted would publicly declare my rehabilitation.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I have a strong feeling you are either one of the teachers/ sadly "loyal" students/ or a relative bc u will defend the staff until the death. Very odd and skeptical...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Lol u are DEF closely related to Meisles or a staff member. Idk which one but it's extremely obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I've posted a more lengthy piece on my blog. But what is strange is the need for IBD to reconvene on this at all. They already said the sems are kosher. It all points to a lot of behind the scene politics.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "As a teacher, if I worked for someone who seemingly repeatedly abused
    students, and I was totally out of the loop on it, I would be filled
    with shame and embarrassment"

    The alternative is that he did not "repeated abuse students" but rather had a few incidents that mandated his removal. This is what was alleged initially and appears to be the case. Isolated incidents in one out of four schools - wrong though they were - are not cause for every staff member in every school to feel shame and embarrassment.

    The only ones claiming that there was ongoing abuse were the CBD who couldn't produce evidence of that and therefore had no choice but to retract their demand that staff members be fired. Their signatures on this document are testament enough to anyone who followed this saga. If any of their allegations were verified, there's no way they would or could have agreed to sign a clear unambiguous statement that there's no danger whatsoever. They did not simply "withdraw" their opposition. They signed two clear statements that the seminaries are safe. I'm not sure any more than that need be said unless of course, one has an agenda to further besmirch the reputations of these individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Without does btw, Lopin personally invents his lies himself there support his absurd theories.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Some he invents, some he is fed by Gottesman, who is now engaged in a personal vendetta against the schools and their principals.

    ReplyDelete
  56. When the IBD said the sems are okay, everyone yelled about how did they decide without seeing Chicago's "evidence." Now that the "evidence" has been produced, and both BDs have seen it, suddenly it becomes: why did the IBD need to make another announcement? Point is, it's a joing announcement. Chicago is admitting that the IBD was right.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I have a strong feeling you are, sadly, a disturbed person who badly needs acclamation and attention, b/c you will attack the schools and their innocent staff regardless of what the BDs find or say. Very weird and strange.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Regretably, your response doesn't at all speak to the issue. Probable because your truthseeking is based on ignoring facts. Like teh fact that you stated you're finished commenting on this blog.


    You know the history as well as I do: Yes, Chicago was involved first, and actually allowed teh seminaries to continue under Meisels's ownership, that letter has appeared on this blog.


    The Israeli Beis was emapneled with the agreement of Chicago. Over a week after you would claim Chicago lost confidence in that Beis Din, Chicago issued a letter affirming the Israel Beis Din's authority.


    All that's happened since then is addressed in my post here.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I'm certainly not related to you, thank goodness! In any case, everything is documented. It will all come out in due course. Soon your fifteen minutes of infamy will be over..

    ReplyDelete
  60. Here's what "truthseeker" wrote a couple of days ago on another post:

    "DT, this will be my last comment here since I frankly have no interest in ppl's responses to my bold and truthful comments."

    And yet here she is. Clearly, truthfulness is not in her lexicon.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Wow! this made me laugh- did u realize that u just exposed yourself? Which teacher are you? Which relative? Lol

    ReplyDelete
  62. @JBlog - a joint beis din was something that the IBD wanted to do before to avoid conflicts and faciliate aan accepted solution.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @Truthseeker - unfortunately much of what you say is based on your "strong feelings' rather than the facts. You are not a prophet and you don't have ruach hakodesh

    ReplyDelete
  64. Lol and don't forget that I caught u in ur words and u revealed that u are either 1- a sem teacher 2- relative of Meisles or a staff 3- brainwashed student.

    This comment of urs has nothing to do with anything. U look so foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Rabbi Eidenson,

    Thank you for allowing TruthSeeker MBB to post here again despite her "promises" not to come back. I know her infantile style and pointless comments bring down the level of the blog, but it does a world of good to see her expose herself as an untrustworthy individual.

    I know it's hard for you to keep her around, but it's for the good of all involved that she stick around until even the skeptics are convinced of her lack of credibility.
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @Ban Atman - Truthseekers question was nonsense. I published what is clearly labeled as a public announcement. That is what the joint beis din wanted the public to be aware of at this time. More details are coming.

    So it was not my attempt to deceive but just simply to report the words of the joint beis din. Nothing sinister - despite truthseekers paranoid attitude. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar.

    In contrast, Truthseeker and her partner Lopin instead are reporting false statements regarding Rabbi Kahane and Rebtzn Ulman - without having even reading the psak. You consider making false statements or conjecture about the psak when you know there is a psak -is better than reporting the announcement of the beis din - as they wrote it?

    ReplyDelete
  67. DT- your comments are beginning to sound highly unintelligent and emotional. You as well are not using facts.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Would u like to tell us how you know that?

    ReplyDelete
  69. You are so blinkered that you cannot imagine anyone recognizing the rishus that went on here without being related to your favorite bogeyman. But in fact, many of us prefer our batei din to be honest, not to act as gangsters and extortionists, not to cheat and lie. You claim to seek truth, but you wouldn't recognize if ever you happened to find it. As I said, your fifteen minutes are almost up.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @Ari Davis - I'll tell you a secret. The joint beis din is very much aware of the issue you have raised. Originally the CBD claimed to have clear evidence of the negligence of the staff and that is why they refused to ok the seminaries. Now they have oked the seminaries without firing anyone one. That implies that there evidence was not subtantial.

    Thus as it stands now - neither beis din is claiming that the seminaries were once unsafe and not they have been made safe. It seems that they were safe before but now they have been reinforced to prevent anything from happening.
    Bottom line - you are saying the joint beis din is not telling the truth. It that your message?

    ReplyDelete
  71. @truthseeker - your comments by and large are said out of ignorance and arrogance. You don't check faccts and you clearly don't know anything about halacha. And yet you want your opinion to be taken seriously. You just don't understand that you don't know much about these issues. And then you get upset that the readers of this blog don't take you seriously. - why should they?

    ReplyDelete
  72. @truthseeker - you simply don't know the facts and have no ability to judge whether something is unintelligent or not.

    You made a commitment to stop posting your nonsense here - why not keep your word?

    ReplyDelete
  73. I couldn't care less about the readers on this blog. Trust me.

    ReplyDelete
  74. so please go elsewhere where your arrogant and uniformed opinions are appreciated

    ReplyDelete
  75. Not my message at all.
    I am sure that they are telling the truth. And I believe that the seminaries are safe - meaning safeguards have been put in place to prevent this from happening again.
    I am also saying that it already happened and I would draw reasonable conclusions from the reality as to the competence and or the character of the employees under whose watch it happened. And I would not want to send my child to a school run by those people.
    I guess that the batei din feel that the evidence of willful misdeeds are not there, or not evident enough to recommend firing someone.
    I trust them on that - I do not know the specifics and even if I did I would not presume to argue with the rabbonim.
    I do however have every right to "vote with my wallet" as do all other consumers or prospective clients, and the residual impression of this whole affair is not flattering for the seminaries or mechanchim involved.
    Just my humble opinion. (As someone who had a daughter in sem last year (not one of the ones being discussed) and another daughter going iy'h in a few years from now).

    ReplyDelete
  76. Rabbi eidonsohn please take this emotional wreck off this site she's literally breaking down before our eyes!!!! And leaves no room for intelligent conversation thx!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Honesty, what is your connection to these seminaries? Do you work there? I think you are being willfully obtuse about intuitive logical issues. The only reason I can think of is that maybe they are striking a little too close to home?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Enough with this relative/teacher garbage either say something intelligent or don't say at all!!
    The debate has been rly fun over the last few months please go back to
    Frum Follies Please!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  79. From an article just posted in the New York Jewish Week: "After the whistleblower approached the Chicago Beit Din, its four
    members, Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, Rabbi Avrohom
    Chaim Levin and Rabbi Zeev Cohen, spent months investigating her claims.
    Thirty alumnae of Rabbi Meisels’ four schools from over the past decade
    came forward to testify to the beit din against his behavior, which
    included at least eight allegations of actual assault, sources
    confirmed."

    So I guess it was just "one" breach of "negiah", right? Thirty girls. And those are the ones that came forward.

    ReplyDelete
  80. You have not ever provided one scintilla of evidence to back this wacky claim.

    ReplyDelete
  81. More of your fantasies. What will you do when this case is over, you poor deluded thing?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Some people actually deal in facts, silly goose. A concept that is foreign to you.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Of course it's enticing. Something to fill your empty life.

    ReplyDelete
  84. For someone who doesn't care about the readers on this blog, you expend a lot of energy responding to them.

    ReplyDelete
  85. If those are the words that make you happy, continue chanting . . .

    ReplyDelete
  86. you guys spend a lot of time proving this was all a hoax by the 'proof' that the staff wasn't fired. Well if it was a hoax, why was Meisels let go? And if Meisels was guilty, why aren't you horrified, saddened, mournful and disgusted? Why waste your energy bickering over these details when a rabbi and role model crossed the line of appropriate behavior? And how stupid would this staff have to be if it happened and they really didn't know? Are you really saying Meisels was innocent? what is with all the smoke and mirrors?
    If someone who isn't foaming at the mouth has an answer I would love to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  87. what is your connection to these seminaries? Do you work there?


    Ari dear,



    I've been accused on this blog of being Yoel Weiss, since I was disgusted by illogical nonsense that was going on there. I was accused of being others as well. It's quite weird, and wholly illogical to accuse me of being connected to the seminaries simply based on a on the fact that I see the seminaries in the same vain that Rav Levine, Rav Feldman, Rav Perlow, - all people who have over fifty years of stellar educational experience - as well as the same way the Rav Brudny and IBD see the seminaries. The CBD signed along with them. Are we all illogical, and your supposed anxieties are rooted in logical reality?


    To answer your question, no I do not teach at any seminary. I reside in these United States. I am not in any way employed or related to the seminaries. I do care about Jews though. And Jews benefit from having these special seminaries available for the type of girls they serve.


    Now, please respond to my original points logically. Thank you, dear Ari.

    ReplyDelete
  88. What is the story? Has Mr. Gottesman been thrown out of Torah U'mesorah as well as the Agudah?

    ReplyDelete
  89. How does this answer his point - has this become some sort of spitting match?

    How about giving logical answers to his questions.

    I personally do welcome you here. I feel for you , and I just wish you would be surrounded by people who can actually protect you. Please realize that Mr. Gottesman does not have your best interest at mind. And certainly the Paul at Frum Folies - he clearly does not have your best interest at mind. He desecrates the Shabbos every single week! These people are using you, and will trash you the moment you will be useless to them. They are seducing and abusing you in their own ways!

    Please think about it. Were you to, G-d forbid, hurt your foot in six months from now, would Mr. Gottesman, PM, FF or anyone else come stand by your side and soothe your pain? No, they wouldn't care much about it. Your family would care. Please take the rains of your life and create and surround yourself with a core of people who truly care about you. Its time to retire the victim-hood role and move into building a successful and meaningful life for yourself. Being a triplet is very hard. Other things are very hard. Now its time to build your life.

    Please, be well, Ms. MB.

    ReplyDelete
  90. What is the source of the New York "Jewish" Week's claims? They aren't exactly know for their truthfulness. Additionally, why did Rabbi Levine sign and proclaim back in August that he is satisfied with the seminaries? Why did the CBD now admit that the seminaries perfectly fine, despite that no one has been fired?


    Grandiose conjecture does not fact make.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I'm not saying you should believe the New York Jewish Week. I'm not saying I believe the New York Jewish Week. I'm just saying there is a New York Jewish Week. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar. The New York Jewish Week article is, well, just another newspaper article. Take it or leave it.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Hardly a true word in that paragraph:
    a) R' Levine was not involved in this case.
    b) They did not spend months.They spent a couple of weeks.
    c) Thirty alumnae did not come forward.
    d) There were two accusers, not eight.
    e) Both were from the past year.
    f) In Meisels' hearing before the CBD, there was no mention of anything beyond negiah. If he had been accused of assault, don't you think they would have mentioned it?

    ReplyDelete
  93. The lawsuit over the tuition refunds is over. But according to the Jewish Week,

    "... two former students of Rabbi Meisels [at Peninim] who are residents of New York and New Jersey brought charges against him to a federal court here in October. He is accused of rape, attempted rape and other forms of sexual assault."

    The young women, neither of whom is named in the suit, were students at Rabbi Meisels’ main school, Peninim, where he has been head of school for the past five years. Peninim, based in Jerusalem but with administrative offices in New Jersey, is also named in the suit.

    Their case is being brought under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, legislation that prohibits gender discrimination in the classroom. In 2011, the Department of Education issued a letter explicitly tacking sexual harassment and sexual violence onto Title IX.

    The schools are being sued for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and negligence. And Rabbi Meisels is being sued for sexual assault."

    I am not a lawyer, but I believe that because the seminaries accept U.S. government aid (which is why accreditation mattered; without it no aid money could be applied to tuition) they fall under Title IX.

    http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/national/rabbinic-courts-spar-apparent-abuser-remains-free

    ReplyDelete
  94. If only it were a wacky claim. Sadly, it is all too true.

    I wonder why you imagine I would provide you with evidence? My purpose here is not to prove anything to anyone, and certainly not to those whose minds are closed, but to put out the true facts. The evidence will emerge in the proper forum, fear not.

    ReplyDelete
  95. By the way, if someone asks you "did you heard the one about the Madricha who is trying to reconnect former students with Rabbi Meisels...", it is not the beginning of a bad joke.

    ReplyDelete
  96. You tell me. Do you really think there were THIRTY allegations including eight of actual assault that were proven and yet a joint Beis Din including Rabbi's Schwartz, Cohen, and Feurst signed on a clear statement saying that all the seminaries were safe although nothing has changed other than the removal of Meisels???
    Does that make one little bit of sense? After claiming for months that the seminaries are not safe, suddenly everything changed and Rabbi's Cohen, Feurst and Schwartz decided they are although nothing changed?
    You know darn well that this never could have happened.
    The only other explanation is that there were never thirty allegations despite what some would like to claim or that would have been brought to light in the joint Beis Din and many folks would have lost their jobs. The reality is that when forced to produce their evidence, the CBD could not produce anything more than the original two [not one] allegations and a small number of other unsubstantiated rumors/allegations that could not be taken seriously.
    Sorry but I don't get my news from a hit piece in the Jewish Week.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that Rabbi Avrohom Chaim Levin was NOT on the CBD. He recused himself from the start which is why Rabbi Schwartz was on it. Apparently the reporter didn't do much of a job fact-checking.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I find it to be highly suspect, do they have such little respect to the readers of these letters, that they don't see the need to affix original signatures , and rely on a amateurish cut and paste. Are they so unaware that anyone can cut and paste signature lines on any document they desire. (As a legal document, it would be laughed out of court), Genuine intention to sign notwithstanding, this document is meaningless, if the signatures are not original then neither is the document they purport to attest to,

    ReplyDelete
  99. I see you've now chosen to name -calling.

    ReplyDelete
  100. If someone who isn't foaming at the mouth has an answer I would love to hear it.

    If someone who isn't foaming at the mouth has a question I would love to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  101. a) R' Levin is certainly on the Special Beis Din. Granted that he recused himself, but that subtlety was lost on the reporter
    b) Says you. Truth is otherwise
    c) Says you. The truth is otherwise.
    d) There are two accusers in New York that have now brought charges for sexual assault. True. But there were eight instances brought to the CBD that qualify, as well (there might be crossover between the two in NY and the eight total)
    e) Says you. Allegations were from a long ranging period.
    f) Rabbi Schwartz put out a letter that talked about Meisels "sexual violence". They mentioned it many times.

    Please stop lying so much. Why does Eidensohn allow so many blatant lies to be published here?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Agreed. There are two people here who, when presented with facts, articles, and documentation (such as charges in NY for sexual assault) continue to downplay Meisels's crimes. I can only speculate as to the continued defense, or why Eidensohn even allows it to go on here.


    It is a legitimate question to argue over when others knew. And it seems that others did, but that's much harder to prove. But as far as Meisels himself, these two commentors are totally in the tank for an obviously awful guy.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Lack of evidence to prove wild speculation leaves your assertion exactly what I called it. I don't care if you provide evidence or not. I'm only pointing out that without evidence, you can say anything you like, but nobody will believe you.

    ReplyDelete
  104. You can argue about a lot of things, but even the CBD members are saying that this document is legit. It's not in dispute by anyone. Stick to arguing about things that remain controversial, please.

    ReplyDelete
  105. R' Levin was satisfied that Meisels was removed. The issue in the article is that Meisels' actions were far worse than a few of the people here want to admit. Thirty girls came forward. This has nothing to do with the issues that cropped up after Meisels' removal.

    ReplyDelete
  106. You have to make up your mind, sir. Are you suggesting that the seminaries have a problem? Yes, you are. When your silly lies are exposed, you run into hiding your exact claims.


    Again.
    1) The New York "Jewish" Week is not a reliable source on anything related to Torah Jews.
    2) If you, in your great imaginary wisdom, decide that the seminary staff members are horrible people, then that is your cute little decision.


    However, you cannot claim that any beth din or renown educator shares your silly vindictive view. As we clearly see how Rav Levine, Rav Feldman, Rav Perlow, Rav Brudny and the bottei din have ruled. They all ruled that there is no issue at all with the seminaries or any staff member. As to your other lawsuit claims, why don't we wait until the true facts emerge. Lets not continue working like Mr. McCarthy.


    Oh, BTW, why have you changed your moniker? Whats wrong with "Moshe" and the various other ones you used during the summer?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Actually, Mr. McCarthy, you have not ever provided one scintilla of evidence to back your wacky claims. The New York Jewish Week article, the Chicago Tribune article, the Frum Follies posts where you have served as the "source" does not constitute evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  108. apparently you don't qualify

    ReplyDelete
  109. Are you replying to my post? If so, I never suggested anything about the seminaries themselves. You must be confusing me with someone else. I am only suggesting that Meisels is far worse than his defenders here have been saying. No more, no less.

    ReplyDelete
  110. I have heard you are very selective with your censorship, I guess I have now learned through experience that this is so.

    ReplyDelete
  111. All I claimed was that you have no proof of anything that Gottesman is "extorted" the sems or that he forced the CBD to do anything. What claim did I make, other than Meisels being far worse a monster than you have suggested (now documented by both a lawsuit in NY and an article in the NYJW)?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Bc Eidensohn encourages abuse and loses all interest in siding with victims once they've become full grown women and not children. He's a misogynist to the highest degree. Oh, and Honesty, David, Kishkeyum are all either related to Meisles or teachers (or themselves even). How very sad. Eidensohn, your allowance of such degrading comments to the victims is AWFUL. You are one big joke.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Actuallly, the liars here are the CBD and their supporters, like you. Schwartz's letter, Fuerst's comments, all part of the same pathology. The two accusers of the lawsuit are the same as the two who came to Chicago. Are there others? I'll believe it when I see it. But I place your report in the same category as the evidence of staff complicity that Chicago claimed it had, which turned out not to exist, as so many of us suspected all along. It's all too clear now why Chicago for so long resisted cooperating with the IBD. They had nothing to bring to the table. Your newspaper articles mean nothing; they are the same disinformation planted by the same bad actors. It's important to put the truth out there, and that's what I'll keep doing so long as I deem it necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Ambrose, you're departing from the script. Fuerst used to say forty girls. Now you're dropping the number to thirty. Get your invented stories straight, okay?

    ReplyDelete
  115. I made a logical point that even with the psak of safe, as a parent I would (and in my opinion other parents should) think long and hard about sending their kids their. Especially in light of no faculty being blamed or fired over what I perceive (again - using logic and common sense) to be gross dereliction of duty.
    Your response to me was that was the equivalent of walking around in a hazmat suit to prevent catching a cold.
    That response was so juvenile, and so out of touch with reality, that my 1st reaction to it was this person must work there or have some sort of ngius. So I asked.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Thanks for your concern, but let me worry about who will believe me. You've got problems of your own.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Your argument is foolish. You are a perfect specimen of a close-minded, agenda-driven, fact-resistant CBD supporter.

    ReplyDelete
  118. No one ever said that the fundamental allegations of improper behavior by Meisels was a hoax. That's a straw man erected by you to give you an argument to demolish. There's no question that Meisels acted inappropriately. He admitted as much, and was therefore removed from his position. The issue that was before the BD at this point was whether the staff was complicit. Chicago claimed they had evidence of complicity by senior staff, which they refused to share with the very beis din to which they themselves handed over the case. That's what was at issue. In fact, the evidence does not exist. The CBD has behaved terribly.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Honesty (lashon sagi nahor much?!)
    Let me break it down for you, as you seem to have a problem with my logic.

    Here we go:
    Common sense dictates that the other faculty should A: have been aware, and B: done something about it. The fact that they didnt means that they are A: incompetent or B: more concerned about their employment than the safety and well-being of the students.

    (I personally would feel very comfortable betting on B.)


    Now I understand that a bais din would need to have provable evidence in order to force the sem to fire somebody. (I personally would have cleaned house top to bottom if I owned the seminaries - there is a concept of A: v'hyeesem nkeeim and B: lmaan yishmeu vyerau - our yeshivos and schools should not be like secular colleges where there is tenure and no accountability. )
    Being that I think there is a probability (call it a preponderance of evidence if you will ) that the staff put the reputation of the school and their own employment before the well being of their students I would NEVER even CONSIDER sending my child there.
    Sure - the bais din has put safety precautions in place for this particular issue. But what happens if some other issue develops where they have to choose between the students well being and "what people would say"! or their own self interest!
    Thanks but no thanks!
    I want my kids to be molded and educated by selfless people whose consideration is only for their students well being and guide them in yahadus, much as my rabbeim did for me.
    Now if you still think that is the equivalent of "wearing a hazmat suit so I dont catch a cold" you are being willfully obtuse, which tells me that you have some sort of negius.

    ReplyDelete
  120. I am pretty sure there was a question there:

    "And how stupid would this staff have to be if it happened and they really didn't know? Are you really saying Meisels was innocent? what is with all the smoke and mirrors?"

    ReplyDelete
  121. 1st of all - show some respect. It is Rabbi Eidensohn. You are not his equal.
    2nd of all - charges do not equal guilt. convictions do.
    That said, I agree that there are legitimate questions that are being ignored and / or glossed over.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Why not call Torah U'Mesorah and ask? It'll be interesting to see whether they deny any connection to him.

    ReplyDelete
  123. U purposely did not answer my question and instead just insult. Now, answer my question. HOW did u know that Debbie gross spoke to the seminaries? By now I know u are either a teacher or related in some ways to the sems. Answer me and stop getting off topic.

    ReplyDelete
  124. The seminaries do NOT accept us govt aid, touro and htc accept. And by immediately dropping these particular seminaries from their programs, touro and htc are immune from suit.

    The bigger problem is that the US dept of education is now liable to investigate these full if baloney educational programs at ALL these seminaries, and probably ban all future aid to these seminaries / us college programs. A big problem to all these seminaries.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Good, now that we're clear, everyone else is lying and/or corrupt except for two or three people over here on this blog. The rest of the planet is wrong. Game, set, match.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Once again - no one claimed that Meisels was innocent. The question is exactly what he is guilty of and how prevalent was it? The CBD originally claimed that it was an ongoing problem that affected many students and therefore the staff must have known or should have known and must therefore be fired.
    Now, they have admitted that it was not nearly as prevalent as they claim and that the staff is not guilty of anything and can stay and that there is no danger.
    That is relatively simple and answers all your questions [unless you were wondering why the CBD pretended that the problem was worse than it was and decided to wreck additional lives. - There's an answer for that, but we'll leave that for another time.]

    ReplyDelete
  127. "Granted that he recused himself, but that subtlety was lost on the reporter"
    A helluva "subtlety" you've got there to explain, son. It was much more than a subtlety. R' ACL is the head of the Beis Din and has publicly stated on multiple occasions orally and in print that he disagreed with everything that the CBD did. Rabbi Feurst told me on the phone that R' ACL told him not to put out any letters or fire staff.
    R' ACL has further vowed never to sit with either of the 3 members of the CBD again on a case.
    If the reporter missed these "subtleties", she missed a big part of the story.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Nothing to bring to the table? You mean other than the 30 witnesses. Ok, then.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Honesty (lashon sagi nahor much?!)


    Cute line. Thanks for the comic relief.


    Now I understand that a bais din would need to have provable evidence in order to force the sem to fire somebody.


    You are incorrect. Completely. When it comes to sexual impropriety, the stringency is on who may be permitted and encouraged to teach, as opposed to who may be fired. This blog has posted several teshuvas about this - please look them up.


    When the beis din, as well as our leading educators made a conscious decision of declaring these seminaries safe and Appropriate for the type of girl these seminaries were intended for, it is not because they have some sort of handicap.


    Again, you have the right to carry around an umbrella on a sunny day. You have the right to keep your winter boots at your front door during the summer. Sure, unexpected rain is always a possibility. A cold spell during the summer is a possibility as well. However, these measures are not in any way rooted in logic. They are rooted in emotion - particularly the emotion of not being able to admit an error in previous judgment.


    Think about it. You are are going up with your McCarthyism against the Beis Din as well as against our primary educators.


    Any more cute lines about my moniker? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  130. Please explain how this a logical non "foaming-at-the-mouth" question. It isn't.


    Your question is one that was left to competent bottei din to deal with. They have and they ruled. Zeh hu.


    What is it you were saying about smoke and mirrors?

    ReplyDelete
  131. if there IS a legitimate answer, why is it so hard to find someone to explain it.


    What, precisely is your legitimate question?
    Each accusation you make should be targeted and precise. It should be backed up by evidence. Then you can have your targeted answers.


    Ah, that was never what you wanted?

    ReplyDelete
  132. It's important to put the truth out there, and that's what I'll keep doing so long as I deem it necessary.


    Thank you Mr. kishkeyum!

    ReplyDelete
  133. The question of the staff is precisely what the expanded BD explored in its hearing. You don't like their decision. That's your issue. But let's not pretend it hasn't been addressed.

    ReplyDelete
  134. His supposed defenders haven't been saying anything. It's all your own invention. The CBD claimed he admitted to assaulting girls, having sexual relations with them. This was a lie. He admitted to nothing more than negiah. That's what I've consistently said on that question, and it remains true.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Please explain - is it supposed to be a good joke? It sounds like a no soap radio type of joke.


    What do you mean Mr. Orlow - has a madricha indeed done this? How do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  136. I'll get off-topic as often as I please. I owe you nothing, least of all a response to your demands.

    But in regard to Debbie Gross, it's not exactly a secret. Everyone in all four schools and in both BDs knows about her involvement. All those people have friends, their friends have friends, and their freinds' friends have friends. Information is shared. And now it has been shared here. Presumably, the reason it's news to you is that you are friendless.

    ReplyDelete
  137. How would you know whether or not I have proof? B/c I haven't shared it with you? Why would I?

    If you imagine that a lawsuit constittues "documentation" of wrongdoing, you are too stupid for words.

    ReplyDelete
  138. I never suggested anything about the seminaries themselves.

    Hmm. Let me repeat and emphasize your lie.

    I never suggested anything about the seminaries themselves.

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/12/it-is-offiicial-chicago-beis-din-and.html#comment-1725180488

    It is a legitimate question to argue over when others knew. And it seems that others did..

    ReplyDelete
  139. All I claimed was that you have no proof of anything...

    Of course you made other claims as well. See this comment of yours and my reply.

    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/12/it-is-offiicial-chicago-beis-din-and.html#comment-1725427897

    now documented by both a lawsuit in NY and an article in the NYJW

    Huh?? 1) Mr. McCarthy can you give us the exact language of the lawsuit?

    2) Since when does a filing a lawsuit, or a RICO complaint classify as even "one scintilla of evidence"?

    3) Since when does an article in The "Jewish" Week classify as a "scintilla of evidence"?

    ReplyDelete
  140. where is all the additional information you keep on promising

    ReplyDelete
  141. That response was so juvenile, and so out of touch with reality


    How about you don't classify my response. Simply speak logic.


    I also repeatedly made the point that the botei din and our top educators completely disagree with you - and they have access to the true facts.

    ReplyDelete
  142. He is Innocent. The truth came out by this beis din.

    ReplyDelete
  143. dont forget that from the 2. One of them clearly said; in taped conversation. "oh, he never touched me" and she herself was by this diyun and explained herself and there was NO proof whatsoever that she ever had anything innapropriate with rabbi meisels. Except for the fact that she admitted that she admired him very much.

    ReplyDelete
  144. he wasnt!
    There is a video tape of this bais din. ANyone saying a lie can be clearly proven wrong here. Oh, how I wish this videotape can be posted.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Ambrose, you are scary! even the complaintants themselves didn't say this. where is your evidence from?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Rabbi Eidensohn, You write: "Let Lopin produce evidence to support his slander" that "Seminary principals Rabbi Meir Kahane and Mrs Hindy Ullman are being demoted but this will not be stated officially."

    You also write: "I have clarified with a member of the beis din that neither has been
    demoted or punished in anyway - officially or unofficially- nor were
    there any findings or information to warrant it on any level whatsoever."

    Let me turn that question around on you: "Let Eidensohn produce evidence to support his slander on Lopin." The bottom line is that you will not identify your sources that obviously contradict mine. Neither of us is free to disclose our sources. You have set up an unmeetable demand, one that you also could not meet.

    As a matter of fairness and consistency you should not demand of others what you would not do yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Well, from a rav that I know personally in the aguda. I know that he ran to him before the convention to beg to be respected by the convention. But emesdige rabbanim arent fools and know the truth and he is soooo sooo demoted now. But in my opinion, lopin is him himself or his partner.

    ReplyDelete
  148. for one reason. and one reason only. they were running out of money cause touro with the support of CBD was not letting the money flow in until the principals are fired. So the principals decided that noone ever heard their tzaad and they have nothing to hide so they'll go ahead and make a diyun with CBD. Just for money and to end this terribly painful lie once and for all.

    ReplyDelete
  149. everything was checked through thoroughly. Were talking about the accused facing the accuser. Both agreeing to a neutral judge. each one stating their evidence and putting everything on the table and the final judgement which was agreed by both sides..... whats hard to understand

    ReplyDelete
  150. That is a meaningless point, and I disagree with it. How do you know they disagree? Did they address anywhere the issue? no. You are inferring from the fact that they did not FIRE the staff, that they did not deserve to be fired and that there is no concern. I say that is ridiculous. Maybe they feel that they need actual hard evidence to fire somone? IDK - but that doesnt mean that there is not a major chashash on those faculty, sorry. There IS a major chashash - such that I would not send a child there.

    ReplyDelete
  151. You are really a troll - all you do is insult people. You know nothing about me, or why I would or wouldnt send my children to a particular mosad. You sit here insulting everyone who disagrees with you, you are worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  152. no cute lines. You clearly have a ngius. You have not said anything of substance so I am very happy to agree to disagree with you. l'chaim.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Rabbi Eidensohn, on a scale of 1-10 where would you place Meisels if 1 is just a few hugs and 10 is multiple sexual assaults?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Show me where R ACL said in print that he disagreed with everything the CBD said and did. I say that is an out and out sheker!

    ReplyDelete
  155. @Yerachmiel Lopin - there was no solid evidence produced during the session of the joing beis din that there was anything more than inappropriate hugging. Do you have any evidence that the joint beis din missed? so what happened to the evidence that you - based on the claims of the CBD - mentioned? I am as puzzled as you as to the sudden deflation of this case.

    Again - if you have any genuine proof to the contrary please produce it.

    ReplyDelete
  156. I dont buy that - and if it is true, why do they not come out directly and say that. In so many words. They should say, "while at first we thought this was a rampant situation, we have since concluded that it was an isolated incident and the staff had no way of knowing etc etc" They have not said that. Why not? Maybe because it is not so true? I am not talking about alleged abuse or not abuse. I am talking about yichud, and driving girls alone in his car, etc etc, and it seems that WAS rampant. I would be reluctant to take an implied hechsher on the staff. Just because they did not do anything directly inapropriate does not mean that they did anything to stop it. And now the seminaries are "safe" because there is oversight. Great. But they are still employing people who could have done something to prevent the situation and the did not. In fact, some of them tried very hard to prevent the story from going public.

    ReplyDelete
  157. So why was he fired and forced to sell? ridiculous~!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  158. I have common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  159. YOU ARE INSANE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  160. @Yerachmiel Lopin - my evidence is threefold - 1) the joint beis din - despite all the yelling and screaming about claims and concerns about staff - produced no evidence to support these claims and concerns and thus the schools were declared safe without firing anyone 2) if you read the actually psak which I am sure you were able to get a hold of through your contacts who were at the diyun for at least part of the time before they were kicked out.

    3) Finally you were the one who made the claim about being demoted. There is absolutely no evidence for that. The IBD said it was a lie. Why don't you contact the dayanim and report back that the dayan you spoke to disagreed with the IBD?

    ReplyDelete
  161. that response is almost silly. nobody takes FALSE claims of sexual abuse and steps down for the good of the school. If he wasn't guilty he would have fought to clear his name.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Note I said "privately." Also note that you did not bring proof, just surmises. I am not accusing you of lying, just of being wrong. You on the other hand... You have a double standard while you deny it.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Can I surmise that you rate the misconduct as a 1 on my proposed scale?

    ReplyDelete
  164. This is laughable all the lies you've constructed here. Oh, and I know from fact.

    ReplyDelete
  165. DT, do you think R Malinowitz believes Meisles is guilty or no?

    ReplyDelete
  166. "Emesdige Rabbanim" are (1)not generally affiliated with Agudah in more than a passing way and (2)don't blab to random people about their interactions with other people.

    ReplyDelete
  167. i have no idea what you are snapping at. I am so confused by some of the hate filled posts here that I wanted to get someone to tell me what they were defending. For some reason you see that as an attack and imprecise, requiring evidence. Maybe you are just in defensive mode from what is going up and back here.


    Let me try again. I come with no agenda, have no interest in either side, hold very highly of many of these rabbanim while at the same time have no problem believing that corruption exists. I have actually worked very closely with some of the rabbeim and have a pretty good understanding how some of these cases work, and how much is kept out of the public even despite all the backlash. But I have seen their good and their bad. I only know what I know about this particular case from girls who were in the seminaries. That is where I am coming from. No agenda, all I care about is what is really true but there are SOOO many posters here who are SOO aggressive and I really don't hold any credibility to them. If you have something honest to say, you don't need to hit people over the head with it.


    So my question was this:
    I was under the assumption that everyone knows meisels is guilty (some posters say it is not being disputed by anyone, while other posters claim it never happened). I can understand why people would be VERY emotional, angry, defensive if people go around defending a molester (I myself do as well) and I understand how angry and emotional people would be if they were part of the group who experienced it and they are listening to people playing it down. What I DON'T understand, and was hoping someone would just plain explain, is what the "other camp" is so mad about. It sounded TO ME (which is why I wanted clarification) that they wanted to act like Meisels behavior was not a big deal and that it was all a case of a corrupt beis din. Then there were others who SEEMED to give the impression that they believed Meisels was guilty but 'so what and just leave the staff alone', as if knowing without reporting wasn't a big deal.


    Since that sounds ridiculous, I was asking if there was someone who would explain it to me, without spitting at me or throwing things at me. Apparently that didn't happen. So now I have explained myself and will see if that helps.

    ReplyDelete
  168. ***Time Out***
    (serious question, I am asking sincerely)I am very curious to know how you know they are lying? You speak very confidently about knowing exactly what was and what wasn't presented and who lied about what. I would MUCH rather get hold of evidence to discover the truth (no matter what it is) than hear people speculate, is there a way of accessing all that definitive information?

    ReplyDelete
  169. Lopin is a serious baby. Have some self respect; have your words carry enough power Mr. Lopin, that you don't need to post things here to support your fabricated, crooked claims. If you yourself would feel fully convinced you would have no need to lower yourself and get onto this blog to prove urself right. WOW, have you got some growing up to do. I suspect that your real name Mr. Lopin; is Phillip Gottesman.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Lopin is a serious baby. Have some self respect; have your words carry enough power Mr. Lopin, that you don't need to post things here to support your fabricated, crooked claims. If you yourself would feel fully convinced you would have no need to lower yourself and get onto this blog to prove urself right, ur own blog would've been enough. WOW, have you got some growing up to do. I suspect that your real name Mr. Lopin; is Phillip Gottesman.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Daas Torah,
    You speak the words of truth. And once thats done you don't need to convince an apikores of the truth. Cus a man that is looking to distort the facts when it was clearly done halachically is an apikores.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Didn't the CBD indicate that there was more to it?? That is what I had been hearing out of them all along.

    ReplyDelete
  173. You should not use the term "psak" regarding metzius. Whether or not the seminaries are safe is an issue of fact not halacha. Beis Din does not "pasken" whether or not a piece of meat is pig. It either is or is not.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Are you insane! Nobody on the Beis Din thinks that Meisels is innocent!!

    ReplyDelete
  175. Many people predicted that the CBD would somehow be forced to cave in so that is not so surprising. The pressure has been immense against them. For all we know they were outvoted on this new Beis Din? Do you know that they issued an anonymous "psak"?

    ReplyDelete
  176. Here we go with Gottesman again... what's your latest theory on the grassy knoll?

    ReplyDelete
  177. So what? They already said kosher.... why couldn't they let the CBD proceed on their own. They wanted a joint beis din to outvote the CBD and silence them. That's a conjecture of course... I just would love to know what was happening behind the scenes.

    ReplyDelete
  178. So they forced the CBD to go along with it?

    ReplyDelete
  179. @JBlog - there was one 5 page joint psak signed by all the dayanim. Nothing about being outvoted - it was a unanimous decision.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Why not go one step further - Meisels doesn't think he was innocent!

    ReplyDelete
  181. @Jblog - that is the description the joint beis din gave. So go argue with them. When a rav says an animal was shected correctly that is a metzius question. If some one is a ganef or murder - that is a metzius question.

    ReplyDelete
  182. @JBlog - yes the CBD originally claimed there was more - but in fact did not have evidence to support those claims

    ReplyDelete
  183. Hashem, shem MaryAnne vihakol, kol Hindy.

    ReplyDelete
  184. @C.W. Meisels only confessed to hugging. The CBD claimed they evidence of much more severe crimes including the rape of 40 girls. At the joint beis din - they in fact had no evidence. There are in fact claims - but there is no evidence and the veracity of these claims is problematic. Meisels denies anything more serious. This issue is what original divided the CBD and IBD. Now we see that in fact the CBD present know meaningful evidence to support their claims. This is a lot of what the yelling and screaming is about

    ReplyDelete
  185. Okay Mrs.Ullman. Thanks for the Megillah u wrote below. Unfortunately, it's too long for anyone's attention span to read the entire thing.

    ReplyDelete
  186. He signed the letter that declared the seminaries safe and went against his own CBD when they were screaming that all of them are dens of rapes.
    When spoken to by others, he expressly declared his disagreement with them and as I said, Rabbi Feurst acknowledged it to me as well. Call it a sheker if you will but thems the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Yes - what about them? where are they? Why didn't they appear in the joint BD when they had the chance like the original two [in one form or another]
    [Simple answer - they don't exist other than in the minds of a few.]

    ReplyDelete
  188. Iv been a fan of r eidonson for awhile. He has facts, Checks them profusely, has clear thinking, is credible and is a huge Talmud chacham. So Please noone should at all speak disrespectfully to or of him.

    Second its mentchlach and good middos to be open minded and respect another's view or opinion. Noone should ever bash, berate and even call names at all !!! This type of behavior is verbally abusive!! Especially people who care so much about enabling abuse. All this negative talk and abuse has to stop!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  189. And your point is what exactly?
    You've said it now three times. What else can you add to the conversation [that was never about what Meisels did - he's been out of the sems for months - but about the safety of the seminaries that all agree is not in question even the CBD]?

    ReplyDelete
  190. Lopin: R. Eidensohn doesn't need to prove a negative. You made a wild claim. You need to prove it. No one else needs to disprove it.

    ReplyDelete
  191. You're delusional. There are no 30 witnesses.

    But you're changing your story. Earlier, you identified them as complainants. Now they are witnesses? If you're gonna act as a shill for Gottesman, at least try to keep your lies straight.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Not at all. Happily, lots of people know the truth by now, despite the best efforts of dishonest people like yourself. Others at least suspect that all is not kosher in Chicago, and boy, are they right.

    ReplyDelete
  193. And you claim to have come to this discussion with no preconceptions. Uh huh.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Hey Hindy - stop trying to cover up how you failed to protect your students. You let Meisels rape them.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Maryanne Ullman just did, in the comment right above yours. She used the term "innocent"

    ReplyDelete
  196. So then here is my follow up, sincere, question. If meisels confessed to hugging, why aren't you and his other supporters (?) so disgusted and horrified that the rest is irrelevant? Why would any typical decent Jew give any type of support to such a rabbi, even go so far as ripping his opposers to shreds? I think this piece is what is somewhat enraging. I couldn't possibly see you jumping to the side of such a person without seeing you as giving credence to him and playing down what he did. I hope you realize I am asking sincerely because a rabbi who confesses to hugging should be the epitome of disgust and shame to EvERYoNE, regardless of your feelings toward chareidim, batei din, etc.

    As a very separate statement, I don't believe anyone gives "just a hug". From a hilchos yichud standpoint it doesn't hold water.

    Thank you for your civility, I hope you will answer the above as well.

    ReplyDelete
  197. @Yerachmiel - why keep repeating yourself. I have objective proof - the clear statement of the IBD and the words written in the psak. The many people who have access to one or both can verify what I said. On the other hand you offer no source nor anyway of verification.

    ReplyDelete
  198. He never admitted to assault. Another lie.

    ReplyDelete
  199. It's not. Schwartz was lying and it can be proved.

    ReplyDelete

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