web analytics
July 29, 2014 / 2 Av, 5774
Israel at War: Operation Protective Edge
 
 

Posts Tagged ‘RCA’

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, June 7th, 2006

Peace For Nothing

Thank you for the wonderful job you are doing in keeping your readers informed about what’s really going on in the Middle East.

Previous Israeli governments tried Land for Peace and got no peace. Each piece of land given to the Palestinian Arabs was used as a launching pad for further acts of terrorism against Israel.

Land for Peace is precisely the policy pursued by Neville Chamberlain as he sought peace with Hitler by surrendering Czechoslovakia to the Nazis in 1938. The policy of appeasing Hitler didn’t work. It only increased his appetite for further conquests.

Israel’s policy of appeasement didn’t work either. The terrorists have only been emboldened. Israel’s disengagement from Gaza resulted in the Hamas terrorists winning the Palestinian Authority government election. Hamas remained committed to terrorism against Israel and to Israel’s destruction, and won a landslide victory. The Palestinians interpreted Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as a sign of Israel’s weakness, and as proof that terrorism works.

The current Israeli policy is essentially surrender, or Land for Nothing. Israel is giving up land to those who seek its destruction and getting nothing in return (except more terrorism being committed against Israelis).

The Palestinian Authority is committed to the eventual destruction of Israel. What’s with these crazy Israelis? Do they really think such idiotic policies will win them peace or make the world love them?

Richard Chamberlain
(No relation to Neville Chamberlain)
Rochester NY
 
 
 
Conversions And Halacha
 
You know, despite all of the yelling and screaming about an Israeli Chief Rabbinate that has been hijacked by haredim who are targeting Modern Orthodoxy, is not the real issue whether halacha is being followed in conversions and divorces? Are these not fundamental to the integrity of the Jewish bloodline? Instead of arguing turf and reputations, should we not be focusing on whether the chief rabbis have a point?
 
Sol Glazer
(Via E-Mail)
 
 
 
In The Haredi Camp
 
Your editorial last week embracing the new rules about conversions adopted by the Israeli chief rabbis went to great lengths to avoid the appearance of any targeting of the RCA. Anyone reading between the lines, however, knows right away that the Chief Rabbinate has come to represent the haredi establishment in its efforts to discredit Modern Orthodoxy. I am disappointed that The Jewish Press, a Modern Orthodox paper, is in the haredi camp on this issue.
 
Neil Halem
New York, NY
 
 
 
Still More On The RCA

I suspect many readers are getting tired of reading about the Rabbinical Council of America in your news and letters sections, but I feel compelled to add my thoughts. I have yet to see any refutation by the RCA of the merits of Chief Rabbi Amar’s conclusion that he cannot blindly accept their conversions as meeting halachic requirements. As you noted in your editorial last week, that development was based upon actual case studies. If the RCA wants to restore its credibility it must confront the evidence in those files.

On a related note, I’ve read the various resolutions on religious issues that were adopted at the RCA’s recent convention and am puzzled at the logic of convention delegates setting halachic policy.

The RCA boasts of a membership of a thousand rabbis, but nowhere is it claimed that all of their members or convention participants are talmudic or halachic scholars. Yet at the end of their conventions, resolutions reflecting the views of a majority of the conventioneers are solemnly voted on, passed, and disseminated. Why should the rest of us care a whit about those resolutions?

Similarly, why should the RCA’s regular pronunciamentos during the course of the year about halachic issues with broad implications matter to anyone? Haven’t we always relied upon gedolei haposkim for this kind of decision-making? Should any of us really care what a majority of rabbis not noted for their halachic erudition feel about certain halachic issues? This may sound like “haredi condescension,” but how am I wrong?

I am not saying that there are not some competent halachists to be found in the ranks of the RCA. What I am saying is that packaging halacha in conventional organizational garb doesn’t work. At least not for me.

Heshy Brodkin
(Via E-Mail)
 
 

Unprincipled Kissinger

Once again Jason Maoz hit it right on the mark in his Media Monitor column of June 2 (“Kissinger In His Own Words”). I remember very well how Kissinger cynically played one side against the other in the years after the Yom Kippur War, first as Nixon’s and then as Ford’s secretary of state.

The man is and always has been a manipulator – in his younger days he was an acolyte of Nelson Rockefeller and was on record as having said some very ugly things about Nixon, who at the time was one of Rockefeller’s bitterest enemies within the Republican party. Then Nixon gets elected president in 1968 and suddenly Kissinger can’t say enough wonderful things about the man.

And it was Kissinger who tried so hard to torpedo efforts by Jewish activists and congressional leaders aimed at forcing the Soviets to adopt a more lenient emigration policy for the millions of Jews trapped behind the Iron Curtain. Thank God we had principled non-Jews like the late Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson who stood up to the vile, unprincipled Kissinger.

Michael Ellis
Brooklyn, NY
 
 
 
Misses Chess Column

How sad that you gutted Jeffrey Kastner’s “Chess In The Press” column which so many readers have enjoyed for many years. To replace it with a “game” so offensively named as “Judoku” only compounds the error. I guess this is just another example of the dumbing down of America.

Bring back the chess column and give kavod to the great Jewish chess champions of the past like Lasker and Reshevsky.

Emanuel J. Chosak
New York, NY
 
 
Torah Vodaath Reunion

We’re hoping that readers can help us locate the following classmates (each would be about 63 years of age) for a 50th-year reunion of the 1956 graduating class of Yeshiva Torah Vodaath Elementary School in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

The reunion date is June 25, 2006.

Ackerman, David
The Cohen TRIPLETS (Allan, Martin and Norman)
Fogel, Charles
Frankel, Moshe
Goldfeder, Sheldon
Greenberg, Martin
Greenberg, Michael
Hidrie, Joseph
Hyman, Stanley
Kaplan, Benjamin
Lev, Martin (Mordechai)
Lewin, Edward
Rich, Stuart
Segal, Barry
Schiff, David
Schiff, Marvin
Vogel, Roland
Moish Weissman
Cell: 347-528-7837
Home: 718-698-5217
Heshy Nagel
Phone: 845-406-4261
 
 
 
Plea From A Christian Zionist

American Christian Zionists have a bond of special love for the Land that the Lord God of Israel gave to the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and King David by everlasting covenant.

We know that many of your ancestors have, down through the dark and bloody ages, had many crimes committed against them by those who called themselves “Christians.” Crusades and devilish inquisitions have been carried out by those flying the flag of Christianity – horrific acts that have left an indelible stain on the pages of human history.

My dear Jewish friends, I assure you that these barbarities were not born in the hearts of those who truly love the Lord and who revere the sacred tenets of Christianity. Usurpers of the name “Christian” gave vent to these bloody atrocities, not true children of God.

Yes, we differ about the Messiah, but what else is new? In this hour of great, great need, both for the dear Hebrew people worldwide as well as for America, both Christians and Jews best circle their wagons (I am a 66-year-old cowboy preacher) and stand united against our common foes. We as Christian-Zionists in Oklahoma City are doing all we can to raise our voices to Mr. Bush, Mr. Olmert, Dr. Rice, et al, to save all the land of Israel for the Jewish people.

We are, however, tremendously concerned and distraught about Sodomite parades and celebrations in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and other Israeli cities, along with the promotion, by high Israeli officials, of Tel Aviv as a world capital for sodomite “culture” and tourism.

The organization Jerusalem Open House is sponsoring a week-long international Sodomite convention in Jerusalem, beginning August 6, with a parade, film festival, and other celebratory events designed to introduce this lifestyle/death style to Jewish young people. Why, on its website this group even lists programs for Orthodox Jews as well!

Now, let me be very candid, humble, and sincere in what I say. The silence we perceive on the part of rabbis and political leaders, particularly those in the Orthodox and more traditional communities, is deafening to us Christian Zionists.

We noticed a while back how rabbis banded together to ban wigs from India because of their concern that the hair originally had been part of an idolatrous practice. But is not such a massive explosion of sodomy in the Holy Land deserving of fierce and ongoing opposition on the part of religious Jews?

What we perceive in following Israeli politics is a never-ending cycle of Wheeling and Dealing in these government coalitions, with the bottom line being meeting the monetary needs of community institutions, schools, and the poor.

We understand those needs, believe you me! We suffer the same at the present time here in Oklahoma City. But what role does the sanctity of the Holy Land play? Why won’t leading rabbis meet with Olmert, Peretz, Peres, and other government officials and tell them face to face: “We demand that these aforementioned abominations be canceled, or there cannot be business as usual”?

We Christian Zionists look at Orthodox Jews as the standard-bearers of Judaism and as stewards of the Holy Land. We find it paradoxical and sad that while the Palestinians in Israel support Hamas, which pledges a return to strict Muslim sharia, the religious Jews seem to be turning the other cheek to the most blatant forms of immorality.

May the Lord God of Israel (called that 498 times in my King James Bible) bless you as you consider these words.

I am, humbly and sincerely, a yedid and chaver of the dear Hebrew people.

Rev. Jim Vineyard
Oklahoma City, OK

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, May 24th, 2006

Unfair Depiction

Steven Plaut’s description of France in his article “Le Bouffon Grandiose” (op-ed, May 5,) does not fit the facts.

First, actor Dieudonn?‘s provocative remarks are his alone and he has been convicted and fined by a French court, on the basis of the Lellouche Act which is among the world’s toughest legislation on hate speech and anti-Semitism.

Second, to claim that an individual’s anti-Semitism reflects French society as a whole is unjust and wrong: According to a poll published in Maariv in September 2005, 82 percent of the French like the Jews, with France ranking second among countries expressing a positive opinion (after the Netherlands).

Anti-Semitism is in total contradiction with France’s values. As President Jacques Chirac declared on Nov. 17, 2003, “When a Jew is attacked in France, it is an attack against the whole of France.” The French Government has demonstrated its absolute determination to fight this scourge, and its efforts have been widely recognized by both the Israeli authorities and the national leaders of the American Jewish community. Its zero-tolerance policy has borne fruit: anti-Semitic acts in France declined 48 percent in 2005 compared with 2004.

Finally, Mr. Plaut’s references to an “Islamic republic” in France are totally baseless. France is actively pursuing a strategy both to combat radical Islam and better integrate its Muslim community into the French society. France acted to stop the Eurosat satellite from rebroadcasting Al Manar channel programs to its territory and moved successfully to have Yahoo.fr filter Internet sites promoting hate and anti-Semitism.

Fran?ois Delattre
Consul General of France
New York, NY
 
 

McCain And Israel (I)

I read last week’s front-page story about Senator John McCain with great interest (“McCain: ‘Proudly Pro-Israel’ “). What mattered to me more than the substance of Sen. McCain’s reactions to the “misimpressions” about his Mideast policy contained in that Haaretz article was the fact that he was so anxious to correct the record.

The options for an American president when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not all that numerous and I suspect that the pre-June 1967 borders – with the possible exception of Jerusalem – will be the starting point for any president, with adjustments for Jewish population centers in the West Bank.

Both Sen. McCain and President Bush have demonstrated a healthy respect for Israeli interests. Certainly a President John Kerry or a President Al Gore would have been more likely to impose more concessions on Israel in order to bring about a settlement.

Bruce Wallach
New York, NY
 
 
McCain And Israel (II)

Those who were so quick to criticize Sen. McCain for his comments to Haaretz fail to realize that it’s always been U.S. policy that eventually, in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel’s right to exist and a formal peace treaty, Israel will have to cede most of the territory it won in the Six-Day War. It’s also the policy now supported by a majority of Israelis.

To take umbrage over McCain’s frank comments, whether or not Haaretz took them out of context, is unfair and terribly childish. Why should he be expected to hold views to the right of most Israelis? The last time I checked, McCain was a senator from Arizona, not a Knesset member from Kiryat Arba.

Menachem Gelb
Jerusalem
 
 
Market For Rabbi Weiss’s Ideas

You have made some very valid points about Rabbi Avi Weiss’s departures from traditional Jewish practice and teaching. Certainly the expectation is that his yeshiva will turn out rabbis who will tend to perpetuate his thinking. What I think you are overlooking, however, is the fact that there is a huge market for what he is selling.

Rabbi Weiss’s ideas may not resonate with The Jewish Press (it is to your credit that you feature him as a columnist despite your concerns with many of his ideas) or with many others in the frum community. But there are an awful lot of Jews out there who are looking for alternatives to normative Orthodoxy and who don’t really care whether Rabbi Weiss’s innovations pass stringent halachic muster.

Evan Lazaroff
(Via E-Mail)
 
 
Shortsighted Approach

I was amused by the RCA’s immediate and very public response to a recent front-page story in The Jewish Week on the questioning of RCA conversions – including many involving the RCA’s av bet din, Rabbi Gedaliah Dov Schwartz – by Israeli rabbinic authorities.

But when The Jewish Press broke the story – several weeks before The Jewish Week ran its article – of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate’s problems with Rabbi Schwartz’s conversions, the RCA basically ignored it.

I think it’s reasonable to assume that far more of the RCA’s natural constituency read The Jewish Press than they do any other Jewish newspaper. So it strikes me as curiously shortsighted of the RCA to continually stonewall and otherwise slight The Jewish Press, which, as you reported, was the case whenever you attempted to get comments from RCA officials on the Tendler matter, and which we see is the case in this latest controversy.

I know my perception of the RCA certainly has changed for the worse over the past year.

Henry Wasserman
(Via E-Mail)
 
 
‘Meek Nonentities’

Your editorial last week titled “Iran’s Goal” points to the sad fact that the Jewish community has been hijacked by those so-called leaders who have political agendas of their own. I’m sure I speak for many when I question how a negative spin could possibly be put on President Bush’s declaration of solidarity with Israel in the face of Iran’s threat to nuke the Jewish state.

I wonder if party affiliation comes into play here. Most of these “leaders” are staunch liberals and loyal Democrats. You hardly heard a peep from any of them when Democrat Bill Clinton was interfering in Israeli elections and strong-arming Netanyahu and Barak at Wye River and Camp David. But when a Republican president boldly puts the word and prestige of America squarely in Israel’s corner, these usually meek nonentities suddenly find their voices and release a torrent of non-gratitude at the president. How absolutely pathetic.

David Grabelsky
San Antonio, TX
 
 
Wrong Message

I was amazed to read of the criticism in certain Jewish quarters of President Bush’s vow to stand by Israel in any confrontation with Iran. These clowns passing for “leaders” claim that Bush’s declaration gives the erroneous impression that U.S. policy is designed to meet Israeli interests. To those predisposed to hating Jews and Israel, such protestations mean nothing. But to political leaders like President Bush, the message these mediocrities are sending is that forthright support for Israel is unappreciated and perhaps counterproductive.

Paul Halper
(Via E-Mail)
 
 
Principled Editorial

I was impressed with last week’s “Misleading Appreciation” editorial, which sharply criticized a two-page advertisement that had recently appeared in The Jewish Press. (You previously had published a letter from Dr. Marvin Schick critical of the same ad). Further, last week’s issue not only contained your editorial taking issue with the ad, it happened to also contain another (full page) advertisement from the same group.

It’s refreshing to see a publication that is not afraid to disagree with its own advertisers on matters of principle.

Shmuel Molinsky
New York, NY
 
 
Behind The Numbers

Last week’s otherwise cogent editorial on the Israeli Supreme Court’s 6-5 immigration decision missed one important point. While six of the eleven judges voted not to strike down the law as being unduly violative of the rights of Israeli Arabs, one of the six judges voted that way only because the law was due to expire shortly. In his opinion, he seemed to suggest that should there be an attempt to reenact a similar measure, he would vote to strike it down.

In sum, if you look behind the numbers, there appears to be a majority on the Israeli Supreme Court that does not think an Israeli government has the right to restrict immigration in a manner that singles out Arab Israelis or is based upon population projections.

Harold Rosenzweig
(Via E-Mail)
 
 
Forgiving Nazis

Eva Moses Kor, who along with her identical twin was one of the inmates on whom the infamous Dr. Mengele did experiments, has declared that she forgives Mengele, and by extension all Nazis. (See “Letting Go of the Death Camps,” film review, New York Times, May 18, about the movie “Forgiving Dr. Mengele.”) In so doing, she speaks for herself only, she says.

I have an aunt who survived Auschwitz and Mengele’s experiments. She suffers to this day from the hell she went through. She wouldn’t agree with Eva Moses Kor.

Many years ago, I was waiting for a bus at Jaffa Gate outside the Old City of Jerusalem. A young man approached me and said, “I see you are Jewish. I am German and I came to Israel to beg forgiveness for the deeds of my father. I ask you for forgiveness.”

I told him that while I admired his action, he had the wrong address. Only the victims can forgive.

Many years have passed. I have not forgotten that young man’s search for inner peace. But the victims were too numerous, and who can speak in their name?

Dr. Elie Feuerwerker
Highland Park, NJ

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, January 4th, 2006

Note To Readers

When we published Rabbi Moshe Faskowitz’s open letter of resignation from the Rabbinical Council of America in our issue of Dec. 23, we were unaware that he is a cousin of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler’s wife. While it has no bearing on the particulars of the Tendler-RCA controversy, or on the questions raised by the RCA’s response to recent decisions by the Jerusalem Bet Din of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, Rabbi Faskowitz should have disclosed his relationship to Rabbi Tendler.

In a telephone conversation this week with The Jewish Press, Rabbi Faskowitz acknowledged that he was remiss in not having mentioned the relationship in his open letter, though he pointed out that he had mentioned it in the second paragraph of a private letter he e-mailed the RCA on June 30, 2005 – a letter that detailed his concerns with the way the organization had pursued its investigation of the charges leveled against Rabbi Tendler and with what he viewed as its disrespectful reaction to the ruling of the Jerusalem Bet Din.

Rabbi Faskowitz said his resignation from the RCA is “all about the [Jerusalem] Bet Din. If my reason for resigning had anything to do with my relation to Rabbi Tendler, I would have resigned when the RCA expelled him.”

 

Fascinating Reading

Re Jason Maoz’s interview with Abigail Pogrebin, author ofStars of David (“Not such ‘Stars of David,’ ” Dec. 30):

I read the book and found it fascinating because, to her credit – sometimes overtly and sometimes implicitly – the author actually asks these people about the fact that for the vast majority of them the Jewish story, the saga of their families if you will, dies with them. And a lot of them go into very convoluted excuses. I thought Beverly Sills and Ruth Ginsburg were particularly pathetic.

Bill Pearlman
(Via E-Mail)
 
 
 
Rich Man With A Title

Coincidentally, a friend of mine had lent me “Stars of David” a couple of weeks ago, and I heartily second Mr. Maoz’s positive assessment of the book. As for World Jewish Congress honcho Edgar Bronfman’s denigrating the idea that God gave the Torah to the Jews, and his denying that the God of Israel is his father or his King – can anyone imagine the leader of a Catholic organization talking about Catholicism in such dismissive terms? He’d be forced out of his position in an instant. With us Jews, however, someone can be a total am haaretz and apikorus and still be hailed as a “Jewish leader” – providing that he’s a rich man like Bronfman.

Lawrence Franklin
New York, NY
 
 
 
Munich’ Fears Groundless

In taking ADL National Director Abraham Foxman to task for his assessment of Steven Spielberg’s “Munich,” you refer to the movie as “a presentation fraught with far more danger than Mel Gibson’s recent casting of the Jewish people as responsible for the death of Jesus, which drew much public ire in the Jewish community, stoked in greatest measure by…” Mr. Foxman.

Two years ago, you predicted in an editorial that the release of Mr. Gibson’s “Passion” movie “will ignite the kind of virulent anti-Semitism that provided the foundation for pogroms throughout history and the Holocaust little more than a half a century ago.”

Apparently, with the realization that the fears over “Passion” were unfounded, you are taking on a new bogeyman, predicting that “the consequences of Mr. Spielberg’s theme taking hold among American Jewry and being picked up by policy makers in Washington would be catastrophic.” In your view, “Munich” is scarier than “Passion” because many Christians already held Jews responsible for the death of Jesus and they “hardly needed Gibson’s encouragement.” You are thus suggesting the existence of novelty in the moral message conveyed by Mr. Spielberg’s film.

But does “Munich,” in fact, offer any chidushim? Doesn’t everybody “know” already that the “Israel-Palestinian” conflict is based on a misunderstanding between two long-suffering peoples with equal historical and religious claims to one small piece of land and why can’t we just all get along? And isn’t this “knowledge” already reflected in longstanding American governmental policy to pressure Israel to “share” this piece of land with the Palestinians regardless of the security consequences?

Like “Passion,” “Munich” is a movie – and just that. It will keep millions of people entertained for a couple of hours. It will be the topic of discussion at some cocktail parties and office water coolers. It will reinforce the views of those who agree with the views conveyed by the movie, and will offend those who do not (including those who deny Israel’s right to even exist). Mr. Spielberg will laugh all the way to the bank once again and might even win another Oscar. But by making bold predictions about the societal consequences of this movie, you are once again crying “wolf” – or “Foxman.”

Zachary M. Berman
Bronx, NY
 
 
 
More On `Torah Lishma

Rabbi J. Rosenblatt (Letters, Dec. 30) accuses me of being “out of my league” in discussing the purpose of Talmud Torah and refers to my front-page essay (“A ‘New’ Understanding of Talmud Torah,” Dec. 16) as “intellectually corrupt.” My conclusion that learning Torah merely “for the sake of learning” is not a Jewish concept he ascribes to “either egregious ignorance of the primary sources or willful distortion of them.”

In the interests of brevity and basic dignity I will not respond to his insults, only to the substance of his argument. I feel no need to defend my right to study the Torah and form significant conclusions despite being a non-gadol – something Rabbi Rosenblatt is clearly offended by. Indeed, I wonder how he feels permitted to challenge me on intellectual grounds if he does not consider himself to be a gadol.

When all the smoke is blown away, the extent of Rabbi Rosenblatt’s substantive response is a vague reference to Nefesh Hachaim. Without going into detail or quoting a single passage, he claims that R’ Chaim of Volozhin supports “a concept eerily similar” to the conception of learninglishma that I claim doesn’t exist.

In Section 1, Chapter 21 Rabbi Chaim writes “And this is the Torah of Man: when he is involved in Torah lishma – to observe and fulfill all that is written in it – he purifies his body from head to foot.” Clearly, Rabbi Chaim defines learninglishma as not random, aimless “learning for the sake of learning,” but learning with a clear and practical purpose: to observe and fulfill.

In Section 4, Chapter 3 he further explains, based on the Rosh in Nedarim referenced by Rabbi Rosenblatt, that learning lishma is “to know, to understand, and to increase acquisition and pilpul.” Unless one defines pilpul as irrelevant theorizing, Rabbi Chaim’s approach only supports my article.

It should also be noted that the vast majority of Rabbi Chaim’s remarks about Talmud Torah relate to its mystical benefits. For one thing, therefore, much of what he writes is complementary to my article, not directly related to it. For another thing, he merely refers to a different sort of benefit or goal of learning Torah. Nowhere does he, or any classic Torah authority, advocate the sort of aimless, esoteric, non-practical learning that is prevalent today.

If Rabbi Rosenblatt is troubled by the fact that I, rather than any “gedolim,” have noted the dubious foundation of the modern kollel approach, perhaps he should take it up with them.

Chananya Weissman
(Via E-Mail)
 
 
 
Words Have Meaning

In his letter of Dec. 30, Rabbi Riskin admits to having been “taken aback” by my criticism (Letters, Dec. 16) that he committed a “major error” regarding his translation. Actually, my criticism was that he had committed two major errors.

In his letter, Rabbi Riskin deals with only one of his mistakes. Specifically, he turns his attention to the Latin etymology of the adjective naive – nativus, “which means natural, unaffected candor and artless, actuated…by truth.”

On that basis he assures the reader that it would be okay to describe the Patriarch Jacob as a “naive” tent dweller. Rabbi Riskin’s mistake is that he relies on etymology without considering modern usage. (English has changed since the Roman Empire.) In modern standard English, the adjective naive is also associated with a lack of learning, experience, sophistication. It might be used to describe an individual who is devoid of wisdom and good judgment or someone who is gullible and easily duped. (One might be tempted to describe Esau in such a fashion, unjustly – certainly not Jacob. It would not fit the biblical context.)

Even according to Rabbi Riskin’s etymological reference, it would still be highly imprecise to select naive as a translation oftam. Quoting an unabridged dictionary, Rabbi Riskin cites “artless” as a worthy synonym. In modern American usage, artless is defined as lacking skill, crude, lacking knowledge. Is Rabbi Riskin still so sure about naive as an accurate translation of tam when referring to the Patriarch Jacob?

It is true that naive can connote qualities which are not so negative – in the sense of being natural and unaffected by guile; however, given the negative connotations cited above, there are far better English equivalents which would more accurately translate the Hebrewtam. (For example: wholehearted, which Rabbi Riskin used in his Dec. 2 column.)

I disagree with Rabbi Riskin’s interpretation of Malbim. Isaac did not think that his son Jacob was out of touch. It was a judgment call. As a parent, Isaac believed that Jacob should devote his life exclusively to spiritual matters as a Torah scholar. (That does not mean that he thought Jacob was naive or out of touch.)

Isaac was aware of Esau’s “problems.” However, he understood that Esau had great potential. Rebecca did not wish to confront Isaac about such an issue. She understood that her actions would be vindicated as indicated by the biblical context.

This exchange reminds me of the Italian saying Traduttore e traditore – roughly translated as “The translator is a traitor.” I do not wish to imply that Rabbi Riskin is a traitor. I am not speaking politically or theologically. The point is that it is simply very difficult to translate

from one language into another language, given the divergent cultures and vocabularies pertaining to the languages under discussion.

Chaim Silver
(Via E-Mail)
 
 
 
Don’t Discourage Aliyah

Reader J. Schwartz’s letter (Dec. 16) about Orthodox Jews andaliyah is full of distortions and errors from beginning to end.

1. No one ever claimed that the State of Israel as presently run is the geula – it is “the first flowering of the geula.

2. Zionist rabbonim do not speak out against the state – only against the present government and, in fact, are careful to differentiate.

3. If Reader Schwartz is displeased with secularism in Israel he should make aliyah, become a citizen and at least vote for change.

4. Terrorism also affects America; in fact, many Jews were murdered in the World Trade Center attack. In addition many Jews in America are victims of violent crimes – far more than in Israel.

5. Cuts in government funding mainly affect those who do not work. This situation also exists in America.

6. Who says living here means living in “dire conditions”? This is the sin of the miraglim. Just as in America, here there are rich, poor and middle class people.

7. Living in Israel is more than a great mitzvah. This is the only land in which a Jew can fulfill himself both individually and nationally.

Every Jew should be planning aliyah – or at the very least not discouraging others from doing so.

Avi Keslinger
Ofra, Israel
 
The Problems With Evolution

Evolution Is Anti-Science

Reader David Fass (Letters, Dec. 30) begins his attack on my views on evolution by saying: “Virtually every point made by Rabbi Eidensohn in his letter of December 9 reflects significant misunderstandings about the science that he is attempting to criticize. However, it’s not the errors in Rabbi Eidensohn’s letter that I find most troubling. What disturbs me more is the smug belief, evidently shared by many in the yeshiva world, that the working scientist is on average less intelligent than the typical potted plant.”

There follow nine paragraphs, but I was unable to find (a) a direct quote of anything I said and (b) why I was wrong.

All physicists today believe in the Anthropic Principle – that the universe was designed for people. Is that objectionable? Science has proven it.

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, the most prominent of the evolutionists, clearly stated that evolution is not a natural process but an accident. If you believe in accidents, you are not talking about science. Scientists had four theories about the origin of the moon until people actually went there, brought back rocks, and saw that all the theories were wrong. The latest theory? It was an accident.

The problem with evolution is that it is anti-science. That was the purpose of my letter. Does science believe that a tiny dot can emerge from nothing? It does not. Does science believe that a tiny dot containing the entire universe can expand? Einstein’s theory of Black Holes denies that such a dot can expand. Does science believe that a primal dot turned into a fiery plasma of simple material that became incredibly complex quarks and genes – all by accident?

Science teaches entropy, meaning that a closed system cannot gain in complexity, only decline. The simple plasma could thus not become complex atoms and genes.

Mr. Fass concludes by writing, “The image of the ‘idiot scientist’ conjured up in Rabbi Eidensohn’s letter may be comforting to some, but it’s ultimately just crude escapism.”

Why not quote where in my letter I supposedly insulted scientists, or science? I didn’t insult science; to the contrary, I feel that modern science encourages our belief.

Rabbi David Eidensohn
Monsey, NY
 
 
Disdainful Attack

David Fass’s letter is, based on my experience, very typical of people who defend evolution. They shed little light on the subject, yet engage in attacks on those with dissenting views.

You’d think that if the viability of evolution were, in his words, “discussed in many popular science books and on about 300,000 websites,” he could refute at least one point made by Rabbi Eidensohn. Instead of offering refutations, Mr. Fass writes with an air of disdain for Rabbi Eidensohn, rabbis in general, yeshivas, Monsey and the “yiddishe kup.” What an earth does all this have to do with the shortcomings and fallacies of an outdated “scientific” theory?

It’s very encouraging to hear from Mr. Fass that “scientists are generally highly educated and intelligent people” and that “their methods of investigation and analysis have proved staggeringly effective.”

The problem is that scientists can also be staggeringly dishonest when it come to furthering their careers, prestige or bank accounts.

One case in point (and there are others), reported by newspapers around the world just last month: Dr. Hwang Woo Suk of Seoul National University faked 9 out of 11 stem cell research experiments. His phony results were being reported around the globe as scientific breakthroughs. Obviously, being educated is one thing; having integrity is a different story.

If Rabbi Eidensohn had questioned internal combustion or the properties of electricity when he’s surrounded by cars and electrical appliances, I could understand Mr. Fass’s irritation. But questioning the viability of a far-fetched theory like evolution is not all that out of line. I don’t live in Monsey, but my guess is that chickens aren’t turning into monkeys – even in Monsey.

Josh Greenberger
Brooklyn, NY

(Editor’s Note: Mr. Greenberger is the author of “Human Intelligence Gone Ape” (NCSY) available free at EvolutionDead.com.)

 
Secular Faith

There was just one problem with David Fass’s contention that Rabbi Eidensohn (and by extension the entire frum community) looks askance at science for failing to accept evolution. Evolution is not science. Never was, is not now, and never will be.

Evolution was introduced as a theory, and like most other theories it should have long ago been discarded. But it has one important element on its side: Evolution is atheism, and trumped up by Satan’s “useful idiots” in the academic community this lie continues to be foisted on lemmings who lack the sophistication and backbone to lash out in disgust.

I am far from alone in my conviction that evolution is a pseudo-religion. The most recent edition of the Economist magazine featured on its cover the cliched progression of a hunched-over ape eventually morphing into a comely lass. In the accompanying article, evolution was described as one of the three great secular faiths (Marxism and Freudianism being the other two) of the 19th century. (The author of the article, it should be noted, is one of the creed’s staunchest supporters.)

That supposedly Orthodox Jews fall over themselves trying to inject evolution into the story of creation does not impress legitimate truth seekers. Troubled by science? I don’t think so. But evolution? That’s a whole different story.

Hey, I can be open-minded. If in another 600 billion years man evolves into a centipede, I’ll retract this letter. You have my word on it.

Dr. Yaakov Stern
Brooklyn, NY

Dubious Hypothesis

There are many Young Earth Creationists who believe in the Torah’s chronology of a 6,000 year old universe, a number of top scientists among them. Even though most of them are non-Jews, Rav Avigdor Miller, zt”l, spoke highly of them and was very critical of Orthodox Jewish scientists who accept evolution, despite the Torah of Nature showing no evidence whatsoever of millions of years – let alone billions – that have been invented solely to support the vapid belief that the theory of evolution requires vast eons to even begin to operate.

It is remarkable how the solid scientific evidence of a young universe still has not registered on some Orthodox didacts. Evidence such as the rate of decrease of the earth and sun’s magnetic fields, the rate of decrease in the size of the solar disc, the high residual warmth of the moon and mere half-inch of dust on its surface (which amazed the Apollo astronauts who had been told to expect being swamped), the decrease in the speed of light, the paucity of helium and micro-meteoric dust in the atmosphere, the rate of mineral deposition into the oceans, the fallacious premises of radiometric dating, the still “unwrapped” state of the arms of the great spiral galaxies, the thickness of Saturn’s rings, the continued existence of short-term comets, human population statistics, the complete dearth of any human record or artifact older than 6,000 years, polystrate fossils, the non-organic theory for the origin of oil, dendochronolgy (no tree older than 5,100 years can be found), pleochroic haloes etc., are all indicative of an astounding recency of creation.

In view of all this, it is perplexing how some Orthodox Jewish writers are still wedded to the discredited idea of evolution over billions of years. As the late journalist Malcolm Muggeridge observed, “In the future evolution will be laughed at as one of the greatest jokes of history. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could have been accepted with the incredible credulity that it has!”

Amnon Goldberg
Safed, Israel

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, December 21st, 2005

Kahane’s Views Not `Abnormal’

Elliot Resnick (“Kahane’s Ideas, 15 years and 1,300 Deaths Later,” op-ed, Dec. 9) writes that “Kahane felt abnormal times required an abnormal response.” I highly doubt that Rabbi Kahane would have agreed with this presumptuous notion. His response to the demographic crisis in Israel could not be termed “abnormal” in the least. It was an answer and philosophy based on Torah values. His entire political platform was based on Torah. The rabbi would often quote the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim as a source for the laws relating to a ger toshav. He would often quote Tanach about purging the enemies from our midst.

None of the ideas that Rabbi Kahane extolled were predicated on hatred, racism, or his own personal or political philosophy. They were based on Jewish values from a Divine source.

The rabbi would often tell us that the way to penetrate the impurity of the world is to keep speaking the Torah truth. To never allow ourselves to be intimated and discouraged by the hostile reaction of the masses. The greatest tribute we could pay Rabbi Kahane is to keep speaking the truth – and to ask Hashem to give us the strength to gird our loins and courageously face our detractors and adversaries with His Word.

Fern Sidman
(JDL National Director 1983-1985)
Brooklyn, NY
 
 
Real Priorities

My heart goes out to the young lady searching for her bashert (Rebbetzin’s Viewpoint, Dec.16). Perhaps the question to be asked is not “What’s wrong with me?” but rather, “What’s wrong with them?” – referring, of course, to her so-called girlfriends, nay, married women, so busy with gossip at the attended wedding. What is wrong with people? Have we lost all sense of derech eretz? What are the real priorities?

Parents, educators and rabbis need to focus first and foremost on the essential task of instilling derech eretz in our youngsters. The banning of home Internet use (“Lakewood Rabbis Ban Home Internet,” Dec. 16) is all fine and good, if this is the derech chosen by some (from what I’m told, not all residents or rabbis approve of this ban) in the community. Naturally, some of us might retort: What’s next? The banning of appropriate educational television programming? Of Jazz music? How about the reading of “secular” American papers?

Kedusha, holiness, is an integral aspect of a Torah home Yet I would like to believe that appropriate use and editing of the Internet or other modern media in one’s home can be achieved through wise choice, education and discipline without the need for a ban. My real concern is the need for true, aggressive and visible religious leadership where it appears to be lacking – in emphasizing values of derech eretz to young people and in fact, to people of all ages.

A special message to the aforementioned young lady: As an observant psychologist, I would venture a guess that there is, in reality, nothing wrong with you. I am sorry that your “friends” and those around you have been so thoughtless and inconsiderate. May God bless you, heal you and bring you speedily to your true mate.

To the foolish, inconsiderate girls at the wedding, and those like them: Know that there is One above; an Ear that hears and an Eye that sees all. To parents, rabbis and the rest of us: Let us be ever vigilant and work tirelessly to raise the banner of the important values reinforced constantly in our holy Torah.

Hye Harris
Via E-mail

 
Learning From Yaakov

Just to add one thought to Chaim Silver’s fine letter of Dec. 16: I think it’s important to note Yaakov Avinu’s first interaction with “outsiders” after spending 14 years in yeshiva, out of touch with mainstream society. When he arrived at the well in Charan, he saw three flocks of sheep being tended by some shepherds. Yaakov said, “My brothers, where are you from?”

“My brothers.” It boggles the mind.

Why would Yaakov Avinu, a man used to interacting with angels and immersing himself in Torah for years at a time without sleep, feel any connection to the common, if not lower-class, idol-worshiping shepherds?

The answer is simple. Hashem’s Torah is not about elitism and being naive or out of touch. Hashem’s Torah is about engaging with the world and with its inhabitants and elevating everyone and everything to new levels of holiness. That’s what Yaakov Avinu was trying to teach us when he approached people who were as foreign to him as any he had ever encountered, and called them his brothers.

Halevai that we should approach our fellow Jews, let alone non-Jews, with that degree of love and sensitivity.

Yaakov Steinhart
(Via E-Mail)
 
 
On Being A `Good Jew’

Reader Herman Ganz (Letters, Dec. 9) attacks The Jewish Press for a recent editorial stipulating, as he paraphrased it, that the authentic way to be considered a “good Jew” is through the performance of mitzvos.

Mr. Ganz, this is not merely an editorial position, it is the basic foundation of the faith. You advocate secular humanism – or, in Jewish-speak, being a mensch – as a substitute for observing the Torah. This constitutes a basic fallacy of the nonobservant – the belief that Judaism is a series of meaningless rituals divorced from proper etiquette. The Torah speaks of laws between God and man as well as those between man and his fellow.

In fact, as our Sages teach, Hashem is more exacting with the latter group of laws; therefore, it is impossible to be a “good Jew” without doing what Mr. Ganz calls “acts of kindness.” That said, if one dismisses those regulations that are unique to our religion and concentrates instead on being a nice guy, he is no different from a pleasant gentile. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but we are enjoined to reach higher. So yes, Mr. Ganz, it is entirely appropriate to stress the performance of mitzvos as the key for one to earn the moniker “good Jew.”

Dr. Yaakov Stern
Brooklyn, NY
 
 
Painful Parting:
An Open Letter To The RCA

A newspaper is not the address that one generally chooses to send a letter of resignation from a major Jewish organization such as the Rabbinical Council of America.

I chose this unusual route because I have come to the conclusion that I have no other recourse, as there appears to be no one in the organization’s hierarchy I can turn to.

I have been a member of the RCA since 1986 when I assumed my first position as a pulpit rabbi after having spent fifteen years in the Lakewood Kollel. I was embraced by finerabbonim and outstanding leaders, who, despite recognizing that my hashkofos swung way to the right, were bold enough and honest enough to invite me to serve as executive treasurer for six years. I have always considered this a display of their religious integrity and an expression of the broader scope of interest and responsibility that the organization embraced. The RCA had good and honest leadership – then.

I am afraid that I no longer have the same confidence in the RCA’s leadership. It no longer matters who is right and who is wrong in the Tendler affair. (Of course it matters to all of us that Rabbi Tendler has been vindicated, but I now speak with regard to my resignation from the RCA.)

I am so dismayed by the conduct of people whom I respect and call colleagues. I say to them:

Your utter disregard and disrespect for the Bet Din in Yerushalayim is appalling. Do you really believe that traditional “rabbi double talk” is going to fool the rabbis themselves? Do you really believe that your constituents are so simpleminded that they will fall for “Well, we don’t have to listen to a bet din butyou do”?

To be declared a “lo tzayis dina” by the Jerusalem Bet Din of Israel’s Chief Rabbinate is not a slap on the wrist. It means shame on you, shame on everything you are associated with. It means that on public record you are in defiance of the laws of Torah. This is a public pronouncement made by the holy bet din humiliate you into submission. Yet not only do you show no remorse, regret, or contrition – you continue to show defiance. (At least be creative. Come up with something that appears logical instead of continuing to debase yourselves with inane innuendo and lame explanations).

I will tell you what disturbs me most of all. I will tell you why I resign from your midst. In 1987 Rabbi Aron Shurin, z”l, told me this story. The Rav, zt”l, said to him that he was jealous of Reb Aharon Kotler, zt”l, who had “real”talmidim. “But you also have talmidim,” protested Rabbi Shurin. Answered the Rav: “Reb Aharon’s talmidim ask him ‘Rebbi, can I do this?’ Or, ‘Rebbi, can I go there?’ Or, ‘Rebbi, can I say that?’ My talmidim say, ‘Rebbi, I did this. Rebbi, I went there. Rebbi, I said that. Is it ok?’ He lamented what he perceived to be a lack of real and absolute loyalty by some of histalmidim (not most, who were and are talmidim n’emonim).

I am not atalmid of the Rav. I know, however, that the Rav expected, and had the right to expect, obedience from his talmidim. There was no one who protected the honor of and demanded subservience to theBet Din of Yerushalayim more than did the Rav. B’ksav and b’al peh.

For his talmidim to violate and shame the memory of their rebbi by brazenly ignoring his edict makes those of us, who studied under the tutelage of otherrebbeim, carefully contemplate and more clearly understand the words of Rabbi Shurin.

My rebbi, Reb Chaim Shmulevits, zt”l, has a well-known shmues in which he attributes the foibles of Chiel- who sinfully attempted to rebuild Jericho – to his having been sucked into a whirlpool of mistakes, from which he was unable to extricate himself because his understanding became more and more obscured as the mistakes kept piling on. The same has happened to you, unfortunately. I pray that Hashem gives you the einayim lir’os and oznayim lishmoa to recognize and reverse those mistakes.

Until that happens I can no longer be affiliated with an organization whose leadership is declared a violator of Torah law by the Bet Din of Yerushalayim. I sadly submit my resignation from the RCA.

Rabbi Moshe Faskowitz

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, May 4th, 2005

Rabbi Porush’s Courage

Reader Joseph Weidenfeld is highly unfair, and way off base, for insulting Rabbi Menachem Porush (Letters, April 29). Weidenfeld claims Rabbi Porush has “chutzpah” for criticizing the girush (disengagement) from Gaza and Shomron when his own party, Agudath Israel, supported this policy and saved the Sharon government from collapse.

Such reasoning is patently ridiculous. It is akin to criticizing MK Uzi Landau for the policies of his Likud party or Assemblyman Dov Hikind for the policies of his Democratic party.

Rabbi Porush does not control the Agudath Israel party. That party, and the Degel Hatorah party, are controlled by the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah, of which a majority (including, but not limited to, the Gerrer Rebbe, the Belzer Rebbe and Harav Elyashiv) saw fit to support the Sharon government’s girush policy in return for certain benefits.

Indeed, this decision was met with a vehement and public protest by several Moetzes members, including the Sadugerer Rebbe, Bostoner Rebbe and Hagaon Rav Binyamin Silber. Along with Rishon Letzion Harav Mordechai Eliahu and Harav Meir Mazuz, they signed a protest proclamation (kol koreh). This appeared prominently in The Jewish Press.

Your competition, the Hamodia newspaper, controlled by Ger, refused to publicize or print this proclamation by the Moetzes members – even when offered the full commercial ad rate for doing so.

In truth, Rabbi Porush is exhibiting significant courage for speaking his conscience about the travesty of justice currently taking place in Israel. For that he should be commended, not vilified.

Usher Z. Piller
(Via E-Mail)



Mother’s Agenda

I was shocked and disturbed by reader Margaret Cone’s apparent foolishness regarding Mother Agapia’s anti-Semitism (Letters, April 29). Mother Agapia may be principled and committed according to her own faith, but that is no excuse for her consistent vitriol against Israel and the Jewish people.

For a little reality check, I suggest that Ms. Cone visualize what it would be like to visit the Mother under Islamic rule. The situation on the ground for Christian institutions and clergy would certainly be quite a shock, if they were allowed to exist at all.

Jennifer Bernstein
St. Louis, MO



Women And Halacha

I really enjoyed the April 22 op-ed article “To Recline Or Not To Recline” by Shayna Finman. It’s nice to see The Jewish Press focusing on the halachic obligations of women during Pesach and, moreover, publishing a woman’s analysis of these obligations.

Keep up the good work!

Zohara Cohen
Washington, DC



Landfill Nation?

Several years ago a prominent Israeli politician publicly bemoaned the fact that Israel had run out of land for future growth and would have no alternative but to build man-made islands from garbage refuse in the Mediterranean Sea and link them to the metro Tel Aviv area via bridges. A rather far-fetched proposal, to be sure, but when one observes how successive Israeli governments have prostrated themselves before Arab terrorists since 1993, offering to cede more and more land, the need for such islands no longer seems so outlandish.

Ironically, the author of the island proposal was Mr. Disengagement, Ariel Sharon. The very same Sharon who publicly regretted the destruction of Yamit and now has totally appropriated his election opponent Amram Mitzna’s radical view that Israel’s only survival strategy is to expel thousands of patriotic Jews from their homes and unilaterally retreat back toward the 1949 armistice lines – demarcations that lifetime dove Abba Eban rightfully labeled “Auschwitz” borders.

We must fervently pray that God will empower us to unite and foil the misguided plans of our sheepish, venal leaders and their grinning international patrons. Otherwise, Israel’s future will indeed be aquatic and may, God forbid, necessitate the construction of Israeli annexes to Holocaust museums.

Henry Moscovic
Flushing, NY



Troubled By Awareness Center

It is hard for me to understand how a person who takes halacha seriously could support the Awareness Center and its practice of publishing the names of individuals who have been simply accused – not convicted – of abuse.

Yet when I visited the Awareness Center website (I had been blissfully ignorant of its existence until about a month ago), I saw that Rabbi Yosef Blau, a prominent member of the Rabbinical Council of America, is listed as the organization’s secretary and acting vice president, and is identified there as mashgiach ruchani (spiritual guidance counselor) at RIETS, a member of the executive board of the Orthodox Caucus and of the executive commission of the Orthodox Forum.

I also saw that Rabbi Reuven Bulka is listed on the Awareness Center’s website as a member of its advisory board. I knew from an earlier visit to the Rabbinical Council of America’s website that Rabbi Bulka is listed over there as the RCA’s director of Rabbinic Services.

Rather than pursuing members on the basis of questionable or tenuous evidence, perhaps the RCA should focus on the implications of the incontrovertible evidence available to anyone with Internet access. I’m sure that Rabbis Blau and Bulka have answers for their involvement with the Awareness Center – and I do not wish to sit in judgment. But their involvement does seem, on its face, to be something that should pique the interest of those charged with doing the investigative work of the RCA’s Vaad Hakavod.

Yitzchak Dorman
(Via E-Mail)



Overriding Halacha

As a frum former professor of political science, I have been following with great interest your series of editorials on the Rabbinical Council of America’s investigation and expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler. The Jewish Press is to be commended for bringing to the attention of the general public a problem that desperately needs airing.

Although significant in their own right, the issues of (a) the RCA’s obvious “prevarications,” as you put it, concerning the Jerusalem Bet Din, and (b) whether or not Rabbi Tendler was railroaded, are to me really secondary. Of primary importance in the long run is the need to see this sad episode as part of the continuing battle for the soul of Modern Orthodoxy.

The issue of sexual abuse by clergy has, for the past few years now, been at the cutting edge of the public agenda. Fueled by revelations of widespread abuse in the Catholic Church, an effort has been underway to move that issue, with all its fury and passion, onto the Jewish agenda, regardless of the scope of the problem as it exists in our community. (I do not, nor would any sane person, question the existence of the problem, which is undeniable.)

Some of those who seek to make this the number-one issue confronting American Jewry do so as a means of catapulting themselves into the forefront of communal awareness. Others, no doubt, have long chafed at the aura of rectitude that in their view shielded certain figures of prominence from accountability. Still others approach the issue with the purest of motives, but, in their zeal to bring justice to victims of abuse, make short shrift of such concepts as presumption of innocence.

It was bound to happen, given the current climate, that there would be those who seek to override the strict halachic requirements necessary for finding an accused party guilty of abuse. It brings to mind the by now familiar refrain that Judaism needs to adjust to the times.

I hasten to add that I have no reason to attribute venality or ulterior motives to those involved in the Tendler case. But they – and the rest of us, for that matter – should always keep context in mind. The abandonment of the bet din route, and the flourishing of a slander-mongering operation like the Awareness Center, should be a giant wake-up call to all Torah-loving and fair-minded Jews.

Leon Miller
(Via E-Mail)



Cell Phones In Shuls

People are using cell phones in all places and at all times. A member of my shul has been using a cell phone even in middle of chazoras hashatz. I am constantly being disturbed by people talking on cell phones while I am trying to learn in my beis medrash. Is this the respect that Hashem deserves? Where is the awe of a mokom kadosh, a mikdosh me’at?

I would like to suggest that every shul and beis medrash, in order to prevent cellular communication, install a jammer device to block all cell phone frequencies. Of course, in certain locations these devices may be illegal. Outside of those jurisdictions, however, this may well be a workable solution.

Shimon Adelstein
(Via E-Mail)
 


The Search For Meaning When Tragedy Strikes

I read with great interest Ariel Fischer’s article, “Who I Am” (op-ed, April 29). I think my landsman has touched on a critical issue facing Klal Yisrael today.

Indeed, Pesach has come and gone, and our hopes for the geulah, and the zechus to bring the korban Pesach have, once again, been dashed. Sadly, we remain in golus, left to consider what it is that we need to do to tip the heavenly scales in favor of re-establishing Malchus Dovid.

This Pesach, however, we gave a korban of a different kind. News spread swiftly in Monsey on 12 Nisan when one of our holiest of neshomos was called back to shomayim just ten short years after its sojourn in this world. Surely we all must consider the impact of these events as they occurred here in Monsey.

We all know that Monsey is a true makom Torah. Minyanim operate day and night, channeling the tefillos of the tzibbur heavenward. There are literally thousands of b’nai Torah sitting and learning in our shuls and batei midrashim. At the same time, tens and tens of thousands of tzedakah dollars are being given and distributed to our ani’ei ircha and the Jewish community at large. When it comes to bain adom l’Makom, one would be hard-pressed to find a community more focused on so lofty a task as serving our Creator.

Yet tragedy has struck, and it is imperative that we search for and find the meaning in such an event – made all the more significant by the fact that the niftar bore the name of the yom tov, Pesach.

I humbly offer that the answer lies not in our understanding of what bain adom l’chaveiro means, but in our execution. We all know the harm lashon hora causes, yet it is literally destroying our neighborhoods. We all know that we need to treat our neighbors with the same respect and patience that we hope to be the beneficiary of, yet we can’t seem to practice it in the same way we talk about it in our classrooms. You can see it on the streets. We have become, b”H, so large that we have lost a critical part of our identity – our ability to treat each other with the inherent respect we all deserve.

To be fair, Monsey is nothing more than a microcosm of the entire Jewish community, as recent tragedies in Teaneck and Williamsburg attest. All of us, wherever we are, can impact positively on our communities by taking the time to understand that the highest form of avoda bain adom l’Makom manifests itself in our bain adom l’chaveiro, which takes place not only in shul or the beis medrash but in our homes, on our streets, in our stores, and anywhere else we come across another Jew.

Perry Dubinsky
(Via E-Mail)

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, April 27th, 2005

Inspired By Rabbi Waldman

I was touched beyond words by the self-sacrifice and idealism exhibited by Rabbi Eliezer Waldman in moving his family and his yeshiva to SaNur (Jewish Press, April 22). Many of us talk the talk when it comes to defending the integrity of Eretz Yisrael, but Rabbi Waldman walks the walk. Thanks to Naomi Klass Mauer for an inspiring interview.

Harold Grossman
(Via E-Mail)



Ultimate Chutzpah

I am an Orthodox Jew who has been a faithful subscriber to The Jewish Press for many years. I read most of your columns with an uncritical mind, since I believe that everyone has the right to express his or her opinion. Rabbi Menachem Porush’s April 1 column, however, blew my mind and I have no alternative but to respond.

Rabbi Porush laments the Israeli government’s decision to relinquish Jewish land. Yet it was Rabbi Porush’s Agudath Israel party that saved the Sharon government from collapse. It was Rabbi Porush’s party that permitted the government to proceed with its Gaza disengagement policy. And Rabbi Porush has the temerity to berate the government for this action? He complains against the government? Why, his party is a key part of the very government that decreed the Gaza withdrawal! Is it any wonder that chutzpah is a Jewish word?

I hope you have the courage to publish this letter, since I am brave enough to sign it.

Joseph Weidenfeld
Silver Spring, MD



Novak The Meshumad

Kudos to the Media Monitor for exposing the source of Robert Novak’s latest calumny against Israel (“Novak’s Nun,” April 22). I remember the uproar over Mother Agapia in 2002, and how her anti-Israel e-mail accounts were revealed to be second- and third-hand reports of distorted tales and lies. It figures a meshumad like Novak (he became a Roman Catholic several years ago) would lap up whatever this sister dispenses.

David Schwem
New York, NY



Principled Nun

Mr. Maoz’s Media Monitor column essentially smeared Mother Agapia Stephanopolous.

I suggest he visit her and witness first-hand the situation on the ground for Christian institutions and clergy. I think he would have a different view. I have worked with Mother Agapia over the last two years. She is a principled, committed nun who lives her faith by giving her life to God and running an all-girls school in the Holy Land.

Margaret Cone
Washington, DC



Yom Tov Writing

Looks like Rachel Weiss’s front-page holiday essays are coming full circle. Mrs. Weiss wrote last year’s front cover on Shavuot, which was a success, as are all her inspiring holiday articles. I want to thank her and make sure she knows how much the readership of The Jewish Press looks forward to her cover essays. I hope Mrs. Weiss will continue to enlighten us with her eloquent and vivid yom tov writing. Looking forward to Shavuot cover #2!

Brooke Rose
(Via E-Mail)



Great Essays

Your front-page essays have become real reader favorites, if my family and friends are an accurate indicator. The last three – Jason Maoz’s piece on Jewish baseball players, Chananya Weissman’s article on baalei teshuva, and Rachel Weiss’s meditation on Pesach were all first rate. I love the wide range of these essays – every week there’s a different subject, but always so well-written and insightful.

Melanie Feldstein
New York, NY



Echoes Of McCarthy

The RCA’s actions in the Rabbi Mordecai Tendler case remind me of the tactics employed by Senator Joseph McCarthy in his anti-Communist crusade of the 1950′s. The question of whether or not there were subversives operating in key positions in the U.S. government was overshadowed by McCarthy’s practice of making public accusations against certain individuals, claiming to have evidence against them – evidence that somehow was never forthcoming.

In the course of the Army/McCarthy hearings of 1954, the Army’s chief counsel, Joseph Welch, made a statement that has become part of American folklore. Unfortunately, it now seems relevant to the RCA/Tendler matter. McCarthy had launched an irrelevant attack on a young lawyer who worked in Welch’s law firm, and Welch responded with: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?” McCarthy’s reputation never recovered.

I just do not understand why the RCA refuses to convene a bet din and present its charges in the time-honored and halachic way.

Michoel Glassberg
New York, NY



Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

I followed up reader David Pollack’s letter to the editor last week and visited the Awareness Center’s website. I was astounded by what I found. In a section called “Cases of Clergy Abuse and Other Trusted Officials,” there are more than two hundred individuals listed – but relatively few of them, by the Awareness Center’s own record-keeping, have been convicted of any crime! Most of the people on that list are the subjects of unproven allegations and charges.

Not only should the RCA have nothing to do with the Awareness Center, it should be in the forefront of efforts to discredit this font of lashon hora and motzi shem rah. And I’m terribly disappointed to learn of Rabbi Yosef Blau’s involvement with such an outfit. What are we coming to in the frum community when even our enlightened Orthodox leaders get caught up in such hysteria?

Suri Levitt
(Via E-Mail)

Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, April 20th, 2005

Helping Hands

It’s nice to know there are still some caring people in this world, people who aren’t afraid to get involved but are willing to jump in to help others.

Last Thursday evening I had an unfortunate incident outside a retail establishment on 39th Street in Boro Park. I was on the ground, badly injured and bleeding profusely. A woman, whose name I neglected to get, came to my aid. Someone else called Hatzolah. As soon as they arrived the Hatzolah members ably took over, bringing me to Maimonides Medical Center. Guys, sorry I was so feisty and short with you. I’m a tough old bird, and I was not dizzy – it’s just that the flatbed was in back of me! I want to publicly thank all of you for helping me.

Yasher koach. A zissen Pesach to all.

Alice Seagull Gordon
Highland Park, NJ



Prayer And Action

I fully agree with Bezalel Fixler’s front-page essay of April 1 (“Prayers for the Czar – But Not for Israeli Soldiers”). I think we should all say Mishaberach prayers for the defenders of Eretz Yisrael. I have been saying Tehillim and the Mishaberach, and will continue to do so.

But I have taken my concern one step further – prayer and bullet-proof vests. My friends and I have been collecting money for the purchase of bullet-proof vests for the IDF. Anyone wishing to join in this mitzvah should call me at 1-718-769-1138. You might save a life.

Saul Weiss
Brooklyn, NY



Soldiers Deserve Tefillot

Thank you, Mr. Fixler. I don’t want to believe that there are shuls that do not daven for our precious sons in the IDF. Our son went into Miluim this week and won’t be home with us for Pesach. Instead, he will be out in the field somewhere protecting us, b’ezrat Hashem, for the next month. Hopefully, each chayal will be able to find a break and join a seder, remembering yetziat Mitzraim and eating matzot and marror.

I just hope the soldiers will be unaware of the fact that there are Jews sitting smugly who refuse to even daven for them. Then again, we are reliving the yetziat Mitzraim in reality, as there are still so many Jews who choose not to leave the galut and come to Eretz Yisrael. May Hashem forgive those Jews who have rejected His Land and His Torah.

Like all the other precious chayalim who are moser nefesh so that we all can sit safely at our seder tables, my son deserves our tefillot.

Leshana haba’a b’Yerushalaim habenuya? How about LeShana haZOT?!

Pesach sameach v’kasher l’chol am Yisrael.

Leah S. Wolf
Metar, Israel



Flawed Survey?

The ADL’s Abe Foxman proclaims, “Israel’s decision to withdraw from Gaza is a bold step to move the peace process forward,” and he backs up the statement by claiming that “67% agree.” Who are those 67 percent? And what is the source of their information that enables them to form such an opinion? The anti-Israel media have done a magnificent job of delegitimizing Israeli Jews. And I wouldn’t expect the 75 percent of American Jews who have never been to Israel to be sympathetic to Jewish pioneering heroes.

A legitimate survey would have asked, “Do you support the creation of another Arab terrorist state in the Middle East?” with a follow-up question, “Are you in favor of rewarding terrorists by giving up Jewish land that will serve as a base for increased attacks and murder against Jewish civilians?”

The idea of surrendering Jewish land to sworn enemies as a step toward moving the peace process forward is so preposterous, it boggles the mind.

Charlie Bernhaut
New York, NY



War Cycle Must Be Broken

As the disengagement from Gaza draws closer I find myself increasingly concerned with the activities of Israeli right-wing extremists. I’m proud of my Jewish heritage, but I’m an American first and a Jew second because America protects my right to be a Jew. Israel has done the same for millions, and the willingness of the settlers to jeopardize all of that is the epitome of selfishness and the antithesis of righteousness.

If there is a chance for peace, on borders which guarantee the security of Israel, it is the responsibility of every Jew to accept it. The fight has always been for the existence of a homeland. We have that now, but in a constant state of war, and it weakens the Jewish state. Israel is already at the forefront of technology and science; imagine the progress it could make unencumbered by war.

The cycle must be broken. Only Nixon could go to China and only Sharon can make peace with the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon has always acted in the best interest of Israel and there’s no reason to think he isn’t this time.

If there is a hell, Arafat is there right now trying to claim it as a homeland. Let the war die with him. It’s all up to Israel.

Gary Taustine
New York, NY



The RCA And Rabbi Tendler


No Surprise

I don’t know why everyone is so surprised that the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) apparently played fast and loose with halacha and fundamental rules of evidence in its investigation of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, and that it subsequently disparaged the bet din in Israel that called them to task for having done so (news story and editorial, April 15).

Rabbi Yosef Blau, the mashgiach ruchani at Yeshiva University, is a prime mover in the RCA’s approach to the abuse issue and is also one of the prime movers in the Awareness Center – which has been criticized for publicizing charges of abuse that have been leveled against individuals whether or not those charges have ever been proven or even thoroughly investigated.

David Pollack
Jerusalem



Beyond Belief

The chutzpah of the RCA is beyond belief. An official bet din of the Chief Rabbinate in Eretz Yisrael rules that unless and until Rabbi Mordecai Tendler is afforded a bet din, the RCA is prohibited from taking any action that would negatively impact on him in his profession or communal efforts. So what does this self-proclaimed foremost rabbinical group do? Rather than appeal for a modification, it publicly dismisses the Israeli bet din as merely a “group of Israeli rabbis” who either willfully ignored the facts or were ignorant of them. Then, in full contempt of the bet din ruling, the RCA reaffirms its earlier decision, sans bet din, to expel Rabbi Tendler from the RCA! Simply incredible.

By the way, how is it possible that the RCA set out to rely on evidence gathered by non-Jews which would be posule eidus?

Boruch Kemmelman
(Via E-Mail)



Why No Bet Din?

I find it difficult to understand why the RCA believes that, as a matter of halacha, a bet din is not necessary in order to expel a member. Expulsion from a rabbinic organization for inappropriate conduct obviously will have a devastating impact on an individual’s future in the rabbinate. Surely the rabbis of the RCA are aware of the well-known dictum “Al pi shnayim adim yokum dovor.” Yet the RCA literally trumpets the absence of a bet din in the decision-making process that resulted in the expulsion of Rabbi Tendler.

This is all the more disturbing in light of the RCA’s failure to reconsider convening a bet din after the Forward and Jewish Week carried story after story about the RCA’s investigation and – without any hard evidence cited – all but convicted Rabbi Tendler even before the RCA’s investigation was completed. Whatever merit the RCA’s machers saw in their process before the public onslaught against Rabbi Tendler gathered steam, surely they could not have failed to grasp that the matter had evolved into something far more consequential than whether someone could continue as a member of the organization.

Naftalie Farkash
New York, NY



‘Catastrophic Implications’

I wonder what members of the RCA would think if someone who disagreed with a ruling of its standing bet din, the Bet Din of America, dismissed it as a group of rabbis acting out of ignorance. How in Heaven’s name could a distinguished body such as the RCA display such disrespect – in a formal statement – for an official religious court and arm of the Chief Rabbinate?

I hope the leadership of the RCA is carefully considering the catastrophic implications of its actions. I am not a posek, but as The Jewish Press pointedly noted last week, the ability of the RCA’s Bet Din of America to summon people before it appears to have been compromised – and the legitimacy of seruvim it issues may be in doubt. In addition, members of the RCA should think long and hard about continuing their membership. If Rabbi Tendler could be mercilessly battered in the media through selective leaks from insiders at the RCA, and then expelled through a fundamentally subjective process on questionable evidence inadmissible in a bet din, what might the future hold for other pulpit rabbis?

Henry Rausch
(Via E-Mail)



Just Wondering

Two observations on the Tendler controversy:

1) If someone from the Satmar community had publicly insulted the members of an Israeli religious court, wouldn’t the RCA have emptied a thesaurus in expressing its indignant reaction ?

2) How many of those responsible for the RCA’s handling of the Tendler affair could hold a halachic candle to the members of the Jerusalem rabbinical court that ruled against them? And while the RCA refers to the Tendler expulsion as a matter of “peer review,” how many of those who judged Rabbi Tendler are really his “peers” in Shas and poskim?

Nechemia Witkin
Ramat Gan, Israel



Unique Dimensions

While I recognize that the RCA’s investigation of Rabbi Tendler may not have followed the standards we would have hoped for, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the problem of rabbinic abuse has unique dimensions. The usual rules may not be adequate to get to the truth of such matters, which by definition revolve around one person’s word against another’s and involve acts usually committed in non-public venues. This may be scant solace to the accused, but it is an unfortunate fact of life.

Bina Dolowitz
New York, NY



Charges Deserve Further Scrutiny

I trust The Jewish Press is not suggesting that just because a bet din did not confirm the charges against Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, those charges must therefore be without merit. Consider the public dismay at the O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake jury verdicts. I happen to believe that the allegations against Rabbi Tendler bear further scrutiny, despite their being mishandled by the RCA. That’s why I hope the RCA will convene a bet din as the Jerusalem bet din said it should.
 
Samuel Silverman
(Via E-Mail)

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor-112/2005/04/20/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: