Rav Riskin & Rav Goren - support[ed] the Chareidi viewpoint?

Originally published May 19, 2008

Given the assertions from various MO/RZ sources about the place of acceptance of mitzvos - I found the following cogent comments by Rav Riskin - from 34 years ago - very interesting. Also his citation of Rav Goren that subsequent post conversion non-observance of mitzvos shows that the conversion is not valid.

=============
Conversion in Jewish Law

By Rav Shlomo Riskin - Tradition 14,2 (1974) 29-42

The “Who is a Jew” controversy in Israel has bitterly divided the religious parties and has caused untold animosity between the religious and nonreligious camps. The secularists agonizingly cry: Is the Russian émigré married to a Christian, who has risked life and limb to leave the “Communist paradise” and re-establish historic ties in Israel, to be told that his children are not Jews and cannot be married in a religious ceremony? Is the Israeli kibbutznik who was born to Christian parents but who has placed her destiny with Israel’s future and who has worked and fought for Israel’s development to be denied the status of a Jew merely because she did not undergo some pro forma rite of acceptance? And the religionist staunchly responds: We must maintain the sanctity of Israel! Our faith commitment is based upon a precise legal system which has been responsible for the preservation of our people these three thousand years. We dare not compromise our halakhic standards.

[…]

In an article in TRADITION (Spring 1971) by J. David Bleich entitled, “The Conversion Crisis: A Halakhic Analysis,” the author asserts on the basis of numerous responsa that: “all authorities agree that an application for conversion may justifiably be entertained only if the Bet Din is satisfied that upon conversion the candidate will become a God-fearing Jew and will scrupulously observe the commandments of the Torah. . . Where it is evident that the candidate will be non-observant, the conversion is null and void despite- the candidate’s oral declaration of acceptance of the yoke of mitzvot.”

And in the recent Langer controversy, Rav Goren suggests in a published responsum that a convert who does not live in accord with Jewish law but reverts to his original practices thereby nullifies the act of conversion [2a. Goren, Pesak Hadin Re: Inyan Ha’ack Vhaachot) Jerusalem 5733, p. 137ff. ] But two issues later in TRADITION (Winter-Spring 1972) Marc D. Angel wrote “Another Halakhic Approach to Conversions,” in which he asserts in the name of Rav UzieJ, former Rishon Lezion, that there is no requirement to ask the non-Jew actually to observe the mitzvot. We do not require his assurance that he will be an observant Jew. .

And at a recent Mizrachi forum a popular Orthodox Rabbi, in an attempt to empathize with the plight of the Israeli secularists, queried: Should not conversion by fire be at least as acceptable to Jewish tradition as conversion by water? [4. Rabbi Yitzchak Greenberg. Mizrachi Fellowship Meeting. May 4, Fifth Avenue Synagogue.]

[…]

At least according to this authority [Rav Uziel], it would seem that conversion is – if only post facto – a pro-forma ritual of circumcision and ritual immersion which takes effect even without the judges having informed the would-be proselyte of the particulars of his Jewish status. This is the basis of the responsum of UzieI, and this might lead us to believe that acceptance of Commandments is a desirable but not necessary constituent of conversion.

I must strongly disagree with the conclusion, and a more intensive study of the sources will demonstrate that the acceptance of commandments is a far more integral part of conversion than might appear.

[…]

Both the Schach and Taz explain this insistence of the Yoreh Deah [268:3] on three qualified judges for the acceptance of the commandments on the principle that: “This is the essence of the matter (of conversion) and its first step.”

I would submit that even according to Maimonides the acceptance of commandments is a necessary prerequisite for conversion.

[…]

I cannot accept an essential distinction between the acceptance of commandments and the observance of commandments. It is self-understood that no Jewish court can guarantee future actions of the convert. Nevertheless it is to be expected that the expressed acceptance of commandments implies the willingness on the part of the convert to live in accordance with the scrupulous observance of these commandments for the rest of his life. Unlike Christianity, Judaism has never recognized a faith commitment apart from its tangible expression in deed. Whether or not there actually exists a commandment to believe in God is questioned by the various Biblical commentaries,17 whereas the entire halakhic process bespeaks an emphasis upon proper observance as the necessary expression of sincere faith. The convert who accepts the commandments is expected to observe them.18 Were the acceptance and subsequent observance of commandments not an inextricable aspect of conversion, the status of the proselyte who converted with ulterior motives would never have been questioned by the Talmud. Although we conclude that post facto all those who converted for ulterior motives are valid converts,19 Hillel and R. Chiya accepted such converts because, explains the Baalei Tosafot, “they knew that ultimately they would be complete proselytes.” There is therefore a degree of latitude accorded the individual court to decide as to the ultimate sincerity of the specific convert – sincerity as to his halakhic observance.

The Unholy Trinity – From Rav Goren to Dayan Sherman, and Rav Kamenetsky

Eddie – Guest Post   [I requested this post to see how Eddie would justify his repeated condemnation of Rav Sherman. This post doesn't describe what the halachic issues were but focuses on what Eddie sees as similarly in situations and variations in psak. The problem with Eddies analysis is that the situations are not similar nor are the halachic rulings and thus I think the comparisons are not valid. In short I disagree with this analysis and Eddie's conclusions]

Controversies in halacha can be legitimate l’shem Shamayim,  but also can be  gladiatorial, or ideological. For the layperson, it is sometimes difficult to know whether to take sides, and which one at that.

In the history of the past few decades, several areas have been the most bitter: these include the “who is a Jew” debate, the Aguna debate, and the problems of mamzeirut.   Some of these problems  often come in combinations of several of these.  Any agunah release which is not fully accepted by all poskim, can be accused of leading to mamzeirim, ch’v’shalom.

One of the most divisive figures in recent memory was Rav Shlomo Goren.  For the Modern and Tzioni world he remains a major Gadol and figure of almost Biblical proportions, whilst for most of the Hareidi world, an ilui who went terribly off the derech and had to be stopped. The most controversial of all his piskei halacha involved his freeing of 2 siblings who were declared mamzeirim by a Beit Din comprised of major Gedolei Yisrael.  His strategy was to cast doubt on the giur of the father, and hence declare that the mother was never technically married to him.    This was attacked by the vast majority of Gedolim in the Hareidi world, and defended by a number of Modern and Tzioni figures.  The purpose of this vort is not to prove he was right or wrong but to show the problems involved and similarities with other cases.

The 3 principal accusations I had heard about Rav Goren were the Langer case; the Dakar submarine (also involving agunot)  and his opposition to land for peace, especially in the Rav Shach era.  2 of these were solved when a) the fragments of the Dakar and the remains of lost sailors were found under sea, and b) when Rav Shach himself opposed the Oslo agreement and said that it is assur to return holy land won by miracle to terrorists, thus adopting his onetime colleague’s position.

The 3^rd problem, ie the Langer case, was solved, IMHO, when only a few years ago, Dayan Sherman of the rabbanut (together with a Rav Attias) annulled giurim of thousands of geirim, allowing some of them to walk free from marriages without a get.  These were geirim who had been converted by known Rabbis, Roshei Yeshiva and dayanim, and immersed in mikveh etc.  Contrast this to the figure in the Langer case who had no evidence of having had a giur, nor recollection of the name of the rabbi, no knowledge of the Posuk “Shema Yisroel” etc, but was considered a Jew in every way by major Gedolei Yisroel.  What is immediately clear is that the Hareidi powers have no clear or consistent standards for what makes a valid conversion. 

Again, my purpose is not to prove Rav Goren right or Rav Sherman wrong, although I may personally have a bias in the matter.  My argument is that Rav Goren had more grounds for his annulment than Dayan Sherman did in his. And since Dayan Sherman had support from major Gedolim in his generation, his actions raised the ire of the DL world and not the Hareidi world. In an interview, Rav Shachter of YU said he had read R’ Sherman’s psak and said it could not have been Rav Sherman who wrote it, because it was so riddled  full of errors (Sherman studied at YU). Rav Dichovsky wrote a scathing critique of Sherman’s psak in Techumim, citing Rav Chaim Ozer, Rav Moshe  Feinstein,  Rav Kook and others who opposed the annulment of giur.

[Incidentally, Rav Yosef had a machloket with the Chazon Ish on whether we can disregard rulings of the Shulchan Aruch if they have been questioned  by Gedolim through the generations.   Ironically, the CI takes a more rationalist approach, whereas ROY is fundamentally a follower of Rav Karo].

One of the supporters of Rav Sherman’s psak was a then still favoured Rabbi Tropper of the EJF. http://www.vosizneias.com/15705/2008/05/08/new-york-rabbinic-committee-on-giyur-rabbi-drukmans-conversions-worthless/

Tropper had claimed that the Tzioni Rav Druckman’s conversions were worthless.  It later transpired that Rabbi Tropper was also performing conversions, in exchange for gilui arayos with his candidates for conversion.

However, the problem has evolved from the Langer controversy, when there was an ultra-meikel view towards giur by the Hareidi powers, whereas it is now ultra-machmir.  On the other hand, Rav Goren took a machmir view in that case, whereas R’ Druckman has been meikel.  The only consistent position was ROY, who maintained his position between the two controversies.

This leads us to the current problem of the Agunah, Tamar E., who was allowed to remarry without a Get , by a group of American Rabbonim, who until now had very good standing in the Agudah and Torah world.  It seems the tide is turning against RSK, who was praised immensely by RHS only a few years ago, but today has very few people to defend him.  Some comparisons have been made between RSK and Rav Goren.  This might be true when it comes to isolation and disapprobation.  However, the cases were very different.  If anything, RSK would be closer to Rabbi Rackman’s  solution for agunot, which was a disaster for both the MO world and the Hareidi world.

In terms of halacha,  I have no authority to say what is correct or who to follow. This is purely for the individual to rely on a posek. However, it seems that some people can get away with “murder”, whilst others cannot.  Thus Rav Sherman had the support of Rav Elyashiv, and did a “Goren” on an industrial scale; whilst Rav Dov Kook (married to daughter of Rav Zilbershtein, and granddaughter of Rav Elyashiv) issued many flawed gittin creating havoc, but is still considered a great Mekubal. (He did apologise for his errors, and vowed not to get involved in gittin again).

It seems that what was once a divide between the modern and hareidi world is no longer so clearly labelled. The problems now appear in the most respected hareidi circles, and the pressure is taken away from the modern world.  IN many of these controversies, some have suggested a Hillel and Shammai type debate, whilst others claim it is falsification of halacha. What we must avoid, is falling into the disaster that befell Beit Shammai, which Chazal said was akin to the Golden Calf – the use of force and violence to impose one’s viewpoint.  It is easy to point to the modern and feminist world as being the source of evil, but without these factors, even inside the Hareidi world, we have seen tragic controversies.

The Ritva teaches that one only has to follow the rov when dayanim sit together; if they do not sit together then an individual can maintain his halachic position.   There are genuine halachic positions and false ones.  The rov – majority – can try to persuade the minority to retract their position. Failure to do so can be costly, as we see in the case of Akavya ben Mehalel – who had a valid tradition for his position.   Akavya was a Gadol haDor who was offered the position of Rosh Beit Din if he retracted. [Incidentally, Rav Goren was approached by Rav Shach in the ‘60s to set up a Yeshiva together, since he was still accepted as an Ilui at that time].

These controversies have always been, and will continue, perhaps even when we have a Sanhedrin. The greatest tragedy is the fate of the mamzer, who suffers for things he was not responsible.

Chief Rabbi: Does Rabbi Druckman think he's equal to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef?

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/320542

Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef strongly criticized Rabbi Chaim Druckman, one of the leading rabbis of the Religious Zionist movement, over his personal support for the authority of municipal rabbis to perform conversions in Israel.

Rabbi Yosef said: "Rabbi Druckman said he agreed that there could be conversions of city rabbis, but only with the consent of the Chief Rabbinate. I wonder about him. How can you agree to this? Rabbi Elyashiv objected to it. My father (Rabbi Ovadia Yosef) objected to it. All the leaders of the generation objected to it. With all due respect to Rabbi Druckman, is he like [my father] when it comes to Torah? Is he like Rabbi Elyashiv? What a gap [exists between him and them] ..."

"So how can you disagree with [my father]? How can you disagree with Rabbi Elyashiv? They are against the [increased powers] for municipal rabbis because they want to give to the municipal rabbis like the rabbi of Shoham. That's their goal, so how can you say 'it's good?' What's good about it? It's the worst, and it must be fought," he said.

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