Letters to the Editor,Jewish Press Readers

Joe On Joe

The June issue of Reader's Digest featured an interview with actor
Harrison Ford. He was asked, "Your father was Roman Catholic, your
mother Jewish. Which faith were you raised in?" Ford responded, "I
was raised Democratic." Harrison affirmed that he too shares the
politics of his father, and went on to say that being a Democrat
supplied a "complete worldview" for him.

What is most disturbing about these statements is that they
demonstrate the tragic phenomenon that has devastated and
continues to afflict our whole nation. Scores of Jewish souls have been
lost to the Democratic Party and its "worldview," as have many
millions to other political movements that are antithetical to the ways
of Torah.

One of the nine Democrats currently seeking the party's
presidential nomination is Joseph Lieberman, a purportly observant
Jew who has publicly stated that intermarriage is permitted by
Jewish law. Unless Lieberman recants his statement on
intermarriage he poses a very serious spiritual threat to us Jews, and
any Jew who it is a registered Democrat (a mistake in itself) should
vote for anyone but him.

Whether or not one is comfortable with it, the fact is that many
Jews look upon Senator Lieberman as a role model. That is precisely
why he should be held accountable for any misleading statements he
makes.

Joseph Lieberman
Brooklyn, NY

EDITOR'S NOTE: The writer was recently profiled ? on the
same day ? by both The New York Times and New York Sun.
In addition to having the same name as the senator, his wife,
like the senator?s wife, is named Hadassah. Brooklyn Joe
Lieberman has published a new book, the title of which ?
?Joseph Lieberman is a Pious Liberal (and Other
Observations)? ? refers, of course, to Washington Joe
Lieberman.

Road Map To Where?

Giving control of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority was
a serious mistake. This will allow Hamas to regroup, rearm, and plan
further attacks. Giving up Bethlehem was even worse because of its
proximity to Jerusalem. Releasing terrorists from jail in response to
Hamas blackmail is a complete no-brainer.

As a young man Ariel Sharon was a great warrior, but as an old
politician he is a complete wimp. Its time to retire Sharon to his farm
where he can grow cucumbers and tomatoes. At least there he will be
doing something beneficial for the people of Israel.<

br>
As for President Bush, we must let him know that we are unhappy
with the road map. Evangelical Christians write him thousands of
letters every week telling him just that ? and we in the Jewish
community should certainly be doing the same.

(Rabbi) Yakov Lazaros
Framingham, MA

Don't Pick On Poor Tom Friedman

Professor Howard Adelson's focused criticism of New York Times
columnist Thomas Friedman (Jewish Press, July 4), is really most
unfair. It is obvious to anyone who ever read Mr. Friedman's columns
that he lives a fantasy existence, ensconced in an ivory tower where
he spends long hours writing imaginary truths. From there, those
sacred scripts are rushed to the editors of the ?world's greatest
newspaper? whose creed is truth and integrity.

Professor Adelson, I ask you to be more fair and considerate. Stop
trying to convince them with facts. Their minds are made up and they
become provoked and agitated when contradicted. I also ask you to
remember how only a short time ago the exalted Times demonstrated
a willingness to live up to the principle of that well-known proverb,
"Be sincere ... whether you mean it or not." Did the paper not
apologize and fire one of its top writers after years of his plagiarism
and contrived falsehoods?

Mr. Friedman and the editors of the Times have a tough enough
time maintaining their fantasies on a daily basis. How unfair of you,
Professor Adelson, to come, uninvited, with all your evidence to
demolish their hard work.

I would like to see you re-direct your remarkable talents toward
unlocking one of the great mysteries of our age ? why a seemingly
savvy and intelligent reading public continues to read The New York
Times and Thomas Friedman.

By the way, I almost forgot to thank you.

Norman Shine
Brooklyn, NY

Trust And Kashrus

Re the letter to the editor titled ?Kosher Conundrum? in the July
4 issue of The Jewish Press:

I do not at all share the author's concern with products under
multiple supervision.

Kosher supervision revolves to a large degree on trust (ne'emunus).
When multiple kashrus organizations give a hechsher on a product,
they have developed a working relationship, with kosher standards
on which they agree and a mashgiach whom they trust to enforce
those standards. Having multiple supervisors is economically
unfeasible, unpractical, and simply unnecessary.

From my own experience in hashgocha, I have seen food processors
use ingredients with kosher supervision from organizations other
than the one supervising their particular product. Reliable kashrus
organizations are careful in their approval of other kashrus
organizations.

Yisroel Friedman
Rochester, NY

Thumbs Up For Passover Vacations

In response to Dr. Yaakov Stern's comments regarding Passover
vacations (Letters, July 4), I would like to say "sour grapes!" This past
Passover was the first time my family had an opportunity to go away.
Indeed, we were able to perform all of the mitzvot of Passover. There
were no "bikini-clad beach bimbos," nor was our motivation for going
away a need for entertainment. At the conclusion of each seder, I was
able to walk to our room feeling relaxed. We were able to join with
others in learning, davening, and truly appreciating the Passover
holiday in a relaxed and pleasant environment.

I wonder if Dr. Stern has ever participated in the preparations for
Passover ? the cleaning, the shopping, the cooking, the serving? By
the time the holiday starts, most women are exhausted ? and then
come eight long days in the kitchen! Any man who truly cares about
his wife would be pleased to take his family away for Passover so that
everyone has an opportunity to celebrate the freedom represented by
the holiday.

Shoshana Borovetz
Philadelphia, PA

Political Brawl

I must say I was amused by the news that Assemblyman Dov
Hikind filed a lawsuit to stop Noach Dear from running to reclaim his
(Dear's) old City Council seat ("Hikind Files Suit To Bar Dear
Election Bid," Jewish Press, July 4).

While I am fully aware that the current holder of Dear's old seat,
Simcha Felder, is, as The Jewish Press politely phrased it, Hikind?s
"protégé," I burst out laughing when I read that Hikind, not Felder,
was challenging Dear's candidacy in court with the claim that Dear
was "term limited." Moreover, despite the fact that one cannot get
through a week without reading in some Jewish newspaper a joint
statement issued by Hikind/ Felder, I did not see a single story about
Hikind?s lawsuit in which Felder was quoted. It was Hikind, only
Hikind.

And then when I learned later in the week that the lawsuit had
been dismissed because it was brought too early, I quite literally had
to sit down. Imagine ? Dov Hikind acting with undue haste in order
to make headlines! Now ain't that a kick in the head?

Alan Weinberg
Brooklyn, NY

Historical Corrections

In his recent discussion of the history of the Shiff shul and its
successor kehilla in the U.S., ?Machberes? columnist Rabbi Gershon
Tannenbaum made several statements that need clarification.

The first rabbi of the Shiff shul in Vienna, Rabbi Solomon Zalman
Spitzer, was not only a disciple of the Ktav Sofer, but more
importantly he was the son in law of the Chatam Sofer (father of the
Ktav Sofer), Rav Moshe Sofer.

As such, this kehilla had a direct connection with the founder of
Hungarian Orthodoxy.

Rabbi Tannenbaum stated that the kehilla's first rav in Brooklyn
was Rabbi Yonason Steif, whom he describe as "rosh beth din of
Budapest, the highest rabbinical office in Hungary and effectively
chief rabbi of Hungary." This is a highly problematic statement, as
Rabbi Steif was officially a senior dayan in Budapest not rosh beth din
(See Shem Hagedolim Hashlishi Leretz Hagar, Budapest, 1941). He
served as senior dayan together with R. Israel Welcz. The rosh beth
din was R. Efraim Fishel Zussman Sofer.

While R. Steif may indeed have assumed the role of rosh bet din as
the fateful year of 1944 approached, he was not such for most of his
tenure in Pest. The position of rosh bet din was not the position of
chief rabbi of Budapest. The last incumbent to hold that office was
Rav Koppel Reich, who died in 1929. After his death the position of
Orthodox chief rabbi was never filled again. I may note here that the
Neolog [non-Orthodox] chief rabbi was Rabbi Dr. Simon Hevesi, the
grandfather of New York State Controller Alan Hevesi.

Thus while Rabbi Steif was a leading Hungarian posek and gaon,
he was not involved in national Jewish community affairs and was
one of a number of senior halachic authorities throughout Hungary.
Hence it is an error to refer to him as the de facto Orthodox chief
rabbi.

Let me conclude by adding that Rabbi Yeshaya Fuerst survived the
war in London. Upon hearing that a number of former congregants
had re-created the Shiff shul in Brooklyn, he congratulated them but
criticized their choice of name (Khal Adas Yereim ? Congregation of
G-d fearers) as implying that the other Jews in Brooklyn were not
such. The name of the kehilla in Vienna was Adath Israel.

Zalman Alpert
Reference Librarian
Gottesman Library
Yeshiva University

More On Discrimination Against Baalei Teshuvah, Geirim

Some letter-writers have defended bias
against ba'alei teshuvah and geirim in the
shidduch scene. Noted rabbis have done the same.
That tremendous bias exists is undeniable. That
such bias runs completely counter to Torah ideals
is irrefutable, as I shall demonstrate.

The anecdotal evidence in favor of their
marriageability ? Moshe, Yehoshua, Ruth, Rabbi
Akiva, Shemaya and Avtalyon ? is strong, and has
already been discussed. Some people choose to
deflect this evidence, claiming that these
exceptions are "only for the gedolim" (whatever
that's supposed to mean). Thankfully, there is
further evidence that should remove any doubt
once and for all.

I refer readers to the following sources:

1) Vayikra Rabba (20:10), also found in the
Tanchuma on Parshas Acharei Mos. Rabbi Levi
writes that Nadav and Avihu were arrogant, and
this arrogance contributed to their downfall. Many
women dreamed of marrying these great leaders,
but Nadav and Avihu refused them all. "Our uncle,
Moshe, is the king," they said. "Our father, Aharon,
is the kohen gadol, and we are his assistants. What
woman is good enough for us?" They never
married, and were held accountable for their
elitism. Even those with the greatest yichus may
not exalt themselves over others.

2) The last Mishna in Masekes Horayos. We
are taught that a mamzer who is a talmid chacham
takes precedence over a kohen gadol who is an am
ha'aretz. Yichus, thus, is only a tiebreaker when
midos and chochma are equal (the Rambam in his
pirush writes this openly).

3) The fourth perek of Masekes Geirim (and
elsewhere). The Torah commands us not to oppress
geirim, and the Gemara explains that this refers to
reminding them about their past lifestyle. What
more poignant reminder is there than the denial of
suitable shidduchim?

4) Sefer Chinuch (Mitzva 563). Jews of pure
lineage are forbidden to marry converts from the
nation of Edom until the third generation. The
Chinuch writes in no uncertain terms that one who
refuses to consider marrying a third-generation
convert from Edom, either because the nation of
Edom caused trouble for the Jews, or simply
because he is biased against converts, is in
violation of a biblical prohibition. Kal va'chomer, I
would submit that those who harbor bias against
ba'alei teshuvah, people born with kedushas am
Yisrael, are in violation of this commandment.
Those who are cling to every publicly observable
chumra, who look for things to be concerned about
when it comes to kashrus, would do well not to
disregard the unambiguous words of this rishon.

In sum, the Torah's position on ba'alei
teshuvah and geirim is clear ? they must be given
the exact same consideration in the shidduch scene
as so-called FFBs. The spirit of the law is also clear
? one is simply not allowed to stereotype or
generalize. Every person must be given unbiased
consideration and judged on his individual merits,
his internal merits. To judge someone based on
background, externals, or "percentages" might be
convenient ? but the Torah forbids it.

Only by bravely following Torah principles
can we successfully address the disastrous
shidduch scene.

Chananya Weissman
Far Rockaway, NY
Founder, Endthemadness.org

Haredim And Israel: An Emerging Appreciation

Just when I?d lost hope in my generation, a
Shabbos in a particular section of New York has
restored my faith in frum GenXers. Let me explain.

A particular brand of frumkeit and culture
held sway throughout my adolescence and early
20's, and nearly all of my contemporaries found it
irresistible.

Now in their thirties, these GenXers are
energetic professionals or businessmen, who retain
for dear life the external icons of their yeshiva
youth. Their Hebrew pronunciation still includes
the oy for the cholom that they adopted in high
school (as in Ess-roy-g). Now a financial analyst on
Wall Street, Laizer (pronounced Lay-zuh) still feels
compelled to wear his black hat, and insists on
maintaining a sefira beard ? shave l'kavod
Shabbos? Chas v'shalom! Laizer, you see, if a ben
Toy-ra.

But of course Laizer is still very much a
GenXer, and partakes in much of the allowable fun
America has to offer: kosher cruises to the
Bahamas, SUVs, and shtaty clothes. Laizer's wife
wears a $3,000 custom sheitel. Laizer often makes
it a Blockbuster night.

For Laizer, the challenge of frumkeit and
observance is largely a matter of the conflict
between personal pleasure and personal religious
duty.

Like many of their gentile contemporaries,
frum-GenXers seem to pay little attention to
history. The uniqueness of the time in which we
live seems lost to them, as do communal matters.

Or so I thought.

Perhaps it was the events of the last couple of
years that have shaken so many of these Laizers
into ? are you sitting? ? an affinity toward
Zionism!

You see, I spent a Shabbos davening in a
black hat GenX shul in the New York area. Of the
well over 100 mispallelim (I'm told that half of the
members had not yet returned from the Pesach
hotels in Florida and elsewhere), maybe five looked
over the age of 35. There was little communal
singing ? certainly no Young Israel-style singing
for hotza v'hachnasa. Borsalino hats were hanging
on hooks on the wall, and oys and fierce shukling
were everywhere.

But, to my astonishment, a mishebayrach was
made for chayalei Tzahal, and to my further
amazement, the tefilla for shaloym hamedina ?
Medinas Yisroyel ? was said! All this, by a
Lakewood-graduate gabbai. Apparently there is
even some talk of simultaneous aliyah of several
families.

The shul's rav, who is a staunch advocate of
black-hat frumkeit, once remarked to my host ?
who had expressed amazement at the former's
unseemly adoption of Zionist-friendly positions ?
the following gem: "It is not too difficult to love
Eretz Yisroel, but I love Medinas Yisroel too."

Something is afoot here ? something that has
developed organically, and that has not been
dictated from up on high (i.e., not via Daas Torah).
The grassroots has apparently come to value the
State of Israel. Having long ago dismissed the
B?nai-Akiva route to Zionism as watered-down
frumkeit and passe nostalgia for a foreign culture
of farming and hora dancing, the frum GenXers
have found their own way.

The land and milieu of "Chop a Nosh" and
"Mendy the Mezonos Maven" has yet produced
Zionists.

As documented by Yoram Hazony, the 1990's
saw the utter dissolution of secular Zionism. The
dogmas, beliefs, and associated culture of a once
predominate ideology became the object of scorn. In
a similar yet different fashion the next decade will
see a major change in haredi beliefs and culture,
here in the U.S. and in Israel. It will no longer be a
steera to be black-hat/haredi ? and to appreciate,
support, and contribute to the medina. In fact, it
will be a badge of honor.

Shmuel Frankel
(Via E-Mail)

EDITOR'S NOTE: The writer maintains a
blog at Frum Talk
(www.frumtalk.blogspot. com).

Four Years Later, Busch Shooting Still Resonates

Believing The Worst

In a letter to the editor last week, reader
Michael Steinhart criticized The Jewish Press for
continuing to ask questions about the fatal
shooting of Gidone Busch in Boro Park on August
30, 1999. Mr. Steinhart has no doubts about the
version of events put forward by then-Mayor
Rudolph Giuliani ? namely that Mr. Busch was a
crazy man lashing out at police with a claw
hammer. When pepper spray failed to stop him,
officers had no choice but to use lethal force.

If Mr. Steinhart had taken the time to look
into this incident, he would have found that
numerous eyewitnesses deny that anything like
this occurred. As they have described it, it wasn't
Gidone Busch who was out of control; it was the
police ? the six or more of them (the exact
number, like so much else about this case, is in
dispute) who backed Mr. Busch into a wall and
shot him 12 times.

I am grateful to and proud of The Jewish
Press for refusing to forget about Gidone Busch. I
hope you will continue to report on the efforts
being made by U.S. Congressman Jerrold Nadler,
Assemblyman Dov Hikind, and others to reopen
the case. It's shameful that none of New York's
other Jewish journals seem to care.

Harvey Blume
Cambridge MA

Questions About Case Are Justified

Michael Steinhart's letter accuses me of
"playing the race card" in questioning whether
Gidone Busch was given prejudicial treatment by
certain Jewish community leaders on account of
his status as a baal teshuvah, and then goes on to
parrot the media's portrayal of the late Mr. Busch
as a dangerous and unstable psychopathic menace.

When the story of Gidone Busch's death first
broke, a part of me held out great hope that a
mistake had been made, and that he was still alive
and well; for the monster described in the press
was not the same Gidone Busch I knew: an astute,
witty and personable young man who had been a
frequent and familiar visitor to my community and
congregation, and who had davened only a few
seats away from me a few short weeks before.

Unfortunately, the victim was the same
Gidone Busch whose company we had come to
enjoy, except that the news media had put an
extremely negative slant on his mental condition.
Gidone Busch's name rarely appeared in the press
without being accompanied by adjectives such as
"mentally disturbed" or "hammer-wielding" (or
even, as used in Yated Ne'eman, "mentally
deranged."). While such descriptive words may be
true in the strict technical sense, their use in the
news stories served to paint a contorted and
corrupt image of Gidone Busch. And that played
right into the hands of the New York Police
Department, for it gave an air of justification to the
brutal killing of Gidone.

We should, of course, be very selective in
second-guessing our police officers' on-the-spot line
of duty decisions. But in light of some impossible to
ignore evidence of a police cover-up that has come
out in the Busch family's lawsuit against the
NYPD, the best that can be said about those
Jewish leaders who justified the killing of Gidone
Busch is that they unwittingly became stooges to
further the NYPD's questionable agenda.

Now, I certainly do not accuse any Jewish
leaders who happen to be frum from birth of any
deliberate ill intent towards the baalei teshuvah.
But just as Jews born and raised in assimilated
American homes have been ingrained with certain
inaccurate and negative images of religious Jews,
there can be little doubt that Jews who are frum
from birth carry certain biases regarding non-
observant Jews, and such biases can exist in ways
that their bearers do not realize.

In addition to whatever individual
experiences they may have had, baalei teshuvah
have received many mixed messages from the local
FFB leadership. There was the message that the
law enforcement apparatus ought not criminally
punish a certain FFB woman who, on account of
her suffering from Munchausen's Syndrome by
Proxy, caused the death of her own child, but that
the law enforcement apparatus was justified in
killing Gidone Busch, a baal teshuvah who also had
mental health issues. The same FFB rabbis whose
followers have taken to public protest in support of
their own causes have forbidden similar protest
over the killing a baal teshuvah named Gidone
Busch. And, as mentioned previously, the most
denigrating adjective used in reporting the Gidone
Busch story was printed not in the secular press,
but in a decidedly and unabashedly hard-line
Orthodox Jewish newspaper.

Given all of this, it is entirely appropriate to
ask whether some subconscious bias played a role
in the way certain FFB Jewish leadership handled
the Gidone Busch affair. And that is precisely what
my prior letter did.

As for Mr. Steinhart's contention that The
Jewish Press is "wrong-headed" to continue
reporting developments in the Gidone Busch story:
if reprisal of the Gidone Busch story is
"wrong-headed" then it is six million times as
wrong-headed to keep dredging up the Holocaust
which occurred in Europe over a half century ago.
And just as the magic disappearance of all
Holocaust articles from the news media would
further certain agendas, so too would the
disappearance of the Gidone Busch story from the
news media.

Mr. Steinhart admonishes that we let Gidone
Busch rest in peace. Though Gidone lies buried in
the cemetery (I happen to be one of the men who
physically carried his casket to the burial), he
cannot rest in peace until certain accountability
questions regarding the NYPD and the Jewish
community are answered.

As The Jewish Press obviously realizes,
Gidone Busch's death is still a very live issue, if
only because there is an active lawsuit now moving
towards what will likely be a well-watched trial.

Kenneth H. Ryesky (Esq.)
East Northport, NY

Read Comments (0)

Letters to the Editor , Jewish Press Readers