Saturday, January 15, 2022

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


  1. and it does not recommend that prospective students attend these seminaries at this time

    I thought "this time" has already past and he already agreed to not teach in these seminaries?

    If so, is it fair to publicize this letter at this time?

    Was this letter only sent to principals and it was not intended to be hung on the walls of Yerusholayim, mass distributed, nor be published on the internet.

    Is publishing this letter - at this time fair to the hundreds and hundreds of students whom he has helped; who see him as real positive role model, and who they feel grateful to him? Seeing this must be tearing their hearts out.

  2. If he retired from this position, why is this letter being published? (As you asked.)

  3. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 14, 2014 at 3:03 AM

    There is no proof that he sold his seminaries, just rumors put out by the same people who swear he is the biggest tzadik and mechanech of all time. I am quite sure that the Chicago Beis Din is implying that when he is known to be totally disconnected from those seminaries they will no longer advise against going there.

  4. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 14, 2014 at 3:05 AM

    I don't know the exact intent of the rabbis who issued this psak. But I believe that there is a risk for those parents who are not aware of this situation if they are not aware of the misconduct finding of the beis din in Chicago. In my experience, people like Meisels or Dovid Weinberger never quit public roles until they are thoroughly and fully cut off from their options by publicity.

  5. I expected better from DaatTorah, I alwys come here for the truth. A drop of research would have shown that the Beis Din in Eretz Yisroel mentioned in the letter here has come out in favor of R' Meisels. The letter will be circulating within a day (a source close to this case tells me).

    R' Eidensohn , next time talk to the girls who were in the seminary this past year and they will direct you to the one girl who brought this case to the beis din, she will agree to talk with you and you may then understand what is REALLY going on here.


    Respectfully, I appreciate you always being the torahdik source of the news.

  6. But I believe that there is a risk for those parents who are not aware of this situation

    Really? Why? If he is not there, why is this relevant?

    In my experience

    You operate under an alias. Any experience or expertise you claim is highly suspect. If you indeed are an authority on these issues, why don't you use your real name and give us your verifiable qualifications?

    For all I know, you can be a sick abuser who feels good by bashing Hareidi Rabbis at every opportunity.

  7. I have seen the psak from the beis din in Israel. It has not come out in favor of Meisels. What it states is that the seminaries are fantastic places which have done much good. That whatever incidents happened are not directly rated to the seminaries themselves. That matters are being taken care of and that one should not pay attention to allegations made in anonymous postings or those with false names.

    Sorry but it does not exonerate Meisels and it doesn't contradict with the Chicago Beis Din stated. The major differences is whether this should be a public discussion with warning against attending these seminaries or whether the issue will be dealt with out of public view..

  8. Comment by someone I know well

    It seems from the purported letter from the Israeli beis din that they did not clear Meisels, not as I saw someone claimed in the comments .

    While I have no way of confirming whether the letter is authentic, BUT -
    Rabbi Malinowitz was sitting Shiva for his brother in the US. He just got up this morning (Monday 14th of July).
    He left Israel last Tue. So could he have faxed his signature from the US
    yesterday for damage control ( July 13 is the date on the letter of beis din)? sure, but...

  9. How does a Chicago beis din have jurisdiction over an individual from Eretz Yisroel regarding institutions in Eretz Yisroel. This issue would be under the jurisdiction of the beis din in Eretz Yisroel.

  10. Since when is protecting people from harm localized to to a particular beis din? They clearly indicated that the facts were presented to them - from both sides and they ruled that he constituted a danger to the girls.

    But the firing was left to the local beis din and they apparently had him removed.

  11. I have received confirmation that the letter is valid as is Rabbi Malinowitz' signature as noted in the updates to the post.

  12. I just added the Israeli beis din's letter and it is obviously not an exoneration or even in favor of Meisels - contrary to what @Daniel lover wrote.

  13. the Chicago Beis Din's letter was written prior to the firing of Meisels as reported in the Israeli Beis Din's letter written 3 days later. Clearly the Chicago Beis Din's request was fulfilled and therefore there is no longer any need to recommend students not to attend these seminaries. The two letters need to be read together.

    The answers to the rest of your questions are self-evident in light of the second letter

  14. Why do you think that every misdeed - especially of sexual crimes needs to be covered up - as if it never happened. How are people going to protect themselves from these crimes "that never happen"? Meisels still constitutes a problem and it is important that people are aware that he is not to be trusted.

  15. Why do you feel that it should be dealt with within public view?

  16. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 14, 2014 at 7:11 PM

    Where do you get "only one incident over any years?" Chicago speaks of multiple complainants. Moreover, Chicago minimizes the negatives they report confining themselves to saying he is not to be trusted. I have heard that the scope and severity of his misconduct they heard about is much worse. They made the mistake of settling for minimal disclosure thus opening the door for people like you to trivialize and minimize Meisels' disgusting abuse of young women.

  17. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 14, 2014 at 7:14 PM

    What is to prevent him from assuming another role and abusing his new position. He will claim he was exonerated but he quit because of the slander disrupting his precious students, yahdee, yahdee. Most charismatic abusers are master manipulators who always come back for more rounds.

  18. Chicago speaks of a single complainant. You, without offering a shred of evidence or support, conjecture about more. Chicago maximizes the negatives while you build on top of that from nothing more than fantasy.

  19. Nonsense. Meisels was removed from the seminaries weeks ago, when all this began. He has had nothing to do with them since then. The leaving of his position did not occur on the date of the letter from the Israeli BD. It occurred weeks before.

  20. Actually, the scope they heard about is much less not much more. They maximized the complaint; they did not minimize it.

  21. What is to prevent him from assuming another role and abusing his new position.

    What is to prevent you from abusing your position? Oh, you're an anonymous blogger operating under an alias.

    Therefore, I do not visit your blog. I checked it out a couple of times, and have seen from the way you write that you do not appear to be a professional who understands human emotions. Nor do you appear to care about too much about people. Please point me to a post where there is a sad and caring tone towards the "abused" or the "abuser".

    You appear to get a quick high from bashing Hareidi Rabbis. You always seek to maximize and exaggerate the wrongdoings. Please point me to any post where there is a tone of regretfulness to what happened to anyone you mention on your blog. There is no regretful tone to the "abuser" nor the "abused".

    If you were sincere in your actions, why would you hide your name? It is easy to throw around mud under the cloak of anonymity. Be a man! Tell us your qualifications and credentials.

    Thank you.

    As to what would prevent rabbi Meisels from getting involved with girls? That's something that should be left up to the Beis Din. They have their ways. They took full financial control of the institutions. They may leave a significant of money in escrow, which he would lose if he violated the terms they set up with him (as has happened in some cases).

    They also have the ability to publicize it, should he attempt to breach his agreement (as what happened to Weinberger).

    I am shocked and deeply disappointed with Rabbi Eidenshon's actions on this one.

  22. Where do you get "only one incident over any years?" Chicago speaks of multiple complainants.

    Really, now. Please, pray tell, where do they speak about more than one incident?

    I have heard that the scope and severity of his misconduct they heard about is much worse.

    You have proven yourself to exaggerate, over and over. Regardless, my questions were not directed at you. I do not trust you, at all. You can claim anything under the guise of anonymity. Your word against the Beis Din, doesn't stand up.

  23. He is gone from the seminaries, now and forever. This is cold fact.

  24. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 15, 2014 at 3:36 AM

    No he isn't. Remember the Golden Rule; He who has the gold makes the rules. The Meisels family still owns the seminaries. the Beit Din of Rav Shafran did a rush job to save the seminaries from financial rule as prospective parents rushed to the exit doors. They make all sorts of statements about supervising subsequent developments. the Chicago Beis Din lit a fire on Thursday. I functioned as a catalyst and fanned the flames. The Shafran Beit Din acted in emergency mode to save the seminaries (i.e., the Meisels' business holdings). As long as they own the seminaries he may come back in one guise or another. No, he was not gone before he was pressured. He will come back if the pressure eases off.

  25. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 15, 2014 at 3:38 AM

    The question is not who I am but what are the facts. Yes, all sorts of wonderful things might happen. The seminary might even go from disseminating charisma to teaching more substance. But there are no guarantees, YET!

  26. The Beis Din clearly state 'students' (plural).

    Instead of 'talking to girls', perhaps you should rely on a bona-fide investigation by a beis din of reputable individuals.

  27. What's this about "the Meisels family?" These are not family-owned seminaries. The family seminary is a separate one, and has nothing to do with the accused. He does not teach there, or have any position there at all. He opened his four seminaries on his own. He is their sole owner. The family has no part of them. This too is a fact. You write as though your an authority on this, but you don't have the basic facts straight.

  28. Mr. Lopin, I dont know why you have to comment on this blog. You should keep your comments to your own which seems quite active. You chose not to post my remarks from an inside source that contradicts you and makes you look bad. If you want to reply, do it in your forum.

  29. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 15, 2014 at 1:48 PM

    In Lakewood and Boro Park the oilam has long spoken of Elimelech's father as the baal habos even though the father lives in Boro Park. Thus I assume the correct phrasing for ownership is "the Meisels family."

  30. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM

    1. People keep asking why some of us assume he will return to the seminaries if he is no longer there. However he still owns them and still has the powerful charismatic grip of a guru on his many groupies.

    2. Meisels' "girls" have been filling my blog with real foul, guttersniping attacks on me using some vulgar language and even calling me a Nazi. That is OK. But what hurts is the vile personal character assasination and lies directed at the girls who testified about their abuse to the Chicago Beis Din. I deleted some comments which named them.

    3. I have another post:

  31. I came across this interesting and relevant article on this site.

    If Dr. Klafter Is correct in his classifications of clergy/teachers etc. involved in this type of misconduct, in which category would Rabbi Meisels be put?

    We can probably rule out number 3, as from his picture he seems to be a relatively young and healthy man (45ish?).

    Does he fit into category #4?

    * Is there a long history?

    * Did he threaten anybody?

    * Is he a person who suffers from severe arrogance? (I have read the book that he edited/wrote for someone else, writing it off their recordings. He does not come across as arrogant.)

    * Does he have a lack of regard for others in general, not limited to the student that may have been exploited? (So many of his students say otherwise)

    * Does he have absolutely no remorse?

    * Does he deny any wrong doing, continue to lie, and will not cooperate with investigators? [ 1) He did cooperate with a Beis Din halfway around the world - that did not know him from before. 2) He quit his teaching. 3) He did hand over control of his seminaries to a respected Beis Din, with which he also cooperated.]

    * Did he not make any actual attempts to stop this behavior?


    If he is not a category 4 predator, why did he have to be dragged through the mud here? What is the reason of this publicity - all over cyberspace and all over the Jewish world?

  32. @Honesty - you are simply challenging the ruling of the Chicago Beis Din.They had access to both sides and they clearly indicated that at the present time it is problematic to attend these seminaries. If as is claimed he was removed from access to the seminaries 8 weeks ago than why does the Chicago Beis Din issue this strong warning? Why are letters beting sent out to parents and principals regarding this matter. If all that is necessary is a surgical removal than what are they afraid of?

    Aside from that there is also the question of Meisels future. It is unlikely that such a person suddenly changes and therefore is no longer a danger to anyone. If he is a rodef - then it is necessary to get the word out so that proper precautions get be done regarding his access and influence over young women.

    Why is that so hard for you to understand?

  33. @Honesty I would strongly suggest that you read the chapter in my Child and Domestic Abuse volume by Paul Shaviv regarding the problem of charistmatic teachers. This is a problem - especially in seminaries which young women have strong attraction (including a sexual aspect) to an exciting male teacher who is also a role model of the ideal male - tzadik, talmid chachom, warm caring and wise.
    Correspondingly the teacher obtain a sense of power -omnipotence and all knowing - and a feeling that the rules don't apply to them. This has happened repeatedly in the world of kiruv and seminaries. Read the case of Dovid Weinberger - who is an amazing personality, and has done a tremendous amount of good - but at the same time he lost sight of the proper barriers.This is also true for Mordechai Tendler, Baruch Lanner etc etc.

  34. Paul Shaviv wrote the following regarding the dangers of charistmatic teachers.

  35. Thank you. I've begun reading it.

  36. I am not challenging the Chicago Beis Din. They handed this case over to the Israeli Beis Din. The Israeli Beis Din clearly says that there is no reason not to send students to these seminaries. They also say that he has been removed and handed over control to them.

    I don't know why the Chicago Beis Din wrote their psak the way they did, especially not putting some sort of buffer for the all the previous students who were not hurt. They must feel as if they've been whacked in the head.

    I am more bothered by the messengers than the actual message. The anonymous bloggers who get a quick high from bashing Hareidi Rabbis. To them, even Rav Moshe Feinstein doesn't deserve a title of rabbi - he's plain "Moshe Feinstein". They seek to exaggerate, throw in as many other people as possible, as well as inflict pain on the former students.

    Then you have the bloggers who think they are somehow helping "Modern Orthodoxy reclaim its centrist base". Never mind that 52% of Modern Orthodox high school students throw out Shabbos and Kashrus within two years of graduation. His focus is on exaggerating and magnifying any Chareidi wrongdoing (and putting a negative spin on the good things they do. About 80% of his articles are about Chareidim!)

    Yeah, this does bother me - especially in light of the Israeli Beis Din's letter, which was important enough to be written during shiva.

  37. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 16, 2014 at 6:38 PM

    The Chicago Beis Din did not hand over the issue to the Israeli Beit Din. They noted its existence. They continue to stand by their ruling not to attend in spite of the Israeli Beit Din position.

    It is outrageous that the Israeli Beit Din, has, according to my information, not spoken to victims. If they did they would know that many other seminary staff were enablers who turned away complaining girls and invalidated their observations and suspicions. They sang the praises of the seminary in ignorance of the facts. That is like giving an hashgachah without checking the ingredients and the factory.

    To be dan l'kaf zechus I would say that they have an inadequate understanding of abuse. they imagine it was a problem of the lust of just a few individuals rather than a culture of manipulation enabled by other staff.

  38. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 16, 2014 at 6:45 PM

    Insult me all you want if you think it makes you more persuasive. But let's get back to essentials. there is a Chicago psak, still in force, not to send girls to those seminaries. "At this time" means until they say otherwise. Individuals have contacted them since the Israeli Beit Din ruling was issued, and they have reaffirmed their psak. So clearly, what ever was done so far is not considered enough by Chicago. Don't kvetch about me using a pseudonym. Call up any of the Chicago Beis Din members and they will tell you their psak is still in force.

  39. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 16, 2014 at 6:50 PM

    Let me add on that it is becoming clear to me from conversations with former students at the seminary that a number of the house mothers enabled the grooming and abuse. When complaints were brought to them they invalidated, dismissed or denied them. Those seminaries will never resolve the problems unless they confront those failings. The Israeli Beit Din statement lavishes praise and ignores the underlying issues. Perhaps the Israeli Beit Din is naive about the dynamics of grooming, manipulation, exploitation of charisma and enabling. But whether intentionally or out of ignorance, they have not yet shown that appreciate the problem and thus know how to fix it.

  40. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 16, 2014 at 9:30 PM

    He is a category 4 based on a lot of additional things I have learned. He is extremely maniputative, is given to entitlement and arrogance, regularly publicly abuses others including staff and students. The chorus of amens came from students who were his favorites.

  41. I have not insulted you. Nor have I "kvetched" about your pseudonym. I don't see what the psak of the Chicago BD has to do with my clarification of the ownership of the seminaries. Your comment is not at all to the point.

  42. My daughter is set to go to a different seminary, but she has a friend who was supposed to attend KC. Her mother contacted the school to verify that Meisels was removed and was informed he was not. I don't know if the same holds for the other schools he owns, but parents should do their own bit of investigation before sending their daughters.

  43. Based upon what I learned he is like the Sdei Chemed. He was framed. Some people were hired to testify against him. He is a lamed vov tzadik, the best human being to have ever graced the Planet Earth.

    See, as an anonymous person, I can claim whatever I'd like to - since I don't take any responsibility over what I claim. It doesn't necessarily mean its true.

    Do you have any specific stories? (Leave out names)

    You see, the same pitfall that Meiseles and others face, is a pitfall you yourself face. When you start getting thousands and thousands of hits on your website, per day, it can get to your head. You obtained a sense of power - omnipotence and inviolability - and a feeling that rules of accuracy doesn't apply to you. The juicier the story, the more hits you get, the more powerful you feel. Even trying to degrade Rabbi Moshe Feinstein can become fair game.

    You feel untouchable, as long as your juicy stories get lots of hits, and as long as you're anonymous.

    It's a vicious cycle. Read up about King Yayhu.

  44. It is outrageous that you attempt to claim you are a better judge than the Israeli Beit Din.

    It is outrageous for you to claim that the Israeli Beit Din gave a ruling without due process.

  45. I have been to your blog, you discriminate anyone who disagrees with you. I have experienced first hand how you removed my comments for not singing your praises, while leaving comments that are disrespectful, tasteless, offensive written by bullies that are amongst your groupies as if you would be some sort of a guru on these subject matter.

    You seem to pick and chose information as is convenient to you, as well as choose which Beis Din is in the right.

    I personally don't think they disagree at all. And nowhere does it say on any letter from the Batei Dinim that they do.

    Except of course you have 'information' from 'people close to the Beis Din' that keep you in their circles. Sounds like charlatans talk.

  46. The israel Beis Din clearly states on point (ג) That as far as the specifics of the complaint the Beis din will review them and announce its recommendations in a matter of days.

    You say it does not exonerate him but neither it corroborates the findings of the Chicago Beis Din as some perceive them.

    Why are so many eager to jump the gun?

    Is it possible that the Chicago Beis Din is not recommending 'at this time' while the Israel Beis din does it's due diligence? Chicago BS did appoint the Israel BD to 'assume responsibility'.

    Could it be that this is the 'testimony' it has received from representatives of the seminaries that before registration continues lets clarify the matter?

  47. You have proclaimed yourself as the Beis Din assistant. Is the Chicago Beis Din really working with you? Was this letter intended to you at all?

  48. So basically you're not only the self proclaimed messenger and spokesman of the Chicago Bais Din, but you got your own little investigations going on... your expertise expands into the capacity of the Israel Beis Din as well...fascinating!
    Do have that analyzed please.

  49. may WE know your REAL name please????

  50. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 20, 2014 at 4:36 PM

    At great inconvenience I actually tolerate enormous amounts of disagreement and even insult in the comments section of my blog, In fact, a perusal of my first post about Meisels has over 500 comments, many of them quite hostile to me, the Chicago "Special Beis Din," and to the victims who testified to the Beis Din.

    Disagree with me to your heart's content, but please do not claim I "discriminate against anyone who disagrees" with me.

    If you doubt my assertions about allowing challenging comenters, go to that post and look at the many hostile comments I approved and let through.

  51. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 20, 2014 at 4:42 PM

    Just to update readers, there have been several newer posts about the
    situation. To be absolutely clear, Meisels says he will not teach in the
    seminaries this coming year but he still owns them and other enabling
    staff have not been removed, or even, to the best of my knowledge
    reprimanded. That is why the Chicago Beis Din stands by its psak
    advising against sending students to those seminaries. Hebrew
    Theological College (HTC) and Touro College have suspended
    accreditation, pending a more substantial set of changes, thereby
    preventing students from getting US Government assistance with grants
    and loans.

    Several newer posts on Frum Follies about meisels can be found with the search URL:

    Yosef Blau, Mashgiach Ruchani of YU's RIETS wrote a comment to my most
    recent post worth passing along to students and alumni of the Meisels

    "This analysis correctly demonstrates that the Israeli Beis Din has no
    interest in investigating Meisels and interviewing victims to find out
    the role of others working for him in Pninim and the other seminaries.
    However there is a great need for the graduates of these programs,
    whether they were abused, or saw inappropriate behavior, or are
    convinced that there was no abuse to speak with both therapists and
    rabbinic figures who understand rabbinic abuse. Many of them are
    traumatized and are profoundly shaken by these reports about a major
    influence on their lives. In earlier cases this was at least partially
    done for young men attending Yeshivot after they had been in an
    environment where there was a teacher or rabbi who was an abuser. This
    will be particularly difficult in this case because the women are
    unlikely to be in educational settings where they can find people who
    are qualified to meet with them."

  52. Can this person that portrays to be the Mashgiach of RIETS please explain to us paragraph (ג) of the Israel BD letter?

    And while he is at it expand on what the Chicago BD means when it states that the Israel BD 'Has assumed responsibility for this matter'?

    Can he please?

    As far as the word 'allegations' google comes with this:
    'a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.'

    No need to explain what THAT part of the now famous Chicago letter means.

  53. Rabbi Blau, the mashgiach ruchni was the moderator for a forum accepting and understanding homosexuals in Frum community.

    He drew strong criticism from Rabbi Hershel Schachter and the other Roshei Yeshiva at YU.

    Its befitting for him to get involved in matters of sexual impropriety.

  54. I see. So is it too much to ask from him to show reading comprehension?

  55. "Meisels says he will not teach in the seminaries this coming year..."

    But maybe the year after? He didn't say anything about staying away from young girls, from education in general, either.

    Magia li. Big time. Rachmanut, baishanut, gemilut chassadim? Not so much.

  56. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 21, 2014 at 6:19 PM

    He hosted an event acknowledging that such orientations existed (and he also believes the earth revolves around the sun). He did not for a single moment advocate any abrogation or reinterpretation and the halacha which governs acts, not sexual orientations. In introducing the event he made it clear that there was no allowance in the discussion for any attempts to alter halacha in this area.

    Thus this issue is irrelevant to the discussion about Meisels.

    For an American Beis Din to say another "assumed responsibility" is neither to say the American's passed it over or to agree that their decisions are correct. Moreover, the Israelis are free to make arrangements and the Americans to recommend whether or not to attend.

    The Chicago Beis Din is clear in response to private inquiries about the gravity of Meisels' sexual offenses and the extent. But they are not interested in satisfying your voyeurism or your hocking. They satisfied themselves with indicating the basis of their psak. Translation, (since, while you can read, you have trouble with inferences): based on our investigation of these allegations we rule not to send your daughters to his seminaries.

    They assumed thoughtful readers. If they assumed more readers like you they might have given out details that would make an x-rating censor blush.

  57. Yerachmiel LopinJuly 21, 2014 at 6:23 PM

    It is outrageous that you are putting words into the mouth of the Shafran Beit Din. You are falsifying their text to claim they kashered him. Otherwise, how can I be accusing them of "giving a ruling without due process."

    But the Shafran never claimed to have investigated the sexual misconduct of Meisels. They assume he is gone so the problem is over. That is not a violation of due process, that is a myopic judgement call about scope.

    Even the sharpest and fairest eye fails when it looks in the wrong direction.

  58. The recent letter from Rabbi Yair Hoffman totally confirms the understanding that Frum Follies has been presenting - based on his conversation with a member of the Chicago Beis Din.. There is a conflict between the understanding of what needs to be done. The Chicago Beis Din is not satisfied that enough has been to safeguard the students while the Israeli beis din thinks it is enough to remove Meisels from an official status in the seminaries.

  59. @Honesty

    Yerachmiel Lopin is clearly right on this one. His understanding was directly confirmed by Rabbi Yair Hoffman in his recent letter written after he discussed the matter with a member of the Chicago Beis Din. The Chicago Beis Din did not hand over the matter and walk away. Until they are satisfied that the seminaries are safe and thate Meisels is not going to cause harm - they are not saying it is safe to go to one of his seminaries.

  60. You're right. I will try to edit my comments. I apologize.

  61. Who do you a acuse of 'voyeurism'? the casual readers? or the people who claim to call the Beis to to get more details?

    You seem unable to distinguished between the two.

    The CBD has spoken clearly. Most readers can understand what it says without anyones help.

    Some readers (usualy Blog owners) seem to be 'unsatisfied' unless they get more details, from anywhere, even fabricated ones.

    I simply don't believe the Chicago Beis Din is 'playing' along with them.


  62. What is confirmed is that the Chicago Beis Din can write a 'letter'. Have they updated their last one yet? Or should we 'downgrade' to hear/say ?

  63. I do disagree with the way you question the Israeli Beis Din. Calling their actions, or lack thereof, outrageous is inappropriate. The Chicago Beis Din can disagree with their Israeli counterparts. And even they would do it in a respectful tone.

  64. The rabbeim and Roshei Yeshiva at YU disagreed with him and publicly called that event a chillul Hashem.

    I therefore do find it ironic for him to get involved in matters of sexual impropriety, and for him to publicly challenge the Israeli Beis Din.

    His letter may be sincere. However, it would be better left for him to have asked a colleague of his to write it. Or, he could have asked Rabbi Hoffman to write it. (If they feel that such a letter should not be written, then he should deffer to them since he has already made a judgment call in matters of sexual propriety that he was roundly and publicly criticized for.) He is not the appropriate person to publicly get involved in a matter like this.

    As Rabbi Eidensohn pointed out - there is a disagreement between the Chicago Beis Din and Israeli Beis Din as to what needs to be done at this point.

    To the potential students, and their parents to whom this is relevant, they will hopefully make an informed and sound decision. I agree that they should be made aware of the facts. Rabbi Hoffman presented it in a respectful fashion. He did not in engage in sensationalism.

  65. Firstly, after all of us in the yeshivah world have participated and endorsed the Kinnus on the internet, it shocks me how we endulge in blogs under a religious banner, while it is pure Loshon Harah and Rechilus.
    I have no vested interest at all in any side of this debate. I do know people who have sent their daughters to the seminaries and feel indebted to Meisels for how he had helped their daughters get ''back'' on the straight and narrow path. Besides that, I have no interest I any of the parties. I have watched this thing unfold and did decide to try to verify some facts and have managed to get some inside information from a client of mine who is involved in the Torah world. He explained to that there were quite a few Rabbonim working on this from the sidelines that most people are not aware of because these Rabbonim are trying to keep a big distance from the Chicago group.
    There are also some very very shocking audio tapes out there, that I hope surface for the public to hear. Because if and when they do, people will be lining up to apologize to Meisels.
    A few things are Very clear.
    1) Fyrst, Cohen and Gottesman are nothing but gangsters that had no problem with destroying an innocent human being for personal gain.
    2) Meisels never did what he is accused of.
    3) The Novominsker Rebbe, on behalf of the Agudath Yisroel, notified Gottesman that he no longer has any affiliation with the Agudah and from this point on, he may not represent himself as part of the Agudah. After a little investigation a team of Rabbonim together with the Novominsker realize the evil and corruption that was practiced by the Chicago team.
    4) Should the people, that have collected all the audio tapes, decide to use it against the Chicago group, Fyrst, Gottesman and others from the Chicago group would likely go to prison.

  66. Please post this in a more recent post were everyone can see it.

  67. I come to this very late, because I was searching on the rabbi Meisels' name. The reason is that his Daf Yomi, which is online, is really outstanding. I wanted to hear more of him. And suddenly I am looking at a page of links about this scandal.

    His Daf Yomi is not outstanding because of his charisma. I have never seen the rabbi. It's outstanding because of the organization and interpretation of the material he is covering. As a former professor myself, I can recognize this. Brilliance, total command so as to be able to make a presentation both clear and deep. My time will be very well spent listening to his lectures. I have no other interest than that.

    There's a quote in your first link:

    "the overtly charismatic personality almost always masks far more sinister agendas, and must be treated and managed with the utmost caution. The tipping point is where the personality of the teacher/rabbi is more important than the content of his message or teaching."

    Well I don't know if what he does comes across as "overtly charismatic" to others. I admire his skill, that's all. But if someone's too good, just miles ahead, let's treasure that if at all possible.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.