Unvaxxed Lunch Lady Wants You to See Her COVID Death Spiral

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/unvaxxed-lunch-lady-wants-you-to-see-her-covid-death-spiral?ref=scroll

Michelle Fluegge wants everybody to see the photo of her on a ventilator during her very worst days because it shows what can happen if you fail to get vaccinated.

“If I can help even one person,” she told The Daily Beast of the picture, which shows her unconscious on a ventilator, her face pallid, the endotracheal tube down her windpipe held in place by a head strap, two other tubes inserted in her nose

Her family always knew her as the strong and unfaltering one who never got sick. School kids in New Ulm, Minnesota, knew her as one of the stalwart icons of childhood, the lunch lady who serves the midday meal with bright eyes and a smile.

Seminary Scandal: New letter from American Gedolim praises new spiritual supervisors of the 4 seminaries

A letter signed by American gedolim - including Rav Levin from Telz of Chicago, Rav Aharon Feldman of Yeshiva Ner Yisroel, Rav Aharon Schecter of Yeshiva Chaim Berlin, Rav Malkiel Kotler or Lakewood and Rav Yaakov Perlow - praises the four seminaries which were acquired by Yaakov Yarmish from Meisels. They express their clear approval of the new spiritual managment that will be closely supervising these seminaries. Certainly sounds that they do not agree with the psak of the Chicago Beis Din! I have verified that the letter is genuine.

update regarding the origin of this letter - by Arie B. Sept 2, 2014

I was intending not to post anything further in light of the fact that the issue is essentially moot. But there's an inaccurate perception here.

Rav Shafran was coming to America for other reasons, his trip was scheduled before this entire fiasco. He even had a public speaking engagement advertised beforehand.

During his stay here, he was under continuing harassment by various interests, with various "suggestions" and "proposals." His basic response was that if Yarmish wants to sell it's Yarmish's business, but whatever happens would have to be agreed to by the entire Beis Din, and he is only one member of three.

Apparently, the askanim who were running this campaign got several Roshei Yeshiva involved, primarily the Novominsker Rebbe (who has a very close relationship with Gottesman, as does Rav Feldman).

From what I understand, this letter represents the backfiring of the efforts of those askanim, because the Roshei Yeshiva spoke to those involved and roundly rejected the CBD's position, approach, and efforts.

Take it or leave it.

The schools are opening. The safety of the students has been assured, the ashukim have been protected, and a steamrolling of halachah has been avoided.

Having no vested interest here, I have every right to say that I leave it to the One Above to deal with the bloggers and commenters.

I will now go back to the constructive use of my time as those who choose to jabber continue on their own missions.

Official English Translation

2 months ago Frum Follies predicted that the IBD would be forced to accept the CBD's view. - Why did the reverse happen?

In late November the CBD joined the IBD forming a joint beis din [see post]  that on December 1 publicly accepted the IBD's viewpoint.(see Frum Follies negative response)

 
This event directly refuted the following analysis that  Frum Follies published only  2 months before.


Frum Follies (Yerachmiel Lopin) wrote: 

Meanwhile, the greater dispute about the seminaries continues. The CBD is not backing down from blocking accreditation for the seminaries. Without accreditation the seminaries will not be able to successfully recruit for the 2015-2016 academic year. The recruitment season starts in a few weeks and typically closes around the end of the calendar year.

The CBD is demanding authentic proof that Meisels has no organizational or financial connection to the seminaries. They are also demanding the dismissal of some staff involved in covering up abuse including some of the principals.

We have not heard a peep from the Israeli Beis Din or their PR vehicle, the Daas Torah blog of Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn, since the CBD issued its unusually detailed letter about the abuse and cover-ups at the seminaries. I think they have concluded that they cannot intimidate the CBD and they will just have to find a way to meet their terms.[emphasis added]

Dangerous false rumors flourish when people think if it reasonably could be true then it must be true

We have recently seen a serious of disparate events - in which serious allegations of wrong doing - including sexual abuse and murder - turn out not to be true. The latest event is the decision of the Justice Department (See Ferguson Report) - headed by a Black attorney general - not to prosecute a white policeman for killing a Black teenager in Ferguson Missouri. 

This event triggered widespread demonstrations and rioting over the apparently false claim that the teenager had surrendered with his hands up when he was shot. In fact it was common for demonstrators to hold their hands up to recall the so called facts. However the evidence doesn't support this claim - which is why the Justice Department is not filing charges. However a second report by the Justice Department indicated that the Ferguson police department does in fact discriminate against Blacks. Thus we have the dynamic -  if it reasonably could be true then it must be true.

We see this concerning child abuse - a teacher is accused by parents of abusing their child because the child has been acting strange and when they ask the child direct questions such as, "Did you teacher touch you in your private area". Does he do things to other children? Do you think he looks at you strangely?" When they won't take no for an answer but clearly are seeking responses that indicate the teacher is guilty - the child will often agree. We saw this in the Nachlaot scandal - where the charges of widespread satanic sexual abuse have not been found to be true. But since it reasonably could be true then it must be true.

We have seen the not uncommon phenomenon of false confessions - when the police and district attorney are strongly convinced that they are correct and keep battering away at a scared, sleep deprived suspect who is kept from family and lawyers for hours. People do confess to horrible murders and child abuse claims - when they are in fact innocent. Even the accused start believing the charges because since it sounds reasonable then it must be true. This apparently happened with the confession in the Jesse Friedman case. Another case is that of Melissa Calusinski  a day care worker who confessed - contrary to the physical evidence - of killing a toddler. She is now serving a long prison sentence. 

At the University of Virginia - a student told her story of being raped at a fraternity to a  Rolling Stone Magazine reporter.  She told the story on condition that the reporter not contact the person she was accusing. The story became a nationwide sensation and was widely accepted to be true. Then the Washington Post took the trouble of actually investing the facts - and the story was found not to be true. The reason that the reporter ignored elementary journalistic rules - was because it made sense and she didn't want to lose the story. Since it could have been true it must be true.

The recent incident at  U.C.L.A. where a distinguished student was seriously questioned about her being biased - solely because she is a Jew. Something that would not have happened if the she was Black, Hispanic, Gay or anyone minority group. Because these people just know that Jews are often biased so it is reasonable that this Jewess is biased. Therefore she was initially rejected for membership in the judiciary committe simply because she is Jewish and therefore biased.

Finally, in the recent seminary scandal - reported extensively on this blog -  horrible rumors were spread about the rape of 40 girls etc. When in fact there is no evidence supporting these charges. But they were spread and widely believed because of the reasoning - since the atmosphere in the seminaries would have allowed these things to happen or were conducive to these happening  and in addition Meisels had confessed to hugging a girl - then all that could be imagined must have happened. Since it was reasonably true then it must be true. Even people as intelligent and worldly as the Chicago Beis Din seemed to have accepted the conjecture as real - at least for a time.

Bottom line - imagining what might have happened is only the start - it must be supported by real evidence in order to be true. Fantasy and conjecture  does not create reality. Innocent people's lives should not be destroyed solely on the basis of rumors - nor should the guilty go free because the facts are not properly investigated - because the rumors are so reasonable. Spreading rumors about might have happened  - as if it did happen - destroys the world.

The abusive use of psychology to destroy one's opponent:"All is fair in love and war"

In the Tamar Epstein heter - the critical issues is not so much the halacha but the psychological "reports" that are used as evidence to "prove" that Aharon Friedman is not capable of being a minimum husband and thus it is a mekach ta'us because Tamar would never have married a person whom the majority of women would not view as even a minimal husband.

She and her chief advocate R Shalom Kaminetsky presented as objective reality the report of a psychologist that Tamar hired to besmirch Aharon and thus justify for the poskim a ruling of mekach ta'us. He conveniently didn't meet with Aharon but relied on the "objective" reports that Tamar provided him.

Ploni has presented some really solid arguments against this approach - but it doesn't seem to have convinced various elements. So in the name of a scientific understanding of psychology that will grab even the most convinced opponent I would like to turn the tables and use the same technique in evaluating the mental health of Aharon Friedman's opponents including Tamar, Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky, Rav Shalom Kaminetsky and Rav Nota Greenblatt.

Is there any preference which one to start with? Perhaps Tamar - who while quite intelligent perhaps was possibly suffering [educated guess but not known to be true] from a post partum depression aggravated by the shrill voice of her mother and the Goldfein's telling her to drop Aharon because she could do so much better? 

Perhaps we should start with the two gedolim who are both above 90 [which we all know what that means] and who blame each other for the heter [both having ignored normative halacha in this case because of their respect for the other]? Both of whom acknowledged they know nothing about psychological diagnoses and were totally dependent on what R Shalom could get out of his paid "gun" which he thoughtfully put a severe negative spin on when he explained what the psychologist said.

Or perhaps we should start with Reb Shalom whom at this point is widely hated for making his father the Rav Goren of our generation. A person who has gotten himself and his father into a series of misadventures recently - including the Meisels Seminary debacle? A person who seems to have a Messiah complex and selflessly ran around the world with the solution to Tamar's problem (an annulment with a cooked psychological report that not only was full of lies but is so unethical the psychologist who collaborated with him would probably lose his license when his name is revealed)? A man so dedicated to freeing Tamar that he wasn't in the slightest deterred as posek after posek laughed in his face when he begged them to sign on the heter. A man who had no interest in asking what the halacha was but rather in finding someone who would agree with what he felt was the solution.

So where shall we start?

Beis din decides seminary owner Meisels poses risk to students

update: just added the letter from the Israeli beis din.

 see frum folies for more details

see also Frum Follies - translation of letter plus explanations

I just had the Israeli beis din letter validated by someone I personally know who is an insider in the world of Israeli seminaries. The letter is clearly designed for damage control. It does not contradict the findings of the Chicago Beis Din but notes that Meisels has been removed from his position and therefore whatever he did is not relevant for the current running of the seminaries. It's main focus is to deal with the fears and concerns of the present students and their parents and tell them there is nothing to be concerned of at present.

The letter from the beis din is problematic as it is dated the 13th of July as a response to the Chicago Beis Din's ruling of the 10th of July. During that period Rabbi Malinowitz was sitting shiva in America for his brother. He got up from shiva on the 13th of July.

update from reliable source - Since this was deemed a davar haavud Rabbi Malinowitz signed the letter yesterday

Seminary Scandal: Defense of the Israeli Beis Din & Rav Malinowitz against Rav Feldman's accusations of incompetence

Update Now includes the IBD response & Rav Malinowitz response

At this point it is not clear whether the CBD was acting as an agent for the IBD or the IBD is now acting as an agent for the CBD?!
================================
Up until now there have been various accusation against the Israeli Beis Din (IBD) - either by the Chicago Beis Din (CBD) or from inferences or leaks from anonymous parties - accusing them of conducting a coverup of a terrible scandal of abuse and betrayal by the head and owner of the seminaries. The Israeli Beis Din did not defend itself well by just firing off didactic assertions that all is well, the seminaries are wonderful, the staff is wonderful and that no one should suggest girls go to a different school and that the IBD should be trusted to take care of the matter.

It is clear that the Chicago Beis Din [which initially investigated the charges] did not accept such claims since they explicitly stated that the seminaries were - for the time being - not safe and they were having funding cut off to girls going there. They repeated their claims in a letter which added that senior staff had been at least passively complicit in the disgusting activity of Meisels with the students.

In short the CBD came across as bravely standing up for the girls and disregarding the traditional response to abuse of making a coverup. In contrast the IBD looked as they were trying very hard to undo the work of the CBD and save the seminaries and the jobs of the staff at the expense of the students.

Today I received a letter strongly stating that the above picture was not true and that the IBD was being severely misunderstood or deliberately slandered by interested parties. It contained a number of letters. One is a letter by Rav Aharon Feldman accusing the IBD of incompetence - which seemed to reflect the common understanding of the situation from the viewpoint of the Chicago Beis Din. [Rav Feldman is officially listed as the representatives of the victims for the IBD. However there is no evidence that the victims in fact appointed him as such nor is there any evidence that he is in fact helping the victims in his communication with the IBD.]

Rav Feldman seems to be accusing the IBD of incompetence and seems clearly to be alluding to corruption or bias. This is very hard for me to accept based on my contact with Rabbi Malinowitz. He can be tough and opinionated and self-confident that he is right -  but no one would ever accuse him of being incompetent or concealing his true views. Similarly with Rabbi Gartner. To be more blunt - as somone who knows Rav Malinowitz, the accusations of Rav Feldman did not make any sense.

To give a better understanding of this scandal  I am posting Rav Malinowitz defense - followed by the full IBD response - which is clear and to the point - rejecting outright these accusations and saying there is clear documentation supporting his defense.

In addition a new issue has presented itself in these letters and that is the claim of the CBD that because there are criminal charges pending - the IBD at this point can't get involved directly in questioning the victims.


Thus at the present time the evidence has swung in favor of the IBD and I don't understand what the CBD is doing or trying to do.  If the CBD has evidence of staff complicity about Meisels crimes - they should share it with the IBD. Decisions as to whether the staff should be fired should be made soon as well as publishing the protocols the IBD says they have proposed to ensure the safety of the students.

As the IBD has said - there is no reason to destroy the seminaries - if the appropriate actions have been taken and clear safeguards put in place against it ever happening again.

============================================

Rav Aharon Feldman’s email to the Israeli Beis Din:

Rabosai,

The Chilul Hashem r.l. is spreading; people have lost their emunas chachomim; I just heard of two girls who went off the derech because of this affair. We have to get the Chicago BD to rescind their letter. The only way to do this is to have a joint BD listen to the accusations. Is Rav Shafran willing to do this? They are not at present but I think I can convince them. bedieved I have the following:suggestion. if I get the accusers to come together, will Rav Shafran agree to listen to them bemoshav tlasa? This will not stop the effect of the CBD’s letter, but at least it will stop the charges against you that you refused to listen to the accusers. Would Sunday night be OK for this?

I was surprised that Rabbi Malinowitz said (as I understood him) at our conference call that I never apprised the BD that there are serious accusations. Rav Malinowitz asked me at that time (and so I immediately wrote myself a note, which I have) to supply the BD with the names of the accusers. Yet a psak was given out without this. I am sure there is a good reason for this, but it certainly needs an explanation, not a denial that it ever happened..

Furthermore, you never apologized for having said publicly that you asked the CBD many times to supply you with information about the accusations and they did not. You could have explained this was a misunderstanding but to insist that you did contact them when R. Zev Cohen claimed so forcefully that you did not (I don’t think a person like R.. Zev Cohen would be able to lie in this manner), made them lose trust in you. It would help if you would apologize to them for this.

Aharon Feldman

=================================
Rav Chaim Malinowitz response Friday August 1, 2014

בס"ד

לכבוד הרה"ג רב אהרן פלדמן שליט"א

אחדש"כ כראוי

א) באתי בשורות אלו להבהיר מספר נקודות הטעונות הבהרה לענ"ד – כי זאת למודעי, כשם שכב' קובע שלא נראה שאחד כר"ז כהן מסוגל לשקר בכזו צורה, כך דומני ותקוותי שכ"ת חושב וקובע גם כלפי אחד כרח"ז מלינוביץ...

אינני זוכר בדיוק את המלים בהם השתמשתי בשיחת הועידה של יום רביעי השבוע, אבל כוונת הדברים היתה ברורה, כדלהלן:

כ"ת לא הגיש בפנינו שום טענה או ראיה מפורטת או מנומקת, כ"ש לא בשם מתלוננת מסוימת, רק דברים ששמע מפי רבני שיקאגו שישנן מתלוננות – הא ותו לא מידי, וכ"ש מבלי לפרט מה בדיוק הוא תוכן התלונות.

במטותא מיניה ומכ"ת, את 'הידיעה' הזאת-שכך אומרים רבני שיקאגו-ידענו גם ידענו מזמן, ולא היינו זקוקים להגיע ל"מידע " זה. מתוקף היותו חתום על שטר הבירורין כנציג ואפוטרופוס התלמידות, קווינו אף ציפינו לקצת יותר מזה-ולדאבוננו ואף הפתעתנו כ"ת לא הוסיף מאומה בנידון, לא הביא באמתחתו שום כלום ממה שהתבקש כבע"ד להביא לדיון, ואף לא התחייב איזושהי התחייבות-ולו המינימאלית ביותר-ל"ספק את הסחורה" בעתיד הקרוב אף הרחוק.

כך שאני תמה על הפתעת כ"ת על אמרתי שלא הגיש לנו כלום.

למען הסר ספק, הנני מצרף שוב את הבקשות בכתובים לקבלת החומר שנאסף ע"י רבני שיקאגו (אגב, שלא כדין וללא סמכות כלשהיא, ועוד חזון למועד), בקשות שהועברו לכ"ת (ולר' גאטאסמאן נציג רבני שיקאגו)החל משבוע שלם לפני הדיון.ואני חוזר ואומר--יש לנו המסמכים שביקשנו מכבודו כמה פעמים(וכבודו הלא עמד בקשר עם רבני שיקאגו) וגם שלחנו הבקשה לר' גאטאסמאן.

ועכשיו אפרש את שיחי באר היטב, תוך שימת הדגש על מספר שאלות חמורות העולות לצערי הרב מאליהן – והן שאלות אמיתיות, ולא כאותן "שאלות" שהועלו בשיחת הועידה של השבוע, המזכירות לדאבוני את שיטות העבודה של עו"ד למיניהם המבקשים לבנות תלי תלים של "הלכות עקומות" ע"פ הוצאת מלה אחת או שתים מהקשרן האמיתי:

א. רבני שיקאגו ידעו היטב אשר אנו יושבים כסאות למשפט באותו לילה – אולי כ"ת יכול להסביר-ולו יהא לעצמו-- -למה הם לא טרחו ודאגו לשלוח לנו את החומר מבלי שאנחנו נבקש – כ"ש שבאמת בקשנו, וכנ"ל?

ב. עאכו"כ, שלפי השט"ב עליו כ"ת חתום-וכזכור בנוכחות ולבקשת ר"ז כהן ,וסביר להניח גם בידיעת ובהסכמת ר"ש פורסט-רבני שיקאגו לא הוסמכו להתעסק בקבלת טענות כלל ועיקר, ובקבלת עדויות רק לפי בקשת בית דיננו-א"כ אך טבעי הוא לצפות ולהאמין שאותו החומר שכן נאסף (אמנם שלא כדין וכאמור) אחת דינו להיות מועבר הישר אלינו.

ג. ומה פשר שני האי-מיילים המתמיהים (והמחוצפים) שנשלחו ע"י "ב"כ רבני שיקאגו" ר' גוטעסמאן, המנסה ,ללא הצלחה , "לנער" ולסלק ב"ד מוסמך כדין וכהלכה ממילוי תפקידו? וכי עולם הפקר הוא זה? ומה עם סמכות ביה"ד ותורה הנרמס לעין כל בחוצות? בדיון שהתקיים לפני כשבוע כ"ת הצהיר ששיגר מכתב מחאה לר' גוטעסמאן – וכי כ"ת סבור באמת ובתמים שיצא בכך י"ח מחאה,ובפרט לאור מה שנשתלשל מזה? והאם כ"ת מוכן עכ"פ עכשיו ברגע זה לעשות משהו ביותר לנסות ולתקן את העיוות?

ד. וכ"ז כלפי העבר, ומה לגבי העתיד – הרי אנו מבקשים ודורשים עדיין את החומר – האם רבני שיקאגו יעבירו את זה עכשיו?

ה. זאת עוד זאת, הצענו השבוע לרבני שיקאגו כמה וכמה פעמים בדרכים שונים-כידוע היטב לכב'-לצרף אותם לכדי ב"ד מורחב ולדון על כל הענין ביסודיות-תוך הקנאת סמכות ע"י תיקון שטר הבירורין!!!!!!!ונענינו ע"י עו"ד הבית שלהם-- בלאו!!! רבתי ומוחלט. מה אומר כבודו על זה?האם שלח להם מכתב לתבוע מהם מענה על התנהגותם?

ו. התבשרנו היום ע"י כ"ת כי הגדילו לעשות רבני שיקאגו וסדרו את העניינים שגם אם "ירצו" למסור את החומר, הם אינם "יכולים" מחמת הוראת איזה עו''ד (שמובטחני אינו מכין עצמו ללכת לדי''ת הגם שמדובר בדיני ממונות)

שאלות אלו הן שאלות של ממש, בניגוד לשאלות של עו"ד שבאו לעולם בכדי לנגח בלבד, לתפוס אדם במלה זו או אחרת.

יסלח לי כ"ת על היותי מדבר דברים קשים כלפיו, עאכו"כ בהיותי מכירו ומוקירו שנים רבות באמת ובתמים, אך חייבים הדברים להיאמר, ובבהירות.

החותם בצער ובדמע על כבוד שמים, תורה וחכמיה המתפלש בעפר

ובאעה"ח היום עש"ק ה' מנ"א תשע"ד (01.08.2014)

חיים זאב הלוי מלינוביץ

=======================================
The complete IDB response of Friday August 1 20114

בס"ד פניא דמעלי שבתא לסדר ,,איכה אשא לבדי..." ה' מנחם אב תשע"ד (01.08.2014)

כב' הגר"א פלדמן שליט"א שלו"ר לאוהבי שמו

במענה למכתב דלמטה, ישבנו אתמול במותב תלתא והחלטנו:

א. אכן יש כאן חילול השם: צריך לעשות סדר בעניינים, במכתב מע"כ יש בו, למצער, הרבה אי דיוקים בעובדות כנראה שיש מי שמעוניין לסלף ולהביא בפניכם עובדות לא נכונות. אכן כדי למנוע חילול השם וכדי לתקן ולו במעט, נצטרך להעמיד דברים ועובדות על דיוקם ע"י פרסום פרטי ההתנהלות הדברים (לא ח"ו שמות המתלוננות), מגובה בתמלילים ומיילים בכדי שלא יוכלו להמציא דברים שלהד"ם. אבל בשלב זה אנו עסוקים בכיבוי שריפות שהם גורמים, ובהצלת הסמינרים לשנה הבאה גם אם לא הקונה אשר הם חפצים ביקרו ייקח אותם.

ב. כאמור כל זה יבוא במועד יותר מאוחר בתוספת תיעוד דייקני ומסודר, ומ"מ ההכרח לא יגונה ואשר ע"כ לעת עתה ראינו צורך לציין מספר נקודות, פן ישתמע כאילו שתיקה כהודאה בחלק העובדתי, וכ"ש שלא יאמרו הבריות מדשתקי רבנן ש"מ ניחא להו במגמות ו/או במהלכי אנשים אלו.

א. מי המציא את השקר, ועל סמך מה המציאו, שסירבנו לשמוע את המתלוננות? אדרבה, במכתב לכ"ת שליט"א מיום כ' תמוז (כהכנה לדיון המתוכנן), ואשר העתק ממנו הועבר לגוטעסמאן (המציג א"ע כלפינו בכתובים כב"כ ב"ד מיוחד בשיקאגו – להלן ולמען הקיצור: "שיקאגו"), ביקשנו הרי את טענות בע"ד ו/או עדויות צדדים שלישיים שאספו "שיקאגו" – רצוי עוד קודם לדיון המתוכנן, אבל לפחות ולמצער במעמד אותו דיון. הבקשה חזרה על עצמה במייל לכ"ת מיום כ"ד תמוז. למרבה הפלא פניות אלו לא זכו להתייחסות כלשהי, לא מצד כ"ת ולא מצד גוטעסמאן. כמו"כ בדיון שהתקיים אור לכ"ז תמוז, כ"ת הופיע מבלי חומר כלשהו בידו, ומעל ומעבר לאמירה סתמית במרוצת הדיון שישתדל לברר ולהמציא שמות המתלוננות נגד המנהלים ומנהלות-וגם זאת מבלי להתחייב על לו"ז כלשהו, לא הייתה שום בשורה של ממש מפיו בנידון מילוי מבוקשתנו הנ"ל.

גם אחרי הדיון הנ"ל והחלטתנו שיצאה בעקבותיו לא חדלו מאמצנו לקבל את החומר – כידוע היטב לכ"ת, וכדלהלן: אור ליום שני ר"ח מנ"א ולבקשת האב"ד הגרמ"מ שפרן, חבר ביה"ד הר"צ גרטנר שוחח טלפונית עם הר"ז כהן משיקאגו ובקש את החומר (ובנוסף הציג את הרעיון ולפיו יתקיים מושב ב"ד מורחב של ב"ד ישראל ושיקאגו, ועל כך בהמשך), הר"צ גרטנר אף העביר את תוכן ההצעה לכ"ת בשיחה טלפונית יום ג' ב' מנ"א, והדברים חזרו על עצמם בשיחת ועידה שהתקיימה יום ד' ג' מנ"א, בה השתתפו כ"ת והרבנים פורסט מלינוביץ כהן וגרטנר, וכן גוטעסמאן ומר שפרלינג (עו"ד של "שיקאגו").

למותר לציין שנכון לרגע זה לא הומצא לידינו חומר כלשהו (למעט חומר ראשוני שהומצא ע"י "שיקאגו" עובר למעמד חתימת שטר הבירורין ע"י כ"ת לפני קצת פחות מחודשיים), ולמען הסר כל ספק אנו חוזרים גם עתה ומבקשים את החומר הנ"ל.

ב. מי המציא את הסיפור שזיכינו את המנהלות בלי לשמוע את ההאשמות? מעולם לא זיכינו את המנהלות אבל גם לא האשמנו אותן (לא מאשימים ולא מזכים בלי לשמוע את המאשימים ואת הנאשמים, אותם סיפורים בדיוק נשמעים אחרת כשמוצאים אותם מן ההקשר ושלא בפני בעל דין). מכיון שלא קיבלנו את ההאשמות לא יכולנו לדון את המנהלות/ים אם היו אמורים לשים לב או אם העלימו עין. מאידך, שמענו אותן והתרשמנו לטובה מאישיותם ומדרך העבודה ויר"ש שלהן-ובמאמר המוסגר, כמה חבל שכ"ת מתוקף היותו חתום על שטר הבירורין כנציג ואפוטרופוס התלמידות, לא מצא זמן ועניין להישאר בכדי להתרשם אף הוא. את הבירור אם הייתה העלמת עין מצידן (כולן או חלקן) השארנו לשלב הבא (וכפי שרמזנו בסעי' 7 של פסק דיננו).

אבל איך שיהיה, דבר אחד ברור מעל לכל ספק: גם אם היו צריכות לשים לב לדבר מה וגם אם מעדו איך שהוא בחובת שמירתן, עדיין אין שום סכנה לשלוח לשם בנות, וזאת מכיוון שסילקנו את מייזלס מכל קשר עם הסמינרים, ובהתחשב גם עם כך שלפחות עתה אין ספק שהמנהלות מודעות היטב למה שיכול לקרות ועל חובת השמירה המעולה ומשנה הזהירות הנדרשת.

באופן שסוף דבר הכל נשמע, הסמינרים הם בהחלט כשרים למהדרין ואין שום סכנה לשלוח אליהם, וכפי שפסקנו אחרי שמיעת אנשי הצוות על התנהלות הסמינרים. והבירור אודות אנשי הצוות, מנהלות או שאר עובדות לא שייך לפסק הדין לגבי כשרות הסמינרים ויראת שמים והעבודה הנפלאה שהן עושות. כל ניסיון לקשור בין אלו הוא יותר מטעות והתלהמות שלא במקום הנכון ואינו שייך לדיינים ובתי דין אלא לעיתונאים ובעלי אינטרסים.

ג. ממתי רבנים סוגרים (ועסוקים לסגור) חדר, ישיבה, בית יעקב או סמינר אם נמצא שם פושע. האם נשמע כזה בארה"ב, מעוזו של גוטעסמאן, שסגרו חדר, ישיבה או בית יעקב, ופרסמו שאסור ללמוד שם אחרי שהחשוד סולק משם? מה שצריך לעשות הוא להוציא את הפושע/ החשוד ולתקן סדרים כדי שלא יקרה שוב – וכפי שאנו עושים באמת כעת, לתקן גדרים ולהוסיף שמירה על שמירה, מעל ומעבר לקיים מכבר. העיקשות לסגור מוסד הוא או נקמה או... בכל אופן עיקשות זו ובפרט המכתב הנוסף מלפני יומיים אומר דרשני...

ד. איך רבני שיקאגו השמיצו וממשיכים להשמיץ מבלי להבחין בין אלו מהסמינרים שלגביהם יש ויש תלונות ובין אלו שלגביהם אין ומייזלס כמעט ולא הי' דורך שם אם בכלל. ולמרבה התמיהה גם אחרי שהעמידום על טעותם אינם מוכנים לתקן הנזק שגורמים לסמינרים אלו. האם הם פוסקים "חיישינן לזילותא דבי דינא" גם כשטעו ובגלל טעות מותר להם להזיק ולהרוס מוסד שלא שייך לכל הנושא. למה אינם מפרסמים "נתברר לנו שסמינר פלוני או אלמוני מעולם לא הי' בו דופי ואינו שייך לכל הנושא". (לנו יש תשובה).

ג. הרעיון לקיים הרכב מורחב מקובל עלינו, כידוע היטב לכ"ת אנו הצענו כך וקיבלנו תשובה שלילית מוחלטת מעוה"ד הבית של "שיקאגו". ואנו עדיין אומרים כן למרות היסוסינו לעבוד עם מי שקובעים דברים מראש לפני שמיעת הנאשמים/ות. כמובן שאנו נצטרך לבדוק אם הצדדים מוכנים להתדיין בפניהם אחרי מה שנוכחו וראו התנהגותם. איך שיהיה, אם הם מוכנים אף אנו מצידנו מוכנים, וכמובן נצטרך לקבוע סדרי הדברים איך נפעל.

ד. יודגש, יצטרפו או לא, אנו מעוניינים לקיים דיון ביום ראשון, כהצעת מע"כ, במותב תלתא לקבלת טענות ועדויות של בנות המתלוננות על מחדלי המנהלים ומנהלות ו/או מעשי מייזלס, כמובן בדרך המקובל בב"ד ותיקים ומיומנים, ע"פ כל כללי וסדרי הדיון התקין, שמבררים את הדברים כיד ה' הטובה עליהם תוך שמיעת שני הצדדים ללא כל משוא פנים ו/או דעות קדומות או מוקדמות.

סדר הדברים יהיה:

א. הבת המתלוננת אינה חייבת להזדהות ואולי עדיף שלא תזדהה. רק תמסור מס' טלפון לביה"ד.

ב. ביה"ד יצטרך לדעת מראש באיזה סמינר/ים מדובר, וזאת בכדי להזמין את המנהלת/מנהל/אשת צוות עליו/ה מדובר, שישמע במה הוא מואשם וישמיע גרסתו ותגובתו, ובכדי לאפשר את בירור הדברים בדיוק מה הי', עד כמה שניתן בנסיבות העניין. ובמידה והעניינים גולשים מעל ומעבר לתפקוד המנהלים/ות ומגיעים להאשמות נגד מייזלס עצמו, יהיה צורך לשמוע גם אותו (הלא גם החייב מיתה מעידים בפניו ואפי' שור הנסקל, ולשבר אזני עוה"ד למיניהם הבוחשים בקדירה זו: גם בדיניהם). כאמור הבת לא חייבת להזדהות, אך מן העניין לציין כי הנאשם יזהה וידע מן הסתם במי ובמה המדובר.

ג. ר' שלמה גוטעסמאן יורשה להשתתף בדיון, אבל בהחלט לא יורשה לו לצעוק, להעליב, לאיים ולהטיח האשמות. אם לא יכבד את המעמד ויתנהג כבריון נגד התורה ונגד החוק נצטרך להוציא אותו מהדיון.

ד. בכל מקרה, וכפי שנהגנו עד עתה, הכל יהי' מוקלט, הן לצורך התיק וביה"ד, ובמקרה דנן גם כדי למנוע דיווחים כוזבים.

בברכת התורה וכט"ס

הרב מנחם מנדל הכהן שפרן, אב"ד

הרב חיים זאב הלוי מלינוביץ, דיין

הרב צבי גרטנר, דיין

Seminary Scandal: Why hasn't the Chicago Beis Din been criticized for not contacting the police or for waiting 3 months to notify students?

I just posted a video of Rav Gedalia Schwartz who heads the special Chicago Beis Din to deal with sexual abuse. He clearly asserts that if there is reasonable basis that sexual abuse is happening there is no prohibition of Mesira or Lashon Harah and one should report the perpetrator to the police.

What is a special beis din for dealing with child abuse?  Below is a description from Rav Tzi Gartner (one of the dayanim of the Israeli Beis Din who is a defendant in a RICO claim initiated by the Chicago Beis Din) in the groundbreaking Yeshurun volume 15 which dealt with child abuse. He says that the beis din's purpose is to investigate charges and to decide whether the police should be contacted!

The Chicago Beis Din claims to have done a thorough investigation and concluded that Meisels has done every sexual transgression - so why haven't they contacted the police? Another puzzle is why the Chicago Beis Din is being touted as the champion of the victims by child abuse advocates such as David Morris and Yerachmiel Lopin. These advocates are the same people who have strongly protested against rabbinic cover ups and dealing with the problem in house as they are condemning the Israeli Beis Din now

 What is the reason for this apparent hypocrisy? Why are these advocates so excited that the Chicago Beis Din - only several months after they concluded that Meisels was a dangerous sexual predator - advised girls not to go to his seminaries even though he is no longer there! 

Why is this case different? David Morris did write a post that states that the students should have been warned by the seminaries and the police involved within a week of them finding out the conclusions of the Chicago Beis Din. Nevertheless he still hasn't condemned the CBD itself for delaying informing the students or police several months after concluding that he was dangerous. Why don't the abuse victim advocates condemn the Chicago Beis Din for a cover up and for intervening in a matter best left to the police and professionals?

שלכן אין ספק שרשאים וחייבים לדווח, ובתנאי שהעביד נבדק כראוי על ידי רבנים מובהקים ואנשי מקצוע, ונמצא שדברים בגוו .

ולדוגמה, בכמה ערים בארה"ב הקימה הקהילה בית דין מיוחד המטפל בענינים אלו, 4 ולאחר בדיקת ואימות העביד לפי ראות עיניהם, ולעת הצורך' הם מתירים את הפנייה לרשויות. 5 באלול תשס"ד פורסם הנחיות מטעם ועד ראשי הישיבות של "תורה ומסורה" 6 על דרכי הפעולה בבית ספריהם, שבמקרה ומתעורר חשש וחשד אצל אחד המורים על מאן דהו שמתעולל בתלמיד, ידווח המורה על כך למנהל בית הספר, והמנהל יברר הענין, תוך התייעצות עם מורה הרואה או רב מוסמך בעל נסוין בענינים אלו, וכן עם איש מקצוע. ובמדה ויתאמת שיש רגלים לדבר, על המנהל לדווח הלאה לרשויות, וכנדרש בחוק.

Seminary Scandal: Rechilus and baloney - time to resolve this mess

guest post by puzzled parent

We have been going round and round on the charges of sexual abuse for several weeks now. Time to organize the facts, and puts the rechilus, rumors and baloney into perspective.

facts

1.We have established that meisels is out of the Seminary business. How do we know that? Both batei din say so, and there were witnesses to the sale. Technicalities of selling a 501 C3 corp do not particularly interest us. We know it can be done.

2.We have established that he has sold the 4 seminaries to Y. Yarmush. A long interview with Yarmush yielded the information that he has a business plan, and contingent financial backing if necessary. We did not get into the details of the sale and the contract. How much does anyone know about the ownership and financial interests in any other seminary in the country? This did not seem necessary. We believe that if Meisels is seen anywhere near any of the seminaries, there were be an immediate major hue and cry.

3. The letter from R. Kahane to 15 girls was amateurish and poorly done.There is no disputing that the letter was disturbing and calls his basic judgement into question. This does not equate to any sexual wrongdoing however.

4. Charges of enabling against administrators have been thrown around at all 4 schools, and Kahane is one of those targeted. None of these have been substantiated. No one has called the police to our knowledge in any country. No one has called Rabbis Feldman or Malinowitz to our knowledge. If Chicago Beis Din has this information, they have not shared it with anyone. Charges in a law suit have not been substantiated. It is a source of great frustration that there has been no proof put on the table that anyone can see. “ Lo raeenu aino rayah.”

If in fact R Kahne acted the way that is described in some of these blogs, we would like to verify it. We will that same day go directly to Yarmush, Rabbi Aaron Feldman, Rabbi Furst and Rabbi Malinowitz ---and Kahane will have to step down. The Rabbis promised us that if there is proof, either from an individual or a therapist, they will act. We will either give you the direct cell phones to the individuals mentioned, or we will call them. Lets have some action. enough unverified talk and baloney.

opinions

1. Many people writing on all of these blogs have no daughter enrolled in a seminary. The ones who do have, for the most part, done their own major investigation and spoke to as many people as they could. The speculation on these sites is really astonishing, uncalled for, does not contribute to any real understanding of what is truly going on, and is counterproductive.

2. Particularly disturbing are posts by “psychologists, professionals and therapists.” Most of those are not written in the style, form and fashion of any professional that we have known over our years in education and psychology. They are also unsigned. Any bone fide professional would not be concerned about signing his/her name. No one has done so. Attempts to reach them have failed. How can anyone expect any credibility to be attached to these claims?

Dilemmas

There are only a few very clear points that need clarification, and the clock is running.

A. Was there enabling by staff and administrators? First hand evidence, or evidence submitted by a therapist would help resolve this. If you have this information, please share it le tovas haklal.

B. Will the schools be safe next year? Y. Yarmush has hired Rebetzin B. Birbaum, currently the “masgiach ruchani” of Bnos Chavah to oversee the 4 schools. We intend talking to her this evening. We have checked into her enough to know that she is excellent and means business.

This has been a very trying time. Lets try to bring this to a clean and proper ending b’ruach Hatorah.

Joint Beis Din - Israeli and Chicago - issues psak regarding former Meisels seminaries that all is well and that no one needed to be fired!

I just received the following psak - for publication - from someone who is close to the joint beis din. The joint beis din has apparently decided to endorse the original psak of the Israeli Beis din. All the seminaries have been declared safe and no one need to be fired for what happened. The only question is why it took so long.

   Psak of Joint Beis Din - Israeli and Chicago -regarding former Meisels seminaries

Seminay Scandal; The "smoking gun" - the Shtar Beirurin between the Israeli Beis Din and the Chicago Beis Din

Updated with letter from IBD to CBD after the Gottesman letters

This is the "smoking gun" that answers many of the questions that have been the source of much conjecture. This is the legal basis of the relationship between the Chicago Beis Din and the Israeli Beis Din.

After hearing the testimony and the Meisels admission, before actually involving the IBD, CBD ruled that Meisels must withdraw from hands-on involvement in the schools, but that he may retain full ownership rights, pending a full hearing and decision by a BD in Eretz Yisrael that will take over the case.

Rav Aharon Feldman (obviously), AS WELL AS RZCohen and Gottesman – representing CBD -- were all present at the drafting and signing of the attached Shtar Beirurin.

After the IBD took on the case, Gottesman sent two emails basically stating that he was firing them in the name of the CBD. That’s a halachic impossibility unless the IBD would be prepared to violate lo saguru mipnei ish

The “.... in the woodpile” appears to be Gottesman.

This document invests the IBD with broad authority and limits the CBD to a clerical role with no jurisdiction.

Rabbi Z. Cohen went with Rabbi Feldman and Gottesman to EY, and they were all there when this document was drafted and RAF signed this while the Chicago Beis Din didn't actually sign it - it was clear that they agreed to it and raised no objections. The events are spelled out in greater in the bottom letter that the IBD wrote to CBD.

   Meisels - IBD Letter to CBD After Gottesman Emails 

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

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

I would like to thank Rabbi Yosef Blau - mashgiach ruchani of Yeshiva University – for suggesting that it would be helpful to publicly clarify the views of the IBD on the major issues.
===========================================================

1) Any danger related to Meisels has been removed by his total dissociation from the seminaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an illustration of the problem of the deposit:

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

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

Seminary Scandal:Why did the Chicago Beis Din cover up the scandal for at least 2 months?

I received a Chicago Beis Din document yesterday - which I posted - which listed their guidelines for dealing with the Meisels affair. The document is dated May 19, 2014. There is no mention of informing the seminaries or the students or the parents of what they perceived as serious sexual abuse and harassment. There is no mention of a concern that staff members might have been complicit in the abuse. There is no mention of the concern cited in the RICO claims that the seminaries and staff were conducting a fake operation whose sole goals were to defraud parents of their money and to provide victims for Meisels sexual appetite. There is no mention that they require Meisels to sell the seminaries. Finally there is no mention of going to the police - either in Israel or America.

In short the guidelines of the documents are the stereotypic Chareidi coverup of "lets keep silent and handle this ourselves."

So why only after they transferred the case to the Israeli Beis Din two months later - for the purpose of clarifying monetary obligation - that they suddenly sent out a warning letter stating that they can not "at this time" advise sending students to these seminaries? Why only at this junction does the HTC block government funding to the students?

Furthermore if they suddenly woke up to the need to protect the students - why did they renege on their promise to the Israeli Beis  Din to share the information they had collected and to provide access to the testimony of the victims? Why did they refuse Rav Aharon Feldman's suggestion that they form a joint beis din with the Israeli Beis Din? Why did they renege on their promise to remove the warning if the seminaries were sold to Yaakov Yarmish? 

At this point they have refused to answer any of these question - even to the Israel Beis Din.

So why is their apparent plan of destroying the seminaries - which they clearly viewed as viable and fixable and apparently still do under unnamed conditions - being applauded as sensitivity to the victims? Why is their coverup and insensitivity to the victims and potential victims amongst the students - being ignored. Why instead is the CBD allowed to make the IBD into the scapegoat and blame them for insensitivity. Why is the IBD being falsely accused of being obsessed with saving the seminaries at the expense of the students - but  the CBD is viewed as enlightened and solely interested in protecting the students?

No one seems to know the reason for this injustice.

Seminary Scandal: Rav Feurst and S. Gottesman are behind the RICO Claim - A psak was issued to parents to join the RICO claim!

A friend of mine - who is a well respected talmid chachom who is known world-wide and has direct connection to major figures in this scandal -  wrote me the following:

According to a communication sent by a parent from Chicago, parents of the 25 girls from Chicago who registered their children in the various Meisels seminaries - and withdrew their registration upon the recommendation of the local BD - were called to a meeting by Rav Feurst, also attended by Reb Shlomo Gottesman. The parents were told what was referred to as a "Psak Din"; they should sue the seminaries in secular court, in order to get back their deposits. A draft of a lawsuit (now the RICO claim), which I understand was prepared by Rav Feurst and S. Gottesman, was presented to them. In it, instead of focusing on the deposits, Meisels and the seminaries are viciously attacked for misrepresenting Jewish education.

19 of the parents opted to lose their deposits rather than resort to such tactics. Six of them took up the offer. Despite the vicious charges, none of the six ever had any children in any of the seminaries, and thus never "suffered" in any way from them other than losing their deposits for this year. This can easily be confirmed by anyone who knows any of the 25 families from Chicago who cancelled their registration.

I am uneasy with this. If Rav Feurst sees it Halachically necessary to return the deposits, he can either arrange a Beis Din that will deal with the monetary issue, or at worst give the parents a Heter Arka'os to deal with it in secular courts (if they have a case at all). If he instead feels the seminaries are so unsafe that they should be dismantled, why involve the parents from Chicago who recanted their registration, instead of having the claimants who testified before them against Meisels bring the case to the courts (if it is impossible to find a responsible Beis Din capable of dealing with it)?

It seems to have become, at a certain point, a holy mission of CBD to bury the seminaries by hook or by crook. Is this reconcilable l'Halachah? After all, it was not in the jurisdiction of CBD to produce a Halachic Psak Din (according to the CBD's letter of July 10), and it was in the jurisdiction of the well-respected Dayanim, with experience in harassment cases, whom CBD chose to deal with it.