Editor's Response to the Rabbi Tendler Letters

SLR Responds: Mr. Pollack can rest assured, the entire article was written in-house, based on court records, transcripts, documents, and decisions, published by the courts, as well as on interviews as noted, especially with the attorneys.

The decision against KNH that Rabbi Tendler’s contract was breached was the major issue in that case. The only question will be: how much Rabbi Tendler will get, and that sounds like a win to me.

In Ms. Marmelstein’s case, even the RCA has admitted there is no "DNA evidence" against Rabbi Tendler. Rabbi Basil Herring now says he used that expression only as "a metaphor."

I’m afraid it’s much too late for "low-key" reporting. If Rabbi Tendler is innocent, as he claims, his opponents have done their level best to ruin his and his family’s lives. Many papers, including The Jewish Voice, reported the complete story when he seemed to be losing everything. Now that he is winning, the case deserves no less attention.

Mr. Pollack’s suggestion that I "owe the Tendler family" anything sounds like a continuation of his prior irresponsible accusations, for example, that Rebbetzin Michelle Tendler once read one of my articles to the KNH membership “weeks before it was printed,” thereby proving to Mr. Pollack that she and I have some sort of relationship (we do not). In fact, as our managing editor will attest, each of the Tendler pieces was written on the day the paper went to press, much to the entire long-suffering staff’s chagrin.

I essentially agree with Mr. Kaplan. Unless and until the RCA acquiesces to Rabbi Tendler’s plea (and the ruling of the Jerusalem Beit Din of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel) and allows this issue to be adjudicated by a recognized, acceptable-to-both-parties beit din, Rabbi Tendler cannot do more than show that women, like Ms. Marmelstein, have no grounds for suits in civil courts.

As far as the case against KNH is concerned, the Appellate Court ruled that that he was fired without prior benefit of a beit din, which, in effect, means the synagogue board breached his lifetime contract. If the board had gone to a recognized, acceptable-to-both-parties beit din before dismissing him, they would have lived up to the terms of the contract, and the issue would, presumably, never have gone to court. They didn’t; it did; he won. That sounds like vindication.

While I thank Rabbi Perlman for his kind words about the Jewish Voice, let me be clear: I do not consider myself a defender of Rabbi Tendler per se, but rather of principles and standards that were not followed by his opponents.

I think the case of Rabbi Tendler is important because it shows what can happen when justice is meted out by the mob (and the blogs) and not by courts of law—rabbinic or secular. When courts finally did intervene, they produced reasonable arguments, thoughtful rulings, and, at last, movement towards closure.

I have looked seriously at, and written about, the "plethora of judicious review, conclusions, and actions taken by reputable Jewish authorities" in Rabbi Tendler’s case. Unfortunately, none of them was made in the context of a classic beit din where a defendant is called by a plaintiff (who is named) and given the charges so that he can defend himself.

The "reviews," for example, included a "ruling" from a very controversial rabbi who never spoke to Rabbi Tendler, but actually wrote that a spiritual leader can be fired based solely on unproven rumors. Would any reasonable beit din (to say nothing of a secular court) agree with this? None that I have spoken to.

The "conclusions" included those of the RCA that Rabbi Tendler was guilty of "behavior unbecoming an Orthodox rabbi," with strong implications of sexual improprieties. The rabbis who made the decision refused even to entertain the testimony from several women who said they could disprove most of the allegations in the report on which the RCA based its ruling. Would a reasonable beit din have allowed these women to have their say? I suspect it would. I know the secular court system, which Rabbi Perlman so disparages, would not only have allowed them to speak, it would have welcomed them.

Now it appears that the report on which the RCA relied was formulated by a "risk-management" firm that is unlicensed to conduct investigations in both New York and Texas, where the company is based.

I have never seen the "preponderance of evidence" that Rabbi Perlman claims would prove Rabbi Tendler "no longer deserves" his title. I have seen Rabbi Tendler’s enemies using vulgarities, rudeness, and fevered prose bordering on the hysterical. I have heard people claiming that grown women were propositioned by Rabbi Tendler, and that this constitutes "abuse." He denies that he ever propositioned anyone or indulged in sexual activities with anyone other than his wife. Who is telling the truth? I have no idea. But I have no more reason to believe Rabbi Tendler’s accusers than I have to believe him—and we all should believe a man is innocent until proven guilty.

Rabbi Tendler may be guilty, but those who want to prove it, will have to do better than they have thus far.

I thank Rabbi Kent and Mr. Dubinsky for their kind words.