Friday, December 30, 2005

Important New Blog - Rabbinic Committee Formed to Expose Mordy Tendler

"Must be read by all adults"
According to Halacha the women are to be believed

Rabbinic Committee Formed to Expose Mordecai Tendler
Rabbinic Committee Formed to Expose Mordecai Tendler - December 24, 2005

To contact our committee with guaranteed strict confidentiality email us at: Should you still feel hesitant, please call one of the Rabbanim listed below. Thank you.

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 (rabbi)

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.

  1. Summary Translation Responsa of the venerable Rav Wosner, Shlit"a

  2. 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.


Summary Translation for the "Responsa" written 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:


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!


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 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. 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!


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

(In order of Hebrew Signatures)

You may comment and or share your confidential information with us via email:


Anonymous Anonymous said...

On Thursday December 29th 2005, the leadership of the RCA sent the following clarification to all its members, regarding its decision to go to Zabla in New York to adjudicate the matter of the expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler. Relevant New York Beit Din documents are attached. (See RCA website to download the documents)

Dec 30, 2005 -- Thursday, December 29, 2005

28 Kislev 5766, the 4th day of Chanukah

Dear Chaver:

For almost two years, the investigation of charges against Mordecai Tendler has been a matter of deep concern to the RCA and its membership. We have at all times sought to avoid confrontation, and travel the high road, because we have been intensely aware of the potential in this story for great Chillul Hashem, personal pain, and irreparable harm. Now, however, due to a recent ruling of a regional Jerusalem Beit Din, we have taken several recent steps to address the issues that have been raised. We also want to communicate to our membership a fuller explanation of the facts and of our position throughout these past months.

Following is an abbreviated timeline of the major Beit Din events since the expulsion.

March 15, 2005

Mordecai Tendler expelled from RCA.

April 5, 2005

Regional Jerusalem Beit Din issues injunction prohibiting RCA from harming the office and position of Mordecai Tendler without first summoning him to a Beit Din or Zabla anywhere in the world.

April 13, 2005

RCA responds to Regional Jerusalem Beit Din questioning their jurisdiction, and requesting a clarification of their position and a withdrawal of their injunction.

April 14, 2005

Regional Jerusalem Beit Din sends a clarification to RCA stating that if, in the opinion of the RCA, nothing is being done to harm the office and position of Mordecai Tendler in the RCA, then it should be considered as if the Beit Din has made no statement. The Beit Din also promises a halachik, judicial and philosophical justification of their claim of jurisdiction. No such justification was ever received by the RCA.

May 19, 2005

Regional Jerusalem Beit Din sends a hazmanah to RCA to appear before them on July 14, 2005, as Mordecai Tendler claims financial damages.

July 13, 2005

RCA responds, through its to’en/rabbinic representative, to Regional Jerusalem Beit Din denying their jurisdiction in this case based on significant halachik sources. Additionally the RCA indicates its willingness, lifnim meshurat ha-din, to adjudicate the case before the Beit Din of the Machon Le’Hora’ah in Monsey.

July 14, 2005

Regional Jerusalem Beit Din meets without RCA present, and issues a decision, communicating same to Mordecai Tendler, but not to the RCA. It is published in the newspaper even before it is sent to the RCA or the RCA to’en.

August 17, 2005

The to’en of the RCA writes to the Jerusalem Beit Din raising questions as to whether and how a decision may have been made and communicated.

August 25, 2005

As a result of the RCA inquiry, the RCA receives a fax of the July 14 decision. The decision does not address the halachik issues raised by the RCA, but instead suggests a Zabla using Rabbi Avrohom Baruch Rosenberg of the Machon Le’Hora’ah as the independent dayan (shlish) and requiring both parties to submit the name of their chosen borer/dayan within 15 days of the original decision. The decision is received after the deadline has already expired. As of August 25th Mordecai Tendler has not contacted Rabbi Rosenberg nor identified his borer/dayan.

September 1, 2005

The RCA contacts Rabbi Rosenberg of the Machon Le’Hora’ah to determine if either the Regional Jerusalem Beit Din or Mordecai Tendler have contacted him. He advises us that no one has contacted him. We indicate to him our willingness to proceed to Zabla, and that we have a borer whose name will be provided as soon as Mordecai Tendler will notify Rabbi Rosenberg of the name of his borer, as is required of the claimant (Tendler) in the first place.

September 16, 2005

RCA once again responds in writing to Jerusalem that the Regional Jerusalem Beit Din has no jurisdiction in this case. It supports its position by providing letters from three reputable Batei Din in America (copies of these are attached to this letter.) A 19 page letter detailing such a halachik position is also submitted to Rabbi Rosenthal of the regional Beit Din in Jerusalem

November 28, 2005

Regional Jerusalem Beit Din finds the RCA in defiance of an order of its Beit Din, in spite of all of the above efforts by the RCA. The notice of the Beit Din is signed by the secretary of the Beit Din in the name of only one dayan, continuing an inconsistent pattern of sometimes no dayan signing, one dayan signing, a secretary signing, printed names without signatures, etc. It is not clear who exactly is issuing these decisions.

As noted at the outset of this letter, we have recently, in the interest of avoiding machloket and further chillul Hashem, notified Rabbi Avrohom Baruch Rosenberg of Machon Le’Hora’ah in writing of our willingness to proceed to Zabla arbitration in New York. We have also provided him with the name of our borer/dayan. We have also formally notified the regional Beit Din in Jerusalem, as well as the to’en of Mordecai Tendler in Jerusalem. To this date, neither Mordecai Tendler nor his representatives have ever contacted Rabbi Rosenberg, nor has he named his borer/dayan, nor has he properly communicated his commitment to in fact proceed to Zabla. Nonetheless, we have taken the above steps in order to go to Zabla, even though:

1. The RCA as an incorporated membership organization has every right, both in civil law and in halachah, to decide without outside interference, and in accordance with its constitution and by-laws, who is fit to be accepted as a member in the first place, and who is to be expelled from membership for appropriate reason, following a mandated set procedure. The Beit Din Hakavod in its investigation followed that procedure completely.

2. Even though no outside Beit Din is necessary to evaluate the status of a member, the Vaad Hakavod always employed the halachic rules of Beit Din in its deliberations. Therefore it had the halachic status of a Beit Din, and is in fact consistently referred to in the RCA Constitution as a Beit Din Hakavod. The investigation that led to the expulsion was in fact carried out by the Beit Din Hakavod as a de facto, and de jure, Beit Din, in full conformity with the provisions of our constitution, and attested to by the participation at all times of our Av Beit Din. Thus, as a Beit Din, its decision, al pi halachah, has the status of a ma’aseh Beit Din, and is not subject to review by any other Beit Din, anywhere in the world (insofar as “Beit Din batar Beit Din lo dayki.”)

3. We continue to maintain absolutely that even if the above were not the case, no Beit Din in Israel has any jurisdiction in any matter involving two litigants in New York; that there is no historical, halachic, or legal precedent whatsoever for the involvement of an Israeli Beit Din; that any claim to the contrary violates the rules of the laws of the State of Israel and of the Israeli rabbinical courts themselves. This view has been repeatedly endorsed by a number of eminent and neutral Batei Din as well as poskim, who have agreed entirely with our position that Israeli Batei Din have no jurisdiction in this matter. Moreover our view is completely consistent with the repeated statements of all the great leaders of the RCA throughout its history, to the effect that the Israeli rabbinate and its batei din have authority regarding the RCA only in matters directly affecting Eretz Yisrael and its citizens.

4. Mordecai Tendler himself did not contest the right and the authority of the Beit Din Hakavod to judge this case, until after it ruled against him. To the contrary: he explicitly, and in writing, waived every opportunity (in the form of written invitations sent to him) to appear before the Beit Din Hakavod, and instead explicitly and in writing agreed that it should proceed and come to its decision, as it saw fit, based on his written submissions.

In sum, we have now chosen to go to Zabla, lifnim mi-shurat ha-din, beyond what the halachic requirement may be, so that our jurisdiction and the facts of the case and its history will be established once and for all. To this end, we will insist at the Zabla that the shtar berurin/rules of arbitration include the stipulation that the findings of the Zabla will be binding and not subject to appeal, neither in Israel nor in America.

In so doing, we believe that we are acting le’shem shamayim, and le’hagdil Torah, in fulfillment of the mandate and mission of the RCA, so that it will be clear that the RCA, with the full support of its membership, will have acted in the best interests of the Jewish people, and in accordance with the highest standards of truth and fairness.

We trust you will agree, and we thank you for your support and understanding throughout.

The Officers of the Rabbinical Council of America

December 30, 2005 1:01 PM  
Blogger Mara said...

Finally, these Rabbis are acknowledging Tendler's inappropriate sexual behavior. After how many women? How many victims does it take before this happens - 10? 20? Why couldn't this have been done earlier?

December 30, 2005 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since you brought up Tzvi Kilstein's name I thought I would share the following which comes from:

jewishwhistleblower Says:
January 1st, 2006 at 2:38 am

To: Robert G. Harris, Attorney for TBF Financial, Boca Raton, Florida
rharris(not public).com

Mr. Harris, I am contacting you regarding, a small claims case you are handling, TBF Financial vs Harlan Kilstein.

I thought you may be interested in information regarding the personal integrity of the defendent, Harlan Kilstein AKA Dr./Rabbi Harlan (Tsvi) David Kilstein. Rabbi Kilstein has been attacking the character of several victims of sexual exploitation on a blog called canonist.

See link at: (not reproduced here as the reference is to this page)

As a result, I have no ethical problem exposing Kilstein (or any of his colleagues who behave similarly), his character and activities publicly as his actions against these womens and the words he posts demonstrate that he is a true rasha.

You may be interested in his telemarketing website, linked and discussed in the above blog along with his non-existent PHD and other “credentials”. You may also br interested in the following post from Rabbi Kilstein on a legal advice website reproduced below.

All the best,
Jewishwhistleblower Blog
cc Canonist Blog

January 01, 2006 6:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if the Rabbinic Committee Formed to Expose Mordy Tendler, will be willing to do the same about Tzvi Kilstein and Tovia Singer?

January 01, 2006 6:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home