Sunday, August 31, 2014

Seminary Scandal: Frum Follies deliberately misrepresents my views.

Yerachmiel Lopin and I have major disagreements regarding the proper handling of the Seminary Scandal. He views the Chicago Beis Din rabbonim's advisory against attending the 4 seminaries  and their obstruction of justice - as heroic, while I view it as preventing the resolution of the matter and the clearing the mud from the names of hundreds of past and present and future students of these 4 seminaries. 

Following the recent letter by 5 American Gedolim - including Rav Levin a member of the Chicago Beis Din - which praised the 4 seminaries and noted the addition of Rebbetzin Birnbaum as overall director of the seminaries and major Israeli poskim as their Vaad haChinuch - Yerachmiel Lopin is now trying discredit these 5 gedolim as well as to try to discredit me.

This is clearly an act of desperation to try and save the Chicago Beis Din - since it involves trashing a member of the CBD itself in the process! The letter is widely and correctly understood to be a rejection of the CBD's claim that the seminaries are not safe and and also an endorsement of the IBD's focus on getting passed the scandal and focusing on correcting the basis of the scandal - the seminary culture itself. Anybody who is familiar with the seminary culture, understands that this latest scandal was not an aberration of one man who couldn't control himself. The highly emotional relationship between teacher and student and psychological dependency of the students needs to be changed in all the seminaries. That is what the IBD is doing - especially now that it is augmented by the Vaad haChinuch.

Furthermore in the course of trying to discredit me, while he correctly notes that I was initially in favor of the Chicago Beis Din and critical of the Israeli Beis Din - he deliberately misrepresents the reason for this change. He asserts that  I have lost my way - that I am a hypocrite who has sold my soul to the forces of darkness and have repudiated my long time campaign against abuse. He ignores a much simpler explanation - which has the additional advantage of being true.

My initial reaction was based solely on the public releases of the Chicago Beis Din and the Israeli Beis Din. My present position is the subsequent result of reading the many documents that I have posted from the Israeli Beis Din and the Chicago  Beis Din. In addition I have had access to askanim who are directly involved with both sides, In addition I have obtained significant clarification of issues from the IBD itself. I am not ashamed to admit that my initial perception was wrong and that I now have a better informed view of the situation. The Israeli Beis Din has one major problem - they have not been concerned with public relations. Most of this turmoil could have been avoided if they had taken care to fully communicate what they were doing. Nonetheless they clearly are doing what needs to be done - as seen by the approval of the 4 seminaries by the 5 American Gedolim.

I acknowledge that initially I was not aware of the permanent removal of Meisels and the absolute nature of the sale. Aside by this being confirmed by the new owner Yaakov Yarmish - it was also confirmed in a letter from Rav Aharaon Feldman. I acknowledge now that the CBD was making false claims that the sale was a sham to a close buddy of Meisels - Yaakov Yarmish. The sale is not a sham and Yarmish is not and was not a close buddy of Meisels. I also didn't realize that the CBD was claiming that they never relinquished control - something which is contrary to the documents.

Additionally I initially accepted the view that was circulated by the CBD that Meisels had repeatedly committed severe sexual abuse and harassment.  But I was faced by the fact that the Chicago Beis Din has not provided evidence for this and that Meisels in fact only admitted to inappropriate contact. Thus there is a clear contradiction in the CBD's position. If Meisels is in fact a rodef - why didn't they either contact the police or urge his victims to do so. It is elementary that the knowledge of a rapist loose in the community does not even require a beis din to call the police. Everybody who knows this to be a fact - is required to call the police. So either the CBD was involved in a cover up or that Miesels - while disqualified from being an educator - is not a rodef.

Finally Yerachmiel Lopin states
All I know is I have been consistent in my positions about abuse for the last five years. You on the other hand have taken a U-turn backwards from your advocacy for child safety. Dr. Eidensohn I hope it is a malady you are professionally equipped to resolve because all other explanations implicate your integrity or social judgment.
I agree fully that Yerachmiel Lopin has been consistent in his views of abuse. He has focused on bashing rabbis and Orthodox Judaism - even if his views are not always helping the victims. In the case of the seminaries - the safety and welfare of the seminary students is best dealt with using the IBD's approach of changing the protocols and providing oversight of the seminaries. This is clearly acknowledged by the 5 American gedolim. It is not helped by the CBD's approach of refusing to cooperate with the beis din - that they themselves appointed and by trying to close down the seminaries - unless their jurisdiction is acknowledged by all concerned. And it surely isn't helped by the CBD's plan of telling parents to file an absurd RICO slander against the seminaries.

Finally it is astounding that he tries to defend the Chicago Beis Din against the letter of the 5 American gedolim - by attacking the integrity of its member Rav Levin. This is a self-defeating approach. If Lopin's charges are true that Rav Levin was trying to protect a child molester - then where is the protest of the other CBD members. By their failure to protest shows that they are not concerned primarily with protecting against abuse. Furthermore Lopin is apparently being inconsistent. Normally we would expect a true child advocate to protest against the beis din for child abuse that Rav Levin is part of. Lopin, in his desire to attack the IBD turns a blind eye to this transgression and acts as if you can attack one dayan of the CBD without disqualifying the entire beis din.

In sum, Yerachmiel Lopin should get his priorities straight. Is he first and foremost a defender against abuse or is he primarily concerned with bashing rabbis and Judaism through claims of mishandling child abuse? His actions clearly show it is the latter.


  1. There are indeed some mysteries here -
    Why did HaRav Levin do what seems to be an end around to his own Beis Din? One would think that if he had confidence that the problems have been resolved, he could have explained it to the 3 Dayanim, whom he knows well, and they could have presented a unified resolution.
    Why after recusing himself from the original Din Torah did he decide to get involved through this letter?
    Why would he distance himself from the Chicago Beis Din that he has been involved with for many years?
    Does he feel that these are two separate issues?
    What information was he, and the others, given by the Askanim that led them to sign? Who were these Askanim, and how many layers separate them from the actual investigators? Were they each told that the entire Moetza approved of the letter?
    Was he told that there was sufficient 'house-cleaning' in the seminaries so anyone who may have known about the problem and ignored it was either fired or enrolled in courses to learn how to deal with abuse?
    Many of us are quite upset at the Gedolim bashing taking place all around,
    whether of the CBD, IBD, Moetza, etc. Thanks to modern gadgets, we've
    seen videos of 'back room' negotiations, with Askanim browbeating or
    misinforming Gedolim in order to get a quote they can use as a 'Psak
    Din' or a signature on a 'Kol Korei'. How do we know this hasn't happened in the process of getting these 5
    Gedolim to sign on?

    Also, how do you know that the CBD told the parents to file RICO charges? From what I've seen, they just didn't stop parents from doing whatever the parents felt was necessary, but haven't recommended any specific action.

    I've been following this case on several blogs, and haven't seen clear answers to these questions. I don't expect you to have the answers either, but these questions must be asked. Without answers, it's unfair to expect parents of girls signed up for these seminaries to be confident that the problems have really been resolved.

  2. 1.he did ask them his questions and they did not give him satisfactory answers so he signed this letter 2.he was not part of the original BD being he is close to Meisels he felt he should not sit on this case now that Meisels is out, its a question of the schools so he has no negius 3. he distanced himself from his BD because he did not like how they were dealing with the matter 4.he was given all information needed plus he spoke to both the IBD AND CBD and then signed that is what all these gedolim did 5. since he spoke to the batei dinim i think he knows who was fired and who was not fired 6. and it boils down to if you trust your gedolim get all the necessary information to make a informed psak before making one

  3. It it's possible that meisels had consensual intercourse, which would still not be criminally actionable.

  4. Your key argument against the Chicago Beis Din is weak. With fourteen years of experience of responding to accusations of abuse the Beis Din accepted the case of former students allegations against Meisels. After hearing their testimony and his partial admissions they concluded that he was guilty. In their statement the Beis Din made it clear that this procedure did not exclude the victims going to the police. In the vast majority of accusations of abuse in the Orthodox communities victims are reluctant to go directly to the police. With the abuse having taken place in Israel and the victims in America and with the fear that their testifying will be harmful to their prospects for marriage it is understandable that none has yet spoken to the Israeli authorities.
    To argue that since Meisels now claims that he he only admitted to minor infractions the conclusions of the Beis Din have lost credibility makes little sense. You have no idea whether the Beis Din did or did not encourage the women to travel to Israel to bring charges .
    Since no other body investigated the accusations the findings of the Chicago Beis Din should be accepted.

  5. @Rabbi Blau - do you really think that strong belief that someone is a dangerous sexual predator and supposedly has raped 40 girls that the response should be - "if you want you can go to the police" ?! That is what they Chicago Beis Din understands from 14 years dealing with the issue?! Is that what you would say if you had discovered such a fact from you own investigation of an abuser?

    If find your defense of "In their statement the Beis Din made it clear that this procedure did not exclude the victims going to the police." astounding and disturbing.

    Even if there is a question whether victims will speak - they should at least be encouraged to report the crime and at the minimum the police should be notified. I find it very problematic that you use the exuse that the crime took place in Israel and the victims are in America. There still is a need to protect future victims and the telephone readily and cheaply connects between Israel and America.

    You have missed my point. I am not claiming that solely on the basis of Meisels only admitting minor offenses that the CBD has lost credibility. My point was that if the CBD believed that his offenses were much more serious than that which he confessed to - then he has the status of rodef and have an obligation to notify the community and the police. If they don't think his crimes are more than what he confessed - only then is understandable that they didn't take further actions.

    There is and there has been no requirement that victims travel to Israel. That is totally false. The IBD has said that they will take phone calls. I did publish the May 2014 document in which the CBD said that victims could if they want go to the police" That is clearly not encouraging of reporting.

    The unexplicable behavior of the CBD makes it difficult to accept their allegations without further confirmation. Again the basic point that Meisels is not fit to be involved in the seminaries is agreed by all. Since the CBD asked the IBD to take on the case and the seminaries and Meisles - as well as Rav Feldman as the representative of the victims for both the CBD and the IBD - signed a shtar. The IBD is the only body that has the authority to investigate and deal with the seminaries.Whatever information the CBD has obtained - should be shared with the IBD - as Rav Feldman suggested and as the IBD agreed.

    Rabbi Blau - I am surpised that you find nothing disturbing about the conduct of the CBD - would you have done the same if you were on the beis din?!

  6. You know the answer. It has been answered several times. Whats the purpose of asking this question again?

  7. Well said. Finally, "frum follies" is being taken to task. The end of this case means the end of Rabbi Feurst being able to be involved in big cases, and it means the end pf "frum follies" as a trustworthy source. B"H.

  8. You seem to have some inside information that he and all the other signatories personally spoke to all parties, even to the details of who was fired. Do you know this or are you assuming so? If you do know it, are you one of the Askanim who worked on getting the signatures?
    I find it hard to believe that he would come out publicly against his own Neemanim in the CBD.

    IMHO you are also being Motzi Shem Ra on Rabbi Levin by writing that, though he had enough Negius not to sit on the original case, you claim that he would feel the Negius didn't affect his judgement on how CBD handled it, even to a corollary to the case.

  9. RDE I only have one tayneh to you why would you respond to a person who obviously has zero objectiveness and spouts utter foolish crap that is just plain immature and is scared to use his real name????

  10. IMHO you are also being Motzi Shem Ra on Rabbi Levin

    You dedicate a long post at being motzie shem ra on Rav Levin, an incorruptible person, and then accuse someone who answers your silly questions as being the "motzie shem ra"! Wow.

  11. Actually, I don't know the answer. If you know, it would take you less time to answer it than to be rude.

  12. While the discussion of this case has taken many interesting turns and raised a a variety of issues, in the end there is one central question that you -RDE - have so far been unwiling to answer. What do you believe really happened between Miesels and the young woman or.more accurately, do you believe him or do you believe them? You have said that he was guilty of "inappropriate touching" but have refused to define what that was when asked directly so I am asking you again - what do you believe he did? The only rabbanim that actually spoke to the victims were the members of the CBD. No one else - not you, the members of the IBD, or any of the five gedolim (including Rav Levine) have been in contact with them and therefore your/their information can only come from either Miesels himself or someone connected to him in some form. The CBD believes that he is a terribe mushchas - what do you believe?

    I respectfully request that you simply answer the question and not engage in a series of attacks about what the CBD should have done, who has juridisction etc, because,as important as those topics are, they do not lie at the heart of the matter and this question does. Our community, the frum community, has a terrible tragic record of understanding and dealing with abuse (as you yourself know painfully well which is why you have previously championed this cause). Therefore the only real queston is if you believe that Miesels is such an abuser or do you not?

  13. Rabbi Blau,

    This comment is completely unbecoming an intelligent person.

    That's aside from the fact that each of the Rabbonim on the Israeli Beis Din have long and extensive experience dealing with these issues, and they do so under the scrutiny of others,while the Chicago Beis Din consists of "Chicago kingmakers" who no one in town would have the temerity to challenge. [I don't mean that to denigrate them in any way, only to say that their "14 years of experience" doesn't mean that they have made it in "the big city".]

  14. I find it disturbing that you keep using 'rape' terminology...I think you started using that term, since it certainly doesn't appear in any published documents. And RDE, you are slyly using it to say that CBD was somehow irresponsible, and are therefore not credible.
    The gist of your response to Rav Blau is concerned with this point. Thus, questions like 'how could they?' and indications that CBD actions are 'inexplicable' follow.
    The truth, however, is otherwise. In all likelihood, this wasn't was a charlatan seducing young, impressionable, beautiful women. Big difference. Everyone knows how difficult it would be to make a prosecutable case against M for being a seducer. With adult girls, that is not rape.
    So, Rav Blau's point stands. Virtually no one in the sem attending community wants to go public and admit to sleeping with the head of the sem...even if it is to bring justice against this vile, twisted individual. But justice needs to be done, and the CBD quietly tried to accomplish that.

  15. The point is not just that Meisels only admitted to negiah; the point is that he was only accused of negiah by the CBD in their hearing. The further point is that after removing Meisels from the seminaries, as was proper, and writing guidelines to that effect, the CBD suddenly decided that they need to take ownership of the seminaries away from him, and failing that, destroy the seminaries. Their claims of complicity by the staff are bogus, in service to this overriding desire to punish Meisels by extorting or destroying his source of income. This is why they withheld the supposed evidence from the beis din that they themselves requested investigate the claims. This is also why they inflated the claims against Meisels, without any understanding or care regarding the damage this would do to former students of the seminaries. These are the sad facts -- corruption and overreach by a so-called beis din. These guys are bad news.

  16. Lots of things are possible. That doesn't make them true.

  17. Rabbi Levine was aware of the truly terrible things being done by the CBD in this case. He tried repeatedly to get them to back down, but was rebuffed, chiefly by Fuerst but also by Cohen. He finally saw there was no choice but to come out publicly against them. Based on what he knows about their behavior, he would have signed a far more explicit letter condemning them, but he was trying to keep the peace in Chicago as best as possible.

    I know the CBD with Gottesman set up the RICO claims because I was told by a parent who was at a meeting with Fuerst and Gottesman, where this was pushed very strongly by Fuerst. The parents were presented with the lawsuit as written -- most had the good sense to decline to participate.

  18. @Daniel - you are just guessing and you are wrong. The CBD is claiming that girls were raped You claim on the basis of zero knowledge that I can't mean what I say and then conclude therefore by rebuttal of Rabbi Blau is wrong. I meant what said and the rebuttal stands.

  19. RDE: Your changing positions on this issue is a great testament to your intellectual honesty and willingness not to stubbornly sick to your initial position when facts are brought to light showing the truth.

  20. The CBD has never said what they believe Meisels did other than some very vague and meaningless abstract words. Start by questioning them.

  21. Meisels was remoed from the seminaries. The question of what exactly he did may be very interesting to you, but it does not bear upon the CBD's behavior since his removal.

    Separately, I have no idea what he did, but I know exactly what the CBD accused him of at the hearing, and what he admitted to there. In short -- negiah only. All the "terrible mushchas" talk came after they began their campaign to extort or destroy the schools.

  22. The av bet din of the CBD has a reputation of never changing his mind once he makes a decision, and he has a reputation of quickly deciding before hearing all sides, hardly a proper trait of a good dayan. For political reasons, no one wants to challenge him on this

    THAT'S why rav Levin didn't / couldn't change his mind.

  23. sounds like you are a chicago person. how do you know that Rabbi Levine did, and what he thought?

  24. I disagree, Avraham.

    I think the question that remains is why you, Lopin, and some others insist on beating a dead horse that completely has nothing to do with the seminaries current status.

    Meisels is out for months. It's been under new ownership in for more than a month. The schools has essentially placed itself in receivership, allowing others full jurisdiction over policy and removing staff. Now another layer of oversight has been added.

    Yet you guys just seek to harm innocent people, and extract UNDUE punishment from people who may have been complicit, but have never been proven of such.

    This isn't about protecting girls, it's about destroying anybody who disagrees with you. That's the way all "professional advocates "work. And few have done more disservice to honest victims, have prevented people from coming forward, and have stood in the way of justice happening, than people like you.

    Justice is not about just killing people because you want them dead.

  25. very clear and positive letter just sent all Chedvas Parents. Rebbetzin blimi Birnbaum is the head menhales ruchani of th entire institution

  26. "I find it hard to believe that he would come out publicly against his own Neemanim in the CBD."

    R' Levine initially resisted doing so, and tried in every way he could to get them to back down. He is very well aware that they have been distorting the truth in this case beyond recognition, and he knows about their gangsterish tactics. He is pained by the chilul Hashem his former "neemanim" have caused through hubris, stupidity and stubbornness. He finally saw that there was simply no option but to issue a public statement.

  27. Im not sure how im being motzei shem ra on R levin right now he has no negius the seminaries are not under meisels care or ownership and now is the time they are dealing with the case wrong.I know they spoke to the CBD and were very unhappy with the CBD answers from one of the askanim that is true whats so hard to believe he would come out against his BD they were acting wrong and not sure what you mean by that statement since he clearly came out against his own BD

  28. Even if one were to concede every one of your points a parent should still be able to pull their daughter out of the school and get a refund if they wanted to. They signed up on an understanding of the schools past performance which turned out to be severely misrepresented. It's a simple mekach taus. Fundamentally that is the cbd`s position.

  29. I have very good information on this from people extremely close to R' Levine, who is a tzadik, and kept trying to keep the peace in Chicago while still dealing with this off-the-rails "beis din."

  30. With all due repsect, I think that RDE can speak for himself. Since he has dealt with this subject extensively he understands full well that the nature of the offence has everything to do with the culture that was created, To really protect the sudents you have to acknowledge what the problem was and then correct it. Simply saying that Miesels is gone is not enough.

    That does not mean that the only other option is inherently closing down the seminaries. Had either the IBD or the five gedolim acknowdelged Miesels misconduct and actually delineated real steps and/or new protocals that have been taken then the problem would be really addressed. I wish that those steps had happened. Instead we have been told simply that the seminaries are fine and that different rabbanim - be it the IBD or the new group of three - are monitoring them.

    By the way, claiming what has happened is not the same as steps really occurring. In the aftermath of the Lanner scandel in NCSY there were actual new guidelines put into place that were very public. There was a realization that just saying trust us we will now be more careful was not enough in light of the abuse that took place. (That is why determining what happened does matter.)

    Notice that I did not say that the the staff should be fired. However, if Miesels was abusing girls in his care and staff members knew about it would you be comfortable leaving those same people in positions of authority? Would those be role models that you would want your daughter leanring from?

    I welcome a response to my actual points and not a reflexive rejoinder decrying my desire to "kill people" or that I "seek to harm innocent people". Creating a strawman to attack ultimately does little to address the real issue of the safety of the students.

  31. @eLamdan - we have been through this repeatedly. What are adding to the discussion? Elementary halacha is that it is necessary to go to beis din to get the money back since the seminaries disagree with your assertions

  32. 1. I am delighted to hear that the menahelet ruchani has a name and it's Rebitzin Birnbaum and not Mrs. Ploni Almoni. But if so, why didn't the 5 signers of the letter mention it.

    2. Rabbi Eidensohn, you say you are informed. However, have you called Rabbis Hirsch, Weiss and Eichenstein? Those that call them are told they never agreed to the role described by the 5 as the seminaries being "tachat hapikuach shel vaad rabbanim gedolei torah, hagaonim." they say they only agreed to answer shailos.

    3. You say I have only been "primarily concerned with bashing rabbis and Judaism through claims of mishandling child abuse." Funny that you only woke up to that realization about that over this case after regularly corresponding with me and relying on my information for some years.

    All of this is a side show and an irrelevant set of debates. The real issue is the disgraceful reality that none of those you defend have done proper inquiry to justify their assurances about safety. From the get go, the IBD was declaring the sems were and will be safe before they were even "sold" something for which you have never provided written proof in spite of all the private documents you leaked.

    Rabbi Eidensohn, How can you, the IBD, & the 5 Gedolim simultaneously say the sems will be totally overhauled and defend all existing staff. Mimunichhshuf!

    PS- why are you accusing me of trashing these "gedolim" when in my most recent post, my criticisms of for example, R. Kotler, are utterly paralleled by yours over the past years.

  33. Cbd already ruled on this issue and sed they could get their money back. I'm saying that it is pashut that they are right and the only reason other rabbanim are arguing is to save the seminaries and protect the establishment. Politics is essentially clouding their judgment.

  34. You ignored my point. Rape and 'unwanted sexual contact' are not synonymous. Show us where CBD accused him of rape, and then your point will have some validity.

    In addition, please try and be a bit less nasty in your responses. Flinging 'you have zero knowledge' accusations doesn't impress those of us who have followed this issue since CBD issued their initial findings. Given the long history of the community in cover-ups and intimidation vis-a-vis CSA, I find the fact pattern here to resemble old school thought. And, with the track record of the 5 newest signatories on this issue, our suspicions are only further underscored.

    Finally, your explanations of the damning evidence - your own statements - that YL assembled is underwhelming.

  35. I would also like to hear a direct response from RDE to this question. Thank you.

  36. Daas Torah,

    I have been following these posts with great interest. I have some questions:

    1. You post a question above, "If Meisels is in fact a rodef - why didn't they either contact the police or urge his victims to do so." Do you know that the CBD did not urge victims to contact the police? Is it a simple matter for a girl who is back in America to contact the Israeli police? Is it possible that in an effort to preserve anonymity that a victim may elect not to contact the police?

    2. Do you believe that a victim has a right to protect her anonymity via a BD process and elect not to go to the police? Would you require a victim to report to the police as a condition of pursuing a case in BD?

    3. Should the decision by a victim not to go to the police be viewed as a weakness in the claim.

    4. You post above, "Meisels in fact only admitted to inappropriate contact." In what forum did he make such an admission? Would you apply the concept of "modeh b'miktzas chayav shevua"?

    5. The IBD implicitly claims that Meisels acted in an inappropriate manner with students and that his administrators had no idea. Do you find that to be credible? Is that consistent with other cases of abuse that you have seen?

    6. If the CBD published details of the accusations against Meisels, is it possible that the accusers could be identified and publicly identified by Meisels? Is that a sufficient reason for the CBD not to publicize details?

    7. Do you recognize that due to the stigma attached to incidents like this in the Chareidi community that victims need a forum in which to make claims while preserving anonymity? If anonymity can't be preserved would you ever advise a victim to come forward despite the impact such a revelation might have on one's chances for shidduchim?

    8. Is there ever a reason that would justify the public identification of victims? What sanctions would be appropriate against those who would publicly identify victims?

    9. What, if anything, do you infer from the fact that not all members of the Moetzes signed the letter? For example, did Rav Kaminetsky refuse to sign the letter or was he not asked?

    Thanks in advance for a thoughtful response.

  37. @eLamndan you don't resolve disputes by one side going to their posek - it doesn't obligate the other side

  38. All your questions have been previously addressed and responded to on the many other threads by RDE.

  39. RDE: hate to say this but you are partially wrong.

    The CBD originally claimed "unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature."

    Unwanted probably means unwanted after the fact, which is legally and halachically (momonot wise) irrelevant.

    Physical contact means touching; at most fondling. Very improper, but not rape. Rape is sexual contact.

    Sexual contact modifies the physical, does not add.

    THE rape allegations is tied to the number 40. You mean to claim 40 allegations, and no t one willing to come forward, even anonymously.

  40. The IBD most certainly has done an extensive evaluation, protection and implementation of all necessary aspects to insure the physical and spiritual safety of all future students in the seminaries.

  41. YL why do you keep saying that no one but the CBD looked in to the matter that is just plain and simple a lie. Both the IBD and the 5 gedolim did look in to the matter including talking to the CBD for a ling time and they still came out with a different outcome than the CBD.

  42. If you can't see how politics is clouding judgement here then you are missing the real story

  43. Perhaps RDE will choose to respond directly, perhaps he feels he's just talking to the walls in responding to you.

    I am responding so that those reading your comments see the flaws in your argument.

    I'm not setting up straw men. You are pulling Meisel's corpse from the grave to create a situation that doesn't exist.

    The danger is no longer there (the sole abuser, and teh only one alleged to have abused, has been removed), are there is oversight in place both with regard to polices and staff.

    I believe those incontrovertible facts materially change the situation. You may disagree. I think you're unreasonable, just as you think I am. I think your position proves you to be an irresponsible Rav and foolish mechanech, just as you feel I am an irresponsible askan and the people in the seminaries are foolish and irresponsible mechanchim.

    I challenge the parents to take the schools to an impartial Beis Din h to see if they deserve their deposits back. That's what Jews are supposed to do. And that's what they have all avoided doing.

    Their turning instead turned to courts with a case that make baseless and demonstrably false assertions and accusations further convinces me that they know that their claim cannot stand up to the light of halachic truth and justice.

    If you are certain you are correct, it follows that they would be vindicated in a din Torah, So stop protecting your positing by hiding behind the cowardice of the parents who won't go to Din Torah, and encourage them to go where they should!

    As for NCSY, they did what they chose to do. Was all the beheading halachacally justified? I don't think it was. But the organization had to cleanse its reputation to a public which doesn't value or respect halachah. Not to mention that Rabbi Blau, et al were seeking to restore their reputations, no matter the cost to others.

    Perhaps parents who don't value or respect halachah should send their children elsewhere. Maybe to a school run by people that share those values.

  44. @Daniel - judging this case as a stereotypic case of abuse - without providing evidence - is not acceptable. Furthermore if your knowledge is limited to the published letters - then you also are not knowledgable to pass just judgment. You feel that you can toss around judgments based on extrapoloations and inferences and track records ect - sorry I don't take your pontifications as serious - especially when I have information from various askanim and private communication that directly contradicts your guesses and imagination. You claim my pointing this out is nasty - I say it is just being honest with you. This is not a debating club where anybody's statements are just as valid as everyone else.

    If you find I have little or nothing to add to your understanding than why bother read what I say?

  45. I am puzzled. The IBD kept complaining that the CBD would not turn over the evidence to them but now you are claiming that they knew the information (from the CBD) and came to a different conclusion. If they had all the infromation - what was the complaint?

    Additionally, I am wondering why RDE has still not answered the core question- what does he believe Miesels did?

  46. @Yerachmiel Lopin

    1) I am surprised you did not know this.This was mentioned by a number of people and in fact is old news. Not mentioning the name is not related to the knowledge of her identity.

    2) See the letter from Rabbi Kahane I just published. The foundation of protocols is from the IBD

    3) You have become more ready to bash rabbis in this case than you have been previously. You have made unsubstanitated statement that the rabbis are corrupt or just distracting attention from the real racts that the rabbis are not a real beis din, that they are conducting a coverup etc etc. For none of these statement have you presented any actual evidence - because in fact non exists.

    Regarding the inquiry - please explain to me what they didn't do? Regarding the sale - I don't know why you don't think Rav Feldman's word as well as the IBD and Yarmish that the seminaries were sold is sufficient. Are you claim they all are lying? What basis do you claim that they are lying. Similarly why are you and the CBD claiming the sale was a sham. What evidene - aside from the false claim that Yarmish is an old budy of Meisels?

    Regarding the safety - this has been answered repeatedly. Even if there was a staff member that was informed but did nothing - and that has not been acutally proven to be true - I have no problem with declaring the seminaries safe because of the intesnse question of the staff by the IBd, the ongoing supervision and change of protocols. If the CBD is convinced that there were staff members that constitute a present danger - they have a Torah obligation to publicize which staff twere complicity. The fact that they haven't - even privately to the CBD seriously questions their veracity.

    P.S. as you have noted I have seriously question the actions of certain gedolim in the past. That was in cases where they were clearly violating clear and explicity halachos and in addition people of the stature of Rav Sternbuch agreed that they were wrong. Your denunciation is based on conjecture about their failure to do things - for which you have no proof, you question their motivation - saying they are corrupt or don't care about victims - when you have not direct proof and I have proof to the contrary.

    In short - while I agree we both have criticized major rabbis - I strongly disagree that the basis of the criticism is comparable.

  47. @Avraham - I really don't know why I need to repeat myself over and over again - you clearly are not reading what I write. The IBD has acnowledged Meisels misconduct. The IBD was asked to step in by the CBD after that step was done. It was not the IBD's job to find Meisels guilty but given his guilt what needed to be done next.

    Regarding the protocols - when the protocols are in their finally form I plan on publishing them. I have been assured by the IBD that they exist, that they are instructing the staff regarding them and that they will make sure they are implemented. See Rabbi Kahane's letter that I just published.

    Regarding staff - see the response I just made to YL and others in the last 1hour

    I would also not regard as proper role models a school or poskim who automatically assumed that staff was complict and fired them based on that assumption

    Avraham - I am tired of repeating myself. The seminaries are clearly moving on to a better program. There might be issues that need to be taken care of with proper testimony. But at the present it is clear that the 4 seminaries are viable institutions of learning and have been certified as such both by the IBD and the 5 American gadolim - including one member of the CBD. I don' see that there is any danger to send girls to these seminaries. In fact only 1 of the seminaries had a problem in the first place. They are safer than the other seminaries which have not been so carefully examined and have not established proper protocols and are not being carefully supervised.

  48. @Avraham - I don't have any evidence that Meisels did more than he confessed to i.e., inappropriate touching. Do you? The IBD has said that if the CBD is not turning over evidence of serious wrongdoing which they claim they have - that undermines their credibility regarding their claim

    Until the CBD actually presents the claims and the evidence to support the claims - at this stage I agree with the IBD.

  49. I appreciate that you are willing to post my thoughts but must respectfuly note that you still have never explained what "inappropriate touching": is, a fact that is germane to understanding this case.

    It is definItely correct that the CBD has not turned over all of its evidence to the IBD. Sadly thet do not trust them. For you - who believes in the IBD - that is a terrible unjustice that undermines their claims. For others - who think that the CBD is justified in their concerns - their is no need for them to do so.

    As such, many of us will choose to believe the girls over Miesels and none of the back and forth on these blogs will alter those perceptions.

    One last point, since you noted many times - inlcuding in this response - that material was not turned over to the IBD, how can the claim be made that the IBD investigated the matter thoroughly? i do not doubt the sincerity of their efforts but if they had niether access to the vicitms or to their testimony they simply could not fully investigate this issue.

  50. As I noted in another response, i appreciate your willingness to answer my posts and I agree that the there is repitition in these discussions. I do not doubt that the IBD feels that Miesesls is guilty (even if there is a lack of clarity as to what he is guilty of) and I welcome seeing the new protocals that will undoubtedly be helpful.

    I remain frustrated that the psak of the IBD and the letter fo the gedolim made no mention of Miesels - neither did the Chedvas letter - as that is an important step to really adressing sexual abuse.

    There are always more points to make but let us hope that you last assessment is correct for the sake of the girls who will be attending these seminaries.

  51. if one accepts the premise that the ruling of the Chicago Beis Din has no validity since jurisdiction was transformed to the Israeli Beis Din one could take the position that he has no proof that Meisels did anything more than what he has admitted. However the Israeli Beis Din never claimed jurisdiction over Meisels. The שטר בירורים and their later comments made it clear that they were taking control post Meisels leaving his position.
    Frankly the demand that a Beis Din has to give over its evidence so that Rabbi Eidensohn can decide whether to trust its conclusions is both absurd and an insult to Beis Din. procedure. The notion that a Beis Din would exaggerate the guilt of an abuser, when what he admitted was enough to have him removed makes no sense.

  52. From the description of the process, it seems like the case went on for several months. So this wasn't a snap decision.
    Nor have I ever heard of this reputation that the Av Beis Din of CBD makes decisions before hearing the Baalei Din. That is a very serious accusation for you to make.

  53. Are you saying that R' Levin, whom I agree is a Tzaddik, would be gossiping about his disagreement with the Beis Din with 'people extremely close to him'? Are they parents of girls enrolled in the schools, where this would be L'Tachlis? Otherwise you are accusing him of behavior not befitting a Tzaddik, which I have difficulty being Mekabel.

  54. @Rabbi Blau - the Chicago Beis Din obviously doesn't have to prove anything to me. But what I have described is clearly the view of the IBD which was selected to take over the case by the CBD. They do not view the statement of the CBD as having credibility because of the refusal of the CBD to comply with elementary requests for the testimony that the CBD had collected. Whether you view this as reasonalbe is largely irrelevant since the IBD is quite familiar with halacha and that is their position. I don't think you are in a position to argue with the IBD dayanim regarding halacha. While obviously the CBD dayanim can disagree but they have no authority that would require the IBD to accept their halachic views.

  55. He recused himself from the original case because of Negius. But Mr. Meisels sold the schools to Mr. Yarmish, who besides being a Baal Chesed is also a shrewd businessman, and won't throw away money for nothing. By Rabbi Levin endorsing the schools, he has maintained or increased the value of their sale, thereby quite possibly benefiting Mr. Meisels - either with an increase in the sale price, or lessening his liability from tuition refunds and even lawsuits.
    R' Levin, as a solid Lamdan and Ish Yashar, I'm sure is quite aware of these implications, so I'm still mystified why he did endorse them. I'm guessing he was fed incomplete or false information.

  56. I would be happy to respond point by point but feel that at the core of our disagreement is our respective understanding of sexual abuse and how halacha should respond to it. i would uge you and anyone reading our exchanges to read the book "Breaking the Silence: Sexual Abuse in the Jewsih Community" by David Mandel and David Pelcovitz as it will open your eyes to what is happening in our community. (The book was writhin in conjunction with Rav Dovid Cohen - a rav who sadly deals with these situations often enough that he has become an expert in this area.)

    You claim that you are an askan and I will take you at your word but then you must be intimately aware of the terrible makas medina of "at risk children" that our community faces. The experts in the field (including Rav Yaakov Horowitz) estimate that 80% of these children were sexually abused.

    Our community, the frum community, has simply not properly understood these issues in the past and is slowly coming to grip on how to properly apply halachic principles to these matters. Rabbi Blau is one of the rare heroes who acknowledged his earlier limitations and has therefore been outspoken in dealing with these issues often at great personal cost.

    Rav Mattisyahu Solomon biitterly decried the concept of sweeping sexual abuse under the rug,even creating a special BD to tackle these matters that was tragically disbanded in the Yossi Kolko scandel. ( A case that readers should read up on and which RDE can offer much wisdom.)

    Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky has similalry been quite forceful in his belief that our community must change its practice of reflexively discounting children's claims and always protecting the abusers and/or the institutions.

    Many may feel that this particular situation is different and that the IBD has handeled the matter properly ( we can agree to disagree on that point ) but hiding behind phony frumkeit and misunderstanding halacha has destroyed too many lives for too long.

    That approach must change and with Hakadosh Baruch Hu's help it will.

  57. Since R' Levin is aware of his Negius, and as a Talmid Chochom he knows how much Negius can cloud one's judgement, he wouldn't Stam become a defender in Beis Din. And in light of that, it's quite out of character for him to come out publicly against his Talmid and co-Dayanim.

    He must have been somehow misinformed about the issue.

  58. @daas torah
    Please produce a statement from the Israeli Beis Din about the extent of Meisels's misbehavior. So far you and other bloggers have made comments but there has been no statement from the Israeli Beis Din about Meisels himself.

  59. If he was misinformed, the Motzi Shem Ra is on the people who misstated the facts, not on R' Levin. A Rav can only deal with the issues as presented to him. He's not an investigative detective.

  60. @Rabbi Blau - as I have repeatedly said - the IBD became involved in the case only after Meisels had admitted his guilt and been removed from the seminaries. Why is it necessary for the IBD to issue a statement about the extent of Meisel's behavior?

    Why aren't you asking for the CBD to produce a statement about the extent of Meisel's misbehavior?

  61. @Stewart why do you insist on making up possible facts about the parties involved and based on you fantasies ask question about their integrity. Your conjecture is wrong and your questions are not questions.

  62. R. Blau, the CBD has failed to produce a statement about the extent of Meisels's misbehavior, other than some vague abstract words, that you seek from the IBD. Seek it from the CBD first.

  63. R. Blau, the CBD never enumerated what Meisels alleged guilt is, other than make vague abstract references.

  64. Meisels is out and has been for months. The IBD is addressing the issue going forward. Meaning absent Meisels, who is a non-entity in the seminaries. There is no further need to dredge his name into every discussion or letter or statement.

  65. This has nothing to do with Meisels who has no relationship to the seminaries. He is an outsider unaffiliated with the seminaries going forward. Whatever you believe about the extent of Meisels' guilt is irrelevant to the seminaries and the girls in the upcoming school year.

  66. Well said, Ari B.

  67. R. orowitz is wrong and he picks such numbers out of a hat.

  68. Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,
    You commented on having no proof of any guilt of Meisels beyond what he admitted and described it as the view of the Israeli Beis Din and now you tell me that the Israeli Beis Din has no view on the extent of his guilt. The Chicago Beis Din used the word "unwanted" according to your source did Meisels admit that what he did was without consent?

  69. "many of us will choose to believe the girls"

    Do you have any idea how many girls gave testimony?

    Do you have any idea what their testimony was?

    Did the CBD actually take the testimony and question the accusers or did they just hear the details from Gottesman?

    Do you have any idea if they are at all credible? Do they have a history accusing other people of such things?

    There has been zero transparency on the part of the CBD.

    One thing you can be sure of is the staff will be hypersensitive to anything of this nature going forward. These seminaries will be the safest ones going forward. This is a point that the IBD made in its letter. In addition if there was any real inappropriate actions which took place, the IBD is accepting testimony.

  70. Rabbi Eidensohn,

    Is Rebitzin Birnbaum vested with full executive powers over all four seminaries. I ask because the title of menaheles ruchani is open to various meanings. It could mean an ombudsman for spiritual problems. It could be someone who gives talks. It could mean a super menaheles, over the the four or menahahlim, etc."

    My question therefore is do you have any documentary proof that she has full executive power which includes the power to fire staff as needed?

    I know you say that all staff have a chezkas kashrus at this point. But even assuming that, surely you realize that the judgment of a chezkas kashrus could change based on new conduct or old facts coming to light. So again, is she an advisory token figure head, or does she have full executive power?

  71. @Yerachmiel Lopin - what is the point that you are trying to make?

  72. Thank you for the reponses to my questions.

    I some additional questions/follow-up.

    1. With respect to the sale (which I understand has not yet been completed), is it sufficient for Meisels to transfer control of the Israeli institution that operates the seminaries or must Meisels surrender control of the US 501(c)3 that receives all of the revenue? If the sale falls through, what mechanics are in place to find a replacement buyer? Given the acknowledgement of Meisels guilt, why should he be able to financially benefit from the sale of the seminaries?

    2. Now that the IBD acknowledges Meisels guilt, have they gone to the police? If they haven't, how are they different than the CBD that you criticize for not going to the police?

    3. In your response 6. to my earlier questions, you posted, "On the other hand - if a girl willingly participated in inappropriate activity ...". Are you suggesting that the girls in this case were willing participants? Is there such a thing of a willing participant when the perpetrator is a charismatic rabbi and the victim is a young, impressionable student?

    4. Do you know for a fact if any of the signatories to the letter sent by the US gedolim asked to see the CBD evidence before signing? Did R'Malkiel Kotler, for example, speak to any member of the CBD before signing the letter. If they did not, on what basis can they draw the conclusions that they did?

    5. Are you aware of the specific allegations made against Meisels? You write that he admitted to inappropriate contact. What has he been accused of? At this point, does it matter?

  73. I would also like to have an answer to Rabbi Blau's statement. What is the view of the IBD and the 5 Gedolim. Was Meisels merely a sporadic hugger? was he a sporadic violator of din yichud. Or have the IBD and the 5 gedolim concluded that he engaged in sexual acts of a more substantial matter.

    Rabbi Eidensohn, I know you have said that you have not been convinced of evidence that he did more than he admits (i.e., some hugging). BTW, how much hugging does he admit to (how many times x how many girls).

    However, R. Eidensohn, is that merely your personal view and conclusion or is it also the conclusion of the IBD, the gedolim, Mrs. Birnbaum, and the Vaad and the principals in place?

  74. @Rabbi Blau the tone of your question indicates that you are trying to go someone with this cross examination - what is the point that you are trying to make?

    Perhaps you might want to explain your connection with the Chicago Beis Din?

  75. R. Blau, if it is acknowledged that Meisels admitted that what he did was "unwanted" how does that admission change what was discussed?

  76. When u see groups of rabbis jumping on the bandwagon to save 4 seminaries that is politics... it's not simply because I disagree. This is typical protect the establishment type of behavior.

  77. Thank you for the reponses to my questions.

    I some additional questions/follow-up.

    1. With respect to the sale (which I understand has not yet been completed), is it sufficient for Meisels to transfer control of the Israeli institution that operates the seminaries or must Meisels surrender control of the US 501(c)3 that receives all of the revenue? If the sale falls through, what mechanics are in place to find a replacement buyer? Given the acknowledgement of Meisels guilt, why should he be able to financially benefit from the sale of the seminaries?

    2. Now that the IBD acknowledges Meisels guilt, have they gone to the police? If they haven't, how are they different than the CBD that you criticize for not going to the police?

    3. In your response 6. to my earlier questions, you posted, "On the other hand - if a girl willingly participated in inappropriate activity ...". Are you suggesting that the girls in this case were willing participants? Is there such a thing of a willing participant when the perpetrator is a charismatic rabbi and the victim is a young, impressionable student?

    4. Do you know for a fact if any of the signatories to the letter sent by the US gedolim asked to see the CBD evidence before signing? Did R'Malkiel Kotler, for example, speak to any member of the CBD before signing the letter. If they did not, on what basis can they draw the conclusions that they did?

    5. Are you aware of the specific allegations made against Meisels? You write that he admitted to inappropriate contact. What has he been accused of? At this point, does it matter?

  78. I have no connection to the Chicago Beis Din beyond having interacted with each of them to some degree over the years. My point is that there is no reason to minimize the abuse in order to be supportive of maintaining and strengthening the seminaries. Many students, including those who were personally abused have been hurt and they should be the focus of our concern

  79. It is you who drew the inference of gossip, not I. If you cannot imagine any scenario in which such discussion would not constitute gossip, that's your problem. I have no difficulty conjuring up several such scenarios. Use your imagination.

  80. Well, yes, he was misinformed originally. By the so-called dayanim of the CBD. He is now finally well-informed, which is why he came out against his talmid and co-dayan.

  81. Correct, the onus is on the so-called dayanim of the CBD, who have been uintruthful and corrupt throughout this sad saga.

  82. Rabbi Eidensohn,

    You write: "Furthermore Lopin is apparently being inconsistent. Normally we would
    expect a true child advocate to protest against the beis din for child
    abuse that Rav Levin is part of. Lopin, in his desire to attack the IBD
    turns a blind eye to this transgression and acts as if you can attack
    one dayan of the CBD without disqualifying the entire beis din."

    1. You have attacked R. Malkiel Kotler for his protecting Yosef Kolko from criminal charges and attempting to intimidate the victim's family. Yet you have no trouble considering the letter by the five gedolim credible. Why do you not hold yourself to the standard of consistency which you accuse me of violating?

    2. R. Levin is not part of the panel. His history is regrettable. Were he on the panel I would have a harder time.

  83. He was fed false information by Fuerst, Cohen and Gottesman. He has now learned the truth. Hence his signature on the letter.

  84. Rabbi Eidensohn,

    You wrote: " He asserts that I have lost my way - that I am a hypocrite who has
    sold my soul to the forces of darkness and have repudiated my long time
    campaign against abuse."

    I indeed asserted you have lost your way. I left it an open question why and I certainly never used your purple prose of your being "a hypocrite who has
    sold my soul to the forces of darkness." In fact if you have read my responses to comments on Frum Follies I have repeatedly chastised those who accused you of taking bribes. I do not believe that about you. But as you may know, many people are puzzled and are not convinced by your claim that your position is merely evidence-based. You have lost many who previously supported you. I state that as an empirical fact.

  85. You wrote:

    "I am not ashamed to admit that my initial perception was wrong and that I
    now have a better informed view of the situation. The Israeli Beis Din
    has one major problem - they have not been concerned with public
    relations. Most of this turmoil could have been avoided if they had
    taken care to fully communicate what they were doing."

    You were the main outlet for the public relations efforts of the IBD and you augmented their documents with many more words of perush in your postings and arguments in your responses to comments.

    Please enlighten us on how you feel it could have been better communicated?

  86. 1 you are mistaken - the sale has been completed. The original task of the IBD was to try and assess the amount Meisels should pay to the victims

    2.The IBD has not been given evidence that Miesels is guilty of a criminal offense. The CBD who claim that he is guilty of a criminal offense has the obligation to go.

    3. yes there is. Secular law varies concerning such relationships

    4. no information

    5.There are reports that the CBD claims he raped 40 girls. The CBD has made no official statement nor have they shared any information with the IBD

  87. There is also no reason to exaggerate what happened.

  88. @Yerachmiel Lopin - this is a very important question and I simply don't have the time now to give it an adequate response. Hopefully tomorrow

  89. Initially RDE was not on the IBDs side and the IBDs position and reasoning was not aired or understood by the public.

  90. The only ones he "lost" are the same crowd that has a knee-jerk reaction opposing anything rabbonim or gedolim express an opinion on. This is the same crowd that is straight-line anti-rabbi and will side with whoever takes the harshest position opposing whoever is furthest on the right of the religious spectrum. There is no "winning" with this crowd. Either you feed them what they demand or they will try to kill you.

  91. Lopin, consistency does not constitute always opposing any position of a rabbi because you once opposed a position of his.

  92. Rabbi Eidensohn you ask if Lopin is "first and foremost a defender against abuse or is he primarily concerned
    with bashing rabbis and Judaism through claims of mishandling child

    We both agree that at times Judaism is defended by either criticizing individuals, including rabbis. I am, as we have discussed in the past, focused on combating abuse. Bashing is a loaded term that could be equally applied to both of us for roasting Malkiel Kotler over his handling of Kolko. But yes, I am willing to privilege Judaism over individual rabbis who enable abuse and protect abusers. Shoot me for that if you want.

  93. It is irrelevant. Meisels is out. He is not associated with the seminaries. The girls next year have zero to do with him.

  94. Perhaps an equal focus of our concern should be - as Halachah demands - that unjustified collateral damage be avoided. That an out-of-control band on a rampage be stopped on their tracks because their actions are doing nothing to help the victims or protect anyone but their reputations as zealots for a cause.

  95. Now, I am really confused.

    You state above, "The original task of the IBD was to try and assess the amount Meisels should pay to the victims."

    If that was the role given to the IBD by CBD, how did the IBD come to expand its role? On what/whose authority?

    According to you:

    1. The CBD issued its decision that Meisels was guilty and had to be removed and that some number of the remaining staff knew about Meisels activity, failed to report/stop him and, therefore, their continued presence created an unsafe environment.

    2. The IBD was asked to assess the amount Meisels should pay his victims.

    Why and how did the IBD re-open the case? If their role was, as you claim, to assess damages, it seems that they went overboard.

  96. " there is no reason to minimize the abuse in order to be supportive of maintaining and strengthening the seminaries"

    This is a far cry from inflating the claims of abuse, as the CBD has been engaged in doing.

  97. He did not admit that it was unwanted. Perhaps they meant unwanted after the fact. Or perhaps they were exaggerating as is their wont.

  98. Your incessant harping on what precisely Meisels did is a red herring designed to draw attention away from the real issue, which is: Why does the CBD want to close the seminaries down now that Meisels has left and they have been sold? Why do they withhold evidence they claim they possess of the supposed misdeeds of the staff? Why do they leak their propaganda to the Chicago Tribune? Why do they retail wild stories of rapes and orgies? Why are these reckless, irresponsible people allowed anywhere near cases of sexual abuse? These are the really important questions that emerge from this episode.

  99. In corporate terms: is Rebitzin Birnbaum empowered as a CEO/COO with line authority over the four principals OR is her title of menahelet ruchani a token title for a token position who is in effect merely an advisor to others? Put even more simply will the principals have to take orders from her?

  100. Are you saying definitively that Meisles won't financially benefit from the future success or failure of the institutions?
    And if you have a better explanation for R' Levin signing other than being fed misinformation, I'd be interested in understanding it.

  101. Do you have inside information on what the CBD told R' Levin? Who was able to make him 'well-informed'?

  102. Oh, please. 3 dayanim with solid reputations for years, Mr. Kishkeyum knows have been untruthful and corrupt.

  103. ladies and gentlemen-----
    please reread this last paragraph by RDE. This is the crux of the matter for now and the immediate future.
    Hit on Rabbis, hit on Meisels--
    "But at the present it is clear that the 4 seminaries are viable institutions
    of learning and have been certified as such both by the IBD and the 5
    American gadolim - including one member of the CBD."
    let it go at that

  104. Avraham, well said. your point that the chedvas letter does not address the sexual abuse is totally true.

    But, you should see Kahane.

    Lost a lot of weight, looks terrible. traumatized by the reaction to his letter[ he told me this himself, and it is obvious that it is true]. I am sure he was afraid to address the sexual abuse issue at this point in time. does not excuse, but it is understandable

  105. I am accusing no one of anything, but there is apoint that needs to be made here.
    First, my qualifications to speak: I was subpoenaed and testified before a grand jury on a criminal case.
    Anyone ever involved in a criminal case knows that they may not divulge certain pertinent information as it prejudices a jury. period.
    IF the CBD has info on a crime here, and anyone went to the police, and the police is investigating
    [ it sometimes takes months before a case is filed- in fact sometimes years, as the DA needs a solid case before he files charges}
    the CBD would not be allowed to say one word to anyone. We will just have to wait.

  106. believe? what difference does it make what RDE believes. What are the facts? only the CBD..... and the police perhaps, as I have postulated above..... know

  107. @Stewart what basis do you have to make these attacks accept that you don't trust gedolim? I am tired of answering any and all questions that anyone who has internet access feels driven to ask. The battle is over - the view of the CBD has been rejected. The seminaries are functioning and have had important safeguards added.

    At this point I don't see any toeles to anyone in continuing this discussion.

  108. @Interested - your questioning at this point serves no purpose except to satisfy your curiosity and/or to find a crack in the defense of the seminaries in order to disqualify them. I am not interested in your cross examination over minor details so that you can proclaim that something is inconsistent and therefore you can claim the whole structure is false. Enough already!

  109. solid reputations for years

    Do you, per chance, mean the marriage "nullification" debacle?

  110. Moe Ginsburg,

    I am a personal intimate of R' Eidensohn, and have previously been proud of many of R' Eidensohn's activities exposing hypocrisy, shame and vested-interest in sexual abuse cases.
    His track record in this specific area is outstanding.

    I am puzzled and disgusted by R' Eidensohn's actions in this particular case, and am unsure whether it is due to some maybe age-related change in personality in R' Eidensohn, or due to the relationship R' Eidensohn has with his nephew (this could be a complete non-entity and red-herring, or could be significant), or some other matter which seems to have clearly turned R' Eidensohn from light to dark.

    R' Eidensohn has in this case taken so many actions which in the past he has correctly protested with outrage against when performed by others.
    Unfortunately, the easy answer that would sweep away all problems - that this case is different, and R' Eidensohn is acting correctly in this Meisels case - is not unfortunately an option, as I happen to know that this is just another case of cover-up and failure to deal correctly with past sexual abuse.

    As an intimate, I worry deeply for R' Eidehsohn

  111. Or you have failed to take into consideration that Rabbi Eidensohn is correct in this matter and are just having a knee-jerk reaction of "rabbinic coverup" as you too often assume, rather than recognizing everything was responded to and corrected appropriately here.

  112. Regarding the ABD, ask any toain. You claim you are involved, then you have access to them

  113. Do your own research. I'm not here to fill the giant hole of your willful ignorance.

  114. Correct. And I'm not the only one who knows. That's one good thing that has come out of this sorry episode, that these so-called dayanim have been exposed for what they truly are.

  115. Still waiting!

  116. @Yerachmiel Lopin - rather impatient aren't you.

    Regarding Touro - I haven't spent much time on the matter - but it seems that Touro is making additional demands that other colleges are not. For example Touro claims that somebody needs to be fired in order for Title IX requirements to be satisfied. That is simply not true and there are other colleges that are willing to provide assistance under Title IX.

    If you have some claim that Krupka has fed you and you want to hear the other side of the story - fire away.

  117. Actually this was addressed in the 5 page psak which I think handled things in a well balanced and sensitive manner for public relations. For some reason the psak has not been made public as of yet. But when you read it you will see the clear improvement in handling and presentation


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.