Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Seminary Scandal: Why R Harry Maryles is wrong in objecting to my criticism of the Chicago Beis Din

Rabbi Eidensohn, 

I am one of your biggest fans, But I am disappointed at your negative spin about the Chicago Beis Din. Just because you are close friends with a member of the IBD does not give you license to smear the Chashuva Rabbonim in Chicago who for 3 months worked diligently to determine what the facts were.

Why did they remain silent until they referred the matter to the IBD? Maybe because they wanted to get all of the facts and testimony before accusing anybody of anything. I really don't understand why you have to smear these fine Rabbonim Chashuvim with headlines that include hot button words like 'cover-up'.

If you want to use that word, try using it on the educators in Meisel's seminaries that chose to coverup what he did... and the IBD who seems not to care about that in Kashering these seminaries so quickly.

Harry Maryles


The above letters is from one of the few people I consider a good example of yashrus and commonsense. But his letter demonstrates that yashrus and commonsense are not enough when there is misplaced loyalty and respect for talmidei chachom - because they are talmidei chachomim.  

One of the basic facts that we all need to know is if sexual abuse, or corruption is to be dealt with properly - is that when a wonderful  rabbis or laymen are accused of major crimes the defense is always - "but he is such a good person, he is such a big talmid chachom,  he has such good midos -  it is not possible that he can do what he is accused of."  The most important lesson that needs to be learned is that character references or mastery of Torah literature - is not proof that a someone could not have committed the transgression. The actual facts need to be examined - even for nice people.

Reb Harry claims that I am putting a negative spin about the Chicago Beis Din. That is false - I am not twisting the facts - I am accurately describing the  negative things that they actually have done. 

He also objects to my saying that when they concealed from publication the fact of Meisels serious misbehavior for at least 2 months - that they were covering up the abuse. In a long talk with the rosh yeshiva of Ner Yisroel - Rav Yaakov Weinberg - I learned a critical lesson that I hope I will never forget. The lesson is that words have meaning. While that seems obvious - it is often forgotten when dealing with things that are precious to us. We especially tend to twist the meaning of words in order to make things sound frum or to defend frumkeit.

If I had said that some priests in the Church had concealed the presence of  a pedophile and had concealed that there were other priests who were complicit by their silence - Reb Harry would be the first to scream - coverup - and he would be right. But when it comes to his heroes. The people he looks up to - he has a different standard. Words have a different meaning if they sound critical about nice people, about saintly people  about respected talmidei chachomim. He doesn't allow the world coverup to be used about these people - and in this he is clearly wrong. You will note his last paragraph  -  that I can only use the word coverup about people he doesn't respect!

The Chazon Ish says one can say negative things  only about big and influential people. That is because people need to be able to guard against the weakness in people they respect or influence them. For someone you don't pay attention to - there is typically no justification or benefit from saying bad things about them.


  1. "when
    there is misplaced loyalty and respect for talmidei chachom - because
    they are talmidei chachomim."

    I love it! "Daas Torah" does not believe in Emunat chachamim! Yeah, go for it!

  2. For the first time in "YEARS", two things happened to me (if anyone cares....)

    1. I agree wholeheartedly to Harry Maryles.
    2. I'm shocked and dismayed at the positions R' D. Eidenson has taken.

  3. R EIdensohn I'm just wondering, have you or anyone else gotten a response from any of the chicago dayanim yet. If you tried and they refused I understand, but so far all we've seen is what the IBD has leaked and ppls imputed accusations against chicago. While they may be right I think we have an obligation to at least not convict 3 rabbonim with sterling reputations before we see a defense. The certainty in which you state your accusations is a little jarring. If you are correct I will be the first to anonymously yell at chicago online (i'm so brave), but i'm sure you know there are usually 2 sides to every story and here it seems you are ignoring one (or at least the possibility of one) of them.

  4. How can you say they covered up the abuse if this whole story is the result of the CBD original letter? We wouldn't know about this if not for them so clearly they are not engaged in a cover-up...

  5. So, have you contacted them? What's your defense of them?

  6. What is so sad about this discussion is that you RDE don't seem to realize that because of your closeness with the IBD you are doing exactly that which you claim of Rav Maryles. You are ignoring the facts that seem obvious to anyone objectively examining the situation and in your zeal to protect the dayanim whom you hold in high esteem (and whom you feel are being unfairly slighted) you are slandering others. The greatness of Yehuda - and one of the reasons that he was chosen to be the melech Yisroel for all generations - was his ability to admit his mistake. I would humbly suggest, as someone who has admired your previous work in this area, that you take a step back and do a real cheshbon hanefesh as you are severely undermining your own credibility.

    I am a rav and a mechanech who does not have any personal connection to any of the people involved in the case and I remain puzzled by a number of points that you sadly never answer. I have read all of your postings and still do not understand the original psak of the IBD. By their own admission they were aware of Meisels's improper behavior and yet without speaking to any of his victims they were able to ascertain that all the heads of the seminaries were "yeraim u'shlamium". How is that possible? (Please do not answer that they did not receive the information they requested as that is irrelevant to the issue. We are talking about nefashos that are planning to attend these schools; if you don't have enough information no psak could be issued.)

    Please note as well that the original psak did not say they that they had consulted with experts nor did it indicate any other steps they had taken regarding other members of the staff. You have made claims on their behalf in this regard but sadly an objective reader has no reason to believe you. Had these important steps been taken prior to the psak they would have been included in it. Their absence speaks volumes.

    Along a comparable vein the fact that the psak does not mention the victims or the previous inappropriate behavior that clearly happened makes people believe that the safety of the girls attending the seminaries was not a priority of the IBD. You can make numerous claims on their behalf and you may be correct - but that is not the reading of an unbiased reader.

    You have met with Mr. Yarmush and are convinced that he is a wonderful person acting "l'shem shamayim" Once again - why should that fact be accepted as truth? You have strongly talked about the need for real evidence in all aspects of this case so I ask you where is the document of sale? What exactly did he purchase as these are all listed as not for profit institutions in the US? Is it any surprise, given our community's sad track record of whitewashing sexual offences in order to protect the institution, that people suspect the IBD of the same? Please note - I do not know any of the dayanim and they may be as wonderful as you think they are - but that is not how it appears.

    Moreover the psak that the seminaries need not refund the money and the comparison to "ani mehapech b'charara" (which anyone involved in learning understands is a warning to other seminaries not to take these students) is outrageous. The only people involved in the din torah were one side; how then could the IBD issue a binding psak on others who were not part of the din torah? (Please do not respond by stating that Rav Feldman was the representative; that disingenuous claim has been discredited by Rav Feldman's own letters that describe a bizarre process where he is asked by the IBD to sign on the shtar when he freely admits he has no authority to do so.)

    I could continue noting more troubling examples but feel that I have made my point. I respectfully repeat may request that you review this matter with a true non "nogayah b'dvar" and realize that you have made a serious error that is undermining the cause that you are fighitng for.

  7. You know what this entire saga is all about? $$$Money.$$$

    The seminaries are a mint manafacturing more dollars than Google on a per person/student basis.

    Why do American high schools girls have to go to Israeli seminari after 12th grade? They don't. But they're talked into in order to relive the parents of their GELT.

    It is big business.

    The girls can go to American seminary.

  8. Avraham, very well said!!!

    Thank you.

  9. When the full story from CBD comes out, RDE you will look like a fool.
    You're blogging and blogging while you admit that you do not know at least 50% of the story.
    Sadly RDE, you are being used and manipulated by yarmush and other stakeholders. You don't even know it, but they are using you!

  10. "So, have you contacted them?"

    No I have not. Then again I am not hurling accusations at them so I have no need to.

    "What's your defense of them?"

    I have none. I can imagine a few scenarios. So can you. But me not knowing their defense does not mean they are defenseless. You seem to have missed my point.

    To illustrate: you know how when a reporter will write a story he'll always make sure to call the other side to register their response. Something like "the whitehouse will neither confirm nor deny the rumor at this time". I think a jewish blog trying to get to the emes should have at least the ethics of the new york times. Maybe not. I could be wrong.

  11. The RCA Beth Din in New York issued a condemnation of the fake husband of the FBI agent as a Torah document. Gedliah Schwartz is the head of that Beth Din. He also explained to me once why he permitted a woman to remarry without a GET, and the explanation was ridiculous. Whoever sits on a Beth Din with such a person has violated the basic tenets of halacha.

  12. Is it conceivable that as soon as they had sufficient concerns about meisels they immediately fired off that set of rules you posted and then continued to investigate the background as to the details and the enablers of the abuse which took a month or two at which point they went public and passed it off to the IBD. I'm not saying this happened but it could have for all I know. How are you so certain that a malicious cover up happened?

  13. @Avraham - you accuse me of ignoring facts. What facts have I ignored? Conrary to your claim I am not underning by crediblity - except in those who are commited to the view that the IBD can not have superior judgment to the CBD. Even those seem to be dwindling in number each time I bring additional documents. You will note I said documents - not drashos or pilpul - but documents.

    Your question about how they pasken that the seminaries were safe was answered in detail in the guest post of someone who is close to the IBD Please read the post.

    Regarding your concern that the IBD claims to have used experts but didn't mention it. Are you calling them liars or are you saying they weren't concerned enough about public relations? I gather you are simply saying I am a liar. I know I am not lying but it is rather strange that you first start out by saying you admire what I have done up till now but you feel that any objective reader would conclude I am a liar.

    Not much I can do about that. The so called psak were simply announcment to the publiic. The one page statements are not and were never intended to be comprehensive report of the actions that had been taken. That is obvious from even a casual reading and surely to someone who is a rav and machanech such as yourself.

    Your deduction that the absence of mention the victim shows that the IBD doesn't care about the victims.

    I would suggest you turn your cold rational mind to the release of the CBD. According to you isn't it strange that there is no mention of the victims. In fact if I pasted the word IBD over the CBD - thery sound fairly similar. It simply says that they investigated it doesn't even say Meisels is guilty but that they conducted an investigation and that they the students are at risk of harm and they can't recommend it. Where do you see mention of the victms - and yet you keep talking about unbiased reader and objective readers - which you clearly are not.

    My conversation with Mr. Yarmish was not just to see if I enjoyed his company and that he is a nice guy. We had a thourough discussion of the issues and he clearly displayed not only a clear understanding and sensitiviy - but that he described actions that he had taken and ones that he planned to institute. And again you indicate that I should be viewed as a liar and or perhaps incompentent in these area.

    You say I have failed to present hard evidence because the bill of sale. Of course that means that all the pages I have filled up with document don't exist. I haven't seen the bill of sale but I have testimony from someone close to Rav Feldman who witnessed the documents of sale and said that they were valid. But perhpas that person is lying and then again maybe we can't trust Rav Feldman either.

    At this point it is clear where you are coming from - despite you claims to objectivity and besides the rest of you comment has been discussed repeately.

    In closing - you obviously have a commitment to the CBD for whtever reason and you are not judging the IBD by the same standards as the CBD and you sure aren't judging me by any objective measure.

  14. "Moreover the psak that the seminaries need not refund the money and the comparison to "ani mehapech b'charara" (which anyone involved in learning understands is a warning to other seminaries not to take these students)"

    Totally wrong. It is a warning not to recruit not that they can't accept them. Can we put that false representation to rest.

    It is somewhat silly to present yourself as a Rav and Mechanech. Why should anybody believe you?

  15. I'm not sure I even understand what exactly your criticism of the cbd is. I've seen a lot of allegations but I'm having trouble understanding the picture you are trying to point.

    To make my point clearer, let me contrast the allegations your making with the ones against the ibd which seem more straightforward. Opponents of the ibd are saying that the ibd is doing everything it can to save the seminaries. This mission of theirs is clouding their judgement and therefore they have not had the seminaries implement appropriate protocols in dealing with a situation such as this. This is a pretty straightforward allegation and there is some evidence such as the hasty letter they sent out the day after the cbd original letter stating that everything is ok, they have been sold etc. Also, the letter from Rabbi Meir Kahane indicates the seminaries don't know how to deal with the issue and the fact parents cannot get back deposits. All this paints a certain picture that is easily understood.

    Now, let's turn to the allegations against the Chicago Beis Din. What is their motive here? Some commentators are suggesting this is all a scheme to try to take over the seminaries and it is all about money. This is a strange sounding conspiracy theory that isn't borne out by any of the facts. You wrote a post about a cover-up. Don't get that either... they are the ones that publicized the issue so why cover it up? Did they suddenly change their minds? Again, what's the accusation exactly. Then you have issues with the RICO lawsuit. All these issues are scattered and messy.

  16. Last time I learned the sugya of how to determine which beit din should rule on a case when there is a dispute over forum, the halacha did not suggest resolving it by the dayanim or their surrogates attacking each other's motives. There is enough lack of transparency here to discuss the actions and claims of the contending batei din without questioning or attacking motives. And a far greater likelihood of learning something by doing so.

    I asked several such questions about each in the other thread that went unanswered. Since you, Rav Eidensohn, seem to know the position of the IBD I will repeat my basic question of them in the hope you can answer: Given that the IBD say they didn't hear from the victims or from an authorized representative who knew the details of the claims, even granting (for the sake of argument) that the information was improperly withheld by Chicago, how could the IBD rule on the case at all? I understand they questioned some of the staff at length but even so, how could they know what to ask without knowing the particulars of the claims? How could they even know the specific staff members they were questioning were the ones who were accused of being negligent or worse? And how did they have jurisdiction without hearing from the plaintiffs?

  17. Your last line is sadly very revealing. I will gladly communicate with you off line and you can see that I have nothing to do with the CBD and that I have indeed been in rabbanus and chinuch for twenty five years. (Sorry Shlomo) None of my points mentioned the CBD at all and yet you feel a need to claim my allegiance to them as opposed to rebutting my points.

    I have read all the posts carefully and do not believe that the supporter of the IBD answered the question at all. Moreover, I very carefully noted in each of my observations that it may be that all your claims are correct but given the sorry history of the frum world and bati din in these matters it is important to appreciate why giving a hechsher to a seminary with a troubled past without indicating any consultation with experts or change in staff simply does not work. (That is a point far deeper than engaging in good public relations)

    The focus needs to be on whether the seminaries are indeed an appropriate and safe place to send bnos yisroel. Instead you have made the issue about your trustworthiness.This have never been about RDE - why have you made it so? You have presented your self as a neutral observer who has come to discover that the IBD is the hero and the CBD is the villain. Now you are insulted that there seemed to be be a challenge to the assertion that the IBD ha dnot communicated with experts. How do you know that they did; because they told you so or because you are one of the experts? Either way it reveals that you are simply too close to the situation to report on this matter.

  18. This is my first time commenting on this. Let me preface by saying that I know two of the Chicago dayanim personally so I can't deny that I might have some negius. This is the first I ever read of an accusation of cover-up directed at the CBD. Is the basis of this charge simply the fact that they waited a few months before going public. Would you have them making an accusation public before doing their due diligence and substantiating the charge. Furthermore, even were one to concede your charge of cover-up, does that weaken their stand vis-a-vis the IBD?

  19. welovetruth,
    What shocked you, after years of reading my brother's comments, and what caused you dismay? Why don't you spell it out? Then we can deal with it. I am not involved in this case, but I do know that my brother spent an hour with me talking to one person who has a lot of insight into this situation. And that was just one person. A person that you know for years as somebody you found nothing to be shocked about and suddenly he turns around and shocks you, what happened? Did he suddenly go in reverse? Please explain specifics.

  20. David,
    So parents shell it out so that the seminary owners can get rich? Was that really their main motive? I can think of other motives. I personally never sent my daughters to Israeli seminars. But I am sure that when somebody today forks over the money needed for someone to stay in Israel for an extended period, more is involved than the need to spend one's money, which is very unlikely in the first place. Most people have a need not to spend money.

  21. I note that the comments are getting thinner as you continue on your 'bury the CBD' quest.

    Avraham nailed it, plain and simple. Kol Hakovod to him. For you to resort to the use of "Are you calling me a liar?" as a tactic only serves to demean you further.

    Your statement about the mention/no mention of the victims is especially galling. The greatest tribute to the victims was when CBD went public and said loudly: "DANGER! STAY AWAY!" That served as the best acknowledgement of all those women who were victimized.

    Conversely, when IBD announced "Kosher! All is well and good here!", they re-victimized all those women. There are few things worse that they could have said. That rabbis such as them and you still don't understand this reality -- even after years of CSA issues being on the front burner -- is positively unforgivable.

    Finally, many of us have zero commitment to the CBD. Rather, our commitment lies with the safety of בנות ישראל. The IBD's commitment lies elsewhere, and NONE of the many posts you are cobbling together have changed our minds one iota. And rabbi, that is not because we are biased; it's because you are offering the flimsiest of boich sevaras to try to dig IBD (and the seminaries) out of the hole they've dug themselves into. Please, for your own integrity, give it up already.

  22. Rabbi Eidenson,

    I salute you for keeping comments - especially the baseless, fantasy-filled ad hominem ones on the site.

    Are you perhaps allowing them to be here so that objective readers will note the blind faith of the commenters and and the utter failure of anybody them to address your many questions regarding the CBD?

  23. If you have followed from the beginning it's pretty simple originally CBD gave over to IBD it was open shut case that we can't force him to sell or frankly don't know if he should but there was for sure inappropriate behavior therefore Meisels can't go near any of the seminaries and but as they told the IBD he will confess you knw wat we know and done with all of a sudden they started with this sham sale stuff and u don't knw how bad he is and it was like whoa what happened where's the evidence basically they never heard it was worse then his confession until after the sale and then as we were all scratching our heads trying to figure it rabbi eidensohn went and exposed the truth that it seems gottesman/tora umesora was/is trying to make a money grab and get the girls or seminaries and will even stoop as low as making a frivolous lawsuit!!!! Scary how all our rabbonim

  24. Blogs thrive on presenting issues in stark terms of bad guys vs. good guys. And that's what's happening here -- either the IBD is holy and the CBD is bad. Or vice versa.
    But the facts seem to point at the very least to a lack of wisdom and lack of transparency, from both batei din.

  25. Moshe, where were you?

    When Rabbi Eidensohn was linking to Frum Folies postings calling the IBD "outrageous", "incompetent" and worse. Where were you? Why weren't you defending the IBD in the same way you are seeking to somehow defend the CBD without a defense?
    Why weren't you defending the IBD against all the comments questioning and attacking them?

    Why is only the incomprehensible and unexplained behavior of the CBD what you seek to defend?

  26. @puzzled I am puzzled by your puzzlement - since you claim to have access to dayanim on both sides - why haven't you asked them. Is it that you want to know the truth or that your question is really why I am involved? Are you claiming that my answers are not what the IBD would answer because you asked them and found major discrepancies?

    To answer your first question since it the only one that seems to raise new issues. I have not heard that anyone is making the claim that they want out simply because their is a new owner. The claim has been the CBD has declared them unsafe and therefore it is a mekach taus. To that question it is clear that there is a need for a beis din and yes I have asked poskim and that is what they say.

    I am not sure that objecting to the sale merely because there is a new owner without claiming that there is a difference is services provided means anything. Bli neder I will ask a posek and get back to you on the issue.

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

    3. I don't know. I haven't seen it - perhaps you will send it to me and I'll try and find out.

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

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

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

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

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

  27. Oy vey:

    1) Are you saying that it's unnecessary in a דיון to abide by a simple question of הלכה unless the תובע addresses the specific issue of relevance? Really??

    2) You are only parroting the word on the net. CBD never said this; you did. In fact, the questioner said that IBD acknowledges it hasn't even gone through yet!

    3) Please post that letter when it's sent to you, so that we might all see it ... full transparency is always better, of course.

    4) You avoided the question. How could the concerns be labeled 'preposterous', as the IBD father did? What did the rabbis' investigation yield to explain away such an utter failure of supervision?

    5) Same as 4. Don't potential students and parents have a right to know?

    6) Until recently, CBD was acknowledged to have done the work and did hear both sides. M now denies this? But, you've created the same problem for yourself anyway: how did IBD pasken 'kosher' without hearing both sides??

  28. First, punctuation can be your friend, or at least make your post more readable.

    Let's address what it means for one beit din to "give over" a case to another. What, assuming the IBD was convened at the request of Chicago, was the IBD asked to do or decide? And given that what R. Eidensohn has published from the IBD states clearly that they did not know the specific claims or even the identities of the plaintiffs, how could they possibly decide anything? And if the IBD wasn't convened at the request of the CBD, who brought a case to them?

  29. over the past few months this blog has turned into a rag. it's a shame.

  30. It seems that the only point that actually shows you read what I wrote was the first one!!!! Other then that I honestly am not wasting anymore energy on you if you can't waste a little yourself

  31. RDE:

    You did not answer most of my questions. How about specifically responding to #4 and #5?

    Also - I am astonished by what you wrote in #6:

    "The CBD's claim that Meisels is guilty of all the sexual sins on the book - indicates a full beis din judging guilt or innocence. That requires hearing both sides. Meisels denies that accusation."

    I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Are you repeating the silly assertion that they "are not a Beis Din"? (Despite the fact that they have functioned as such for far longer than the ad hoc IBD?) Do you not believe that Meisels is guilty. Do you think that the CBD is lying when they say he admitted it? Even the IBD acknowledges he is guilty - although both are vague as to what he did (worthy of another post if they were right or not). I assume you recognize that. So why even give legitimacy to the claim that he is innocent? You perform a disservice to the victims!

    Also - the text of the email I referenced is below (copied exactcly except redacting the phone numers it contained.):

    Date: July 28, 2014 at 9:52:45 AM

    To: undisclosed-recipients:;

    Subject: PART III / phone conference with Mr Yarmish

    Dear Esteem Binas Parent,

    Gut Chodesh!

    As we deal with the many details to ensure a smooth running of the upcoming school year, we cannot stop thinking of you- dear parent.

    Your daughter's awaited seminary year is a mere couple of weeks away, and excitement is peaking. Yet, on the other hand- some important questions still remain.

    We deeply feel for you.. As time progresses, there are definite improvements- bringing us toward clarity.

    To convey our deep emotions for you, we attempted Part I of our teleconference yesterday, as well as the q/a forum- teleconference Part II with our Dayanim shlita later today.

    Lastly, we would like to offer you direct phone-appointments with Mr Yarmish – our new financial department - who is eager to offer his time on the phone to answer your q’s as well.

    We look forward to put this all behind us, and share with you the fabulous multi-faceted program called” Binas”.

    With a continuous תפלה on our heart and mouths-

    Thank you for your endurance and solidarity.

    גב' אולמן
    – 646 558 XXX

    גב' קארפ
    - 646 558 XXXX

    PS: Please email Sara Bruchi, our secretary a 20 minute slot that works for you to speak with Mr Yarmish, after which she will arrange/confirm and give you his DSL number.

    בשורות טובות ישועות ונחמות

  32. 1. I don't believe a change in ownership gives anyone the right to a refund. The parents agreed the deposit and tuition was non-refundable. They made this agreement with the institution and not with the owner. What if the owner, C"V, died and a new owner took over? Parents would be due no refund.

    Furthermore, if the parents disagree with this and believe they are halachicly entitled to a refund whereas the institution believes no refund is due per the parents agreeing it is non-refundable, then the dispute can only be resolved in beis din [either zabla or an agreed beis din by both parties], and no refund would be halachicly due until and unless the beis din held a trial, deliberated on the claims, facts and relevent halachas and then issued a verdict determining it is due. The institution certainly has the right for a beis din ruling before having to refund. And then only refunding it if that is the halachic determination.

  33. See my above response to Point 1.

  34. What if there was a hotel in Eretz Yisrael that had a manager who allegedly snuck into patrons' rooms and ruffled through their belongings with the possible complicity of the desk clerk, bellboy and/or cleaning staff? Should it not be publicized? And if Batei Din get involved, it's wrong to follow their proceedings and report on it and discuss whether the manager was guilty or fired or if the hotel had new management? Just what is your complaint? How would you like it if you had made a reservation to that hotel and given them your credit card number and were yet completely out of the loop to what was going on there?

  35. You must be referring to Harry Maryles' blog because that is a perfect characterization of it.

  36. 1) So instead of explaining yourself you just attack me. That's fine. Just be man enough to admit that your only defense is "he did it why can't I".

    2) If you'd actually read my comments you'd see that I have no problem with you saying that the bd is "incompetant" etc. my problem is when you've decided that one beis din is playing some cat and mouse game in a nefarious scheme to make some $ for them/their friends or is acting out of spite for meisels. You seem to have given no thought that maybe the CBD might have some valid reason (in they're eyes) for what they're doing. If you used as much of your creativity to try and understand them as you've done to figure out their "conspiracy"...

    3) If you read my previous comments you'd see that i did't start reading and commenting on this blog until R Eidensohn was already supporting the IBD. If you'd be accusing the IBD of operating for personal gain without proof or at least strong circumstantial evidence it would bother me much the same.

    4) If you'd meander on over to the frum follies blog you'd see that I have been pressing him for explanations from chicago so much so that he accused me of trolling (but at least he doesn't block me).

  37. Again you reply with hurling accusations and giving zero facts.

  38. I'm still looking for the rag. Can you help me?

  39. JS,
    How many hours have you spent talking to the people who know what these Botei Din are and what they did and what they did not do? My brother has years of experience researching these kind of things and he has all kinds of sources that he speaks to at length. I myself sat on the phone with him for an hour with just one person. But this person knew a lot and it was worth it.. Your generalities are about as blog that has 64,000 people reading it is because it is not what you say.

  40. ?! Is that sarcastic. You think everyone should just pat each other on the back and say how lovely everything is. I thought the point of these blogs and comments is to engender a conversation and critical approach to these issues to try and find out the truth, not to just bash and block everyone who doesn't agree with everything you say. You'd rather only have commenters who just give you a thumbs up every time and invent conspiracy theories about your opponents. I thought you were above that. If the truth is really on your side you should be able to take criticism without lashing out back rhetorically. Please explain yourself.

  41. Verification of AddressAugust 13, 2014 at 7:59 PM

    Aren't you the same person as Daas Torah? If Yes? So why would you now spell your full personal name incl. Your first name without even adding your title as rabbi, Dr ?

  42. Oh, I did Sir!!!!

    As a complete outsider in this particular case, but one that felt for some time that this blog is a rare precious place for commonsense, I'm BETRAYED. And I'm not the only one!!! We're ALL looking on in disbelief!!!

    Enlisting you to help reply to all the sensible comments will not change this.

    (I've commented many times, and got hyperbole, accusations, and straw man arguments.


  43. The standard shtar berurim in america spends more paragraphs preventing lawsuits against the bet din than anything else. The IBD was too trusting of the CBD.

  44. @welove the truth - how many people have you polled that you make such claims. I am getting about 7000 hits a day that means most of my readers are not commenting. How did you ascertain that "we're all looking on in disbelief? That is certainly not true.

    Your overwrought reaction means that you are seriously misunderstanding something that makes you feel betrayed.

  45. @verification - that comment was made by my brother not by me.

  46. @Moshe - no - it was simple commonsense advice

  47. You have not answered my question. What exactly is your issue with me raising questions and asking for proof to back up outlandish accusations? Would you really like your blog to be you posting something and 50 posts agreeing and saying how awesome you are. Is that how things get clarified? It would be a good self esteem boost though.

  48. So now it's back to you RDE?!?

    Most people don't have the time to respond and comment, YET MANY DID!! I don't, I'm just outraged!!!

    Closing point: chances are you will prevail in some of your goals on this one, building on the goodwill and trust you've earned in the past....

    I hope whatever personal gain got you to this point, is something really big....

    As you are using up ALL YOUR CREDIBILITY HERE.

  49. welovetruth,
    If you love truth, why don't you tell us the truth what bothers you. Okay, your truth is about "hyperbole, accusations and straw man arguments." Do you think that sixty thousand people came on the blog this week because they like hyperbole, accusations and straw man arguments?

  50. Hi,
    I am very complimented that you think I am Daniel Eidensohn my brother.
    Thank you,
    David Eidensohn

  51. Verification of AddressAugust 14, 2014 at 12:26 AM

    Thanks for clarifying.
    Btw, I realized that sometimes you've been censoring some of my posting comments, if so, pls tell me the reasons.

  52. If you'd be accusing the IBD of operating for personal gain without proof or at least strong circumstantial evidence it would bother me much the same.

    Who accused the CBD of operating for personal gain? I happen to think (I don't know) that a major part of their reasoning was l'maan yishmeu v'yirahu.

    However, this doesn't make them right. 1)This type of decision is best left to the likes of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Rav Wosner or a consensus among the American Gedolim - not some nice rabbonim and dayonim. 2) Considering the History Rabbi Feurst has - how he got involved in the bitul kiddushin fiasco which was so widely and loudly criticized, particularly because of the long-term ramifications of that "psak". Similar with Rabbi Schwartz.

    However, who is greater than the great rabbonim living during the time of the unfortunate destruction of the second Beis Hamikdash? The Mahrsha explains that they were influenced by the rich and "powerful". That's part of the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza.

  53. @verification - the comments were repetitions of things you had said several times, contained no real information or criticized someone else in a way that was appropriate

    You have made over 250 comments - which is more than anyone else. Nnot everything you think has to be expressed as a comment

  54. The gm. there also says ענוותנותו של רבי זכריה בןאבקולס החריבה את ביתנו ושרפה את היכלנו והגליתנו מארצנו. And see the maharitz chayes there (rav moshe brings this down in yora deah chelek aleph siman kuf alef, you should read the whole teshuva there and take note of r moshe's whole attitude).

  55. Verification of AddressAugust 14, 2014 at 5:30 AM

    I can't imagine that I made more comments than Moe Ginsburg & Honesty, but anyway I am loyal to your Daas Torah hashkofoys that you publicize; I try to my best to write only things that supports your line to bring out the Emes, Daas Torah and Haluchah; I don't make a living of spending my time to write you comments, it's the opposite! I just try to stick along, to be a shutaf A.M.A.P. with your avoidas hakoidesh leshem Shomayim. I Wrote you many times that you can correct me if I'm mistaken or missing something, but whenever I already volunteer away my time with a כונה טובה to write you in a comment, especially that I never write anything חוצפה'דיג or not even the slightest disrespectful to you, and if you still refuse to post, pls NOT just ignore it but at least send me right away an email why you censored it, so I should learn for the future, not to spend my time for those similar type of comments. Thanks for understanding.

  56. @verificatioin - there is not necessarily anything bad about a comment I reject. And I do not have the time to explain why. The fact that the majority of your comments have been approved should mean something to you

  57. I am sorry, but your post addressed none of my points, and was just an attack on the motives of the Chicago BD without evidence or even explanation of how the way they were acting actually furthered their alleged motive.

    In particular, you don't address the question of how the IBD can issue any kind of ruling in a case without even hearing the claims of the plaintiffs (presumably the victims.)

  58. Verification of AddressAugust 14, 2014 at 1:34 PM

    You're welcome. So your initials are R'DE too?

  59. Verification of AddressAugust 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM

    Daas Torah............................
    I'd admit that probably the majority of my comments got approved by you and you even got moved over my very first comment of verification of address of the b"d to a guest post by itself and that encouraged me to continue posting more comments; but what still bothers me is :
    It seems that are indeed a few commenters like Asher Pihem B.S. and hmlamdan that are in fact here only to try to gear away your Daas Torah about the Emes, hashkofah & Halochah that are very ignorant to ask you once, and then suggest to bend (against the Haluchah) twice, and then suggest that it's still smarter to not do the right thing al pi Halochah, and then again claiming that Rav M. Feinstein & Shulchan oruch shouldn't be applied in this case, and then comment again that on this case he should definitely first give the get, and claim again that the nonexistent b"d is not fabricated, and then argue again to convince us that she's not a moredes, moseres & rodefes, and that's how it goes on & on with so many arguments of either nonsense, untrue, against Haluchah, getting it sometimes out in a chutzpahdige way to you and so missing to apply Kovoyd HaToyrah, and they keep repeating themselves in different ways, or sometimes just by changing a little bit their words around, and sometimes coming out from the hidden pro feminism to open pro feminism of get on demand etc etc etc; and how do I know that they keep getting repeatedly approved so many times even though it's לקנטר etc etc, bc I keep seeing their comments showing up again and again after Daas Torah and it's supporters already replied to all their facts and the Halochah with so much patience and clarity etc...
    I'd hope you got my point...
    So now pls say when is the red border line for limiting of getting approved more and more comments of those above mentioned types...
    Again I hope you got my point...
    Just in case that you won't approve this comment by itself, and so you won't give me an answer on your blog,
    If so, So pls try to at least answer me to my personal email. Thanks.

  60. You're point? Do you know which Rabonim were at that party? The Midrash Eicha mentions a name....

  61. Verification of AddressAugust 14, 2014 at 7:15 PM

    Verification......... [Daas Torah]
    Btw, just for the record :
    I just checked on discus how many comments ?
    Myself (Verification o.A.) only 201
    But honesty and Moe have way more,
    Moe already has 503 comments
    Honesty already has 449 comments
    And the 2 nudnikim that still support Rivky w/her being a moredes, rodefes, shakronis, moseres, holeches beerkoois, slandering, fabricating fake b"d and other org.
    ELamdan still has 39
    Asher pi b.s. still has 22
    (Btw it very looks like that the 2 above are in some way connected)
    D.T., I think that you know what I mean.

  62. I'll weigh in on this. I represent exactly the opposite viewpoint. Until now, I've been skeptical of R' Eidensohn in the past. But this incident showed me that he's a straight shooter. I might disagree with his positions on different things, but clearly he's a person looking for the truth, not just following the blogging crowd, and a far cry from those who with an anti-Torah, anti-rabbonim agenda.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.