Friday, April 29, 2005

Jewish Press gets around to publishing latest clarification by bais din in Jerusalem and RCA. But did new JP editorial accurately reflect the facts?

66 Comments:

At 3:38 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=4933

An Inappropriate Process (Part IV)
Posted 4/28/2005
By Editorial Board
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.

A Call To YU/RIETS

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.



STATE OF ISRAEL

JERUSALEM REGIONAL BET DIN



B"H

Yerushalayim, 6 Nissan 5765



DECISION

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

Av Bet Din Yerushalayim



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



Tuesday, April 19, 2005



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

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 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.

 
At 3:59 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>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.

1) Per Jerusalem Bet Din:
"...namely that it is prohibited to take any action which can cause or bring about the dismissal of a rabbi in the Jewish community."
(see original Hebrew at: http://www.rabbis.org/news/_pdfs/Hachlatah%202.pdf )

2) Per RCA:
>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 Din.

3) So it appears that the RCA is not in violation of the opinion of the Jerusalem Bet Din, which again is NOT a psak.

I would note that RMT's current employment at KNH is evidence of that.

 
At 4:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Beit Din:

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.


From the RCA:

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.



Wow. A group of Rabbis is flat out lying and spitting in the face of the Beit Din again. Unbeleivable. Maybe it is time to follow the new Pope and give up on these fools. The RCA intentionally publicized this whole thing DIRECTLY leading to the consequences that followed. It was a premeditated action. It's like a child pushing the other child off the swing and then pleading innocence saying they did not know the other kid would get hurt. What DID they think would happen? Why issue statements and said global e-mails if it is INTERNAL? Even secular courts have the concept of a gag order. You are either for Torah and Torah process or against it. The Rabbis of the RCA turn their back on Conservative Judaism because they claim it does not follow halachic process and then they do exactly the same thing. To be a member of such an organization, which as the Beit DIn stated is steeped in such great tradition and glory, and stand by quietly and be a blind, cultist, koolaid drinker of the RCA, is a tremendous stain on all of Orthodoxy. Moreover, YU and THEIR Torah is compromised and now put into question. Do we as baalei batim want these people teaching our children? If I want a non-Torah way, there are MUCH better schools available.

 
At 4:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"3) So it appears that the RCA is not in violation of the opinion of the Jerusalem Bet Din, which again is NOT a psak.

I would note that RMT's current employment at KNH is evidence of that."

And what about being fired from YU because of their decision? Being dismissed from Rockland County Jewish Family Services? And, KNH is still up in the air. No final decision has been reached as to his employment and the 5 rabbaim did leave so the shiurim have stopped. All of the evidence is the exact OPPOSITE of what you state!

 
At 4:09 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>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.

Per Jerusalem Bet Din:
"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."

Seems to be a hell of a clarification to me.

>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.

I don't read the Jerusalem Bet Din's statement that way. It seems to me that the Jerusalem Bet Din is clarifying their previous statement so that there could be no misrepresentation of the respect the Jerusalem Bet Din has for the RCA.

"Never did this Bet Din consider any disparaging thoughts against the glorified organization with proudly represents the best rabbis in America."

 
At 4:26 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Jewish Press misrepresentations:

http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=4893

"As we report in detail in this week’s issue, the Bet Din of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (Jerusalem district) last week vacated the Rabbinical Council of America`s expulsion from its ranks of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, the prominent spiritual leader of Kehilah New Hempstead, near Monsey, New York. The Bet Din`s ruling was predicated on the failure of the RCA to follow halacha and to proceed by way of din Torah. "

We now know that the Jerusalem Bais Din did not vacate the RCA decision.

We also know that the statement "Bet Din`s ruling was predicated on the failure of the RCA to follow halacha and to proceed by way of din Torah" is also not accurate.

"Even today, as we go to presst, there has been no such protest or outcry, despite the fact that the Bet Din of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has intervened and proclaimed the invalidity of the RCA`s investigation and conclusion."

Again, a misstatement of the facts by the Jewish Press. The Chief Rabbinate has made no such determination and has issued no such psak.

"It is shocking to us that the RCA would thumb its nose at the Bet Din of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. And it is clear to us that this shameful episode would never have occurred if the Rav, zt"l, were alive today and acting as the chair of the RCA’s Halacha Commission."

It seems to me more likely that the Jerusalem Bet Din's latest response was more likely intended to counter misstatements like this by the Jewish Press.

There is no evidence "the RCA would thumb its nose at the Bet Din of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel". The latest statement by the Jerusalem Bet Din seems to contradict the so-called Jewish Press "facts".

 
At 4:35 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>>"3) So it appears that the RCA
>>is not in violation of the
>>opinion of the Jerusalem Bet
>>Din, which again is NOT a psak.
>>
>>I would note that RMT's current
>>employment at KNH is evidence
>>of that."
>
>And what about being fired from
>YU because of their decision?

So? Take YU to a bais din. Or better yet get a heter and take everyone to civil court.

>Being dismissed from Rockland
>County Jewish Family Services?

So? Take Rockland County Jewish Family Services to a bais din. Or better yet get a heter and take everyone to civil court.

There is no clear evidence that the RCA decision was intended to or actually did impact on any of these positions. There is a stronger argument that publicity in the Jewish Week and Forward and false claims/representations by RMT supporters that he would be cleared by the RCA had more to do with RMT's lose of these positions than anything the RCA said or did.

>And, KNH is still up in the air.
>No final decision has been
>reached as to his employment and
>the 5 rabbaim did leave so the
>shiurim have stopped. All of the
>evidence is the exact OPPOSITE
>of what you state!

KNH continues to employ RMT. He has not lost this position. The RCA removed RMT as a member and there has been no immediate impact at KNH. So it is irrelevant. KNH is clearly not relying on anything the RCA has said or done.

As to the 5 Rabbanim, Rabbanim can come and go from institutions as they please. If they disagree with the Hashkafa they have no obligation to stay. It is irrelevant.

 
At 4:52 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>Wow. A group of Rabbis is flat
>out lying and spitting in the
>face of the Beit Din again.

No evidence of that. The statement by the Jerusalem Bet Din goes contrary to that assertion.

>Unbeleivable. Maybe it is time
>to follow the new Pope and give
>up on these fools.

You have a clear lack of understanding of who we follow. We follow Hashem, not man.

>The RCA intentionally publicized
>this whole thing DIRECTLY
>leading to the consequences that
>followed.

Incorrect, the RCA was not the source of leaks to the press. To the contrary, it was the unbelievable length of the investigation (over a year) and violations of victim confidentiality that resulted in victims and supporters speaking to the press. RMT chose a course of action that directly led to this.

>It was a premeditated action.

Garbage. There is no evidence the RCA leaked anything. If you have such evidence take it to the Jewish Press and get it published.

Put up or shut up.

>t's like a child pushing the
>other child off the swing and
>then pleading innocence saying
>they did not know the other kid
>would get hurt. What DID they
>think would happen?

Again, no evidence of your claims. The RCA did not leak anything.

>Why issue statements and said
>global e-mails if it is
>INTERNAL?

What statements and what emails are you referring to?

Initially, the RCA only posted a very basic statement and a further statement could only be obtained by email:

http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/03/exclusive-full-press-release-from.html#comments

Misrepresentations by the Jewish Press, the Jewish Voice, RMT and supporters (even to the Jerusalem Bet Din) resulted in the RCA issuing additional statements setting the record straight, which is their right.

http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100587
http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?ID=100592

>Even secular courts have the
>concept of a gag order.

So stop the misrepresentations or get a heter and take the RCA, the victims and the press to civil court.

>You are either for Torah and
>Torah process or against it. The
>Rabbis of the RCA turn their
>back on Conservative Judaism
>because they claim it does not
>follow halachic process and then
>they do exactly the same thing.

No evidence that halacha was not followed. Please re-read the statement by the Jerusalem Bet Din.

>To be a member of such an
>organization, which as the Beit
>DIn stated is steeped in such
>great tradition and glory, and
>stand by quietly and be a blind,
>cultist, koolaid drinker of the
>RCA, is a tremendous stain on
>all of Orthodoxy. Moreover, YU
>and THEIR Torah is compromised
>and now put into question. Do we
>as baalei batim want these
>people teaching our children? If
>I want a non-Torah way, there
>are MUCH better schools
>available.

The Jerusalem Bet Din makes no such claims against the RCA. Apparently. the kool-aid drinkers at KNH who claimed to follow the Jerusalem Bet Din, now know better than it.

Who is outside halacha making false statements and claims about the RCA and misrepresenting the Jerusalem Bet Din's statement (not a psak)? Apparently, you.

 
At 4:57 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>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.

Where do you read this? This is a complete misreading of the Jerusalem Bet Din's statement.

>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.

Not factual. This is the ACTUAL statement by the RCA:

http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100587
...
>4. 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.
...

Again, the Jewish Press misrepresents the RCA's actual statement.

>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,

What chastising message?

>since that second statement
>speaks respectfully of the
>Jerusalem court.

As did previous statements.

 
At 5:09 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>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).

And the Jerusalem Bet Din does not dispute the RCA's claim in its latest statement. Why does the Jewish Press claim to know more than the Jerusalem Bet Din? Is the Jewish Press respecting the statement of the Jerusalem Bet Din or is it giving its own psak on the matter?

Jerusalem Bet Din:
"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."
(original hebrew version at: http://www.rabbis.org/news/_pdfs/Hachlatah%202.pdf )

>The comments of Rabbi Basil
>Herring, the RCA’s executive
>vice president, are revealing.

Actually, they are taken out of context. A clarification to the article in the Jewish Week. They reveal zero about the specifics of the RMT case or someone as prominant/with a long career as RMT.

>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.

As usual, the Jewish Press gets it wrong.

Page 6, The Jewish Week, April 8, 2003
Clarification: In last week's issue, the story on the expulsion of Rabbi Mordechai Tendler from the Rabbionical Council of America ("Orthodox Group Expels Rabbi") conveyed an erroneous impression regarding a quote from Rabbi Basil Herring, executive vice president of the RCA. His remarks about the effect expulsion may have on one's rabbinical career were made in general. He declined to say anything specifically about the Tendler case, in keeping with the RCA's policy of not publicly discussing the matter further.
We regret the error.

 
At 5:16 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>Similarly, immediately after the
>expulsion order was issued, the
>Vaad Hakavod notified Yeshiva
>University

Is there any evidence of this? If so produce it.

>and Rabbi Tendler was promptly
>dismissed from the faculty of
>RIETS, a position he had held
>for a number of years.

So what? YU was aware of the published press reports, RMT and supporters represented to YU that he would be cleared. He wasn't. They are entitled not to employ him. There is no evidence the RCA action led to his dismissal. There were other factors at work including publicity in the press.

>And, as reported in The Jewish
>Week, several rabbis began
>boycotting certain seminars
>Rabbi Tendler had regularly
>conducted.

As to the Rabbanim, Rabbanim can come and go from institutions as they please. If they disagree with the Hashkafa they have no obligation to stay. It is irrelevant.

>In addition, The Jewish Press
>has also learned that Rabbi
>Tendler was discharged from his
>position with the Rockland
>County Mental Health Center.

Again, so what? No evidence the RCA was directly responsible.

>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."

No evidence the RCA leaked anything.

Initially, the RCA only posted a very basic statement and a further statement could only be obtained by email:

http://jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2005/03/exclusive-full-press-release-from.html#comments

Misrepresentations by the Jewish Press, the Jewish Voice, RMT and supporters (even to the Jerusalem Bet Din) resulted in the RCA issuing additional statements setting the record straight, which is their right and the fault of RMT and his supporters misrepresentations.

http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100587
http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?ID=100592

 
At 5:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again, The Jewish Press fails to do its research and succeeds in creating the news to conform to its opinions. In its latest Editorial the JP writes:
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.

Yet, already on http://lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/mark_dratch.htm in an interview dated November 11, 2004:
“What's your role with The Awareness Center?
"I am not officially connected to them."
What do you think of what they're doing?
"The website and its discussion groups are an invaluable resource for many people. I had been involved at supporting them at one point in time. Vicki Polin has done tremendous work. We had a disagreement about a year ago] over some of the articles published on there with regard to accusations made against individuals. Her feeling is that as long as there is an article out there it should always be public. I disagree with that. If there is no substantiation of the allegations after a period of time and the person may be innocent, those articles should not be there. As a result of that, we have parted ways. She remains an important resource for me and I imagine I am an important resource for her."

So, Rabbi Dratch had disassociated himself with the Awareness Center long before the RCA’s involvement with the Tendler Affair.

In addition… despite all of their claims to the contrary, Rabbi Blau is not an officer of the RCA and has not been involved in the Tendler case.

So much for all the news unfit to print.

 
At 5:43 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>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.

Convictions are irrelevant. The nature of crimes committed in private without witnesses combined with severe Statute of Limitations makes it difficult to get criminal convictions. The Catholic priest databases contain several thousand names and only a mere couple of dozen have convictions.

Should Jewish women and children have fewer protections than the Catholic community? I say no.

http://www.survivorsfirst.org/
http://www.survivorsfirst.org/list_notes.html

>important, this website makes no
>pretense of having investigated
>or vetted the accuracy of the
>complaints or the integrity of
>the accusers.

Which is true of other similar websites. Again see:

http://www.survivorsfirst.org/
http://www.survivorsfirst.org/list_notes.html

The Awareness Center is not the police or a bais din. It is beyond their role to investigate and vet complaints.

>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."

So?

>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:

In fact he was not part of 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.

Note: "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.

Again, the Jewish community in general has failed victims of sexual abuse/exploitation. That is why the Awareness Center exists.

>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.

Complete nonsense.

>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.

There was a full independent investigation that took over a year.

http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100587

"3. 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."

>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.

Rabbi Blau was not part of the Vaad Hakavod investigation. The RCA determined that any role by Rabbi Blau in the investigation would be a conflict of interest. There is a continuing misrepresentation of Rabbi Blau's role by the Jewish Press and the Jewish Voice. RMT and his supporters have made similar misrepresentations to the Jerusalem Bet Din.

>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.

No Bais Din today has the capacity to deal today with such capital cases. The Lanner Bais Din demonstrated the failings of our Bais Dins in such cases.

>This is why the RCA repeatedly
>denied Rabbi Tendler`s requests
>to appear before a bet din.

http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100587

"3. 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."

>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.

A complete misstatement.

Jerusalem Bet Din:
"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."


>A Call To YU/RIETS
>
>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.

Proof please, not opinion.

>That expulsion has now been
>discredited by two rulings of
>the Jerusalem Bet Din of the
>Chief Rabbinate,

Again untrue.

>leaving YU`s action without any
>valid basis whatsoever.

Evidence please.

>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.

All nonsense.

>The P`sak And The Response

Not a psak, more misrepresentation by the Jewish Press.

>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

Not a psak, more misrepresentation by the Jewish Press.

>brought by Rabbi Mordecai
>Tendler against the Rabbinical >Council of America and the RCA`s
>response.

 
At 5:46 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

The Jewish Press owes the Jerusalem Bet Din, the RCA and Rabbi Blau an apology for the contiuning public misrepresentations it is making concerning them.

Will we see a correction? Probably not.

 
At 6:01 AM, Blogger Avi said...

The Jewish Press (or really the Jewish MESS!) upholds the notion that "where there is a Rabbinic WILL there is a halachic WAY". Klass and his clowns can print any dribble that they choose and the Jewish community will blindly follow along and believe their lies and distortions. The Torah is truth and demands justice. Unfortunately the Jewish Press is filled with lies and distortions, and has been for a long time. We accept this evil with a complete list of silly excuses (we can always find a way to blame the goyim right?). To the Jewish Press, the RCA sanction against Tendler is an attack on their notion that orthodox Judaism is ALWAYS right no matter what the facts are.

Notice that they refused to print Batyas letter and they boiled the whole scandal down to a Jewish woman who remarried a Muslim man (how convenient). The Jewish Press is once again blaming the helpless victims and we need to make them stop.

Sadly our community is filled with these idiots who are intent on "proving" that orthodox Judaism is ALWAYS right no matter what the facts are. Where did honesty go?

With the tragedy in Williamsburg we once again see "Community Leaders" who distort the facts and try to blame the Fire Department for a terrible tragedy. Where did honesty and integrity go? We need it back NOW! ...Avi...

 
At 6:16 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

In this case the Jewish Press has gone one step further:

They are distorting the very public statements of the Jerusalem Bet Din.

 
At 6:31 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>In our view it is time for YU to
>lead rather than follow,
>especially since the kavod of
>Torah

What hypocrisy.

Perhaps the Jewish Press should lead in terms of its columnist Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum who is a career criminal with a record stretching back to the 70s. On release from Federal prison several years back, he became a columnist at the Jewish Press and Director of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, positions he still holds.

See the facts at:
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp

For the kavod of Torah, stop promoting him.

 
At 6:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And what about being fired from YU because of their decision? Being dismissed from Rockland County Jewish Family Services? And, KNH is still up in the air. No final decision has been reached as to his employment and the 5 rabbaim did leave so the shiurim have stopped. All of the evidence is the exact OPPOSITE of what you state!"
CLEARLY ANOTHER DEFENDER OF MT WHO DOESN'T KNOW HALACHAH, DOESN'T CARE ABOUT IT (EXCEPT AS IT SUITES THEIR WISHES) OR BOTH/ ANYONE WHO HAS LEARNED HILCHOS DAYANIM IN CHOSHEN MISHPAT (THAT LEAVES OUT ANYONE WHO HAS NOT YET LEFT KNH, I BELIEVE) KNOWS THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEEDING A B"D OR NOT IS THAT YOU ONLY NEED A B"D FOR AUTHORITY NOT FOR CLARIFICATION OF HALACHAH. THAT IS TO SAY I CAN GO TO MY RAV AND ASK HIM WHETHER- BASED ON THE FACTS AND HALACHAH- I SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO SOMETHING IN DINIE MOMENOS, OR WHTHER I HAVE TO PAY SOMEONE DAMAGES, REPAY A LOAN OR NOT ETC. I DO NOT NEED TO GO TO A B"D. THAT IS ONLY NECC. IN ORDER FOR THE PESAK TO BE BINDING ON OTHERS. WHAT THE RCA ARE CORRECTLY SAYING IS THAT THEY CLAIM NO AUTHORITY OVER KNH, YU, 5 RABBIS ETC/ ETC. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. YU HAD A MEETING AND DECIDED TO DO THE RIGHT THING BASED ON THE RCA DECISION- KOL HAKAVOD!!!! THE RABBIS WALKED- AGAIN BECAUSE THEY WERE MORAL, ETHICAL PEOPLE WHO KNEW THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE INVESTIGATION AND ITS RESULTS. THEY KNEW THAT TENDLER'E DEFENCE WAS RIDDLED WITH LIES AND SPECIIOUS ARGUMENTS AND REJECTED IT. THAT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO- IT WASN'T BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED BY A COURT DECISION. KNH HAS FAILED TO DO THE RIGHT THING- AND THE RCA IS DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT, NOR CAN THEY UNFORTUNATLEY FOR THE COMMUNITY AND KLALLL YISRAEL. NOT THAT KNH MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT WAKE UP TO REALITY (THE FAKE PESAKIM AND THE LIES, THE ARROGANCE AND THE INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR OF TENDLER...); BUT THAT THEY WILL DO SO AT THEIR DISCRECION, NOT BECAUSE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE RCA WITHOUT A B"D! THAT IS THE POINT! SORRY IF THE AM 'ARATZIM DON'T GET IT OR THE WEASELS DEFENDING TENDLER DON'T WANT TO GET IT!
OF COURSE THE FACT THAT VERY CREDIBLE PEPLE OF THE RCA INVESTIGATED FOR A YEAR, BASED ON A PROCESS APPROAVED BY AND INCLUDING SOME OF THE FOREMOST POSKIM OF THE US, IS RELEVENT TO DECISIONS THAT ALL OF US HAVE TO MAKE ABOUT TENDLER AND WHETHER HE IS FIT TO BE A RABBI. THAT IN NO WAY MEANS THAT THE RCA WAS PRETENDING TO DO THE WORK OF A B"D WITHOUT ONE! LET'S STOP EITHER BEING- OR PRETENDING TO BE IGNORANT AND STUPID HERE!!!

 
At 7:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not understand your title! The Jewish Press did publish the latest clarification. I, at least, give them credit for that. The Jewish Press has been the only one to publish a translation of the second statement of the Jerusalem Bet Din. The RCA only issued a statement regarding their interpretation of it.
The bottom line is, no reasonable person could say that this action would not cause harm to Rabbi Tendler's employment. Accordingly, this should have been adjudicated from day one in a Bet din.

 
At 7:18 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>I do not understand your title!

The translation of the second statement of the Jerusalem Bet Din does not correspond to either the current Jewish Press editorial or previous editorial claims. There appear to be numerous false statements in these editorials. Please read my comments.

>The Jewish Press did publish the
>latest clarification. I, at
>least, give them credit for
>that.

As do I.

>The Jewish Press has been the
>only one to publish a
>translation of the second
>statement of the Jerusalem Bet
>Din.

Correct.

>The RCA only issued a statement
>regarding their interpretation
>of it.

They also posted a copy of the original Hebrew statement. See their website:
http://www.rabbis.org/news/_pdfs/Hachlatah%202.pdf

>The bottom line is, no
>reasonable person could say that
>this action would not cause harm
>to Rabbi Tendler's employment.

Completely incorrect.

Please read the Jerusalem Bet Din's actual statement:
"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."

>Accordingly, this should have
>been adjudicated from day one in
>a Bet din.

No, RMT should ask for a heter to adjudicate this in civil court. A bais din cannot deal with these type of issues. The Lanner Bais Din demonstrated that.

 
At 7:24 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Folks, RMT and his supporters have turned this into a 3-ring circus. Any employment consequences are the result of:

1) Their delays that turned the RCA/Praesidium investigation into a year long process.
2) Violations of confidentiality of victims which only came to light because of RMT's actions.
3) Misrepresentations being made by RMT and supporters to the press, the Jerusalem Bet Din and many others.

RMT continues to be employed by KNH despite actions by the RCA.

Sorry folks, even the Jerusalem Bet Din is clear in saying:

"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."

So stop misrepresenting the Jerusalem Bet Din's words.

 
At 7:32 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

The Jerusalem Bet Din is clear in saying:

"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."

(original Hebrew statement:
http://www.rabbis.org/news/_pdfs/Hachlatah%202.pdf )

That is indeed the view of the RCA:

http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?ID=100592
...
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.
...

As such the Jerusalem Bet Din,
their "...Decision-Injunction has no implication.".

The RCA and Jerusalem Bet Din are in agreement.

Anyone saying otherwise needs to re-read the Jerusalem Bet Din's statement.

End of story.

 
At 7:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So stop misrepresenting the Jerusalem Bet Din's words."

JWB - it is you who are misrepresenting the Beit Din's words. They are quite clear that they stand by their original decision that this needs to be heard by a real Beit Din. Nothing has changed that conclusion. The only thing that changed was whether the RCA should readmit him or not.

As to YU, one would hope that a presumably Orthodox institution would listen to the Jerusalem Beit Din. The Beit Din was quite clear that nothing should effect RMT's position without a Beit Din. As to your comment that RMT should take them to Beit Din, Orthodox Rabbis who teach our children need to be taken to Beit Din in order to get them to listen to a Beit Din's rulings? They are supposed to be the role models! If they don't listen to the Beit Din why should anybody? Why should anybody listen to them!

 
At 7:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it amazing that the RCA is so quick to post everything about this case on its website, except an english translation of the second P'Sak of the Bet Din.

Moreover, the Bet Din specifically said, "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."

How can anyone think that posting to the workd that Rabbi Tendler committed "inappropriate conduct" would not "damag[e]" his "status" or "position"

This case proves one thing: In the Jewish community we have too many waste-of-money organizations that have too much time on their hands - like the RCA and the Orthodix Caucus. We should dissolve these organization and give the money to Yeshivot so that we could subsidize the exorbitant tuition.

 
At 7:49 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>JWB - it is you who are
>misrepresenting the Beit Din's
>words. They are quite clear that
>they stand by their original
>decision that this needs to be
>heard by a real Beit Din.
>Nothing has changed that
>conclusion. The only thing that
>changed was whether the RCA
>should readmit him or not.

Please re-read what I wrote.

...

>As to your comment that RMT
>should take them to Beit Din,

I assume you meant a civil court.

>Orthodox Rabbis who teach our
>children need to be taken to
>Beit Din in order to get them to
>listen to a Beit Din's rulings? >They are supposed to be the role
>models! If they don't listen to
>the Beit Din why should anybody?
>Why should anybody listen to
>them!

We do not have a sanhedrin or real smicha today. Our bais dins can't deal with capital offenses like the ones RMT is accused of.

Thye civil courts are the appropriate place today.

The Lanner bais din proved that.

A fiasco like the Lanner bais din does damage to our women and children as well. The ones that are not protected from predators like Lanner and those who see how corrupt the process is and how easily rabbonim like Lanner manipulate it.

 
At 7:51 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>How can anyone think that
>posting to the workd that Rabbi
>Tendler committed "inappropriate
>conduct" would not "damag[e]"
>his "status" or "position"

See the Jerusalem Bet Din statement:

"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."

RMT still is the Rabbi at KNH.

Case closed.

 
At 8:24 AM, Anonymous KNHMember said...

>So what? YU was aware of the
>published press reports, RMT and
>supporters represented to YU that he
>would be cleared. He wasn't. They are
>entitled not to employ him. There is
>no evidence the RCA action led to his dismissal.


More proof that JWB has no connection to reality or the truth. Even obvious cause-and-effect is beyond his grasp.

 
At 8:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rabbi Tendler may still be the Rabbi at KNH but he was fired from YU, solely because of the RCA.

Furthermore, even if he is not dismissed from KNH this still causes "damage" to his "position" and "status."

Finally, employment is not the only issue here, there are also issues of damage to reputation and defamation.

 
At 8:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"RMT still is the Rabbi at KNH."

RMT held many more positions than just Rabbi of KNH. Where does the Chief Rabbinate specify that the RCA decision is allowed to endanger all of his positions (YU, Rockland County Mental Health Center, etc) so long as his "shtellar" is still intact (albeit quite undermined)?

RMT had 3 (or more) important positions in the community. Immediately following the RCA decision, he was fired from 2 of them and the 3rd is still undecided. The RCA is in clear violation of the details of the letter of the Chief Rabbinate.

JWB is simply too closed-minded to figure it out.

Case closed. Cretin. Go fish!

 
At 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JWB's pathetic concept of reality:

Rule #1:
RMT is guilty

Rule #2:
If RMT is actually innocent, refer to Rule #1

Cretin. Go fish!

 
At 8:56 AM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>More proof that JWB has no
>connection to reality or the
>truth. Even obvious cause-and-
>effect is beyond his grasp.

As opposed to your grasp of reality? Do you really think the RCA controls YU and Rockland County Mental Health Center? Both institutions read the newspapers. Who is really to blame for RMT's dismissal?

It isn't clearly the RCA as you pretend.

>Furthermore, even if he is not
>dismissed from KNH this still
>causes "damage" to
>his "position" and "status."

As opposed to Forward and Jewish Week articles the preceded any RCA statements?

>Finally, employment is not the
>only issue here, there are also
>issues of damage to reputation
>and defamation.

So, get a heter and go to civil court?

Sue the victims, sue their supporters, sue the RCA, sue the Awareness Center, sue the Forward, sue the Jewish Week, sue the the Journal News, sue YU and sue the Rockland County Mental Health Center.

>RMT held many more positions
>than just Rabbi of KNH. Where
>does the Chief Rabbinate specify
>that the RCA decision is allowed
>to endanger all of his positions
>(YU, Rockland County Mental
>Health Center, etc) so long as
>his "shtellar" is still intact
>(albeit quite undermined)?

No evidence the RCA decision did that.

>RMT had 3 (or more) important
>positions in the community.
>Immediately following the RCA
>decision, he was fired from 2 of
>them and the 3rd is still
>undecided.

So what? There were numerous newspaper articles preceding this. RMT and his supporters were the cause the RCA decision was publicized by others.

>The RCA is in clear
>violation of the details of the
>letter of the Chief Rabbinate.

No. Read what they wrote:
"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."

 
At 9:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does JWB really think that the Orthodox-bashing Forward and Jewish Week are so "choshuv" in the eyes of the Orthodox community that RMT was fired from 2 positions because of their measley articles rather than because of the RCA decision?!? Get real, buddy. You have no kloo.

The newspapare articles were damaging to Tendler, but no one in the Orthodox community takes them seriously because of their anti-Orthodox bias. The reality is that Tendler was fired because of the RCA decision.

 
At 9:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is exactly what Rabbi Tendler did ! He sued the RCA in Bet Din in Israel. Consequently, the Bet Din stated that the RCA may not "in any way . . . damag[e] or affect[] any service provided by, or any status or position of the Plaintiff."

JWB, what do you define as "in any way ?"

Furthermore, the Jewish Week and the Forward did not take a position or come to a conclusion, they reported on the facts, that there was an investigation and that the RCA came to a conclusion.

Finally, the RCA issued their first statement before anyone said anything.

 
At 9:09 AM, Anonymous KNHMember said...

> The reality is that Tendler was
> fired because of the RCA decision.

100% correct.

The Forward and Jewish Week were publishing articles against RMT for many months - yet, no one fired him from his positions during that time. Does JWB really think that it is a mere "coincidence" that RMT was fired from YU immediately after the RCA ruling was issued?

It is laughable that JWB claims that the RCA decision had nothing to do with RMTs dismissal from 2 very prominent positions.

 
At 9:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>Accordingly, this should have
>been adjudicated from day one in
>a Bet din.

AT THE RISK OF BEING REPETITIVE (BUT THEN AGAIN IT TAKES SOME PEOPLE LONGER THAN OTHERS TO GET IT!)

CLEARLY ANOTHER DEFENDER OF MT WHO DOESN'T KNOW HALACHAH, DOESN'T CARE ABOUT IT (EXCEPT AS IT SUITES THEIR WISHES) OR BOTH/ ANYONE WHO HAS LEARNED HILCHOS DAYANIM IN CHOSHEN MISHPAT (THAT LEAVES OUT ANYONE WHO HAS NOT YET LEFT KNH, I BELIEVE) KNOWS THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEEDING A B"D OR NOT IS THAT YOU ONLY NEED A B"D FOR AUTHORITY NOT FOR CLARIFICATION OF HALACHAH. THAT IS TO SAY I CAN GO TO MY RAV AND ASK HIM WHETHER- BASED ON THE FACTS AND HALACHAH- I SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO SOMETHING IN DINIE MOMENOS, OR WHTHER I HAVE TO PAY SOMEONE DAMAGES, REPAY A LOAN OR NOT ETC. I DO NOT NEED TO GO TO A B"D. THAT IS ONLY NECC. IN ORDER FOR THE PESAK TO BE BINDING ON OTHERS. WHAT THE RCA ARE CORRECTLY SAYING IS THAT THEY CLAIM NO AUTHORITY OVER KNH, YU, 5 RABBIS ETC/ ETC. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. YU HAD A MEETING AND DECIDED TO DO THE RIGHT THING BASED ON THE RCA DECISION- KOL HAKAVOD!!!! THE RABBIS WALKED- AGAIN BECAUSE THEY WERE MORAL, ETHICAL PEOPLE WHO KNEW THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE INVESTIGATION AND ITS RESULTS. THEY KNEW THAT TENDLER'E DEFENCE WAS RIDDLED WITH LIES AND SPECIIOUS ARGUMENTS AND REJECTED IT. THAT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO- IT WASN'T BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED BY A COURT DECISION. KNH HAS FAILED TO DO THE RIGHT THING- AND THE RCA IS DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT, NOR CAN THEY UNFORTUNATLEY FOR THE COMMUNITY AND KLALLL YISRAEL. NOT THAT KNH MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT WAKE UP TO REALITY (THE FAKE PESAKIM AND THE LIES, THE ARROGANCE AND THE INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR OF TENDLER...); BUT THAT THEY WILL DO SO AT THEIR DISCRECION, NOT BECAUSE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE RCA WITHOUT A B"D! THAT IS THE POINT! SORRY IF THE AM 'ARATZIM DON'T GET IT OR THE WEASELS DEFENDING TENDLER DON'T WANT TO GET IT!
OF COURSE THE FACT THAT VERY CREDIBLE PEPLE OF THE RCA INVESTIGATED FOR A YEAR, BASED ON A PROCESS APPROAVED BY AND INCLUDING SOME OF THE FOREMOST POSKIM OF THE US, IS RELEVENT TO DECISIONS THAT ALL OF US HAVE TO MAKE ABOUT TENDLER AND WHETHER HE IS FIT TO BE A RABBI. THAT IN NO WAY MEANS THAT THE RCA WAS PRETENDING TO DO THE WORK OF A B"D WITHOUT ONE! LET'S STOP EITHER BEING- OR PRETENDING TO BE IGNORANT AND STUPID HERE!!!

 
At 9:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's trecall that Tendler (&friends) has not been removed from his main jobs:
1. attacking innocents (RCA, the victims, the Rabbis who left, YU, etc etc) everyone of whom were held up by him as being wonderful until they dared say the truth about him!
[He must have a plaque about how a powerful offense is the best defence, and there sure is none more offensive than he!!!)
2. inventing halachah (somethings never change- from the creative writting course of iggrot moshe vol 8 to the fictional eruv to the mikveh of 2000- I mean 2001 or 02 or 03 or 04 or payoffs to victims...)

 
At 9:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"LET'S STOP EITHER BEING- OR PRETENDING TO BE IGNORANT AND STUPID HERE!!!"

That would put JWB out of the blogging business. Without ignorance and stupidity, he would not be able to post comments on his own blog.

PS. Your very creative use of spelling and grammar is impressive.

PPS. I believe that your Caps Lock key is 'on' (it is the key on the left side of your keyboard near your pinkie finger) or one of your Shift keys is stuck :-)

 
At 9:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"KNOWS THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEEDING A B"D OR NOT IS THAT YOU ONLY NEED A B"D FOR AUTHORITY NOT FOR CLARIFICATION OF HALACHAH."

So, what you are saying is that The Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut in Jerusalem does not know halacha when they said TWICE that a Beit Din was necessary to hear this issue?

Hmmm. A Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut who is not anonymous and takes responsibility for its decisions or an anonymous blog posting by a single individual? I think I'll go with the Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut on this one.

 
At 9:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"KNOWS THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEEDING A B"D OR NOT IS THAT YOU ONLY NEED A B"D FOR AUTHORITY NOT FOR CLARIFICATION OF HALACHAH."

So, what you are saying is that The Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut in Jerusalem does not know halacha when they said TWICE that a Beit Din was necessary to hear this issue?

Hmmm. A Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut who is not anonymous and takes responsibility for its decisions or an anonymous blog posting by a single individual? I think I'll go with the Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut on this one.

9:38 AM


Even the RCA statement went with the Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut!

 
At 9:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"KNOWS THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEEDING A B"D OR NOT IS THAT YOU ONLY NEED A B"D FOR AUTHORITY NOT FOR CLARIFICATION OF HALACHAH."

The Bet Din of the Chief Rabbinate, and may I remind everyone, the only Bet Din to speak in this case, stated, unequivocally,

"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."

Accordingly, since this action by the RCA, indisputably, "damag[ed]" and "affect[ed]" Rabbi Tendler's "status" and "position,"
this matter should have been adjudicated in a Bet Din from day one.

 
At 10:15 AM, Anonymous KNHMember said...

"The Bet Din of the Chief Rabbinate... the only Bet Din to speak in this case"

Actually, the Bais Din of the Chief Rabbinate is the 4th (at least) bais din to voice an opinion in this case.

The RCA is the 4th attempt on the part of the accusers (and their handlers) against RMT. Each of the first three batei din interviewed the accusers, reviewed all the evidence, and found RMT 100% innocent. The first bais din was the Vishnitzer Bais Din of Monsey (headed by the Vishnitzer dayan). The second Bais Din was a group of 15 "litvishe" poskim from Monsey. I am not sure of the composition of the 3rd bais din.

Every (yes, every) bais din who has heard this case has found RMT 100% innocent. I exclude the RCA from this list, because their "investigation" (and I use the term loosely in this case) was not in the form of a bais din - even by their own admission.

 
At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are absolutely right, KNH member.

I am not taking sides. I do not know what really happened, but the scorecard is:

Bet Dins in favor of Rabbi Tendler: 4

Bet Dins against Rabbi Tendler: 0

 
At 10:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>"KNOWS THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEEDING A B"D OR NOT IS THAT YOU ONLY NEED A B"D FOR AUTHORITY NOT FOR CLARIFICATION OF HALACHAH."

So, what you are saying is that The Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut in Jerusalem does not know halacha when they said TWICE that a Beit Din was necessary to hear this issue?

Hmmm. A Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut who is not anonymous and takes responsibility for its decisions or an anonymous blog posting by a single individual? I think I'll go with the Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut on this one.

9:38 AM


Even the RCA statement went with the Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut!

ARE YOU STUPID OR JUST PRETENDING?
WHAT I WROTE WAS NOT CONTRADICTED IN THE LEAST BY EITHER THE B"D NOR THE RCA, IT MERELY EXPLAINED THE POINT FOR AMEI HAARETZ LIKE YOU! (Not to mention that the RCA was probably more diplomatic and courteous to the b"d than warranted, but that is another story!)

IN TERMS OF BEING ANON. (AS OPPOSED TO THE JERUSALEM LOCAL B"D, IT IS MERELY A REFLECTION OF THE FACT THAT PEOPLE DEFENDING THUGS NEED NOT WORRY, NOR PEOPLE ATTACKING GOOD PEOPLE LIKE THE RCA, ONLY PEOPLE CRITIXIZING THE THUGS!

AND BY THE WAY, OF COURSE ALL THAT IS IMPORTANT HERE IS WHTHER THERE ARE TYPOS, NOT LITTLE ISSUES LIKE HALACHAH AND CHILUL HASHEM BT MT AND FRIENDS!

 
At 10:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>"KNOWS THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEEDING A B"D OR NOT IS THAT YOU ONLY NEED A B"D FOR AUTHORITY NOT FOR CLARIFICATION OF HALACHAH."

So, what you are saying is that The Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut in Jerusalem does not know halacha when they said TWICE that a Beit Din was necessary to hear this issue?

Hmmm. A Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut who is not anonymous and takes responsibility for its decisions or an anonymous blog posting by a single individual? I think I'll go with the Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut on this one.

9:38 AM


Even the RCA statement went with the Beit Din of the Chief Rabbanut!

ARE YOU STUPID OR JUST PRETENDING?
WHAT I WROTE WAS NOT CONTRADICTED IN THE LEAST BY EITHER THE B"D NOR THE RCA, IT MERELY EXPLAINED THE POINT FOR AMEI HAARETZ LIKE YOU! (Not to mention that the RCA was probably more diplomatic and courteous to the b"d than warranted, but that is another story!)

IN TERMS OF BEING ANON. (AS OPPOSED TO THE JERUSALEM LOCAL B"D, IT IS MERELY A REFLECTION OF THE FACT THAT PEOPLE DEFENDING THUGS NEED NOT WORRY, NOR PEOPLE ATTACKING GOOD PEOPLE LIKE THE RCA, ONLY PEOPLE CRITIXIZING THE THUGS!

AND BY THE WAY, OF COURSE ALL THAT IS IMPORTANT HERE IS WHTHER THERE ARE TYPOS, NOT LITTLE ISSUES LIKE HALACHAH AND CHILUL HASHEM BT MT AND FRIENDS!

 
At 12:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beloved of the qadosh baruch Hu:
Enough!
Rabbi Tendler;
dai l'chaqima b'remizah. Even if you are innocent -do the right thing and l'maan shem shomayim resign.
Everyone else;
hevey me-talmidav shel Hillel
Let us bring peace to klal yisrael.
RCA:
Release your evidence so that all may knowthat your actions were true and sincere. Be 'neqi'im' before HaShem and his people/

 
At 2:26 PM, Anonymous I.A.N.A.L. but said...

The Jewish Press' translatation of the money graf,
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. , is much better than mine. Kudos to the Jewish Press for this great translation. That said, they distorted the words totally. The 2nd hachlatah was apologetic and fawning in tone, like someone gave them a good beating. They were NOT admonishing the RCA. What a distortion. Now that they translated the full letter, everyone can read it for themselves and see what we saw earlier- for all intents and purposes, a full retraction. It's interesting that the RMT spin machine is now taking on YU. Earlier, they faced a choice- take on a healthy, vigorous and powerful YU or a weakened, floundering (since the death of Rabbi Dworkin)and moribund RCA. They chose to attack the RCA by saying "Either do a full beis din, and reveal sources, or retract". The other half of this strategy was to saturate this blog with "Harlots!" posts, trying to intimidate these women from coming forward. Without any women to back them up, the RCA would be forced to retract. That's why this hachlatah from the Jerusalem Beis Din is so important- it's an unexpected Godsend that helps the RCA keep its psak. It's a tremendous blow to the RCA strategy, allowing the RCA to keep its psak from its vaad hakavod; which is why the RMT spin machine is desperately spinning its wheels, between egregiously distorting the words of the hachlatah in the Jewish Press editorial (unless the Jewish Press actually thinks the hachlatah is saying what they're saying it's saying, which either means they learned too much Daf Yomi out of the Soncino and they have no reading comprehension anymore or they're smoking something really good) and actually trying to pressure YU, which will not work. YU has much more public support, cash, and lawyers than the sickly RCA. Not a checkmate for RMT, but their Beis din strategy boomeranged badly. The Jeruselem Beis Din carries a lot of respect, which is why they chose it for their 2nd front on the RCA. And their new-found support for the RCA devastates the RMT attack strategy. They were going to go after YU once they had their RCA retraction. Now, they have to go after the RCA and YU simultaneously, who can jointly hide behind the J'lem Beis Din no matter what the reefers at the Jewish Press say.

 
At 2:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"WHAT I WROTE WAS NOT CONTRADICTED IN THE LEAST BY EITHER THE B"D NOR THE RCA, IT MERELY EXPLAINED THE POINT FOR AMEI HAARETZ LIKE YOU!"

Number 1 - on the Internet ALL CAPS is considered shouting and poor protocol. This seems to be par for the course for RCA people.

Number 2 - Am Haaretz? You don't even know me! But I will cite the Beit Din for you:
"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."

The Jerusalem Beit Din said that in there first decision and reaffirmed this in their second decision. That 100% disproves your assertion in your post as to when a Beit Din is appropriate.

 
At 3:53 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Nice spin try.

Again.
The Jerusalem Bet Din is clear in saying:

"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."

(original Hebrew statement:
http://www.rabbis.org/news/_pdfs/Hachlatah%202.pdf )

That is indeed the view of the RCA:

http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?ID=100592
...
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.
...

As such the Jerusalem Bet Din,
their "...Decision-Injunction has no implication.".

The RCA and Jerusalem Bet Din are in agreement.

Anyone saying otherwise needs to re-read the Jerusalem Bet Din's statement.

End of story.

 
At 8:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I totally agree with you that the RCA is saying that they did nothing to affect RMT's employment. The problem is that entire olam (except you) knows that they did exactly that and they are at least being disingenuous and at most outright lying in their statement. They COULD have terminated his membership and not sent any e-mail to the membership or statement to the press. They COULD have kept it between RMT and themselves. They however chose a different course and insisted on publicity. Why? Many organizations have members who have membership terminated for one reason or another but they don't issue statements or notify the entire membership. This is not spin, this is reality. As to the halacha on this, the Beit Din reinforced TWICE that a Beit Din would be required to do exactly what the RCA did without a Beit Din. In addition, it is clear that the Beit Din has stated emphatically that halacha does not permit a Rav to lose any position due to this which, in fact, does put YU, an Orthodox institution, on the hot seat as they did fire him because of the RCA conclusion.

Strategically, I believe KNH SHOULD fire RMT based on the RCA statement, and force the RCA to a Beit Din. If the Beit Din finds him innocent, rehire him. If not, no harm is done. He could still give drashot and classes as any member can.

 
At 9:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

who besides tendler decideed that this b"d in jerusalem had the authority to decide how the RCA needed tp do things? It was very courteous of the RCA to allow the b"d to save face, but let's all get real and stop taking the statemnets of the b"d seriously! It is really none of there buisness! they are NOT the sanhedrin (or even the top court in Israel, let alone the world). The RCA doesn't need their permission, and since when are they the poskim for the people of NH or any of the others deciding the proper reponse here? Why are people so stupid as to buy every ruse of the tendler spin machine???

 
At 9:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Actually, the Bais Din of the Chief Rabbinate is the 4th (at least) bais din to voice an opinion in this case.

The RCA is the 4th attempt on the part of the accusers (and their handlers) against RMT. Each of the first three batei din interviewed the accusers, reviewed all the evidence, and found RMT 100% innocent. The first bais din was the Vishnitzer Bais Din of Monsey (headed by the Vishnitzer dayan). The second Bais Din was a group of 15 "litvishe" poskim from Monsey. I am not sure of the composition of the 3rd bais din.

Every (yes, every) bais din who has heard this case has found RMT 100% innocent. I exclude the RCA from this list, because their "investigation" (and I use the term loosely in this case) was not in the form of a bais din - even by their own admission."

TYPICAL TENDLER DRIVEL AND LIES- HARDLY A TRUE WORD IN IT! A FEW EXAMPLES:

A. the 4th only heard what tendler's people told them they investigated nothing.
B. They also in no way found him even 1% innocent let alone 100%!!! They only expressed their (irrelevent) opinion as to how the procedure should be conducted!
C. How convenient that you don't know about the kangaroo court that tendler sr. conducted (= "b"d#3")
D. None of the rest is true either, but who has time to discuss the plethora of tendler lies...

 
At 10:35 PM, Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>I totally agree with you that
>the RCA is saying that they did
>nothing to affect RMT's
>employment.

End of story.

>The problem is that entire olam
>(except you) knows that they did
>exactly that and they are at
>least being disingenuous and at
>most outright lying in their
>statement.

Nonsense. The Jerusalem Bet Din which you claim must be followed said no such thing.

>They COULD have terminated his
>membership and not sent any e-
>mail to the membership or
>statement to the press.

And others such as I would have reported it anyway.

>They COULD have kept it between
>RMT and themselves.

Not possible, due to misrepresentations being made by RMT and his supporters. Also there is a public membership list. RMT had an opportunity to quietly resign a year ago like Rabbis Kestenbaum and Bryks. He chose not to. As a result the media and others became aware of the situation and it was no longer possible to do anything quietly. The information would come out regardless.

>They however chose a different
>course and insisted on
>publicity. Why? Many
>organizations have members who
>have membership terminated for
>one reason or another but they
>don't issue statements or notify
>the entire membership.

RMT and his supporters, NOT the RCA, chose a course of action that resulted in the publicity.

>This is
>not spin, this is reality. As to
>the halacha on this, the Beit
>Din reinforced TWICE that a Beit
>Din would be required to do
>exactly what the RCA did without
>a Beit Din.

You're misreading the latest statement. The Jerusalem Bet Din is clear in saying:

"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."


>In addition, it is clear that
>the Beit Din has stated
>emphatically that halacha does
>not permit a Rav to lose any
>position due to this which, in
>fact, does put YU, an Orthodox
>institution, on the hot seat as
>they did fire him because of the
>RCA conclusion.

So? Get a heter to sue in civil court.

>Strategically, I believe KNH
>SHOULD fire RMT based on the RCA
>statement,

1) I agree with the firing part.
2) It's clear from your statement that KNH did not fire RMT based on the RCA statement. So again, the RCA is in the clear.

>and force the RCA to a Beit Din.
>If the Beit Din finds him
>innocent, rehire him. If not, no
>harm is done. He could still
>give drashot and classes as any
>member can.

Why not just get a heter to sue everyone in civil court?

 
At 7:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and let's not forget that tendler "bichvodo u'veatzmo" kept making public statemnts about how the RCA process would "prove" his innocence upon completion!

(why don't you go fish!)

 
At 7:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Number 2 - Am Haaretz? You don't even know me!"

Don't need to; the fact that you are deciding Halachah based on what you read on blogs and in the Jewish Press, rather than on your own knowledge of shas and choshen mishpat clarifies that for me.
If you really knew Torah you would be able to know when a b"d is or is not needed, and not be playing these childish artscroll games of my gadol is bigger than your gadol... what a tragic joke of what the Jewish world has become, it litterally makes me cry...
That b"d (again not the chief Rabbinate or the b"d of Jerusalem, just a local b"d in Jerusalem) said what tehy said for tendler and later backpeddled as best they could and saved face. The RCA went easy on them and let them. kol hakavod to the menchen in the RCA. that has nothing to do with the rediculous cliams of the mt spin cycles.
If you want to know what the halachah has to say (of course that excludes members of the tendler cult) you can begin with ketzos (3:1) [and the nesivos who agrees with the basic point of the ketzos but formulates the paramiters slightly differently]; shach (4:7); pischei teshuvah (7:5) and sheeris yosef (III:39)...

 
At 7:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight - you are saying that one can remove a Rav without a Beit Din? That one can cause damage to another's parnassa without a Beit Din? I just want to understand your position and understanding of halacha. It seems to me we don't need a Beit Din for anything anymore. I thought they were supposed to resolve disputes. Guess I was wrong. Zedek zedek tirdof - zedek for the plaintiff and zedek for the defendant. This does not exist in your world. Quite frankly, I don't like your world where everyone is on their own and there is no such thing as dispute resolution.

 
At 7:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"2) It's clear from your statement that KNH did not fire RMT based on the RCA statement. So again, the RCA is in the clear."

That's not a done deal yet. KNH is still considering its options. RMT could still be fired and it would indeed be due to the RCA statements thereby, based on the Beit Din and the RCA's AGREEMENT with the Beit Din, necessitating a Beit Din to resolve.

 
At 8:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"let me get this straight..."

as I said before you are either stupid, ignorant disingenous or some combination.
If you really want to get it straight, reread what I wrote, and look up the sources. Enough time wasted on you...

 
At 9:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"as I said before you are either stupid, ignorant disingenous or some combination.
If you really want to get it straight, reread what I wrote, and look up the sources. Enough time wasted on you..."

I pray to God that you are not a Rabbi in some Yeshiva. If you are, please tell me which one so I know where not to send my children. Simple question - is a Beit Din to be used to resolve disputes? Yes or no? Are you too ignorant or stupid to answer a simple question?

 
At 12:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Are you too ignorant or stupid to answer a simple question?"

Both.

 
At 2:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to 9:25 AM, Anonymous ..."Simple question - is a Beit Din to be used to resolve disputes? Yes or no? and to 12:40 PM, Anonymous (or are you one person?):

The proper response to your comments can be found in Mishle 26:4- Goodbye!
(and feel free to reread my previous posts and learn the sources IF you really want to know the Halachah).

 
At 2:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, being called ignorant etc. by you is really distressing!
:-)

 
At 7:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That b"d (again not the chief Rabbinate or the b"d of Jerusalem, just a local b"d in Jerusalem) said what tehy said for tendler and later backpeddled as best they could and saved face. The RCA went easy on them and let them. kol hakavod to the menchen in the RCA."

This ridiculous statement, as well as the various talmudic statements made here, seem like they are being posted by some rabbi from the RCA leadership. Perhaps by "rabbi" Blau, the leader of "The Awareness Center", (that infamous great bastion of organizational halachic jurisprudence) himself!
Either way, i predict in the coming days we will see what the real story with the RCA is.

 
At 7:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you. One day we will hear the real story of what the RCA is: another waste of money Jewish organization. Let's dissolve this organization, and any like it, and use the money to subsidize the exorbitant Yeshiva tuition.

 
At 8:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That b"d (again not the chief Rabbinate or the b"d of Jerusalem, just a local b"d in Jerusalem) said what tehy said for tendler and later backpeddled as best they could and saved face. The RCA went easy on them and let them. kol hakavod to the menchen in the RCA."

>This ridiculous statement, >as well as the various >talmudic statements made >here, seem like they are >being posted by some rabbi >from the RCA leadership. >Perhaps by "rabbi" Blau, >the leader of "The >Awareness Center", (that >infamous great bastion of >organizational halachic >jurisprudence) himself!
>Either way, i predict in >the coming days we will >see what the real story >with the RCA is.

INCORRECT ON ALL POINTS. WHAT A SUPRISE!
I'M JUST A SIMPLE JEW, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RCA, WHO KNOWS THAT THE RCA PANNEL CONSISTED OF HONARABLE PEOPLE WHO DID AN HONARABLE JOB. ALL OF THE TENDLERITE LIES AND SMOKE SCREENS AND TRYING TO BLAME AND DISCREDIT EVERYONE ELSE CHANGES NOTHING. ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT TORAH AND HAS A BRAIN WILL SEE THROUGH ALL OF THIS GARBAGE AND REPUDIATE TENDLER& CO.
MORDECHAI TENDLER: FOR ONCE, DO THE HONARABLE THING AND PUT AND END TO ALL OF THE CHILUL HASHEM YOU'VE CAUSED!!! DO IT FOR K'VOD SHAMAYIM!!!

 
At 4:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"INCORRECT ON ALL POINTS. WHAT A SUPRISE!
I'M JUST A SIMPLE JEW, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RCA, WHO KNOWS THAT THE RCA PANNEL CONSISTED OF HONARABLE PEOPLE WHO DID AN HONARABLE JOB. ALL OF THE TENDLERITE LIES AND SMOKE SCREENS AND TRYING TO BLAME AND DISCREDIT EVERYONE ELSE CHANGES NOTHING. ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT TORAH AND HAS A BRAIN WILL SEE THROUGH ALL OF THIS GARBAGE AND REPUDIATE TENDLER& CO.
MORDECHAI TENDLER: FOR ONCE, DO THE HONARABLE THING AND PUT AND END TO ALL OF THE CHILUL HASHEM YOU'VE CAUSED!!! DO IT FOR K'VOD SHAMAYIM!!!"

First, stop shouting.

Second, to the best of my knowledge, the makeup of the Vaad Hakavod has remained a complete mystery. The RCA will not reveal who was on the committee. This is totally contrary to both secular and halachic law where the members of the deciding body are always identified. This simple, basic foundation provides accountability.

Third, nobody knows what the vote of the 5 individuals was. Was it 3-2? 5-0? 4-1? Did the 2 Rabbis vote against expulsion due to lack of evidence and halachic principles while the lawyers and psychologists voted otherwise due to non-halachic concerns? Who knows? This whole process reminds me of how JTS came to approve the ordination of women rabbis and cantors. They were never able to get it to pass the Talmudic committee so Gershon Cohen changed the rules and made it a vote by the entire faculty. He took the decision away from the halachic perspective in order to achieve the desired result. Is this really the modus operandi that the RCA, an august Orthodox body, wants to follow? An earlier poster said that the Viznitser dayan and a Beit Din of litvishe poskim had already heard this case and found RMT 100% innocent. Is this true? If so, there must be a record of that decision. Can somebody verify the veracity of those 2 statements and the composition of those 2 Batei Din. As opposed to the RCA, they have nothing to hide.

 
At 7:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: 4:43 AM, Anonymous

these tendler spinners think if they spin enough they will turn straw into gold!
What a bunch of nonesense, lies and drivel!
Cut the smokescreens, diversions... JUST GET RID OF THE RASHA!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home