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.

Seminary Scandal: Questions from a loyal and informed CBD supporter - and my answers

This post originally appeared as a comment to a different post - but I thought it would be of more use as its own post. My answers are interspersted and preceded by DT.

Material that I have added after the original response in the comments sections is in bold letters.

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

Guest Post by puzzled by RDE •

 

RDE: Your position on this issue has truly surprised me. It is difficult to fully understand how you have so aggressively sided with the IBD here. 

A few very specific questions for you - I would ask that you answer them directly. (If you can indulge me by answering - please do, rather than reference another post where you addressed this already). (As an intro - I too have been in touch with people deeply involved, including personal conversations with the dayanim on both sides - so please don't simply dismiss my words as someone who is not informed.). 

1. A choshen mishpat shayla - a person signs up their daughter to go to a seminary run by Rabbi/Rebbetzin/Mr. "X. In the period of time after the deposit is paid the seminary is transferred to a new owner, etc. - does the parent have a right to ask for the money back with the simple claim of "I never agreed to this - I signed up for something else." What do you believe the answer is? Have you asked a posek?

DT   @puzzled I am puzzled by your puzzlement - since you claim to have access to dayanim on both sides - why haven't you asked them. Is it that you want to know the truth or that your question is really why I am involved? Are you claiming that my answers are not what the IBD would answer because you asked them and found major discrepancies? To answer your first question since it the only one that seems to raise new issues. I have not heard that anyone is making the claim that they want out simply because their is a new owner. The claim has been the CBD has declared them unsafe and therefore it is a mekach taus. To that question it is clear that there is a need for a beis din and yes I have asked poskim and that is what they say. I am not sure that objecting to the sale merely because there is a new owner without claiming that there is a difference is services provided means anything.

I did in fact ask a posek your question and he said:
Of course it doesn't preclude a din Torah). If I pay a cleaning service (not Mr. XYZ) to clean my suits for one year,and the business (with which the contract was with ) gets sold (and the owner is not even the one who cleans the suits ; he sets policy, hires the cleaners, buys equipment -- if I want my money back I absolutely have to convince the BD that there is a real reason to think that the new person will not run the business as well as the old one. Especially if the "real" owner is an amutah.

2. You and the IBD have maintained that Mr. Yarmush "bought the seminary". What is the evidence of that? I do believe that the IBD willfully misled people to say it was sold. When I pushed one of the IBD members (who I spoke to personally), he said "it is in process" and will be sold. How is this justified by the IBD? [As an important aside - I am not offended by the practical need of Mr. Yarmush to have many contingencies before a sale is consummated. He is a smart businessman and would never buy something until he knew what he was buying. If no girls attend - why would he agree to a price now? etc. Thus - I think such an approach is perfectly reasonable. My issue is the IBD being deceptive about this point.]

DT  2. In regards to the second, I have a letter from Rav Aharon Feldman that he verified that the sale was good. Is that good enough? The CBD has been claiming - not that the sale isn't valid but that it is a sham and that Yarmish is merely a front for Mieselss. They offer no proof but keep claiming that the two are old buddies. Yarmish categorically denies that. The CBD has not produced any evidence for their questionable claim. Why don't you ask them? As I noted in a previous post - the CBD in the May guidelines made no mention of the need for Meisels to sell.

3. In the various communications send out by the administration of the school (specifically in an email invitation to a conference call for parents) - they introduced the dayanim as "our dayanim"? What does that mean?

DT 3. I don't know. I haven't seen it - perhaps you will send it to me and I'll try and find out. Someone suggested that it simply means the dayanim to whom we were meshabed ourselves to follow by signing the shtar. When I see the actual documents I can investigate further.

4. What is your view about what the staff knew? Every seminary has an Eim Bayis? Were they aware that girls were going for "rides" with Meisels at the wee hours of the morning? What did they do about it? Did they not know? If not, is this a proper level of supervision? How could the IBD make such a quick decision labeling the staff as doing their work with "mesiras nefesh" and "yiras shamayim"? More importantly - are these specific people returning next year?

DT:  4.Despite your request - this item is clearly explained in the post of the IBD father to his son.

5. You seem to have embraced the IBD narrative that they tried from the beginning to have the CBD share the testimony, etc. - which many of us question. For the purpose of this discussion - I will accept that fact. But without it how could they say what they did? How could they issue such sweeping endorsements without the facts (which they acknowledge they don't have) - based on the one sided testimony of the minahalos that that spoke with?

DT  5. Ditto for this. By the way did the CBD tell you that they in fact have shared the testimony?! If not why don't you believe the IBD. This is doubly curious in the fact that the CBD now says that the lawsuit precludes them for sharing and allowing the witnesses to be questioned. Why would they say such a thing if in fact they had already shared the information.

It also seems that part of the reason that the CBD engineered the RICO claim was to create a situation where they are blocked by secular law to share information

6. The IBD has over and over repeated the calumny that the CBD took testimony "shelo kihalacho" - not in the presence of the other side? Do you believe they are correct in the assertion? Can you justify this statement in light of the Teshuva published in Yeshurun (whose editor in chief, ironically, is Rabbi Gottesman...), written by none other than Rav Mendel Shafran the Av Beis Din of the IBD - which explicitly states that in abuse cases this is not required! [Furthermore - if as it appears to be the case - RAF left the proceeding early on - did they not do the very thing they criticized the CBD for doing!?] These are but some of the questions many of us have about this case and specifically your approach.

DT 6. The simple explanation to this is that there is significant difference between a beis din which is to determine guilt and one which collects testimony strong enough to remove an educator from a school. The Shoel UMeishiv is halacha for the latter case. The CBD's claim that Meisels is guilty of all the sexual sins on the book - indicates a full beis din judging guilt or innocence. That requires hearing both sides. Meisels denies that accusation. As far as I know there has not been a proper beis din trial and therefore they can't according to the halacha claim that he is guilty as they claim.

Please go back to the CBD and request some documentation for their allegations. You might even want to show them my presentation of the IBD's views. I will be quite willing to publish their point by point rebuttal - especially if they provide documentation to prove that they have given over their data to the IBD and that they in fact have conducted a proper din Torah that allows them to pasken that Meisels is guilty of all sexual sins.

Additionally when the IBD claims the CBD is acting shelo kahalacha it is because the case has been give to IBD, through a shtar that says they would not. The CBD simply is not authorized to be issue psakim in this case and need to work through the IBD or at least in conjunction with it as Rav Aharon Feldman suggested and the IBD agreed to do.

I hope I don't sound condescending when I suggest you rethink your views on this sordid scandal. I suggest this because I usually think you are on the right side of these issues and am baffled at your approach here. less 

DT Please get back to me soon so this whole affair can be brought to a peaceful resolution before Elul.

Seminary Scandal - The blood libel of an absurd RICO Claim: Using an Atom Bomb instead of a Key to open the door of their home!

The Orthodox world was shaken this week by a RICO class action filing in Federal court against Meisels, his seminaries and alleged coconspirators. It claims that Meisels seminaries - which have been viewed as premier educational institutions by all - were merely  fronts that pretended to be Orthodox girls seminaries. Their true purpose was simply to defraud the parents of money and to provide Meisels the opportunity to sexually abuse the girls that he and his co- conspirators had recruited. It is beyond belief that any normal human being would make such a claim - especially those who claim to be Orothodox Jews!

The filers of the suit were alleged by my sources to have been aided directly or indirectly by people associated with the Chicago Beis Din -  part of the claims are similar to that made by the Chicago Beis Din. It is also alleged by my informants that this is a direct result of the current conflict between the Chicago Beis Din and the Israeli Beis Din. According to my sources it was also allegedly the (unintended?) consequences of activities by a lawyer by the name of Gottesman because of his perceived humiliation by the Israelli Beis Din.

It is unbelievable that included in the list of defendants is Rav Tzvi Gartner - one of the distinguished members of the Israeli Beis Din - a universally recognized talmid chachom.

Anyone who knows the facts of this case, realizes that the lawsuit is equivalent - in damage to the Jewish community and institutions and in logic used - to claiming that the Jews have a conspiracy to kidnap and kill goyim in order to obtain blood to bake matzoh. Or that the goal of Judaism is to corrupt human beings into rapists, thieves and murderers.

Why have the #%&  who filed this suit not realized that it is using an atom bomb instead of a key  - to open a door of their home! They will not be undamaged by this filing. While the plaintiffs have some legitimate issues as evidenced by the comments of both the Israaeli and Chicago Beis Dins - this is not an acceptable method that anyone concerned about Torah and halacha would ever use. The damage to the viability of the institution of beis din - as well as to the idea of girls going to seminary in Israel - is very severe. Aside from the chilul HaShem and debasement of all Jews.

   Meisels - RICO Claim  August 4 2014 

Seminary Scandal: The Chicago Beis Din did not require Meisels to sell the seminaries!

One of the strange puzzles in this scandal is the conduct of the Chicago Beis Din. First they ask the Israel Beis Din to take care of the case - and then they refuse to share the information that they got from purported victims. Then they tell the Israel Beis Din that if the seminaries are sold to Yarmish. they will remove their warning against attending the seminaries - and then they refuse to do so and refuse to explain why. Then when the seminaries are sold to Yarmish with the supervision of Rav Aharon Feldman - the Chicago Beis Din says that it was a sham sale because they falsely claim that Yarmish and Meisels are good buddies. They clearly will not tolerate less than an absolute sale.

 I just received the following Chicago Beis Din document which lists the Chicago Beis Din's guidelines for Meisels. It is signed by the entire beis din. Of importance, please note that the CBD does not even require Meisels to sell the seminaries! So why are they complaining about what they mistakenly say is a sham sale - when they didn't even require a sham sale? Anybody have the answer? [It is interesting to note that the document says they are working with Torah U'Mesorah - but that is another issue.]

Seminary Scandal: Rav Aharon Feldman's role - and why both sides are attacking him

One of the mysteries of the Seminary Scandal is the role of Rav Aharon Feldman. Rav Aharon Feldman is well known as the Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Israel of Baltimore and as someone well acquainted not only with the Torah world of learning but the real world of people and their concerns. But in a recent letter from the Israeli Beis Din and from one of its dayanim - Rav Malinowitz - Rav Feldman is strongly criticized for his involvement and his apparently trying to bridge the gap between the Israeli Beis Din and the Chicago Beis Din.  It is also well known that one of the blogs - Frum Follies has attacked Rav Feldman in very harsh terms. My concern has been trying to understand why he is being attacked and to reconcile this with the fact that he is a rav whose reputation is not to create disputes but to resolve them.

I had the occasion to speak with a few people today that have fragments of the picture. They agree in one aspect - that Rav Aharon Feldman was sincerely trying to make peace between the two warring beis dins - especially by making them into a joint beis din. It also seems that he was a bit too credulous (with all due respect) in assuming that his sincere commonsense would be enough to reconcile the differences between strong personalities with strong differences of opinion. The new development of pending criminal and civil claims seems to have made this joint beis din impossible.

I was also given a letter which I was told could be published. The letter was written by Rav Aharon to a lawyer who represents two of the victims who accused Rav Aharon of meddling in the case when he was not authorized by any of the victims. The letter is interesting in that he clearly states that he was only appointed by the Israeli Beis Din as the pro forma plaintiff. [I was just informed that the Chicago Beis Din had also requested that he represent the victims so he obviously was acceptable to both sides.] Thus he had no significant role in determining the course or the focus of the beis din activity.  It is important to note that he says the Israeli Beis Din was concerned primarily with monetary compensation to the victims and whether the principals of the schools were liable also.

His attempt at smoothing over differences with the Chicago Beis Din explains why he was criticized harshly by the Israeli Beis Din even though he was officially recognized as being a participant in the process of the Israeli Beis Din. His main concern was to make peace in order that the primary focus of the dayanim on both sides would be to help the victims as well as to improve the manner in which the seminaries deal with these issues so that there would not be a repetition of this tragedy. On the other hand the Chicago Beis Din is not happy with his attempt to have them rescind their advisory not to attend the seminaries and as well as his concern for the continued existence of the seminary and their teachers. Thus his attempt at compromise is viewed as betrayal by both sides. Not a good place to be.

This is only a brief discussion without touching on the many unresolved questions. For example  why there is no mention of the possible negligence of the senior seminary staff in not stopping Meisels(even though they are discussing whether they owe compensation)?  Or why there is no formal confession by Meisels and well as an apology? Were psychologists and education experts consulted by either beis din? What was the controversy over who should buy the seminaries? What was the role of R Gottesman? And what impact does pending criminal and civil suits have to do with the ability of the beis din to resolve the matter successfully- if at all? Why do both beis dins seem to be unconcerned with how their fight is undermining emunas chachomim - as Rav Aharon pointed out in his letter to the Israel Beis Din?

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

From: Rav Aharon Feldman
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:13 AM
To: B. C.
Subject: RE: Mr. Meisels - Israeli Beis Din

Dear Mr. C.

In reply to your letter to me of July 16, 2014, I would like to state the following:

1.       I was appointed by the Israel Beis Din to act as the pro forma plaintiff (to’en) necessary for initiating a din torah (a trial held in accordance with Torah laws). I specifically stated at the beginning of the proceedings that I did not represent anyone who does not want me to represent him, which referred to the two clients whom you represent.

2.       The counsel for Elimelech Meisels began his defense by claiming that I was not empowered to represent anyone. The Chief Dayan (the head of the Beis Din) replied that he is technically correct but this is immaterial since Meisels had already confessed and that the din torah was to establish the amount of compensation to be paid the victims and to decide if the principals of the schools are liable to pay damages as well. Counsel agreed to this and to continue the din torah.

3.       Having performed my pro forma duties I left the proceedings after one or two people were called to testify since my presence was no longer needed. I had nothing to do with the judgment issued at the end.

4.       The din torah was not related to Meisel’s guilt, as you seem to have assumed. This had been  established by his previous confession, as above. Consequently, your suggestion that the Beis Din “whitewashed” Meisels has no basis in fact.

Respectfully,

Aharon Feldman