Stop the Witness Intimidation by Meisels Defenders

Rabbi Daniel Edensohn Daas Torah blog

Daniel Edensohn
Intimidation Enabler

Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn moderates every single comment on his blog, Daas Torah. He approved a comment advocating exposing the identities of two women alleging they were sexually assaulted by Meisels. Moe Ginsburg wrote, “If they are lying in this lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ names should be publicized.” Eidensohn approved it without comment or challenge.

Rabbi Eidensohn, I beseech you! Be a mensch and either delete or challenge this incitement to witness intimidation.

Rabbi Eidensohn, we have our disagreements but threatening to expose the identities of witnesses and plaintiffs is not kosher. Courts and media all conceal the identities of individuals alleging sexual assaults. It is universally understood that even when observers doubt allegations, they let the courts make the determination. Some of the sleaziest tabloids in the world respect this standard. Please rise up to that minimal standard, even if you won’t let go of your “just-a-hug” theory.

Screen capture as of ~9:45 a.m. EST (US) on 12/11/14

Screen capture as of ~9:45 a.m. EST (US) on 12/11/14

UPDATE 12/12/14, 4:35 p.m.-   Eidensohn has another approved comment justifying witness intimidation by exposing their identities. (translation: If they went to civil litigation without proper Jewish law authority, their names should be exposed). In fact they have Jewish law authorization, but Eidensohn and his minions, are also working on delegitimizing the rabbis who support victims.

on Daas Torah (sic) blog as of 12-11-14 ~4:30 pm EST (US)

on Daas Torah (sic) blog as of 12-11-14 ~4:30 pm EST (US)

UPDATE 7:00 p.m. 12-11-14-

submitted to Daas Torah Blog on 12-11-14 ~6:45 p.m., US EST

submitted to Daas Torah Blog on 12-11-14 ~6:45 p.m., US EST



Update 12/12/14- Good News/Bad News

GREAT NEWS- Daniel Eidensohn has finally and directly said: “I of course agree with the standard procedure of not publicizing the names of victims and witnesses.” However he continues to deny any responsibility for letting others suggest outing victims without rebutting them. Still, all in all, it should help the plaintiffs sleep a little better knowing that Eidensohn has now committed himself to not outing victims or colluding in outing them. Even better news is that I believe that I together with many of you commenting got under his skin and forced him to finally say the right thing. Of course he still denies he was hedging till he was forced into a corner.

BAD NEWS- the price of this concession was a full post, “Frum Follies’ lack of integrity in his slanderous claims against me.” (

Gentle (and fierce) readers who comment, do not imagine your reputations are immune from his wrath. According to Eidensohn, “Frum Follies… has started attacking me with… charges that arouse his groupies like sharks smelling blood.” I thought I had a group of smart, opinionated and somewhat querulous temperaments.


129 thoughts on “Stop the Witness Intimidation by Meisels Defenders

  1. Yerachmiel:

    Eidensohn does not have a trace of ethics nor does he have a trace of yiras shomayim. He is nothing but an absolute fraud and a monumental hypocrite who relishes to hurt people. I would use his seforim as toilet paper as the man is a genuine rasha and a despicable piece of shmutz. There was a different Rabbi in the last few years who was brought down but the issue was not assault or rape. Eidensohn was all over him looking for every opportunity to wash the floors with him. Here you have a case involving sexual assault, attempted rape, actual rape and Eidensohn protects the offender Bill Meisels and openly tramples on the Torah saying chibuk venishuk is not a big deal. He is 1)a rasha for being an apikores and 2)a big phony and con artist who bulllys when he stands to gain being used as a stooge. Eidensohn is nothing but a giant fraud!

  2. Yea – I read that comment and Honstys and time and time again these two and a few others (I hope they are just trolls with real psychopathic issues) make me vomit. And the fact that Eidensohn posts those and does not post other legitimate comments or does followed by a response of “you are ignorant” “you are ranting” “you don’t know halacha” is worse than the commenters themselves.
    What Moe Ginsberg is saying is .. all the back and forth all this time was refuting the victims and dismissing their claims .. so we gotta keep up that facade even when there is a legal document filed claiming sexual assault. Oh .. and what is “sexual assault” … Let’s pick that apart why don’t we. Actually the term “sexual assault” in NY penal code does include rape .. But for these lunatics to pick apart the victims and play games of semantics and deny again and again that any of that is victim bashing is enough to make anyone with true compassion for a victim just sick to their stomach.

    • My personal favorite is Eidensohn telling his challengers that “they do not exist” or that they are “martians.” Sounds like a case of schizophrenia to me.

    • And yet more denial. Now they’re saying. “It’s OLD NEWS!! Nothing to see here, folks! Move along!”

      As if that minimizes what was done.

      • SICK! .. First .. for someone who tells YL that he does not get his facts straight or do research before posting .. I like how he is soooo impulsive he posts .. 2 insiders I know confirmed this .. breaking news .. these are the same 2 girls: (of course with his diclaimer that hell actually confirm this genius news or disconfirm it later)

        Which was followed by the genius point that there was just a joint BD that made some sort of decision (we still don’t have details about) .. and NOW these girls sue.

        Um … the lawsuit was brought in October .. way before the joint BD. And the document by the judge was written Nov 6 .. way before the joint BD. The point is actually .. if these are the same 2 girls .. they have stuck to the same story and took it to court all before the joint BD came together. WHAT IS NEWS HERE????

        Can someone please get this man to a Doctor quick … he is suffering from brain damage.

        • Diagnosing him is difficult. When he accuses 7 different people of lying about him, it could be paranoia. When he is convinced every woman seeking a divorce is wrong, it could by misogyny.

          • Rav Eidensohn shlit”a has been strongly, and ongoing, defending a woman against her ex in a major divorce battle in Austria. And there was at least one other I recall previously where he took the (ex-)wife’s side.

            • You are referring to Beth Alexander. I have and continue to give him credit for his active and continuing role in that case. The controversy in that case had nothing to do with the religious divorce. It had to do with custody which arose after the divorce.Still that (and perhaps the one other case, which I also don’t know of) are notable exceptions to his overall pattern of favoring the right of a husband to refuse to give a religious divorce, regardless of circumstances or of orders by a beit din. I do not want to divert off into complex halachic issues relating to religious divorce (gittin) except to say that R. Eidensohn is an extreme outlier, even in comparison to most of those he considers important halachic authorities on other issues,

            • Eidensohn may be defending beth Alexander now.
              However, his position about divorce is that it should not take place, and that women who seek divorce should only obtain it if the husband willingly gives it.
              So if you go back to the situation before the divorce and custody judgement were pronounced in the Schlesinger case: Beth had moved out of the spousal home, she had sole custody of the children, the father had only supervised visits.
              Had Schlesinger refused a get at this point and tried to extort shared or sole custody, visitation time and money, he could have counted on Eidensohn’s support.
              That’s why I cannot understand that Beth Alexander is such a fan of Eidensohn.

            • In theory, you are right. But she is a mother bereft of her children and nothing is more important to her than getting enough time to nurture them and promote their healthy development. In that, Eidensohn has been her strong ally and I commend him for that. It was on his say-so, through private communications, that I also decided to support her efforts.

            • This just confirms YL’s statement that he many times cares about young kids. I don’t think it is because he cares so much for Beth … but that in this case he realizes it is not the father who is the parent who is in the child’s best interest. But there have been other cases, and continues to be .. where if he feels the men are not so bad or not worse than the mother … then he does not give it the same thought. And he is many times bias as soon as he has a personal connection or interest in one side over the other. A person can be great and contribute productively in one aspect of their life or for one case .. but when he acts the opposite .. it is not with subtlety … it is the most outlandish display he can possibly choose. He has no consistency. He actually does demonstrate behavior of someone with some sort of personality disorder.

  3. Can I make a suggestion? Mosey on over and respond — in a nice way, of course — to the comment: “Determining when there’s lying is hard enough, but the suggestion to expose is fundamentally flawed. At the very least it accomplishes little or no good — if the court throws out the case because the witnesses were not found believable, that victory alone should be satisfaction to the defendants. Why be more vengeful than those who suffer from the lies? Why be vengeful at all?”

    • I am not clear about what you are trying to say. If you wish, you can post a new, clearer comment. If you wish I will edit it in to replace the existing one, and note that this was done.

    • I am not clear about what you are trying to say. If you wish, you can post a new, clearer comment. If you wish I will edit it in to replace the existing one, and note that this was done.

        • Triangle is correct.

          Can I make a suggestion? /This is a way of saying the statement that will follow is going to describe something worth a try/

          Mosey /”Mosey” means to move in a leisurely manner. The term was selected for its homespun appeal. By using such language, the writer is trying to strike a calm pose. Think of two people hanging outside the general store in a small town in the Old West. It’s a kind of lazy, easygoing language. The idea is to establish a laid back tone./

          on over /on over to the blog that featured the comment under discussion. The pithy, terse use of language was to minimize discussion so as not escalate the situation. In many ways, commenting can be compared to walking through an emotional minefield. Many commenters shoot from the hip with the proverbial ask questions later, take no prisoners approach. Best to minimize words, thus keeping a low profile/

          and respond /this is a reference to what is worth a try. In this case, it is worth a try to publish a comment to the comment under discussion. /

          — in a nice way, of course — to the comment /this is the writer’s way of emphasizing that even strongly worded polemics should always be cloaked in a way that encourages, not stifles, further discussion/
          /the colon now introduces what form the comment could take/

          “Determining when there’s lying is hard enough, but the suggestion to expose is fundamentally flawed. At the very least it accomplishes little or no good — if the court throws out the case because the witnesses were not found believable, that victory alone should be satisfaction to the defendants. Why be more vengeful than those who suffer from the lies? Why be vengeful at all?” /the quotation marks delineates the suggested form the comment could take/

          In short, I was extending an invitation to sit around the online equivalent of a table in the back of the store by the stove and hash this out over a virtual cup of coffee.

  4. Awful, awful, awful. Now, in addition to leaving that comment alone, he is again attacking the alleged victims. Things like “why didn’t they go to the police?” or “why didn’t the CBD make their case if the allegations are true?.” Yup, anything, anything to deflect from the actual abuse that was alleged, which I think was can all agree is serious. By the way, the moron who made the comment in question also made the genius statement that the accreditation from HTC and Touro would be restored any day now. Anyone willing to take a bet on that?

  5. I feel like commencing a lawsuit against my Bais Yaakov teachers referencing Eidensohn for the quote that I believed of “Lasheker Ayn Raglayim”!
    Forget lawsuit – we should go class action with RICO status!
    I am considering posting where Har Nof Cosby sits every morning shtayging away with a chavrusah.

    • Avid observer, great comment!! I say go for it!! I believe me lopin has names of attorneys who can help. Definitely post where a meisels is hanging out these days. Surely the press would like to get his perspective on the “hugging.”

  6. Eidonsohn has proved himself over and over again that facts don’t matter. He is an enabler for abuse, whether it’s abuse of עגונות, abuse of seminary girls, abuse of rabonim and batei dinim, as long as he can abuse somebody , he’s ok with it.
    For him to allow those comments is something he thrives on. He has absolutely no evidence but will question the CBD who spent months checking into it. He claimed it’s one big conspiracy , that the CBD is doing in order to buy the seminaries cheaply. Anybody who believes that is a משוגנע .
    Don’t expect him to all of a sudden be a mensch now.
    He has such a low self esteem that he has to make fun of גדולים in order to boost himself. His whole site is about himself, not about victims. Anybody by him is a target if it boosts his ego.
    Sorry YL, I doubt you will change him now. This is like adding gas to a fire, he gets his daily kick out of hurting and intimating people.

  7. Yerachmiel,

    As you know, I have been a vocal and fierce critic of the IBD as well as a staunch supporter of the victims and the CBD. But I feel deeply confused and even betrayed by the CBD’s incredibly obtuse alleged “resolution” of these issues. I had thought the CBD was finally an honest, fearless, and courageously clear and resolute bais din.
    They have shattered my faith in them.

    Why has the CBD let doubt, skepticism and rationalization reign post the 7 dayan joint bais din? Were they intimidated? Did they change their minds in any way about the validity of the very horrifying accusations they had previously trumpeted?

    At the very least, I hold the CBD responsible for their confounding refusal to state explicitly in their decision with the joint bais din what their conclusions about the allegations they previously supported are. Through their obtuse and irresponsible wording, the CBD invites all these continuing attacks on the victims Very disappointed. AGAIN for the umpteenth time.

    I have witnessed lack of transparency and often a complete lack of integrity in the entire bais din “system”, usually irregardless of who the bais is made up of. As far as I am concerned, all regular and set batei dinim have a assumed chezkatat of traifut based the.sordid dealings of this alleged “system” over the last half century or more.

    Bottom line Yerachmiel, if you can help me undertsand what looks to be the terribly obtuse concluding statement of the CBD as part of the joint bais din (at least that part that was released to the public), I would be very grateful. I would like my faith in the CBD’s clarity, forthrightness, integrity and courage to be restored.

    • I am disappointed but please keep a few things in mind.

      1. The final statement of the joint beis din is still in flux and new evidence is still being considered by them. Eidensohn together with his cronies (probably Malinowitz and DE’s nephew) selectively leaked the part that would make them look good.
      2. The fact that Touro is now an arbiter changes the equation and shifts the balance of power to them. They control the accreditation and they are on the line if the sems are in violation of Title IX re sexual violence and harassment. Touro has still not restored accreditation because it has unmet demands.

      3. The frum world, even the CBD at its best has a strong bias to protecting institutions and jobs. Throughout the goal has been to find a way to do this. The CBD would have kept Meisels infractions quiet if he had totally dissociated and divested control of the seminaries. But Meisels did an end-run and got the IBD to function on his behalf. Meisels has himself to blame for the public exposure in spite of the frum world’s reticence to publicly name abusers, especially rabbis from prominent families who control institutions.

      The statements that Eidensohn put up as the last page of the ruling and the endorsement from the rabbis are attempts to force the hand of Touro. It may not work. It is a game of chicken to see who will be first to swerve off the road before a collision. Neither wants the seminary to close but each is convinced it can get the other to swerve first. But the outcome cannot be delayed much longer. Either accreditation will be restored or the seminary will end its recruitment season some time in January without enough students. So stay tuned and expect the dramatics to rise a few octaves in shrillness as we get closer. While Touro does not want to be blamed for the closure of the seminary, I think it can deal with the fallout, however unpleasant. the seminary business and job interests cannot afford for them to close.

      • Touro’s legal counsel will not allow them to give accreditation unless they are comfortable that they are legally protected from lawsuits about the staff. Good news for those who want to see the seminaries closed. Touro doesn’t need the taint or the headlines.

        • Avid Observer, I hope you are right about Touro not giving accredation. In my opinion it would definitely smear their image to be associated with those sems even if meisels was no longer there, because of the staff. They knew and did nothing – they covered up for Meisels. Touro will not be respected in the non frum world (many of it’s students and tuition revenues come from non jews) if they keep their association with sems where abuse occurred and was tolerated.

          • Maybe “The Jewish Week” could highlight Touro’s pivotal role in the next stage of this scandal with a follow-up article about the legal and public relations risks of reinstating accreditation in light of Title IX. Such an article would put a lot of pressure on Touro to do the right thing and not reinstate accreditation.

    • I too am very disappointed in the CBD. I have utmost respect for Rav G. Schwartz. And I understood that they did not want to publicize the shmutz. However, we have Rabbi Furst saying that Meisels did “kol davar assur.” We are now hearing that it was a hug. [I deliberately did not write “only a hug.”] We need some clear facts. Because in the end of the day a hug as terrible as it is, is not “kol davar assur.” Attempting to hug the girl in his office and the car is not attempted rape. I call upon the CBD to come clear. Presently the CBD appears to have put its foot in its mouth. They seem to have made preposterous claims against EM and backed off. At this point it seems that the IBD has been vindicated.

      • Which seems more likely? A- the claims were always true and never preposterous, but the CBD eventually caved in to some very powerful pressure to kasher the sems, or B- the CBD invented or exaggerated claims for unknown reasons, even though it is the knee-jerk reaction of most frum organizations and batei din to suppress claims of molestation. Also, what about Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 lawsuit against Meisels and Peninim? Does entering in to a lawsuit such as this indicate to you that these young women were lying/exaggerating all along?

        • Exactly. I also want to point out that the joint beis din statement said absolutely nothing about Meisels. It only talked about things going forward. Somehow, the Meisels defenders are saying that that declaring the sems safe today (an arguable point) is the very same thing as saying that Meisels didn’t really do that much wrong. However, the two things have nothing to do with each other. Nothing at all.

          In other words, the seminary defenders should be arguing that even if Meisels committed rape, that they got rid of him and did everything imaginable to make sure that the seminaries are safe. Instead, they are circling the wagons and making the crazy argument that not only are the sems safe, but ALSO Meisels didn’t really do anything close to rape. What emerges is that they’re not really defending the sems, but rather Meisels himself. Now, who would do that except for friends/family, or even Meisels himself?

          • Staff are defending Meisels for many reasons but most significantly because if it was this “only a hug” garabage, then in their twisted universe, the staff didnt fail to protect students. Whereas if there was a years-longs pattern of rape, attempted rape, and other forms of sexual assault, what the hell were the “wonderful, holy, Torah loving” staff doing to protect students from the sociopathic monster in chief named Meisels?

        • Sheri,

          You ask which is more likely, that the CBD caved to pressure or that they exagerated claims in the first place? I think your questions are essential for all klal yisroel to know the answer to.

          But I BLAME THE CBD for putting us in the position of now having to conjecture about the nature of the sexual assault when they orginally trumpeted as fact that it was “kol dvar assur”. do they still believe that to be the case? Why wont they state their opinion forthrightly? If they changed their minds, they should have the courage and integrity to say so. And if they didnt change their minds, they have a sacred obligation to make known the seriousness of the facts of the abuse as they understand them to be in clear unflinching language that need NOT be graphic.

          The CBD’s most fundamental obligafion — if they still believe the allegations that they previoisly stood by to be true — is to NOT leave the door open by their lack of forthrightness to the rationalizers and disingenuos skeptics to attack the honesty of the victims.

          As furious I was at be IBD’s less-than-one-day farce of an “investiagtion” (without interviewing a single victim) before kashering the schools, I am now painfully disappointed in the CBD’s obtuse, even mysterious non-conclusion of a matter where clarity is essential.

          This tragic episode is now a tragic public specticle. For all of us, and especially for past, present, and future victims of abuse, rachman letzlan, courage and clarity are critical. It seems that, as of now, and equally tragicallly, not one of the official rabbinical figures involved has fully dedicated himself to the morally compelling goals of insuring students’ and childrens’ safety from the threat of abuse and honoring justice for victims.

          • Do you think it likely that the members of the CBD were themselves threatened into silence after their original announcement? I always wondered why R. Yaakov Horowitz, who seemed like such a great advocate for child SA victims, stopped short of supporting the Markey bill. What happened there? It seems even the best charedi supporters of this cause are prevented from going the distance, possibly by powerful outside forces.

            • Sheri,

              I do believe that powerful individual and institutional forces most often succesfully intimidate alleged “rabbinical leaders” from properly safeguarding from sexual predators the pure neshamot of Jewish children.

              But I can’t help but wonder how 19 year old Israeli boys can face Hamas, Hezbellah, et al. in hand to hand combat and explosive laden tunnels all for the sake of protecting their countrymen while most of our alleged “rabbinical leaders” are shamefully inedequate as communal guardians due to political and financial threats and intimidation by their peers, financial supporters, and congregants.

              How can rabbis as “leaders” not feel unequivocally compelled to risk themselves to protect from sexual predators our Jewsih children, to safeguard the lives, sanity and sanctity of the next generation of Klal Yisroel?

      • rape is alleged in the lawsuit. The Jewish article was not describing rape in the car. It was describing a different episode. I am not sure why you are conflating the two. Rape definitely qualifies as kol davar assur (every forbidden thing). I too wish the CBD would have said more. The problem is the norms of the haredi world. Keep in mind that what the CBD said publicly is way more than almost any other beis din has ever said publicly.

        jewinJerusalem, if you have any familiarity with the haredi world you know perfectly well that these things are always cloaked in euphemism. if you have any familiarity with abuse in the frum world, you would know that the culprits always exploit those ambiguities to profess their innocence or minimize their guilt. Since I believe you have such familiarity from your use of the phrase kol davar assur, I suspect either deep naivite or disinegnuousness.

          • You are correct that Rabbi Schwartz is associated primarily with modern orthodox institutions such as YU, the Rabbinical Council of America and their Beth Din of America (BDA) where he was the Av Beth Din. However, he is one vote. The other two votes belong to Haredi rabbis If they are to work together as a group, especially under external pressure, he could not split ranks with his Haredi colleagues who were getting the pressure.

            • Rabbi Schwartz voted together with the other members of the B”D, making it unanimous. So your above point does not hold unless you think R. Schwartz buckles under Chareidi pressure to vote the wrong way.

            • you are setting up a false and misleading dichotomy. He did not buckle. But it is standard for minority votes to back the majority decision. In this battei din are different from the US Supreme Court where the majority rules but the minority openly expresses its dissent.

            • Yerachmiel,

              If all or most battei dinim are set up that minority opinions cannot express themselves but are forced to pretend to support the majority to create a false apprearance of unanimity , then that does probably explain the CBD’s obtuse concluding statements as released to the public so far as part of the joint bais din.

              But my moral revulsion at the standard and “chelm”-like bais sheker system remains. What kind of decent honest alleged system of “justice” forces minority opinions to mantain. a farce of a facde of unanimity?! A stupid, unenlightened system is the correct answer.

              As shameful and sad as it is, the US system of allowing minority judicial dissent is far more in accord with the Torah principle of “m’dvar sheker tir’chak” (from a false thing you should distance yourself).and “tzedek, tzedek tir’dofe” (justice, justice you shall pursue).

        • I am heavily involved in the charedi world. I’m not naive. Of course euphemisms are used. But now we’re beyond that. A hug is not rape. CBD made very serious claims. It looks like they made a mountain from a molehill. Convince us.

          • You are demanding pornographic details. The CBD spoke of sexual violence, unwanted touch of a sexual nature and nobody has ever put their name to paper from the other side saying otherwise. Shtika kihodoah (silence is an admission). The Jewish reports on a description of a victim who was forcibly pinned and held around her body (not just a hug). She had to scratch him to get away. The lawsuit by TWO plaintiffs uses the words rape and attempted rape. Are you disgusting enough to want pictures. There are adult porn sites for people like you. But do us a favor and get out of ir hakodesh.

      • Jewinjerusalem,

        While I agree the CBD.has so far failed in its obligation to be unflinchingly clear in its conclusions post the 7dayan joint bais din, this does not even remotely vindicate the IBD, as you suggest.

        Fact: The IBD kashered the seminaries and their enabling, victim-attacking staff after a less than 1 day joke of an investigation, without interviewing a single victim and while, one of their 3 dyanim (Malinowitz) was siting shiva in America. There is more rigourously staged theatrical justice in Iran than this grade school spectacle the IBD attempted to.float. What a pathetic farce the IBD is, regardles of outcome.

        • I fully agree that the IBD has acted irresponsibly. But no one has any idea what Meisels actually did. Of course it’s better we not know. But, this has gotten too big. We NEED to know. Was it rape? Attemted rape? Many incidents of hugs? One incident of a hug? Yichud? Most people have lost faith in the CBD. There is no faith in the IBD at all. But if CBD messed up, then maybe the IDB wasn’t so wrong.

          • Meisels is being sued for “sexual harassment and sexual assault.” According to, “Sexual assault: unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape. This includes sexual touching and fondling. (But, be aware: Some states use this term interchangeably with rape.)” I believe that in NY (where the federal suit is filed), rape is used interchangeably with sexual assault. (

            Hope that answers your question.

            • In NY State “sexual assault” is the legal term always used and under it are various categories of that sexual assault … not limited to rape but inclusive of rape. It includes rape in various degrees as well as sexual abuse in various degrees. It also includes “criminal sexual ACTS” .. which in and of itself involves sexual acts not limited to but inclusive of penetration in other areas of the body.

              In short. “Sexual Assault” under the NY penal code is the vague term used that includes all these various more specific criminal offenses .. all felonies.

            • Your point is correct about NYS and many other states. The technical terms are usually sexual assault of the 1st degree, etc and dozens of others depending on all sorts of details. Rape is avoided as a term in legal discussions.

              BTW, the case is in the Federal court system. The judge ruling on the case happens to be in Brooklyn, but it is being tried under Federal law in federal courts, not under NYS law in NYS courts.

            • Ultimately, we are all speculating about what the complaint alleges and what causes of action it advances. So long as it remains sealed we cannot really know what it states, what terms it uses, and what body of law (federal, state, Israel, civil, criminal, etc.) it will be considered under. The ruling published on DT deals only with the fact that it is sealed, and does not shed much light on the substance.

            • Actually, it is clearly about clear allegations of serious sexual assault, just none of the pornographic details that folks want that are none of their business.

      • “Attempting to hug the girl in his office and the car is not attempted rape.”

        But pinning her down in the car, is a sexual assault and could very likely lead to a rape attempt, despite what the Blot Torah Blog may claim. For what other reason would a sexual predator pin down a woman against her will? The accuser described having to scratch Measles to get away from him after he was pinning her down. Do you acknowledge that that act is different than a hug? It’s not too far from rape to a sane person because why would a man pin down a woman on the seat of a car? Do the math.

        At the same time, I agree that there should be clarification about what happened and let’s see who is lying and obfuscating. The CBD is allowing its credibility to be pummeled by the IBD and its Blot Torah Blog mouthpiece by not clarifying. Then again, a special beit din with a judge who defended notorious molesters in the past, kind of lacks credibility from the outset, doesn’t it? This is why it shouldn’t shock me to see them cave in.

  8. I’m obviously not getting something. The part quoted in the first paragraph says that if someone (the plaintiff) is lying, then they should be exposed. Who can argue with that? If he’s assuming that the victims are lying then he or someone needs to prove that. And if they are lying, of course they should be exposed, like in the Virginia U. rape case that was a lie, and the Duke U. rape accusations that were also lies. Those victims (who were not victims at all, but rather criminals) could have ruined the lives of those they falsely accused.
    The seminary victims seem to be much different and I have no reason to think that they lied. However, accusing someone of sexual molestation when it was really a hug is also a lie. It is legally defined as sexual harassment, though, which is its own offense.

    • The Virgina U rape case has not only not been proven a lie (Rolling Stone only admitted the mistake was theirs not interviewing the alleged rapist and the mistake is not on the alleged victim who could very well not have all her memories correct)
      The school still refuses to reinstate the fraternity. And even if her case does officially turn out to be a lie .. the school has acknowledged that through this case they have become painfully aware of a “culture” of rape on their campus and want to put practice into place to both prevent this culture and protect the victims if it occurs.
      The school is doing EVERYTHING that these seminaries have not done and should be seen as a model of how to follow up with such allegations.
      And it was NOT only a hug. I am so sick and tired of even seeing those words together.

      Back to your initial point. In our religion we have a culture as well. Our culture is to believe the perpetrator is telling the truth and believe that the victim is telling a lie. This backwards culture is many times justified with the statements you have made “what if it is false and can hurt the alleged perpetrator” – to that I say “What if it is true, and by being dismissive, not only are we hurting the alleged victims in the current case, but we are setting up a system that will make any future victims afraid to come forward”. This is actually statistically documented by the underreporting of rape and abuse in part because the victim has the feeling “who will believe me”.

      In addition we have those who justify the dismissal of such cases with the term “moser” … and furthermore and a constant on the DT blog … well .. does it actually deserve jail (halachicly or not)? Followed by .. “why did the victim not go to police”? Along with “she was a troubled girl” .. which is the equivalent to general society’s very well known “did you see what she was wearing .. she was practically throwing herself at him or asking for it”. That aforementioned piece also plays very well into the hands of typical perpetrators and abusers who deliberately go after the weak and vulnerable girl or child who subsequently then may or may not be termed “troubled” by everyone else after the fact.

      In our religious culture .. the victim always loses whether the victim is truthful or not.

      • Fortune, great comment! Victims of sexual harrassment or abuse are commonly terrified of coming forward because of repercussions such as being maligned and disbelieved. The frum world will never be cleaned up and safe if victims are disgraced and intimidated.

      • Fortune, I agree with your points in response to my post until you just took off on a fantasy and created a strawman that I never said.

        >” This backwards culture is many times justified with the statements you have made “what if it is false and can hurt the alleged perpetrator” – to that I say “What if it is true,….”

        Say hello up there to Peter Pan. I simply said that if it is false then the lying accuser should be called out. Does any sane person disagree with that? I think not. Then you responded with your “What if…” To that I say, I agree. PERIOD.

        But that has nothing to do with what I said, which is IF THEY ARE LYING. If we know someone is lying then there is no room for “what if they aren’t lying”. If they aren’t lying then they are not part of the scenario that I was discussing, which, again, is in a case where they are not telling the truth.

        Since you and so many others know what happened here. I don’t. Hence, the first sentence that I wrote. I was responding to a specific statement that presented a specific scenario; i.e. in which the accuser is lying. If that is clearly not the scenario in this latest rabbinical-molestation case, but rather the facts are in question, so we don’t know who is lying, then please feel free to tell me without the need to pontificate. I’ll still understand.

        Regarding the rest of what you wrote, I lost patience. I’m sure your further points are valid and to the point.

        • You said “I said, which is IF THEY ARE LYING.”
          and I said “WHAT IF IT IS FALSE”

          If you can’t see how that is the same thing said two different ways that is your problem, not mine.
          That being said .. there is a big difference between “If they are Lying….” and “If WE KNOW they are lying…”
          My whole point was based on the premise that too many in our culture automatically believe the victim is lying and the perpetrator is telling the truth … it is not based on whether the victim is in actuality lying.
          Of course you stated you lost patience with the rest of my post .. so if you do not read a whole comment in context, your complaint that I am somehow responding in fantasy is moot. Next time try to read and comprehend in entirety.

          All that being said .. part of the problem is the constant “suggestion” that a victim “could be lying” “what if the victim is lying” Your comment did just that and it constantly discredits victims whether they are lying or not.

    • We are talking about the identity of the victim. Moe and Eidensohn are talking about exposing their names. It is a ploy to intimidate them out of proceeding to trial by stripping them of their privacy. Please tell me Brent that if you knew their names you wouldn’t rely on your imperfect knowledge to decide they were lying and then exposing their names. that is the function of a trial. It is against the law to expose the name of a jane Doe sex abuse plaintiff or accuser. I need your prompt assurance that you respect that understanding if you want to keep commenting here. That is non-negotiable. Any insinuations of approval of witness intimidation is a severe violation of commenting rules. Please do not ever suggest it or casually muddy your expression to imply it. Capiche!

    • We are talking about the identity of the victim. Moe and Eidensohn are talking about exposing their names. It is a ploy to intimidate them out of proceeding to trial by stripping them of their privacy. Please tell me Brent that if you knew their names you wouldn’t rely on your imperfect knowledge to decide they were lying and then exposing their names. that is the function of a trial. It is against the law to expose the name of a jane Doe sex abuse plaintiff or accuser. I need your prompt assurance that you respect that understanding if you want to keep commenting here. That is non-negotiable. Any insinuations of approval of witness intimidation is a severe violation of commenting rules. Please do not ever suggest it or casually muddy your expression to imply it. Capiche!

      • I don’t respect intimidation of witnesses, plaintiffs, or defendants, or revealing names that are not permitted to be revealed (halachically, or legally). Whatever the law is, it should proceed accordingly.
        However, the fact that you demand my agreement to something before I’m allowed to comment here makes you seem creepy and controlling. I’ll pass on your permission to express an opinion, since I never gave any reason for you to infer that I said anything to the contrary.
        I really must have stumbled down a rabbit hole here. Sorry for interrupting.

        • When you comment here it is on the conditions laid out which can be read by going to the URL which appears above the comment entry box. It includes not outing victims. Some commenting violations can be gently chastised. A revealed identity cannot be undone. I need to be absolutely certain that you understand that since an earlier comment by you was decidedly ambiguous.

  9. I just wandered over to the No Daas and No Torah dump site to see the cause of all the commotion here on FF.

    How (and why) the heck do you people read all that mental diarrhea escaping the keyboards of Eidontknownothingson’s pitiful followers?

    I’m beginning to agree with certain tigh fitting black hatted wearing people addressing the Agudahs (an Ever Shrinking Part of Klal) Yisroel – The blogs are giving a podium for know nothings to run their foul mouths against everything kadosh.

    Congratulations, Mrs. Eidenson. One sone promoting igun bnos yisroel and the other promoting the sexual abuse of bais yaakov maidloch. You must be so proud.

    • David and Daniel are BTs. Don’t blame mom; she didn’t plan for this outcome. I also get the impression neither has a better half Mrs. Eidensohn. Perhaps they also dislike the mom Mrs. Eidensohn. Hence, I suspect, the misogyny re gittin and Daniel’s lack of empathy when it comes to adult female sex abuse victims. He can only be sympathetic enough to females when they are young victims and not threatening.

  10. UPDATE 12/12/14, 4:35 p.m.- Eidensohn has another approved comment justifying witness intimidation by exposing their identities. (translation: If they went to civil litigation without proper Jewish law authority, their names should be exposed). In fact they have Jewish law authorization, but Eidensohn and his minions, are also working on delegitimizing the rabbis who support victims. see an image of the new threat at the bottom of the post where it was just added.

    • Yeah .. Moe is on fire … and I can equally ask … and what do we do to Meisels who went against halacha?
      Oh .. but the fact that meisels went against Halacha does not allow for harassment of him .. which no one is even doing … but lets harass the girl who went to arakos “possibly” against halacha (and yes I realize they actually did have halachic authority to do so as did the parents who filed the case for their tuition money refund .. and of course they are being harassed and demeaned as well)

      • To those morons, Rabbi Fuerst, Shlita, Av Beis Din of the Agudah, doesn’t count as having a rabbinic endorsement to go to Arka’os.

      • Eidensohn is orchestrating a concerto whose crescendo will be the naming of victims. He puts out the lawsuit and alleges lies. He lets commenters get into rage and then lets another commenter say, well we get to excecute punishment of outing them. He allows another section of the orchestra to proclaim arcaos, then he allows soloist Moe come back with another excuse for outing the victims. Eidensohn is a Maestro of orchestrated victim intimidation.

    • And it is also amusing when the same man who questions why the girls never went to police (which would have set off a case in secular court initially) … begs the question .. who told these girls they could go to secular court. (I am Eidensohn and all of you are ignorant of the halacha besides me …. the halacha is .. they could only go to secular court if there is a 100% chance they are found to be liars … but since I secretly know they are probably telling the truth and I want to protect my ego and my story I have been stickin with … the halacha is they are not allowed to go to secular court)

  11. How typical- Eidensohn won’t let me comment on his post. Ridiculous man..

    And I agree that we (including me) should stay away from commenting there. It just girls the fire. If u leave it alone, ppl don’t care/ pay attention…

  12. Eidensohn picks which Halacha he wants to follow. When Weiss took dodelson to court , he had no problem with that. After all, it was a case of a man taking his wife to court and suing for alimony and not the opposite. He also supports the infamous beis din in monsey that doesn’t follow Halacha but will advise husbands not to give a get and allow the man to remarry without a heter מאה רבנים.
    Don’t expect Danny and his brother Dave to ever say I’m sorry I made a mistake .

    • please dont conflate Doddleson with this case. While Eidesohn is clearly an out of control enabler, Doddleson is is no innocent victim. She is an extraordinarily manipulative, selfish and vindictive person. She unlawfully removed her child from the marital home and wouldn’t the father see his son. Even when forced to allow tbe father visotation only by court order, Doddlesohn tried to put all sorts of petty and vindictive constrains on the father’s time with his son.

    • Asher Weiss is a great talmid chochom. However the so called vaad merely agreed to answer shailos. The statement is a glowing endorsement in generalities which they say is based on a tentative document handed to them. This is like the heimish hashgachos layered on top of the OU, where the OU does the work, but the public buys the result. This letter is so absurdly glowing that you are told all the students produced by the sem are great Really? Never met any school with thousands of students where the results were 100%. sorry, but there is not a shred of proof that this is any different from haskomos on books which are given by respected rabbis who never even clearly indicate that they have read the sefer.

  13. Why concern yourselves with the likes of Eidensohn when two batei din convened together to deal with this case. Does he thinks he is ABOVE these to batei din and the Rabbonim involved? Does anyone who finds their way unto his blog believe they are more qualified than those involved in these two batei Din and the conclusions they came to? This is almost funny and a waste of time. It should be noted that if anyone even bothers to go to his blog and discuss this after these two batei din made mincemeat out of Meisels and those who covered up for him, then they must be molesters themselves. What other conclusions can one come to?

    • Warning to Eidensohn: you might want to check with a good lawyer before you come close to leaking names of any of the victims. Do you really want to be sued yourself?? After this I think we all need a break from Eidonsohn. He is clearly a nobody and no one cares what he thinks. I say stay away from his website and don’t give it credence by arguing with him. Let him go down in history as the man who endorsed “hugs” by black hat hareidi rabbis purporting to “teach and counsel” bais yaakov girls . . . .

  14. YL – his response to you is a continuation of his need to disparage and demean while it also follows the culture I just mentioned. You asked him a simple yes or no question to which he could have responded like a mentch .. no I do not advocate publicizing names. (of course we can argue how honest he is when he says he does not endorse each comment .. that would seem more truthful from someone who allows every comment through or at least every comment that takes a position without attacks and ad hominems … but we all know there are comments that are simply not too his liking, simply because they make him face the truth of his dishonesty) He chose to make a dig at Truthseeker which had nothing to do with your initial question.
    Furthermore …his focus on what we can do or what the court can do if the girls are found to be lying with his incessant …. but what IF… is a ridiculous statement to make when it has already been established that Meisels admitted guilt to “Sexual Violence” … of course the statement is made by him and his henchemen because they choose to accuse the beis din of lying just as they do the victims. You are going in circles with him.

    • He clearly never spoke to any of the victims, or any of the people who know them. That much is obvious.

      • He even responded to Dave that Meisels admitted guilt but then a bais din said the seminaries are ok. He is deliberately choosing to take two separate aspects of this case and constantly set them together to attempt to confuse and throw off those who point fingers at him. The beis din to which he refers was obviously set up to make a decision as to the operation of the seminary not as to Meisels guilt. If he can say to Dave that Meisels admitted his guilt then how can he also bother to question the “what IF the girls are lying”. They ARE NOT .. because even he said Meisels admitted to his guilt. he is such a contradiction of his own words time and time again .. I don’t even think he knows how transparent he has become.

        • I think what underlies all of this is that the actual infractions are being kept hidden (for whatever number of reasons having to do with charedi cultural norms, the way a beit din operates, to avoid sowing panic in the community over the specific deeds etc.) Mostly to make sure the seminaries don’t go bankrupt and close up shop. (why? We can’t have other seminaries which protect its students instead?) As such, it seems to me that RDE has taken it upon himself to take up the cause of making absolutely sure that none of the deeds except the most minimal are revealed to the public. In order to do so, he must insist there is no PROOF of anything beyond a hug. In order to do so, he must insinuate that Meisels only admitted to an improper hug or hugs (which may have been mutual, may have not, in the world of Blot Torah) and suggest that accusations beyond that lack PROOF or EVIDENCE because Meisels, the sexual predator, mind you, has not admitted to them. So anything else a victim claims is not evidenced and is not proven in the world of Blot Torah. They can be believed about hugs, but not about anything more. On anything more, we take the word of the sexual predator as the truth and gold standard. Flies in the face of everything in RDE’s book on abuse, no?

          But part of keeping the infractions hidden is about keeping the institutions running and keeping the parnassa for its many workers who were supposed to be safeguarding our young women. They are too good for a job like stocking shelves at Walmart, they must be entrusted with our young women’s lives and entrusted to teach and protect them despite having failed miserably to do so because, by golly, it’s a great tragedy if someone loses parnassa or the prestige associated with it. And those in “Chinnuch” cannot be removed from there because they were anointed as such by the established hierarchy of our great society and challenging the authority of that hierarchy means the whole system could crumble chas veshalom! Afterall, these people have yichus and perhaps many of them come from prominent rabbinic families with connections. So how dare we interfere with this great edifice of nepotism?

          Although we have indications from Lopin and the CBD that Measles admitted to far more and worse things than a hug, that implication – that he only confessed to hugging and therefore anything else lacks proof or evidence no matter how many victims claim it – seems to be underlying all of RDE’s posts and comments.

          • Eidensohn has used many terms over the course of the past few months .. he even used “sexual transgressions”. I fail to see how any educated, rational person could place a “hug” under the term “sexual transgressions”. They are not one in the same. He can’t seem to get straight exactly what he would like to have us believe .. or what his followers and Meisels apologists should believe. One of his biggest contributors .. someone who likes kishke a lot .. keeps referring to it .. not even as a hug .. but as “negiah” .. as if he just simply placed his hand on a girls shoulder or brushed her hand with his .. because I would certainly say that even a hug is more than negiah. All of this obviously predisposes the idea that someone with the caliber of Rabbi Schwartz’s who has been av beis din and an established member of OU and RCA and CRC and has not to my knowledge or anyone elses ever had accusation of corruption in all his years .. must be either lying or exaggerating when he refers to it as “sexual violence”. The extent of their audacity and insults has reached a record. Their lies about what Rabbi Fuerst has stated is an abomination. Rabbi Fuerst never stated 40 girls were raped. He said after the initial girls came forward … many girls were calling in with their stories of impropriety and improper behavior and things they were subjected to that crossed boundaries and those girls made up over 30 more girls. But over months of blogging … the DT blog has become nothing but a childish broken telephone game .. widening goal posts … layering new accusations at the CBD and whitewashing from sexual transgression .. to a hug .. to negiah …. next they will say he accidentally tripped into one girls lap. It was shogeg, nothing more. And all this while being dismissive of victims and refusing to accept that a school full of staff are not at all culpable. You can’t make this stuff up. It would make a most fascinating novel … except that it is real and real people have and continue to be hurt.

            • Actually I am waiting for someone to claim he was trying to avoid being what the talmud refers to as chosid shoteh (pious fool). Its prototype is as a man whose excessive concern for modesty leads his to not jump into the water to save a drowning woman. If this trend gets any worse they will claim Meisels jumped into the water to save a drowning student. Because she was now shivering he held her against his body to warm her up and keep her from going into shock. Such a tzadik he was, willing to risk being suspected to save a life. #Sarcasm

      • He considers it rude to be expected to answer important questions he is evading. Pressed hard enough he usually either lashes out with off-topic insults or just censors. He has a problem with direct dialog WHEN THE HEAT BUILDS UP.

  15. Check out Eidensohn’s new post. This is what I wrote to him (he prob won’t approve it):
    He writes- “I of course agree with the standard procedure of not publicizing the names of victims and witnesses.”

    I write: Eidensohn, what kind of lies are u spewing now? You purposely let ppl expose my identity (my initials, saying I was a triplet etc) and allowed those comments thru without blinking an eye back in Aug. Ur ridiculous. U care abt none if the victims/ witnesses. Only about ur own Kavod.

    • Eidensohn seems to be having a nervous breakdown . He can’t anymore answer questions directed at him with a yes or no. It’s to much to ask anymore. Nebach, the slander against him makes me cry. If only he wouldn’t block my posts on his site, I would be able to give him some chizuk. Well Danny , you reap what you sow. You have hurt many people by your wild accusations, conspiracies ,by leaking private information, by bullying people on your site. You always wanted to be famous, well thanks to this blog you are. So you should be thanking YL and the commentators. In matter of fact, I feel you owe him הכרת הטוב. Where else can you get free publicity ?!
      How does it feel not to be invited to a child abuse forum?
      Do you still feel you have to make fun of any Rov that you disagree with even though you don’t come near to them in greatness. You are so worried about your honour but aren’t willing to honour people who you disagree with.
      Why didn’t your brother Dave announce to world that the get is pasul like he said he would!
      Both you and your brother have lost any influence you could have had, but instead of admitting your faults, you blame it on YL. Time to man up!

      • “How does it feel not to be invited to a child abuse forum?”

        Lol even worse- he was UN-invited to the event. Not just not invited. Oh, and don’t forget the fact that he insists I should perfusly apologize to a girl who harassed me.

    • Well he is so proud that he lets “some” of the comments in by “infantile” truthseeker … hmmm … The dude has lost his marbles. He is practically laying on a floor right now slamming his fists and kicking his legs .. crying waaaaa …. Lopin wont go quietly … waaa … Lopins commenters “slander” me … waaaaa ….. “I’m just gonna keep trying every angle to get everyone to love me…”
      Yep Narcissistic Personality Disorder

      • Or maybe the growing realization that the only place Eidensohn’s opinions have any validity is the echo-chamber that is his blog, and the two or three sycophants/Meisels employees/friends/family. Talk to anyone else in the broader world, and you will hear shock and disgust. (I cannot speak about NY, that’s a whole other animal) but out here in the real world, Eidensohn is a yachid she’b’yichidim.

    • [I previously commented under my Discus identity, “Kevin in Chicago.” Apparently, a Discus identity is no longer accepted, so I am using my WordPress identity, “freshwatersnark.”] TruthSeeker — I respect what you have to say, but your postings would be more credible if you spelled out texting abbreviations such as “ppl,” “u,” “prob,” etc. I suspect I’m not the only “alter kocker” here with the prejudice that proper spelling implies conscientiousness, and improper spelling implies slovenliness unworthy of a ben/bat Torah.

      • I really think this comment of yours only does a disservice to someone who has tirelessly stuck to her guns and prevailed on behalf of the victims. You are an alter kacher. I don’t know how old you actually are, but using “abbreviation” is not the same as spelling improperly. And that is exactly what it is .. it is “today’s” version of shorthand. It comes with the new age technology, such as texting and private messaging and tweeting and facebook statusing to which alter kachers are not as adept. I really think it would be a good idea to focus on the content of her material, not whether she chooses short hand over long and amongst her continuous posts.

        • I get that people of the texting era have their own standards. Because smart phone keyboards are clumsy, the tolerance for errors has also risen. I speak as someone of the older generation who has become, if you will, bilingual. However, the audience for these comments includes many of the older generation starting with the parents of girls who are right now making decisions about where to apply for seminary for 2015-2016. It is always a good idea to communicate well to the widest possible audience. Freshwatersnar (aka Kevin in Chicago) is a stallwart supporter of abuse victims including Truthseeker, and has written guest posts on Frum Follies about both the Meisels case and about other trials and cases.

          I am noticing some people getting testy and triggered. There are many sly, nasty comments coming from the other side. Don’t fall into the trap of overreacting, especially not when some legitimate criticism comes from our own supporters. The comments section on Eidensohns Daas Torah blog has turned into an ugly cesspool where legitimate critics are abused. Let’s show undecided readers that we are rational, reasonable advocates for student safety.

      • Hi Kevin. What u could have said was “we prefer you to use non-abbreviated terms so we can understand you better.” But you didn’t. You included an insult at the end.

        I happen to be what you call a “grammar nazi” and hate when people spell/ speak incorrectly. My friends know me for that. With that being said, I will continue speaking in abbreviations. This is extremely normal for people to do nowadays (even respectable people while texting) and shows no lack of control of the Engkish language. Like Fortune said, I think your comments need to stay on track. Your comment was a bit needless and off-topic.

        • Truthseeker and freshwatersnark (aka Kevin in Chicago). You are both worthy stalwarts in the war against abuse in general and in the Meisels case. Each of you has contributed outstanding guest posts to Frum Follies. I hate the thought of either of you being attacked or feeling like they are being attacked by the other. Being right is not enough in dealing with others. Civility and working well together is equally important.

          For what it is worth, I feel we should avoid losing an audience, even one with a different communication style. One can be right about grammar or about contemporary communication norms and still in error about the best way to reach the broadest audience. ’nuff said!

          ’nuff said!

  16. To parallel the comment I left on DT’s latest post:

    Yerachmiel, I admire much of your writing and believe that by pushing certain abhorrent episodes into the public light you have done a great service for our community. I also admire much of Rabbi Eidensohn’s past writing -and of course the Yad Moshe- though I disagree with him on the seminaries issue. He has also done great service for the community. Similarly, With both blogs, the comments range from insightful to nonsensical to malicious and nasty lies – and that is to be expected.

    (Personally, at this point I agree with one of Harry Maryles’s comments, that I do not understand how certain respected rabbanim reached their conclusions in the seminaries case.)

    My point in commenting is this: I wish you and DT would stop the petty personal sniping. For the good of our community. To stop it from obscuring all the good work each of you has done. Who was the first to accidentally misquote or to take something out of context, I do not know. But I sincerely hope tonight is the last round.

    • Nothing would please me more than to have disagreements be substantive and respectful. We functioned with each other as colleagues for around 4 years, until some point into the Meisels matter. In fact, during the early phase of our disagreement, I sent him several long, private gracious messages. I am not interested in mudslinging. But in this case, for example, I felt it imperative to have him affirm a commitment to protecting the identities of the plaintiffs. The stakes are high for the lives of these Meisels victims. Normally, this should not have been necessary, but when he and others were threatening to out the identity of TruthSeeker, and and others sent him a number of private, gracious messages asking him to back off on allowing those threats. Instead he allowed and left up comments which included her initials, MB and that she was a triplet, facts which made her name obvious to any of hundreds of girls who knew her in seminary. Her being a triplet was a regular humorous part of her identity while in seminary. Her sin for which she was outed was saying she tried to share her knowledge of Meisels enabling by a number of other staff and the IBD’s Rabbi Malinowitz rebuffed her. TruthSeeker did give testimony to the enlarged beis din. I was extremely afraid there would be a replay this time. I was in contact with people close to the plaintiffs and the implied threat of being outed was extremely distressing to them. I was determined not to have a repeat of what happened to Truthseeker. Eidensohn could have closed the entire episode by making the statement he finally made at the onset. I would not have cared if he coupled it with a few insults. My goal was protecting the identities of the victims. I will not apologize for being digressive in pursuing that goal. I will admit there are other times when I can and should have been more respectful, gracious and tactful, in spite of extraordinary provocations and insults. But this was not a question of my honor but of a fundamental principal of law and decency. Protecting the identity of abuse plaintiffs is absolutely non-negotiable.

      • YL, kol hakavod. There is no response that can detract from your Kavanah. None. One of the few CSA advocates, who cannot be shaken, by any illegitimate means. righteousness is not negotiable.

        Kol Hakavod, yasher koach, you have people backing you up. Far more than you imagine.

        • Please, the praise is excessive. I am not a navi, I am not a tzadik, and I am definitely not a rebbe or the moshiach. I am a competent writer and thinker who has taken on that issue. Compliments are nice, but try not to make me blush.

  17. Good News/Bad News

    GREAT NEWS- Daniel Eidensohn has finally and directly said: “I of course agree with the standard procedure of not publicizing the names of victims and witnesses.” However he continues to deny any responsibility for letting others suggest outing victims without rebutting them. Still, all in all, it should help the plaintiffs sleep a little better knowing that Eidensohn has now committed himself to not outing victims or colluding in outing them. Even better news is that I believe that I together with many of you commenting got under his skin and forced him to finally say the right thing. Of course he still denies he was hedging till he was forced into a corner.

    BAD NEWS- the price of this concession was a full post, “Frum Follies’ lack of integrity in his slanderous claims against me.” (

    Gentle (and fierce) readers who comment, do not imagine your reputations are immune from his wrath. According to Eidensohn, “Frum Follies… has started attacking me with… charges that arouse his groupies like sharks smelling blood.” I thought I had a group of smart, opinionated and somewhat querulous temperaments.

  18. I love it how Eidensohn is having a tantrum and stomping his feet about Yerachmiel’s posts.
    Eidensoh is like the ghost driver on the highway who will keep wondering why there are so many ghost drivers on the highway today…
    I suggest we call him Rumpelstielzchen, since he soon will zerspring.

  19. UPDATE: I have been informed that a couple of the victims have already called the CBD crying because of the threat of being exposed. This is deadly serious. Before, I thought that Yerachmiel was perhaps overreacting to the conditional “if lying”, but now, it’s obvious that this was intended as a threat, and that Yerachmiel was right.

    Mo Ginzburg’s post was a deliberate threat and it was intended to send a message to the victims. If they cannot be stopped, the animals over there need to be called out.

    The fact that Eidensohn wails that nobody’s coming to his defense should be a glaring sign that nobody agrees with him, except for a few mental midgets on his own blog.

    • This situation is very serious indeed. And I plan on calling up Debbie Gross and telling her how staff has YET to tell the truth to their students. They are down-playing the situation, have not faced it, and refuse to protect their students from contacting Meisles (Adina’s email etc). The training she did is worth NOTHING bc the staff is still ignoring the issue. I plan on making a stink abt it and hopefully contacting her.

  20. Quite frankly, looking at this DE and YL constant bickering about a few words in a long range of respective posts diminishes both.

    One has a PhD in psychology, the other a degree in law, and both have made serious mistakes in their postings which they have either had to clarify or publicly retract and then apologize. They both however think they are better than the other and covet their followers as if one set is of superior intelligence to the other.

    Sirs, get over your hubris please – its starting to look rather infantile.

    Thank you.

    • Some of the tone may have been petty, but the substantive differences are real and consequential.BTW,

      I have never claimed to be an attorney, though I consult with them as needed.

    • Lol true it’s been petty. But no really, at the same time. At least we are a bunch who care a lot abt victims of abuse and to stand up for them. Others couldn’t care less.

      • TS you go girl!!!. fight the fight. and YL, also.
        the twin freaks, should disappear themselves. tails btw..their …..
        This is what BT Rabbi’s do? OMFG, I have this bt child, omg,
        the twin bt rabbis are a disgrace, halevai that their following is zero/

        • Don’t worry, chashdan, my parents are BTs and look- they produced the fine specimen of humanity that is…..ME! Yeah, my grandparents think we’re all crazy and when I was a kid I thought they were horrible for saying so. I think some of my kids are crazy (for being frummer than me) but I try not to say so. Just the same as it’s possible to be a good, decent person without being religious, it’s also possible to be a good, decent person with being religious. Although some commenters here seem to think you have to move to Chicago for that.

    • Maybe I missed it, but you could you point me out one post where idonsohn publicly retracted and apologized? Besides looking to intimidate, bully people, bully victims, act arrogant to posters and to the world in general, making fun of others including gedolim,pretending to know Halacha , spending most of his waking hours on his web site,leaking private information , destroying people’s reputation , speaking lashon haroh ,
      What has he used his PhD for?

      • I know that it’s tempting to go after Eidensohn because of his many failings. I have pointed out many of his inconsistencies and outright evil such as when he allowed TruthSeeker to be outed.

        However, please don’t lose focus on the real evil: Mr. Scumbag Meisels. Meisels’ actions started this and everything else that resulted came about because of his narcissistic, selfish, twisted and evil behavior. The real venom should be directed toward Meisels.

        • This goes for DE too, but YL seems to me to be applying double standards in his moderation policies .

          To wit, YL extrapolates from DE allowing certain guest comments in his blog to be published following DE’s moderation thereof, that DE effectively endorses those guest comments.

          The same could then be said for YL’s moderation policies: when YL allows ad hominem insults and potentially legally defamatory comments (“DE is a fraud” etc) against DE and others to be published following YL’s post-moderation OK, can it be said then that YL is also effectively endorsing these anti-DE comments?

          If so, YL opens himself to a potential lawsuit.

          This may be a function over form rather than form over function view, but DE & YL are both now engaging in a very tenuous battle with potential legal implications for both outside the relative cozy enclaves of blogs and the religious community.

          DE publishes under his own name, YL under an alias. At this rate then, someone feeling sufficiently defamed based on the comments posted in their respective blogs could “out” YL via legal means, something Im sure YL (and DE) wish to avoid.

          There may be justifiable substantive differences between DE & YL, but as the pettiness of the YL v DE hubris-fueled blog-war escalates and both allow their respective guest contributors to add potentially defamatory attacks to vindicate their respective views, this potential legal battle may be a real possibility.

          • Stop with the legal threats. Opinions are protected speech. There hasn’t been any legally definable defamation. We do not live inside a legal straightjacket that prevents people from expressing disagreement.

            I have concluded (notice-opinion) that further exchanges are not fruitful w Eidensohn. I believe he has lost his bearings. However, I will go on posting about and discussing the issue.

            BTW, have you also gone to Eidensohn’s blog saying he is vulnerable to libel lawsuits? I would expect you to do it if you are even handed.

            • No he has not .. as per my question of his other comment. Which seems to imply a lot more than “The Torah” would have you believe.

  21. [I previously commented on this blog under my Discus identity, “Kevin in Chicago.” It appears a Discus identity is no longer accepted, so I am using my WordPress identity, “freshwatersnark.”] YL, your moral compass is correct. Lying accusers should be exposed — but only after they have been determined to be such by a secular court or Beit Din, and not before. Otherwise, calling for exposure is an invitation to intimidation. I don’t understand why this isn’t obvious to everyone.

  22. Hello Mr. Eidensohn,
    You are nothing but a piece of shmutz! You consider yourself a Rav? No genuine Rav in Kllal Yisroel makes a career of bullying and intimidating people. You are nothing but a piece of tzoah and a genuine bum. Your seforim are worthy to be used as toilet paper.. You are a genuine rasha and Hashem will surely strike you down for your wicked and discusting conduct towards people! Without even going into the stupidity of defending Meisels the rapist, the words you have spoken identify you as an apikores. You minimize the issur of chibuk venishuk? You are a blatant apikores and you should not be counted as part of a minyan!! Woe is to your unfortunate parents who brought such a despicable piece of garbage into the world!

  23. Whoever wants to get a message to Mr. Bill Cosby Meisels or to Apikores Eidensohn, this is the place where to leave your message as they both are nervously (for different reasons) watching this blog very carefully.

  24. There was discussion above re the whitewashing of Rapist Meisels. Just a hug.

    YL pointed out the deception involved on the part of Daas Yashvan in convoluting what was written vis-a-vis the future as applying to the past.

    It must be emphasized that this is more serious than just clearing the Rapist’s good name.

    If the Rapist Rabbi was only a hugger – it will be that much easier for him to at some point not too far in the future (next year? 2 years?) to come back when this whole episode is just a memory and be reinstated as the respectable dean of his 4 semenaries.

    YL please keep up the pressure alot is at stake.

  25. What is needed ASAP is someone taking out a full page ad in either the Jewish Week or the Jewish Press entitled: “An open letter to Alan Kadish, President of Touro College” and write in bullet point form why the Meisels Seminaries should not be granted accreditation.
    This would put the school, the legal team and the PR team on notice. Can’t imagine they go on a limb and risk future lawsuits.

  26. Just asking why the CBD does not tell touro that if they accredit meisels seminary that they will remove the accredidation if the girls names are exposed in any way

    by the way this is what the rabbis in nmb and rabbi levin did in miami with the bodkins case they exposed the names and prevented many other vioctims from coming forward

    these rabbis must be stopped from destroying the lives of these girls

  27. only a man who identifies with the assailant justifies the act. same with rabbi weinberger. his staunch supporters were either cheaters or dummies.

See Commenting policy ( )

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s