Case# 900008858-53-1 Adar 25 II 5765 Rabbi Mordechai Tendler vs. RCA
COMPLAINT
Friday, 21, Adar II, 5765
April 1, 2005
Jerusalem Regional Bet Din
Re: PLAINTIFF
Rabbi Mordechai Tendler
Represented by Counsel, Mosahe Mittleman
Ben Yehuda St., Jerusalem.
Telephone: 02-625-6956
Fax: 02-625-5302
E-mail:Mitelma@netvision.net.il
VS.
Defendants: Rabbinical Council of America
Rabbi Y. Blau
Rabbi H. Billet
Rabbi K. Auman
Rabbi M. Dratch
Rabbi Gedalia Schwartz
Marc Stern, Esq.
Subject: Statement of Charges and Request for Injunction
The Plaintiff is the Rabbi of Kehilat New Hempstead near Monsey, New York.
The Plaintiff is a member of the Rabbinical Council of America, hereafter referred to as R.C.A.
About one year ago, the Plaintiff received a letter from the R.C.A., stating that they had begun an investigation against him for suspicions of sexual harassment.
Despite his requests, the Plaintiff never received the complete materials which had been presented to the R.C.A. against him.
The Plaintiff never was given an opportunity or a possibility to question or cross-examine those individuals who had registered their complaints to the R.C.A.
To whatever documents he managed to obtain, the Plaintiff responded with total and absolute refutations of the incidents and charges, since most of the complaints were vague and based on hearsay. Whenever there were specific incidents and complaints, the Plaintiff responded with meticulous details (refuting the charges), as is described in the attached letter from his lawyer.
The entire time, the Plaintiff demanded of the R.C.A. that they should enable him to face his accusers. On this manner he would be able to cross-examine their story and easily prove that not only was there no substance to their complaints, but also that this was a premeditated plot against him (in an attempt to discredit him). The identity of those individuals who planned this scheme appears in the lawyer's letter which is appended to this brief.
Despite his repeated demands for a clear presentation of the charges against him in a fair and just manner, as befits a legal proceedings, the Defendants failed to respond to the Plaintiff's request.
In addition, details and accusations were leaked to the public, with completely untruthful stories, which constitute premeditated character assassination, and "spilling the blood" of a respected Rav in Yisrael. At the end of this "process" the R.C.A. decided to expel the Plaintiff from its ranks.
All of this is a flagrant violation of the accepted rule of Halacha which state, "One may not remove a cantor from his position unless he is proven to have sinned grievously" (Rama) and he may not be fired on the basis of rumors, only on the testimony of two witnesses (O.H. 53:25). One may conclude that if this protection is afforded to a cantor, it is certainly afforded to a rabbi.
Let it be stated in the clearest of terms that all of these accusations are totally false and that this constitutes a character assassination and "spilling of the blood" of a Rav B'Yisrael for no reason.
The Plaintiff felt it necessary to appeal for justice before this honored Bet Din, because there is no rabbinical authority in the USA to which the R.C.A. owes allegiance in following its Halachic decisions. However, the Rabbinate of Israel, and this honored Beit Din is the "long arm of the law" of the Chief Rabbinate.
Therefore, the Plaintiff pleads from this court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from harming his position and his authority, and to summon them to a Din Torah in this court.
Alternatively, it is requested from the honored judges to order the defendants to have a Din Torah with the Plaintiff in a ZABLA court, and that they present the name of their choice for a ZABLA judge within 14 days in order to allow the two chosen judges to select the 3rd decisor.
Whatever venue is chosen, the court is asked to please issue an injunction prohibiting the defendants from harming the reputation or the position of the Plaintiff in any manner, until this matter has been settled by a psak din of a formal Din Torah.
Jerusalem Regional Bet Din - Decision
Rabbi Mordechai Tendler Vs. Rabbinical Council of America
April 5, 2005
DECISION
STATE OF ISRAEL
Jerusalem Regional Bet Din
Case No: 900008858-53-1
Date: 25 Adar II 5765
05 April 2005
Plaintiff: Rabbi Mordechai Tendler
Number: 900008858
Defendant: Rabbinical Council of America, et al.
Number: 900008859
Matter:
Other Orders Before the Honorable Judges:
Rabbi Matityahu Shrem, Chief Judge
Rabbi Chaim S. Rosenthal, Judge
Rabbi C.Y. Rabinovitz, Judge
A request for an Injunction was presented to this court.
A review of the materials presented in this case clarified that the Plaintiff and Defendants do not reside in Eretz Yisrael. In response to the inquiry of this Court regarding the connection of this matter to the Court of Jerusalem, the attorney for the Plaintiff explained that there is no rabbinic authority in the United States in which the R.C.A. is subjugated; however, all rabbis of the Diaspora are subjugated to the Batei Din of the State of Israel, because "From Zion shall Torah go forth." This is particularly so with respect to the Rabbinical Council of America, R.C.A., inasmuch as the R.C.A. has stated publicly that the organization stands behind the decisions of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and considers itself as partner with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.
This court convened, and after reviews of the materials presented to the Court, this Court hereby agrees with the request of the Plaintiff and hereby orders that the Defendants are prohibited from damaging or in anyway affecting any services provided by, or any status or position of, the Plaintiff unless and until the Defendants summon the Plaintiff to a Din Torah, in any location in the world, before an official rabbinical Ben Din or before a Bet Din constituted through the process of "zablah".
Given this 25th day of Adar II, 5795 (05 April, 2005)
Matityahu Shrem, Chief Judge
Chaim S. Rosenthal, Judge
C.Y. Rabinovitz, Judge
Certified copy of original Decision
[SEAL OF JERUSALEM REGIONAL BET DIN]
Moshe Biton [Stamp of Binyamin Shunam, Asst. Chief Clerk, Jerusalem Regional Bet Din]
Chief Clerk
An Inappropriate Process
By Editorial Board
An Inappropriate Process
Jewish Press - April 6, 2005
On several occasions over the past months in this space we expressed our dismay over lengthy articles in both the Forward and The Jewish Week describing an investigation by the
Rabbinical Council of America of one of its members, a prominent New York rabbi. We noted that although the rabbi`s name was disclosed in the articles, none of his accusers were identified and indeed, the articles consisted of double and triple-tiered hearsay, vague innuendo and opinion with no hard facts reported. Indeed, both publications also railed against the rabbi having been given the names of his accusers by the RCA!
Recently, the RCA expelled the rabbi saying that he acted inappropriately and refused to cooperate with its investigation. Soon thereafter, concerned by the vagueness of the charges, the sensationalism of the reporting and the RCA`s confirmation of the investigation and its failure to disavow the speculative reporting, The Jewish Press sought to clarify the process by which the RCA reached its conclusion. We contacted both the rabbi and the RCA. We have already interviewed the rabbi and others hope to present his views and comments next week as well as any comments we receive from the RCA. However, preliminary observations are in order which deal with fundamental notions of fairness.
The RCA investigation was ostensibly concerned with whether the rabbi should continue as a member and it evidently followed certain procedures not ordinarily followed in a determination of guilt or innocence. In this case, the following is undisputed. The rabbi`s accusers were never questioned directly by the RCA. Rather, they were questioned by a non-Jewish employee of a Texas investigative company over the telephone. Although the rabbi requested one, a fact-finding beth din where witnesses give testimony and are subjected to cross examination by the accused and others, was never convened. Instead, the RCA process in this regard involved an in camera review of the written report of the Texas investigator.
The rabbi, of course, in addition to being drummed out of the organization, stands publicly convicted. Indeed, he has reportedly already lost a prestigious teaching position. Yet, based upon our interviews and the documents we have reviewed to date, the RCA seems to have neglected to follow the Halacha, fundamental notions of fairness and even its own rules.
Jewish Family Service of Rockland County, Inc.
http://www.jewishfamilyservice.net/bio.asp?bio=mtendler
http://www.jewishfamilyservice.net/staff_board_directors.asp
April 7, 2005
It has been brought to the attention of The Awareness Center that Rabbi Mordecai Tendler still serves on the board of directors of Jewish Family Services - Rockland County.
Below is the contact information for anyone would want to contact JFS regarding their choice halachic advisors (Jewish legal advisory).
Phone: (845) 354-2121
Fax: (845) 354-2928
You might also want to contact the executive director of the Jewish Federation of Rockland County. Since they are a major funding source for the counseling center.
Shimon H. Pepper, Executive Director
(845) 362-4200 ext. 121
-------------------------------------------------------
Meet Our Staff
RABBI MORDECAI TENDLER
RABBI
Rabbi Tendler has been a distinguished leader of our community and an invaluable member of the Jewish Family Service Board of Directors and its Outreach Committee, often inspiring the JFS Board to bring essential social services to the county. He is a wise teacher, an exceptional humanitarian and a respected role model. Jewish Family Service was proud to pay tribute to Rabbi Tendler at its December 2000 Journal Dinner by presenting him with the JFS Community Service Award.
Rabbi Tendler is the founder and spiritual leader of Kehillat New Hempstead. He has gained renown as a posaik (interpreter of the law) and dayan (judge). He was the driving force behind the creation of the Vaad Harabonim of Greater Monsey and now serves as chairman of its Vaad HaKashrus, the Chevra Kadisha, the Eruv Committee and the Mikva Committee. He is also head of the Bais Din in Rockland County. An astute and perceptive teacher, Rabbi Tendler offers daily classes for the New Hempstead community and a weekly shiur at Yeshiva University.
Rabbi Tendler had the extraordinary opportunity to live with and learn from his maternal Grandfather, Rav Moshe Feinstein z"1, esteemed as one of Judaism's most renowned and respected scholars. Rabbi Tendler studied with Rabbi Feinstein from 1966 to 1986 and received Smicha (ordination) from the Rav in 1975. From 1973 to 1986, Rabbi Tendler served as his Grandfather's personal assistant and secretary. He also had the opportunity to study with two other great scholars - Rabbi Yaakov Jofen and Rabbi Yoseph Dov Soleveitchik z"1. His father, Hagaon Rav Moshe Tendler, has served as his rabbinic role model and advisor for decades.
Those experiences have helped to shape Rabbi Mordecai Tendler's life and have informed his work as an educator, spiritual leader, community activist, social reformer, loving husband to Michelle, devoted father of eight, and grandfather. In addition to his synagogue and communal responsibilities, Rabbi Tendler spends innumerable hours counseling, advising and providing support to individuals and families in need. His kindness, warmth and strength of purpose are evident to all who know him.
Statement in the Matter of the Investigation of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
Rabbinical Council of America
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
In regard to
The Rabbinical Council of America investigation and expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, the RCA determined that it would not issue any public statement beyond the formal findings of the Vaad and the Executive Committee. However, in light of a concerted campaign to mischaracterize, misrepresent, and distort both the process and its outcome, as well as to demean the eminent and distinguished rabbis who were part of the process, the RCA has elected to make the following statement:
The year long investigation took that extended time because the Vaad Hakavod made every effort to follow all the relevant halachic, legal, as well as moral, guidelines and laws, both as regards procedure and substance. The investigation benefited from the advice and guidance of recognized and respected experts in halachah, American law, and psychology. The findings were based on the evidence gathered during the course of the investigation, both on the telephone and in person, and both by outside investigators and members of the Vaad itself. Accordingly, we stand by both the procedural fairness of the proceedings and, equally important, the substantive result reached by us.
The investigation was not, and never purported to be, in the nature of a Beit Din proceeding. The RCA constitution calls for a panel of peers to review the activities of a rabbi accused of misbehavior. This is called a Beis Din Hakavod, or a Vaad Hakavod, which has always been understood as referring to an administrative process, not a Beit Din proceeding. This was made clear throughout to the accused and his counsel. As mandated by our constitution, it was an administrative proceeding of a religious organization, entitled to determine in a manner it chooses, who is and who is not fit to be a member.
The accused was given repeated opportunities prior to the issuance of the decision to respond to the charges as shared with him, as well as to appear in an appropriate hearing and face his accusers. However he, through his legal counsel, as well as through his wife, clearly and unambiguously turned down in writing such invitations to appear before the Vaad Hakavod. He requested instead that we rely on his written submissions, which we did, in addition to statements made by him in an interview by an independent investigator commissioned by the Vaad Hakavod. Only after the decision was communicated to him, did he offer to appear before the Vaad Hakavod.
Any claims or statements to the contrary, be they from rabbis in America or Israel, legal counsel, publicists, journalists, family members, or others, are based on either willful denial of fact or on ignorance resulting from one-sided representations.
Survivors of Mordecai Tendler Please Speak Out!
By Jewish Survivors of Sexual Violence Speak Out - April 12, 2005
I'm hoping that all of the survivors of Rabbi Mordechai Tendler (alleged sex offender) will take the time out and let us know how you are doing?
Please let us know what more we can do to help you! We want to show you all the support we can.
If you are one of the many individuals who were manipulated in having sex with this alleged sex offender you can post anything anonymously. This space is set up for you. We want you to know that we believe you, and want to help.
RCA Answers Tendler Charges
By Debra Nussbaum Cohen
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=10763
Jewish Week - April 13, 2005
The Rabbinical Council of America issued a strongly worded statement Tuesday rebutting criticism from Rabbi Mordecai Tendler and his supporters over his expulsion last month from the Orthodox rabbis' group. Rabbi Tendler and his supporters, who include prominent Orthodox rabbis, have made public statements indicating that he tried to provide his side of the story to the RCA in person and they consider the organization's move to be illegitimate.
Also, a religious court in Israel allegedly complained to the RCA that it should have convened a bet din, or religious tribunal. Sources said supporters of Rabbi Tendler hired a rabbinic lawyer in Israel to initiate the claim.
The RCA statement said the investigation "was not, and never purported to be, in the nature of a bet din proceeding" but rather a peer review.
"We felt that clarification was necessary in light of the efforts by Rabbi Tendler and those who support him to discredit the RCA and the process by which we arrived at our conclusion," said Rabbi Basil Herring, the organization's executive vice president.
According to the statement, it was issued "in light of a concerted campaign to mischaracterize, misrepresent and distort both the process and its outcome, as well as to demean the eminent and distinguished rabbis who were part of the process."
The investigation took a year, the statement said, "because the Vaad Hakavod [ethics committee] made every effort to follow all the relevant halachic, legal as well as moral guidelines and laws both as regards procedure and substance. It said Rabbi Tendler "was given repeated opportunities prior to the issuance of the decision to respond to the charges ... as well as to appear in an appropriate hearing and face his accusers. However he ... clearly and unambiguously turned down in writing such invitations to appear before the Vaad Hakavod.
"Only after the decision was communicated to him did he offer to appear," the statement said.
Rabbi Tendler was expelled for refusing to cooperate with an RCA investigation into allegations that he had sexually pursued several women he was counseling and had engaged in affairs with some of them. The RCA also cited "conduct inappropriate for an Orthodox rabbi," but declined to be more specific.
Israeli Chief Rabbinate Tells RCA: Reinstate Rabbi Tender A Tale of Lies and Midwives
By Susan L. Rosenbluth
The Jewish Voice and Opinion - April 14, 2005
On April 5, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate ordered the Rabbinical Council of America to reinstate Rabbi Mordecai Tendler unless or until the RCA takes its case against him to either an official "sitting" beit din or a beit din constituted through the process of "zablah," a court consisting of a rabbinic representative for the plaintiff, one for the defendant, and a third rabbi chosen by the first two.
On March 18, the RCA expelled Rabbi Tendler, a scion of one of the most respected rabbinic families in the Orthodox world, claiming he had refused to cooperate with the rabbinic organization's "Vaad Hakavod," which was investigating charges against him of abuse, and had refused to appear at a hearing. Further, the RCA said, he had "engaged in conduct inappropriate for an Orthodox rabbi."
At an open meeting held at his synagogue, Kehilat New Hempstead (KNH), on March 27, Rabbi Tendler denied all the charges, saying not only that he was innocent of any wrongdoing, but that he had fully cooperated with the RCA and had looked forward to a hearing at which he could have heard the charges against him and confronted his accusers, a right guaranteed him in the RCA's bylaws as well as in Jewish and American secular law.
He was joined at the meeting by his wife, Michelle, who has been his staunchest supporter, as well as his father, Rabbi Moshe Tendler, and his uncle, Rabbi David Feinstein.
Rabbi and Mrs. Mordecai Tendler are the parents of eight children.
In its ruling, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate's Jerusalem Regional Beit Din agreed with Rabbi Tendler's request and prohibited the RCA from "damaging or in any way affecting any services provided by, or any status or position of" Rabbi Tendler before taking him to a beit din.
According to the document released by the beit din, the Israeli rabbinic court was a suitable arbiter for this matter because "there is no rabbinic authority in the US to which the RCA is subjugated."
Further, the Israeli rabbis said, "All rabbis of the Diaspora are subjugated to the Batei Din of the State of Israel because "From Zion, shall Torah go forth."
The rabbis of the Jerusalem Beit Din—Matityahu Shrem, Chaim Rosenthal, and C.Y. Rabinovitz—said this applied particularly to the RCA because "the RCA has stated publicly that the organization stands behind the decisions of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and considers itself as partner with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel."
Asked if the RCA would adhere to the beit din's order or even comment on it, Rabbi Basil Herring, the relatively new executive vice president of the RCA, said, "No comment."
He had the same response when asked if the Beit Din of American was involved in the case against Rabbi Tendler. There seems to be some confusion over the relationship between the RCA and the Beit Din of America. Some say they are associated; others say the RCA endorses the beit din, but that the two are separate entities.
The RCA's case against Rabbi Tendler dates back to March 2004, when he received a letter from Rabbi Herring, telling him that he had been charged by unnamed accusers of "having committed an act of a public or private nature unbecoming a rabbi."
In his letter, Rabbi Herring promised Rabbi Tendler a full and thorough investigation with "full and fair opportunity to defend yourself against these charges."
He also told Rabbi Tendler that the matter was being kept "in strict confidence" and that even the members of the committee conducting the investigation had not been given his name.
In the letter, Rabbi Herring made clear that the hearing would be conducted by a halachic beit din, a point that he emphasized by enclosing a copy of the RCA's constitution stating that policy.
According to a source close to the Tendler family, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Rabbi Tendler responded to Rabbi Herring's letter a few days later, telling the RCA executive that he would meet with the committee on two conditions that are normative for any halachic beit din: first, that he be given the opportunity to face his accusers (and learn what the charges were), and, second, that those bringing the charges commit to accepting the decision of the Vaad as "final and binding, and they desist from further harassment."
According to the source, Rabbi Tendler had reason to suspect that he knew who was making the charges and why. As a revered spiritual leader, whose power is based on the high regard in which he is held by his congregants and community, he has often been called upon to adjudicate issues in which, by their very nature, there is a winner and a loser. As in secular courts, the losers frequently want to get even.
In Rabbi Tendler's case, the problem may be compounded by some of the congregants he attracts. Over the years, the rabbi has developed a reputation as a tzaddik, a righteous humanitarian who seeks tirelessly to help those who ask for his help. And many of them come with backgrounds that are not considered usual in most Orthodox synagogues.
He has been hailed by Orthodox feminists for his attempts to raise the status of women in the Orthodox community and for his efforts on behalf of agunot, women who are separated from their husbands but who cannot persuade them to grant a religious writ of divorce. He is the author of the most popular prayer in use today for agunot, one that is often recited by brides before they go under the chupah.
"Sometimes I think that Rav Tendler is too compassionate," said one of his supporters. "He opens his heart and his home to literally everyone. Some of those people never had anyone express genuine caring and ahavat yisrael before Rav Tendler. Perhaps they mistook his compassion for something inappropriate."
A case in point is Batya Siegel, one of his accusers who went to the press soon after the investigation began. A "clinical aesthetician," Ms. Siegel told journalists that more than 12 years before the investigation began, Rabbi Tendler "propositioned" her while he adjudicated her divorce as well as a rent dispute with her landlord.
According to press reports, Ms. Siegel, who now goes by another name, first became Orthodox in 1976. Five years later, she moved to Monsey with her new husband and her children from a previous marriage. She said she relocated to Rockland County specifically because she wanted to join Rabbi Tendler's shul.
Several years later, she decided to divorce her husband, and, at the same time, she said, she faced eviction from her apartment because she could not pay her rent. Ms. Siegel told journalists her landlord summoned her to a beit din in Rabbi Tendler's synagogue. According to Ms. Siegel, Rabbi Tendler was also part of the beit din handling her divorce.
"I figured it probably didn't matter if you had the same rabbi in two separate beit dins," she told journalists.
She explained that, at the rent-dispute beit din, she was given another month or two to vacate the apartment, but, she said, as soon as the proceedings were over and everyone else had left the premises, Rabbi Tendler "propositioned" her.
She said she feared the power he wielded over her because, she said, he could control whether or not she would receive a Jewish writ of divorce. Nevertheless, she said, she held him at bay by promising him that "after the divorce, we'll talk about it."
She told journalists that as soon as she received her get, she ran out of the "house," followed by Rabbi Tendler, who ran after her reminding her of her promise. According to Ms. Siegel, she responded with "some choice words" and drove off. Rabbi Tendler, she said, never called her again.
The problem is that every verifiable fact in her story has proven to be untrue. Her former landlord, Suri Horowitz, has submitted a signed letter maintaining that Ms. Siegel and her husband "never attended a Din Torah with Rabbi Mordecai Tendler regarding their eviction."
Further, from all evidence, Rabbi Tendler had nothing to do with her divorce beit din either. Hers was case number #500 of the Kollel Harabonim of Monsey. According to the records, which list everyone present at the proceedings, the rabbis adjudicating the case were Leib Landesman, Naftali Hertzka, and Eliyahu Friedman.
The beit din was held at the North Metropolitan Nursing Home in Monsey, not at a house, as Ms. Siegel told reporters.
"And Rabbi Tendler couldn't have run after her, because he wasn't present," said the source who is close to the Tendlers.
This information was given to the RCA along with a letter from Ms. Horowitz, in which she details an incident which the source thinks is telling.
In her letter, Ms. Horowitz recalls that, while Ms. Siegel was her tenant, a carpenter was called to do some repair work. Before he was finished, the carpenter called Ms. Horowitz to say he was leaving the job because "Mrs. Siegel was crazy and was making up stories that he had molested her three year old,"
When the Horowitzes spoke to Ms. Siegel, she first said, yes, he had molested her daughter, and then she changed her mind, telling the landlord, no, she didn't see the carpenter do anything.
Ms. Horowitz quoted Ms. Siegel as saying, "But you have to be careful with workmen. He could have done it."
Ms. Siegel told reporters her experience with Rabbi Tendler caused her to leave Orthodoxy. She is reportedly married to her third husband, an African-American Muslim.
While the source characterized Ms. Siegel as simply "a false witness," there were other words—"vindictive and evil"—for the case of the "two midwives." The source preferred not to name them, and, thus, referred to them as Midwife I and Midwife II, when they were not being called Shifra and Puah.
In 2001, Midwife I had a dispute with her neighbor, whose home abutted the Tendler's backyard. Midwife I and the neighbor had young daughters in junior high school who were very close friends, but the neighbor, for a variety of reasons, decided Midwife I's child was not a suitable companion and, therefore, sought to end the friendship.
Midwife I was furious, leaving the neighbor in a quandary. She brought the issue to Rabbi Tendler, who asked both sets of parents to come to his office to discuss the matter. After hearing them out, Rabbi Tendler decided the neighbor had the right to intervene in her young daughter's choices, and, over the objections of Midwife I, the neighbor gradually put an end to the friendship.
Not that it was easy. According to the source, Midwife I tried to subvert the neighbor's intentions, encouraging the girls to see each other secretly and to email each other.
Eventually, however, the neighbor convinced her daughter, and the friendship withered.
Furious, Midwife I put her house up for sale, moved, and told anyone who would listen that she had been driven out of the neighborhood by Rabbi Tendler.
Midwife I's chief supporter was her partner, Midwife II, a former member of KNH. The source described Midwives I and II as "extremely close, almost like sisters."
Several months later, Midwife I's daughter was diagnosed with a rather serious chronic disease, which kept her out of school for almost the entire year.
A strong believer in holistic-natural medicine, Midwife I was convinced the illness was caused by her daughter's mental stress at being separated from her friend. She reportedly called the neighbor, begging her to allow the girls to resume their friendship, but the neighbor was adamant.
The neighbor told Midwife I that she trusted the authority of Rabbi Tendler who had said the relationship was not good for her daughter.
In May 2003, Rabbi Tendler received an anonymous letter which, at the time, according to the source, no one connected to the midwives. The letter, which was typed, came in a hand-written envelope with a false return address.
The letter spewed venom about Rabbi Tendler's alleged sexual involvement with women, although no one in particular was named.
About a month later, the neighbor received a similar letter, which, like the one to Rabbi Tendler, was typed and came in a handwritten envelope. This letter included advice to avoid involvement "in this toxic situation," which, in retrospect, according to the source, the neighbor assumed referred to her close proximity to Rabbi Tendler. Again, the return address on the envelope was false.
In July 2003, the neighbor received a second letter. The envelope was handwritten, but there was no return address.
The letter, which claims to be written by "a group of rabbis, mental health professionals, and physicians coming from a wide range of religious observance within the Orthodox world," contains a "warn[ing] to protect your daughters, wives, and other vulnerable women in the community from a very dangerous rabbi."
Naming Rabbi Tendler, the letter says it seeks to protect the women of the community "from the sick and evil behavior of this man who is himself a rabbi."
Two weeks later, 700 copies of the same letter were mailed to members of KNH and other residents throughout Monsey. The letters and the envelopes were typed, and the return address was that of KNH.
According to the source, the attorney representing KNH is convinced using the shul's return address to defame someone constitutes a federal criminal offense, because it makes use of the US mail.
A few people in the neighborhood suggested to the Tendlers that the culprit may have been Midwife II, who, it was thought, may have been trying to seek vengeance for her partner and close friend.
When Mrs. Tendler wrote to Midwife II, asking her outright if she was involved in the affair, Midwife II sent back a handwritten letter, expressing sorrow at the Tendlers' suffering and denying any culpability or knowledge of the perpetrator.
Before suggesting there be no further correspondence between them, Midwife II said she wanted nothing further to do with "this toxic situation," the same phrase used in one of the letters received by the neighbor.
According to the source, the Tendlers' first thought was to see if fingerprints from any of the letters matched each other. An expert was found, but he told the Tendlers he had nothing conclusive.
In December 2003, the New York Jewish Week sponsored a forum on "rabbinic abuse" in Manhattan. According to the paper, "several female health-care professionals in the audience spoke with passion and frustration about a well-known rabbi in their local community whose affairs with women in his office, they said, have gone on for years."
According to the report, the women said they felt "stymied as to how to take action against the unnamed rabbi, who is highly respected, and help the women involved, who are too embarrassed to speak out."
According to the source, friends of the Tendlers felt certain the "heath-care professionals" were Midwives I and II.
Later reports revealed that, after the forum, the women approached some of the speakers, including Rabbi Yosef Blau, who directed them to the RCA.
By March, 2004, Rabbi Tendler received his notice that the RCA was undertaking an investigation against him.
After telling Rabbi Herring his conditions for meeting with the vaad, Rabbi Tendler heard again from the RCA. In this second letter, Rabbi Herring seemed to ignore Rabbi Tendler's request for a chance to face his accusers, telling him only that he would be hearing from the vaad "in the next several weeks."
After an agonizing three months, Rabbi Tendler received a phone call from Rabbi Herring, informing him that the RCA had hired the Texas-based firm, Praesidium, a risk-management company that was also used by the Catholic Church to investigate its priest-sex scandals.
Rabbi Tendler told him that did not sound like a beit din that he had been promised would adjudicate the issue, but, said the source, Rabbi Herring advised him to cooperate with Dr. Jane Hickerson, Praesidium's vice president of social services, who would be handling the investigation.
Aside from one call in July and another in August to tell him she had not forgotten about him but was still busy interviewing "the other side," Rabbi Tendler heard nothing from Dr. Hickerson.
He did, however, hear from The Forward, which ran an article on the issue in late August. Despite Rabbi Herring's promises of confidentiality, Rabbi Tendler was named in the piece, and Rabbi Kenneth Auman, president of the RCA commented on the case, saying, "We take all these allegations very seriously and certainly don't want to whitewash it." For the accused, he simply wanted "protection."
The piece mentioned Ms. Siegel and her accusations, but while it mentioned the landlady's statement that Rabbi Tendler had nothing to do with her eviction beit din, it said nothing about the fact that he was not part of her divorce beit din either.
At the end of the summer, Dr. Hickerson called Rabbi Tendler and told him the only time she could meet with him would be four days before Rosh Hashana. Although she had sufficed with telephone meetings for the accusers, she insisted on a face-to-face with Rabbi Tendler.
The Tendlers consulted with one of the most respected Constitutional lawyers in the country, an Orthodox Jew, who advised Rabbi Tendler not to meet with Dr. Hickerson and to hold out for his original demand for a beit din. But another attorney told them that, should he refuse to meet with her, the publicity would be awful for the Tendlers and KNH.
Reluctantly, Rabbi Tendler told Dr. Hickerson he would meet her in his lawyer's office, and he gained permission from her to tape the proceedings.
While Rabbi Tendler and his attorney prepared as best they could under the circumstances—they still had no idea what the charges were or who had made them—the interview was quite benign. According to the source, Dr. Hickerson asked how he conducted himself during counseling sessions and what he thought it would take for a rabbi to be considered "powerful."
When Dr. Hickerson wrote up her report, however, the source said the Tendlers were shocked to find that it was "completely at variance with the actual interview" as documented by the tape.
"Dr. Hickerson either didn't understand or deliberately altered the interview," said the source.
Shortly after the interview, Mrs. Tendler had another idea. According to the source, she realized that while the anonymous letters had been unsuccessfully checked for fingerprints, they had not been seen by an analyst who could check the handwriting. Mrs. Tendler had in her possession not only the handwritten envelopes that had contained the anonymous letters; she also had the signed handwritten letter she had been sent by Midwife II.
Judith Housley, an Edgewood, New Mexico-based certified forensic document examiner, confirmed that Midwife II was responsible for all the letters.
"She obviously thought she was coming to the defense of her partner to gain vengeance for her daughter's illness," said the source.
Armed with this powerful documentation, Mrs. Tendler compiled a packet to be sent to Dr. Hickerson and to the RCA. The packet included the neighbor's letter detailing the full history of the dispute between the her and Midwife I (and Rabbi Tendler's role in it), the envelopes and letters written by Midwife II, and Ms. Houseley's certification that Midwife II was indeed the culprit.
Rabbi Tendler's attorney had the packet hand-delivered to the RCA's attorney, and a week later the RCA's attorney acknowledged receipt, saying he had passed it on to the Vaad for its consideration.
In November 2004, Rabbi Tendler heard from Rabbi Hershel Billet, chairman of the Vaad Hakovod, informing him that the committee would be holding meetings on the case. Rabbi Tendler asked to proceed with all due haste because, he told Rabbi Billet, KNH was ready to press charges against Midwife II for having used the postal system to spread slander, using the synagogue's address on the envelopes.
Rabbi Billet told Rabbi Tendler he had no idea what he was talking about. Rabbi Tendler asked him if he had received the packet, and Rabbi Billet told him, no.
"That packet showed the Midwives' motive and what they had done, and it was never forwarded to the committee," said the source.
According to the source, Rabbi Tendler soon discovered that Rabbi Herring had held the packet for three weeks, passing it on to the committee only when forced to do so. It was released when an officer of the Orthodox Union, called Rabbi Herring to ask where the packet was.
"When the OU official told Herring that Mrs. Tendler had mailed the packet herself, Herring told him, `Tell Michelle Tendler to butt out of this case,'" said the source.
When Dr. Hickerson's report was given to the RCA, it contained no mention of any of the Tendlers' information. The material contained in the packet was included only in the appendix.
"She had obviously already written her report when she received the information and wasn't going to bother changing it. It was only a man's life," said the source.
On page one of the report, the source said, Dr. Hickerson wrote about her interview with Midwives I and II, explaining that they furnished all the names of the women who would accuse Rabbi Tendler of improprieties ranging from delivering a drasha discussing the evils of non-Jewish meditation to touching a woman's hand in the course of learning a section of mussar that the woman's husband felt would help heal their marriage.
The report explains that the midwives sent Ms. Siegel a certified letter urging her to tell her story to the RCA.
During their interview with Dr. Hickerson, both women were on the phone on different extensions.
The report contains the names of nine women who made accusations. According to the source, the one man who is cited was a leader of a KNH "breakaway" shul who told Dr. Hickerson that Rabbi Tendler was "powerful."
When the report was issued, it raised a firestorm because, for the first time, Rabbi Tendler was able to learn who his accusers were. For some reason, the press and victims' monitoring groups considered releasing the names to Rabbi Tendler a major blunder on the RCA's part.
The source said all the women named in the report were known to various members of the synagogue, and that each had a "story."
One of the women, for example, was identified as an objective psychologist who was sought by the women to act as a source of support for them. According to the source, however, the psychologist had been married to a member of KNH. They had one child when they were divorced, and the psychologist accused Rabbi Tendler of favoring her husband in their settlement.
After the divorce, the husband remarried and had another child. The husband died young and named Rabbi Tendler as executor of his will. The psychologist is still in court trying to vacate that position.
"It seems the midwives dug up anyone who might have a vendetta against Rabbi Tendler," said the source.
Some of the women have stories that are truly bizarre, such as the 41-year-old divorced therapist who accused Rabbi Tendler of ruining her shidduch. What this woman, who became one of the prime instigators of the case against Rabbi Tendler, neglected to say is that her intended was the 19-year-old son of members of the shul.
According to the source, the young boy was sent to the therapist when he began acting out in the wake of his parents' marital difficulties. Not long after, the parents came frantically to seek Rabbi Tendler's advice because, they said, the therapist had fallen in love with the boy and he had moved in with her.
Rabbi Tendler suggested the boy go to a yeshiva in Israel, and he helped them make arrangements. They felt it was a good solution because their older son was also studying in a yeshiva in Israel and while they would be attending different schools, at least they would be close.
One day, a few weeks after the 19-year-old arrived in Israel, the older brother ran to his own rosh yeshiva, telling him that his brother had disappeared from the yeshiva and was living in a hotel with the therapist, who had left her children behind in the US and come to see him. The older brother told the rosh yeshiva that they were planning on getting married.
Discovering that Rabbi Tendler happened to be in Israel for a conference, the rosh yeshiva called him and apprised him of the situation. The rosh yeshiva said he and his wife would be going to the hotel to attempt to "save" the boy, and he asked Rabbi Tendler to join them.
At the hotel, the rabbis managed to convince the young man to fly back to the US, leaving the therapist screaming at them, "Don't mix in."
One week later, the therapist, too, returned to the US and tried to contact the young man. When his parents reached out to Rabbi Tendler, he suggested they all come to his office to talk, including the therapist. At that meeting, the rabbi told the therapist she must stay away from the young man.
Although the therapist agreed, two days later, she tried to commit suicide and was hospitalized for a month.
When she was released, another source, who is very involved in Rockland County civic and religious activities, heard the therapist say, "I'm going to bring down Rabbi Tendler."
"From that point on, she has been actively involved in arranging meetings with people who she thinks might have a vendetta against Rabbi Tendler. It's not surprising that she found the midwives," said the source, who said she did everything possible to get this piece of information to the RCA.
But perhaps no story is quite as chilling as the one surrounding Joanne, described in the report and in several newspaper accounts as "the Jamaican housekeeper."
A day worker who has several employers, Joanne told Dr. Hickerson that she worked once for Rabbi Tendler as well as other people in the area. Although Joanne did not mention it to Dr. Hickerson, three of her employees were: the source, Midwife II, and Midwife II's next-door neighbor.
Joanne told Dr. Hickerson that one of her employers (the neighbor) was having an affair with Rabbi Tendler. Joanne discussed seeing explicit faxes allegedly from Rabbi Tendler to his paramour, and, she said, she had seen Rabbi Tendler leaving her employer's house at all hours.
The source had reason to be suspicious. She knew Joanne had never worked for Rabbi Tendler, but she also knew Joanne was not a liar.
In early January, the source asked Joanne if she would accompany her to Rabbi Tendler's home, and Joanne agreed, but when they pulled up in front of the house, Joanne said, "This isn't the house I cleaned."
When she met Rabbi Tendler, Joanne seemed shocked. He wasn't the man she had seen leaving her employer's home.
"Their body types are completely different," she told the source.
The source asked her to look at Rabbi Tendler's handwriting, which most observers say is almost frustratingly unique. With one glance, Joanne said it did not resemble in any way the faxes she had been told came from Rabbi Tendler to her employer.
Asked to explain who had told her the employer's gentleman caller was Rabbi Tendler, Joanne fingered Midwife II. Midwife II had also shown her the bogus faxes and told her the house she cleaned was Rabbi Tendler's, she said.
According to a sworn statement, Joanne said Midwife II had urged her to cooperate with the RCA's investigation, explaining that Rabbi Tendler was causing a great deal of harm not only to the employer next door but also to others.
According to the source, after Joanne, a devout Christian, learned the truth, she was eager to pass it on to the RCA, which she did in a letter.
"She wrote as a good Christian woman. Her conscience demanded that she rectify the mistake of having maligned—however innocently—a guiltless man," said the source.
For a little while after the letter was sent, it seemed as if the entire issue would be wrapped up.
Indirectly, the RCA informed Rabbi Tendler that the Vaad Hakovod wanted to hear the information from the source and Joanne "live." They would be holding a meeting in February 2005, he was told, and they wanted the two women to attend.
The problem was that, in February, the source was scheduled to go to Israel, and Joanne had plans to go to Florida. The source called Rabbi Billet and asked him if they could testify in January for the committee.
For some reason, Rabbi Billet told her, "My hands are tied. You can't give it now."
A few days later, Joanne reported that Rabbi Herring called her in what the cleaning woman described as "an intimidating phone call." According to Joanne, he demanded to know why she had changed her story.
While he was more polite to the source, he seemed dismissive, telling her that, if the committee needed her, they would call.
The source then sent an email to Rabbi Billet in which she made clear that if the Vaad did not hear their information in January, she and Joanne would give it to another beit din, which they did.
The source arranged for a beit din consisting of Rabbis Avrohom Cohen, Ben Zion Kokis, and Leib Landesman. To attest to Joanne's veracity, the rabbis asked Dr. Yisroel Susskind, a clinical psychologist and adviser to the beit din, to attend.
The court made clear that it was not adjudicating the case against Rabbi Tendler, but, rather, permitting a non-Jewish woman "to clarify the statements she had made to previous investigators." The rabbis testified that they found Joanne to be "rational and credible."
Covering her bases, the source took Joanne from the beit din to a criminal attorney, where she had the housekeeper give another sworn statement.
When Rabbi Cohen sent the beit din's report to Rabbi Auman, according to the source, the RCA president responded that if they needed something like this, "we'll do it ourselves."
Despite Joanne's testimony, the Forward and the Jewish Week ran stories suggesting Rabbi Tendler had "paid off" the Jamaican housekeeper, and thus tampered with witnesses. Writing in the Jewish Week, Gary Rosenblatt said, "The woman was led to believe that she was summoned as part of the RCA investigation, which was not the case."
In fact, aside from meeting Joanne when the source brought her to his home, Rabbi Tendler had nothing to do with the beit din or the sworn statement given to the attorney.
"I orchestrated everything," said the source.
The source believes rabbis at the RCA told the midwives about the documents they had received, giving them the motive and opportunity to call the papers and give the stories this new "spin."
In February, Mrs. Tendler traveled to Israel to meet with an assistant to Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, considered by many to be the preeminent arbiter of Jewish law in the world. According to the source, Rabbi Elyashiv's assistant reviewed her files and declared, "It is murder every minute that the RCA is not vindicating him."
However, said the source, the assistant warned Mrs. Tendler that he feared the RCA may have its own "agenda" and he advised her to arrange her own beit din to adjudicate the matter.
Shortly after her return to the US, the Tendlers' attorney called, informing them that the RCA's attorney has summoned them to a plenary hearing. The Tendlers' attorney responded that his client had already heard from the committee, telling him that there was no necessity for him to attend.
Rabbi Tendler authorized his attorney to inform Rabbi Herring and the RCA that he agreed with the committee's decision that his presence was unnecessary. Besides, neither the RCA nor the committee had yet responded to the wealth of material Rabbi Tendler had already sent them
"Rabbi Tendler never had a problem attending a fair hearing governed by halacha. Throughout his ordeal, he cooperated with the RCA beyond whatever was humanly possible," said the source.
Nevertheless, when the RCA expelled him two weeks later, one of the reasons the group gave was that he had failed to cooperate with them or attend their hearing.
In short order, Yeshiva University, where Rabbi Tendler had been giving a weekly shiur, told him that because of the RCA ruling, his services would no longer be welcome.
A bright spot for the Tendlers has been the support given to them by their community and the shul.
"But they still are going to want to clear his name," said the source.
While the source did not know exactly what their next step would be, it's a safe bet to assume they will insist on following the order laid out by the beit din of the Chief Rabbinate.
"The Tendlers are vigorously pursuing his total vindication, and they expect to be completely successful," said the source.
The Tendler Nine
By Susan L. Rosenbluth
The Jewish Voice and Opinion - April 14, 2005
4. The psychologist who is challenging Rabbi Tendler's position as executor of her late ex-husband's will
5. A woman whose congregant husband told Rabbi Tendler he suspected the wife was having an affair and wondered if marital relations were allowed in that case. Rabbi Tendler said he would endeavor to find out, but when he asked the woman about personal matters, she said she thought it was unusual for him to ask..
6. A woman who lost custody of four young children seven years ago during a divorce case and accused Rabbi Tendler of siding with her ex-husband. There is a police record of the woman barging into the rabbi's home to tear up a letter that had been given to him by the husband who worried that the woman might try to harm the children.
7. A congregant who, though born Jewish, had become a Sufi Muslim. She was rescued by the late Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, and, after she married, moved with her husband to Monsey to attend Rabbi Tendler's shul. In 2002, the husband came to Rabbi Tendler, worrying that his wife was about to rejoin the Sufis. In response, Rabbi Tendler gave a drasha about the dangers of non-Jewish meditation. The woman complained strongly that, in so doing, he had "aired her dirty linen in public." When, at the husband's request, Rabbi Tendler tried to learn some relevant mussar with her, she accused the rabbi of touching her hand.
8. A congregant who came to see Rabbi Tendler because her husband had just left her. Trying to be kind to the woman, Rabbi Tendler made sure she was sent flowers by the shul, but the woman accused Rabbi Tendler of sending them on his own behalf.
9. Joanne, the Jamaican housekeeper
One of Rabbi Tendler's congregants told the following story: The congregant's wife was asked by Midwife II to join the suit against Rabbi Tendler. When Midwife II came to their home, the wife told her that the rabbi "had made some strange motions with his hands, putting them close together and then putting them down to emphasize a point of discussion."
Midwife II told the woman that the hand motions were "some form of sexual harassment that the rabbi was inflicting" on her.
The woman never pressed the absurd charge, and her husband wrote about the incident in a letter that was sent to the RCA.
Editorial: Fathers, Sons, and DNA: Why Did the RCA Go after Rabbi Tendler?
By Susan L. Rosenbluth
The Jewish Voice and Opinion - April 14, 2005
While it is very hard to read minds and determine why and when some issues spur people to action, there are several theories as to the motivation behind the RCA leadership's seeming-obsession with the charges against Rabbi Mordecai Tendler.
Looming above the entire issue is the case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner, a top leader of the Orthodox Union's National Council of Synagogue Youth, who was accused in 1989 of, if not sexual abuse, then certainly "conduct inappropriate for an Orthodox rabbi."
At that time, the Orthodox world, led by its rabbis, pulled the wagon train around Rabbi Lanner and protected him from any exposure. Bullying tactics were used to prevent young people from testifying against him at a beit din organized at Yeshiva University, and The Jewish Voice and Opinion was told that if an article were published on the issue, food stores which depend on the local rabbinate for their hechsher would be forbidden to advertise in the magazine.
The charges against Rabbi Tendler represent the first of its kind since Rabbi Lanner was tried in secular court in New Jersey in 2002.
Most of Rabbi Tendler's supporters believe the RCA's behavior towards him was an overreaction simply because leaders of the Modern-Orthodox rabbinate did not want, once again, to be in position in which there might be allegations that victims' complaints went unheeded.
But whereas in the Lanner case, the rabbis were protective and it was left to the secular courts to prosecute him; in the matter of Rabbi Tendler, the secular courts, in the form of the Rockland County District Attorney's office, has said there is no case, but the rabbinic organization leveled the worst punishment it had at its disposal.
In 1989, Rabbi Yosef Blau, mashgiach ruchani, or spiritual overseer, of Yeshiva University, sat on the beit din that was supposed to investigate the charges against Rabbi Lanner. Rabbi Blau has been the first to admit that he erred, believing that what he hoped was repentance was sufficient to negate repetition.
Many observers have noted that perhaps unease at the way he handled the Lanner issue prompted Rabbi Blau to side against Rabbi Tendler.
Or perhaps for the RCA, in general, there was a desire to "run" with what has become, thanks to the Catholic Church, a hot item.
But it is unclear if a simple desire for "political correctness," at least in terms of the issue of abuse, is all that has been at work here. Could that suffice to explain why Rabbi Basil Herring sat on a packet of potentially exonerating material from Rabbi Tendler for three weeks while the Vaad HaKovod knew nothing about it?
No one knows why Dr. Jane Hickerson of Praesidium, the company hired by the RCA to investigate the charges, did not include Rabbi Tendler's material in the body of her report and did not interview a single witness whom he suggested. There is speculation that the report may have been completed when she received the packet, and, unwilling to revisit it, she simply stuck the information into an appendix.
And what did the RCA need Praesidium for in the first place? Since when is an honest, fair beit din insufficient for our needs, especially in a case like this?
After the ruling against Rabbi Tendler was made public, Rabbi Saul Zucker, rosh mesivta of the Mesivta of North Jersey and president of the Yeshiva High School Principals' Council, told Rabbi Yonah Reiss of the Beit Din of America that, as president of the principals' council, he was suspending the group's contact with BDA over "the shameful and appalling treatment of Rabbi Tendler by the RCA."
When Rabbi Reiss suggested that Rabbi Zucker contact Rabbi Herring directly on that matter, he did so, and, according to Rabbi Zucker, the following dialogue ensued:
Rabbi Herring: "Rabbi Zucker, if I told you that I had positive DNA evidence, would you change your position on this matter?"
Rabbi Zucker: "If that were the case, then, yes, I would change my position."
After a brief pause, Rabbi Zucker rose to the challenge: "Are you saying that positive DNA evidence exists?" he asked.
Rabbi Zucker, who resides in Teaneck, admitted he is neither a mind reader nor a detective charged with determining people's agendas and motives. "However, I quickly realized that the effect of Herring's first question was to leave the listener with the implied message that DNA evidence does exist. Had I not challenged him with my question, one could readily infer that the RCA is holding such evidence, when, in fact—as soon as he was overtly challenged on this point—he had to admit this was not the case. The idea of defaming anyone based on false innuendo and less-than-honest implication is, in my opinion, a gross violation of geneivas da'as, motzi shem ra, and ve-ahavta lereiacha," he said.
Nor it seems was the conversation with Rabbi Zucker an isolated incident. Two women in Woodmere, where Rabbi Herring resides, have said that they had similar conversations with him on this issue. One woman reported that after Rabbi Herring mentioned DNA, and she asked, "Is that true?" he responded, "No, but we might get some."
When asked about these conversations, Rabbi Herring flatly denied having said anything about DNA.
When asked by a reporter if there was any DNA evidence if the offing, he refused to comment.
Ever since the ruling against Rabbi Tendler was made public, his supporters say there have been innuendos that, should he decide to fight the expulsion—say, for instance, by going to the Israeli Chief Rabbinate or summoning the RCA to a zabla beit din where they and he will bring rabbinic representatives who will then choose a third one—the RCA will retaliate by presenting DNA samples or ferreting out other accusers.
The fact that the Tendlers responded by going to the Chief Rabbinate and now are considering further action, should stand as their response to that threat.
But is it possible that there is something else behind Rabbi Herring's actions besides a simple desire to see what he considers a bad man punished? Like Rabbi Zucker, we are certainly not mind readers, but we will throw this out for your consideration:
Almost ten years ago, not long after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, we had occasion to speak to Rabbi Herring who was, at that time, serving as director of the Orthodox Caucus, a somewhat left-wing organization that believed, in the wake of the assassination, that Orthodox Jews needed to be taught something about values.
At some point in the conversation, we cited something that had been said by Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler, Rabbi Mordecai Tendler's father and one of the world's leading poskim, especially on matters of bioethics. Rabbi Moshe Tendler had, at that time, established himself as one of the staunchest voices against the Oslo Accords, a position opposed by the Orthodox Caucus.
When Moshe Tendler's name was mentioned, Rabbi Herring said, "He's one of those responsible for the assassination."
It was not an unusual accusation in those days, and it would be chilling to think that such political hatred for the father could be played out in action against the son, but there is reason to believe that a similar action is also coming from the hareidi right in Monsey. There have been rumors that a hareidi group in Rockland County is planning to mount a campaign against Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, citing not the RCA ruling—the hareidim are not much interested in what Modern Orthodox rabbis have to say—but, rather, his own somewhat liberal dictums dealing with conversions and helping agunot. When asked directly, the hareidi groups in question admitted their real goal is to pay back Rabbi Moshe Tendler for his position against metzizeh bi peh during brit milah.
When an enemy wants to hurt, it's clear that the most damaging blow is the one that hits not the parent, but his child. A wise friend once told us: "Parents are only as happy as their least happy child."
In its desire to punish Rabbi Tendler, the RCA seems not only to have stood the Lanner case on its ear, it has jeopardized the potential for real cases of abuse to be believed.
"Just as the RCA failed to protect defenseless children from Rabbi Lanner, now they are failing to protect the rights of one of its most prominent leaders," said Hank Sheinkopf, a spokesman for Rabbi Tendler.
Supplementary Statement on Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
Rabbinical Council of America - April 19, 2005
http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?ID=100592
Apr 19, 2005 -- A Further Statement by the Rabbinical Council of America in the Matter of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
We wish to thank Rav Chaim Rosenthal, Av Bet Din of the Bet Din Ha-Ezori of Jerusalem, for his clarification (dated 5 Nissan 5765) of the earlier preliminary opinion (hachlatah, which is a preliminary opinion, not a psak or decision) of the Bet Din Ha-Ezori. We have read both the hachlatah and his letter to us very carefully, and therefore we wish to make the following statement:
Although the Rabbinical Council of America feels that this is an internal membership issue, nonetheless, because of our respect for the Gedolim in Eretz Yisrael, we wish to clarify that
1. The Rabbinical Council of America, in responding to complaints brought to it regarding Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, acted in all respects in accordance with its established constitutional provisions to review his membership status in our organization.
2. The Rabbinical Council of America has acted only in regard to his membership in our organization, and has not addressed his employment in his congregation or elsewhere.
3. The matter of his employment remains entirely up to the members of his congregation, and is not under our jurisdiction.
Therefore we are in harmony with the opinion of the Bet Din Ha-Ezori, as clarified by its Av Bet Bin.
For the record, anyone wishing to see the texts of the original hachlata and the subsequent clarification by the Av Bet Din, may see them on the website of the Rabbinical Council of America, at
www.rabbis.org.
An Inappropriate Process (Part IV)
Jewish Press - Posted 4/28/2005
By Editorial Board
http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=4933
Jerusalem Bet Din Reaffirms
Last week the Jerusalem Bet Din of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate reaffirmed its initial decision in Rabbi Mordecai Tendler`s case against the Vaad Hakavod of the Rabbinical Council of America. The Bet Din, in unmistakably clear language emphasized that it is prohibited for an investigative committee such as the Vaad Hakavod to take any action which can cause or bring about the dismissal of a rabbi in the Jewish community and that any such action must be taken through an independent bet din.
The Jerusalem Bet Din reemphasized that an investigative committee such as the Vaad Hakavod could not in any way damage or effect any services provided by, or any status or position of, Rabbi Mordecai Tendler. The Jerusalem Bet Din explained that its decision was in the nature of a preliminary injunction intended to preserve the status quo until such time as a competent bet din dealt with the merits. (The text of the Bet Din`s second decision is reproduced after this editorial.)
Notably, the Bet Din`s second decision came in response to a request by the Vaad Hakavod to vacate or modify the earlier ruling. Not surprisingly, not only did the Bet Din refuse to modify its decision in any way, but it repeated and emphasized with unmistakable clarity the import of its earlier words. It did add, in an apparent attempt to remind the RCA rabbis of their antecedents, that they were the students of the Rav, zt"l, one of the greatest Torah leaders of the previous generation and that the Rav, zt"l, maintained a respectful relationship with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and its rabbinic courts.
In other words, the Jerusalem Bet Din admonished the Vaad Hakavod and the RCA that "es past nisht" for them to do these kinds of things or to be disrespectful to the rabbinical courts of the Chief Rabbinate. As our readers will recall, the RCA response to the Jerusalem Bet Din`s first ruling spoke of that body as Israeli rabbis who willfully denied the facts or were ignorant of them. Readers will note from the second statement of the RCA (reproduced after this editorial) that the Jerusalem Bet Din`s chastising message must have registered, since that second statement speaks respectfully of the Jerusalem court.
Regrettably, however, the RCA continues to prevaricate with regard to its own actions and their effects by claiming that the RCA acted only with respect to Rabbi Tendler`s membership and did not address his employment (in his congregation or elsewhere). The comments of Rabbi Basil Herring, the RCA's executive vice president, are revealing. In a statement made immediately following the RCA's expulsion ruling, Rabbi Herring told The Jewish Week, "It`s a serious step for someone`s career. The RCA imprimatur is valuable." So, as Rabbi Herring himself attests, the implications of the Vaad Hakavod`s action were clearly foreseeable.
Similarly, immediately after the expulsion order was issued, the Vaad Hakavod notified Yeshiva University and Rabbi Tendler was promptly dismissed from the faculty of RIETS, a position he had held for a number of years. And, as reported in The Jewish Week, several rabbis began boycotting certain seminars Rabbi Tendler had regularly conducted. In addition,
The Jewish Press has also learned that Rabbi Tendler was discharged from his position with the Rockland County Mental Health Center. Further, after months of sensationalist reporting fueled by strategic leaks to make sure that the news would not escape anyone`s notice in the Jewish community, the RCA upon expelling Rabbi Tendler, promptly notified members of his congregation as well as the 1,000 members of the RCA and their congregations, and issued a press release that was widely disseminated and carried prominently in news reports by the Orthodox-bashing Jewish Week and Forward. Yet the RCA would have us believe that the expulsion was only an "internal membership issue."
The Vaad Hakavod And The Awareness Center
As many of our readers may know,
the Awareness Center is a website that regularly publishes
allegations of abuse made against rabbis, cantors, etc. We underscore allegations because, while some of the listed persons have been convicted, the overwhelming number of those persons listed have merely had allegations made against them by unidentified accusers. More important, this website makes no pretense of having investigated or vetted the accuracy of the complaints or the integrity of the accusers.
The justification for maintaining such an extraordinary vehicle was explained by
Rabbi Yosef Blau, the mashgiach ruchani of RIETS who happens to be the secretary and acting vice-president of the Awareness Center and one of the driving forces behind the RCA`s Vaad Hakavod action against Rav Mordecai Tendler. Rabbi Blau was quoted in a March 26, 2004 Jewish Week article as follows: "If we had more resources we`d be in a better position to separate different levels of offenses, different kinds of accusations. But without a much larger organization, at this point this is about all that [we] could be expected to do under the circumstances." Similarly, here is an excerpt from the same article reporting the comments of Rabbi Mark Dratch, who reportedly, as the chairman of the RCA`a Task Force on Rabbinic Improprieties, initiated the action against Rabbi Mordecai Tendler and who was close to the Vaad Hakavod`s investigation:
"It [i.e., the Awareness Center] is guilt by association," concedes Rabbi Mark Dratch, an Awareness Center Board member and head of the Rabbinical Council of America`s Task Force on Rabbinic Improprieties. Rabbi Dratch and others say that the good accomplished by the organization outweighs the potential damage of some of its postings. "People who are survivors of sexual trauma don`t have many places to turn, and [the Awareness Center] has succeeded, through the accessibility and anonymity of the Internet, for people to have resources, have places to call," Rabbi Dratch says.
It does not surprise us and it should not surprise our readers that in its actions against Rabbi Tendler, the Vaad Hakavod was implementing the very same policy followed by the Awareness Center. That policy regards as blameworthy anyone against whom an accusation of abuse has been made, despite the fact that the accuser is anonymous, the accusations have not been tested for accuracy, and the accused has not had any opportunity to defend himself before a bet din. As we have seen, there is a troubling overlap between the two organizations, exemplified by Rabbi Blau's prominence in both the Awareness Center and the Vaad Hakavod.
In our view, what the Vaad Hakavod sought to establish through its case against Rav Mordecai Tendler is the principle that the bet din process could be dispensed with and that an investigative committee was an acceptable halachic alternative. This is why the RCA repeatedly denied Rabbi Tendler`s requests to appear before a bet din. And this is why the RCA rebuffed and continues to rebuff the Bet Din of Jerusalem which has twice ordered the imposition of halachic discipline by requiring the use of a bet din where the actions of an investigative committee could cause or bring about damage to the accused.
The very first consequence to Rabbi Mordecai Tendler from his expulsion by the RCA was his immediate and summary dismissal from the faculty of RIETS. It was as if expulsion from membership was an automatic disqualification from serving on the faculty. We can say with assurance that the action taken by YU was not preceded by any independent investigation of the circumstances and that it was accomplished without resort to any bet din. In other words, YU`s action was premised upon the expulsion order of the RCA. That expulsion has now been discredited by two rulings of the Jerusalem Bet Din of the Chief Rabbinate, leaving YU`s action without any valid basis whatsoever.
In our view it is time for YU to lead rather than follow, especially since the kavod of Torah and the kavod of the Chief Rabbinate have been put in play. RIETS should not be following the lead of certain RCA rabbis and their agendas. It is up to RIETS to institute halachic discipline where, as in this particular situation, a void exists. We wish to echo the sentiments of the Jerusalem Bet Din that the noble traditions of the Rav, zt"l, should be kept uppermost in the minds of those who claim to be his disciples. We call upon YU and RIETS to rescind the dismissal of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler and take a stand for halachic discipline, and for the honor of the Rabbinic Courts of the Chief Rabbinate and the Rav, zt"l.
The P`sak And The Response
We reproduce below the reaffirmation by the Jerusalem Regional Bet Din of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel of its earlier p`sak in the case brought by Rabbi Mordecai Tendler against the Rabbinical Council of America and the RCA`s response.
JERUSALEM REGIONAL BET DIN
Yerushalayim, 6 Nissan 5765
In the name of the Bet Din I am responding to the letter of the distinguished rabbis, leaders of the Rabbinical Council of America, the honorable president, Rabbi Kenneth Auman, shlita, and the Executive Vice President, Rabbi Basil Herring, shlita, who appealed to us regarding the Injunction issued by our Bet Din on 25 Adar II, 5765.
On the referenced date, this Bet Din issued a ``Decision-Injunction.``
The Clerk of this Bet Din transmitted the ``Decision-Injunction`` by fax directly to [the RCA`s] office, and the certification of the fax is in the file of this Bet Din. Similarly, a copy of the referenced was transmitted to the distinguished rabbis, the President and Executive Vice President of your organization.
I, the undersigned, one of the judges who signed on the referenced Decision, drink with thirst the words of the mighty Gaon, Our Teacher, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l, a prince of the House of Brisk, from the greatest Torah leaders of the previous generation, a generation of great Torah knowledge. Especially now during the Yom Tov season [do I study his words], and I am in close contact with many of his students and with several of his grandchildren who are among the greatest scholars of our generation, for among the modest is found Torah knowledge.
Never did this Bet Din consider any disparaging thoughts against the glorified organization with proudly represents the best rabbis in America.
To the contrary, since we are aware of your great activities, and we are also aware of your organization`s relationship with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and to its Rabbinical Courts, as these concepts have been expressed in the words of the Gaon Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l, we entered the fray specifically and wrote what we did [in our Decision-Injunction], namely that it is prohibited to take any action which can cause or bring about the dismissal of a rabbi in the Jewish community.
Any action which may have such an effect, if such an action will be taken, may only be taken through an independent and impartial Bet Din or through the ``zablah`` process, and not through any investigative committee of the organization wherein the complainants and the individual about whom complaints were made are members.
Our intervention in this matter [by issuing our Decision-Injunction] was in the realm of ``first aid`` before a full Bet Din proceeding, without any intention to rule on the underlying substantive matter in favor of either party. This has been the practice of Batei Din from time immemorial.
If, in the view of the RCA, the RCA is not in any way damaging or affecting any serviced provided by, or any status or position of the Plaintiff, then our Decision-Injunction has no implication.
With respect to your question about from where did this Bet Din arrive at the notion that we have the right to involve ourselves in this matter [we state as follows]: We were presented with this very question. Inasmuch as this matter was a request for a Decision-Injunction, what is quoted in your letter as our Decision is actually the Plaintiff`s claims as expressed through his representative and not our own reasons. With Hashem`s help, we will expand on the Halachic, judicial, theoretical and philosophical bases of our right and obligation to involve this Bet Din in this matter.
This Bet Din never intended to harm your glorious organization; to the contrary, as we have stated, this Bet Din is very interested that your organization should continue to work on behalf of American Jewry, the largest community of Jews. We look forward to the continuation of the blessed partnership between your organization and the Jewish Nation dwelling in Zion.
A Kosher and Happy Pesach to the President, Executive Vice President and all Members of the RCA and their families and to all of Klal Yisrael.
/s/ Rabbi Chaim S. Rosenthal
The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Decision to:
The President of the Bet Din HaGadol, the Gaon Rabbi S. Amar, shlita
The Administrator of the Batei Din, Rabbi A. Ben-Dahan, shlita
A Further Statement By The Rabbinical Council Of America In The Matter Of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
We wish to thank Rav Chaim Rosenthal, Av Bet Din of the Bet Din Ha`Ezori of Jerusalem, for his clarification (dated 5 Nissan 5765) of the earlier preliminary opinion (hachlatah, which is a preliminary opinion, not a psak or decision) of the Bet Din HaEzori. We have read both the hachlatah and his letter to us very carefully, and therefore we wish to make the following statement:
Although the Rabbinical Council of America feels that this is an internal membership issue, nonetheless, because of our respect for the Gedolim in Eretz Yisrael, we wish to clarify that
The Rabbinical Council of America, in responding to complaints brought to it regarding Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, acted in all respects in accordance with its established constitutional provisions to review his membership status in our organization.
The Rabbinical Council of America has acted only in regard to his membership in our organization, and has not addressed his employment in his congregation or elsewhere.
The matter of his employment remains entirely up to the members of his congregation, and is not under our jurisdiction.
Therefore we are in harmony with the opinion of the Bet Din Ha`Ezori, as clarified by its Av Bet Din.
For the record, anyone wishing to see the texts of the original hachlatah and the subsequent clarification by the Av Bet Din, may see them on the website of the Rabbinical Council of America, at
www.rabbis.org.
Taking Stock Of The RCA`s Tendler Debacle
Jewish Press - May 4, 2005
In a series of editorials these past few weeks, The Jewish Press has explored the unfolding story of the Rabbinical Council of America`s expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler following an investigation conducted under the auspices of the RCA`s Vaad Hakavod.
Significantly, the Jerusalem Bet Din of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, where Rabbi Tendler had commenced a case against the RCA for its decision to expel him, has twice denounced any action taken against a rabbi that can have adverse affects on the rabbi`s future when it is not the result of the ruling of a bet din. In its first decision the Jerusalem Bet Din said that the defendants, including the RCA and several others named, "are prohibited from damaging or in any way affecting any services provided by, or any status or position of, the Plaintiff [Rabbi Tendler] unless and until the Defendants summon the Plaintiff to a din Torah, in any location in the world, before an official rabbinical bet din or before a bet din constituted through the process of "zablah." In its second decision the Jerusalem Bet Din reaffirmed, explaining,
[I]t is prohibited to take any action which can cause or bring about the dismissal of a rabbi in the Jewish community. Any action which may have such an effect, if such action will be taken, may only be taken through an independent and impartial Bet Din or through the "zablah" process, and not through any investigative committee of the organization wherein the complainants and the individual about whom complainants were made are members:
The RCA`s responses to the Jerusalem Bet Din have been nothing short of stunning. Though the Jerusalem Bet Din twice directly addressed the issue of its jurisdiction, the RCA twice denied that the Jerusalem Bet Din had jurisdiction in the matter. Despite the fact that the Jerusalem Bet Din twice ruled that only a bet din could take any action that can adversely affect the future of a rabbi, the RCA twice asserted that its expulsion of Rabbi Tendler addressed only the issue of his membership, not his future as a rabbi, and that therefore the RCA is, at all events, in compliance with the rulings of the Jerusalem Bet Din. As we demonstrated last week, however, this position of the RCA is patently absurd.
In this connection, we cited a statement of the RCA`s executive vice president, Rabbi Basil Herring, to the effect that loss of RCA membership is important to a rabbi`s future — and therein lies the tale of a disturbing twist to an already unfortunate situation. Rabbi Herring`s quote was part of an article that appeared in the March 25, 2005 print and website editions of The New York Jewish Week and was reported as follows:
While Orthodox synagogues are not required to hire rabbis who are members of the denominations` allied rabbinical groups, being barred from the RCA will make it difficult for him to find work as a congregational rabbi elsewhere, some officials said.
"It`s a serious step for someone`s career," said Rabbi Basil Herring, the RCA`s executive vice president. "The RCA imprimatur is valuable."
Surely, Rabbi Herring`s comment qualified as a "smoking gun" given the official statement of his organization that its expulsion of Rabbi Tendler should properly be viewed only in the context of his membership in their organization. Yet it turns out that Rabbi Herring`s statement was deleted from the piece sometime after the fact — and is conspicuously absent from the article as it now appears on The Jewish Week`s website.
In sum, the RCA persists in defying the Jerusalem Bet Din of the Chief Rabbinate by unilaterally rejecting the latter`s jurisdiction and by not proceeding by way of a bet din in the Tendler matter. It also persists in its attempts to write the history of this debacle, as witness its transparent prevarications in trying to get around the rulings of the Jerusalem Bet Din. Most recently, it has, with the apparent complicity of The Jewish Week, attempted to rewrite history as well.
In the course of our several editorials on the Tendler matter, we expressed our dismay, based upon information we received, over the reported role played by Rabbi Yosef Blau, given his deep involvement with the by now notorious Awareness Center. Last Friday we received an e-mail and telephone message from Rabbi Blau who was in Israel at the time. In both, Rabbi Blau narrowly stated that he has never been a member of the RCA`s Vaad Hakavod and that he "did not participate in the investigation of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler and was not part of the decision process." This of course gives rise to a whole host of questions as to his involvement in the process as a whole through others. As of Tuesday afternoon we were unable to reach Rabbi Blau for a follow-up. We hope to have more on this next week.
Jewish Press: Letter to the Editor
From: Vicki Polin, Executive Director - The Awareness Center
I wanted to start off by informing you of the many errors I've found in your recent articles relating to the allegations of rabbinical sexual misconduct by Rabbi Mordecai Tendler. In this letter I am only going to address the many errors that I found that are directly related to The Awareness Center. Please feel free to call me to discuss these issues. I can be reached at 443-857-5560.
1. The Awareness Center is more then just a "website". We are a (Sexual Violence) Victims Rights Advocacy organization. Our organization offers a clearinghouse of information on various issues pertaining to the topic of sexual violence. As of today, The Awareness Center is the only Jewish organization that focuses purely on helping survivors of incest, sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment and rabbinical sexual misconduct.
Only a small part of our time and web page focuses on listing the names of alleged and convicted sex offenders. I think it's important to mention that for years there has been an ongoing trend for alleged and convicted offenders to move from one community to the next, leaving a trail of survivors behind. There have been several incidents where the alleged and also convicted offenders will move from city, state or even country to another, to avoid prosecution and or because they were chased out of town. There has also been a trend that they will change their names from their English names to Hebrew names. The Awareness Center tracks these occurrences the best we can as a way to prevent any future victims. The Awareness Center also offers resources for those who do offend and are seeking help, and also for family members of alleged and convicted sex offenders. For more information go to: http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/offenders.html and http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/familymembermolests.html
2. Rabbi Mark Dratch resigned from the Advisory Board of The Awareness Center quite awhile ago. Rabbi Dratch has never been a member of our Board of Directors. He never had a decision making role in our organization. In your article "An Inappropriate Process (Part IV) dated April 28, 2005, you stated Rabbi Mark Dratch is currently on our board of directors. He is not. You can easily verify this information by going to our web page:http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/board.html
3. The Awareness Center is NOT an investigator organization. We are a clearinghouse of information. We have policies in place of what goes up on our list of alleged and convicted offenders. To view our policies go to:
http://theawarenesscenter.org/policies.html
4. The Awareness Center had nothing to do with the way the Vaad Hakavod operated. I personally wish we had been able to, yet that has never been the role of our organization. Please remember we are an educational and advocacy organization. The role our organization usually plays in any case has been to provide information and resources to those who have stated they had been sexual victimized. We have also supplied information and resources to those in supportive roles to survivors, to family members of alleged and convicted offenders, and also to alleged and convicted offenders.
Considering all of the information provided above that is readily available to anyone on our web page, I find it amazing that there have been so many errors in your articles. I am also surprised that no one from your paper has ever contacted The Awareness Center.
On another note, I felt that it was important to thank you for calling The Awareness Center "notorious." I had no idea that an organization that is supported purely by volunteers and which has very little funding could have such an impact in the orthodox world. I'm amazed that it would be considered "notorious."
It makes one have to stop and wonder why you feel it is so threatening for an organization to advocate for those who have felt they have been sexually violated.
Vicki Polin, Executive Director
Jewish Press - Letter
From: Rabbi Yosef Blau
Jewish Whistleblower - May 4, 2005
http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/05/new-jewish-press-on-rcarabbi-mordechai.html#comments
The Jewish Press chose to interpret my denial of any involvement with the investigation as "narrow". I left a number in Israel for them to reach me before Shabbos or Monday. The reason that I was not reached on Tuesday is that I did not come home intil late in the afternoon and returned the call to an answering machine last night. At no point before Tuesday did anyone connected to the Jewish Press contact me to ask any questions about the investigation or anything else. This did not prevent them from the personal attack in an editorial, which followed an editorial about the need for a Beis Din procedure.
I did finally reach someone at the Jewish Press late today and answered every question he asked. The names of those who gave them information were keeped confidential. One last correction, I have not been in contact with the Beis Din in Yerushalayim. I went to Israel in March as I do every year for Y.U. before knowing that a Beis Din had been approached by an Israeli rabbinical lawyer for Rabbi Mordechai Tendler and returned to Israel for Pesach so that my wife and I could spend the chag with our son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren living there.
Yosef Blau
UPDATE: April 7, 2005 The Awareness Center posted the following message on our web page. On April 29, 2005, The Awareness Center learned from an article published in the Jewish Press been that Rabbi Mordecai Tendler no longer serves on the board of directors or as the Halachic Advisor at the Jewish Family Services of Rockland County.
-----------------------------------------
Let your voice be heard. Please feel free to contact Jewish Family Services at: (845) 354-2121. One of the prinicipal funders of Jewish Family Services is The Jewish Federation of Rockland County. Please feel free to also contact Shimon Pepper the executive director of the Jewish Federation of Rockland County. He can be reached at: (845) 362-4200, ext. 121.
Following an investigation into allegations of rabbinical sexual misconduct the Rabbinical Council of America announced on March 21, 2005 that it had expelled Rabbi Mordecai Tendler.
Tendler had "engaged in conduct inappropriate for an Orthodox rabbi" and refused to cooperate with the committee investigating the claims, the RCA said in a statement.
An Open Letter to the Jewish Community Regarding the Investigation and Expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) - June 27, 2005 (20 Sivan 5765)
http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?ID=100606
Over the past weeks and months a few Jewish media outlets have presented a one-sided version of the facts concerning the expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler from the ranks of the RCA. The RCA has considered a variety of responses to this situation. As part of this response, the RCA secured an agreement from the Jewish Press to provide a full page in the paper to present, in open letter format, an RCA account of the Vaad Hakavod process leading to that expulsion. Unfortunately the paper would not print the letter without significant changes to it; changes that, in the interests of fairness, the officers of the RCA are not willing to accept. Therefore such a letter will not appear in the Jewish Press. The exact text of the open letter is as follows:
----------------------------------
In recent months, the Rabbinical Council of America's (RCA) investigation and deliberations on the allegations of misconduct raised against our colleague, Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, have been the subject of much misinformation and inaccuracies throughout the Jewish community.
We remain loath to publicly address the methods employed in the investigation of Rabbi Tendler and his subsequent expulsion from the RCA. However, in light of the proliferation of these inaccurate and one-sided reports, and especially the recent steps taken by Rabbi Tendler in a Jerusalem Bet Din and elsewhere, that have served to confuse many in the Jewish community, the RCA now feels it would be both professionally irresponsible and morally remiss not to correct the public perception of the allegations and investigation that informed our decision.
Allegations Against Rabbi Tendler
Over a year ago, the RCA was formally presented with complaints from various individuals alleging misconduct by Rabbi Tendler. Faced with these accusations, the RCA's executive body immediately appointed an internal ethics committee, a "Vaad Hakavod," to investigate these allegations and to provide Rabbi Tendler an opportunity to respond before undertaking any definitive action. Despite the refusal of Rabbi Tendler to participate in the proceedings, certain of the individuals' allegations were determined to be credible. On March 15th, 2005, the RCA Executive Committee decided unanimously to expel Rabbi Tendler from the RCA.
Rabbi Mordecai Tendler's removal from the RCA has been both personally and professionally painful for all involved – the Jewish community at large, Rabbi Tendler, his family and loved ones, and the membership of the RCA. It is only with extreme regret and trepidation that we are called upon to investigate any of our members in response to any complaints of misconduct. How much more so when they involve allegations against an individual admired by many as a scholar, educator and community leader. Accordingly, those of us involved in the investigative proceedings deeply desired to find Rabbi Tendler innocent of the misconduct charges leveled against him, and we sought to provide him with every opportunity to present his response to these complaints. Sadly for all parties, Rabbi Tendler refused to attend the hearings of the Vaad Hakavod or to confront his accusers.
Ultimately, the findings supported certain charges of misconduct. As such, the RCA was compelled to come to our painful judgment, as the Jewish community would expect us to, and not stand idly by.
The RCA as an Independent Organization
There are a loud and select few who have publicly challenged and criticized the legitimacy of the Vaad Hakavod, which was appointed to investigate this matter, and the procedural means used to conduct the hearings. The RCA is a professional organization that is governed by a constitution, which was composed and ratified by its membership in 1935. All of our activities, throughout our 70-year history of Rabbinic leadership, are governed by our constitution. As such, this governing charter provides that any charges brought against an RCA member shall be investigated by our internal ethics committee – a Vaad Hakavod. Well-known and respected rabbinic leaders from throughout the world, many not even members of the RCA, have emphatically stated that our membership may be governed in the manner of other private organizations. As with all other professional organizations and societies, the RCA is permitted to establish its own criteria for its membership, legislate rules of member conduct, investigate in a manner of its choosing possible violations of its rules, and suspend or expel those members it deems in breach of those rules. The constitution of the RCA strictly follows the Halacha and respects all local and national laws.
The Investigatory Process
The Vaad Hakavod was duly convened in March 2004. It consisted of five leading rabbis from diverse backgrounds – Chairman Rabbi Hershel Billet, Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz (Av Bet Din of the Beth Din of America and the Beth Din of the Chicago Rabbinical Council,) Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, Rabbi Kenneth Auman, and Rabbi Basil Herring. At each step of the way, the Vaad examined what the halacha required, and acted accordingly. We also appointed four lay professionals to review the allegations and advise the Vaad during its investigation.
To deal with this highly sensitive matter, and as an initial step in the investigation, the Vaad hired an independent, non-partisan and respected professional investigator with experience in cases such as this.
The 75-page long, final report and findings determined that the allegations made by a number of complainants were credible, despite the denials raised by Rabbi Tendler.
Upon the advice of our legal counsel, we sent Rabbi Tendler the complete report to apprise him of the details of the allegations, findings, and conclusions and to enable him to prepare his response for consideration by the Vaad. We wanted to afford him every opportunity to obtain the necessary information and evidence to defend himself.
To our dismay, Rabbi Tendler responded within days in writing, saying that he did "not think it necessary to meet in person." Instead he insisted that we rely upon his written denial of the allegations, together with various written submissions that accompanied his letter.
In December 2004, the Vaad sent Rabbi Tendler a letter informing him of the intention to proceed with a formal hearing and with a full opportunity for him to cross-examine and confront witnesses, except, as the halacha provides, for those who might be intimidated by his presence. Rabbi Tendler, through his wife, responded in writing that "to reiterate, we are not going to participate in any hearings. Period." Some weeks later we received a formal letter from Rabbi Tendler's attorney stating, "Rabbi Tendler will not participate in any hearing." Upon receipt of this letter, the Vaad concluded that in the absence of Rabbi Tendler's participation we would not be able to hold a formal hearing.
Even then, the Vaad did not wish to rely exclusively on the external investigation. Thus it proceeded to have certain key accusers and witnesses interviewed by a Vaad member and by counsel to the Vaad, to assess their credibility and report to the Vaad.
The statements and allegations of those interviewed were found to be credible. The witnesses' statements conformed with the details contained in the investigator's report. Overall, we were convinced of the truthfulness of the witnesses' statements. We did not find Rabbi Tendler's written submission to be sufficient to rebut what had been told to our investigators and interviewers.
The Vaad sat for one final meeting. Only after somber and careful review of the facts and the history of the investigation, our distinguished rabbis unanimously recommended to the Executive Committee of the RCA the expulsion of Rabbi Tendler. The Executive Committee then met and reviewed the findings of the Vaad Hakavod committee, and voted unanimously that Rabbi Tendler's membership in the RCA should be revoked because he refused to cooperate with the Vaad in its investigation, refused to appear at a hearing, and had engaged in conduct inappropriate for an Orthodox rabbi (which is the precise language of the RCA's Constitution.) To minimize any embarrassment to him and his family, and to the complaining witnesses, we purposely did not describe our findings in detail, and we will not do so here.
Despite numerous calls from journalists and requests for an explanation from the officers of Rabbi Tendler's synagogue and other communal leaders, the RCA declined public comment. This was consistent with the policy of the Vaad throughout its deliberation that it would make no public statements on the investigation.
Subsequent to our actions, a regional Bet Din in Jerusalem issued an injunction regarding the RCA's expulsion of Rabbi Tendler. This Bet Din stated that the RCA was enjoined from undertaking any actions that would damage "serarato u-misrato" (his rabbinic authority and position.) In this regard it should be noted that the RCA has not and did not seek or attempt to cause injury to Rabbi Tendler in any way beyond removing him from its membership. The matter of Rabbi Tendler's employment remains entirely up to the members of his congregation. More recently the RCA and certain individuals received a summons from a regional Jerusalem Bet Din to respond to allegations made by Rabbi Tendler. The RCA takes this matter very seriously, and will reply appropriately in full accordance with both the letter and the spirit of halacha.
Responsibility and Leadership
Throughout this entire difficult process, we have taken concrete steps to assure accuracy and fairness to Rabbi Tendler. We repeatedly offered him an opportunity to personally confront his accusers and to testify directly before the Vaad Hakavod. Each time, Rabbi Tendler declined the opportunity. The record shows that we acted in complete accordance with halacha, both in process and outcome.
Leadership is not determined by those who must make the easy choices – it's the difficult decisions that should be commended and applauded. Presented with this difficult dilemma, the RCA took deliberate action and remains completely confident that despite the misgivings of a loud and outspoken few, our entire rabbinic leadership is not mistaken. We believe that Rabbi Tendler was given every opportunity to defend himself. Most importantly, we believe that our action was necessary.
This painful decision was made with heavy hearts, but also knowing that these allegations needed to be addressed. In recent years, we have learned from the experience of others that we cannot ignore allegations against members of the rabbinate.
We hope that we have here provided some measure of understanding of our process and decision to the members of the Jewish community, and we further hope that any future discussions of the RCA's decision concerning Rabbi Tendler will be carried out with the proper dignity and seriousness that it deserves, and will not result in any further Chillul Hashem.
Editorials
The RCA Sends A Letter
Jewish Press - June 30, 2005
By Editorial Board
http://jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=5053
While preparing our recent editorials and news articles about the Rabbincal Council of America's handling of its investigation and ultimate expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, we repeatedly sought comment from the RCA. For whatever their reasons — and some that were expressed to us were downright insulting — various RCA officials refused to speak for the record.
In the past few weeks , however, the RCA did reach out to us through a public relations firm, requesting the opportunity to appear in the pages of The Jewish Press to present its case. While we were not the least averse to providing a forum for the RCA to state its side of the story, we made it clear to the RCA's intermediary that because of the various injunctions and hazmanos that had been issued against several RCA officials and members — which include claims of defamation and libel — there would have to be some restriction placed on what the RCA could say in its piece. We specifically were concerned about statements that would negatively affect Rabbi Tendler's position in the Jewish community, which is at the heart of the case as it currently stands in the Jerusalem Bet Din, violate the injunctions and make us complicit in that violation.
After some discussion it was agreed that the RCA would submit an op-ed article that would be limited to addressing the questions raised by The Jewish Press about the propriety of the RCA's investigative and decision-making process in the Tendler matter, and that the article would carry the byline of RCA leaders and members directly involved in the investigation and expulsion of Rabbi Tendler. Further, we indicated that the piece would be editorially vetted and treated like any other article submitted for publication.
What we received from the RCA was something quite different from what had beenpromised. Not a bylined op-ed at all, it was an unsigned "Open Letter To the Readers of the Jewish Press" which attacked, in accusatory fashion, this newspaper for "one-sidedness" and "misinformation and inaccuracies." And in what we viewed as an even more egregious violation of our agreement — and, more importantly, of the extant bet din injunctions — the proposed "open letter" reiterated the RCA`s "findings" against Rabbi Tendler respecting his alleged non-cooperation with its investigation and his alleged conduct unbecoming an Orthodox rabbi. Significantly, both of these issues are now before the Jerusalem Bet Din for adjudication.
Reiterating our prior discussions, our response to the RCA was very straightforward. There had to be an article, not a letter, bearing the names of RCA leaders and people with direct knowledge of the matter. There could, of course, be criticism of The Jewish Press along the lines of that contained in the "letter," but it would have to be more than just unsupported statements couched as indisputable truth. Primarily, however, we again said that because of the injunctions and the pendency of a plenary proceeding in the Jerusalem Bet Din involving claims of defamation and libel, the article — as had been originally agreed to by the RCA's intermediary — would have to be limited to the propriety of the process as opposed to a litigation of the accusations in the pages of our newspaper.
Parenthetically, since there have never been any findings in this case made in an adjudicative process, we were concerned about such things as motzi shem ra, lashon hora, the publication of libel and contempt of an order of a bet din. We emphatically noted as well that we were not going to permit the pages of The Jewish Press to be used in the fashion that The Jewish Week and the Forward were used during the RCA's investigation and thereafter.
The RCA responded that it would withdraw its piece and submit another in the form of an article bearing the names of two individuals. And rather than attempt in this new piece to repeat (or offer proof of ) its previous charges against The Jewish Press of unfair and inaccurate reporting, the RCA said it would omit any mention of them. The organization refused, however, to limit the article to a defense of the process it followed — which had been the focus of our editorials. And there the matter stood at the end of last week.
On Monday, June 27, the RCA posted on its website its original proposed letter to us as "An
Open Letter To the Jewish Community From the Rabbinical Council of America." The letter was unsigned and, except for the deletion of one direct reference to The Jewish Press, repeated not only
the unsubstantiated charges of "one-sidedness" and "misinformation and inaccuracies" but also its discussion of the Tendler matter beyond the issue of the propriety of the process. The letter was introduced by the following:
Over the past weeks and months a few Jewish media outlets have presented a one-sided version of the facts concerning the expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler from the ranks of the RCA. The RCA has considered a variety of responses to this situation. As part of this response, the RCA secured an
agreement from The Jewish Press to provide a full page in the paper to present, in open letter format, an RCA account of the Vaad Hakavod process leading to that expulsion. Unfortunately the paper would not print the letter without significant changes to it; changes that, in the interests of fairness, the officers of the RCA are not willing to accept. Therefore such a letter will not appear in the Jewish Press. The exact text of the open letter is as follows....
We'll put aside, for this week at least, the claim that we had agreed to provide the RCA "a full page...in open letter format." As noted above, what was agreed on was a bylined op-ed, pure and simple. In addition to what we have already said about the content of the RCA "letter" — which, given the existence of the bet din injunctions and hazmanos, is truly remarkable — the letter is noteworthy for several other reasons as well.
First, why is the RCA`s "open letter" unsigned? Where are the 25-plus members of the RCA hierarchy on this issue? How can it be that there is not one who would willingly, publicly identify with what the RCA did here? Incredibly, The Jewish Press was asked to publish this "open letter," but the 25-plus members of the RCA hierarchy apparently were not ready to sign on to it.
Second, the RCA "open letter" now finally acknowledges the existence of the bet din injunctions. Equally important, the Jerusalem Bet Din already has at least preliminarily criticized, if not discredited, the process followed by the RCA. Yet the open letter once again alleges the credibility of the accusing witnesses, the integrity of the evidence and the failure of Rabbi Tendler to cooperate — statements that inevitably damage Rabbi Tendler`s standing in the community as a rabbi. Of course, these very allegations not only fly in the face of the bet din`s conclusions but also are precisely what the injunctions prohibit pending the outcome of the bet din proceeding.
Third, why have the RCA and the other defendants refused after all of this time to unequivocally state their intention to comply with the hazmanos? These defendants are, after all, prominent rabbis who should serve as role models for the Jewish community.
We continue to stand ready to provide a forum for the RCA to present its views, but we will insist that halachic and legal principles be observed.
Rumors regarding The Awareness Center
The Awareness Center Newsletter - June 30, 2005
It has come to my attention that there has been some confusion that is floating around regarding the status of The Awareness Center.
One of the biggest rumors floating around is that The Awareness Center no longer has a board of directors or an advisory board. I want to assure you that both our board of directors and advisory board members are actively involved with our organization (including our halachic advisors).
The only thing that has changed is that we are no longer publishing the names of our board or advisory board members on our web page due to the degree of harassment and attempts to blackmail some of our executive board and advisory board members have been experiencing.
The confusion regarding our board has been stemming from articles published in two small newspapers. I've been told that those who run both papers have close connections to Rabbi Mordecai Tendler.
As most of you are aware Rabbi Tendler's membership was revoked by the
RCA (Rabbinical Council of America) a few months ago. It appears that the articles published have a direct link to individuals attempting to protect someone who has been accused of rabbinical sexual misconduct.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vicki Polin, Executive Director
The Awareness Center
www.theawarenesscenter.org
Orthodox Rabbinical Union Defends Expulsion of Member
By Rukhl Schaechter
Forward - July 1, 2005
http://www.forward.com/articles/3420
The main union of Modern Orthodox rabbis has issued a public letter in an effort to refute claims that it had acted improperly when it expelled Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, a member accused of sexual harassment.
In the open letter, which the Rabbinical Council of America posted on its Web site Monday, the organization said it was responding to the "one-sided" coverage of the controversy in certain Jewish media outlets that appeared to side with Tendler. The Jewish Press, a right-wing Orthodox newspaper in Brooklyn, was the only paper that the letter identified by name.
Tendler, the spiritual leader of Kehillat New Hempstead, located near Monsey, N.Y., is the scion of a prominent rabbinical family. He was expelled from the RCA in March, following an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment made by several women. He has vehemently denied the allegations.
The lawyer representing Tendler's congregation, Daniel Schwartz, declined to comment directly on the RCA's public statement, instead pointing to a letter he released in April attacking the RCA's handling of the case.
The RCA letter said it was especially eager to explain the process that led to Tendler's dismissal, in light of the recent steps taken by Tendler in a Jerusalem rabbinical court "that have served to confuse many in the Jewish community."
In its open letter, the RCA denied claims that Tendler had not been invited to testify in his own defense. The organization asserted that the rabbi declined in writing, through his wife and his lawyer, to meet with the ethics committee and to cross-examine his accusers.
Originally, the RCA had offered to allow The Jewish Press to publish the open letter. But according to the version of the RCA letter posted Monday, the newspaper refused to print the letter without significant changes. In response, the RCA is claiming, it withdrew its offer and decided instead to publish the letter in its entirety on the organization's Web Site.
Throughout the RCA's investigation of Tendler, and especially since Tendler's expulsion, The Jewish Press has published editorials denouncing the rabbinic union, arguing that the matter should have been handled through a rabbinic court.
In its letter the RCA defended its decision to rely on an internal ethics committee, or Vaad Hakavod, as approved by rabbinic authorities and stipulated in its constitution, which was composed and ratified by its membership in 1935. The RCA argued that a religious court was not needed, since the organization was only weighing whether to expel Tendler.
The council noted that its leaders did not take a position on whether Tendler's congregation should fire him.
"As with all other professional organizations, the RCA is permitted to establish its own criteria for its membership, investigate in a manner of its choosing possible violations of its rules and suspend or expel those members it deems in breach of those rules," the open letter stated. "The constitution of the RCA strictly follows the Halacha."
The ethics committee comprised of five distinguished rabbis from diverse backgrounds: Gedalia Dov Schwartz, head of the Beth Din of America, a religious court linked to the RCA; Kenneth Auman, then president of the RCA; Basil Herring, the RCA's executive vice president; Hershel Billet, a former president of the RCA, and Haskel Lookstein, religious leader of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in Manhattan.
"To minimize any embarrassment to [Tendler] and his family and to the complaining witnesses we purposely did not describe our findings in detail," the letter said.
"It is only with extreme regret and trepidation that we are called upon to investigate any of our members in response to any complaints of misconduct," the letter continued. "How much more so when they involve allegations against an individual admired by many as a scholar, educator and community leader. Accordingly, those of us involved in the investigative proceedings deeply desired to find Rabbi Tendler innocent of the misconduct charges leveled against him, and we sought to provide him with every opportunity to present his response to these complaints."
Jason Maoz, senior editor of the Jewish Press, told the Forward he was disappointed that the RCA decided not to publish its letter in his paper. "We were anxious to have the RCA appear in The Jewish Press," he said, "but we expected the RCA to follow certain stipulations -- namely that the piece not be anonymous, that it not be an attack on The Jewish Press" and that it be presented as a defense "from a halachic point of view" of the process used in investigating and expelling Tendler.
Maoz said that since a rabbinic court in Jerusalem had issued an injunction against several RCA officials and members, involving claims of defamation and libel, "we felt restricted in what the RCA could say in our paper, since certain statements could negatively affect Rabbi Tendler's position in the Jewish community, which would make us complicit in that violation."
Ronn Torossian, a spokesman for the RCA, told the Forward that in the second draft of the letter, the RCA did agree to include the names of two rabbis and to omit any negative charges against The Jewish Press. "In fact, the editorial in this week's Jewish Press even admits that the RCA agreed to these two points, and yet they still refused to print the letter."
Torossian added that the leadership of the RCA has consistently offered to sit down with The Jewish Press and establish a dialogue, even after the open letter was published, but that the newspaper has refused. "We are disappointed that The Jewish Press is not willing to sit down with us to discuss issues of mutual concern," Torossian said. "We're cognizant of the role that The Jewish Press has in the community, and we're still hopeful that this will occur."
Regarding the injunction issued by the Jerusalem rabbinic court, Torossian remarked that when the time comes, the RCA will absolutely respond to the beit din. "We will meet all deadlines and continue to obey all laws of Halacha," he said.
The Rabbinical Council of America Responds to the Hazmanah issued by a Jerusalem Regional Court
Jul 13, 2005 -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
212-999-5585
NEW YORK, NY - The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) announced today it had responded to the Regional Bet Din of Jerusalem which had summoned the RCA and certain named Rabbis to appear before it regarding the RCA's expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler for misconduct.
The letter of the RCA included the following (actual letter in italics):
"We are... prepared to go to a Din Torah to be held under the auspices of the Machon le'Hora'ah in Monsey, NY, on condition that its head, Rav Avraham Boruch Rosenberg will be the Av Bet Din, together with two additional dayyanim of that Bet Din. For according to the halachah that is explicitly stated in Choshen Mishpat 14:1, as explained by the Rema (R. Moshe Isserles), a summons is not to be sent from one city to another, if both litigants live in one city."
The letter also states that
"It is further clear from the Rema there, that the law of a Bet Havaad applies only in the same Country/Region (medinah), and not in another. Accordingly, your court has no jurisdiction in this matter whatsoever."
"As to the claim of the representative of Rabbi Tendler (Rabbi Mittelman) that the claim was brought before the Jerusalem Bet Din because there is no court or rabbinical body in the United States to which the RCA will submit, such a claim has no basis or foundation whatsoever. In our view, the real reason that the complainant brought this entire matter before you, rather than before a recognized Bet Din here, is that from such a distance one can make all kinds of statements without being contradicted.
"As to the substance of the matter: We hereby note the following items (in addition to the earlier statement that your Bet Din Ezori does not have jurisdiction in this matter, and that we are responding only in consideration of your honor):
In the clarification (hachlatah) issued by Rav Rosental in the name of the Bet Din (dated 8 Nissan, in response to the RCA letter of 4 Nissan), it is stated in paragraph 9 as follows: "If in your view you are not damaging the authority and employment of the claimant, then our statement is null and void." We must emphasize that the claimant has never had any position of authority or employment in, or salary from, our organization. He was merely a member, and accordingly the Bet Din Hakavod examined the matter in full accordance with the basic constitution of our organization.
Rav Rosental further wrote in his clarification that "such an action should properly be done, if it is to be done, by an independent bet din, or a zabla, and not by an investigating panel of the organization where the parties to the dispute are members." To this we must emphasize that the constitution of our organization states explicitly how to proceed, and who is to determine these matters. We followed those rules completely...
Furthermore: The source (Orach Chayyim 53:8) which Rabbi Mittelman quoted in his submission states "a Chazan is not to be removed from his position unless there are proper witnesses to his having a disqualification." The entire case and complaint, with all that it has stirred up, is based on this source. Yet it is clear, as we have stated, that the complainant is not a chazan of our organization, and not the rabbi of our organization, and not the principal or an officer - but simply a member, one of a thousand. By expelling him, we did not thereby deprive him of his employment, his dignity or his money, as explained above.
"All our decisions are guided by Halacha, and we are confident that the unanimous decision of our leadership to expel Rabbi Tendler from our ranks will be substantiated by the Bet Din," said Rabbi Dale Polakoff, President of The Rabbinical Council of America. "We will of course proceed to Bet Din, certain that the truth will emerge, and the facts will fully support everything that the RCA has done. We will produce documentation and proof, halachicly compelling argument and rabbinic precedent. The truth will prevail."
"This is a very serious matter to us," added Rabbi Polakoff. "We also want to take this opportunity to reiterate that while there are a loud and select few within the Jewish media who have publicly challenged and criticized us, the RCA was compelled to institute our painful judgment, as the Jewish community would expect us to, and not stand idly by. Leadership is not determined by those who must make the easy choices - it's the difficult decisions that should be commended and applauded. Presented with this difficult dilemma, the RCA took considered action and remains completely confident that our entire rabbinic leadership has acted with full justification."
Hebrew Response
http://www.rabbis.org/news/_pdfs/hebrew%20response.pdf
English Translation of Response
http://www.rabbis.org/news/_pdfs/Formal%20Response%20to%20BD%20Hazmanah.doc
A Literal Translation of the Response in Hebrew
Written by Rabbi Shmuel Fried on behalf of The Rabbinical Council of America to the Bet Din Eizori, Jerusalem in the matter of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
To the Honorable Judges of the Regional Bet Din Eizori, Jerusalem.
Rabbis Sharim, Rosental, Rabinowitz:
With regard to the summons issued from your Bet Din in response to a request by Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, against The Rabbinical Council of America and others, to appear in your court on the 7th of Tammuz, July 14th, 2005, I hereby respond on behalf of those summoned, as follows:
1. With full respect for your honor, we declare at the outset that this response does not in any way acknowledge the jurisdiction of your Bet Din in this matter, as we will presently explain. We are responding only out of respect for your honor.
2. For according to the halachah that is explicitly stated in Choshen Mishpat 14:1, as explained by the Rema (R. Moshe Isserles), a summons is not to be sent from one city to another, if both litigants live in one city.
3. It is further clear from the Rema there, that the law of a Bet Havaad applies only in the same Country/Region (medinah), and not in another. Accordingly, your court has no jurisdiction in this matter whatsoever.
4. Furthermore, the Rema there (14:3) states that in every case where there is no jurisdiction, there is no need whatsoever to respond to any hazmanah.
5. As to the claim of the representative of Rabbi Tendler (Rabbi Mittelman) that the claim was brought before the Jerusalem Bet Din because there is no court or rabbinical body in the United States to which the RCA will submit, such a claim has no basis or foundation whatsoever.
6. In our view, the real reason that the complainant brought this entire matter before you, rather than before a recognized Bet Din here, is that from such a distance one can make all kinds of statements without being contradicted, in accordance with the principle that "a person who wishes to deceive, goes to a distant location to make his case."
7. In addition, the representative of the claimant came before you to request an injunction on Friday April 1st 2005, even though he knew explicitly that our decision had already been made on Wednesday March 16th. He deliberately deceived you, by hiding this fact. After all, what is the point of a preventive injunction, after the completed action by our organization. He could only do that, because from such a distance one can present and accept inaccurate reports or submissions.
8. In light of all the above: According to the din, and halachah: as it now stands, we have not yet been the recipient of a valid summons (hazmanah,) insofar as no recognized Bet Din in our locale with proper jurisdiction and authority to send one, has sent us a hazmanah. Thus, according to halachah, there is no Din Torah to speak of, unless and until the claimant will properly summons us as defendants.
9. Nonetheless, strictly as a matter of going beyond the strict requirements of the halacha (lifnim mi-shurat ha-din): so as not to burden a qualified local Bet Din with having to send us a hazmanah, we are in fact prepared to go to a Din Torah to be held under the auspices of the Machon le'Hora'ah in Monsey, NY, on condition that its head, Rav Avraham Boruch Rosenberg will be the Av Bet Din, together with two additional dayyanim of that Bet Din. And furthermore it is understood that the authority of the Bet Din Machon le'Hora'ah will commence at the time of the signing of the proper shtar beirurin (the document that attests to the terms and conditions of adjudication) to be agreed upon by the two sides. (I personally further request that the hearing not take place prior to Rosh Chodesh Av (Sunday August 7th), as I need sufficient time to prepare all the documentation involved, and I currently have a very full schedule.)
10. As to the substance of the matter: We hereby note the following items (in addition to the earlier statement that your Bet Din does not have jurisdiction in this matter, and that we are responding only in consideration of your honor):
a. In the clarification (hachlatah) issued by Rav Rosental in the name of the Bet Din (dated 8 Nissan, in response to the RCA letter of 4 Nissan), it is stated in paragraph 9 as follows: "If in your view you are not damaging the authority or post and employment of the claimant, then our statement is null and void." We must emphasize that the claimant has never had any position of authority or employment in, or salary from, our organization. He was merely a member, and accordingly the Bet Din Hakavod examined the matter in full accordance with the basic constitution of our organization.
b. Rav Rosental further wrote in his clarification that "such an action should properly be done, if it is to be done, by an independent bet din, or a zabla, and not by an investigating panel of the organization where the parties to the dispute are members." To this we must emphasize that the constitution of our organization states explicitly how to proceed, and who is to determine these matters. We followed those rules completely. And the complainant himself accepted those rules by applying to become a member, which is an agreement to follow the rules of the constitution. In light of all of this, the essential question is: what is this hazmanah, or summons, which has been sent from your Bet Din, at the very same time that you were in possession of a copy of the constitution which Rabbi Mittelman, the representative of the complainant, himself gave to you in his submission requesting that you issue a hazmanah. This can only be explained in one of two ways: either you do not precisely understand the nuances of the English language, or the clerk of the Bet Din sent the hazmanah without your knowledge.
c. Furthermore: The source (Orach Chayyim 53:8) which Rabbi Mittelman quoted in his submission states "a Chazan is not to be removed from his position unless there are proper witnesses to his having a disqualification." The entire case and complaint, with all that it has stirred up, is based on this source. Yet it is clear, as we have stated, that the complainant is not a chazan of our organization, and not the rabbi of our organization, and not the principal or an officer – but simply a member, one of a thousand. By expelling him, we did not thereby deprive him of his employment, his post, or his money, as explained above. It is only possible to make all kinds of false statements and demands, if one is at a far distance. Had you been here in New York, a simple phone call would have established the facts of the matter.
11. As mentioned above, all of this is presented only by way of sensitivity to your honor that causes us to explain our position. Our decision for now is as described above in paragraph 9.
With this we hope and expect that we have fulfilled and completed any obligations in regards to your Bet Din, even beyond the strict letter of the law, lifnim mi-shurat ha-din.
In the name of those summoned,
Confronting The Story — Or Shooting The Messenger?
Jewish Press - August 3, 2005
By Rabbi Moshe Rosenberg
http://www.jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=5212
Full disclosure at the outset: I am a newly minted member of the Executive Board of the Rabbinical Council of America, though I do not write in any official capacity, nor has this letter been suggested, or even seen, by the RCA. Furthermore, I have known several members of the Vaad Hakavod for many years, and have great respect for them. This may taint my words in the eyes of some. I hope that instead it helps them understand my pain and puzzlement at seeing The Jewish Press disregard the considered conclusions of these rabbonim and veer away from the courageous precedents of its own reporting.
Perhaps the publication of this article can spur a useful dialogue, characterized more by light than heat.
I remember The Jewish Press, when I was growing up, leading the fight to rescue and release agunos from their shackles. Well before the cause became popular, this newspaper plugged away, week in, week out, trying to find any mechanism, halachic, social or judicial, whereby the plight of the victims could be ameliorated.
The memory of The Jewish Press`s journalistic courage in that battle — courage that remains strong to this day — leaves me saddened and disappointed when I read the paper`s recent series of editorials about the Rabbinical Council of America. Surely the plight of victims of abuse is no less poignant, and their situation also one that has proven immune to many usual remedies. Why, then, has The Jewish Press limited itself to questioning the methods of the RCA, rather than attempting to determine whether there are unspeakable things that have taken place?
Even if one were to grant that an official bet din should have been convened (and I do not grant this), aren`t the conclusions of the well known rabbonim of the Vaad Hakavod sufficient to give one pause? When five knowledgeable talmidei chachomim, who are also experienced community leaders of decades standing, come to such a radical conclusion as they did in the Tendler case, the least that can be said is that there was something in the evidence placed before them that made them feel such certainty on such a terrible issue. These are not men who are easily duped; they`ve been around the proverbial block not once, but many times. They were surely aware of the potential social and legal repercussions of their conclusions, and yet felt compelled to take a stand. So even if The Jewish Press disagrees with their methods, the paper should agitate for an investigation of the issue, not of the investigators.
Beyond this major issue, I am troubled by several other aspects of The Jewish Press`s coverage:
1. A number of points made — for example, the insistence on the need for a bet din and the citing of Shmiras haloshon regarding lashon hara as applied to this situation — are halachic matters that can be disputed. Clearly the rabbonim of the RCA leadership dispute the need for a bet din. Did The Jewish Press consult halachic authorities in formulating its editorial position on such matters, and, if so, which authorities?
2. Even given the position that, in the absence of a bet din inquiry, the accused rabbi should be considered "innocent until proven guilty," The Jewish Press has gone further, actually siding with the accused rabbi on matters that it cannot possibly know with certainty. For example, the paper asserts that he was not given ample opportunity to appear in person before the Vaad Hakavod. The RCA disputes that, maintaining that he was given every chance, and refused, orally and in writing, until the final report was issued. The Jewish Press cannot possibly know who is right on this; why does the paper take sides?
3. The paper`s descriptions of the case are often misleading in terms of attribution. While it quoted the Jewish Voice and Opinion once, it would appear that The Jewish Press depended upon that publication for many of its facts, even when not explicitly cited. I cannot be sure, but the description of a witness who recanted presumably originates there. Professionalism demands clear demarcation of when you have personally uncovered a fact, and when you are quoting the results of someone else`s efforts.
4. Moreover, did The Jewish Press confirm the information gleaned from its sources? Surely the recent travails of Newsweek remind us of the danger of printing as fact information that has been insufficiently corroborated. How much more is there need for caution when a scholar of the stature of Rabbi J. David Bleich, whose Torah has been quoted in these pages, has to write a letter explaining how his words were distorted to imply the opposite of his views on this case in the same publication — Jewish Voice and Opinion — upon which The Jewish Press relied?
5. The Jewish Press has engaged in guilt by association. It asserts that because Rabbis Bulka, Blau and Dratch were associated with The Awareness Center, an organization the paper roundly rejects (the merits of that rejection being beyond the scope of this article), and because they are three of the 1,000 rabbis of the RCA, therefore, the RCA`s Vaad Hakavod, on which they did not serve, is tainted in all of its findings. Does this make sense?
And if one were to argue that it was the guidelines formulated by Rabbi Dratch that the Vaad was following, the point must be made clearly to readers of The Jewish Press that this was simply not the case. Those guidelines were adopted subsequent to the initiation of this investigation. (Parenthetically, it should be noted that these same rules, which have been excoriated in Jewish Press editorials, were thrashed out by a group of rabbonim, reviewed halachicly, and then debated and accepted by the membership. While surely not perfect, they just as surely represent a courageous attempt to stop the collective crime of ignoring the problem of clergy abuse. Suggested improvements are welcome; condemnations are out of place.)
6. In its coverage, The Jewish Press imputes negative motives to members of the RCA, without proof or attribution of any sort, and chooses to interpret ambiguous aspects of the situation to their detriment. Instead of commending the RCA for minimizing the necessary embarrassment of a colleague by being "megaleh tefach u`mechaseh tefachayim," it brands the Vaad a "secret society," imputing to it sinister motives for its silence. It calls the presence on the Vaad of the Av Bet Din "highly unusual," and opines that having Executive Board members on the Vaad is tantamount to the Vaad reporting to itself. On the contrary, wouldn`t you think that for a case of this seriousness, it is specifically the leadership that needed to step up? And is The Jewish Press aware that there are 48 rabbonim on the Executive Board?
7. Most disturbing, to my mind, is the implication of the editorial statement that "some of the members (of the Vaad Hakavod)...have had very nasty (-) disputes on unrelated subjects with Rabbi Tendler." Does The Jewish Press mean to imply — with no corroboration of any kind — that these rabbis perverted justice for reasons of personal animosity? Such an unsubstantiated claim, especially on such a serious and sensitive issue, borders on defamation. What, indeed, would the Shmiras Haloshon say?
8. Finally, I lament the areas of this story that The Jewish Press, in particular, could have mined, to great benefit: Did it ask tough questions of the members of the accused rabbi`s kehilla? There are many that need to be asked. Because of its overall stance, this paper is in the best position to ask them. Did The Jewish Press speak with the 10 or so families that left the kehilla since the RCA`s report was made public, and ask them why they left, and what their lives have been like since? Did it do any investigative reporting even before the Jerusalem Bet Din became involved? For that matter, what is its official policy regarding investigative reporting, in general, and who formulated it?
I close as I opened, with a feeling of great sorrow, but with a plea to The Jewish Press: Find out the truth! Do your own investigating! Do it for the sake of the accused rabbi. For the sake of his many students who are suffering greatly, and who desperately want to continue believing that their rebbe is a tzaddik
But most of all, do it for the sake of victims of abuse in many other cases who look to you to be as unflinching in the snapping of their chains as you are in championing the cause of freedom for agunot the world over.
Rabbi Moshe Rosenberg serves as rav of Congregation Etz Chaim of Kew Gardens Hills.
Law Suit File
December 20, 2005
Page 1
Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York
Filed: December 20, 2005
Index No: 05117629
Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial
Summons
The basis of venue is plaintiff's residence
Plaintiff resides at:
(Address removed)
County of New York
Survivors Name Removed, Plaintiff,
-against-
Kehillat New Hempstead: The Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue, and
Mordecai Tendler, Defendant
To the above named Defendants:
You are hearby summoned to answer the compliant in this action and to serve a copy of our answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service for within 30 days after the service is complete in this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Dated: New York, New York
Yours, etc., Kramer and Dunleavy, LLP
Kehillat New Hempstead: The Rav Aron Jofen
New Hempstead, New York 10977
Spring Valley, New York 10977
Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York
Survivors Name Removed, Plaintiff,
Kehillat New Hempstead: The Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue, and Mordecai Tendler, Defendants.
Plaintiff, by her attorneys, KRAMMER & DUNLEAVY, LLP., complaining of the defendants, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief, as follows:
1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE, was and still is a domestic not-for-profit corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the Religious Corporation Law of the State of New York.
2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE held itself open to members of the public as a place of worship, guidance and sanctuary.
3. Defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was and still is the founder and leader of defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.
4. Upon information and belief, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was and still is an employee of defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.
5. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER had a reputation as a scholar, educator and community leader within the Orthodox community.
6. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER held himself out to the public and to the plaintiff as a counselor and advisor with an expertise in women's issues.
7. That the plaintiff (SURVIVORS NAME REMOVED) first became acquainted with defendant MORDECAI TENDLER and his work on behalf of women in 1994.
8. That beginning in 1994, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) consulted by telephone with the defendant MORDECAI TENDLER on various personal issues.
9. That beginning in 1995, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER began to actively recruit plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) to join his congregation at defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.
10. That in September, 1996, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) began attending services at defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.
11. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER took on the role of counselor and advisor to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) and did counsel and advise her with respect to her personal, legal and financial problems.
12. At all relevant times, a relationship of confidence and trust existed between the plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) and the defendant MORDECAI TENDLER.
13. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER represented to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that she was his "favorite" and his "closest."
14. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER represented to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that he would "be there" for all of her needs.
15. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER represented to the plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that he would assist her in finding a prospective husband so that she would be able to marry and have children, as she wished.
16. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER represented himself as an advisor, a father figure and a god to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED).
17. Beginning in November, 2001, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER began a sexual relationship with plaintiff (NAMED REMOVED).
18. That from November 2001 through May, 2005, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER had an ongoing sexual relationship with plaintiff (NAME REMOVED).
19. That prior to and throughout the duration of the aforsaid sexual relationship, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER advised plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that she was "close to the possiblity of finding a husband" and that she would never find a husband in her current state.
20. That prior to and throughout the duration of the aforesaid sexual relationship, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER advised plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) to permit him to have sexual intercourse with her so that her "life would open up and men would come" to her.
21. That prior to and throughout the duration of the afordsaid sexual relationship, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER advised plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that "Everything was closed" to her and that she should let him "open up her to the world."
22. At all relevant times, defendant "MORDECAI TENDLER advised plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that, if she had sexual intercourse with him, "doors would open," she would be "open up to meeting men" and she "would get married and have children."
23. That from November 2001 through May, 2005, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER had sexual relations with plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) at
various locations, including in his rabbinical study at defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD:
THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.
24. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER told plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that he "was as close to God as anyone could get."
25. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER told plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that he "talks to God all the time."
26. At all relevant times, defendant "MORDECAI TENDLER told plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that he "was the Messiah."
27. That plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was induced to engage in this physical relationship with defendant MORDECAI TENDLER as part of a course of sexual therapy which he represented would lead to her achieving her goals of marriage and children.
28. At all relevant times, defendant (MORDECAI TENDLER warned plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that, if she told anyone about the sexual therapy, he "would have her placed in a straight jacket," "have her put in the penitentiary" and/or "have her thrown in jail."
29. At all relevant times, defendant "MORDECAI TENDLER warned plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that, if she told anyone about the sexual therapy, he "would have her banned from the shul (synagogue)" and "would turn the community against her."
30. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER advised plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) that engaging in sexual relations with him, was her "only hope" to open her up to become receptive to men.
31. At all relevant times, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) believed the words, advice and threats of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER.
32. That once plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) submitted to his course of sexual therapy, rather than assisting her to reach her goals of marriage and children, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER physically and emotionally abused plaintiff for his own sexual pleasure and gratification.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD
33. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 though 32 inclusive, with the same force and effect as in specifically set forth herein at length.
34. That the aforesaid representations made by defendant MORDECAI TENDLER to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) were false and reckless.
35. That at the time he made the aforesaid representations, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER knew them to be false and reckless.
36. That defendant MORDECAI TENDLER made the aforesaid representations with the express intent to deceive plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) and induce her into a sexual relationship with him.
37. That in knowingly making the aforesaid false and reckless representations to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED), defendant MORDECAI TENDLER took unfair advantage of his position as her counselor and advisor.
38. Plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) relied on the false and reckless misrepresentation of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER and engaged in sexual relations with him.
39. That had plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) known that the course of sexual therapy advised by defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was solely for his personal pleasure and gratification, she would not have engaged in sexual relations with him.
40. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was physically violated, had her reputation impugned, was ostracized from her synagogue and has lost her standing in the community.
41. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) has been injured and damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all the lower Courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action.
AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
42. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 41 inclusive, with the same force wand effect as if specifically set forth herein at length.
43. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER occupied a position as fiduciary to the plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) as her counselor, advisor and therapist and owed her a relationship of trust and confidence.
44. That as a result of the foregoing, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER breached his fiduciary duty to plaintiff (NAME REMOVED).
45. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was physically violated, had her reputation impugned, was ostracized from her synagogue and lost her standing in the community.
46. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was caused to and has suffered and sustained severe and serious personal injuries, severe and serious conscious pain and suffering, severe and serious mental distress and anguish and attendant economic losses.
47. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) has been injured and damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower Courts that would other wise have jurisdiction over this action.
AS AND FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
48. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in paragraph 1 through 47 inclusive, with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth herein at length.
49. Defendant MORDECAI TENDLER encouraged his congregants at defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE, to harass, threaten and intimidate plaintiff (NAME REMOVED).
50. The congregants at defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE did harass, threaten and intimidate plaintiff (NAME REMOVED).
51. Defendant MORDECAI TENDLER engaged in a concerted scheme to embarrass, humiliate and diminish plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) in the orthodox community so as to injure her reputation and destroy her credibility.
52. Defendant MORDECAI TENDLER knew, or should have known, that his actions towards plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) in falsely inducing her into a sexual relationship, in physically violating and abusing her, in causing her to be harassed, threatened, intimidated and ostracized from the community and in intentionally injuring her reputation and standing in the community would result in serious emotional distress, pain and suffering to her.
53. In doing the actions hereinabove alleged, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER acted with willful, wanton, reckless, intentional and deliberate disregard for the likelihood that plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress, pain and suffering as a direct and proximate result of his actions.
54. The aforementioned wrongful conduct of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was extreme and outrageous and went beyond all bounds of civility and decency.
55. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was caused to suffer severe mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering.
56. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) has been injured and damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower Courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
57. Plaintiff repeats and reiterate each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 inclusive, with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth herein at length.
58. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was aware that plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) trusted him, relied on him and placed her confidence in him.
58. At all relevant times, defendant MORDECAI TENDLER knew or should have known that his actions would cause her severe mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering.
59. That as a result of defendant's actions, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was caused to suffer severe mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering.
60. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) has been injured and damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower Courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT RETENTION
61. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 60 inclusive, with the same force and effect as if specifically set forth herein at length.
62. At all relevant times, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE was aware of the aforesaid conduct and actions of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER.
63. At all relevant times, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE knew or should have known of propensity of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER for the aforesaid conduct.
64. At all relevant times, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE knew or should
have known that defendant MORDECAI TENDLER used his rabbinical study at the synagogue to conduct his sexual therapy sessions with congregation members.
65. At all relevant times, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE knew of facts that would lead a predent party to investigate the use by defendant MORDECAI TENDLER of his rabbinical study at the synagogue.
66. At all relevant times, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE had notice of prior allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by defendant MORDECAI TENDLER.
67. That in spite of the aforesaid notice of prior allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by defendant MORDECAI TENDLER, defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE took no steps to warn or protect plaintiff and other female congregants, to adequately supervise defendant, to remove defendant from his position of authority or to make an appropriate investigation.
68. That defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE, was grossly negligent as follows: in failing to properly and adequately supervise the activities of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER; in failing to use reasonable care to correct the conduct of defendant MORDECAI TENDLER; in failing to remove defendant MORDECAI TENDLER was an employee; in failing to conduct an adequate and appropriate investigation; in
failing to warn congregants of in failing to take the steps necessary to have prevented the fraud and assault on plaintiff; and, in further failing to exercise that degree of due care as a reasonable party under the same or similar circumstances.
69. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was physically violated, had her reputation impugned, was ostracized from her synagogue and lost her standing in the community.
70. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) was caused to and has suffered and sustained severe and serious personal injuries, severe and serious conscious pain and suffering, severe and serious mental distress and anguish and attendant economic losses.
71. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) is entitled to recover punitive damages from and against defendant KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE.
72. That as a result of the foregoing, plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) has been injured and damaged in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower Courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over this action.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants KEHILLAT NEW HEMPSTEAD: THE RAV ARON JOFEN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE and MORDECAI TENDLER for both compensatory and punitive damages in the sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of all lower Courts that would.
otherwise have jurisdiction over this action and is within the jurisdiction of this Court
Dated: New York, New York
KRAMER & DUNLEAVY, L.L.P.
Office and Post Office Address
350 Broadway - Suite 1100
I, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State, state that I am a member of the firm of KRAMER & DUNLEAVY, L.L.P. attorneys for the plaintiff in the within action; I have read the foregoing verified complain and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The reason this verification is made by me and not by plaintiff, is because the plaintiff is not now within the County where deponent maintains her offices.
The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are as follows:
Conversations with plaintiff and a review of the file maintained at my office on this matter.
I affirm that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury.
Dated: New York, New York
Letter From Rabbi Mordecai Tendler to The Rabbinical Council of America
Rabbi Mordecai Tendler - March 16, 2004
(Page 1 of 2)
(Page 2of 2)
Rabbinic Committee Formed to Expose Mordecai Tendler - "Must be read by all adults"
Rabbinic Committee Formed to Expose Mordecai Tendler - December 24, 2005
Rabbinic Committee Formed to Expose Mordecai Tendler - Wednesday, December 28, 2005
To contact our committee with guaranteed strict confidentiality email us at: rabbisintegrity@optonline.net
A Wide Spectrum of Prominent New York Rabbanim Conclude and Present Herein Their Joint Halachic View that Mordecai Tendler is Unfit to Serve in the capacity of Rav
In light of this, residents of greater Monsey have formed The Committee for Rabbinic Integrity that strives to prevent Mordy Tendler from continuing on in capacity of "Rav", "dayan" or "mashgiach" and to warn the entire Jewish community against having any contact with him, especially women, many of whom he has abused as well as so many families for decades.
According to the Chafetz Chayim in his vital sefer Shmiros Halashon (klal 4 halacha 7-8) it is permitted and even obligatory to record and and even a mitzvah--good deed to publicize the information contained herein:
Additionally, in light of the express permission of a wide spectrum of foremost N.Y. Rabbanim, that includes the enclosed summary translation of an important t'shuvah-- responsa expressly written for this issue, this can and must be read by all adults.
Summary Translation Responsa of the venerable Rav Wosner, Shlit"a (click here for pdf file of entire
"Responsa" in Hebrew)
Rabbinic Proclamation of Leading Monsey Rabbanim (with english translation)
Note: If any of the halachic material below is printed, please discard it properly in shaimos. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harav Hagaon Rabbi Benzion Y. Wosner Shlit"a
Rosh Beis Din Shevet Halevi
Monsey - Beit Shemesh
Click here for the entire "
Responsa" in Hebrew
Please note: These are excerpts only from a lengthy and very thorough T'shuvah. This translation has been authorized by Harav Hagaon Rav Wosner, Shlit"a, but has not been translated by him. This is only a summary, not at all a complete translation. One must actually read and study the original Teshuvah in its original Hebrew to get a true understanding and appreciation of this psak (Halachic ruling). All Rabbis in Monsey retain a copy of the original Teshuvah and it is thus available for anyone to study.
Please note: While Rabbi Wosner is a Gaon in his own right, and one of the leading Halachic Authorities for the Monsey Kehilla Mikvah, he is also the son of the venerable Gaon, and world renowned Posek, the author of the multi-volume responsa, Shevet Halevi of Bnei-Brak. (The great Chazon Ish Z"l is known to have recommended the Shevet Halevi as the leading authority in Bnei-Brak 50 years ago.)
The reason this vital information was not presented publicly until now* is that the Rabbanim attempted to give Tendler many chances, with the latest attempts during the Yomim Noraim, to resign as Rav and Dayan before releasing both the t'shuvah and kol-korah proclamation and if needed other very compromising information. Their patient attempts went on completely deaf ears that included his father and brother. The time to declare the Torah view has come. No more chances.
A Short Translation Summary:
Introduction:
This is in regard to an issue whereas numerous Rabbanim in our town (Monsey) have requested that I rule Halachicly, how to deal with a certain Rabbi, who deals with divorces, marriages and kashruth issues.
Unfortunately, there have been rumors about him for years that he has deliberately violated many Torah prohibitions, particularly involving immoral relations with women. To be sure that this was in fact truthful, I summoned and interviewed many men and women who reside in both New Hempstead and who reside outside of New Hempstead, and found all of this to be unfortunately true!
The women testified on his total disregard of Torah prohibitions. For example, he would meet women one on one, on the pretense that he wants to teach them Halachos and counsel them on the ways of life. Once he wins their confidence, he would, for example, forget to bring his book and ask the woman he was seeing if they could learn together using her book, thereby giving him the opportunity to move physically closer to her where they would eventually touch. He would ultimately hug the woman and subsequently perform other immoral acts that I have great difficulty putting to print!
In addition, he has brazenly dealt in difficult Halachic marriage situations, annulling countless marriages (Hashem, protect us).
When asked by a group of Rabbis at a meeting, how he could take upon himself these halachic rulings, he answered that his grandfather Harav Moshe Feinstein Z"l also ruled this way! However, after having inquired from Harav Feinstein's own children and students, we found that this was a total fabrication!
Now, the inquiry before us is:
What do we answer members of our community and our neighbors, who ask whether to continue under his leadership and teachings, or to leave him?
In addition, this inquiry notes the fact that this Rabbi was a member for many years of a Rabbinic organization, (RCA) and after doing their own investigation decided to oust him from their organization!
This Rabbi has summoned this same Rabbinic organization (RCA) to a (Rabbanut) Beit Din in Israel claiming that they terminated his membership in their organization under the violation of Halacha-Torah law.
For example, he claims that the Shulchan Aruch writes that one cannot remove a "Chazzan" from his position based on a rumor, unless there are actual kosher witnesses.
From his side he likewise claims:
a) there are only women witnesses and he claims women are not kosher witnesses
b) that these witnesses testified without him being present
c) the witnesses are biased
d) the rumors were spread by his enemies!
ANSWER:
This case has absolutely no resemblance to the case discussed in the Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch talks about a Congregation that wants to remove a Chazzan from his employment in a synagogue, based on a rumor.
In our case this Rabbi was not employed by the organization (RCA), he was a member like other member Rabbis. We could not find one instance in Halacha that an organization cannot remove one of their members. In addition, every organization can set and change its own rules as they see fit! -- ( )
Every organization has a right to set rules that their members should not profane HASHEM'S great Name, certainly not to violate outright Halachic prohibitions E
Therefore, since this rumor has been ongoing and the Rabbis of the organization are ashamed and embarrassed of his actions, they not only have a right to oust him from their organization but they have a Torah obligation to do so!
With this action, the Rabbis of this organization are sanctifying HASHEM'S Name!
It is vital to know that, accordingly, his own Congregation has an equal obligation!
(a) In regard to his claim that only women testified:
As far as Halacha is concerned (see actual T'shuvah for elaboration), in a case where a Rabbi has a rumor that doesn't stop ... (this rumor has been ongoing for multiple years) we do not need any witnesses to remove him.
In our case we actually do have witnesses ... men... who have testified that they actually saw this Rabbi meet women one on one (flagrantly violating the prohibition of Yichud). There are, however, also women witnesses! The victims themselves who came to him for counseling to pour their broken hearts to him!
The Ramah in Choshen Mishpat (Siman 35, 14) rules that in a case where only women congregate or in a case (like ours) where only women could possibly testify, (since he meets women one on one behind closed doors) they can and should certainly testify. (Terumas Hadeshen Siman 353 and Agudah Perek 10, Yochasin)
This is also the ruling of the Mahrik, Radvaz, and the Mahr"i of Minz. Even those "Poskim" that would normally not rely on women witnesses, they would certainly agree that in our case ... where there is ample evidence that this Rabbi violated Torah precepts, then even children or women can certainly be kosher as witnesses, as the Chasam Sofer pointed out in his sefer (Orach Chaim T'shuvah 11)
(b) His claim that the witnesses testified without him being there:
There are many Responsa in regard to having witnesses testify, without the defendant being present. The Ramah has already ruled (Choshen Mishpat) that testimony taken without the defendant present is halachicly correct, especially in a case where the defendant has a history of intimidating witnesses (This Rabbi called and threatened many women who testified at the RCA hearing).
In addition, since we are dealing with a person who intimidates, curses and harasses anyone that dare oppose him including respected Rabbis...one may testify without the defendant being present.
The Ramah adds that in such a case (as ours) where we know that the defendant will certainly intimidate the witnesses, the Gaonim (Sages who lived during the years 900 C.E.) long ago established a Halachic rule that one may testify without the defendant being present!
c) He claims the Witnesses are biased: This claim is not true since:
some of the witnesses were actually men who had no previous associations with him
some of the women witnesses who testified, testified not what he actually did with them, but they testified what he did with other women who confided in them (and additionally brought them evidence of this). And even if his claim was actually true, the absurd claim of his ... that these women were biased, it would be irrelevant as far as Halacha is concerned.
According to Halacha, these women would still be believed.
(Please see sources).
Rumors that have not stopped (Kalay D'lo Pasak V'Sanu shomaneha):
In a case such as ours where rumors about this individual have been ongoing for years, the Ramah has already ruled () that in a case such as this, even if one individual of his congregation protests his behavior, this would be sufficient reason to remove this Rabbi from his position ... based on a rumor only! See also the Chasam Sofer (ibid)
Even in the case where the Rabbi claims that he is like a Chazzan, where the Shulchan Aruch says that based on one rumor one cannot be removed from his position, in this case even the Shulchan Aruch would agree that he should be removed since there are many people in his Congregation that have protested his despicable behavior (witness how many people left his shul).
The Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Dayah 119) writes a rule for all to know, that the Halacha requires his removal even if the rumor never reached a Beis Din
The Bais Yosef in the name of the R"ash and Rabbeinu Yeruchum rule this way even if the rumor stopped !!
One may surmise from the Rambam's ruling (source) that even in a case where we do not have clear kosher witnesses, but where we have some basis of fact, and a rumor that doesn't stop that he has violated immoral prohibitions, one has an obligation to humiliate him in public! All of this without any witnesses testifying!
The Rambam therefore states regarding a person like this: (Sanhedrin chapter 24):
"The Congregation should taunt the one that is transgressing the Torah prohibition of arayos--immoral relations and, in addition, whoever hears about his evil behavior must embarrass him even in front of his own children" (See Rambam source above).
d) Claim ... that his "enemies" have spread the rumors:
All people who have claims against them, always argue that the witnesses are enemies and hate them ... we actually see this on a daily basis with people who go to court!
With this reasoning there would never ever be any court cases whatsoever!
Having said this, the definition of "enemies" is clearly defined by the Talmud (Yevamos 25a) and several other commentaries (e.g. HaHaishiv Moshe 60, Rambam Sanhedrin chapter 23, Otzer HaPairushim 11:33, etc...) and these sources talk about real enemies not people who had some disagreements between each other.
We can therefore reason that his claim that "enemies" spreading rumors about him are not only false, but absurd!
Ruling:
All Rabbis Have a Clear Obligation to Publicly Ostracize Him:
Rashi in Tractate Megillah 25b states that if there are rumors that one is an Adulterer, one may embarrass him!
Rabbis that are quiet and do not chastise this individual cause HASHEM'S Name to be profaned.
It is therefore an obligation on our town's Rabbinic leaders to do whatever is in their power to ostracize him and separate him from his congregation. This Halacha is brought down by the Rif and this is the Halacha (Yoreh Dayah 334:42)!
No prohibition on speaking Lashan Harah (evil gossip):
The Chofetz Chayim (klal 7:65) rules emphatically that if an individual is a known rasha, for just an example, he is known to have had immoral relations (and is involved in Yichud repeatedly, etc.), one is allowed to listen and speak about this individual!
Prohibited from being a Dayan (Rabbinical Judge):
The Bais Yosef (Choshen Mishpat 34 in the name of the R"osh) rules that one who has been accused of illicit relationships including one who is m'yachaid (meets women alone on a one on one basis) ... is prohibited from ever being witness, and anyone who cannot be a witness can never be a Judge! (Ramah 25, Niddah 49b, Tur Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat Siman 7:69)...
Therefore it stands to reason that one who cannot be a witness or a Judge ... must immediately be stopped from officiating at weddings and divorces! See Responsa Rabbi Moses Feinstein Z"l (Yoreh Dayah Siman 1)!
Final Halachic Ruling Summary:
Numerous Rabbis sat together and heard audio tapes, where this "Rabbi" attempts to seduce married (and unmarried) women (Hashem, please protect us). On one particular tape one can clearly hear a married woman begging the "Rabbi" to leave her alone.
Accordingly, the RCA had every right to oust this Rabbi from their organization, and his own Congregation has the same obligation!
This Rabbi can no longer officiate at divorces, weddings, batei dinim, etc...
No one is obligated to give him any respect such as standing up for him, etc.
He can no longer be a Rav or Rabbi or Dayan amongst the Jewish People!
One should never allow their wives or daughters to go to his classes or to go to him at all including counseling... and all his rulings are null and void!
This ruling obligates all of us according to Halacha as per the ruling of his own grandfather Alah V'shalom, Z"l in his Sefer Igros Moshe ... (ibid).
By doing so we will fulfill the verse in our Holy Torah...
"Destroy Evil Amongst Us."
---------------------------------------
----------------------------
------------------
Translation of a joint Rabbinic Kol Korah
"Denial & Clarification" letter issued by 7 Leading Monsey Rabbonim
against R' Mordecai Tendler
of New Hempstead, New York
Denial (of his claims) and Clarification!
We have gathered together to inform the public that since it has been publicly announced, written and printed that we investigated R' Mordecai Tendler and that we were convinced of the truth of his statements. We are hereby forced to publicize that this is an outright Lie!
In addition, we want to publicize our opinion that after thoroughly investigating the matter in his presence and after a thorough examination of the issues, it is our opinion that one must not seek any advice in any area of zia mely, and certainly not in any Halachic matters pertaining to Divorce, Marriage or Conversions!
On this matter we are affixing our signatures on this the 20th day of the month of Iyar* in the year 5765. Here, in Monsey, New York
Rabbi Moshe Green - Rosh Yeshivah, Yeshivah D'Monsey
Rabbi Yisroel Hager - Son of the Grand Rabbi of Vishnitz
Rabbi Chaim Halberstam - Rav, K'hal Yoel Moshe, Satmar, Monsey
Rabbi Chaim Shraga Feival Shnaybalgl - Rav, K'hal Avreichim, Monsey
Rabbi Chaim Leibish Halevi Rottenberg - Rav, K'hal Netzach Yisroel,Monsey
Rabbi Sharaga Feivel Halevi Zimmerman - Rav, K'hal Bney Ashkenaz, Monsey
Rabbi Mordechai Ohrbach - Rav, K'hal Forshay, Monsey
IN LIGHT OF TENDLER'S HUNKERING DOWN INSTEAD OF STEPPING DOWN SEE STAGE 2 -- UNMASKING THE TENDLER FACADE -- THE DETAILED CHRONICLE
The Open Truth about Mordechai Tendler's LIES, DISTORTIONS & EVASIONS
Prologue:
With heavy hearts and tears in our eyes, we unfortunately had to come to the following decision which is to let the people of Monsey and elsewhere finally know what the truth is...
(1) We have included above a Halachic Ruling of the great Gaon Harav Wosner, Shlit"a that clearly permits Loshon Hara in this unfortunate case!
(2) We have also included above a "Denial & Clarification" letter from Rabbanim in Monsey that they have never exonerated Tendler of anything but rather to the contrary!
(3) We have included here much detail of just some of Mordechai Tendler's crimes and lies.
Here is just a sampling of his lies but for more in depth analysis continue on to the irrefutable refutation of Tendler and his many lies known as:
"Unmasking the Tendler facade--The Detailed Chronicle"
LIE: Tendler stated at his "open forum" meeting...that no less than two Batei Dinim exonerated him.
Above please find a statement from 7 Leading Monsey Rabbanim who were on these Batei Dinim and who write that this is an unmitigated lie! In fact these Rabbonim added that everyone should stay away from him and not allow him to paskin (adjudicate) any questions...especially in issues involving divorce and marriage!
Evasion: When asked at the Tendler defense festival if he would submit to DNA testing, he answered publicly that he would not answer any hypothetical questions!
Fact: A group of distinguished Leading Rabbis of Monsey have now seen the evidence based on halachically competent witnesses (eidem k'shairim) with corroborating forensic evidence proving unequivocally that Mordy Tendler had sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman who was someone else's wife (the evidence was presented to a Bais Din and was duly confirmed according to all Halachic standards). Purposeful, serious b'nei maaminim can call them to verify this is all true!
In addition, a group of Rabbonim and Mechanchim (educators) sat in a public forum dealing with Tznius Issues in Rav Breslauer's Bais Hamidrash, listened to an audio tape where they clearly heard Tendler soliciting a married Jewish woman to have relations with him (the woman on the tape repeatedly begs him to stop talking like that). The Rabbonim became nauseous and some could no longer listen as they heard more and more holding their stomaches.
LIE: Tendler said that the women accusers were never interviewed in person by the RCA, all interviews were by phone.
Fact: The RCA in fact interviewed the women in a Monsey Shul, with the Rabbi of that shul actually present!
LIE: Tendler said that he never met women one on one behind closed doors (even locked).
Fact: When Tendler actually said that at the meeting, most of the people present including his supporters looked at each other, knowing full well that this was a blatant lie! He even had a "noise box" in front of his secluded room in Shul (this was suddenly removed, when all this hit)!
Questions that remaining supporters need to ask Tendler:
Why don't you allow your ex-lawyers to speak to us Rabbanim in an open forum so that we can finally find out why they are no longer your lawyer and why one of them ran away from New Hempstead?
How much money was victim (name deleted) paid? Why won't you remove her gag order thus releasing her to speak, so that we can ascertain for ourselves how much money you gave her, and where this money came from and what it was for?
Why from a group of 1000 member Rabbonim of the RCA was there one sole resignation, R' Faskowitz, -- a first cousin of the Tendlers'? The real question is of what relevance is his resignation if your own father did not resign?! Why is he still a member?!
If the RCA is such a rotten organization full of rishaim--evil people , and as your PR people are writing in The Jewish Press and the Jewish Voice, and, as you stated in front of the congregation only a few weeks ago in your own words, "It was people like them who caused the holocaust", then why do you insist on getting re-instated???
Why is everybody out to get you except some of your own congregants and a few relatives?
Why didn't you sue the RCA... to reinstate you? Didn't you claim that the Rabbanut granted you permission to go to secular court? Or is this of course one of your countless lies and distortions??
Why didn't you sue Yeshivah University for ousting you several months ago?
Why are the Rabbis of the left (RCA) after you? Why are the Rabbis of the right (Chassidish & Litvish) after you?
Where are all the Rabbis (not family) supporting you?? Why have they not come forward?
Will you dare now add Harav Hagaon Benzion Wosner Shlita and the many other Rabbanim listed here to your list of harassed, threatened and slandered Rabbanim for simply presenting their Torah-based opinion in written form to the tzibbor in addition to the halachic t'shuvah that captures the knowledge of all the Great Sages on this issue over the many generations that preceded us?
How about the 7 Leading Monsey Rabbonim who interviewed you and found you a liar? (If any of these courageous and beloved Rabbonim and their many associate supporters are harassed or slandered in any way, we are ready to mail recorded cds and DNA evidence accepted by a local Bais Din to everyone!! Please test us!!)
Where and whom were you with in the wee hours of the morning on the same day you married off your daughter?!
Where and whom were you with early in the morning Erev Yom Kippur of last year??!!
Why don't you resign or move out??? As long as you continue to act in capacity of a "Rav", the tzibbor must remove you, and thus we will never, ever stop until you are, thereby fulfilling our Torah's dictated responsibility that belongs to all of us!!!!
The Committee for Rabbinic Integrity (CRI) - January 1, 2006
http://rabbinicintegrity.blogspot.com/
The last Mishnah in Sotah states that in the End of Days, "HaEmes Tehai Ne'ederes" revealing that, "the truth will be absent." According to some Sages, at that time "emes" itself will be,"ne'edar, ne'edar" – "grouped" as taken from the root word "ne'ederes" where both sides will lay claim to the emes causing it to be unfortunately for us to be lost somewhere in the middle.
As Torah Jews, we have a responsibility to discern emes in whatever we do especially regarding this unfortunate but vital communal issue that stands before our community. Now that the fanfare and standing ovations have virtually subsided, herein is an attempt to appeal to the intellect of the reader that exposes:
"THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR THAT IS MORDECHAI TENDLER"
The so-called "open" meeting that took place several months ago blinded many uninformed people that walked away believing Mordecai Tendler, even though he did not offer an equitable forum for any of his complainants to speak publicly. Despite erecting his own extremely biased one-sided forum that has been called the "Tendler Defense Fest", the only defenders he was able to muster on his behalf from the entire tri-state community of the Orthodox Rabbinate, even with his decades of "communal service" and interaction with countless rabbis near and far, was no more than five.
Moreover, with a single exception, they were all family relatives. Even more perplexing, outside of his own congregation, there was just one lone defender from the greater Monsey community. One would imagine Tendler should be able to present at least two or more, surmising that over the course of decades he would have typically developed many deep roots and relationships with other rabbanim in Monsey. Despite the infinite number of rabbis in greater Monsey, only his father singularly came forward on his behalf.
Tendler vs. Tendler:
1) Mordecai Tendler was publicly only willing to acknowledge his own fictitious number of 3 women accusers, as opposed to the truer account that 9 women had testified to the RCA regarding sexual harassment, abuse and or physical contact. His is a clear distortion of information since, in fact, many more women came forward than he will even admit to. In reality, as of this writing, one may add to his "3" an additional 10, totaling at least 13 women that currently claim sexual abuse, sexual harassment, having all been propositioned, touched and or pressured into illicit sex, most of whom having had the capacity to refuse him. For the vast majority of attendees who were uninformed of the endless details of this case, he cleverly used the number 3 to mislead us into believing that over the decades of positioning himself as leading the charge for agunos, it was reasonable to expect "three" women to be possibly "crazy" or "outright liars." He could not admit to the more accurate number of his victims, despite being fully cognizant, better than anyone, of the greater number of his accusers. Please realize that there are not only female victims, but that whole families have been irreversibly victimized by him on so many horrifying levels until this day that now even rabbinic families, continue to suffer at the hand of his heartless ways. One should understand that Tendler literally set up shop with clever, patient, and calculated planning long ago by maneuvering himself into a position of authority and respect that would enable him to ultimately discharge and fulfill his most demented and base physical desires - consciously preying upon despondent, vulnerable and depressed women through his egregious abuse of power, as one will begin to digest by reading further with patient review.
2) Tendler stated publicly that two Monsey Batei Dinim had separately "exonerated him" and explicitly identified one of them as "Vishnitzer." Here is a leading example of just one of his countless unashamed perfidious public lies. If these were truths, he could have easily presented the documentation put forward from the two Batei Dinim that absolved him, as he claims. He says that he was called in front of two separate Batei Dinim to answer charges and was exonerated by a total of 15 Monsey rabbis. Is this true or false?
Both Batei Dinim emphatically deny any vindications whatsoever and have now publicly come forward to convey precisely that in this all important joint statement attached. In fact, a few years ago, one of these Monsey Batei Dinim, to whom Tendler refers, amounted to just under a minyan of rabbis that, at the time, meticulously investigated him and met with him face to face in order to question him about the voluminous number of allegations brought against him. Both the Vishnitz Bais Din, led by Harav Hager, and the aforementioned Monsey Bais Din now jointly and very publicly respond, not only to negate his contemptible lie that these authentic Batei Dinim (as Tendler himself calls them) exonerated him, but additionally to his plethora of overt, documented lies as witnessed by these many Rabbanim and recorded within the minutes of that Din. Please see the enclosed translation of the Rabbinic Kol-Koray--proclamation and thus Psak Din and list of prominent Monsey rabbis who signed on to this Din and who will verify the bold faced lies that Tendler stated in front of them. It can now be said that these courageous rabbanim have responded openly in writing to inform the tzibbor of the level of his malevolence and immorality as noted in their lucid public statement of reproach warning everyone to avoid any and all contact with him. They have expressed their true opinion of this man in order to remove all doubt from anyone's mind of his guilt. Tendler's claim to them was that Harav Hager and another 15 rabbis already investigated himand exonerated him. Now see the Rabbinic Kol-Korah--Proclamation below that Harav Hager wrote and signed among many other rabbanim saying that he and the others, in fact, never exonerated Tendler for anything and that Mordy documented a decisive falsehood to both the RCA and the Jerusalem Bais Din not to mention his public lies that all can now plainly see! Tendler thus caused this Bais Din to call for the RCA to appear based on purely false pretenses. Please ignore any future claim that they were some other Batei Dinim to which he was referring since these two are precisely the ones that he claims cleared him.
Tendler is sternly forewarned to neither smear nor malign nor threaten with harm any one of these courageous beloved rabbanim and mechanchim and their associates or the most compromising evidence including DNA and audio conversations between him and his victims will be released here and elsewhere to the general tzibbor for all to hear how low this man stoops for self-gratification.
3) Tendler publicly claims that the RCA did not contact him directly nor did he ever meet with them, nor was he ever requested to meet with anyone from the RCA. These are all lies. Unless you genuinely believe that the entire board of the RCA is lying instead of Tendler, please see their somewhat more detailed second and third statements on their website chiefly written in response to his widely publicized incessant lies and accusations. The RCA emphatically states that many attempts were made to contact him, allowing him the opportunity to meet with the RCA and to even face his accusers. He was told from the beginning that the RCA was conducting an internal investigation of Tendler and never claimed at any time to be conducting it under the format of a Bais Din but a body that follows the laws of a Bais Din precisely. According to clear halacha, the RCA has a legitimate right to expel any member for due cause without any need whatsoever for a Bais Din (please see the t'shuva summary enclosed). It took them nearly a year and a half (hardly a Salem witch trial as one of his relatives portrayed it) to come to their conclusion to expel him earlier this year on March 16, 2005 since he had in the RCA's statement,
"...has engaged in conduct inappropriate for an Orthodox rabbi."
Through his plethora of recurring lies and obfuscating of truth, Tendler may have successfully cast some doubts about the RCA thus causing some to lose their objectivity regarding this honest, impartial and upright body of Rabbis. It should be made clear that the RCA is simply a group of Tendler's own peers, one that he himself chose to be a member of for years and would still be today, if he had not been thrown out. The same body of rabbis that as of this writing, Tendler's own father still retains membership!
It is equally important to understand that the RCA does not take this type of investigation into rabbinic misconduct lightly. During the RCA's 70-year long history, with a current membership greater than 1000 rabbis, they have ejected just two members and only one of them publicly. Care to guess whom?
As an aside, in order to cover this news breaking story, apparently radio personality Zev Brenner chose to only do a live interview with the other one they threw out!!)
And yet, despite all of this, Tendler wishes us to believe that the RCA board of rabbis are all lying, a Bais Din comprising nearly a minyan of Monsey rabbis are all lying the findings of which were relied on by the RCA and before whom Tendler publicly admitted having appeared, not to mention his many accusers that include a wide assortment of very different accounts, are all lying as are their many valiant and courageous advocates, respected members of the community. He would have us believe that everyone around him is deviously scheming because they are all against him and that all of these many diverse groupings of Orthodox Jews are uniformly lying. All, that is, except for him. He purports and desperately depends on us to believe his countless barefaced lies as truth and that only he is the sole bearer of emes throughout the Orthodox Jewish world.
For the longest time, even years before the RCA became involved, Tendler had to occasionally fend off an assortment of allegations against him, claiming they were orchestrated by the Charedi community, who were "out to get him" since he was the only remaining defender of "Modern Orthodoxy" in Monsey. So what is his current argument when the largest, most influential organization representing "Modern Orthodoxy" today, the RCA, throws him out? He claims that they do not properly follow halachah, and have various self serving motivations. Is there is a single case anywhere else in the entire U.S. where there are such diverse groupings of Orthodox Jews including even "modern" that are all simply, "out to get them"?
4) Mr. Schwartz, a relatively new member of the community who all but instantly became the shul's new attorney (who had recently stepped down as his lawyer----where have all his ex-attorneys gone?) attempted to publicly discredit a report from the investigator. This investigator recorded many references to tapes that in fact do exist and have been heard repeatedly by many rabbanim and who have seen equally explicit evidence such as Tendler's DNA extraction subsequently matched and verified beyond any doubt. Schwartz had the unmitigated chutzpah to demand to know why this evidence was not made available to them. Is it remotely possible to understand that much of the evidence clearly condemning Tendler is at the same time extremely personal, private and strictly confidential as well as inappropriate for public consumption? Also, these women have indeed been threatened numerous times in various ways by Tendler and his ever altering henchmen to the point that they fear their lives would once more be dragged through the mud and further destroyed by these people, as many have to date. They are in a very delicate state of recovery which may take years if ever (B'ezrat Hashem).
Reflect, if only for a moment, on all the upstanding members of the Jewish community whom without hesitation or a moments thought have been publicly continually humiliated, smeared, slandered and lied about. His supporters have been on a mission to do everything and anything to save the perpetrator by destroying the messengers. Is it not reasonable to understand that these women do not feel safe to make such proof public? To bring it to the shul board (which changed dramatically soon after the defense festival) would neither have been wise nor safe since this very shul ostracized their own shul and community members who came forward in defense of these women. Many of whom were summarily treated as literal outcasts and persona-non-gratis status when they bravely and appropriately came forward then suddenly and wholly isolated under Tendler's imperious directive. For many of them, their once close friends from shul andother members would not even glance at them nor talk to them, let alone dare support them in their time of need. And somehow people cannot fathom why these abused, anguished, and tormented women are not coming forward publicly to be heard from? Many of these women feel they owe nothing to the members of the shul who themselves abandoned them in their time of crisis. However, some of these women have felt safe enough to share this evidence with local rabbis and the RCA, as well as other defenders of the truth. While Tendler hopes there are no audio tapes or other solid proof of his explicit sexual exploits with women, such as DNA, prominent Rabbis in our community (see above) will openly tell you they have heard with their ears and have seen with their eyes overwhelming and truly nauseating proof of his inappropriate behavior.
The fact is that leading New York Rabbanim have accepted evidence in the forum of a formal Bais Din receiving testimony from halachically competent witnesses (eidim k'shairim) and theirtestimony that included corroborating forensic evidence proving unequivocally that Mordy Tendler had very direct immoral relations with a Jewish woman who was not his wife. For reasons of confidentiality, this DNA evidence will be kept out of public view, for now, as long as it is necessary to protect her and her family.
In addition, a large group of prominent Rabbis sitting in a public forum dealing with tzniyus issues in Rav Breslauer's Bais Medrash, listened to audio taped conversations of him pursuing another married woman for sexual favors. Their apprehension to release this unambiguous evidence and Bais Din maskanah--conclusion is, again, chiefly due to the confidentiality the women have entrusted in these foremost rabbis. If released publicly, the abundant clear and damaging information would simply serve to compound the current chillul Hashem and would destroy any remaining reputation Tendler has left. It is resolutely in the hands of serious Rabbonim who will admit to having seen and heard this evidence when asked. On the other hand, Tendler and his minions care nothing for these women's privacy.
In response to a question asked repeatedly regarding individual monetary settlements with women, Tendler claimed that there were no settlements or payoffs with accuser (name deleted). In a third response to the general question of payoffs, Tendler finally leaned into the microphone and categorically denied any settlements by claiming, "There were no settlements, whatsoever." There are many shul members who know this to be an outand- out lie since the board had in the past met with Tendler who admitted to them about a very large payoff based on a potential "nuisance case." There is a ten page handwritten letter in our possession signed by Michelle Tendler (sent to threaten some of the advocates) claiming that the DA recommended to settle the case. Some on the receiving end who saw the actual checks and others on his shul board all confirmed separately that the settlement approached $100,000 or more – a sum that does not accurately reflect a potential "nuisance suit." Many know this to be another in a series of bold-faced Tendler lies. By altogether denying there ever was such a case, Tendler hopes to avoid having to release the "gag" order on this woman. Thus he is stuck having to deny there is even a settlement so that the compelling evidence from that settlement will not be made public which includes many tapes and other unambiguous proof, which is why he was forced into such an unusually large settlement in this particular situation.
Tendler went on and on in some detail (lying the entire time) that he never writes checks himself and therefore does not possess the records so we should "go ask the shul President Eric...who writes out every check himself and maintains the bookkeeping records and checkbooks, he can verify for anyone that no such checks were ever written." Eric, by the way, retired as president within weeks of the Tendler Fest. Despite this magnanimous offer and denial that such checks were written, there is evidence of shul checks written out in Tendler's own hand written to a separate impoverished woman whom he abused and even threw out from the shul months prior to writing those checks to her by his own hand. From the time Tendler claimed that he no longer had anything to do with her, he subsequently and periodically paid her hush money. She held some of these checks in case they were ever needed as proof. She has filed her law suit and holds this evidence. The lies continue where, on the one hand, he expects us to believe that there were no monetary settlements to silence his accusers and on the other hand, he never writes out checks himself. Perhaps the board and others should ask ex-President Eric to make public all the records in this matter in both the shul checking fund as well as the existence of Tendler's Discretionary Fund account, the account he conveniently neglected to mention in response to that question, that prove his twice over lie. Finally, how many other rabbis write out large checks or even small ones as settlements or hush money to women, anywhere, and then have to both publicly and privately deny ever having done it?
We challenge Tendler's current shul board: Give your rabbi an ultimatum. Either he can sign the enclosed stipulation form to release only one woman (the board knows her name and much more) from any alleged settlement and related gag order as well as releasing his ex-lawyers as it relates to these matters only, or he is fired. If he is completely innocent, as he claims, then he has nothing to hide and will willingly sign the below "stipulation of release" document. We challenge the reader to name one other rabbi who would not!
5) When asked why he believes that so many people are out to get him, Tendler responded with, "Sitting on Din Torahs has created all this animosity towards me." He was similarly asked, "Why he believes so many rabbis are against him?" He pondered aloud with, "I have many theories which I won't make public right now." Not one of the other rabbis that sit on the very same Bais Din as Mordy Tendler, needs to even consider making such false and bizarre responses since no one is apparently out to get any of them, i.e. Rabbi Chaitovski, Rabbi Zvi Jacobs, etc, etc.
As a matter of fact, there are no other rabbis on the numerous Batei Dinim anywhere else in the world that would be asked such a question, let alone put forward these lamest of all excuses. His extremely pathetic and illogical responses make little sense other than he had nothing better to put forward. How many thousands of beloved rabbanim continue to sit on Batei Dinim worldwide, presiding over the precise kind and variety of cases Tendler has presided over without any claims against them of sexual harassment, abuse, lies and settlements? Who else needs to answer this line of questioning?
6) Tendler claims that after the RCA received the report from the investigator, he did not subsequently tamper with any witnesses. In fact, the RCA was taken aback and extremely disturbed upon discovering that he had tampered with two witnesses during the course of their investigation. Though the RCA candidly admits to naively sharing some confidential information with him (after tremendous pressure from his attorneys), the understanding was clear that he could not contact any of the women or witnesses named in the report. One was a victim who Tendler threatened to have her arrested, straightjacketed and thrown into the penitentiary if she released any of her information she had on him (she has filed a lawsuit against both him and the congregation where she was terribly harrassed and abused by several members).
The second was an RCA witness, a cleaning lady who saw with her own eyes evidence of what transpired. It is the cleaning women that often witness what is undeniably happening in the home. These two witnesses had thus been tampered with -- something Tendler claims to have never done -- continuing to pile up his lies. Furthermore, remember his claim at the public defense festival that the only time he was ever contacted by the RCA was at the same moment the rest of us were which was on March 16, 2005? One can see from the same letter written by Michelle Tendler where she writes to the RCA 1) about the March 9th letter they received from the RCA apparently before everyone else & 2) mentioning "...and your (prior) request for yet another meeting and investigation ...!
7) Tendler had the unmitigated gall to advance his lies by using the world renown and most highly respected name of the Gadol Hador Harav Elyashuv, Shlita, claiming publicly verbatim:
"Harav Elyashuv cleared me completely through his talmid, Rav Eisenstein, who wrote a "psak halacha" that I am innocent."
The fact is there can be no correlation between a "psak halacha" and the determination of someone's innocence since even a Bais Din can only rule if someone is "not guilty" but can never attest to their complete innocence since not even a dayan (judge) can know for certain if someone is completely "innocent." So this statement is false to start with, and he runs a bais din?? Hashem, help us.
Additionally, this publicly stated lie has been wholly exposed from direct contact with HaRav Elyashuv's good offices, as they have denied ever being asked such a shaila – question. At no time did Tendler or anyone claiming to represent Tendler, including Rav Eisenstein ever ask Rav Elyashuv or those who work closely with him such as Rav Efrati who oversees the Rav's office or others such as his grandson that are close to the Rav, anything regarding this communal question that looms before us today. What utter disregard and arrogance to drag a Gadol Hador into his massive web of lies!
After the nine rabbanim in Monsey met with both Tendler and his father separately about three years ago, as mentioned earlier, they contacted HaRav Elyashuv for advice on how to proceed with their knowledge of the many accusations against him, having met with many of his female accusers in addition to documenting his pathological lies and careless psaks with all of their incongruities. The Gadol Hador counseled them not to come out publicly at that time since Tendler would ultimately bring himself down by his sexual misconduct about which the community will only then be willing to act upon, as it becomes known. He warned the rabbanim that the community would be less than willing to take action against the erroneous halachic rulings of Tendler's bais din, his contradictions in psak halacha, even with his having been caught red-handed in his fraudulent responses to the hard questions asked by the same Monsey Bais Din. In hindsight, the advice of the Gadol Hador was, as usual, unquestionably correct.
Here is just a minor sampling of the very informative minutes of the halachic decision of the Bais Din that openly demonstrates Tendler's willingness to lie as easily as a normal person speaks the truth. In one line of questioning he completely denied his involvement on his own Bais Din that simply rendered null and void a valid ketubah and marriage which he claimed he does not do. When caught red-handed with documentation of such a psak from his own Bais Din with his signature on his own stationery that proved he was lying, his first reaction was to deny that it was his signature and then soon recanted. Any of the rabbonim that were there (see enclosed list) will attest to this...! Tendler then claimed that the reason he can be mafkia (invalidate) kiddushin (he has done many) is that he was just following what he learned from Reb Moshe Feinstein, Ztz"l. Having grown up in his house, he claims to have witnessed Reb Moshe undo thousands of ketubos! He claims that, "Reb Moshe undid thousands of non-religious marriages and hundreds of religious kiddushin." Later, these same rabbanim interviewed his father, Moshe Tendler and one of Reb Moshe's dedicated students, who both testified. They separately confirmed that Reb Moshe Feinstein reversed one ketubah and perhaps one more that they remember having heard about, totaling perhaps 2, at most, over his entire life. When the rabbanim showed him the above documented statements by his own son's contrary claims, Moshe Tendler simply lowered his head shaking it in shame while sighing.
In a similar attempt by other disconcerted members of the community seeking gadol hador advice, in late summer 2004, the Gadol Hador Rav Chayim Kanievsky Shlita was approached about the Tendler dilemma. He directed the shaila to Rav Shteinman, who was more qualified in these issues who was inspired to advise; "He should not be publicly embarrassed until the investigation is complete." Subsequent to the RCA's March 2005 expulsion of Tendler, Rav Chayim was again approached and he responded in Yiddish with, "What do you want me to do—it is the Monsey Rabbis' responsibility!"
The Monsey rabbis have now loudly and publicly responded in kind.
8) Tendler had others say for him that the RCA's statement is "null and void" and that Tendler is "innocent." How can any individual or any other organization nullify a statement of banishment from a different organization? These public statements did not result in his reinstatement as a member of the RCA despite Tendler's bogus claims that they were imminently going to. Moreover, most of his supporters at this meeting have little knowledge of the case. Considering their scant knowledge, their decision to carry him was carelessly decided to say the least. His supporters have not, nor do they claim to have, conducted their own investigation, having never met with the complainants. They made few if any half-hearted attempts to contact either the RCA or the rabbis in Monsey or the complainants whom are aware oftentimes first hand of his pathological behavior and sexual misconduct. This includes Rav Dovid Feinstein, the only relative of notoriety that spoke ever so briefly on his behalf who made one phone call to the RCA before making such careless statements of support. When later asked why he publicly defended him, he was quoted as saying something along these lines, "True that his halachic psaks are flawed, but we know that about him. I just can't believe the additional claims of sexual abuse, I just don't believe him to be that, too." With all due respect, and putting aside the question if he is at all nogaya b'davar--tainted as a defender since he is a relative, Rabbi Feinstein did not speak to any of the Rabbonim in Monsey who investigated Tendler, nor did he speak to any of his many female accusers of sexual harassment before he stood before the tzibbor in Tendler's defense. In other words, without first thoroughly researching the matter as is typically expected for a Rav to do before taking such a public stand concerning a vital communal matter such as this, he stood up to defend his relative. His main stated assertion was that the RCA's ruling was not worth anything. To the contrary, it was an ejection notice that clearly served its purpose and for the very first time alerted the tzibbor what some rabbanim have concluded about him after the RCA's near one and a half - year long investigation - an investigation the likes of which some obviously believe was and is a monumental waste of time. Even this highly respected Rav was naively manipulated by the Tendlers. His brother, on the other hand, Rav Reuven Feinstein, was conspicuously absent. Let us see if any of his defenders choose to compound the error of their ways or retract them. That will be very telling for future reference who deserves our respect and whom does not...
On the grandest of scales, we have literally seen with our eyes the ongoing attempts by Tendler and his remaining supporters to drag so many good, upstanding, and genuinely honorable leaders and members of the community down with him. He began this process at the Tendler Defense Festival and its vicious ugliness continues. It can be said he is many things, but among them there is no indication that he is behaving as either a communal rav or Torah leader. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Or is it that Emes is so deeply hidden and hard to recognize today? We can thank the likes of Tendlerites for their contribution in further cloaking emes behind a very thick dark cloud.
Are there any other rabbanim in Monsey or anywhere else for that matter where there are numerous remotely comparable claims being made about them, from a wide continuum of sources, where they find it necessary to respond with such venom, pointing fingers at their accusers and desperately trying to distort their claims through a variety of public outlets (newspapers, new and anonymous internet sites, etc. Please do not naively view ours as anonymous--you can see the names of the courageous Rabbonim who represent all of us and who firmly believe in Rabbinic Integrity. Who among us would not be a proud member of any Committee that fights for Rabbinic Integrity?
On the other hand, did any other rabbi pay such a large sum in the vicinity of $100,000 to a woman in order to silence her claims of abuse? Has it ever been necessary for any other single rabbi to erect and re-erect a series of powerful public relations defense teams and attorneys that with lies and deception only serve to vilify the accusers and advocates regardless of who they are by either threatening them into silence or severely maligning them publicly with underhanded character assassination tantamount to libel? To discourage others and divert our attention away from himself, he even uses his slander machine to drag defenseless, ill children and their parents through the Jewish tabloids. The parallels to the historic libels against the Orthodox Jews of Eastern Europe are stunning. We have never seen anything on this level except perhaps during the Haskalah Movement that also involved mosrim – people who gave over false information to the public authorities (in this case the health department, tabloid newspapers, the internet, etc.) to bring about potential loss of licenses, reputation and thus incomes. While his current defenders of "enlightened" Jews are publicly maligning a broad spectrum of rabbanim and true Torah Scholars, in the process they are violating basic Torah law by fostering steadily growing and irreversible public chillul Hashem that could have immediately ceased, at any time, if he would merely step down or be relieved of his position. How many of us naively believed that for the good of the community in which we all live, he would have stepped down at his public defense meeting, but deep down knew he would never even consider it if only for sake of the community. Just as we survived (barely) the so-called Enlightenment Movement, we will survive him and his ilk as long as we stick together as one Kehilah of Monsey, and never, ever consider any of his lies to be remotely true. Tendler undoubtedly prides himself on his inexhaustible efforts to distort all emes and with his abhorrent process successfully manipulating public opinion toward his side, like no one before him. Does any of the editorial staff of the two so-called "Jewish newspapers" owe Tendler any "large favors" which Tendler handily called in by having these two newspapers let him and his spin doctors that include his father and others, writing virtually unedited, biased and misleading articles, consistently commandeering the editorial page for months at a time? The RCA had correctly relinquished the single opportunity granted them to write their own version since the so-called "Jewish" Press rescinded their promise to allow it to be unedited. And yet, they continuously provide Tendler with an ongoing unedited forum for his lies. It is pointless to speculate as to the nature of the favors owed, but there is only speculation (therefore we will not comment further) that the corruption runs very deep indeed – and we may never know the complete truth. There are always political favors that powerful people grant each other often to the detriment of the very community they supposedly represent. One can never comprehend the true motivation of others. There is no logic in insanity, but often there are identifyable goals. As believing Jews, we know that in the end, deep corruption and evil is sooner or later exposed as the light of Emes is ultimately revealed. In their self-achieved often imposed positions of power, rishaim can temporarily succeed to out maneuver rabbanim by presenting lies and manipulative distortions to spin and confuse the general public. Tendler has little choice but to persist in pushing his mountain of lies that he disperses mainly through two so-called "Jewish" newspapers or more accurately, sensationalist tabloids, and (in the recent past) on the internet, the validity of which these two forums speak for themselves. He endeavors to outsmart, even pre-empt rabbanim and others by repeatedly mischaracterizing them in a variety of ways to the general tzibbur in order to win over public perception of himself. For example, even though the RCA did not have to, out of respect for a Jerusalem court, even as they halachicly correctly rejected their jurisdiction over the matter, the RCA formally responded to them and agreed to relocate the Din to the most highly respected Monsey Bais Din, M'chon L'hora in Spring Valley as is within their halachic rights (see Harav Wosner's t'shuvah above in this regard where there is no need for a Bais Din whatsoever to eject a member). Tendler then never responded to this halachicly acceptable request but instead the Jerusalem Beit Din held a private hearing with only Tendler present to say the RCA was in violation of not appearing. The newspapers would have you thus believe that the RCA has in fact ignored the rabbanut Beit Din in Jerusalem altogether. That is because Tendler never planned to pursue his requested Din anywhere outside of Israel as the newspapers have already publicized. When the papers initially admitted that a "Zabla" was requested, the outlandish reason they gave for it being unacceptable was that the M'chon L'horah Bais Din is against Tendler. That is one of the most ridiculous claims yet since there is no such thing. A "Zabla" is where each party gets to pick their own Rav to represent them. The third Rav is mutually chosen by those two Rabbonim. This makes it impossible for this Bais Din to be against Tendler yet that is his claim since he never plans to show up and has no other out except to get others to lie by falsely claiming the RCA is in violation of not responding to the Jerusalem's Bais Din. Why go to Israel for a Din to be determined in the first place? It is simple: 1) All the witnesses are in America and 2) to ultimately be able to lie that he has been exonerated by them, which he has already done, a claim that will be difficult for individuals to disprove. It is astounding how everything he says -- a proven liar -- is believed at face value to be true, but what others say about him is doubted. For the answer to that, please see the very first paragraph of The Detailed Chronicle.
We will soon be adding a translation of statements from several different Batei Dinim that uniformly verify for all (uninformed of the laws of Batei Dinim) to clearly understand that Mordy Tendler's Jerusalem rabbanut Bais Din has no jurisdiction whatsoever.
One final comment regarding the one or two so-called "Jewish" newspapers who have revealed their overt biases and lies in an endeavor to support and prop up Tendler: The question as to how can they do this if he is guilty of such terrible things as outlined here? This can be answered by just recalling early on, when the RCA ejected him, the "Jewish" Press blasted the other "more secular" newspapers for their so-called past derision of orthodox rabbis. They "educated" us how this was just more of the same. Weeks later, the very same "Jewish" newspaper was caught doing precisely what they claim others have done, but this time in a public unparalleled libelous manner, not just once or twice (as rarely as the secular newspapers reported it), but week after week, month after month printing blatant lies to malign so many Rabbonim in order to build back Mordy's reputation. The only real shame here rests with Tendler and his few remaining support outlets. We have all seen or heard of a very recent article from one so-called "Jewish" newspaper that shamelessly maligned the elderly tzaddik and widely respected Rav Gedalia Schwartz from Chicago. Those retaining the unambiguous facts of his immoral behavior (DNA evidence and tapes) recognized all along that the "Jewish" newspapers have incessantly lied, easily identifying how shrewdly they served those lies between two truths so that they may be believed. We have this year cancelled our subscriptions to the Jewish "Mess" for this reason and hope every reader will do likewise until and unless they recant every single lie after lie, line by line, including all scurrilous statements of defamation and slander made against so many fine rabbonim. The way Hashem's world usually works is, in the end, the same forum rishaim use for their rishus--wickedness, is the same platform used in their self-destruction. He used the so-called "Jewish" newspapers, to malign so many, so it may very well be the newspapers and other media that tear him down (midah k'neged midah).
9) Regarding Tendler's claims as to the so-called "investigation" Rabbi Greenwald conducted that purportedly vindicated Tendler: Rabbi Greenwald met several women, but they were mostly advocates, not accusers – having only met with one accuser. In the process of questioning Tendler about the many accusations, Tendler became aware of some of his accusers names revealed to him by Rabbi Greenwald. Subsequent to that meeting, each of these women was summarily threatened. Several advocates of the women were then threatened into silence on behalf of Tendler stating, "Only if you back off, will Tendler back off of you."and many other such threats and worse.In terms of Rabbi Greenwald's "investigation," his meeting with this one group of women did not comprise a true investigation – in no way did it resemble one. He had a conversation with some people that Tendler at the defense festival called, an "investigation." There was never an attempt to contact the vast majority of accusers or their advocates. Apparently only the RCA and many prominent Monsey Rabbanim are the only ones who can not conduct a competent investigation. Even Rabbi Greenwald openly says, "It does not mean I exonerated him."
10) Tendler produced some supporters who hollered publicly that the whole RCA investigation was based on phone interviews by "a goy from Texas." However, the women were previously interviewed mostly in person when the case was originally brought before the RCA. Following that, they were re-interviewed by the more than qualified abuse investigator. After the final report was received from this investigator, the RCA determined to move forward in its investigation. They contacted some of the accusers again, in order to interview them a third time. Some of the women received letters from the RCA requesting them to come in for interviews, stating that Tendler would be there with his lawyer and that they were welcome to bring their own lawyers. Eventually, the interviews occurred with these women in a local Monsey shul, with the rabbi of that shul present, while Tendler refused to show up and cooperate. All told, these women were interviewed by rabbis, psychologists, and yes, believe it or not, even a non-Jewish investigator from the state of Texas.
11) Mordy Tendler publicly stated that he never met with women alone. It is intriguing that a woman in the audience at the same Defense Festival stood up and said that she had met "alone" with Tendler many times, and that he was never once inappropriate with her. Yet, at this very same meeting Tendler earlier stated that he never met with women alone! Most members of his own congregation and others plainly recognize this to be another blatant lie that requires no proof whatsoever, many having witnessed him on innumerable occasions secluded with women. He has been seen often by countless individuals over the many years meeting with women alone behind closed, even locked doors. What does one do with his recent public lies to the contrary?
12) In an answer to one question, Tendler stated he would not release any of his many ex-lawyers from attorney-client privilege. Why not?? Perhaps because they have vital information that would obviously incriminate Tendler. Why did one of his lawyers abruptly resign as his lawyer only three months after first becoming his lawyer? Most normal people have a consistent lawyer for years. Upon his resignation on October 20th, 2003, as lawyer representing both Tendler and Kehilat New Hempstead, Brad instantaneously left the shul and accepted the very first offer to buy his house in order to speedily move out of the neighborhood. We understand that privately one of his lawyers wishes he would be released thereby enabling him to bury Tendler permanently (his formerly trusted rabbi and client) with the evidence of deep corruption that he cannot make public due to client-attorney privilege. Why the need for Tendler to have lawyer after lawyer to begin with?
13) Tendler claims he never threatened any ex-husbands or anyone else for that matter. This is another terrible lie. There are several witnesses, including one exhusband who openly claims that Tendler used intense pressure on this man's boss repeatedly to have him fired from his job--thus losing critical parnasah for his family unless he and his ex-wife stopped talking about him and withdrew their claims of sexual harassment.
No, never any threats. Then, only minutes later at the Tendler Fest itself, Rabbi Esformes stood in front of the congregation, screaming about pain and chillul Hashem. It is Tendler's behavior that is the sole source of chillul Hashem. Rabbi Esformes threatened to sue anyone in the congregation that tries to fire the "rav." We were hoping for a little constructive emes to occur at this meeting. Instead, one of the original founders of Kehilat New Hempstead (KNH) threatened to repossess the building if anyone even hinted at firing the Rav. Do these low lives believe that emes is arrived at and justice is meted out with money, power, and threats? This simply confirms the overt strong-arm tactics that could not even be concealed at the public forum that is the m.o. of the Tendler camp, as we have all seen ongoing.
14) One of the many accusers that Tendler publicly maligned at this same meeting included a decent and straightforward person named Batya Siegel, inferring that she herself was an abuser among many other things. It is to the contrary simply this. Tendler is the only one involved in abuse by abusing his position of power attempting to manipulate and control her with mental abuse, using her Get process as a tool for his sexual gratification. She was sexually harassed by him many times, but she was able to bravely defer his sexual advances – postponing them with a regular verbal delay of, "let's talk after the Get is signed." Immediately following the signing of her Get in front of a Bais Din, during which Tendler had been lurking in the shadows, she abruptly left the proceedings as he chivvied after her, pursuing her promise she had made "to discuss it after the get was signed." Having been completely demoralized and reeling from a dearth of spiritual, monetary, even moral support, Batya had not received even a modicum of support from hence it should have come, namely, her rabbi – Tendler. Rather, Tendler's role was the complete opposite as he was a major contributing force in her misfortune. All of his abusive actions occurred during the precise period when she was at absolute lowest point in her life. So, the moment she turned to face her abuser one last time, she selected some choice words for him, deciding just then to give up her religious affiliation with Judaism because of him, as she says openly. Make no mistake. Batya Siegel dreadfully recalls from over thirteen years ago all the encounters with him as he gradually and subtly transformed from a trusted rabbi into her nemesis; that includes her final recollection of when and where her very last conversation with Tendler took place, immediately following her Get proceedings (despite Mordy's public claims of never having been there). For Mordy this is normal behavior, patiently seeking constant opportunities to take advantage of downtrodden, vulnerable, desperate women and their families, then later destroy anyone and everyone in his path reproaching him of it. Lending much credence to her account is the fact that she never claimed to have been abused by him sexually. She does not need to lie, nor does she stand to benefit by rehashing the most intimidating and desperate point in her life, so many years ago. She is a very strong-willed and bright person when you meet her. Outside of his sexual advances (Tendler proposed to bathe her, among other terrible suggestions), the only actual physical contact she says he had with her was when he rubbed her hand back and forth on the desk in his office, which took her aback, as did his concurrent heavy breathing.
15) Mordy Tendler's warped mind continues to cause great chillul Hashem by widely slandering upstanding, humble Orthodox Jews whose involvement stems solely from their sheer dedication in defense of the abused. Here is just one example among many advocates that Tendler slandered. At this meeting, Tendler publicly broadcast to all his baseless accusations against one defender of the abused, Rabbi Dratch (member of the RCA), accusing him of either manipulating or, worse yet, fostering the entire RCA investigation in order to somehow benefit monetarily in the hope of creating a position for himself that would ultimately result in some notion of income. We all heard Tendler makes those highly inflammatory remarks that when one considers them for a mere moment, they literally smack of conspiratorial insanity. Anyone who has met and heard Rabbi Dratch speak knows that he is a true mentsch who cares very much about the vital issue of abuse whenever it arises, especially in the rabbinate. The complainants and their advocates originally contacted him and he handled their dire situation with extreme caring, sensitivity and confidentiality.
16) Mordy Tendler purported that there would be a "mass resignation from the RCA," if he would "just give the word." What narcissism and patent egotism, not to mention an overt falsehood. To begin with, where are all the rabbis in the RCA or elsewhere, for that matter, rushing to his defense? Even Rabbi Faskowitz (who recently resigned from the RCA in a two page letter to the "Jewish" Press) does not defend him but instead maligns the entire RCA. Faskowitz's mother's maiden name is Joffen just as Michelle Tendler's maiden name is Joffen. That is because he is her first cousin! Here is another case of a relative standing up to support the Tendlers. You can't make this stuff up even if you wanted to. From what we hear, the RCA is far from disappointed that he is gone and will not be allowed back in. He states in his resignation letter, "It is unimportant whether Tendler is guilty or innocent." We believe that it is all important. Since Tendler has already pulled out all the stops as demonstrated by his never ceasing retaliatory actions publicly attempting to crush all his opponents, then why not "give the word" already? That's because there is no word; for his word is worth nothing. Furthermore, Faskowitz may have resigned but what of Tendler's very own father who continues on as a member of the RCA?!! At a bare minimum, why has his father not resigned as a statement of protestation? There is only one answer to that. It is called Shtika Kihoda'ah. By silently retaining his RCA member status, his father is by default communicating and revealing to us all his true belief of what his son is affirming the RCA's just decision. When his son falls, which is inevitable, his father fears, having left the RCA, he may never be accepted back. His son's claim of "mass resignation" could not even entice his own father!
Moreover, try to recall how many times we have heard that the RCA will imminently be reinstating Tendler. His abysmal lies continue despite his supporters futile attempts. Furthermore and beyond belief, in addition to being related to the Tendlers, it has been brought to our Committee for Rabbinic Integrity's attention by the RCA that Faskowitz has a history of having previously stood up for an abuser (A..). Again, even the most imaginative writers in the world could not make this stuff up, folks!
17) Mordy Tendler claims he had no relationship with one of the victims and stated that he, "only gave her rides in his car years ago when she did not live in the community and perhaps only during snowstorms," which is another lie. Many from the community have witnessed him meeting with this woman and giving her car rides many times in the not too distant past and in perfect weather. He claims that it is a flagrant lie that he met with her and gave her rides after he called the police on her and had her kicked out of the shul. The flagrant lies are all his. He was seen many times since then going into her apartment and riding in his car with her in the frontseat. Many have openly admitted seeing this with their own eyes. When later questionedwhat type of relationship he had with another RCA witness, he stated, "I haven't the foggiest idea who she is", even though she and her family had been very regular and ongoing shul (KNH) members for many years.
18) Mr. Schwartz was sounding off about the RCA report that he formally requested, but had not received. He then stated only a few hours later at a subsequent meeting restricted only to shul members that he in fact received the entire RCA report from a so-called confidential source and to "take his word for it that it is full of lies, flaws, and inconsistencies and is therefore worthless." He stated that there is no new evidence, there are no reliable witnesses, and the only evidence is this severely flawed report from a Texas investigator. The truth is that the RCA investigation continued for many months after this report from the investigator was concluded. Local rabbis have unambiguous evidence, having heard from many women, and of late, even new women and their families that previously were not heard from.
19) Old lawyer Schwartz mentioned an uncanny "consistency" in the sexual harassment charges claiming that it all started by one person who may have tainted the story and that the rest of the women were directed what to say. This is typical lawyer-ease and is a terrible, blatant lie that attempts to lump all his accusers together as a single testimony. The only common theme among the women's stories is Tendler's pattern of sexual abuse repeating itself over and over again. No woman has ever been instructed as to what to say. Each of them, just like the rest of us, has their own mind. They were asked only to speak the truth in their own words. The truth is that their experiences with him occurred under very different circumstances, while only the abuser's behavior is consistent throughout (the CRI has the complete confidential detailed accounts of each woman's hideous experiences with Mordy Tendler that are not for public consumption just yet).
20) Supporter at the time, ex-lawyer Schwartz said a terrible hatchet job was being executed on his rabbi. The real hatchet job is against these vulnerable, broken women and their families. This is the only place our sympathies should be. In truth, though, how many of us feel true empathy towards these abused women, who as victims naturally feel powerless. Meanwhile, the Tendler people use their money and by abusing their position of power, continue in their attempts to tear down, malign, and demolish so many good people, as you have seen that is ongoing, even as you read this.
21) Several prominent Torah scholars that were the veritable linchpins in Tendler's shul, as far as their Torah knowledge and weekly shiurim they generously shared with the local community have already left the shul so as to no longer enable Tendler's immoral behavior. It is because they trust the upstanding Rabbanim of the RCA and their decision to oust him for solid reasons.
Those remaining members of his shul must realize by now that they have been and still are a part of shul that has many outward appearances akin to a cult-like atmosphere where their "inspirational leader" can do no wrong. While it may be difficult for dedicated members to assess him objectively, given that he is still technically "rabbi," how long will he continue to be viewed with rose-colored glasses despite the many evils he has committed throughout the years? Continuing to trash so many others, including many respected rabbanim, and his predisposition to lie privately, to rabbanim and in front of the tzibbor, it has become so obvious that it would be a joke if it were not so sad and devastating to all. A person truly innocent of all charges would not behave this way. They would conduct themselves in a humble, innocent manner, staying far away from any involvement in lies and chillul Hashem. Trashing the character of so many different people speaks volumes.
22) To date, the oldest "known" case of known abuse occurred fourteen years ago. But abuse of people comes in many forms. A congregation can also be abused and damaged over the duration of many years by its so-called leader and not realize while it is happening. Yet, even a 10 year old child has realized Tendler's flagrant disregard for straightforward halacha. He learned in the Shulchan Aruch (please see Hilchos Tefilah 98,1 near the end that says:
"It is forbidden for a man to kiss children in shul in order to emphasize in one's heart (to get used to the idea) that there is no love greater than our love for Hashem." The inference being that, kal v'chomer-- even more so, it is forbidden for two adults to kiss each other in shul while davening is occuring which is why it was placed in the section of the Shulchan Aruch called Hilchos Tefila--the laws of praying. It is widely known and has been witnessed often that Tendler kisses the male congregants in front of the Aron during davening, displaying public disregard for basic halacha, the poignant implication being that he carelessly rejects open halachas as it relates to the basic Jewish ethics of Ahavas and Kavod L'Hashem --honor and love of Hashem that even a 10 year old child can understand!
It is locally known that Tendler has taught his kehilah many twisted things that endeavor to separate his kehilah from the rest of the Orthodox community:
He teaches, for example, that all other rabbis' matzos are chometz, implying that thousands of rabbis are wrong and only he and a select few are right.
He also states that his shul is the only "Bais Hamikdash M'at" (a small replica of the temple). Long-time congregants who attended his classes will recall that several years ago Mordy Tendler gave a series of shiurim to prove from the Torah that his shul was the "only" Bais Hamikdash M'at. He expounded on that arrogant and absurd notion week after week, first claiming that it was the only one in the Town of New Hempstead, then in Monsey, then New York, then in America, then the world. How can his shul be the "only" anything? A stable, sane rabbi would tell you that there are many good shuls.
Hardly a shiur goes by where he does not shamelessly capitalize on the fact that Reb Moshe is "my grandfather" whom he misquotes continuously and uses as a contingency source to back his erroneous halachic interpretation. He has, in the past, also pretentiously maintained from his bully pulpit that his Eruv, "is the number one Eruv in the universe." He must be from Mars to know that.
Using his wife and others to do his dirty work, Rosh Hashana a year ago, she asked a couple that purchased seats for the Yomim Tovim to leave the shul even before they had a chance to hear shofar blowing that morning for simply and responsibly warning a close friend who was then widowed to avoid meeting alone with Tendler. She and her husband could care less about fulfilling a D'oraiysah--Torah requirement to hear the shofar. There are so many more examples of this "charem--excommunication" concept that are exacted only in the shul where Mordy still officiates, usually by others he requests to do his dirty work.
He likewise continues to periodically pressure members who appropriately wish and have every right to leave the shul with incessant bullying through repetitive phone calls, letters, packets and strong-arming tactics in order to stop the spreading of this type of discussion among themembers. All of these are examples, and there are more, are symptomatic of a virtual cultlike atmosphere where the leader and those representing him try to separate its membersfrom the rest of the community (in our case the tzibbur), something strictly forbidden in Judaism since it is the very antithesis of achdus!
Those against him are summarily isolated and condemned; the more correct term perhaps being excommunicated. he has most likely excommunicated more individuals that all other New York Rabbonim combined!
Those of you who continue to show up and daven at the shul and pay membership are enabling him to continue in his ways. By continuing to attend the shul, you are supporting an abuser. By doing so, among several halachas one is violating is the vital Torah dictum of "Lifnei Iver, Lo Titain Michshol" – "Do not place a stumbling block in front of a blind person." Every Friday night we proclaim, "Ohavai Hashem, Sin'u Rah" – Those who love Hashem, are to despise evil." Are we proudly practicing those words or are we mindlessly mouthing them to Hashem?
23) Consider that Tendler's ongoing actions only serve to compound his evil behavior that continues to destroy Jewish families that we are all responsible for, even outside our immediate community. The bare conclusion remains that he is a bonafide pathological liar, and perhaps even sociopath, also termed psychopath, possessing anti-social, antisocietal personality disorders. The definition of this disorder, from the Merck manual is:
"Persons with this personality disorder callously disregard the rights and feelings of others. They exploit others for materialistic gain or personal gratification. They act out their conflicts in impulsive and irresponsible ways, sometimes with hostility and serious violence. They tolerate frustration poorly. Often, they do not anticipate the negative consequences of their antisocial behaviors and typically do not feel remorse or guilt afterward. Many of them have a welldeveloped capacity for glibly rationalizing their behavior or for blaming it on others. Dishonesty and deceit permeate their relationships. Punishment rarely modifies their behavioror improves their judgment and foresight; it usually confirms and often reinforces their harshly unsentimental view of the world."
-----------
Keep in mind that sociopaths are commonly able to fool others over an extended time period - they often manipulate others into liking them, and are capable of acting in a very charming manner in order to impress others. They cause much harm to others over the years, and have even been known to temporarily fool medical personnel (nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, even rabbis and congregants) until they are ultimately caught in their inability to cease their own pathological behavior (multiple times on both tapes and from DNA extraction).
Tendler long ago lost an understanding of what we naturally recognize as right and wrong. The criminal mind is truly not a complicated one. When it affects others, i.e. married women, single women, families, etc., we must act without hesitation, without pity. The time for rachamim has passed long ago indeed. The Gedolim over the many generations forbid it, as per the timely and pertinent Torah T'shuvah--response that has collated their halachic opinions on this issue that can be requested in original Hebrew from any of the local Rabbanim (see the authorized summary outline and translation enclosed). The Great Sages of all past generations have spoken loudly in this teshuvah!
A final note:
As we are all B'nei Yisrael, we must be aligned on this imperative communal issue. Please join your most courageous and highly respected leaders, ex-members and fellow colleagues and friends that includes the five Rabbis who vacated the shul simultaneously last spring and others by abandoning this rashah as they have--as soon as this Shabbos. You have no chiyuv-obligation whatsoever to walk into a particular building according to any halacha except the genuine Bais Hamikdash when, B'mhaira B'yamainu, we will see its rebuilding—and even then approximately only three times a year.
Perhaps due to the passage of much time, many congregants with decades of real dedication to building and maintaining Kehilat New Hempstead Shul, some may have developed clouded judgment and should not trust their lack of objectivity that continues to overlook Tendler's profound pathology. Actually, you, the congregants of KNH can add your names to the long list of his victims.
We empathize with your situation, rachmana l'tzlan, for you now have to search out your neshamas and face the shock and loss after spending so many years being this man's devotees. You undoubtedly feel the shame and embarrassment in front of your own families that you have brought them to him for guidance, halachic advice and perhaps even counseling. We understand that you trusted him throughout a host of personal family issues. We will get the tzibbor to ignore his future lies he may attempt to reveal about you that he has done to others who have left. We are proving he is a liar beyond a shadow of a doubt, so fear not, and certainly do not fear Mordy! As we say every Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah--" Trust in Hashem, not in the son of men that can not save. Trust in Hashem not in "princes" (or people who think they are). Trust in Hashem (speaking through the chachamim captured over the generations by Harav Wosner's t'shuvah and the contemporary Rabbanim who have spoken and whom will speak to each of you one by one that is truly seeking emes asking a serious shaila-question: whether your decision to abandon him is the correct one.
You, like many others who have already left, also feel that you wasted years of your life following this disturbed man in spite of your better instincts. You even now still feel a necessity to maintain the status quo rather than face the cold reality (of emes) that you have followed a rashah with endless pathological and psychological problems and have to admit to your families that you were led astray. But you can survive and still go on without him and end the relationship as others have promptly done. Teshuvah is very hard for each and every one of us but for the sake of your families you need to cleanly sever your relationship with this man as the rabbonim have required of all of us to do. Many who have already left are ready to support you despite all that has happened which is mainly his fault and not yours. The key is to, any way you can, detach yourself from an un-repented rashah instead of aligning with and supporting him. Always remember who the perpetrator is.
And, since you lack the necessary objectivity -- that is what the Rabbanim are there for! Please, for the benefit of your beautiful families and the rest of the community, re-read and listen to the Rabbonim's deepest, heartfelt Torah-based advice above. We are one kehila, and thus it is all of our responsibilities to follow the halachic advice of the many Rabbanim who possess the proper and objective Torah knowledge who have spoken. A very wide spectrum of so many Rabbonim ranging from Misnagid to Chasidish to Young Israel to Litvash and everything inbetween, from right to left, have unambiguously delineated their position for the general tzibbor on this matter despite the past attempt at character assassination and defamation that has occured that may come their way (if the Jewish Press restarts his lie-forum once more).
The taped evidence many Rabbonim heard was brought forth by women outside of the one woman who had to give up her tapes and other evidence due to the huge settlement paid to her by Tendler that resulted in a "gag order." She had to relinquish all her evidence and sign an agreement that she could no longer share her information or talk to anyone about Tendler's illicit sexual behavior toward her. The terribly inappropriate sexually oriented dialogue between Tendler and his multiple female victims is not for public consumption since it would only serve to add to the tremendous Chillul Hashem and further stain the Orthodox Rabbinate if it is disbursed ultimately reaching the internet for all to hear (which may unfortunately have to happen if decisive action is not taken by KNH and he is allowed to have a base from which to continue unfettered in his abusive and slanderous ways--we pray not).
When one stands back to fully reflect upon this with clear eyes, one can see the height of unprecedented arrogance and brazenness that repeats itself over and over again and is ongoing throughout a variety of public forums. The final Mishnah in Sotah as explained by Michtav MaiEliyahu part 3:
"Our Great Sages have forewarned and instructed us who live at the end of the galus that, "audacity will increase" to the point where even if the truth may be discerned, but due to one's personal arrogance and brazenness is unwilling to bend to it, thus behaving audaciously, even rebelliously at times against the emes in order to simply overcome our pangs of conscience."
A weak and divided tzibbor permits criminals to thrive on societal inaction and misplaced pity. It is unfortunate that the Tendler children will be hurt by him so. Far outweighing that are so many more children of the many families he irreparably destroyed throughout the years and continues to today. So, never forget who the real victims are. The community must not fail to act against this unfortunate scourge in our midst by meeting it head on with a strong communal will. Even this detailed chronicle does not capture barely a smidgen of the depths of this man's ongoing evil behavior. Nevertheless, please consider this in its full due and then make the right decision for the sake of our entire community that includes all of our families. Only with achdus and taking action can we put an end to this historic madness without further delay. We stood up and beat the misyavnim as an undivided Am Yisroel nearly 2200 years ago and we can, with Hashem's help and yours, succeed this Chanukah as well!
We have plenty of room for all remaining members at KNH in our hearts and will make room for you all in our shuls until you can secure a Rav that you deserve. On these last moments of both Chanukah and Rosh Chodesh, light the true light of Ohr Torah in all of your homes once and for all. The CRI will support you through Da'as Torah--the Rabbanim. Hatzlacha Rabbah!
-----------------------------
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the undersigned, Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, that the undersigned does hereby release (name deleted)... from any and all agreements, "gag" orders, stipulations, or any other legal writings or documents preventing said (name deleted)... from addressing previous charges made against the undersigned for sexual misconduct during the course of any ongoing official or unofficial investigation elated to charges of sexual misconduct on the part of the undersigned.
_______________________________________
Mordecai Tendler
It is hereby additionally stipulated and agreed by the undersigned, Rabbi Mordecai Tendler that the undersigned does hereby release all previous attorneys from any attorney-client privilege related specifically to the charges of sexual misconduct on the part of the undersigned. This agreement shall not pertain to any other legal matters where the undersigned is protected by attorney-client privilege.
__________________________________________
Mordecai Tendler
RABBI IN SEX-GOD SCANDAL
New York Post - December 25, 2005
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/59445.htm
December 25, 2005 -- A prominent rabbi is being accused of unorthodox and disturbing behavior — seducing a troubled woman in his congregation by telling her he was "the Messiah" and giving her "sex therapy" to help her find a husband.
According to a lawsuit filed last week in Manhattan, Rabbi Mordecai Tendler of Rockland County promised the woman, who was seeking advice, that "doors would open" and "men will come" if she had sex with him.
The rabbi, a father of eight, allegedly told the woman that he was her "only hope." The woman says the rabbi held liaisons in his rabbinical study from 2001 to 2005 and threatened her to remain silent about "the sexual therapy."
(Survivors Name Removed), 43, who lives in Manhattan, accuses Tendler of deceiving and violating her and going "beyond all bounds of civility and decency" while he acted as a trusted counselor and spiritual authority.
"He had a tremendous amount of power over her," said (Survivors Name Removed)'s lawyer, Lenore Kramer.
(Survivors Name Removed) says she first met Tendler — the son of a Yeshiva University professor and the grandson of a highly respected religious arbiter, the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein — through his "work on behalf of women" in 1994.
In his career, Tendler has advocated for the rights of Orthodox women and assisted Jewish wives obtain religious divorces.
But the rabbi became embroiled in a sex scandal that involved other female accusers and in March was expelled from the Rabbinical Council of America.
The council, which represents Orthodox Jewish leaders, would not discuss the Tendler case
Tendler, who lives in Spring Valley, called the charges "ludicrous."
His lawyer, Martin Stewart Frankel, called (Survivors Name Removed)'s charges "flatly, completely and utterly false."
"A tremendous grave injustice is being done against a very wonderful person," Frankel said.
(Survivors Name Removed) claims Tendler conducted "his sexual therapy sessions" with other women and charges that his congregation, Kehillat New Hempstead, also named in the suit, "knew or should have known" what was happening.
(Survivors Name Removed) says Tendler actively recruited her to join Kehillat. She eventually took up a second residence in Spring Valley.
According to her suit, Tendler warned that he would "have her placed in a straitjacket" and "banned from the shul" if she told anyone about the sex.
Kramer said it was difficult for her client to accuse the rabbi. "It's an embarrassment to the family, a terrible thing."
'Messiah' gave sex therapy sessions
Unitied Press International - December 25, 2005
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051225-032322-8238r
SPRING VALLEY, N.Y., Dec. 25 (UPI) -- A New York rabbi allegedly seduced a member of his congregation by claiming to be the messiah and offering her sex therapy.
The woman filed suit against Rabbi Mordecai Tendler of Rockland County last week, accusing him of deceiving and violating her, the New York Post reported.
(Survivors Name Removed) , 43, said Tendler was acting as a counselor and spiritual authority but went "beyond all bounds of civility and decency." Tendler's attorney called the charges "utterly false."
Attorney Martin Stewart Frankel said Tendler's congregation at Kehillat New Hempstead "knew or should have known" what was going on in the sexual therapy sessions he offered.
(Survivors Name Removed) said Tendler threatened to have her "placed in a straitjacket" and banned from the congregation if she told anyone about their sessions.
Woman Charges Tendler In Sex Harassment Case
The Jewish Week (NY) - December 28, 2005
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11855
Please write to Gary Rosenblatt (Editor of the Jewish Week) and complain about him using the survivors real name in the article. All he needs to do is review the guidelines prepared by the US Department of Justice on News Media ethics, when dealing with cases of sexual violence/misconduct.
If you go to this site and review the articles posted, you will notice it is uncommon for sexual violence survivor's names to be printed in newspapers. It is never ok to publish the name(s) of those who were sexually violated without their express permission. I don't care who else says it's ok. It's just not ethical.
A woman claiming she was seduced by Rabbi Mordechai Tendler, who according to court papers told her he was the messiah and could help her find a husband by submitting to his "sex therapy," has filed suit against the controversial Rockland County spiritual leader.
(Survivors Name Removed), 43, is the first woman to take legal action against the rabbi since he was expelled as a member of the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest Orthodox rabbinic association, in March for "conduct inappropriate to an Orthodox rabbi."
The rabbi had been accused of various degrees of sexual harassment by several women, though it is believed that (Survivors Name Removed)was not one of the complainants in the RCA case.
According to a suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court last week, (Survivors Name Removed) said the rabbi, acting as a religious authority and counselor she trusted, had encounters with her in his rabbinic study from 2001 to 2005, and that his actions were "beyond all bounds of civility and decency."
Rabbi Tendler's attorney, Martin Lewis Frankel, said the charges were "completely false," according to a report in the New York Post.
(Survivors Name Removed) became a member of Rabbi Tendler's congregation, Kehillat New Hempstead, about two years after she first went to him for advice in 1994.
Critics of the rabbi have charged that he sometimes approached women he counseled with personal problems and told them they would be cut off from him, his congregation and community if they did not submit to him. He has also been accused of making advances to women with marital problems who sought his counsel.
According to the suit, which was also brought against Rabbi Tendler's synagogue, (Survivors Name Removed) "was physically violated, had her reputation impugned, was ostracized" from the synagogue and "has lost her standing in the community." The suit alleges the rabbi told (Survivors Name Removed) he would "have her placed in a straight jacket" and/or "have her thrown in jail" if she told anyone about "the sexual therapy."
The father of eight, Rabbi Tendler is the son and grandson of prominent Orthodox rabbinic leaders, and had been praised by some Jewish women's groups for his work in helping women receive religious divorces.
Orthodox Rabbi Sued by Former Congregant
By Rukhl Schaechter
Forward - December 30, 2005
http://forward.com/articles/7091
A former congregant has filed a lawsuit against Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, the religious leader of an Orthodox congregation in Monsey, N.Y., accusing him of giving her "sex therapy" when she went to him for counseling.
In the lawsuit, which was filed December 20 in Manhattan and reported December 25 in the New York Post, (survivors name removed), 43, claims that Tendler, a father of eight, promised her that he would help her find a husband with whom to raise a family if she slept with him. She is also alleging that Tendler threatened to "have her placed in a straitjacket" if she told anyone about the sessions. The sexual liaisons were allegedly conducted in his rabbinical study in the years 2001 to 2005.
"He had a tremendous amount of power over her," said (Survivors Name Removed)'s lawyer, Lenore Kramer.
Tendler, the scion of a prominent rabbinical family, was expelled from the Rabbinical Council of America in March, after a months-long investigation of allegations that he sexually harassed women who came to him for spiritual guidance. When asked by the Forward whether (Survivors Name removed) was one of the women interviewed during the RCA investigation, Rabbi Dale Polakoff, president of the organization, declined to comment, citing the advice of counsel.
Last week the Brooklyn-based Jewish Press published an open letter from Rabbi Moshe Faskowitz announcing his resignation from the RCA in connection to the Tendler controversy. Faskowitz quit the RCA after a Jerusalem regional rabbinical court characterized the organization as being in violation of its rulings.
Tendler had filed a complaint with the Jerusalem court in July, claiming that the RCA had violated rabbinic law by expelling him without bringing the charges to an independent rabbinical court. The RCA has responded that according to rabbinic law, a summons is not to be sent from one city to another if both litigants live in one city, and that therefore the Jerusalem court has no jurisdiction in the matter.
Polakoff said that his office had received no notice of an official resignation from Faskowitz or anybody else.
RCA sources say that Faskowitz is actually a cousin of Mordecai Tendler's wife, Michelle. Faskowitz could not be reached for comment.
Letter from Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst Supporting Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
Note: Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst has supported several other "alleged" sex offenders in the Chicagoland area.
Monsey Rabbis Call Colleague Untruthful
Gary Rosenblatt - Editor and Publisher
Jewish Week (NY) - January 4, 2006
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11871
Three years ago Mordechai Tendler, a controversial Modern Orthodox rabbi, met with nine leading haredi rabbis in his community of Monsey, N.Y., who challenged him on a number of his halachic rulings and on allegations that he had acted improperly with women.
Since then, Rabbi Tendler has said publicly that he was exonerated by the rabbinical panel, which he has described as a bet din, or religious court.
This week a statement signed in May by seven of the rabbis became public through the Internet and in selected mailings, asserting that Rabbi Tendler's assessment of the meeting was "an outright lie," and urging people not to seek his advice on halachic matters on marriage, divorce, conversion or family harmony. (One of the original nine rabbis moved to Israel and another said he agreed with the others but wanted to remain private.)
There has been little harmony in Rabbi Tendler's community for some time now, particularly since he was expelled last March by the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), the largest Orthodox rabbinic association, for "conduct inappropriate to an Orthodox rabbi."
The case centered on charges of sexual abuse and harassment against the rabbi from several women, and it escalated last week when one former congregant filed a lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court charging that the rabbi had induced her to have sex with him from 2001 to 2005, claiming that he was the messiah and could help her find a husband by submitting to his "sex therapy."
Several sources close to the case said that a number of meetings were held in the last week at Rabbi Tendler's synagogue, Kehillat New Hempstead, and at the homes of its leaders to discuss what, if anything, to do about the latest charges. While the top leadership of the shul appears loyal to the rabbi, others are said to be either wavering or more openly skeptical of his veracity in light of the lawsuit and the statement by the highly respected group of rabbis. Some congregants left the shul after the RCA expulsion.
Rabbi Mordechai Ohrbach, one of the seven rabbis who signed the statement last May 29, told The Jewish Week "we felt we had no option but to respond" to Rabbi Tendler's claim that the rabbis had found his statements truthful when they met with him three years ago.
"He did not come across as truthful, and he said things at the meeting that were borderline absurd and delusional, and totally false," he said.
One copy of the statement, he said, was given to the RCA, which had come under attack from supporters of Rabbi Tendler after expelling him, and another to a bet din in Israel that Rabbi Tendler has appealed to, insisting that he was not given a fair hearing by his American colleagues.
Rabbi Feivel Zimmerman, another signer of the statement, told The Jewish Week that although the rabbis did not make their statement public — it is not known who did — "it is authentic and we stand by it."
The material, released in recent days by a group known as the Monsey Committee for Rabbinic Integrity, included a lengthy responsa from Rabbi Benzion Wosner, a respected rabbinic authority in Monsey. It found that that the RCA had "a right ... and Torah obligation" to expel Rabbi Tendler, and that "his own congregation thus has a similar obligation."
The ruling by Rabbi Wosner said that "numerous rabbis sat together and heard tapes" indicating that Rabbi Tendler sought to "seduce married (and unmarried) women."
Other rabbis involved in the matter told The Jewish Week that they have seen convincing evidence that would prove Rabbi Tendler's sexual involvement with women, though none would comment publicly.
The rabbis who signed the statement have no direct influence over Rabbi Tendler or his congregants, but several noted that while he has complained that he was being attacked by the liberal element of the Orthodox community — namely, the RCA, an arm of the Orthodox Union — those who signed the statement were haredim.
Another irony, they said, was that while Rabbi Tendler has complained that he was not allowed by the RCA to make his case before a bet din, he himself has described his meeting with the Monsey rabbis as a bet din — and they found him to be untruthful.
According to several sources, the original meeting was called at the suggestion of Rabbi Tendler's father, Moshe Tendler, a prominent rabbi in Monsey and biologist on the faculty of Yeshiva University, who sought to clear his son's name. He was informed a few days later that his son's explanations and denials had not been believed by the group, someone close to the case said.
Phone messages for Rabbis Moshe and Mordechai Tendler were not returned. Mordechai Tendler has maintained his innocence of charges of sexual misconduct.
Described as a brilliant, charismatic and generous rabbi, he had been a champion of some Jewish women's groups, primarily for his help in allowing agunot to receive a religious divorce.
Some of his halachic decisions on agunot and conversions drew the ire of a number of his Monsey rabbinical colleagues. When they questioned him three years ago about his rulings, which he said he based on observing and assisting his late grandfather, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the leading posek, or arbiter, of his generation, the nine rabbis concluded that he was not being truthful or consistent with Rabbi Feinstein's decisions.
"We found his halachic decisions to be borderline Conservative," one of the rabbis said.
Rabbi Tendler has maintained that he is the victim of an effort by some rabbis with whom he disagrees on religious matters to portray him as a womanizer so as to diminish his halachic stature. He has said that he often dealt with troubled women, some of whom were emotionally fragile, and that rather than being appreciated for taking the time to counsel them, at no cost, he was the subject of vicious and untrue rumors about his moral behavior.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter
Jewish Week (NY) - January 5, 2006
http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/letters.php3
Your naming a survivor of sexual abuse is morally, ethically and journalistically reprehensible ("Woman Charges Tendler In Sex Harassment Case," Dec. 30). How would you feel if your son or daughter were sexually violated and had the courage to bring charges, only to be publicized in the press? You should know better.
This is not about protecting alleged abusers; this is about stopping sexual abuse. Your naming of accusers impedes victims from speaking out and provides more protection for predators.
The cycle of sexual abuse must stop, and the press plays a major role in whether victims come forward or not. Victims should never be identified publicly. They have that right to privacy.
Bob Russell
Chairman - SNAP Maryland
Glen Rock, Pa.
Rabbinical Court Slams Embattled Rabbi
By Rukhl Schaechter
Forward (NY) - January 6, 2006
http://www.forward.com/articles/7118
An ultra-Orthodox rabbinical court in Monsey, N.Y., has waded into the battle over a beleaguered rabbi facing allegations of sexual harassment.
Rabbi Benzion Y. Wosner, head of the Shevet Levi rabbinical court in Monsey, issued a ruling last week (dated Hanukkah 2005) stating that Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, the spiritual leader of a synagogue in nearby New Hempstead, is unfit to serve as an Orthodox rabbi. The ruling was widely distributed to the rabbis and congregants of the local Orthodox synagogues, including Tendler's synagogue, Kehillat New Hempstead. Tendler did not return phone calls from the Forward.
The ruling comes just one week after (SURVIVORS NAME REMOVED), a former congregant of Tendler's synagogue, filed a civil lawsuit in Manhattan against Tendler, the scion of a prominent rabbinical family, accusing him of giving her "sex therapy" when she went to him for counseling. Tendler was expelled from the Rabbinical Council of America, a Modern Orthodox organization, in March 2005, after a yearlong investigation of allegations that he sexually harassed women who came to him for spiritual guidance.
In the months before the RCA ruling, Tendler's supporters said that the allegations against him were being orchestrated by ultra-Orthodox rabbis who opposed the methods he used in helping women who were unable to secure a religious divorce from their husbands. At the same time, Tendler told people that several of the ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Monsey who criticized his work on women's issues had investigated the sexual harassment allegations and rejected them. However, attached to Wosner's ruling was a clarification signed by seven ultra-Orthodox Monsey rabbis disputing Tendler's claim that they had exonerated him.
In an interview with the Forward, one of the signatories, Rabbi Mordechai Orbach, said he arranged a meeting with Tendler at the beginning of 2003 in Congregation Shaarey Tefilah, Orbach's Monsey synagogue. The meeting was attended by six other rabbis representing the various Hasidic and non-Hasidic ultra-Orthodox groups in Monsey.
The rabbis questioned Tendler and ended the meeting by saying they would investigate further, Orbach said. Since then, Tendler and his supporters claimed on a number of occasions that the Monsey rabbis had cleared him.
In their clarification, however, the rabbis wrote: "Since it has been publicly announced...and printed that we investigated R' Mordecai Tendler and that we were convinced of the truth of his statements, we are hereby forced to publicize that this is an outright lie." Rabbi Shraga Feivel Zimmerman, one of the seven signatories, told the Forward that the clarification "is authentic, and we stand behind the statement contained in it."
Meanwhile, the RCA, the Modern Orthodox rabbinical union that expelled Tendler, has been fighting its own battle with the rabbi.
A Jerusalem regional rabbinical court contacted by Tendler after his dismissal by the RCA has been chastising the organization in a series of letters for expelling Tendler without bringing the issue to an independent rabbinical court. In response, on December 29, the RCA announced on its Web site that it has formally agreed to participate in a Jewish legal procedure, known as zabla, in New York. According to the rules of the procedure, each side of a dispute chooses a rabbinical judge, and the two judges jointly choose a third judge, forming a religious tribunal to hear the case.
"To this date, neither Mordecai Tendler nor his representatives have ever properly communicated his commitment to in fact proceed to zabla," the RCA statement continued.
In his recent ruling, Wosner, the ultra-Orthodox legal authority in Monsey, defended the RCA. According to the rabbi, Tendler questioned the RCA investigation because women are not considered kosher witnesses according to rabbinic law and because Tendler was not present when the witnesses testified. Wosner wrote that in a case where only women could possibly testify, they can and should do so. In addition, he wrote, testimony taken without the defendant present is valid, especially in a case where the defendant has a history of intimidating witnesses.
Citing what he described as incriminating tapes,
Wosner wrote, "The RCA had every right to oust this rabbi from their organization, and his own congregation has the same obligation." In conclusion, he wrote, "the rabbi can no longer officiate at divorces, weddings. ... One should never allow their wives or daughters to go to him at all including [for] counseling... and all his rulings are null and void."
A Call To The Entire Community of Monsey To Stand Together For Kavod HaTorah This Shabbos - And For Many Shabbos As Necessary
Jewish Survivors of Sexual Violence Speak Out - Wednesday, January 04, 2006
http://jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com/2006/01/call-to-entire-community-of-monsey-to.html
There has been a horrible attack on the Gedolim (highly respected rabbis) of Monsey this week. It is an obligation of every Torah fearing Jew in Monsey to answer this attack and to stand for the Kavod of these Gedolim and for Kavod Hatorah.
There is a call for all members of the community of Monsey to stand this coming Shabbos publicly for Kavod Hatorah and to stand publicly in support of the Gedolim of our community. Let us make a Kiddush Hashem.
This shabbos attend at a synagogue where one of the 8 Gedolim below daven. Thank them personally for their courage and strength. Let them know you will support them and stand for their Kavod and for Kavod Hatorah.
Bring your wives and children and anyone that can come. Invite your neighbors. Bring people in from surrounding communities. Bring as many people as you can.
If you can, attend at a different one of the synagogues, that these Gedolim daven at, for each service on Shabbos.
Go to any classes that these Gedolim are giving this coming Shabbos.
Let us fill the synagogues of these Gedolim, and fill our community with prayer and Torah learning and show those who attack these Gedolim that they will never win.
It is an obligation of every Torah fearing Jew in Monsey to answer this attack and to stand for the Kavod of these Gedolim and for Kavod Hatorah.
List of Gedolim of Monsey under attack:
1) Harav Hagaon Rabbi Benzion Y. Wosner Shlit"a
Rosh Beis Din Shevet Halevi
Monsey - Beit Shemesh
2) Rabbi Moshe Green,
Rosh Yeshivah, Yeshivah D'Monsey
3) Rabbi Yisroel Hager
Son of the Grand Rabbi of Vishnitz
4) Rabbi Chaim Halberstam,
Rav, K'hal Yoel Moshe, Satmar, Monsey
5) Rabbi Chaim Shraga Feival Shnaybalg
Rav, K'hal Avreichim, Monsey
6) Rabbi Chaim Leibish Halevi Rottenberg
Rav, K'hal Netzach Yisroel,Monsey
7) Rabbi Sharaga Feivel Halevi Zimmerman
Rav, K'hal Bney Ashkenaz,Monsey
8) Rabbi Mordechai Ohrbach
Rav, K'hal Forshay,Monsey
Additionally to current members of KNH:
We call on every person still attending KNH to ABANDON their synagogue immediately and rejoin the Torah community this Shabbos. Thank these Gedolim and offer your apologies on behalf of your FORMER congregation.
Let the world see a Kidush Hashem this Shabbos and for as many Shabbos as it takes to rid your community of the Chillul Hashem and the rashas that have attacked the Gedolim of Monsey.
Please distribute this plea widely throughout Monsey.
It is an obligation of every Torah fearing Jew in Monsey to answer this attack and to stand for the Kavod of these Gedolim and for Kavod Hatorah.
Rabbi Expelled From Shul
By JEANE MacINTOSH and DAVID HAFETZ
New York Post - March 1, 2006
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/64418.htm
EXCLUSIVE
A prominent New York rabbi has been booted from his shul in the wake of a scandalous sex suit, The Post has learned.
Disgraced Rabbi Mordechai Tendler — scion of one of the world's most prominent Modern Orthodox families — was suspended late Sunday by the board of Kehillat New Hempstead, the Rockland County synagogue he founded.
Tendler, claiming a conspiracy to wreck his career and embarrass his family, refuses to acknowledge the suspension and has summoned 10 "insurgent" opponents to a special rabbinical court with the Union of Orthodox Rabbis.
The KNH board has reportedly also frozen Tendler out of a shul bank account — a charge that Tendler also denies.
The stunning blow comes after a December lawsuit, first reported in The Post, by a former KNH member who alleges Tendler claimed to be the "Messiah" and gave her "sex therapy" to help her find a husband during counseling.
Last year, Tendler was expelled from the highly respected Rabbinical Council of America amid allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct by several women in the community.
The rabbi's suspension comes just weeks after his brother, Rabbi Aron Tendler, announced he would step down from his Los Angeles synagogue amid speculation — reported on Internet sites — that he had been moved from a teaching position at a girls school because of misconduct.
Announcing Mordechai Tendler's suspension, the KNH board, in a letter yesterday to members, noted it had previously asked Tendler to take a leave of absence and recommended "rehabilitation" — neither of which the rabbi would pursue.
"Since the inception of the controversies, the Rabbi has failed to acknowledge or resolve the breadth of these issues," the board wrote.
The board cited the lawsuit, declining membership, falling finances, Tendler's "continuing lack of responsibility" and the board's own inability to determine the "accuracy" of some of his statements.
Tendler, who has publicly denounced the rabbinical council's ruling and has moved to dismiss the "scurrilous" lawsuit, continues to lead the shul, said his brother, Hillel Tendler.
"This is not a legal board . . . they're nothing," Hillel Tendler said, adding that the suspension letter "is void. It has no effect."
Hillel Tendler also rejected the suggestion that KNH attendance is down, saying that Sabbath services are drawing more congregants and that a majority of the shul has signed a petition backing his brother.
Tendler opponents said at least a dozen people have left KNH.
On Monday morning, Tendler — son of leading Yeshiva University Professor Rabbi Moshe Tendler and grandson of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the Modern Orthodox world's leading religious authority — turned up for morning prayers at the synagogue.
Tendler has declined to speak to reporters. Approached last week for comment about the growing tension in town, the rabbi's wife, Michelle Tendler, insisted, "Nobody has left!" and added, "You're not welcome here!"
jeane.macintosh@nypost.com
Rabbi Tendler Suspended From Monsey Synagogue
Staff Report
Jewish Week (NY) - March 1, 2006
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=12129
Rabbi Mordechai Tendler was suspended Sunday by the boards of his Rockland County synagogue as a result of longstanding allegations about his sexual behavior, but the rabbi has refused to leave.
According to several congregants, the board of directors and the board of trustees of Kehillat New Hempstead acted to cut off the rabbi's salary and prevent him from serving as their spiritual leader, apparently shaken by a lawsuit filed recently by a woman against the rabbi and the synagogue charging him with giving her "sexual therapy" to increase her chances of finding a husband. Some say that board members were shown physical evidence to bolster charges against the rabbi.
Rabbi Tendler has denied all wrongdoing and insisted that he is the victim of an effort to undermine his reputation, though he has refused to speak to the press.
One of the synagogue's six members of the board of trustees told The Jewish Week that Rabbi Tendler was "suspended indefinitely, until his innocence is proven in a court of law." The board member, who asked not to be named, said the rabbi has a life contract with the synagogue and that terminating it would be complicated.
Rabbi Tendler is seeking to take the synagogue to a bet din of his choosing, but the board member said the synagogue would not agree, believing the bet din would be biased in favor of the rabbi.
The synagogue has been divided over the rabbi for some time. Allegations about his personal activities led to his membership in the Rabbinical Council of America being terminated last year for "improper behavior."
The board of trustees member said synagogue membership has declined from about 200 families to about 35, and Shabbat attendance has fallen dramatically.
Rabbi Tendler continued to attend services this week, and members said they do not know what will happen on Shabbat when he usually offers a sermon.
Rabbi Tendler's brother,
Ahron Tendler, recently announced that he would soon step down as spiritual leader of his large Orthodox congregation in Los Angeles. That community has been shaken by allegations that Rabbi Ahron Tendler acted improperly with young women in his charge as a teacher in a local yeshiva in years past.
Sex scandal brewing over a rabbi
By Nina Pineda
New York-WABC - March 1, 2006
There's a sex scandal at a local synagogue involving a rabbi allegedly offering and giving "sex therapy" to a congregant looking for a husband.
That rabbi -- from a prominent orthodox family -- is now forced from his job. But now, that rabbi is fighting back, saying he can't be fired.
It's happening at a temple in New Hempstead in Rockland County. Eyewitness News Reporter Nina Pineda has the story.
Nina Pineda: "Can you confirm anything that happened with the allegation against him?"
Rabbi: "No, nobody knows anything about it."
No one would talk about the scandal in which a growing list of women say Rabbi Mordechai Tendler used his position of power to sexually harass them in or in this case, engage in sex with those seeking counsel.
The rabbi's accused of telling a young woman seeking husband, to have sex with him instead so her life would open up and men would come to her.
The rabbi was not at home and did not return repeated phone calls for comment, but in a letter to the Council of America -- which expelled the rabbi after an investigation -- he called the allegation as conspiracy to denigrate the prominent family.
That is, his father is a renowned professor at a university. He told Eyewitness News the so-called boards efforts to remove his son were accusations about a personal vendetta.
But women say they are the ones with a vendetta against them now. In fact, they have written their experiences on a blog.
Many of the women who came forward have had to leave the New Hempstead community saying they have been taunted and retaliated against. The rabbi refuses to acknowledge the board had suspended him.
Please note that PRNnewswire is a service Mordecai Tendler paid for in an attempt to harass individuals who are bring his case out in the open.
Press Release
Source: The Commission for Rabbinic Integrity (web page owned by Mordecai Tendler)
Rabbi Mordecai Tendler Files Libel Suit in Rabbinical Court
Wednesday March 1, 12:24 pm ET
NEW HEMPSTEAD, N.Y., March 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Rabbi Mordecai Tendler filed a Rabbinical Court complaint on February 27, 2006, seeking unspecified damages against several individuals associated with Kehillat New Hempstead. The suit alleges malicious interference with his contractual relations, violation of rabbinical rulings and libel.
The suit names Shlomo Pomerantz, attorney David Graubard, attorney Bruce Minsky, attorney Nathan Losman and Shelly Karben, mother of local assemblyman Ryan Karben, and others. It alleges in part that the defendants conspired to interfere with existing rabbinical rulings and illegally interfered with Rabbi Tendler's contractual relations. The suit further charges that the defendants, with the intent of libeling Rabbi Tendler, conspired in, and contacted the New York Post and, upon information and belief, provided reporters with information as part of a conspiracy to destroy Rabbi Tendler's career, embarrass his family and injure the continued viability of Kehillat New Hempstead. The suit will seek to prove that the group has acted in concert so as to force the congregation into bankruptcy with the intent of voiding Rabbi Tendler's contract.
Rabbi Tendler was advised by members of his congregation that the New York Post was going to publish a three-part article, based upon the information provided in part by the defendants, later this week. The congregation has been strongly supportive of Rabbi Tendler and the defendant group could find no traction in their previous attempt at ousting Rabbi Tendler thus resorting to the use of the press.
He was further advised that a blog, New Hempstead News, carried a story on February 26, 2006, four days before the New York Post story appeared in print, that two reporters from the New York Post visited Rabbi Tendler on Friday, February 24, 2006.
Rabbi Tendler stated that in the event the group failed to appear before the Rabbinical Court within the time provided by the Court, he intended to seek immediate and emergency authorization to file suit in New York State Supreme Court seeking damages and other relief.
Prominent rabbi fights suspension
By SULAIMAN BEG AND STEVE LIEBERMAN sbeg@lohud.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS - March 2, 2006
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060302/NEWS03/603020376/1019/NEWS03
NEW HEMPSTEAD — A New Hempstead synagogue's attempt to suspend its controversial rabbi is being challenged in one of the country's oldest rabbinical courts, according to documents obtained yesterday by The Journal News.
Board members of Kehillat New Hempstead voted Sunday to suspend Rabbi Mordechai Tendler, the target of a civil lawsuit concerning allegations that he had sex with a woman who had sought marital advice.
Tendler has denied charges of sexual harassment and having sex with the woman.
Tendler, scion of a prominent Orthodox Jewish family and a founder of the synagogue, filed legal action Monday against the synagogue board with the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, which was established in 1901.
The legal action claims the board lacks the legal authority to suspend him as rabbi.
Tendler's lawsuit also alleges the board conspired to interfere with existing rabbinical rulings and illegally interfered with Tendler's contractual relations with the synagogue.
· acted with the intent to libel Tendler, providing newspaper reporters and other media with information as part of a conspiracy to destroy Tendler's career, embarrass his family and injure the synagogue's viability forced the synagogue into bankruptcy with the intent of voiding his contract.
The legal action requires board members Shlomo Pomerantz, Bruce Minsky, Nathan Losman, Shelly Karben, Jerald Wolfset, Seymour Ratner, David Resnick, Hanan Waizman and David Graubard to appear before the rabbinical court by March 9.
The lawsuit comes on the heels of a memo released to the media and various Internet Web blogs that the synagogue's board of directors had voted to suspend Tendler based on, among other things, the sexual harassment lawsuit, the synagogue's loss of membership and reputation, and board members' inability to determine the facts.
Under the state's religious corporation law, trustees of a house of worship are not empowered to dismiss or remove its religious leader, according to Tendler's legal action and his supporters.
According to the synagogue's 1990 bylaws, a petition asking for the discontinuation of a rabbi's service needed to be signed by more than 55 percent of the congregation.
His rabbinical contract signed in May 1992 with the synagogue's trustees states, "The congregation agrees that the rabbi cannot be terminated unless permission is granted by an authorized rabbinical court."
The contract states that Tendler would be paid $30,000 annually and receive a $20,000 expense allowance.
Several members of the Kehillat New Hempstead board didn't return phone messages or e-mails for comments yesterday.
Tendler did not return phone calls yesterday. He was not at the synagogue late yesterday morning and no one answered the door at his house, where he lives with his wife and some of their eight children.
The controversy surrounding Tendler became public last year when the nation's most influential Orthodox Jewish council expelled him from it ranks because of the sexual charges. Tendler has been appealing that ruling to various religious courts in the United States and Israel.
Tendler's lawyers also have asked a state Supreme Court judge to dismiss a December lawsuit accusing him of having sex with a 43-year-old Manhattan woman.
She claims she went to Tendler for his assistance, but he abused his position and religious authority to have sex with her, causing her to suffer emotionally.
The case is pending in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, said the woman's lawyer, Lenore Kramer.
In the lawsuit, the woman claimed Tendler told her if she had sexual intercourse with him, "doors would open," she would "open up to meeting men" and "would get married and have children." She claims he told her he "was the Messiah."
Tendler's lawyer, Glen Feinberg, said the rabbi denied the "scurrilous and outrageous allegations."
Feinberg said the lawsuit should be dismissed based on state law. He said New York in 1935 repealed its law holding a married man responsible for seducing a single woman.
"She is saying she is an adult and she engaged in sexual relations with another adult," Feinberg said, asserting that was not a legal basis for a lawsuit.
The controversy has caused disruptions within the synagogue's congregation of about 100, and the community.
Two of Tendler's brothers, Dr. Yacov Tendler of Monsey and attorney Hillel Tendler of Baltimore, said the synagogue board lacked the legal authority to suspend their brother as rabbi. Yacov Tendler called the board members "malcontents and not an authorized board."
"It's laughable," he said. "They are reaching out to smear his reputation on the Internet. The membership is laughing at this whole thing at the same time they are crying at it. The vast majority are his staunch supporters and are very loyal to him."
The men said their brother had been to the synagogue yesterday and Monday and planned to continue going.
"These people have acted illegally," Hillel Tendler said yesterday. "They may physically have control of the building and they can say whatever they want to say. They are not a duly constituted board and they acted illegally."
Synagogue Suspends Rabbi Tendler
By Rukhl Schaechter
Forward (NY) - March 3, 2006
http://www.forward.com/articles/7444
Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, who was expelled from the Rabbinical Council of America last year after an internal investigation into allegations of sexual harassment, has been suspended by his congregation in Monsey, N.Y. According to a letter sent to congregants by the leadership of Kehillat New Hempstead, the synagogue's board of directors spent the past several months attempting to tackle issues that had been plaguing the synagogue since Tendler's removal from the RCA. Tendler has denied the sexual harassment allegations repeatedly. The letter from the synagogue leadership explains that the board initially had requested that Tendler take a leave of absence but he refused, forcing the synagogue to take more dramatic action. "The rabbi has failed to acknowledge or resolve the breadth of these issues," the letter stated. It added, "The board has voted to suspend the rabbi from his rabbinical duties, compensation and responsibilities." In response, Tendler has summoned the synagogue board members and trustees to a rabbinical court conducted by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, a small ultra-Orthodox organization.
Randy Rabbi Reels
By DAVID HAFETZ and JEANE MacINTOSH
New York Post - March 5, 2006
-- EXCLUSIVE
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/64732.htm
Details of allegations by eight more female accusers have surfaced in the explosive sex scandal surrounding Mordechai Tendler, the Rockland County rabbi who allegedly called himself the Messiah to bed a synagogue member.
The women claim the disgraced holy man demanded sexual favors and made bizarre passes - all while offering them spiritual and marital guidance.
Tendler, scion of a preeminent Orthodox family, allegedly paid off one woman after an affair, advised another to have sex with him to "forget her problems," and begged a mother of five to let him bathe her.
Batye Seigel told The Post that as her marriage crumbled in the early '90s, she confided in Tendler, who she believed could help her obtain a "get," a Jewish divorce decree.
But during meetings, Tendler began "hitting on me, big time . . . He would always close the door and lock it - that is forbidden by Jewish law," Seigel said.
Gillian Sinclair, a former member of Tendler's shul, said she talked to the Rabbinical Council of America - which eventually expelled Tendler - "not to destroy a man or his family but to stop the abuse that was going on."
"He's calling, wanting to see me, wanting to come over, offering to bathe me," she said. "I couldn't say what I'd say to any other man pressuring me in that kind of situation - the rabbi was in a position of power."
New details of the embattled New Hempstead rabbi's alleged sexual escapades with women who came to him with marital and spiritual problems were made available to The Post through notes from an investigation that eventually led to Tendler's expulsion from the Rabbinical Council of America.
The prestigious group of 1,000 rabbis tossed Tendler last March, but has not publicly described the women's complaints, which were confirmed for The Post by two sources familiar with the council's investigation.
The women described Tendler, a father of eight, as a charismatic manipulator who offered counseling, but demanded sexual favors.
He allegedly rubbed up against one woman who sought advice, stalked another who displeased him, and asked a teenager to show him a bruise she had on her thigh. Some of the eight women said Tendler threatened and ostracized them if they refused him.
david.hafetz@nypost.com
Tendler Resigns Under Cloud
by Amy Klein, Religion Editor
Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles - March 7, 2006
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=15523
Rabbi Aron Tendler has stepped down six months early from the pulpit of Shaarey Zedek, an Orthodox synagogue in Valley Village, because "it was no longer appropriate for Rabbi Tendler to continue," shul officials said.
Tendler, 51, first announced his resignation in a January letter to congregants. At the time, he said he planned to remain leader of the synagogue until the High Holidays in September. But in a March 6 letter to congregants, shul president Jim Kapenstein and board chair Yacov Yellin wrote that Tendler would be stepping down immediately in light of "new matters which had recently been brought to our attention."
The letter offers no specifics and shul officials declined to elaborate.
Separately, The Journal has learned that Tendler was once accused of inappropriate conduct at the
Yeshiva of Los Angeles (YULA), an Orthodox high school in Pico-Roberston where he had worked from 1980 through June 1999, first as a teacher and then also as a principal. The 1987 investigation was inconclusive, but Tendler transferred from the girls school to
the boys school, which is located on a separate campus.
Allegations against Rabbi Tendler surfaced on
Jewish blogs —
web logs — more than a year ago, citing anonymous sources who alleged the rabbi had behaved inappropriately toward women and girls. These rumors were alluded to briefly in articles published in two East Coast newspapers about problems facing the rabbi's brother,
Mordechai Tendler, who is currently defending himself against accusations of sexual misconduct.
Aron Tendler could not be reached for comment. In January, when he originally announced his departure, Tendler declined to be interviewed, referring The Journal to his resignation letter. This week, he did not return calls or e-mails.
In his Jan. 18 letter to the congregation, Tendler characterized his resignation, after 22 years of affiliation with the synagogue, as voluntary.
"This has been a decision I have contemplated for some time, and after great soul-searching and deliberation and with the full support of [my wife] (NAME DELETED) and the family, I decided that it was time to explore other opportunities and embark on a new aspect of my personal and professional life."
Tendler wrote that he intended to stay in the community but wanted more time with his family and to pursue writing, teaching and other projects: "On occasion, I would like to sleep for more than four hours. Selfishly put, I want more time, and if not now, when?"
Tendler is regarded as a charismatic leader and an inspiring teacher and speaker — someone who could turn around troubled youths, leading them to more religious, more successful lives. In 1999, he received an educator's award from the
Milken Family Foundation.
This week's letter to congregants notes that the stepped-up departure was agreed upon by Tendler, board chair Yellin and president Kapenstein just prior to Tendler's recent trip to Israel: "At that time we agreed that current circumstances [which include new matters that had recently been brought to our attention] have caused us to conclude that it was no longer appropriate for Rabbi Tendler to continue with his previously announced rabbinic transition."
When Tendler returned from Israel on March 2, he and the two shul leaders briefed the synagogue's executive board, and the letter went out to congregants the following Monday.
"In short, the decision was made that, in the best interest of the shul, Rabbi Tendler's resignation should be accelerated and Rabbi Tendler agreed it was prudent to do so," the letter said.
At the same time, an unofficial source close to synagogue leadership said that no congregation member had made any first-hand allegations about improper conduct against the rabbi.
For their part, YULA officials declined to speak for attribution, but a source close to the administration recounted events surrounding the 1987 Tendler investigation in a prepared statement provided to The Journal.
While Tendler was at YULA "there was a charge regarding inappropriate behavior, not sexual relation[s]," the source said.
"Immediately upon receiving the report," according to the statement, "the school administration requested that a nationally renowned investigatory lawyer come to Los Angeles and conduct a thorough investigation." The results of the three-day investigation were "inconclusive."
"It was unclear what happened and the version of events and the motives of the participants were contradictory. There was no corroborating evidence," the statement said. "Immediately after the investigation, [the] school administration, to remove any doubt, and to be careful and mindful of the students' well-being, permanently removed Rabbi Tendler from his position at the girls school, and Rabbi Tendler replaced those hours with more hours at the boys school. Rabbi Tendler had no further official contact with the girls school. After his transfer to the boys school there were no more reports of any kind concerning Rabbi Tendler's behavior."
The source added that the school has a zero-tolerance policy regarding misconduct toward students.
Students and parents were never informed of either the accusations or the investigation. Some alumni family members, not speaking for attribution, said they were outraged that the issue had been concealed.
YULA was founded in 1977 by
Rabbi Marvin Hier. It's affiliated with The Wiesenthal Center and the Museum of Tolerance, which Rabbi Hier also heads.
Jewish schools have emphasized a "zero-tolerance policy" against sexual abuse and other forms of misconduct since the widely publicized case of New York-area
Rabbi Baruch Lanner, who went to prison after leaders in the Jewish community had, for years, brushed aside allegations of inappropriate behavior against him.
The RCC oversees the rabbinical court and matters such as kashrut, or Jewish dietary law. Union said it was against the organization's policy to comment on whether the RCC was conducting an investigation. "We expect rabbis who are spiritual leaders in the community to behave not only in a manner appropriate of their position but also in a way becoming Orthodox Jews."
Rabbi Aron Tendler comes from a prestigious rabbinic family. His grandfather was the illustrious
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, one of the de facto heads of the Orthodox community in the 20th century until his death in 1986. His father,
Rabbi Moshe David Tendler, is the rabbi of
The Community Synagogue of Monsey, an ultra-Orthodox community in Rockland County, New York, and an expert on Jewish medical ethics.
The New York Post reported that Aron's brother,
Rabbi Mordechai Tendler, was suspended by the leadership of his synagogue, Kehillat New Israel, which also is located in Rockland County. In December, a former congregant sued Mordechai Tendler, alleging that he claimed to be the "Messiah" and gave her "sex therapy" to help her find a husband during counseling, the Post wrote, citing court documents. Mordechai Tendler has denied any wrongdoing, challenges the validity of the suspension and has taken his case to religious court.
Another Tendler Steps Down
by Amy Klein, Religion Editor
Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles - April 7, 2006
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=15671
Tendler's resignation comes shortly after his nephew,
Rabbi Aron Tendler, resigned under pressure as rabbi of Shaarey Zedek Congregation in Valley Village. Meanwhile, Tendler's other nephew,
Rabbi Mordechai Tendler was suspended this year by the board of his New York City-area synagogue as a result of longstanding allegations about alleged sexual misconduct.
Sholom Tendler, 61, says his departure is a matter only of his desire to start a new high school.
Sholom Tendler has been
YULA's rosh yeshiva, Hebrew for principal, for the last 26 years, including in 1987, when the school hired attorneys secretly to investigate allegations of inappropriate behavior against
Aron Tendler. The internal probe yielded inconclusive results, but Aron Tendler was moved from the girls school to the separate boys school.
"I was aware of that investigation," Sholom Tendler told The Journal, adding that he recused himself from the situation because his relative was involved.
After news of the investigation came to light in recent months, YULA alums and parents expressed outrage that the school dealt with the matter privately. Some clamored for "accountability." Sholom Tendler's resignation, so soon after the disclosures, has inevitably invited speculation that his departure is, in effect, the school's response to community pressure.
Not so, Sholom Tendler said.
"There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between [what happened with his nephews] and my decision to build this new school," he said. "It's unfortunate how unfounded rumors can blacken even the most beautiful of endeavors."
Sholom Tendler also expressed sympathy for his nephews' ordeals: "It's very painful, and I'm supportive of them and their families in this terrible time of agony that they're going through."
Aron Tendler has declined interview requests; Mordechai Tendler has been more vocal, denying any wrongdoing.
YULA officials also emphasized that Sholom Tendler's exit is voluntary.
"He helped create YULA," said Rabbi Meyer May, the executive director of YULA's boys division. "He could have stayed at YULA for his entire career."
So why is Sholom Tendler leaving?
He replied that there is a shortage of yeshiva high schools in Los Angeles.
"Anybody will tell you there are not enough high school desks in Los Angeles. It's a healthy sign, but a serious problem," Sholom Tendler said.
His added that his new school will fill a niche for the more "ultra" side of the Orthodox community, while also stressing a serious academic curriculum.
Sholom Tendler is calling his new high school Mesivta Birkas Yitzchok — named for his father, Rabbi Yitzchok Tendler, a rebbe who inspired "a joy of learning," as Tendler put it. He plans to open in September for about 10 to 15 ninth-graders. He said he is currently scouting for a location in the Pico-Robertson or La Brea area.
The school will provide both serious Torah study and strong secular academics.
"People who are observing the demographics in the Jewish community see that there are a growing number of people who are very serious about religious observance and at the same time want to live in the professional or business world, rather than the rabbinate. We want parents to have the opportunity to prepare their sons for either way of life," he said.
Because of the labor involved in starting a school, Sholom Tendler also is stepping down from heading Young Israel of North Beverly Hills, where he has served as rabbi almost since its inception 13 years ago. He will stay on until the search committee finds a new rabbi. He said he expects to remain involved in the community, possibly as rabbi emeritus.
Chief Rabbinate Barring Conversions From Top U.S. Orthodox Rabbis Move stuns RCA rabbis, seen as `slap in face' to American Orthodox rabbis; payback for Tendler censure theorized.
By Michele Chabin - Israel Correspondent
Jewish Week (NY) - May 5, 2006
Conversions approved by well-known N.Y. Orthodox Rabbis Ephraim Buchwald, left, and Adam Mintz now being questioned.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=12414&print=yes
Jerusalem -- In what appears to be a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the largest branch of Orthodox Jewry in America, the Chief Rabbinate in Israel is refusing to accept conversions performed by several leading Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) rabbis here, The Jewish Week has learned.
For instance, although the name of Gedaliah Dov Schwartz, chairman of the Beth Din of America, is on a list of American rabbis whose conversions are approved by the Chief Rabbinate, his signature on an authorized document is no longer accepted unless he personally performed the conversion.
"We need to ensure the highest standards," explained Rabbi Yigal Krispel, deputy to Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar. "Rabbi Schwartz sits in Chicago, while the conversions are performed elsewhere."
The Beth Din of America is closely associated with the Rabbinical Council of America, a branch of the Orthodox Union, the largest Orthodox organization in the world.
Rabbi Krispel insisted "there has been no change in policy" that only a rabbi recognized by the Chief Rabbinate could perform conversions.
The difference is that since Rabbi Amar assumed his position in 2003, he said, "we have been operating according to a list of approved rabbis."
The list, obtained by The Jewish Week, has fewer than 50 names on it, including some rabbis who are deceased.
"A member of the RCA is not automatically recognized," Rabbi Krispel said.
This news comes as a surprise to the leaders of the RCA and the Orthodox Union.
"I don't know anything about it," said Rabbi Schwartz, who added that the Chief Rabbinate "can't just bypass the rabbis who are its biggest supporters.
"We have to investigate through our own channels," he said.
And Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, the executive director of the Orthodox Union, said he was surprised at the news, which he felt indicated either a major snafu by the Chief Rabbinate or a major and disturbing shift in policy on its part.
Rabbi Seth Farber, the director of ITIM, an organization in Israel that helps potential converts navigate the bureaucracy of the Chief Rabbinate, said that body "is marginalizing the American Modern Orthodox rabbinate.
"By not recognizing the legitimacy of conversions approved by the Beth Din of America, they're intimating that the Beth Din of America has no legitimacy whatsoever," Rabbi Farber continued. "It's a slap in the face to American converts and American Orthodox rabbis."
When Sarah (a pseudonym), a New York-based Orthodox convert to Judaism, and her Israeli-born fiancé, decided to get married in Israel this summer, they were prepared to tackle some of the Chief Rabbinate's legendary bureaucracy.
With this in mind, they opened a marriage file with the Chief Rabbinate back in December 2005, armed with her fiance's parents' ketubah and other proof of his Jewishness.
Sarah, who studied at the Lincoln Square Synagogue, an Orthodox synagogue in Manhattan, for almost three years before undergoing an Orthodox conversion several years ago, presented her conversion certificate as well as a conversion ishur — authorization document — from the Beth Din of America.
While the Chief Rabbinate accepted Sarah's fiancé as a Jew, it refused to accept Sarah's conversion documentation as proof of her Jewishness.
An internal Rabbinate memo stated that the three Orthodox rabbis — Ephraim Buchwald, Adam Mintz and the late Hershel Cohen — who signed her conversion certificate "are not recognized."
"They rejected my documents straightaway," Sarah said in an interview from New York. "I'm hurt because I studied halacha and we lead a Jewish life. That the Rabbinate has questioned my commitment to Judaism to such an extent that it has no faith in the rabbis I studied with is deeply disappointing. We could get married in America, but our dream is to get married in Israel."
While the Rabbinate has always scrutinized conversion documents issued abroad, those who deal with the authority say that in the last year or so, it has routinely begun to question the credentials of many respected Orthodox rabbis in the U.S. and elsewhere on matters related to conversion.
Exactly what precipitated the Chief Rabbinate's more stringent criteria is open for debate.
Some American rabbis suggested that the Rabbinate's failure to automatically recognize most conversions performed by RCA-affiliated rabbis is a form of retaliation for the RCA's recent decision to oust Monsey Rabbi Mordechai Tendler from its ranks after he was accused of sexually abusing and harassing several women.
When Rabbi Tendler, the son and grandson of prominent rabbis, was barred by the RCA, "the Tendler family turned to the Chief Rabbinate for support," said one of the rabbis, on condition of anonymity.
Others disagree.
"The idea that this was to get back at someone is ridiculous," said Rabbi Avrohom Union, an administrator for the Rabbinical Council of California.
Some rabbis feel that the chief rabbinate has become more haredi in recent years and is seeking to raise the bar in terms of halachic standards.
Whatever the motive, Rabbi Farber said that in recent months, many American Orthodox rabbis "were coming under increasing scrutiny" by the Rabbinate in Israel.
Two months ago, he said, Rabbi Eliahu Ben- Dahan, the director general of the Israel's National Beth Din told Rabbi Farber that "no Beth Din of America document will be accepted as proof of Jewishness without the individual convert also appearing before the Rabbinical Court in Israel."
He said the new requirement, demanding foreign converts to personally appear before an Israeli rabbinical court — where they are quizzed on Jewish law and their level of religious observance — creates not only logistical problems but also emotional stress for the converts.
"In most cases, the converts don't even know about the requirement until they arrive in Israel, right before the wedding. No one has informed them or their [diaspora] rabbi that there is a problem," he said, noting that once, after ITIM intervened, Sephardi Chief Rabbi Amar approved a marriage just before the wedding, after his deputy, Rabbi Krispel, had said no.
Of the dozen or so marriage cases involving American converts that ITIM has assisted during the past year, all but Sarah's were ultimately approved by the Chief Rabbinate, usually after numerous frantic phone calls had been made and many tears shed. It is unknown how many converts from other countries, if any, have encountered similar problems.
The parents of a bar mitzvah boy converted in New York prior to the family's aliyah weren't so lucky. The Chief Rabbinate instructed the parents to have the child re-immersed in an Israeli mikvah, and they grudgingly did so.
Rabbi Krispel said that his office recently established a committee composed of three rabbis who determine the qualifications of any rabbis who do not appear on the list.
"What this means is that anyone not on this list has to go through a background check and an examination process."
He intimated that the Chief Rabbinate will no longer accept conversions performed by community, synagogue or other rabbis who do not specialize in conversion.
"Only dayanim [religious judges] are permitted to do this and just as the rabbi of this or that municipality in Israel is not permitted to be involved in conversion, so too in the diaspora."
Rabbi Krispel said he inherited the list from his predecessor, Rabbi Yitzhak Ohana, who served under former Chief Rabbis Lau and Bakshi-Doron.
But Rabbi Farber said the previous chief rabbis "knew that if Rabbi Schwartz of the Beth Din of America approved a conversion performed by an RCA rabbi, no further action was necessary. They were familiar with the American rabbinical leadership. Clearly, Rabbi Krispel isn't, and the converts are the ones caught in the middle."
Rabbi Peretz Steinberg from Queens, Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag from Brooklyn, and Rabbi Eliezer Teitz from Elizabeth, N.J., are on the approved list, as are some now-deceased rabbis.
Rabbi Basil Herring, executive vice president of the RCA, which is holding its annual conference next week, said he "preferred to understand this change as being done for positive reasons. The fact is, there are many people who call themselves rabbis who may have studied in certain seminaries and received certain kinds of smicha [ordination]. Unfortunately, given the realities of Jewish life, it is necessary to establish appropriate standards for conversion."
Rabbi Yona Reiss, director of the Beth Din of America, said he would expect any conversion that goes through the conversion commission of the RCA, which is overseen by the Beth Din of America, to have "universal recogition."
Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald, who sat on Sarah's conversion "tribunal," called the Rabbinate's refusal to recognize him and the other rabbis involved "upsetting."
"Maybe there was a technical hitch that can be straightened out," he said hopefully.
Meanwhile, Sarah says the hassle over her wedding has put a damper on her big day.
"Here we are, looking forward to such a wonderful event, and suddenly there are road blocks in the way. I was converted in an Orthodox bet din. I honestly don't know what's going on here," she said.
URGENT CALL TO ACTION: Mordecai Tendler to Speak in Har Nof
The Awareness Center, Inc. Dailly Newsletter - July 4, 2006
"According to the Chafetz Chayim in his vital sefer Shmiros Halashon (klal 4 halacha 7-8,7:65) it is permitted and even obligatory to record and and even a mitzvah--good deed to publicize the information contained herein:"
Moshe Siegel is organizing a lecture by Rabbi Mordecai Tendler. There is a call to action to have the following lecture cancelled.
Topic: "Halachik Considerations of Financial Expenditures" (Tzedaka vs. Household)
Where: Rechov Agassi 32 (Room #7 – 1 flight up), Har Nof, Jerusalem, Israel
When: Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 6:45 pm - Shiur starts at 6:45 pm followed by Maariv at 8:15 pm.
Considering the decree created and signed by Rabbi Wosner (head of the Shevet Levi rabbinical court) and the rabbis in Monsey, NY (December, 2005); The Awareness Center, Inc. is asking everyone to contact Moshe Siegel ( siegel36@bezeqint.net) and make him aware of the following information:
"A Wide Spectrum of Prominent New York Rabbanim Conclude and Present Herein Their Joint Halachic View that Mordecai Tendler is Unfit to Serve in the Capacity of Rav." -- Committee for Rabbinic Integrity
Please read the following excerpts . . .
"It is forbidden to ask for Mordecai Tendler for advice on Jewish law.
This Rabbi can no longer officiate at divorces, weddings, batei dinim, etc...
No one is obligated to give him any respect such as standing up for him, etc.
He can no longer be a Rav or Rabbi or Dayan amongst the Jewish People!
One should never allow their wives or daughters to go to his classes or to go to him at all including counseling... and all his rulings are null and void!
" it is our opinion that one must not seek any advice in any area including Shalom Bayis, and certainly not in any Halachic matters pertaining to Divorce, Marriage or Conversions!"
To comply with the decree of the rabbunim of Monsey, The Awareness Center, Inc. is requesting that all rabbis from Har Nof and Beit Shemesh for thier help in stopping Rabbi Mordecai Tendler from teaching in their neighborhood.
We are also asking If someone could comply a list of rabbis in Har Nof and Beit Shemesh and forward it to: Vicki Polin OR go to newhempsteadnews.blogspot.com and post comments on the blog with the information.
---------------------------
Saturday, December 24, 2005
A Wide Spectrum of Prominent New York Rabbanim Conclude and Present Herein Their Joint Halachic View that Mordecai Tendler is Unfit to Serve in the Capacity of Rav
In light of this, residents of greater Monsey have formed The Committee for Rabbinic Integrity that strives to prevent Mordy Tendler from continuing on in capacity of "Rav", "dayan" or "mashgiach" and to warn the entire Jewish community against having any contact with him, especially women, many of whom he has abused as well as so many families for decades.
According to the Chafetz Chayim in his vital sefer Shmiros Halashon (klal 4 halacha 7-8,7:65) it is permitted and even obligatory to record and and even a mitzvah--good deed to publicize the information contained herein:
Additionally, in light of the express permission of a wide spectrum of foremost N.Y. Rabbanim, that includes the enclosed summary translation of an important t'shuvah-- responsa expressly written for this issue, this can and must be read by all adults.
1. Summary Translation Responsa of the venerable Rav Wosner, Shlit"a
2. Rabbinic Proclamation of Leading Monsey Rabbanim (translation)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Translation for the "Responsa"
By Harav Hagaon Rabbi Benzion Y. Wosner Shlit"a (Rosh Beis Din Shevet Halevi)
Monsey - Beit Shemesh
Please note: These are excerpts only from a lengthy and very thorough T'shuvah. This translation has been authorized by Harav Hagaon Rav Wosner, Shlit"a, but has not been translated by him. This is only a summary, not at all a complete translation. One must actually read and study the original Teshuvah in its original Hebrew to get a true understanding and appreciation of this psak (Halachic ruling). All Rabbis in Monsey retain a copy of the original Teshuvah and it is thus available for anyone to study.
Please note: While Rabbi Wosner is a Gaon in his own right, and one of the leading Halachic Authorities for the Monsey Kehilla Mikvah, he is also the son of the venerable Gaon, and world renowned Posek, the author of the multi-volume responsa, Shevet Halevi of Bnei-Brak. (The great Chazon Ish Z"l is known to have recommended the Shevet Halevi as the leading authority in Bnei-Brak 50 years ago.)
The reason this vital information was not presented publicly until now* is that the Rabbanim attempted to give Tendler many chances, with the latest attempts during the Yomim Noraim, to resign as Rav and Dayan before releasing both the t'shuvah and kol-korah proclamation and if needed other very compromising information. Their patient attempts went on completely deaf ears that included his father and brother. The time to declare the Torah view has come. No more chances.
A Short Translation Summary:
Introduction:
This is in regard to an issue whereas numerous Rabbanim in our town (Monsey) have requested that I rule Halachicly, how to deal with a certain Rabbi, who deals with divorces, marriages and kashruth issues.
Unfortunately, there have been rumors about him for years that he has deliberately violated many Torah prohibitions, particularly involving immoral relations with women. To be sure that this was in fact truthful, I summoned and interviewed many men and women who reside in both New Hempstead and who reside outside of New Hempstead, and found all of this to be unfortunately true!
The women testified on his total disregard of Torah prohibitions. For example, he would meet women one on one, on the pretense that he wants to teach them Halachos and counsel them on the ways of life. Once he wins their confidence, he would, for example, forget to bring his book and ask the woman he was seeing if they could learn together using her book, thereby giving him the opportunity to move physically closer to her where they would eventually touch. He would ultimately hug the woman and subsequently perform other immoral acts that I have great difficulty putting to print!
In addition, he has brazenly dealt in difficult Halachic marriage situations, annulling countless marriages (Hashem, protect us).
When asked by a group of Rabbis at a meeting, how he could take upon himself these halachic rulings, he answered that his grandfather Harav Moshe Feinstein Z"l also ruled this way! However, after having inquired from Harav Feinstein's own children and students, we found that this was a total fabrication!
Now, the inquiry before us is:
What do we answer members of our community and our neighbors, who ask whether to continue under his leadership and teachings, or to leave him?
In addition, this inquiry notes the fact that this Rabbi was a member for many years of a Rabbinic organization, (RCA) and after doing their own investigation decided to oust him from their organization!
This Rabbi has summoned this same Rabbinic organization (RCA) to a (Rabbanut) Beit Din in Israel claiming that they terminated his membership in their organization under the violation of Halacha-Torah law.
For example, he claims that the Shulchan Aruch writes that one cannot remove a "Chazzan" from his position based on a rumor, unless there are actual kosher witnesses.
From his side he likewise claims:
a) there are only women witnesses and he claims women are not kosher witnesses
b) that these witnesses testified without him being present
c) the witnesses are biased
d) the rumors were spread by his enemies!
ANSWER:
This case has absolutely no resemblance to the case discussed in the Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch talks about a Congregation that wants to remove a Chazzan from his employment in a synagogue, based on a rumor.
In our case this Rabbi was not employed by the organization (RCA), he was a member like other member Rabbis. We could not find one instance in Halacha that an organization cannot remove one of their members. In addition, every organization can set and change its own rules as they see fit!
Every organization has a right to set rules that their members should not profane HASHEM'S great Name, certainly not to violate outright Halachic prohibitions E
Therefore, since this rumor has been ongoing and the Rabbis of the organization are ashamed and embarrassed of his actions, they not only have a right to oust him from their organization but they have a Torah obligation to do so!
With this action, the Rabbis of this organization are sanctifying HASHEM'S Name!
It is vital to know that, accordingly, his own Congregation has an equal obligation!
(a) In regard to his claim that only women testified:
As far as Halacha is concerned (see actual T'shuvah for elaboration), in a case where a Rabbi has a rumor that doesn't stop ... (this rumor has been ongoing for multiple years) we do not need any witnesses to remove him.
In our case we actually do have witnesses ... men... who have testified that they actually saw this Rabbi meet women one on one (flagrantly violating the prohibition of Yichud). There are, however, also women witnesses! The victims themselves who came to him for counseling to pour their broken hearts to him!
The Ramah in Choshen Mishpat (Siman 35,14) rules that in a case where only women congregate or in a case (like ours) where only women could possibly testify, (since he meets women one on one behind closed doors) they can and should certainly testify. (Terumas Hadeshen Siman 353 and Agudah Perek 10, Yochasin)
This is also the ruling of the Mahrik, Radvaz, and the Mahr"i of Minz. Even those "Poskim" that would normally not rely on women witnesses, they would certainly agree that in our case ... where there is ample evidence that this Rabbi violated Torah precepts, then even children or women can certainly be kosher as witnesses, as the Chasam Sofer pointed out in his sefer (Orach Chaim T'shuvah 11)
(b) His claim that the witnesses testified without him being there:
There are many Responsa in regard to having witnesses testify, without the defendant being present. The Ramah has already ruled (Choshen Mishpat) that testimony taken without the defendant present is halachicly correct, especially in a case where the defendant has a history of intimidating witnesses (This Rabbi called and threatened many women who testified at the RCA hearing).
In addition, since we are dealing with a person who intimidates, curses and harasses anyone that dare oppose him including respected Rabbis...one may testify without the defendant being present.
The Ramah adds that in such a case (as ours) where we know that the defendant will certainly intimidate the witnesses, the Gaonim (Sages who lived during the years 900 C.E.) long ago established a Halachic rule that one may testify without the defendant being present!
c) He claims the Witnesses are biased: This claim is not true since:
(1) some of the witnesses were actually men who had no previous associations with him
(2) someof the women witnesses who testified, testified not what he actually did with them, but they testified what he did with other women who confided in them (and additionally brought them evidence of this). And even if his claim was actually true, the absurd claim of his ... that these women were biased, it would be irrelevant as far as Halacha is concerned.
According to Halacha, these women would still be believed.
(Please see sources).
Rumors that have not stopped (Kalay D'lo Pasak V'Sanu shomaneha):
In a case such as ours where rumors about this individual have been ongoing for years, the Ramah has already ruled that in a case such as this, even if one individual of his congregation protests his behavior, this would be sufficient reason to remove this Rabbi from his position ... based on a rumor only! See also the Chasam Sofer (ibid)
Even in the case where the Rabbi claims that he is like a Chazzan, where the Shulchan Aruch says that based on one rumor one cannot be removed from his position, in this case even the Shulchan Aruch would agree that he should be removed since there are many people in his Congregation that have protested his despicable behavior (witness how many people left his shul).
The Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Dayah 119) writes a rule for all to know, that the Halacha requires his removal even if the rumor never reached a Beis Din!
The Bais Yosef in the name of the R"ash and Rabbeinu Yeruchum rule this way even if the rumor stopped !!
One may surmise from the Rambam's ruling (source) that even in a case where we do not have clear kosher witnesses, but where we have some basis of fact, and a rumor that doesn't stop that he has violated immoral prohibitions, one has an obligation to humiliate him in public! All of this without any witnesses testifying!
The Rambam therefore states regarding a person like this: (Sanhedrin chapter 24):
"The Congregation should taunt the one that is transgressing the Torah prohibition of arayos--immoral relations and, in addition, whoever hears about his evil behavior must embarrass him even in front of his own children" (See Rambam source above).
d) Claim ... that his "enemies" have spread the rumors:
All people who have claims against them, always argue that the witnesses are enemies and hate them ... we actually see this on a daily basis with people who go to court!
With this reasoning there would never ever be any court cases whatsoever!
Having said this, the definition of "enemies" is clearly defined by the Talmud (Yevamos 25a) and several other commentaries (e.g. HaHaishiv Moshe 60, Rambam Sanhedrin chapter 23, Otzer HaPairushim 11:33, etc...) and these sources talk about real enemies not people who had some disagreements between each other.
We can therefore reason that his claim that "enemies" spreading rumors about him are not only false, but absurd!
Ruling:
All Rabbis Have a Clear Obligation to Publicly Ostracize Him:
Rashi in Tractate Megillah 25b states that if there are rumors that one is an Adulterer, one may embarrass him!
Rabbis that are quiet and do not chastise this individual cause HASHEM'S Name to be profaned.
It is therefore an obligation on our town's Rabbinic leaders to do whatever is in their power to ostracize him and separate him from his congregation. This Halacha is brought down by the Rif and this is the Halacha (Yoreh Dayah 334:42)!
No prohibition on speaking Lashan Harah (evil gossip):
The Chofetz Chayim (klal 7:65) rules emphatically that if an individual is a known rasha, for just an example, he is known to have had immoral relations (and is involved in Yichud repeatedly, etc.), one is allowed to listen and speak about this individual!
Prohibited from being a Dayan (Rabbinical Judge):
The Bais Yosef (Choshen Mishpat 34 in the name of the R"osh) rules that one who has been accused of illicit relationships including one who is m'yachaid (meets women alone on a one on one basis) ... is prohibited from ever being witness, and anyone who cannot be a witness can never be a Judge! (Ramah 25, Niddah 49b, Tur Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat Siman 7:69)...
Therefore it stands to reason that one who cannot be a witness or a Judge ... must immediately be stopped from officiating at weddings and divorces! See Responsa Rabbi Moses Feinstein Z"l (Yoreh Dayah Siman 1)!
Final Halachic Ruling Summary:
Numerous Rabbis sat together and heard audio tapes, where this "Rabbi" attempts to seduce married (and unmarried) women (Hashem, please protect us). On one particular tape one can clearly hear a married woman begging the "Rabbi" to leave her alone.
Accordingly, the RCA had every right to oust this Rabbi from their organization, and his own Congregation has the same obligation!
This Rabbi can no longer officiate at divorces, weddings, batei dinim, etc...
No one is obligated to give him any respect such as standing up for him, etc.
He can no longer be a Rav or Rabbi or Dayan amongst the Jewish People!
One should never allow their wives or daughters to go to his classes or to go to him at all including counseling... and all his rulings are null and void!
This ruling obligates all of us according to Halacha as per the ruling of his own grandfather Alah V'shalom, Z"l in his Sefer Igros Moshe ... (ibid).
By doing so we will fulfill the verse in our Holy Torah...
"Destroy Evil Amongst Us."
---------------------------------------
Translation of a joint Rabbinic Kol Korah
"Denial & Clarification" letter issued by 7 Leading Monsey Rabbonim against R' Mordecai Tendler of
New Hempstead, New York
Denial (of his claims) and Clarification!
We have gathered together to inform the public that since it has been publicly announced, written and printed that we investigated R'Mordecai Tendler and that we were convinced of the truth of his statements. We are hereby forced to publicize that this is an outright Lie!
In addition, we want to publicize our opinion that after thoroughly investigating the matter in his presence and after a thorough examination of the issues, it is our opinion that one must not seek any advice in any area including Shalom Bayis, and certainly not in any Halachic matters pertaining to Divorce, Marriage or Conversions!
On this matter we are affixing our signatures on this the 20th day of the month of Iyar* in the year 5765. Here, in Monsey, New York
(In order of Hebrew Signatures)
Rabbi Moshe Green, Rosh Yeshivah, Yeshivah D'Monsey
Rabbi Yisroel Hager Son of the Grand Rabbi of Vishnitz
Rabbi Chaim Halberstam, Rav, K'hal Yoel Moshe, Satmar, Monsey
Rabbi Chaim Shraga Feival Shnaybalg
Rav, K'hal Avreichim, Monsey
Rabbi Chaim Leibish Halevi Rottenberg
Rav, K'hal Netzach Yisroel,Monsey
Rabbi Sharaga Feivel Halevi Zimmerman
Rav, K'hal Bney Ashkenaz,Monsey
Rabbi Mordechai Ohrbach
Rav, K'hal Forshay,Monsey
You may comment and or share your confidential information with us via email: rabbisintegrity@optonline.net
-------------------------------------------------
The Open Truth about Mordechai Tendler's LIES, DISTORTIONS & EVASIONS
Prologue:
With heavy hearts and tears in our eyes, we unfortunately had to come to the following decision which is to let the people of Monsey and elsewhere finally know what the truth is...
(1) We have included above a Halachic Ruling of the great Gaon Harav Wosner, Shlit"a that clearly permits Loshon Hara in this unfortunate case!
(2) We have also included above a "Denial & Clarification" letter from Rabbanim in Monsey that they have never exonerated Tendler of anything but rather to the contrary!
(3) We have included here much detail of just some of Mordechai Tendler's crimes and lies.
Here is just a sampling of his lies but for more in depth analysis continue on to the irrefutable refutation of Tendler and his many lies known as:
"Unmasking the Tendler facade--The Detailed Chronicle" (below)
LIE: Tendler stated at his "open forum" meeting...that no less than two Batei Dinim exonerated him.
Above please find a statement from 7 Leading Monsey Rabbanim who were on these Batei Dinim and who write that this is an unmitigated lie! In fact these Rabbonim added that everyone should stay away from him and not allow him to paskin (adjudicate) any questions...especially in issues involving divorce and marriage!
Evasion: When asked at the Tendler defense festival if he would submit to DNA testing, he answered publicly that he would not answer any hypothetical questions!
Fact: A group of distinguished Leading Rabbis of Monsey have now seen the evidence based on halachically competent witnesses (eidem k'shairim) with corroborating forensic evidence proving unequivocally that Mordy Tendler had sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman who was someone else's wife (the evidence was presented to a Bais Din and was duly confirmed according to all Halachic standards). Purposeful, serious b'nei maaminim can call them to verify this is all true!
In addition, a group of Rabbonim and Mechanchim (educators) sat in a public forum dealing with Tznius Issues in Rav Breslauer's Bais Hamidrash, listened to an audio tape where they clearly heard Tendler soliciting a married Jewish woman to have relations with him (the woman on the tape repeatedly begs him to stop talking like that). The Rabbonim became nauseous and some could no longer listen as they heard more and more holding their stomaches.
LIE: Tendler said that the women accusers were never interviewed in person by the RCA, all interviews were by phone.
Fact: The RCA in fact interviewed the women in a Monsey Shul, with the Rabbi of that shul actually present!
LIE: Tendler said that he never met women one on one behind closed doors (even locked).
Fact: When Tendler actually said that at the meeting, most of the people present including his supporters looked at each other, knowing full well that this was a blatant lie! He even had a "noise box" in front of his secluded room in Shul (this was suddenly removed, when all this hit)!
Questions that remaining supporters need to ask Tendler:
Why don't you allow your ex-lawyers to speak to us Rabbanim in an open forum so that we can finally find out why they are no longer your lawyer and why one of them ran away from New Hempstead?
How much money was victim (name deleted) paid? Why won't you remove her gag order thus releasing her to speak, so that we can ascertain for ourselves how much money you gave her, and where this money came from and what it was for?
Why from a group of 1000 member Rabbonim of the RCA was there one sole resignation, R' Faskowitz, -- a first cousin of the Tendlers'? The real question is of what relevance is his resignation if your own father did not resign?! Why is he still a member?!
If the RCA is such a rotten organization full of rishaim--evil people , and as your PR people are writing in The Jewish Press and the Jewish Voice, and, as you stated in front of the congregation only a few weeks ago in your own words, "It was people like them who caused the holocaust", then why do you insist on getting re-instated???
Why is everybody out to get you except some of your own congregants and a few relatives?
Why didn't you sue the RCA... to reinstate you? Didn't you claim that the Rabbanut granted you permission to go to secular court? Or is this of course one of your countless lies and distortions??
Why didn't you sue Yeshivah University for ousting you several months ago?
Why are the Rabbis of the left (RCA) after you? Why are the Rabbis of the right (Chassidish & Litvish) after you?
Where are all the Rabbis (not family) supporting you?? Why have they not come forward?
Will you dare now add Harav Hagaon Benzion Wosner Shlita and the many other Rabbanim listed here to your list of harassed, threatened and slandered Rabbanim for simply presenting their Torah-based opinion in written form to the tzibbor in addition to the halachic t'shuvah that captures the knowledge of all the Great Sages on this issue over the many generations that preceded us?
How about the 7 Leading Monsey Rabbonim who interviewed you and found you a liar? (If any of these courageous and beloved Rabbonim and their many associate supporters are harassed or slandered in any way, we are ready to mail recorded cds and DNA evidence accepted by a local Bais Din to everyone!! Please test us!!)
Where and whom were you with in the wee hours of the morning on the same day you married off your daughter?!
Where and whom were you with early in the morning Erev Yom Kippur of last year??!!
Why don't you resign or move out??? As long as you continue to act in capacity of a "Rav", the tzibbor must remove you, and thus we will never, ever stop until you are, thereby fulfilling our Torah's dictated responsibility that belongs to all of us!!!!
Defrocked rabbi's lecture cancelled after threats
By Daphna Berman, Haaretz Correspondent
Haaretz - July 6, 2006
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/735378.html
A lecture by an American rabbi accused of sexual improprieties by several of his New York congregants, scheduled to be held in Jerusalem tonight, was cancelled, following threats of protests and a flood of complaints, activists said.
Mordechai Tendler, a scion of a prominent rabbinic family, was expelled unanimously last year by the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) after the organization decided that he had "engaged in conduct inappropriate for an Orthodox rabbi." In March, he was also suspended by the board of Kehillat New Hempstead, the New York synagogue that he founded. Tendler, who is currently in Israel, was scheduled to speak tonight in the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Har Nof. A protest was scheduled to take place outside the event.
"This is definitely a victory," said Leah Marinelli, a former congregant from New York, Wednesday. Marinelli was one of the first community members to speak out against the rabbi and convinced some of his alleged victims to come forward publicly to the RCA.
"We put out a call for action on Tuesday morning and the next day it was cancelled and so I am pretty convinced that there is a connection," said Vicki Polin, founder of the U.S.-based Awareness Center, the Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse and Assault."We didn't want him to recreate in Israel what he had done in Monsey [in New York]."
Both, however, expressed concern that Tendler would proceed with the lecture in a smaller and non-publicized location with a core group of supporters.
Moshe Siegel, a former congregant who immigrated to Israel some 10 years ago, was coordinating the lecture and had publicized the event on various English-language list servers around the country. He was subsequently flooded with e-mails and phone calls, urging him to cancel the event. Wednesday afternoon, Siegel posted a message on the list serves, informing the public that the event was cancelled. He did not provide a reason and did not respond by press time to Haaretz requests for further clarification.
Other community leaders in the U.S. have welcomed the cancellation. Rabbi Mark Dratch, chair of the RCA's Task Force on Rabbinic Improprieties said that the move had proven that "there is no place a person can hide. We're one community and though we are distanced by an ocean, that doesn't mean that what happens in one place gets ignored by another." He said that members of Tendler's former community felt "that he compromised the rabbinate and should not be given the opportunity to teach Torah publicly," Dratch said.
At least nine women have come forward against Tendler with claims that he used his rabbinic authority to solicit sexual favors. According to allegations, women who approached him with marital problems and sought spiritual counseling were sexually harassed. Last year, a former congregant filed a civil lawsuit in Manhattan against Tendler in which she accused him of giving her "sex therapy" when she went to him for help. Their affair allegedly took place in his rabbinical study from 2001 to 2005.
Following the RCA ruling last year, Rabbi Benzion Wosner, head of the Shevet Levi rabbinical court in Monsey, New York, issued a ruling that Tendler "can no longer officiate at divorces, weddings ... One should never allow their wives or daughters to go to him at all including [for] counseling ... and all his rulings are null and void."
The allegations against the rabbi, who is married and is the father of eight children, surfaced three years ago. Tendler's grandfather is the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, one of the leading religious arbiters of the twentieth century.
Tendler's attorney, Glen Feinberg, did not have information about the reasons for the cancellation. "I represent Rabbi Tendler in the lawsuit brought against him. My representation does not extend to other matters. Thus, the rabbi does not discuss his travel or lecture plans with me and I have no information about this." He added, however, that "Rabbi Tendler completely denies the allegations of sexual misconduct and expects to be vindicated through the judicial process."
Public Citizen 35 Years, Protecting Health Safety & Democracy
Public Citizen - News Release
For Immediate Release: Contact: Paul Alan Levy (202) 588-1000
July 7, 2006 Rachel Pleatman (202) 588-7786
Defrocked Rabbi Cannot Violate Anonymous Bloggers' First Amendment Rights,
Public Citizen Tells Court
Subpoena to Reveal Writers' Identities Is Unconstitutional
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A rabbi's petition to disclose the identities of anonymous bloggers who wrote on the Internet about his alleged sexual misconduct should be denied, Public Citizen said in a motion filed late yesterday in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County.
The plaintiff, Orthodox rabbi Mordechai Tendler, who served a congregation in New Hempstead, N.Y., was accused of sexual abuse and harassment by some of the women whom he had been advising. The controversy garnered much mainstream media attention when Tendler was expelled from the Rabbinical Council of America in March 2005, sued by one of his accusers in December 2005 and dismissed from his rabbinical post by his congregation in 2006.
Tendler filed a petition in February 2006 in Ohio to identify three of the bloggers, stating that he had been the subject of false and defamatory statements but identifying no particular statements and no evidence that the postings were false, a requirement to prove defamation. After the Ohio court granted his petition, Tendler filed a new case in San Jose, Calif., in order to obtain enforceable subpoenas directed to Google, which operates Blogspot, compelling it to disclose information identifying four bloggers.
"Full First Amendment protection applies to communications on the Internet, and longstanding precedent recognizes that speakers have a First Amendment right to communicate anonymously, so long as they do not violate the law in doing so," the Public Citizen motion reads.
Public Citizen urges the court to adopt a test to balance the interests of a plaintiff who claims that his reputation has been tainted by Internet speech against the interest in anonymity of the Internet speaker who claims to have done no wrong, while making provisions for online speakers who post truly defaming or libelous comments about public and private figures. In addition, Public Citizen has filed a special motion to strike the California case under California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute.
"The right to criticize anonymously on the Internet is a fundamental free speech right and an important tool for whistleblowers and consumers who speak out against big companies or public figures for misconduct or corruption," said Paul Alan Levy, the Public Citizen attorney who filed the motion.
Public Citizen has a strong record of defending the First Amendment rights of Internet users. To learn more, visit http://www.citizen.org/litigation/briefs/IntFreeSpch/.
###
Public Citizen is a national, non-profit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.
A rabbi is petitioning to unveil the identities of anonymous authors of Web logs Civil Liberties
National Journal's Technology Daily (PM Edition) - July 7, 2006
http://nationaljournal.com/about/technologydaily/
(not available on-line)
A rabbi is petitioning to unveil the identities of anonymous authors of Web logs who wrote about his alleged sexual misconduct, stating that he had been the subject of false and defamatory statements. Orthodox rabbi Mordechai Tendler was accused of sexual abuse and harassment by some women he was advising. The allegations became a popular topic among Jewish Web logs on Google-owned Blogspot.com. An Ohio court granted Tendler's petition in February to identify three of the bloggers who allegedly defamed him. Tendler filed a new case in San Jose, Calif., to obtain subpoenas to Google to disclose the names of the bloggers. Consumer interest group Public Citizen filed a motion against Tendler's case on Friday in California's Superior Court for Santa Clara County.
"Full First Amendment protection applies to communications on the Internet, and longstanding precedent recognizes that speakers have a First Amendment right to communicate anonymously, so long as they do not violate the law in doing so," the motion said.
Rabbi Challenges Right to Anonymity on Internet
By REBECCA SPENCE
Forward (NY)
July 14, 2006
http://www.forward.com/articles/8103
The latest chapter in an ongoing saga pitting an Orthodox rabbi from Monsey, N.Y., against female former congregants who have accused him of sexual harassment is raising broad legal questions about the right of free speech in cyberspace.
Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, who was accused of sexually propositioning women who came to him seeking spiritual guidance, petitioned a California court May 24 to force Google — the Internet giant that hosts electronic message boards through its Blogspot division — to disclose the identities of four anonymous writers who post comments to Web journals, known as blogs. Tendler, the scion of a storied rabbinic lineage, has fiercely denied the allegations of sexual harassment since they first surfaced in 2004. He claims that the bloggers have posted "false, misleading, and defamatory materials" about him on their Web sites.
In response to the petition, Public Citizen, a national public interest group whose litigation group has played a lead role in defending free speech on the Internet, filed motions on July 6 to throw out Tendler's case and reimburse the defendants' attorney fees, saying that the request violates the bloggers' First Amendment rights to free speech.
The newest development in the controversy surrounding Tendler, who was expelled from the Rabbinical Council of America in 2005 and was later sued for sexual harassment by one former congregant, is part of a growing body of court cases that are grappling with how to balance the rights of those who say they are being libeled with the rights of their anonymous critics, legal analysts said.
"Our interest is in the problem of balancing the right to speak anonymously on the Internet against the right of someone who has been harmed by unlawful speech to get redress," said Paul Levy, the Public Citizen attorney who filed the motion in response to Tendler's petition. Levy leads the group's Internet free speech project. "For ordinary people, the only effective way to reach the community at large is through the Internet, which provides a voice and an opportunity to speak," he said.
Tendler is seeking to learn the names of those who operate the blogs Jewishwhistleblower.com and rabbinicintegrity.blogspot.com, among others.
The issue of anonymous free speech on the Internet is particularly salient in the Orthodox Jewish community, where electronic message boards have often served as a safe space for airing allegations and discussing claims of sexual abuse by rabbis. Fearing both retribution by the accused clergy and ostracism from their communities, many Orthodox victims of sexual abuse have sought refuge in cyberspace. Jewish-themed blogs, which have proliferated in recent years, have also served as an effective means for victims to take action when allegations of sexual misconduct have gone unheeded by rabbinic authorities, some critics said.
In response to Tendler's petition, Rabbi Yosef Blau, a spiritual adviser at Yeshiva University, filed a three-page affidavit with the Superior Court in San Jose. Calif., arguing that it is important to maintain the anonymity of the bloggers. "The potential consequences of speaking out can be especially severe when the target of the criticism belongs to an influential family, as is true of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler," wrote Blau, who has himself been the subject of attacks on blogs and in the print media from critics who accused him of organizing efforts to oust Tendler.
Tendler is the son of Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a prominent Talmud instructor and bioethicist at Yeshiva Univeristy, and the grandson of the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, widely considered to be his era's preeminent decisor of biblical and rabbinic law.
In 2005, Blau was attacked in a series of articles published in two Orthodox newspapers, the Jewish Press and the Jewish Voice and Opinion, as well as on a now-defunct Web site that was created to discredit him. Blau said that he was never able to prove that Tendler's associates were behind the Web site and that he eventually gave up his efforts to expose them. "The supporters of Tendler have never revealed themselves, but no one is suing on the other side," he added.
Lawyers for Tendler did not return repeated calls from the Forward seeking comment.
While a strong precedent for cases involving free speech on the Internet has yet to be established, in previous cases that have come before state courts — most recently in a 2004 state Supreme Court ruling in Delaware — judges have placed the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove defamation before they are willing to force an Internet host to reveal a blogger's anonymous identity.
"The First Amendment reflects an understanding that sometimes the most valuable speech is uncredited," said Jonathan Zittrain, a professor of Internet governance and regulation at Oxford University. Zittrain cited as a historic example the Federalist Papers, which were written anonymously by the authors of the United States Constitution. "And no one would call the framers cowards," he said.
Some advocates for sexual abuse victims contend that anonymous blogging is necessary not only to shield accusers from potential harassment, but also to help them through the process of healing.
"One of the things most healing to any victim of a serious crime is to talk about it," said Vicki Polin, founder of The Awareness Center Inc., a volunteer organization that maintains a Web site on sexual abuse in the Jewish community. "When people start blogging, they realize they're not alone," she said.
But some Jewish bloggers expressed disdain toward those who remain anonymous. Stephen I. Weiss, who operates the religion blog Canonist and founded one of the first Jewish blogs to host discussions on sexual harassment by rabbis, said that while anonymity may be legally justified, it can't be morally justified. Many blogs "claim to bring down abusive rabbis when they don't," Weiss said. Still, Weiss added, "legally, the potential ramifications for what Tendler is proposing are horrendous."
Meanwhile, an Israeli Knesset member, Yisrael Hason, was set this week to introduce a bill that would require Internet sites to only post comments from participants who identify themselves, according to Israeli news reports. That bill was sparked by similar cases in Israel of public officials who were anonymously criticized by Internet bloggers.
Defrocked Rabbi Drops Case Seeking Anonymous Bloggers' Identities
Common Dreams News Wire - July 13, 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0713-05.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 13, 2006, 11:21 AM
(202) 588-1000
Defrocked Rabbi Drops Case Seeking Anonymous Bloggers' Identities
End of Suit Is a Victory for First Amendment Rights on the Internet
WASHINGTON - July 13 - Rabbi Mordechai Tendler, the former leader of an Orthodox Jewish congregation in New Hempstead, N.Y., has withdrawn the proceeding he filed in Ohio in an attempt to subpoena the identities of four anonymous bloggers who wrote on the Web about his alleged sexual misconduct.
Tendler had filed petitions to subpoena the bloggers' identities, both in Ohio and California district courts. Public Citizen, which has been a strong defender of First Amendment rights on the Internet, has filed a motion that Tendler's California petition should be denied because it would violate the bloggers' constitutional right to free speech.
"This just goes to show the importance of protecting anonymity, because as soon as Tendler found out that we had filed a motion against him, he withdrew his petition," Levy said. "He was never prepared to prove that the allegations against him were false – he only wanted his critics' names so that he could go after them. The First Amendment demands this kind of protection for citizens using their right to free speech."
Cindy Cohn of the San Francisco-based, non-profit Electronic Frontier Foundation serves as local counsel for Public Citizen. To view the motions, click here and here. To learn more about Public Citizen's work defending the First Amendment rights of Internet users, click here.
Jennifer Friedlin - Jewish Week Correspondent
Jewish Week - July 19, 2006
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=12732
A group of anonymous bloggers that had published information on their Web sites about a disgraced Rockland County rabbi's alleged sexual misconduct won a victory when the rabbi withdrew one of two petitions to subpoena their identities.
Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, the former leader of Kehillat New Hempstead in New Hempstead, N.Y., who has been accused of sexual harassment by former congregants, filed petitions both in Ohio and California district courts in an effort to force Google, the Internet giant that hosts the bloggers' websites, to disclose their identities.
It was not immediately clear why Rabbi Tendler decided to withdraw the petition in Ohio and whether he would do the same in California. Neither he nor his lawyer returned calls seeking comment.
Rabbi Tendler was expelled last year for inappropriate conduct from membership in the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest Orthodox rabbinic association.
The bloggers' attorney, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, a Washington-based public interest organization, said Rabbi Tendler's decision to withdraw the petition represented a victory for the First Amendment right to free speech. He also said that the decision reflected Rabbi Tendler's inability to prove that the bloggers had defamed him.
"If he had had evidence of falsity and malice he could have gone forward against these folks," said Levy, noting that as soon as the bloggers filed their motion claiming that Rabbi Tendler's petition would violate their right to free speech, he withdrew his demand. Levy said the bloggers were moving ahead with a motion under California law that protects against so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation and would seek to have Rabbi Tendler required to cover the bloggers' legal fees.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to set a federal standard regarding what a defamation plaintiff would have to show before an anonymous blogger could be unmasked, lower court decisions have so far set a high bar, demanding that plaintiffs clearly establish that the claims made against them are false before the online accuser can be outed.
"It's a pretty high standard," said David Hudson, research attorney for the First Amendment Center, an educational organization based in Nashville, Tenn., and Arlington, Va.
Within the Jewish world, anonymous blogs have become a touchstone for debate. Those in favor of anonymous blogging say they give people fighting for victims' rights an advantage, particularly in the Orthodox community, much of which has proven unwilling to openly discuss and deal with issues of sexual abuse.
"The greatest `crime' today in the Jewish world is not the number of agunot, it is not the sexual predators that have been allowed to prey on the vulnerable of our community," wrote Jewish Whistleblower, one of the anonymous bloggers named in Rabbi Tendler's petition, in an e-mail. "No, it is the crime of speaking out publicly against the corrupt leadership of our community and those that prey sexually on the vulnerable in our community.
"The Jewish community needs us bloggers simply because our leadership refuses to address these problems."
In addition to Jewish Whistleblower, the other blogs Rabbi Tendler sought to expose through his petition are rabbinic integrity, jewish survivors and new hempstead news.
But critics of anonymous blogs said that they are unethical and do little to advance their own causes.
"It's immoral to use a disguise to put the heat on other people," said Steven I. Weiss, a blogger whose reporting on sexual abuse in the Orthodox world and other issues can be found at The Canonist.
Weiss noted that several Orthodox leaders, like Rabbi Yosef Blau, spiritual adviser at Yeshiva University, have been highly criticized for speaking out against abuse within the community and that by doing so they ultimately increased the credibility of their claims.
"That's part of what credibility is: knowing the consequences for what you are saying and doing it anyway. Anonymous bloggers aren't willing to live with the consequences," Weiss said.
While undermining their own credibility, anonymous bloggers may in fact be protecting themselves legally. Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, an organization of bloggers, said that one of the standards used in defamation cases is whether a reasonable person would believe a particular statement was true. However, given that blogs are held in lower esteem than many newspapers and magazines, such a standard may not be met in a defamation case against a blogger, particularly an anonymous one.
Cox said that although this issue has yet to be settled in court, bloggers might prove immune to claims of defamation "because nobody believes us."
Widely believed or not, some anonymous bloggers say they are in fact having a great deal of impact and that they plan to continue blogging anonymously.
Earlier this year, Unorthodox Jew, one of the most controversial bloggers in the Orthodox community, located several alleged victims of
Rabbi Yehuda Kolko, a teacher at Yeshiva and Mesivta Torah Temimah in Flatbush, Brooklyn, after he posted allegations against the rabbi and the head of the school. The anonymous postings eventually led to a lawsuit against the rabbi, the school and a summer camp.
UOJ says that before he posts any claims against anyone he conducts his own investigation, verifying the allegations with five sources. Once he's satisfied that he has met his own standard, he posts the claims.
"'Free speech' permits me to say `anything' I feel is accurate," UOJ wrote in an e-mail.
For now, no one is challenging him.
Disgraced US Rabbi drops legal challenge to identify bloggers
(UK) News and Jobs for Journalists - July 21, 2006
By Oliver Luft
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story1942.shtml
A disgraced US Rabbi has dropped a legal challenge against bloggers who published details of his alleged sexual misconduct.
Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, former leader of Kehillat New Hempstead in New Hempstead, New York, had filed petitions in an effort to force blog host Google to disclose the identities of those behind blogs Jewish whistleblower, rabbinic integrity, Jewish survivors and New Hempstead news.
He initially claimed the bloggers had defamed him and filed petitions both in Ohio and California, but has since dropped the Ohio petition.
The Rabi - who allegedly sexually harassed a member of his congregation - was expelled last year from membership in the Rabbinical Council of America for 'inappropriate conduct'.
In US Jewish communities anonymous blogs are seen as a source of honest debate where issues that would not otherwise come to light - particularly those in the orthodox communities - can be discussed openly.
However, some critics have dismissed anonymous blogs as lacking the credibility of attributed posts.
Paul Alan Levy, lawyer with Public Citizen who acted on behalf of the bloggers, claimed that when the bloggers filed a motion citing that the Rabi's petition would violate their first amendment right to free speech he immediately withdrew his demand.
"This just goes to show the importance of protecting anonymity, because as soon as Tendler found out that we had filed a motion against him, he withdrew his petition," Levy said.
"He was never prepared to prove that the allegations against him were false - he only wanted his critics' names so that he could go after them. The first amendment demands this kind of protection for citizens using their right to free speech."
Levy also said that the bloggers were pursuing a motion under Californian law that protects against 'strategic lawsuits' and seeking reparation for legal costs.
Letter From Rabbi Mordecai Tendler to The Honorable Neal A. Cabrinha
Re: Tendler vs. John Doe - No. 1 06 cv 064307
By Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
November 15, 2006
Dear Judge Cabrinha:
I am the Plaintiff in this matter and am acting pro se. I understand that you ruled against me and now a claim for tens of thousands of dollars is being made and I have not had the opportunity to defend myself.
For approximately the past two years, I have been the subject of a concerted and constant internet campaign to destroy my reputation, livelihood, and family. Disgusting allegations of sexual impropriety, all of them false, have been circulated about me and amplified in such horrific proportions, as only can happen on the internet. I have been the subject of internet harassment though thinly veiled threats of physical harm. (For your information, I filed a complaint with the FBI and met with FBI agents about the threats; I don't know the status of my FBI complaint.) These allegations and threats have, in fact, destroyed my reputation as a rabbi and teacher, and have caused me hundreds of thousands, in not millions of dollars in actual and future damages.
Defending myself and attempting to restore my reputation has occupied virtually all of my time for the past 18 months. However, an effective defense is impossible when I do not know who is attacking me. you see, your honor, the sources of the allegations against me are anonymous. That's right; these ugly statements, rumors and innuendoes have circulated far and wide with such destructive impact while the sources of the attacks hide behind a cloak of internet secrecy. The individuals making these claims have refused to step forward and have their defamatory claims examined in the light of day or allow me simple due process. The threats have been made under the cloak of internet anonymity.
Attached, for your information, are but a few of the literally thousands of internet pages containing the vitriolic, hateful, threatening and clearly defamatory attacks against me (and, sometimes, my family). The blogs I subpoenaed also acted as instigators, soliciting others to harass and defame me and my family. I believe that they conspired with each other and with others to create an environment where it would be fashionable and proper to say the most outrageous things as long as the statements would be harmful to me and my family. I also believe that at least one of the subpoenaed blogs was used freely by its owner as a "reputable source" from with to quote as if quoting a news source in an attempt to shield its owner from defamation liability; in reality, the quoted materials were libelous lies used intentionally to destroy me. Anyone logging on to any of the blogs I subpoenaed (or the blogs in the attached pages), especially the archives from 2005 and the first half of 2006, will see how horrible this is.
Whether materials on these blogs is defamatory is a matter for the courts to decide in actions which I am pursuing and will file appropriate and frankly easily accessible courts; I was compelled to come cross country to California merely seeking names from Google, not to bring my defamation action there. Once I uncovered who these bad actors are, I can pursue and prepare my case for defamation and any other claims. But as the reader can see, these bloggers are dedicated to hurting me and my family; they should be subject to full legal liability for their words and actions. I am entitled to find out who these people are so I can exercise my legal rights.
In an effort to break through the veil of secrecy so I could determine who is making the claims, threats and in order to defend and proceed against them. I filed a defamation action in Ohio. In that action, valid subpoenas were issued to Google to determine the identities of some of the most egregious defamers in this sorry affair. (as you see in the attached pages, the bloggers who were the subject of my subpoenas play prominently in the horrible attacks against me.) Those bloggers then called in "free speech" lawyers who then went to town attacking me anew to stop the subpoenas.
I believe that this really should have been a simple matter. I find out who is attacking me so I can defend myself and take whatever legal actions I can against them. But these bloggers don't want to be uncovered; like poisonous snakes, they stay hidden so they can inject their damage again and again. They want to continue to do their damage and spread their filthy vicious lies with no accountability.
First, as you can see from the tiny sampling of the attached pages, I have really been defamed; I was made the subject of a campaign of internet harassment, and have been impliedly threatened with serious physical harm. Sure, I will need to take legal action to pursue my claims, as I have already done, but whether or not these disgusting statements are true or false is not the issue presented to the California judicial system. I am not a person of substantial financial means and cannot be traveling cross country litigating. I believe that as a direct result of the cascade of defamation on the internet, I was fired from my job. I have lost my professional reputation and I simply cannot afford to travel and have a lawyer in California.
Second, I am not a government or other public official. I hold no public position. I am a private individual who has been defamed. The SLAPP law has zero application to my attempt to find out who has damaged me.
I know that these "public interest" lawyers who are acting for the anonymous bloggers, in an attempt to paint a ridiculous picture that the SLAPP law should apply to me, filed affidavits of two "rabbis" trying to connect the dots that those who have defamed me must stay anonymous out of some ridiculous and frankly false pretension that the people who have both threatened my life and defamed me fear retaliation. You should know that these two "rabbis" have played prominent and I believe very active roles in spreading false allegations against me (but, I am told, that maybe for now their carefully crafted public statements of which I am presently aware, have fallen just short of actionable defamation). The bottom line is that I was defamed. I have been anonymously harassed over the internet and I have a real defamation and harassment claim to be litigated. I am not a public figure, and the SLAPP law should have no impact on my action.
The false allegations against me have become the subject of several lawsuits in New York. I am told that the identities of some of the anonymous bloggers will very likely be exposed in one or more of these cases. Therefore, when Google took every possible opportunity to delay giving me the names so these "public interest" lawyers acting for the bloggers could file their action against me, and faced with very large New York legal bills and the possibility of another $10,000 - $20,000 to fight the California SLAPP action, I agreed to drop the Ohio action and withdraw the subpoenas.
With limited and rapidly dwindling financial resources, I also could not pay a California attorney to defend the SLAPP action. (I only hired a California lawyer earlier to get the subpoena confirmed by a California court so Google would obey.) I decided to defend myself. I figured that it would be a relatively simple matter to defend myself in this subpoena action. Little did I know that would not have the chance to respond while representing myself. Before having the opportunity to send anything to the court and without knowing of any time issues, your honor ruled against me. I regretfully did not have the chance to make my case.
Now I am told that a claim for almost $50,000 has been made against me to pay the lawyers in the SLAPP action. How they can build up $50,000 in a motion which I was not even served with papers after my lawyers withdrew and I did not even have a real opportunity to contest because of my not being a lawyer is beyond me. The present claim exposes the anonymous bloggers for what they are really trying to accomplish. The SLAPP law was designed to help citizens exercise their Constitutional rights without fear of retaliation. The bloggers are abusing the SLAPP law by using it to stop me from exercising my Constitutional rights.
This is a case of abuse of law and process by the anonymous bloggers who have used the internet to threaten me with physical harm and subjected me to outrageous defamation.
This is a case where someone is being shut out from his rights to not be threatened with physical harm and defamed. It is also about finding out who has harmed me. The information was and still is necessary.
This is also a case where someone who cannot afford a lawyer is being unfortunately penalized by lack of familiarity with the procedure of the courts in California. I have not had the opportunity to defend my rights on the merits.
I truly feel the anonymous bloggers have engaged in a blatant and undisguised attempt to use the law and the courts for improper purposes.
I respectfully ask your honor to please not let this unfair result stand. I therefore request that your honor consider this letter a formal request to un-do the order which granted the bloggers request for attorney fees. I also request that you consider my request that subpoenas be issued to Google in the interest of justice.
Not being a lawyer, i am not aware of the procedures involved in making requests to the court nor how to properly respond. Nonetheless, I request that the court excuse any failure on my part as I did not know that a response was due from me after my lawyer withdrew as attorney.
As you see, I have a meritorious claim and the request from the bloggers' attorney is simply without any merit whatsoever.
With my best wishes, I remain
Very truly yours,
Mordecai Tendler
cc: Paul Alan Levy, Esquire
Tendler Vs. Doe - Attorney Fees Granted
Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County - January 4, 2006
http://www.sccaseinfo.org
REINING IN ABUSE
JTA - January 10, 2006
By Eugene L. Meyer
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=17471&intcategoryid=4
NEW YORK (JTA) — There is no unabridged database of rabbinic sexual abusers. But there is the Awareness Center.
It´s not a physical place, but a Baltimore post-office box, cell-phone number and Web site — www.theawarenesscenter.org — where online surfers can find a listing of scores of Jewish clergy and hundreds of other Jewish officials in positions of trust or authority who are alleged to be sexual predators. Some of them have been convicted of crimes; some have not even been charged or sued. A roster of them can be found on the Web site at: www.theawarenesscenter.org/clergyabuse.html.
Vicki Polin, 47, is the nonprofit organization´s executive director and only full-time staffer. A licensed clinical professional counselor and an art therapist, she founded the Awareness Center in 2001 after becoming fed up over what she deemed to be inaction in bringing perpetrators to justice and protecting the public.
Her biggest weapon: exposure of alleged wrongdoers.
Polin's efforts have won her loyal supporters and harsh critics.
"Vicki´s site is very valuable," said Rabbi Yosef Blau, religious adviser at Yeshiva University and a vocal advocate for victims of rabbinic sexual abuse and other forms of sexual misconduct.
"Since you can´t get people arrested and there are no court cases, you have to use a standard that´s reasonable and [disclosure] works in that context."
The Awareness Center´s outing of alleged and confirmed abusers has inspired an army of Jewish bloggers eager to discuss the topic. Their anonymous postings appear on Web sites such as the Unorthodox Jew, the Canonist, Jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com and Lukeford.net.
The Awareness Center and the bloggers not only have brought this sensitive subject to the attention of a wide audience, they have also stirred up considerable controversy over issues of fairness, attribution and transparency.
"The blogorai, as I call it, is the new way of making irresponsible accusations," charged Rabbi Avi Shafran, spokesman for the fervently Orthodox advocacy organization Agudath Israel.
"Using a blog is a very easy and effective way of casting aspersions on people."
Blau said blogs are a mixed blessing.
"Since they are anonymous, they can say almost anything," he said. "On the other hand, until the community is more willing to deal with issues, I can understand why writers won´t reveal their identity."
One blog-intensive case listed on the Awareness Center site involves Mordechai Tendler, a disgraced modern Orthodox rabbi from Rockland County, N.Y., who was accused of having illicit sexual relationships with several women who had come to him for counsel.
The charismatic scion of distinguished rabbinic scholars, Tendler ironically was known as a strong advocate for Jewish women who were unable to obtain a get, or religious release from marriage, from their husbands.
Tendler was expelled from the Rabbinical Council of America in March 2005 for "conduct inappropriate for an Orthodox rabbi." The Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance praised the RCA "for taking these issues seriously and instituting formal procedures to deal with them." Those procedures included hiring a Texas-based private investigative firm to conduct a probe of the matter and convening an in-house ethics panel to rule on the case.
In April, Tendler was fired from the congregation he had helped establish in the mid-1980s, Kehillat New Hempstead. Undaunted, he held High Holiday services this year in a public elementary school directly across the street from his former shul.
Tendler, married and the father of eight, has consistently denied the allegations against him, but did not respond to inquiries from JTA seeking comment. His attorney, Glen Feinberg, said his client retains a large following in Rockland County. JTA asked Feinberg to encourage Tendler´ssupporters to contact JTA, but none did.
The scandal has spawned at least three lawsuits, including one filed by Tendler against his former congregation for alleged breach of contract. That suit has been dismissed, but the ruling is being appealed. The litigation filed against Tendler has publicized the sort of matters that once would have only been whispered about in private.
For example, a lawsuit filed in December 2005 by former congregant (Name Removed) states that Tendler, who portrayed himself as "a counselor and advisor with expertise in women´s issues," advised (Name Removed) to have sex with him so that "her life would open up and men would come to her," and she would then marry and have children.
The suit also claims that Tendler told (Name Removed) that he "was as close to God as anyone could get" and that he "was the Messiah." And when the relationship ended, the suit contends, Tendler encouraged congregants to "harass, threaten and intimidate" (Name Removed) in an apparent attempt to discredit her accusations.
As for Tendler, his legal filings included petitions submitted in Ohio and California seeking to force the disclosure of the identities of anonymous bloggers who had been attacking him publicly for his alleged conduct. But he withdrew both petitions.
In the California case, a judge ruled Oct. 12 that Tendler must pay the bloggers´ legal fees — a decision that was praised by attorney Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, who represented three of the bloggers involved in the case.
"The right to criticize anonymously on the Internet is a fundamental free-speech right and an important tool for whistle-blowers and consumers who speak out about the misconduct or corruption of big companies or public figures," Levy said in a press release.
A letter from Tendler to the judge who had ruled in the California case was posted Nov. 15 on a victims´ advocacy blog. In the letter, Tendler asked the judge to reconsider his decision on attorney´s fees, adding: "I have been the subject of a concerted and constant Internet campaign to destroy my reputation, livelihood, and family. Disgusting allegations of sexual impropriety, all of them false, have been circulated about me and amplified in such horrific proportions as only can happen on the Internet. These allegations and threats have, in fact, destroyed my reputation as a rabbi and teacher and have caused me hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in actual and future damages."
The letter described the bloggers as being "like poisonous snakes" who "want to continue to do their damage and spread their filthy vicious lies with no accountability."
"As a victim advocate, I never name the survivors," Polin said.
The Awareness Center no longer names its board members, either, "
due to harassment," according to Polin, who said she herself has been threatened repeatedly with physical harm and once was spat on by a woman who was angry over an Awareness Center disclosure.
In 2003, Polin said, a supporter of
an alleged abuser named on her site did background checks on her advisory board members, "found something about them or someone they cared about and threatened to make it public." Half a dozen resignations ensued, she said.
Among those who were formerly listed but resigned for other reasons is Rabbi Mark Dratch, who chairs the
Rabbinical Council of America´s Task Force on Rabbinic Improprieties and has founded the organization JSafe to deal with sexual abuse in the Jewish community.
Dratch said he left the Awareness Center board in "disagreement with [Polin] on the
standards required for publishing on her Web site. I wasn´t satisfied with the threshold of verification. There are people who´ve been victimized and others who´ve been subject to false reports also being victimized. The big problem we have in this area is verifying the allegations and moving forward."
As of early December, the Awareness Center site still
listed 236 "supportive rabbis." Polin said more than 500 people receive her e-mail alerts, and the Web page averages around 35,000 visitors per month.
One of the e-mail recipients is Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union and a trained psychologist.
URGENT CALL TO ACTION: Mordecai Tendler to Speak in Israel
The Awareness Center, Inc. - January 10, 2007
Please call or e-mail The Awareness Center if you hear that Mordecai Tendler is speaking in Israel or anywhere else in the world.
Please read the following excerpts . . .
"It is forbidden to ask for Mordecai Tendler for advice on Jewish law.
This Rabbi can no longer officiate at divorces, weddings, batei dinim, etc...
No one is obligated to give him any respect such as standing up for him, etc.
He can no longer be a Rav or Rabbi or Dayan amongst the Jewish People!
One should never allow their wives or daughters to go to his classes or to go to him at all including counseling... and all his rulings are null and void!
" it is our opinion that one must not seek any advice in any area including Shalom Bayis, and certainly not in any Halachic matters pertaining to Divorce, Marriage or Conversions!"
To comply with the decree of the rabbunim of Monsey, The Awareness Center, Inc. is requesting that all rabbis for thier help in stopping Rabbi Mordecai Tendler from teaching in their neighborhood.
Tendler v Bais Knesses of New Hempstead, Inc.
New York Stae Law Reporting Bureau - June 3, 2008
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_05067.htm
Tendler v Bais Knesses of New Hempstead, Inc.
2008 NY Slip Op 05067
Decided on June 3, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on June 3, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P.
MARK C. DILLON
WILLIAM E. McCARTHY
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.
2007-00806
(Index No. 2284/06)
[*1]Mordecai Tendler, appellant,
v
Bais Knesses of New Hempstead, Inc., d/b/a Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue, respondent.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains,
N.Y. (Richard H. Bliss of counsel), for appellant.
Goldberg, Rimberg & Friedlander, PLLC, New York, N.Y.
(Israel Goldberg of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Liebowitz, J.), dated December 19, 2006, which granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and denied his cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) is denied, and the plaintiff's cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
In May 1992 the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant Bais Knesses of New Hempstead, Inc., d/b/a Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue (hereinafter the Congregation), in which he agreed to serve as the Congregation's sole rabbi in return for an annual salary. In pertinent part, the contract provided that the plaintiff could "not be terminated unless permission is granted by an authorized Rabbinical Court." The parties agree that sometime before February 27, 2006, the Congregation terminated the plaintiff's employment as its rabbi. On March 21, 2006, a rabbinical court authorized the termination of the plaintiff's employment. On March 30, 2006, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of contract. In lieu of an answer, the Congregation moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2), contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, since resolution of the matter required inquiry into [*2]the rationale of the rabbinical court's ruling authorizing the termination. The plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved, in effect, for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the ground, among other things, that the termination violated the parties' contract, as the Congregation had not received permission from a rabbinical court to terminate his employment prior to the actual termination, as specifically required by the contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff contended that the matter could be resolved through application of neutral principles of law. The Supreme Court granted the Congregation's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and denied the plaintiff's cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the issue of liability. We reverse.
Preliminarily, the Supreme Court erred in granting the Congregation's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2), since this action does not present a nonjusticiable issue necessitating an inquiry into the rabbinical court's determination authorizing the plaintiff's termination as the Congregation's rabbi (see Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Kahana, 9 NY3d 282, 287; Park Slope Jewish Ctr. v Stern, 128 AD2d 847; cf. Esformes v Brinn,AD3d [decided herewith]). Rather, neutral principles of contract law are applicable in resolving the issues presented in this action, without reference to any religious interpretation or doctrine, and the Supreme Court thus did not lack subject matter jurisdiction over it (see Jones v Wolf, 443 US 595, 604; Morris v Scribner, 69 NY2d 418, 422-423; Avitzur v Avitzur, 58 NY2d 108, 114-115, cert denied 464 US 817; Kapsalis v Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of N. & S. Am., 276 AD2d 595).
Moreover, although the Supreme Court treated the plaintiff's pre-answer cross motion as one for summary judgment without giving the parties the requisite notice that it was doing so (see CPLR 3211[c]), no error resulted, since the parties charted a summary judgment course by submitting evidence and factual affirmations laying bare their proof (see Harris v Hallberg, 36 AD3d 857, 858; O'Dette v Guzzardi, 204 AD2d 291, 292).
Turning to the merits, "the fundamental objective when interpreting a written contract is to determine the intention of the parties as derived from the language employed in the contract" (Abiele Contr. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 91 NY2d 1, 9). Here, the parties' contract expressly provided that the Congregation could not terminate the plaintiff's employment as its rabbi "unless" it had obtained prior authorization from a rabbinical court. Accordingly, we can only conclude that the purpose of such a provision was to require a rabbinical court to determine, before the plaintiff's termination, whether Jewish law warranted his termination as rabbi (see Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690-691; Kapson Constr. Corp. v ARA Plumbing & Heating Corp., 227 AD2d 484, 485).
The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. He alleged that the Congregation terminated his employment as its rabbi sometime in February 2006 without prior authorization from a rabbinical court, in violation of paragraph 6[ii] of the parties' contract. In opposition, the Congregation failed to raise a triable question of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). While implicitly conceding that it terminated the plaintiff as its rabbi sometime before February 27, 2006, the Congregation contends that it obtained the required rabbinical court ruling authorizing such action. However, the rabbinical court ruling upon which the Congregation relies is dated March 21, 2006, and, therefore, it cannot form a basis for compliance with paragraph 6[ii] of the contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff established, as a matter of law, that [*3]the Congregation breached the contract (see Kalus v Prime Care Physicians, P.C., 20 AD3d 452, 454).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions, which, in effect, concern claims not set forth in the complaint, are not properly before this Court (see CPLR 3013, 3025).
FISHER, J.P., DILLON, McCARTHY and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Arguments heard in case of New Hempstead rabbi accused of seducing woman
Jay Gallagher
Lower Hudson - June 4, 2008
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080604/NEWS03/806040385/-1/RSS01
ALBANY - The state's highest court heard arguments yesterday about whether a claim of emotional distress and breach of fiduciary duty should be reinstated against a New Hempstead rabbi on behalf of a woman who says he seduced her.
The case involves (NAME REMOVED), a Manhattan woman, and Rabbi Mordechai Tendler, founder and spiritual leader of Kehillat New Hempstead.
(NAME REMOVED) claims the two had a sexual relationship from November 2001 to May 2005 after he induced her into having intercourse "as part of a course of sexual therapy which he represented would lead to her achieving her goals of marriage and children."
"Should the predator be allowed to cloak himself in clerical garb to prey on his clients?"
(NAME REMOVED)'s lawyer, Lenore Kramer, asked the seven-member Court of Appeals panel.
But Tendler's lawyer, Richard Bliss, said: "What we have here is consensual conduct. I don't think we should criminalize it."
Bliss pointed to a statute passed by the state Legislature in 1935 that abolished the right to seek monetary damages for seduction.
But Kramer argued that because Tendler was a rabbi, it put him in a position of power over (NAME REMOVED) and that this position separated their relationship from a mere affair.
"This man is a predator," she said.
Could he have seduced her and not faced criminal sanctions if he was not a rabbi? Judge Robert Smith asked Kramer.
"It is an indispensable element" of the action that he was a rabbi, Kramer said. "This is not some man she met in a bar."
The trial-level court, the Court of Appeals, upheld (NAME REMOVED)'s right to seek damages, but the mid-level appeals court reversed that decision in a 3-2 vote.
A decision from the Court of Appeals is expected by early next month.
NY's top court considers claim of seduction by cleric
Newsday - June 4, 2008
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--clericalseduction0604jun04,0,5107414.story
ALBANY, N.Y. - New York's top court is considering whether a 1935 state law that prohibits suing seducers for monetary damages applies to members of the clergy.
(NAME REMOVED) wants the Court of Appeals to reinstate her claim for breach of fiduciary duty against married Orthodox Rabbi Mordechai Tendler. The New York City woman says Tendler talked her into having sex while advising her on personal, legal and financial problems at the Kehillat New Hempstead synagogue in Rockland County.
In arguments Tuesday, her lawyer Lenore Kramer said a special fiduciary, or trust, relationship exists in clergy counseling.
Attorney Richard Bliss countered that Tendler was not a trained or state-licensed counselor and a midlevel court's 3-2 decision barring the case should stand.
Appellate Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
PR Web - June 8, 2008
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/06/prweb1008154.htm
A New York appellate court unanimously reversed a lower court and ruled that a New Hempstead, NY synagogue breached its contract with its rabbi when it fired him without adhering to the terms of the contract and attempted to justify its action by later obtaining a unilateral ruling from a purported "rabbinical court."
New York (PRWEB) June 8, 2008 -- In the long awaited decision, The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court ruled in a decision dated June 3, 2008 that the Kehillat New Hempstead breached the contract of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler when they terminated him in February, 2006.
"In May 1992 the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant...The Parties' contract expressly provided that the Congregation could not terminate the plaintiff's employment as its rabbi "unless" it had obtained prior authorization from a rabbinical court...While implicitly conceding that it terminated the plaintiff as its Rabbi sometime before February 27, 2006, the Congregation contends that it obtained the required rabbinical court ruling authorizing such action. However, the rabbinical court ruling upon the Congregation relies is dated March 21, 2006...Accordingly, the plaintiff established, as a matter of law, that the Congregation breached the contract."
Rabbi Tendler argued that reliance upon a document purporting to be a Rabbinical Court decision authored by Benzion Wosner, of Monsey, New York was untenable inasmuch as it was dated after his termination. Rabbi Tendler was not involved in any such proceeding at any time. In fact, he was never advised of the existence of Wosner's so called "rabbinical court" action until it surfaced in the litigation as an apparent pretext for his termination.
Spokesman for Rabbi Mordecai Tendler: Rabbi Tendler; Survivors (Name Removed) Allegations are Fabrications
PR Web - June 10, 2008
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/06/prweb1008324.htm
Rabbi confirms consistent denial of allegations against him despite press reports which attempt to paint him as acknowledging, in arguments before the NY Court of Appeals, the truth of the allegations.
New York (PRWEB)June 10, 2008 -- A spokesman for Rabbi Mordecai Tendler stated today that the allegations made in the (NAME REMOVED) complaint are without any basis in fact, fabrications and have always been vehemently denied both in court filings and in the public forum.
The statements made before the Court of Appeals by counsel for both parties are in the context of a motion to dismiss the complaint. Procedurally the court must entertain such allegations as true solely for the purposes of determining the legal sufficiency of the Survivor (Name Removed) allegations as set forth in her complaint. The unfortunate press reports which imply any concession by Rabbi Tendler's attorney are recklessly taken out of context and a distortion of the record.
Court of Appeals dismisses rabbi-seduction lawsuit
By Steve Lieberman
The Journal News · June 26, 2008
http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/NEWS03/806260495/-1/SPORTS
New York's top appeals court yesterday dismissed a civil lawsuit accusing a Ramapo rabbi of convincing a woman that she must have sex with him in order to find a husband and have children.
(NAME REMOVED) of Manhattan claimed Rabbi Mordecai Tendler seduced her into a 3 1/2 -year sexual relationship from November 2001 to May 2005.
Tendler, 53, a married father with eight children, has denied having had any sexual relationship with (NAME REMOVED), who once attended his Kehillat New Hempstead synagogue on Union Road.
(NAME REMOVED)'s lawsuit accused Tendler of breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Her lawyers argued that because Tendler was a rabbi, he was in a position of power over (NAME REMOVED), and that separated their relationship from a mere affair.
Tendler's lawyers argued her lawsuit should be dismissed based on the issue of seduction having been abolished in 1935 as a legal claim in New York to seek monetary damages.
The state Court of Appeals, after hearing arguments earlier this month, yesterday tossed (NAME REMOVED)'s lawsuit, upholding an Appellate Division decision.
The seven justices on the high court ruled that even if her claims of an affair with Tendler were true, (NAME REMOVED) voluntarily had an intimate relationship with the rabbi because "she subjectively believed that the (sex) 'therapy' he suggested would help her find a husband."
The justices ruled that "no cause of action can be maintained for an extended voluntary affair between consenting adults."
(NAME REMOVED) claimed that Tendler told her if she wanted a husband and children, her only hope was to have sex with him. His true motivation, she claimed, was his personal pleasure.
The jurists found that "(NAME REMOVED) has shown only that she was deceived by Tender, not that she was so vulnerable as to surrender her will and capacity to determine her own best interests."
One of Tendler's lawyers, Glenn Feinberg of Manhattan, said yesterday that the courts have vindicated the rabbi.
"The rabbi has said from the very start of this that this case has absolutely no merit," Feinberg said.
"It's over," he said. "The case has been dismissed by the highest court."
(NAME REMOVED)'s lawyer, Lenore Kramer of Manhattan, said the legal fight had not necessarily ended. Kramer said she would talk with (NAME REMOVED) about options.
"I am disappointed and I am somewhat surprised because of the way the arguments went," Kramer said, adding she had been hopeful for a decision in her favor after oral arguments.
Kramer said the Court of Appeals missed a chance to send a strong message with this case.
"It's a conservative court," Kramer said. "They are reticent to expand avenues of tort law. This was an opportunity to hold clergy who prey upon their congregants responsible."
Tendler is the son and grandson of two modern Orthodox Jewish rabbis. His father is Dovid Moses Tendler of Community Synagogue of Monsey, and his grandfather, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, was an authority on Jewish law.
Mordacai Tendler became a well-known advocate of women's rights and counselor to Orthodox women seeking religious divorces.
(NAME REMOVED), 43, first met Tendler in 1994 and began attending services at the Union Road synagogue in 1996. He began counseling her on family issues in 2001, when she claims the rabbi talked her into having sex with him.
In the lawsuit, (NAME REMOVED) claims Tendler told her that "he 'was as close to God as anyone could get,' that he 'talks to God all the time' and that he was in fact, 'the Messiah.' "
Supreme Court Justice Jane Solomon on June 20, 2006, dismissed (NAME REMOVED)n's claims of fraud and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The judge denied Tendler's motion to dismiss her claims for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Appellate Division later ruled 3-2 that (NAME REMOVED)'s "thinly veiled claims of seduction" against Tendler are prohibited by civil rights law, and therefore she has no grounds to sue him.
The decision led to the showdown before the Court of Appeals.
(NAME REMOVED)'s lawsuit and other accusations of womanizing led Kehillat New Hempstead's board of directors to oust Tendler as the congregation's leader.
The decision set off a series of legal battles in secular and religious courts.
On June 3, Tendler won an Appellate Division decision stating he was improperly dismissed as a rabbi. He can seek monetary damages for breach of his lifetime contract in court, Feinberg said.
The controversy surrounding Tendler became public in 2005 when the Rabbinical Council of America expelled him from its ranks of Orthodox Jewish rabbis.
Reach Steve Lieberman at slieberm@lohud.com or 845-578-2443.
Tort Law
N.Y. Woman Loses Suit Claiming Rabbi Counseled Her to Have Sex
By Debra Cassens Weiss
ABA Journal - Jun 27, 2008
http://www.abajournal.com/news/ny_woman_loses_suit_claiming_rabbi_counseled_her_to_have_sex/
New York's top court has dismissed a lawsuit by a woman who alleged her rabbi counseled her to have sex with him.
The New York Court of Appeals in a unanimous opinion said plaintiff (NAME REMOVED) had failed to establish a fiduciary relationship that had been breached, the New York Law Journal reports.
(NAME REMOVED) had said she asked the rabbi, Mordecai Tendler, to counsel her on personal matters, including her problems finding a husband. She alleged that Tender told her to have sex with him so that her "life will open up and men will come to her."
The court said (NAME REMOVED) had "only shown that she was deceived by Tendler, not that she was so vulnerable as to surrender her will and capacity to determine her own best interests." Without such a showing, a voluntary affair between consenting adults cannot support a lawsuit, according to the decision.
Court Rejects Suit by Woman Who Said She Had Sex With Rabbi to Find Husband
By Daniel Wise
New York Law Journal - June 27, 2008
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422585125
New York's highest court on Wednesday upheld the dismissal of claims brought by a woman who had sued her Rockland County, N.Y., rabbi for abusing his position by allegedly persuading her to have sex with him to help her find a husband.
The Court of Appeals, in a unanimous ruling written by Judge Victoria A. Graffeo, ruled that (NAME REMOVED) had failed to meet a rigorous pleading standard required to pursue damage claims against the rabbi, Mordecai Tendler, with whom she claimed to have had a 3 1/2-year consensual affair.
With the only potential claim available being breach of fiduciary duty, Graffeo wrote in (NAME REMOVED) v. Kehillat New Hempstead, 115, that (NAME REMOVED) had failed to allege facts which, if proven, would show that she had been in a "uniquely vulnerable" position and "incapable of self-protection."
The ruling dismissing claims against the Rockland County rabbi affirmed a 3-2 ruling of the Appellate Division, 1st Dept.
(NAME REMOVED), according to her complaint, engaged in a consensual affair after going to Tendler for counseling on a range of personal matters, including her problems finding a husband.
The rabbi, she alleged, counseled her to have an affair with him so that her "life will open up and men will come to her." She also claimed Tendler had told her "he was as close to God as anyone could get" and having sex with him would be "her only hope."
But those allegations were insufficient, even if proven, to establish a fiduciary relationship between the two, Graffeo concluded.
She stated that in 2005, the court had rejected a clerical malpractice claim but "left open" in Wende C. v. United Methodist Church, 4 NY3d 293, the possibility that a parishioner could raise a claim of sexual misconduct by a cleric on breach of fiduciary duty theory.
In finding (NAME REMOVED)'s pleading insufficient, Graffeo wrote that the woman had "only shown that she was deceived by Tendler, not that she was so vulnerable as to surrender her will and capacity to determine her own best interests."
In the absence of such a showing, Graffeo wrote, "no cause of action can be maintained for an extended voluntary sexual affair between consenting adults," even if (NAME REMOVED) "could prove that her acquiescence was obtained through lies, manipulation or other morally opprobrious conduct."
In a footnote, however, Graffeo wrote that there would be a "critical difference in the viability of claims" brought by minors who are "incapable of consent" asserting improper sexual conduct by a minister.
The judge also suggested in another footnote that a cleric who is a licensed professional -- such as a psychiatrist, psychologist or attorney -- could be held to "the secular standards that govern the practice of those professions."
(NAME REMOVED)'s lawyer, Lenore Kramer of Kramer & Dunleavy, said the Court of Appeals has set such a high pleading threshold that clergymen who engage in predatory sexual relations with parishioners to whom they are providing unlicensed counseling "have free license to do so without any civil or criminal consequences."
Richard H. Bliss, who represented Tendler, said his client, who "vehemently denies" all the allegations in the complaint, is "satisfied" with the ruling.
Anti-SLAPP Law Not Applicable to Subpoena Request—C.A.
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Metropolitan News-Enterprise - Tuesday, July 8, 2008
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/tend070808.htm
A request for a subpoena cannot be the subject of an anti-SLAPP motion, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled in an opinion certified yesterday for publication.
The June 10 ruling overturned an order that Mordecai Tendler, a New York rabbi, pay more than $20,000 in attorney fees and costs to the anonymous bloggers whom he accused of defaming him.
Tendler, a member of a family prominent in Orthodox Jewish circles, has been dogged in recent years by claims he harassed women within his congregation. He was forced from his suburban New York pulpit and expelled from his rabbinical association when the allegations became public more than three years ago.
The Sixth District ruling was one of two pieces of good legal news for Tendler last month. On June 25, New York state's highest court upheld lower court rulings throwing out a sexual harassment suit by a woman who claims she had a five-year affair with the married father of eight.
The New York courts ruled that anything that transpired between the plaintiff and the rabbi was consensual, and that the suit amounted to an action for seduction, which is specifically precluded by New York law. The woman claimed that because of the rabbi's special position within their insular community, she had no way to end the affair, even though it was harming her emotionally.
The California ruling stemmed from a lawsuit that the rabbi filed in Ohio, charging that he had been libeled by Doe defendants who had aired the allegations against him on websites such as www.jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com, www.rabbinicintegrity.blogspot.com, www.newhempsteadnews.blogspot.com, and www.jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com.
As part of that suit, the rabbi—who was represented by counsel at the time, but wound up representing himself on appeal—subpoenaed Google, seeking to identify the Does. Google would not comply with Ohio subpoenas, so the rabbi requested that the Santa Clara Superior Court issue the subpoenas.
After apparently learning of the subpoenas from Google, the Does—represented by Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen Litigation Group—moved to quash the subpoenas and to strike the request under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 425.16.
Tendler subsequently dismissed his subpoena request without prejudice, and neither he nor his attorneys appeared for the hearing before Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Neil Cabrinha. The judge granted the special motion to strike and ruled that the defendants were entitled to attorney fees and costs.
Several days later, Tendler filed a substitution of counsel, designating himself as the defendant in pro per. The Does then moved for an award of more than $40,000 in fees and more than $1,700 in costs.
Cabrinha awarded the defendants the requested costs and about half of the attorney fees they sought. Tendler appealed both the order granting the motion to strike and the order granting fees and costs.
`Broadest Interpretation'
Justice Nathan Mihara, writing for the Court of Appeal, said that while the anti-SLAPP statute is construed broadly, "[e]ven the broadest interpretation of the plain language of section 425.16 cannot stretch it to cover a request for a subpoena."
The justice reasoned that the request does not fall under the statute because it "is not a complaint, a cross-complaint, a petition or any equivalent pleading, does not contain any causes of action, and does not serve to initiate a judicial proceeding."
He distinguished Krinsky v. Doe 6 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1154, which held that a California subpoena seeking the identity of an anonymous blogger who had allegedly defamed the plaintiff, who filed suit in Florida, should have been quashed in the absence of a prima facie showing that the Florida suit had merit.
That case does not establish that a request for a subpoena directed at an anonymous blogger or poster's identity is an action within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP law, Mihara said. The only way the case would have applied to Tendler, he elaborated, was if he had proceeded with his subpoena request, in which event he would have had to make a prima facie showing as to the merits of the Ohio suit in order to defeat the motion to quash.
Mihara acknowledged the defendants' concern that allowing defamation plaintiffs to subpoena internet service providers and web hosts will lead to the kind of First Amendment chill that the anti-SLAPP statute is designed to prevent. But such concerns "may be overstated" and must in any event be directed to the Legislature, he wrote.
Justice Wendy Clark Duffy concurred in the opinion.
Justice Richard McAdams concurred separately, saying the panel had delivered "good news and bad news for those [anonymous Internet posters and bloggers] who engage in nontortious discourse."
The good news, he explained, was the protection offered by Krinsky, while the bad news is "that it may cost you tens of thousands of dollars to preserve your anonymity."
He "reluctantly" concurred in the majority's conclusion. While not necessarily agreeing that a complaint, cross-complaint, or petition must be filed in order for the anti-SLAPP statute to apply, he explained, he did agree with the majority that a subpoena request is not covered because it does not contain causes of action.
He urged the Legislature to revisit the statute given the likelihood of an increasing number of such subpoena requests.
The case is Tendler v. www.jewishsurvivors.blogspot. com, H031130.
In Sex-Abuse Case, Court Issues Watershed Ruling on Rabbinical Duty
What is a rabbi to a congregant? A therapist? A friend? A conduit to God?
These questions were taken up by New York State's top appellate court in a recent decision that pivoted on the issue of what rabbis can and cannot do in the eyes of the law. The answers the judges gave were not definitive, but the 10-page decision does give insight into a probing debate about the role that rabbis play in society.
The debate arose in the context of the already controversial case of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, who lost his pulpit job in upstate New York after allegedly having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a congregant.
In a unanimous decision, handed down June 25, the New York State Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Tendler had abused his position to manipulate his former congregant. The court did not say that the relationship did not exist. Instead, the judges determined that Tendler had not been established to have a "fiduciary duty" to (NAME REMOVED), the congregant in question, that would have prohibited him from such behavior.
"Fiduciary duty" is a term used to describe professional relationships that involve disparities of power and authority, such as therapist-patient, attorney-client and professor-student.
Most professions forbid sexual relationships between professionals and their clients, particularly in situations where vulnerability is an issue. For example, divorce lawyers are forbidden to have sex with clients, and a sexual relationship between a therapist and a patient is automatically considered abusive by the law. This arises out of an assumption that in each case, the professional holds a position of power over the emotionally vulnerable client.
The same might be thought to be true of rabbis, but the judges decided that it is not so clear-cut.
According to the decision, the relationship between rabbis and congregants, even one that includes "aspects of counseling," does not automatically create a power differential of the sort that characterizes a fiduciary duty. To prove that duty, a congregant has to demonstrate that he or she became "uniquely vulnerable and incapable of self-protection regarding the matter at issue."
Tendler has been the focus of allegations of sexual misconduct for several years. Complaints that he allegedly had sexually harassed a number of women surfaced in 2003 and were taken up for investigation in 2004 by the Rabbinical Council of America, the main organization of Orthodox rabbis. In March 2005, the RCA barred Tendler from the organization as a result of the investigation. In December 2005, Mermelstein filed a civil suit against Tendler on a number of causes, including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and infliction of emotional distress for coercing her into a sexual relationship. The recent Court of Appeals decision dismissed the last of those complaints.
Tendler was suspended from the pulpit of Kehillat New Hempstead in February 2006. A New York State appellate court ruled on June 3 that Tendler's dismissal from his pulpit was in violation of his contract.
Mermelstein alleged that she had gone to Tendler, who was then her rabbi, for counseling about her frustration at failing to find a husband. She claimed that Tendler had proposed a course of "sexual therapy" to manipulate her into having a sexual relationship with him, thus abusing his position as a "counselor, adviser and therapist." Mermelstein was seeking damages from both Tendler and Kehillat New Hempstead.
The court ruled that she had not established that Tendler's position amounted to a fiduciary relationship.
Lawyers familiar with clergy related legal issues say that in cases where clergy have abused children, such as the priest sex abuse scandal that shook the Catholic world, the legal strictures are relatively clear. But they say that the boundaries between clergy and adults are less clear, as courts try to balance the rights of consenting adults against the unique power and prestige of the clergy.
"The mere status one has as a member of the clergy and as a member of a congregation doesn't automatically establish a fiduciary relationship," said Mark Chopko, former general counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
One reason that the law on this front is not fully settled is that these lawsuits against clergy are a relatively recent phenomenon.
"People never sued churches, synagogues or their religious leaders; it was part of the social contract at the time," Chopko said. "You may find a handful of historical examples that go back 50 or 100 years, but for the most part, the body of law has grown up over the last 15 to 20 years."
In recent cases, some lawyers have argued the line that the judges took in the Tendler case, namely that clergy-congregant relationships are not automatically ones with a power differential.
But other legal experts have said that the courts should recognize a clergy member's special status, because of his or her spiritual position.
"The clergy-congregant relationship has a higher dimension of trust, because clergy have what they call `reverential deference.' Because they are revered and make a claim to divinity in various forms, they enjoy a particular position of special trust," said Jeffrey Anderson, a St. Paul, Minn., attorney who specializes in cases of clerical abuse.
In the Tendler case, Mermelstein hinted at the spiritual status of Tendler when she claimed that he told her he "talks to God all the time" and was "the messiah." Her suit, however, steered clear of delving into the religious entanglements — territory, the judges noted, that is fraught with constitutional complications about the separation of church and state. Instead, her case focused on the counseling relationship.
The judges, however, ruled that Mermelstein had simply participated in "an extended voluntary sexual affair between consenting adults."
Rabbis unrelated to the case said that the legal ambiguities surrounding the clergy-congregant relationship reflect the ambiguities inherent in the relations. Rabbi David Ackerman, a longtime pulpit rabbi who now works at the Jewish Theological Seminary, said he knew of several instances where rabbis married congregants. But, he said, it can be dangerous territory to tread.
"That risk is ever-present," Ackerman said. "The rabbi has an obligation to keep a close eye on the... power balance, because there's tremendous potential for abuse."
Regarding the Case of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
© (2008) The Awareness Center, Inc.
There have been some press releases sent out recently regarding the case of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler. It's important to remember the following facts:
Rabbi Mordecai Tendler never submitted any affidavit (statement sworn to under oath) denying the allegations nor did his attorney interpose any Answer (document addressing the allegations of the Complaint) denying the allegations set forth in the "Survivor's" Complaint.
FAIR USE NOTICE
Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Last Updated: 07/18/2008
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
--Margaret Mead
The longtime principal of one of Los Angeles' largest Jewish high schools is leaving to start a new school. Rabbi Sholom Tendler resigned last week as 
