A History Of No Respect: Spritzer Not Listening To Rabonim

This is about Right and Wrong! Which way are you going?

Spritzer has never obeyed the Rabonim’s ruling to pay over $10,000 to Meir Kahanov, nor their ruling to pay Sholom Horowitz $5,000 or more for the brutal beating he and his sons gave him in Shul one Simchas Torah. He even disobeyed Rabonim and took his sister to court (see below, shocking). He has a record of flouting Halacha and the authority of the Rabonim!

So why is it that so many of those allegedly eager to defend the honor of the Rabonim are rallying to support someone with such a record of flouting their authority?

The rulings directing Spritzer to compensate Kahanov and Horiwtz, respectively…(Rulings which to date have not been addressed):



Spritzer gets in to a fight with his sister, the Bais Din notifies both parties that the issue should stay only in Bais Din, Spritzer disobeys and (as usual) goes to court nonetheless. What happens next is plain and simply shocking!

See for yourself

The ruling directing of Bais Din:

יראה העם וישפוט

psak-for-spritzer-sisterDocuments from the court proceedings (after the Rabonim were ignored):spritzer-and-his-sister-1spritzer-and-his-sister-2spritzer-and-his-sister-3spritzer-and-his-sister-4


13 Responses to A History Of No Respect: Spritzer Not Listening To Rabonim

  1. moishe says:

    As you see in the third psak that the rabbonim said that spritzer should settle the dispute with his sister ONLY in bais din and not in court,as usual he took his sister to court.
    i dont think there’s anyone in crown heights that has disobeyd so many piskey dinim of the rabbonim as spritzer.
    is this the chinuch you wanna give to your chidren by sending them to this mans camp!?!?

  2. Mendel says:

    A little off topic, no?

  3. hypocrisy says:

    Spritzer is so right, Halachically and legally, why not come in front of a Bais Din, (which do not know who Hershkop and Spritzer are), and state all his “rightful” claims there?

    Why, after all these years (even in Bais din of CH) has Spritzer never given over all the Accountings/cheshbonyes (which the Bais Din told him he most give)?

    the real question I have, what is the agenda, why are some (a very few) defending Spritzer (after all that he has done)?

    2009- History will remember that…
    Spritzer went to court.
    Spritzer did not listen to Bais Din.
    Spritzer did not face up and go have a proper Din Torah (which the Bais Din of CH sent to).

    All the why this and why that, I imagine the people or person running this site and how much more so the people involved in this sad story (the mesira and all), also want to Know, what, when, were, how, who and why. Its time that they got some real answers and not more questions.

  4. Justice! says:

    “Spritzer has never obeyed the Rabbonim’s ruling to pay over $10,000 to Meir Kahanov”

    Spritzer only month before used Kahanav as a toil againsts the Hershkop, Herber and Goldman in Bais Din.
    He had him give testimony that he did not thing they (the original directors) can run the camp.

    When Spritzer was finished using him out, he screwed him royally.

    I want to see how fast people who support Spritzer, will invest money him him now!

    I’m “just wondering”, Whos on the board of Chayolei Hamelech, is Mr. Meir Schreiber on the board, now that it’s “spritzers camp”/on his chesbon?

  5. antimesira says:

    “So why is it that so many of those allegedly eager to defend the honor of the Rabbonim are rallying to support someone with such a record of flouting their authority?”

    Because if he fails, they fail!

    They backed him up all these years, they helped each other out in much machlokes, they can’t afford to disown him, for then they will be admitting that they are wrong. That is also the reason they will justify any evil he (or his friends) do!

  6. M.H. says:

    “I really have to ask at this point, given what we know of Spritzer’s character, does Spritzer have the correct personality and emotional maturity needed to deal with children and operate a camp in the campers’ best interests?”

  7. Disgraced says:

    Was spritzer also saying his Chetas when is sister was getting locked up?
    What a disgrace!
    Chills run down my back, and tears down my cheek picturing the scene in court that day.
    Shemu Shmay H’Shamayim!

  8. dov says:

    Even today spritzer is still trying to sell himself as a person who has “koved harobbonim”.
    He thinks that by making Rabbi Marlow “holy”, we will forget that it was he (spriter) who made a joke out of Rabbi Marlow, it is Spritzer who never followed any psak from his “holy” Rabbi Marlow.

    Hes trying to have the cake and also eat it.
    What he sould be getting is cake in the face!

  9. antimesira says:

    It’s all a chain, the mishichistim, spritzer, tzvatim, shmira, chanina, the fake gabboyim(their all connected) etc… Basically that whole side of Crown Heights who know nothing more then machlokes/destruction. They all stick up and support each other, because they have the same goal that is to destroy anything good.
    Why destroy anything good? Because anybody doing something good takes away from their doing nothing (pretending to do something). They are hate mongering and jealous people. Like I wrote above, they can’t let there “friends” fail, because that would mean failure for them.

    Anybody who can try to excuse a animal like Spritzer, who has no regard for anything, other than himself. Spritzer has no respect for Rabonim, not even the ones he claims to respect; he made a mockery of Rabbi Marlow. He never listened to any psak din that came out of that Bais Din (or any at that matter). He is responsible for many court cases a.k.a. Mesira. He was ready to have his own flesh and blood put away in prison.
    Who are these people trying to excuse him, have they taken a part in all the evil he has done, do they relate to what he has and is doing. Can we even call these people, Civil?

    One thing I do know is, that trying to answer the people who justify evil is a waste of time, we must do all we can to expose and get rid of the evil. Arguments are a distraction (especially when it’s with people who find no problem with animals like Spritzer). Perhaps they see a reflection of their selves.

  10. ch mom says:

    this episode with his sister is plain scary and shocking.
    what type of person does this to his own flesh and blood. What a massive chillul hashem for all of us.

    the camp motto is “were the Rebbe lives”
    was this “rebbe” also in court that day?
    was this “rebbe” in court all those other days?
    a shame and a disgrace!

  11. Bais Din says:


    Beginning with a central authority of Jews established by the Roman conquerors to control the population after the fall of Judea in 70 C.E., most secular governments under which Jews lived throughout the Diaspora encouraged them to establish some form of self-government to further their own aims, such as tax collection. Even when there was a general self-government policy for ethnic groups, particularly in Europe, Jews were unique in being allowed their own system of courts wherever they organized community life.

    The Jewish court system initially developed due to the Talmudic ban on Jews voluntarily presenting their cases to courts governed by idolatrous peoples, courts of Akkum. This prohibition was extended to all secular courts because the phrase “courts of Akkum” was interpreted to include the Muslim courts, which were not presided over by idolatrous peoples.

    The Talmud in Gittin states:
    R. Tarfon used to say: In any place where you find gentile courts, even though their law is the same as the Israelite law, you must not resort to them since it says, ‘These are the judgments which thou shall set before them.’ (Ex. 21:1) this is to say, ‘before them’ and not before gentiles.

    Thus, while the secular courts of the United States government may be just and proper, interpretation of the Talmud suggests that an obligation to utilize a Jewish forum to adjudicate disputes still exists.

    Additional Halachic reasons exist for the ban in contemporary Jewish law. A Jew who accuses another Jew in a secular court violates the supreme prohibition of Chillul Hashem, which is the desecration of God’s name. The very mission of the Jewish people is to be or Lagoyim, “a light unto the nations,” and to serve as a model of those who are governed by God’s divine law. Bringing a dispute between Jews out of the Jewish community and into the eye of the general public unnecessarily publicizes the wrongdoing. This results in a degradation of the law by exposing a Jew in violation of God’s divine laws. After all, if an observant Jew acts wrongfully, sinfully, and shamefully despite being a practicing Jew, an onlooker might think that the laws of Judaism have little worth since following the laws does not seem to make one a better person. By extension, this brings shame upon the Jewish community at large.

    Secondly, choosing a secular court despite the availability of a Jewish court undermines the authority of Jewish law and the rabbinical courts, and what follows is the inference that the beth din lacks either the capability or sophistication to adjudicate an issue according to Halacha. The great rabbinical authority Maimonedes captured this sentiment when he wrote that a Jew who voluntarily brings his case to secular court instead of utilizing the Beth Din has behaved “as if he had raised his hand against the Torah.” Today, modern Jewish authorities still hold that “[a] central principle of Halacha is that disputes between Jews should be adjudicated in duly-constituted rabbinical courts.”

    There are some exceptions to the general rule banning Jews from the secular courts. It is important to note that the Talmudic ban only prohibits a Jew from being the first to resort to the secular courts, and does not prohibit a Jewish defendant from appearing in a secular court when summoned. To the contrary, the overarching rule of Dina De’malchutah Dina would apply in that situation, meaning, “The law of the land is the law.” Therefore, Jews are Halachicly obligated to obey a summons to appear in a secular court regardless of whether a Jew or a non-Jew initiated the suit, because that is the law of the governmental authority under which they reside.

    There is also another exception when a defendant refuses to voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the Beth Din to decide a dispute, wherein the plaintiff must first apply to the Beth Din for a Heter (exemption) from the ban, and thereafter may file his case in secular court with the permission of the Beth Din.

    Incidentally, the ban on being the first to resort to a secular court also applies to a Jewish lawyer representing a Jewish plaintiff. This arises due to the Biblical prohibition of “Lifnei Iver Lo Titein Machshol”. This law has been interpreted to mean that a Jew cannot aid in the commission of a violation of the law. “[T]here are a number of conditions that allow exceptions to be made, the most important of which is the likelihood that the potential sinner will in fact be able to gain his object even without the help of the particular abettor.” The Biblical commandment of “Hochiach Tochiach Et Amitecha” (the duty to rebuke a Jew in the commission of a wrongdoing) arises, however. Therefore, at the very least, a Jewish plaintiff’s lawyer has the religious duty to advise a Jewish client to avail himself of the Beth Din prior to filing suit in the secular courts.

    The violation of the Talmudic ban on utilizing the secular courts merited Cherem (excommunication), one of the most severe punishments the Beth Din could impose. Unlike in Christianity, when a Jew is excommunicated, he does not lose his status as a Jew. Rather, this decree calls for the expulsion of the individual from the religious and social life of the community. This can include, withholding burial rites, prohibiting synagogue admittance, and preventing patronizing his livelihood or business. One can imagine the harshness of this penalty where Jews lived separate from the rest of society. Enforcement of this ban, however, has relaxed through the centuries, first with the removal of the ban on a plaintiff upon consent of the other party, then with inadequate enforcement of the ban overall. This is in no small part due to the fact that a religious court that enforces its bans through social pressure alone is ineffective when the individual lives in an open society like the United States. It is clear today that many Jews will readily file suit against another Jew without first seeking permission of a Beit Din, due to lax enforcement of the ban and the view that the laws of the United States are equitable and fair. Despite this fact, however, the Batei Din are still frequently utilized because the Talmudic ban is only one reason why the courts exist today.

    Aside from the Halachic requirement for a Beth Din, there are additional reasons the Beth Din has been, and continues to be, an attractive forum to settle disputes between Jewish litigants. In some instances, there is simply a general distrust of the secular court system. Historically, this feeling stems from a fear of anti-Semitism. Today, there is a preference for a Beth Din when a dispute involves underlying Jewish concepts, and the disputants doubt whether a non-Jewish adjudicator could sufficiently comprehend those foreign concepts and properly rule on the dispute. This echoes one of the positive aspects of arbitration in general, the ability to choose an arbitrator with expertise in a certain field to decide a case.

    A Beth Din is also an attractive option for Yiddish or Hebrew-speaking litigants who would like to participate in the proceeding, because it can be conducted in their native language. Conducting the proceeding in their native tongue may make the parties feel more comfortable and facilitates their participation and understanding of the procedure.

    Yet another reason the Beth Din has retained its popularity is because as an alternate dispute resolution method, it typically a quicker and more cost-effective means to settling a dispute than litigation. There are even historically recorded instances of two non-Jewish parties that utilized the Beth Din for this very reason. Recently, a woman in need of temporary support and maintenance shortly after commencing divorce proceedings was advised to submit her dispute to a Beth Din because it would be faster than the “many weeks” a pendente lite application would take.

    Lastly, a Beth Din must always play a major role in the area of Jewish divorce. According to Jewish law, Jewish courts have exclusive jurisdiction in the divorce process. One must obtain a religious divorce properly executed with the aid of a rabbinical court in order to terminate a Jewish marriage; a civil divorce alone does nothing to change the couple’s marital status. Due to this necessary interaction with the Beth Din, the parties are often encouraged and even pressured to submit all disputes related to the divorce to the Beth Din, including child custody, visitation, maintenance, and equitable distribution.

    Therefore, the institution of the Beth Din, so firmly rooted in the history of the Jewish people, continues to play an active role in the adjudication of disputes.

  12. Yankle the Ganev says:

    If you were to walk the streets of Crown Height and ask people, who is Berel the ganev? they will ask you back, Nu, who is berel the ganev?

    If you were to walk the streets of Crown Height and ask people, who is Yossel the ganev? they will ask you back, Nu, who is Yossel the ganev?

    If you were to walk the streets of Crown Height and ask people, who is Zalman the ganev? they will ask you back, Nu, who is Zalmen the ganev?

    Etc… Etc…

    There is only one name where people will not ask you, Nu, who is he? and that is…
    Everybody knows who Yankle the Ganev is (no explaining needed).

  13. Hayom Yom says:

    Chassidim asked the Alter Rebbe: “Which is the superior avoda, love of G-d or love of Israel?” He replied: “Both love of G-d and love of Israel are equally engraved in every Jew’s neshama, ruach, and nefesh. Scripture is explicit: ‘I have loved you, says the L-rd.’ It follows that love of Israel is superior – for you love whom your beloved loves.”

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: