Background - this is related to the alleged embezzlement of $20 million from Aish HaTorah by Yaakov Fetman. That case was arbitrated by Rav Dovid Cohen who ruled in favor of Aish HaTorah. Fetman refused to comply with Rav Dovid Cohen's ruling. Aish HaTorah went to secular court to recover the money - and the secular court supported Rav Cohen's ruling. The following link provides detailed legal documents regarding the matter and clearly supports the position of Aish HaTorah
=============================
Legal Documents regarding this case
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_50997.htm
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/motions/2015/2015_78427.htm
type aish hatorah Fetman in search window
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/lawReporting/Search http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/motions/2015/2015_78427.htm
type aish hatorah Fetman in search window
--------------------------------------
Forward $20M Charity Embezzlement Case Shows Power of Rabbinic Courts
In late December 2013, a prominent Brooklyn rabbi made an eye-popping ruling in his rabbinic court: The former chief financial officer of an Orthodox charity called Aish Hatorah New York owed the charity $20 million that he had allegedly stolen.
That startling sum amounted to roughly three times the charity’s annual budget, or more than five times the charity’s net assets. If the former CFO, Jacob Fetman, actually took that much from Aish, it would amount to the largest Jewish charity fraud in recent memory.
What followed the ruling was legal pandemonium, in the form of a year and a half of battles that moved into the secular court system. In the meantime, in December 2014, Brooklyn’s district attorney filed criminal charges against Fetman, alleging that he had embezzled funds from the charity — though the DA charged that he had taken $236,000; a significant sum, to be sure, but a mere fraction of the rabbinic court’s ruling. Fetman has pleaded not guilty to this criminal charge. [...]
The Aish case was seen before Rabbi Dovid Cohen, a highly respected religious scholar who leads Congregation Gvul Yaabetz in Brooklyn.
The decisions of rabbinical courts, like those of any arbitrator, are difficult to amend or reverse in civil courts. In New York, state law allows arbitration awards to be overturned only in cases of corruption, fraud or partiality by the arbitrator, among a handful of other narrow reasons.
“It’s not exactly a rubber stamp, but it’s a pretty flexible stamp,” Resnicoff said. [...]
In late December 2013, Aish Hatorah filed in New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn to enforce the rabbi’s judgment. A judge ruled largely in the charity’s favor in September 2014, upping the judgment to $21.4 million to include interest. Fetman’s attorneys immediately said that they intended to appeal the ruling; those papers are due in late June. In the meantime, the two sides have continued to fight before the original civil court judge, as Fetman’s lawyers have petitioned her to rehear the case. Decisions on at least one of those petitions are still pending. [...]
Rav Dovid Cohen's letter just received regarding this case
Rav Dovid Cohen's letter just received regarding this case
Email sent by the Director General of Aish HaTorah
From: Steven Burg
Date: 20 July 2015 03:26:11 BST
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Fwd: HaRav Dovid Cohen on Aish NY vs. Fetman case
Dear Aish Team,
In response to the many emails that are going around concerning a siruv regarding Aish NY:;
Aish NY's former CFO, who left in 2013, has lost in beis din after admitting guilt and then lost in US Supreme Court of Kings County and very recently lost again on his appeal to retry the case [google: NY Law Journal article] It seems he is now attempting to retry matters of the case in another beis din.
Enclosed, please find a letter from Rav Dovid Cohen expressing his thoughts on another beis din attempting to retry matters.
Below you can see a general outline of the case put together by Aish NY. If anyone receiving this email feels the need, for any reason, please call HaRav Dovid Cohen to verify this yourself.
-----------------------
Aish HaTorah Responds to Inquiries Regarding New York State Supreme Court’s Decision Confirming Arbitration Award and Indictment of Former CFO
--Organization pursuing all means of collecting judgment against Jacob Fetman; Remains focused on its mission to reintroduce Jews to their heritage—
New York, New York, July 19, 2015 -- In response to another attempt made by Aish HaTorah NY's former CFO to retry a case that has already been decided, Rabbonim and attorneys have advised Aish HaTorah NY not to respond to old allegations in a new beis din.
For further clarification: Aish HaTorah NY, a non-profit organization dedicated to reintroducing Jews to their heritage, confirms that on September 29, 2014, Justice Carolyn Demarest of the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Aish HaTorah NY’s petition to confirm an arbitration award against Jacob Fetman. Mr. Fetman previously served as chief financial officer of Aish HaTorah NY for 17 years. His employment was terminated in October 2013 upon discovery that he had stolen considerable sums of money from the organization during his tenure.
Subsequent to Mr. Fetman’s termination, Aish HaTorah NY and Mr. Fetman mutually agreed to resolve the matter through Rabbinic arbitration, which is binding in the State of New York. Based on the findings of a forensic accountant and other evidence, the arbitrator ruled on December 17, 2013 that Mr. Fetman owes Aish HaTorah NY $20 million. In his written ruling, the arbitrator, Rav Dovid Cohen, advised the parties that “all properties and entities that can be traced, that they belong or are controlled by Mr. Fetman can be confiscated by Aish HaTorah” in satisfaction of the ruling.
Mr. Fetman refused to adhere to the arbitrator’s ruling, in turn prompting Aish HaTorah NY to seek and now receive affirmation of the ruling by the New York Supreme Court, Kings County.
A spokesperson for Aish HaTorah NY said, “We presented indisputable evidence before an arbitrator and the New York State Supreme Court, including an admission of guilt, that Mr. Fetman stole considerable sums of money from the organization. We have now received affirmation of the arbitrator’s award and will pursue all available legal remedies to collect the judgment against Mr. Fetman.”
In addition to seeking legal recourse against Mr. Fetman, Aish HaTorah NY’s Board of Directors engaged the law firm of Patterson Belknap to conduct an independent investigation of the organization’s internal policies, procedures and controls, which have since been bolstered to exceed regulatory requirements, in order to prevent the organization from being victimized in a similar manner in the future.
On December 4, 2014 Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson announced that Mr. Fetman was indicted for embezzling money from Aish HaTorah NY.
The Board of Directors of Aish NY have said that “We are pleased that the New York State Supreme Court has affirmed the arbitrator’s decision and will pursue all available legal remedies to recoup the organization’s money. While the Board actively addresses this matter, we want to assure everyone that Aish HaTorah NY is committed to ensuring that its mission – which is dedicated to revitalizing the Jewish world by reintroducing Jews to their heritage through a dynamic and rapidly expanding social and educational network committed to a worldwide renaissance of the Jewish people – is always conducted with honesty and integrity, maintaining the highest values internally, just as it tries to promote these values in those it seeks to guide. It should be further noted that all actions taken by Aish HaTorah NY and its board of directors have been taken after consultation with Rabbinic authorities and we are following Rabbinic guidance in proceeding forward."
Warm regards,
Steve Burg
Director General - Mankal
Aish HaTorah
One Western Wall Plaza
================================================================
Dear Rabbi Eidensohn, I am lost here. Are you seriously bringing Rabbi Beslky's Beis Din as an authority? Do you believe that Rabbi Belsky's Beis Din can be viewed as a Beis Din that follows the halacha - not emotion - at all times?
It is important to note:
1) that Rabbi Belsky, in 2004, declared himself as the "Ave Beis Din of Brooklyn" when he attempted to nullify a marriage on what the major poskim termed "laughable grounds".
2) Rabbi Belsky was recorded saying that he permitted Avraham Rubin to be beaten, in Avraham Rubin's absence and Avraham Rubin never agreed to hav Rabbi Belsky, Mordy Wollmark, Medel Epstein and Aryeh Ralbag serve as dayanim for him.
3) Rav Elyashiv said that he permitted married women (women without a valid get) to cohabit with, or marry, other men making their children mamzeirim.
4) Rabbi Belsky is known to be a deeply emotional person with a terrible temper. Can a tempersome person be a dayan?
5) Rabbi Belsky holds the dishonorable distinction of being on Rav Pam's dislike list and it is claimed that they wouldn't even greet each other with a "Good Shabbos", despite the fact that they both worked together in Torah V'daas.
6) Rabbi Belsky's judgment in coming to defense of Dovid Weinberger was highly, and publicly, criticized by the rabbonim of the Five Towns. Can His judgment ever be trusted on its own?
7) Do any of the "dayanim" on Rabbi Belsky's Beis Din have semicha from anyone other than Rabbi Belsky? If so, from whom?
Please excuse me if I misunderstood the post over here.
Dear Rabbi Eidensohn, I am lost here. Are you seriously bringing Rabbi Beslky's Beis Din as an authority? Do you believe that Rabbi Belsky's Beis Din can be viewed as a Beis Din that follows the halacha - not emotion - at all times?
ReplyDeleteIt is important to note:
1) that Rabbi Belsky, in 2004, declared himself as the "Ave Beis Din of Brooklyn" when he attempted to nullify a marriage on what the major poskim termed "laughable grounds".
2) Rabbi Belsky was recorded saying that he permitted Avraham Rubin to be beaten, in Avraham Rubin's absence and Avraham Rubin never agreed to hav Rabbi Belsky, Mordy Wollmark, Medel Epstein and Aryeh Ralbag serve as dayanim for him.
3) Rav Elyashiv said that he permitted married women (women without a valid get) to cohabit with, or marry, other men making their children mamzeirim.
4) Rabbi Belsky is known to be a deeply emotional person with a terrible temper. Can a temperamental person be a dayan?
5) Rabbi Belsky holds the dishonorable distinction of being on Rav Pam's dislike list and it is claimed that they wouldn't even greet each other with a "Good Shabbos", despite the fact that they both worked together in Torah V'daas.
6) Rabbi Belsky's judgment in coming to defense of Dovid Weinberger was highly, and publicly, criticized by the rabbonim of the Five Towns. Can His judgment ever be trusted on its own?
7) Do any of the "dayanim" on Rabbi Belsky's Beis Din have semicha from anyone other than Rabbi Belsky? If so, from whom?
Please excuse me if I misunderstood the post over here.
@Honesty - I agree with your points and am adding them to the post. I posted this simply because whether you are agree or not R Belsky is viewed as an important halachic authority and Aish HaTorah is considered an important Torah institute. I am not taking sides and welcome any response from Aish HaTorah which I will post.
ReplyDeleteR. Dovid Cohen told Aish not to pay attention to Belsky's phony hazmonos and has written another letter in support of them.
ReplyDeletePerhaps include this in the post :http://www.lukeford.net/blog/?p=59138
ReplyDeletethanks for the reference - but his appeal was rejected by the court. What is relevance of including this information?
ReplyDeleteDo you know why Rav Belsky got involved in this case?
Thank you - for responding, your clarification, the posts and all the updates.
ReplyDeleteI just found that during a google search and thought it may be of interest. I'm not familiar with the case.
ReplyDelete@david - perhaps it will be helpful and should be posted - but let's see how this story develops.
ReplyDeleteDid any of the nitvoim respond to the hazmanah in any manner? If they didn't then there is no suprise that a siruv was issued. That would be SOP for any bais din and doesn't represent ant judgment by the bais din about the merits of the case. There are quite often scenarios where the nitvah believes that he doesn't have to go to the bais din in question. The proper way to handle that is for the nitvah (or more commonly his rav or toain ) to send a letter stating why he doesn't have to appear and if the argument is legitimate then there would typically be no siruv. If they didn't do that then they have only themselves to blame for the siruv.
ReplyDeleteRav Dovid Cohen's handwritten letter is dated July 2011 (per the fax's timestamp.) Is the year on the fax timestamp set incorrect? Because Steve Burg from Aish's e-mail is from July 2015.
ReplyDelete@Moe - the timestamp obviously is wrong since all the beis din and secular court involvement took place after that date
ReplyDeleteI disagree. As R. Dovid Cohen's letter proves, Belsky's beis din was clearly acting in bad faith. Getting involved with such gangsters will only pull you deeper into their web.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Cohen's letter doesnt prove anything. Rabbi Cohen's letter was very troubling to me in what it did not say - namely it did not say that he or anyone else contacted Rabbi Belsky's bais with a formal statement of why they would not appear. That is not how this is typically handled and if in fact that is the case there is no basis for criticizing Rabbi Belsky for issuing the siruv. Any reputable bais din would do the same.
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit confused. Rabbi Belsky's Ksav Siruv relates to a matter in which the named plaintiff is a certain Shmuel Lefkowitz and no refe5rence is made to a Feitman case. How then is this Siruv by Rabbi Belsky related to the Feitman vs. Aish Hatorah case? Furthermore, Rabbi Cohen's hand written letter does not positively identify Rabbi Belsky's Beis Din as the one that is inserting itself in the already decided case.
ReplyDeleteCan someone clear this up for me?
R' Cohen has zero obligation to contact R' Belsky's beis din. He was accepted as arbitrator by both sides of the dispute. He ruled. R' Belsky has no business involving himself. Given his reputation, it's not surprising that he did, but it's certainly not R' Cohen's obligation to make response to R' Belsky's BD for a hazmanah sent improperly to someone else. I believe you are indeed very troubled, as you claim, but I doubt it's R' Cohen's letter that is troubling you.
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight. A ganev loses in beis din. He then has the chutzpa to go to erko'ois to try to get the verdict overturned, at which he fails. So he goes to a second beis din to try his luck again. Instead of throwing him out, as any reputable beis din would do at this point, these fraudsters start sending hazmonos to the nigzolim, who won fair and square in beis din and, lehavdil, in court. And Aish should dignify these conmen by responding to them?
ReplyDelete@RaP - it was very difficult to decide whether or not to reject this screed - attacking Aish HaTorah and Rav Dovid Cohen. One the one hand I generally appreciate you insights and background information - but on the other hand your comment makes no attempt to be fair and impartial. You describe Rav Cohen as biased towards Aish HaTorah - but both sides were part of Aish HaTorah and they obviously both viewed him - contrary to your view - to be fair and impartial. On the other hand you describe Rav Belsky as being impartial and fair - unfortunately that is not how he has come across in recent years with his involvement in the beating of Rubin, his association with Mendel Epstein, his support of Dovid Weinberger despite all the evidence against him, his disgrace involvement in the both Kolko cases and his nasty attack on the father of one of the victims etc etc.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the secular court - if the Fetman was tried by a hanging judge - the secular court would not have gone along with the arbitration agreement. Clearly the judge after hearing both sides clearly agreed with Rav Dovid Cohen.
Your conjecture that Fetman had the rights to 90% of the tzedkah money passing through his hands is an absurd attempt to defend the indefensible.
But the real basis to your "primal scream" about the "injustice" of this case is revealed at the end when the root of all evil - R Chaim Berlin - makes its appearance. Aish HaTorah becomes Chaim Berlin and low and behold - Rav Belsky becomes Rav Moshe Feinstein.
Please stop seeing Chaim Berlin under every rock and behind all evil.
RDE: You're on target. I'll add that from the end of RAP's nonsensical and defamatory rant we see what his problem is with R' Cohen; namely, that he no doubt associates R' Cohen too with Chaim Berlin, which to him is the root of all evil.
ReplyDelete@RaP_Commentary - RSC case was initially against Rav Hutner, as Rav Hutner ultimately dismissed RSC from his position in 1978 (two years before he passed away in 1980.) Rav Hutner, not Rav Schechter, was the ultimate authority calling the shots in Chaim Berlin, The case later was changed against the new Rosh Yeshiva after Rav Hutner passed away.
ReplyDeleteYRCB/Rav Hutner maintained a valid halachic position that a yeshiva/talmid chochom is not required to respond to a din Torah. Others may disagree with Rav Hutner ZT'L's halachic position on this point, but this position of Rav Hutner in the RSC case is a valid halachic position. (Even if Rav Moshe disagreed with Rav Hutner about it.)
From the NYS court case:
ReplyDelete"It appears to be undisputed that it was Fetman who initially contacted Cohen to arbitrate the parties' dispute."
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_50997.htm
If you read the "siruv" with the English translation attached, dated the 8th of Tamuz, you will see that "Rav" Fetman is the plaintiff. Interesting to note that Fetman is honored with a "Rav" while the Aish Hatorah representatives receive no title. Is this a Beis DIn that is unbiased and understands the halachos of treating both parties equally?
ReplyDeleteA second beis din cannot overrule a first beis din's verdict or even reopen the first beis din's case, especially considering that both sides of the dispute did not accept the jurisdiction of the second beis din whereas they all did accept the jurisdiction of the first beis din.
ReplyDeleteNo you should get this straight - if you get a hazmanah to bais din and you believe you are not required to appear pursuant to halacha, then you or your toain should formally respond to the bais din that you do not intend to appear because you are not required to. If not, expect a hazmanah, as a bais din will typically not do any investigation at that stage other than knowing that it issued a hazmanah and you ignored it. As far as the merits of the case at hand, I expressed no views on that because I am not familiar with the matter at hand. The one think I am sure is that Mr. Fetman did not walk into a bais din and claim to be a ganev who lost in one bais din and is now looking for a second bite at the apple. In fact, he doesn't even seem to be the plaintiff in the second bais din proceeding. Is it still possible that the second bais din proceeding a scam, of course, but if you are the target of a scam then you should either alert the bais din or don't wine about receiving a siruv. Having said all that,to be clear, I do not know what Aish did or didn't tell Rabbi Belsky's bais din on this issue - just asking the question and reading between the lines of Rabbi Cohen's letter.
ReplyDeletePlease don't confuse RaP with the facts.
ReplyDeleteRDE i am very surprised at you for posting a commenter's undocumented and baseless accusations against Rabbi Belsky. I won't address most of the specifics because I don't have first hand knowledge of all and for the one I do I am not permitted to disclose it - but I can publicly address the rumors about Rav Pam's relationship with Rabbi Belsky which are completely false. I was privy to a number of conversations between Rav Pam and Rav Belsky in the years before he became ill. Also, Rav Pam directed me to ask shaalos to Rabbi Belsky on a number of occassions - both before and during his final illness. I've seen the craziest allegations about their relationship by blog commenters one more absurd than another. There are a number of talmidim of Torah Vodaath that were close talmidim of both Rav Pam and Rabbi Belsky who can speak to their relationship better than I can (I was not a talmid of Rabbi Belsky) so it seems inexcusable to me for you to post this creed without trying to verify this.
ReplyDeleteThere is another story , from the YU side, about R' Dovid Cohen, when he publicly humiliated Rav Soloveitchik, and was thrown out of the shiur. R' Aaron Rakeffet gives a lecture on this episode. So just as the Hareidi world have some issues with the RAS episode and his lo Tseis Dino, the YU world have issues with RDC.
ReplyDeleteClueless as ever.
ReplyDeleteI think it's laudable that RDE posted Honesty's comments. They are only the tip of the iceberg.
ReplyDeleteYou are an ignorant fool.
ReplyDeleteThe appeal was rejected without the court deciding on the merits of the allegations.
ReplyDeleteThat's because, as the court said, the merits were already decided by the beis din.
ReplyDeleteSo you favor posting lies because they are the "tip of the iceberg"?
ReplyDeleteshould put a seruv on them for their endless male bashing feminism
ReplyDeleteDon't be silly. Of course Belsky knew that this guy lost in beis din already. The fact that he was willing to send a hazmono regardless shows that he was in on the attempted shakedown. Such people are not worth responding to.
ReplyDelete"YRCB/Rav Hutner maintained a valid halachic position that a yeshiva/talmid chochom is not required to respond to a din Torah."
ReplyDeletewhat is the halachik source for that position, please
huh??
ReplyDeleteHuh, if course they were - that is the purpose of trying to overturn the arbitration ruling - but that is a very tough hurdle to overcome. My point was simply that the rejection of the appeal is not necessarily indicative of any decision by the court as to the merits of his allegations. Not saying that his allegations are true - just you can't infer that they are not from the courts decision.
ReplyDeleteMatis Weinberg is still involved in Aish Hatorah? Huh? Do you have any basis for saying that?
ReplyDeleteThe beis din already considered the case and issued a ruling. All parties to the case accepted the jurisdiction of the beis din before the beis din accepted the case. The secular court said the beis din ruled on the case and therefore the secular court will not reopen and reconsider a case that was already decided in beis din.
ReplyDeleteNo, I favor posting truth which represents only the tip of the iceberg of the corruption of this BD. Are you slow?
ReplyDeletenot necessarily indicative of any decision by the court as to the merits of his allegations.
ReplyDeleteHello? He admitted that he stole. He's arguing only about precisely how many millions. You are either ignorant of the facts or pretending not to know. Either way -- cut it out.
There seems to be to siruvim. One refers to Lefkowitz as the nitvah and the other refers to a Moshe Fetman, not Yaakov Fetman. In any event some clarification is warranted.
ReplyDeleteTotal nonsense. Nobody in the YU world has an issue with RDC over the Rav incident. It's viewed as a humorous historical footnote to a classic hesped. Nothing more.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the allegations against Jacob Fetman, an attorney familiar with the case points out that Justice Demarest in her decision to confirm Rabbi Cohen's award of $20,000,000 (twenty million dollars), made it clear that she did not review the merits of the case - her focus was to confirm or reject this award. As it is the public policy in NY state to uphold arbitration awards and because of the fact that there were no transcripts of the arbitration sessions (4 sessions totaling 140 minutes) she had no choice but to confirm the award - despite her reservations about Fetman's allegations of the many violations of his Due Process. For example, in court it was acknowledged that a forensic report, which R' Cohen bases his award on, was never provided to Fetman and in fact, once the judge ordered Aish to produce it (April 25, 2015 - almost 18 months after the award was issued), it was found to be dated AFTER the last session and on the date of the AWARD. Clearly, there was no chance for Fetman to dispute any of its 'findings'.
ReplyDeleteIt is note worthy that a criminal complaint which was alleged by Aish against Jacob Fetman is still pending in Brooklyn Supreme court for the alleged theft of $236,000 over five years - Mr. Fetman plead Not Guilty to this allegation and a trial is pending.
While Aish is a wonderful organization, with a very important mission, in court papers it was alleged by Fetman that executive compensation was substantially under reported and disguised as activities. Rabbi Greenman's compensation over 2012 reported as (aish 990 filing) $101,409 taxable income and an additional $94,000 non taxable income was in fact almost double that. David Markowitz's taxable compensation of $62,500 with an additional $50,000 non taxable compensation was in fact about $150,000. 2013 reported income for Rabbi Greenman was $118,310 taxable and combined compensation (with non taxable compensation) $216,929. Aish chose not to divulge any other executive compensation.
After the RDC incident with RJBS, Rav Hutner effectively stopped permitting Chaim Berliners from going to RJBS' shiurim.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened was "Rabbi" David Hartman, a student of RJBS who later abandoned Orthodoxy, threatened RDC for having spoken up at RJBS.
ReplyDeleteLo maaleh velo morid. Again, nobody from the YU world has an issue with RDC over the hesped incident. Nobody cares. It's just something funny that happened.
ReplyDeleteI will respond one time, although your rudeness is indicative that you don't want to know the truth. I know for a fact that ar least two of the allegations are lies.
ReplyDeleteAfter you were answered on other posts where you defended Rabbi Belsky, you disappeared over there.
ReplyDeleteThe Siruv claims that Aish is proceeding "בלי שום היתר". How can Rabbi Belsky make such a claim without even contacting Rabbi Dovid Cohen?
It is quite obvious that Rabbi Belsky feels that he "knows" everything that is going on in this case. Despite that, he has chosen to backhandedly challenge the ruling of the accepted and chosen arbitrator and Beis Din. This is something that needs to be explained and justified as the very first step to remove Rabbi Belsky and his actions out of the perceived wrong. Aish remains clearly in the right until we can first halchically justify Rabbi Belsky's actions with facts, not conjecture.
@Emes -
ReplyDelete1) Which two allegations are lies?
2) How do you know they are lies?
I know due to first hand knowledge. One I stated specifically. The other I am not at liberty to discuss.
ReplyDelete@Emes - There were seven points in the post you took issue with. You said two of the seven were lies. You identified one of the two. Without being specific about the details you can at least point out which of the seven is also a lie.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I didn't defend or criticize either side or Rabbi Belsky or Rabbi Cohen. I just highlighted certain questions which certain commenters who seem to have an chip on their shoulder about Rabbi Belsky objected to. My comment in this chain was limited to pointing out that there seem to be two siruvim with two different plaintiffs one of whom as the same last name as Jacob Fetman (I have no clue whether they are related or what the relationship is). I didn't make any inferences from those facts so any observations or questions you have about either Rav's actions or what should be done should be addressed to someone else.
ReplyDeleteI believe more than two are lies - two I know are lies. I cannot add anything of value about the other one I have actual knowledge without disclosing something I am not permitted to disclose.
ReplyDeleteI dont understand how there can be a siruv after a psak from a different beis din. Can any talmud chacham who wasn't included in the original proceedings send hazmanos and a subsequent siruv? Ein ladavar sof! No psak will ever be carried out in that manner.
ReplyDeleteThe argument supporters of Rabbi Belsky make is that Rabbi Belsky cannot be in the wrong because -- he is Rabbi Belsky!! So all your points fail. Because you did not demonstrate that Rabbi Belsky is not Rabbi Belsky.
ReplyDeleteThere's a candidate running for President. In reference to the global financial meltdown, he says that banks that are too big to fail, are too big to exist. I say, Rabbis that are too big to fail, are too big to follow.
Yes, he lives in Jerusalem, and after he was involved in his own scandalS (in Santa Clara, in Jerusalem) where he was blacklisted by YU from teaching its boys away on their "one year" programs, he works behind the scenes with Aish HaTorah.
ReplyDeleteBut as you may recall a Bais Din ruled (it was in the papers years ago, so it's no secret), that if I recall correctly included Rav Feivel Cohen and Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky ruled years ago that he would not face any charges of doing wrongdoings with his students, if he would give up being a Rebbe or Rosh Yeshiva in any place.
So he is bound by that, but behind the scenes he gives shiurim, is involved with his uncle's (Ra Noach's) yeshiva that his own father (Rav Yaakov) was VERY involved with, and he keeps up that family tradition and business. He travels the world, writes books, RAISES MONEY (something Weinbergs have mastered, they know the American mind very well), and he still has a secret following that swears by him.
He also has many bitter opponents who object to the way he talks about explicit sex and sexual topics, even to young girls who flock to listen to him (the "sexy" rabbi with the potty-mouth!) to influence and and make people "frum" which was one of the main points that Rav Elya Svei, and Rav Shach ZT"L by the way, were always attacking Aish and the Weinbergs about, but they just brushed off Rav Svei and Rav Shach because Aish had the gullible followers with lots of $$$$$.
So Matis is alive and kicking and he is brilliant, charismatic and a Gaon, but hugely tainted by controversies and so he's forced to keep a low profile.
The Sad Demise of Aish HaTorah
ReplyDeleteThis story has just exploded and as that old song goes...we've only just begun.... have even seen the latest post at http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/07/aish-hatorah-case-in-defense-of-yaakov.htmlbecause Aish HaTorah has been stewing in controversies, mainly to do with the way they raise huge sums of money and then spend lots of those huge sums on their own "playboy" type of lifestyle.
There have been a number of notorious cases where donors have gone after and shut down Aish branches or kicked out Aish rabbis after they got wind of how all the donated millions were being used for a "rich and famous" lifestyle by immature half-baked Aish rabbis.
While from the outside Aish rabbis look like a smiley friendly bunch, they are actually quite a ruthless and unforgiving bunch of hard-ball players.
The whole scheme was cooked up Rav Noach, he decided to hand pick very ambitious young guys from the new wave of BTs who would otherwise have becoming Yuppies and "Masters of the Universe" in the corporate world. He then held on to them very tightly once he convinced to be his followers which he was very good at because he was CHARISMATIC and great salesman. Something many people don't know is that Rav Noach spent many of his early years trying to make it in business, in particular he learned a lot from selling INSURANCE and mastered all types of "master salesman" techniques of selling financial products.
Everything from picking smiley androgynous types, to teaching them how to JOKE, to indoctrinating them with set-formula clap-trap that works in sales-pitch type "48 Ways" to master this and that, to how to pick the right people and how to pick the pockets of the rich. This is not you standard yeshivisha Chinuch or what an average Kollel guy learns in years of Ameilus BaTorah, believe it.
Rav Noach would say he was following the "Chabad model" but in fact he created a bizaro Frankenstein because for all of Chabad's shortcomings, and they have many, but one thing, they do have a genuine Mesora that is hundreds of years old, They have the Tanya and the Shulchan Oruch HaRav which is the intellectual foundation of nit just Chabad Chasidus but of ALL Chasidus. BUt waht does Aish have, just pastic nonsesne and sales-pitches, and while rav Noach was alive he could be the "rising tide that lifts all the Aish rafts" but with his demise, in effect, it was the demise of Aish as well, because there are no braions or ruach left yto guide the place anymore as you can tell.
Rav Noach and Rav Yaakov and the Weinbergs are in fact descendants of the Slonimer Rebbes who were also called Weinbergs, and they acted like surrogate "modernisha Slonimers" ins oms distant sort of way. But with their passing, there are no "chasidim" here just a bunch of lost souls, totally directionless and with no moral center, and now all this is being put on full frontal display.
Another Tisha Be'Av story!
The problem being, yes he is a charismatic genius, scholar, but also has had serious allegations against him of of touching boys inappropriately. I think the girls used to say how handsome he is when I saw him in my younger days.
ReplyDeleteHe gives shiurim behind the scenes? What does that even mean?
ReplyDeleteI by no means know the inner workings of Aish, but considering the reaction I once saw from a one of the higher-ups of Aish when Matis' name was mentioned, I'd be utterly shocked if he had any affiliation whatsoever with Aish. Considering the rest of the screed you write, I wouldn't be surprised if you made that up.
Do respond or don't, it's no difference to me. My supposed rudeness was a response to your playing a game of pretending you don't understand what I wrote. I too have excellent information about R' Belsky and his practices. He has done some truly terrible, terrible things.
ReplyDeleteAll fine and dandy, but not at all relevant to this case or to my comment.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I didn't defend or criticize either side or Rabbi Belsky or Rabbi
ReplyDeleteCohen. I just highlighted certain questions which certain commenters
who seem to have an chip on their shoulder about Rabbi Belsky objected
to.
Actually, you began by criticizing R' Cohen. Your words:
Rabbi Cohen's letter was very troubling to me in what it did not say -
namely it did not say that he or anyone else contacted Rabbi Belsky's
bais with a formal statement of why they would not appear. That is not
how this is typically handled and if in fact that is the case there is
no basis for criticizing Rabbi Belsky for issuing the siruv.
As always, RaP sees any "competition" to Chabad as something that must be destroyed. The same reason why RaP attacked Rabbi Mirvis and The Shabbos Project, on complete fabrications and lies. Same with Aish.
ReplyDeleteOf course, he will take the problems with Chabad and try and through them at Aish, only when this lawsuit became public and people do not yet have all the facts. Hmmm
Chabad, unfortunately, has abandoned their Mesorah. The vast majority of Chabadskers are BT's or decedents of BT's, not of previous Lubavitcher Chasiddim.
So you think Rav Aaron Rakeffet and the Rav's daughters are not in the YU world?
ReplyDeleteso what? That was just a pretext. Rav Soloveitchik was a true Torah giant.
ReplyDeleteR' Rothkopfp-Rakeffet is the Rosh Kollel of Gruss in Israel, so he is effectively the head of YU in Israel, and he does have an issue with Rabbi Cohen.
ReplyDeletethis was a previous post on the subject, Rap is debating with some others, including kishke?
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/rabbi-rakeffet-rav-hutner-rabbi-dovid.html
R. Rakeffet has issues with the chareidi community in general.
ReplyDeleteShmuel Lefkowitz is Fetman's brother-in-law. It's a family kenunya. He's also the lawyer Jon Lefkowitz mentioned in some of the documents.
ReplyDeletePlease provide a source that Rakeffet has an issue with RDC over this.
ReplyDeleteI've heard Rakeffet talk about this, where he plays the tape from RDC, he never says he has an issue with him.
Sources please? Again, in the telling of this mayse, I never heard Rakeffet say he has an issue with RDC. He just tells it like it happened.
ReplyDeleteNo. It wasn't "supposed". The addendum question served no purpose other than to insult. That, by definition, is rude. It really could have been a mature discussion, until that point.
ReplyDeletePeople who claim special knowledge that they "aren't at liberty to reveal" have no credibility in such cases. Not producing a name, proof or some support is as if nothing were even said. That should be clear to any thinking person involved in a debate.
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with you. Anonymous commenters who provide not proof have no credibility - which means you should disregard 99.9% of the comments on this blog.
ReplyDeleteAh, but the anonymous "lawyer" who attacked the accountant's report -- him you believe.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills if you can make that statement based on anything I posted. I believe the anonymous lawyer as much as I believe you (i.e very little). Any "belief" I have in his statements (which I have not advertised on this blog) is based on documents he posted and upon making my own analysis of the analysis he posted.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills
ReplyDeleteOh no, say it ain't so, Joe!
Mr. "Emes" - it's been six days since I have brought you documentation to my assertions. You have yet to attempt to respond to refute it. All you did was that I lied - while in fact you lied. So, kindly either put up, or back up. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteActually, no. Pretending in mockery not to understand what is said is by definition immature.
ReplyDeleteJacob Fetman's brother in law Jon A. Lefkowitz was recently arrested for a slew of offences including:
ReplyDelete"...allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to tamper with the Grand Jury witnesses who had testified against the Marches in attempt to undermine their credibility by demanding that they sign affidavits and answer questionnaires that would discredit their prior sworn testimony. In furtherance of their conspiracy, Lefkowitz and March allegedly impersonated various individuals, including attorneys, and sent out forged “judicial subpoenas” that appeared to have been authorized by a New York State Supreme Court Judge."
http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-announces-indictment-charging-brooklyn-attorney-and-his-client-witness
http://www.twcnews.com/nys/central-ny/crime/2015/11/5/two-accused-of-tampering-with-grand-jury-witnesses.html