Evan Gahr writes: When I first arrived in DC I interviewed Michael Kinsley for the Washington Jewish Week. He was much better known then--on Crossfire--than Peter Beinart. But he was devoid of any pretense and had no problem giving me an interview; he even was quite apologetic about cancelling when Marty Peretz called a staff meeting and that interfered with the time slot.
The smaller the person the bigger the attitude.
Beinart is not strikingly briliant the way Kinsley is. He's just a rather pedestrian partisan putz. The partisanship being his own: needs to show everyone how he is so great he can prove both conservatives and liberals wrong on every issue.
From the WSJ: THE WHITE STUFF? After a 30-year career at National Public Radio, Bob Edwards found himself sacked as host of its syndicated news show "Morning Edition." In an interview with Talkers Magazine, Mr. Edwards gave a surprising answer when asked what kind of people listen to NPR. "Bright people," he replied. "People of all economic strata. It's a whiter audience than we would like and we're trying to fix that." Now substitute "GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie" for Bob Edwards and "Republican Party" for National Public Radio and think what the reaction would be to a statement that could be read to imply that white people are somehow brighter.
"People accused me of besmirching Wallenberg's name because I called him an American spy. The word 'spy' for a CIA asset was irresistable and my idiotic editor insisted on it. It was WW II. The guy was helping the Allies achieve victory over the Nazis. That would never occur to me that that was besmirching someone's name.
"I didn't go into the [American government] archives with the notion that I was going to prove he was an American spy. I found the material.
"Did I write my story about the fall of the Romanian regime with the idea that I would save Ceausescu or kill Ceausescu? No. It was a story that came to me."
"What do you think happened to Raoul Wallenberg?"
"That's a terrible story. I think Wallenberg survived until the 1990s."
"In Soviet prisons?"
"Yes."
"Even after the fall of the Soviet empire?"
"Yep."
"He died of old age?"
"We don't know. He would be 92. Yesterday was his birthday.
"In 1995, he no longer knew who he was because of all the drugs and all the treatments given to him by the KGB.
"The man who was convinced that Wallenberg was alive [in 1995] was his best friend from Budapest Per Anger (a modest, self-effacing man who never claimed anything for himself). Per started out giving passes to Jews, a piece of paper that said this person was connected with the kingdom of Sweden. He gave about 100 or so to people who had something to do with Sweden, business connections.
"Then, when Wallenberg came in, he said, that's terrific. Let's make something that looks like a passport. It was in color with the Swedish crown colors.
"Per Anger became Swedish ambassador to all sorts of places including Canada and Berlin. I interviewed him in 1995. He was the same age as Wallenberg. He was still in good shape. He told me that he was convinced that Wallenberg was still alive but that he no longer knew who he was."
"Why would the Soviet Union hold on to him?"
"Because it would enormously embarrassing for them to release him. It would be much easier for them to say, we can't find him. Or, we killed him, which is what they eventually said, then to release a broken man whose mind was no longer there."
"Did the US try hard to get him out?"
"No, because the damn Swedes said they would do it. President Truman offered. He was told no, we will handle it."
"Why didn't we, the US, apply more pressure to get him out?"
"According to my best source in the State Department, we never made it clear to the Russians that it would be in their best interest to release him. There was no US intelligence on where he was. The Swedes knew where he was."
"The Swedes found him an embarrassment?"
"Yes. It was their fault that the Swedish government did not press rigorously enough for Raoul's return. If he returned a broken man, can you imagine what would the reaction have been? Why didn't you do this sooner? Why didn't you get him out? It's a very nasty ugly story. The Swedish government behaved abominably."
Are you more afraid to hug kids because of all these sex abuse stories and frequent hysteria (when there is no truth to the wild charges)? Are you more afraid to be alone with kids?
There's been a decided lack of discussion on this Web site about Jew clergy committing sexual abuse. Who could be next?
Me writes: "The fact the no Jewish publication picked up on this new development in the Cantor Howard Nevison story, just illustrates how poor reporting is in the Jewish media."
For 23 years, Howard Nevison's magnificent baritone filled the posh sanctuary of Temple Emanu-El. But the music ended with Nevison's arrest in February on the stunning charge that he had sexually abused his young nephew. It's a case that has put an entire family on trial.
In barring the brothers' testimony, a three-member panel of Superior Court judges, in a decision handed down late last week, said the alleged abuse of the two brothers took place some 40 years ago - too long a time lapse to have relevance to the current case against Nevison.
Also, according to the appeals court's eight-page written decision, there were as many differences as similarities between the incidents alleged by the brothers and the current crimes with which Nevison is charged.
For example, in ruling in favor of the brothers' testimony, Montgomery County Judge Paul W. Tressler said that one of the similarities was that the brothers and the nephew were related to Nevison. The Superior Court stated that the brothers were just a few years younger than Nevison at the time of their alleged incidents while the nephew was decades younger than Nevison.
Tressler also noted that Nevison allegedly threatened to kill his alleged victims if they told anyone about the alleged incident. The Superior Court said that only one brother and the nephew are claiming they were threatened and that only the nephew is alleging that Nevison pinched his genitals to drive home that threat.
Robert has signed an exclusive distribution deal for Seraphic Press with the largest distributor of Jewish Books in North America, JD Books, who feel that these works should easily cross over into the general readership. JD are in every Jewish book store in the world and all the major chains.
Reviewers who want an advance copy should contact Marvin Sekler at JD Books: (718) 456 - 8611.
The layout, typeface and illustrations of the book are beautiful. "There will be an illustration for each and every chapter--22 in all," writes Robert. "The ones that are there now are not the final ones. They are just examples of Obadinah Heavner's work. She is my illustrator. I have hired a team of very fine and very sought after artists who work regularly for the big NY publishers. They love what I'm trying to do, love the book, and agreed to work for Seraphic Press. I am a lucky man. The font we are using is called Janson: it was originally cut by the great Hungarian typographer Nikolas Kis in the 1680's. It has a lovely humanist feel to it; the forms of the letters suggest older times. It is easy on the eyes and for children it is one of the best fonts you can use."
The official publication date for "The Hebrew Kid and the Apache Maiden" is January 2005.
According to the State Department, the American agency in charge of pursuing the killers of my son Koby, he was killed by “persons opposed to the Middle East peace process.” This language is so maddeningly benign — as if Koby’s murderers were standing outside of a supermarket with a petition or organizing a demonstration in front of the local high school.
Some random reflections on Yossi Klein Halevi's book, At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden.
Overall, it's great.
Yossi writes in the Intro: "I wanted to test whether faith could be a means of healing rather than intensifying the conflicts in this land?"
How banal is that? Of course faith, like anything else, can be a source of healing or conflict.
"Though raised in an Orthodox Jewish home, I abandoned ritual as a teenager, having been shocked out of religious complacency by biblical criticism."
Yet Yossi never mentions Biblical criticism in his first book.
"My eventual decision to return to Jewish observance wasn't inspired by any sudden realization that Judaism was the "true" faith after all, Judaism simply was my language of intimacy with God."
That is not an acceptable approach with Orthodox Judaism. Nobody could convert to OJ through a normative Beit Din with such an approach. It is not an approach that will keep the Jewish people alive. Jews won't stay Jewish simply because Judaism is their "language of intimacy with God."
I love it when all these people who not normative to their faith start writing books on their ecumenical journeys, such as that "Muslim" lesbian who wrote a book on what's wrong with Islam, yet she cannot read the language of the religion, Arabic.
"So when I began my journey into Christian and Muslim communities, I inevitably turned to their mystics, for whom montheism isn't a theology but an experience of oneness."
This is why I'm skeptical of mysticism in general. It withdraws one from this world. Its practicioners are primarily concerned with their own feelings and spiritual highs and salvation, rather than God's demands for their actions to benefit a wider world. Mysticism is an essentially solitary, self-centered and solipsistic pursuit. Unless it is married to a demanding code of behavior, it is never going to make things better in this world.
Yossi consistently misuses the word "disinterest" in the book. It truly means unbiased. He uses it to mean uninterested.
On page 205, Yossi tells a nun: "Can you imagine the reaction when my friends and relatives in the Orthodox community find out I've been going to monasteries?
"Gabriel, I need to learn from your courage."
Give me a break. Yossi spent almost a decade with the JDL. He described it in detail in his memoir. He describes many things he did that the Orthodox community would find heinous. He glorifies in his uniqueness and never misses an opportunity to write about how he's different. So what's another aberrant behavior?
Yossi davens with his tefillin in a church.
The last sentences of the book: "I am suddenly aware of the muezzin, summoning me from the next hill. I get on my knees, press my forehead to the floor, immobile with surrender."
"How would you handle a story about a leader of a major Jewish organization who is involved in an ongoing extramarital affair that is disrupting his work life but he's not doing anything illegal."
"It came up. [Reform Rabbi] Sheldon Zimmerman. We ran the story. I hear he hates me. I don't see the guy."
"But you didn't run any details on what he did wrong. Nobody did. You just said sexual indiscretions."
"At the time, we couldn't find out. Once we got the details, we did."
"You got sexual indiscretions. Everybody wants to know what they were."
"By the time I found out, it was ancient history. The guy's already dead. Why shoot him again? At a certain point, it becomes pornography. The issue is, what's going on in Jewish life. If we had known that week what had gone on, we would've printed it. But everybody clammed up on that. Nobody wanted to talk. My family and friends who are involved in these things [Jewish organizations, not necessarily sexual indiscretions], and they won't tell me. Everybody is afraid to talk to me.
"It took weeks and weeks to find out what it was about. If it is only interesting because we can find out who stuck what where, then in it is pornography."
"He is now at a major Jewish position. [He's now Vice-president for Jewish Renaissance and Renewal at United Jewish Communities.]"
"And we wrote about that," says J.J.. "He's really mad that we wrote about that. Now, it turns out that what I gather he did is so unexceptional. It wasn't with children.
"If it is [a certain type of sexual indiscretion], we'd have to have it lawyer-proofed. Maybe they don't sue bloggers because bloggers don't have any money. It's amazing how many more letters we got from lawyers once newspapers reported we had sold our radio station for $70 million. Suddenly everyone is interested in the details of what we wrote. I can't [publish] anything I can't prove in court."
"There was the head of a seminary [Sheldon Zimmerman at HUC]. Did we want to get into the details of what he did? I was not sure how important the details were. The guy had been severely punished [fired from his job for adultery, etc]. Everybody seemed to agree that the Reform movement dealt swiftly and responsibly. He's accepted the punishment. There's no sense that the person who made the complaints is now complaining. Did we need to get to the bottom of what this thing was? I don't think so. From a lashon hara perspective, getting into the sordid details would be crossing the line. What's the justification?"
"The problem by not spelling out what his sexual sins were is that everybody then wonders what were his sexual sins. Now he's in a responsible position somewhere else (UJC)."
"That's a valid point. I don't think anybody cracked the nut about what he did. It's not like anybody was sitting on a pile of info and didn't publish it. When he got a new position, I said to myself, I didn't think that through. Maybe I need to reevaluate it. Then again, maybe the people who hired him for his new position did due diligence. Then again, that's not my role as a journalist."
.................
On July 20, I emailed Rabbi Zimmerman:
We met briefly at the Renaissance conference in Woodland Hills.
I'm writing a book on Jewish journalism.
Some of my questions to journalists have to do with how we should handle sex scandals.
I've had so many in my life that I wrote a book about them (I make you look like a choir boy): XXX-Communicated: A Rebel Without a Shul.
Anyway, I did not write to plug my book. I just interviewed JJ Goldberg, editor of the Forward, who told me that his impression is that you are very angry with him for his coverage of your sex scandal.
What's your view on all this stuff and how it relates to journalism on Jewish life?
..................
Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman writes August 5: "Dear Mr. Ford: I do not wish to be included in your book. If there is anything negative about me or my family in your book you will hear from my attorney."
A few weeks ago, I emailed Yossi Klein Halevi a link to my work-in-progress on Jewish journalism and asked him for an interview. He replied: "I looked up your web site and have to admit to being troubled...by the lashon harah aspect of your work. Why is it important to know the private lives of Jewish leaders? Would that make better Jewish journalism? What is Jewish journalism? Does it have a commitment not only to truth but also lashon harah?"
After a few desultory exchanges, Yossi refused me an interview.
I was confused. I'd read a lot of his work. I did not notice any difference in his approach to reporting telling personal embarrassing details from any other journalist, Jewish or otherwise. What was I missing? Surely his concerns with lashon hara weren't only about the writing of others? Surely it wasn't his fellow writer's soul and his own income that he was concerned with?
So I read his book Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist. It's a terrific read. Beautifully written like most of his work. But as far as lashon hara is concerned, it is indistinguishable from other memoirs.
For instance, this paragraph on page 208 about the poor sucker who funded Yossi's 1980 paper New Jewish Times:
"The answer was Marv Steinhartz [fictional name about a real man, what's the real name?], a young businessman who'd made his money running private hospitals. Steinhartz was what they called in Yiddish a chazir fesser, a gluttonous consumer of pork, an expression that described not merely his diet but his being. Marv was always on the make -- for quick bucks, quick lays, quick highs. A cigarette dangled from his thick lips, a Humphrey Bogart effect ruined by traces of spittle. His favorite words were "chick" and "chic," and he prounounced them both the same way. "The chicks will be lining up at the door if we put out a chick product," he said, explaining his vision for the newspaper."
So how is that not lashon hara by his own standards? He's delving into the embarassing personal details of a prominent Jew (though he gives him a fake name).
Now, you could argue that his book is more thoroughly fact-checked than the transcripts I've placed on my site. True. But that has nothing to do with lashon hara. It's lashon hara when it is true.
As Yossi is not answering my emails, I can only conclude that he is a big phony on this matter. Like other Jewish leaders who cry lashon hara when you ask them a tough question, he carries God's name in vain. He invokes divine law to escape from accountability.
I hope he proves me wrong one day and answers some elementary questions about his work.
Or may be somebody else can point out how Yossi walks his talk about lashon hara. How is his work different from other journalists in this respect? I'm not seeing but I could be missing things.
In today's NYT op-ed about the prospect of right-wing Israeli extremists assassinating PM Ariel Sharon, Jeffrey Goldberg provides this maddeningly ambiguous statement about the view of R' Avigdor Neventzal:
The rabbi of the Old City of Jerusalem, Avigdor Neventzal, announced in June
that anyone who gives up a part of the land of Israel - even a single settlement
- to a non-Jew could be the target of a religiously sanctioned murder.
So, based on this sentence, do we know whether R' Neventzal would support the assassination? Afraid not. Depends on what the definition of "could" is. Is it meant as "should" (a moral judgment) or as "might become" (a prediction)? It's not entirely clear. Personally, I think Goldberg meant that R' N. was predicting it because a) I think it's the more natural meaning of "could" in this context, b) the next speaker issues a prediction, and c) if R' N supported it, he wouldn't call it "murder."
But these are not solid proofs. The bottom line is that, however he meant it to be taken, Goldberg wrote it in an idiotic way that is just begging to be misunderstood.
I really trust their journalistic integrity. There's no reason for racial journalism groups. For black journalists or yellow journalists or brown journalists. Anyone who joins one of those must have no respect for themselves as either persons or journalists. I would never join a white journalist association or any group based on race. I think it is disgusting and I despise anyone who joins a race-based group, including most of these race-based groups at this conference who are drooling over John Kerry.
Another pious, dull, boring, sanitized story from The Jewish Week. Why not give sizzling examples?
Buggy writes: "If those women rabbis would show a little more cleavage maybe they would get paid more."
Buggy, that is exactly the sort of hurtful speech that is holding women down in the Conservative movement and screwing them.
Which leading Conservative rabbi said that the only position for a woman in his shul was prone?
I think I'll do my next book on the secret lives of lesbian Conservative rabbis? What really goes on in those all-women Talmud groups? Either that, or, The Happiest Gabbai in Long Island.
What's the percentage of dykes among female rabbis? I'd guess at least a quarter (not that there's anything wrong with that).
I was talking to a prominent Jewish journalist this week with a good story. He asked me where he should place it. I said the Forward. He said the Forward takes forever to pay (three months or so) and that you have to make a bunch of phone calls to get your money. He's published in the Forward several times and this was his experience.
It's always interesting to see just how deep the rabbit-hole goes in terms of self-deception regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Woke up just a bit ago and was channel-surfing, caught a documentary ("Real Olympics: Playing to Win") on international harmony and the Olympics. The rock-bottom point of such which was used to illustrate the move towards harmony in recent decades was Munich, natch. Except when describing it, the film skips over much of the detail and when it actually describes the bloodshed, it mentions "seventeen" dead, which included "eleven Israelis [and] five Palestinians," and a police officer. While it's true that they died, those five Palestinians were terrorists who infiltrated Olympic Village, and their deaths at the hands of German sharp-shooters is not the symbol of a lack of international participation in the Olympic spirit that the film made it out to be; indeed, it was their slaughter of eleven Israeli athletes that truly harmed the spirit of the Olympics.
Really, you've gotta be kidding.
Luke to Rob Eshman, editor of the Jewish Journal: "Have you ever seen one of your peers snorting a line, smoking a joint, getting rip roaring drunk at an AJPA conference?"
Rob replies: "Put us in a room with the Chicago Manual of Style and a six pack of HeBrew, and things get out of control."
From Washington Jewish Week May 2001: Do conservatives have a speech code? Will they refuse to tell the truth about one of their own if the truth is uncomfortable? Evan Gahr thinks so. Gahr has been fired from his job as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, only a few weeks after calling longtime conservative activist Paul Weyrich a "demented anti-Semite" because of an Easter column in which Weyrich blamed Jews for killing Jesus.
Anyone have a home phone number for Jerome W. Lippman, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Long Island Jewish World? I leave messages at his office but he never returns my calls. I want the pleasure of hearing him yell at me. If you are a friend of Jerry's, or a friend of Dorothy's, or a friend of Jewish journalism, pass on the word that I'll treat him like a flower and he'll never feel so fulfilled as a Jewish man as talking to the Protector of Jewish Virginity. I never wanted to employ these desperate measures, but he's driven me to it.
Rabbi Gadol writes: "I am converging on the position that blogging is for losers, and that time spent on the internet is time not spent forming real relationships with people. The happiest people I know do not spend time sharing their thoughts with total strangers on the internet. They are too busy living their lives. And most bloggers I know of are failures in their personal and professional lives."
I got an email: "Hey - you're a fella who's had to balance the lures of the 'outside world' with the strictures of frumkeit - and you opted in! I'm just now (at age 35) finding out what my more rebellious friends discovered in their late teens and early 20s - that easy girls are easy to find, that naughty flirting and drinks and dancing with gentile coworkers can be a blast, and that nobody gives a shit if you're married or not. What's the best way for me to avoid exploring that world too thoroughly and find peace and contentment at home, with the wife and kids? Got any insight for me?"
Watch the movie Carnal Knowledge, read my memoir, read Cad: Confessions of a Toxic Bachelor, and such about the meaningless of promiscuity and vacousness and soul-sucking nature of its pursuit...and you might find some inner peace on these matters.
4 p.m. -- James E. Davis Stop Violence Foundation founder Geoffrey Davis holds rally denouncing swastika graffiti on a Crown Heights residence; 922 Lincoln Place, between Brooklyn and New York avenues, Brooklyn.
Then tomorrow:
11:30 a.m. -- Press conference and departure ceremony for second flight of 1,500 Israel-bound North American emigrants; JFK airport, Terminal 4, red carpet area near the El Al departure hall.
Noon -- City Council releases schedule for first Jewish Music & Heritage Festival; City Hall.
I'm to be doing a trial week of a religion beat at the New York Sun starting Monday. My mandate is to get scoops, quickly and on deadline. Obviously, I'm hoping to get some stories on the other-than-Judaism front, since it'll be no big trick for me to show them that I can cover Judaism. Story ideas and/or contacts e-mailed are preferred. What's going uncovered in the religious world -- especially in New York -- that is timely and newsy?
In the month of June, Mr. Nader granted interviews to the United Arab Emirates' al-Khaleej newspaper, which in recent years distinguished itself by defending Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, and to Pat Buchanan's American Conservative magazine. Buchanan has referred to Congress as "Israeli-occupied territory", described ex-Nazi John Demjanjuk as a modern-day Dreyfus, and praised Hitler as "an individual of great courage".
In both of these interviews, Mr. Nader referred to White House officials and Congressmen as "puppets" of the Israeli government. In one, he said the Israelis "control" and "coerce" American officials, shaking them down for money and arms.
Because of Alana Newhouse's article, I no longer wish to be addressed as "Luke" or "My Moral Leader," but "The Protector of Jewish Virginity [intellectual and otherwise]."
Nobody is doing more to keep Jewish women chased than I am.
Who is Evan Gahr? EvanGahr@aol.com, "used to work for Eric Breindel and sometimes feels like he still does. He previously broke major stories on Congress, Hillary Clinton, the Christian Right and the gay marriage debate."
According to a source, "Apparently this site is quite popular among Jewish wonky types in Washington. It's a little inside for me, but people who get it think it's funny."
I'm finding it bizarre and difficult-going...and I'm pretty difficult and bizarre myself.
[This is a bit long, I know. But I’m trying to do a careful job. If you don’t want to read a long post or if you know that you don’t like Dr. David Johnson’s work, do not read the following.]
Before I discuss Alana Newhouse’s treatment of the R’ Schachter/ketubah-reading issue, I should probably disclose that I care very little about the specific issue itself. It wouldn’t bother me if a woman (or a man) were to read a ketubah at a wedding ceremony, and it doesn’t particularly bother me that some would prefer that the document be read by a man. The only real passion I have for the question is my overwhelming desire to attend a wedding at which a parrot or monkey performs the recitation. (Any leads would be greatly appreciated).
All of that said, I find Newhouse’s conclusions to be generally unsupported from the evidence she cites. I have no interest in defending R’ Schachter per se, or the faction of Orthodoxy he represents – whatever that might be; however, if Schachter is to be criticized, his views should be presented accurately and the conclusions derived therefrom must be (reasonably) based on what he has stated. Obviously, there is certain amount of subjectivity in making these judgments. But I believe (and will try to demonstrate) that Newhouse’s criticism of him fails to meet these criteria. I will address two major problems with her argument:
1) Newhouse’s pyramid of assumptions
Newhouse states:
“Over the last two decades, religious observance has taken on a stricter, less
flexible cast, and a certain fear and hatred of the outside world has set in.”
This sentence, particularly its latter portion, is a very strong statement. It’s the kind of statement that, ideally, should be backed up by some sort of statistical finding or expert opinion. Neither appears in Newhouse's article, but perhaps that can be justified. One could – and I assume Newhouse would – argue that this assumption is so widely accepted that no confirmation is required. Perhaps.
However, even if this assumption is an acceptable generalization (which is not at all obvious), what is manifestly not justified is the manner in which Newhouse – using a two-step process – then stretches this point and links it to Schachter. Here’s how she does it:
Step 1: Linking the “fear and hatred of the outside world” to women’s issues:
According to Newhouse:
“Nowhere is this increasing provinciality better reflected than in the attitude
toward the weaker sex. Girls and women are increasingly viewed as feeble
subjects whose virginity — intellectual and sexual — must be protected, from
either a predatory outside world or their own sinister instincts.”
Ok, our original (unproven) assumption has now sprouted a branch; the prime example of the “less flexible cast” of “religious observance” is its treatment of women’s issues. Furthermore (Newhouse reveals), the motives fueling this behavior are evident: to save women’s intellectual and sexual virginity from two dangers, the “predatory outside world” and “their own sinister instincts.”
Step 2: Taking the “fear and hatred of the outside world” evident in women’s issues (as per her conclusion in Step 1) and linking it to Schachter:
Newhouse states:
“Lest anyone think the aforementioned post is simply an idle thought from a
random Internet trawler, Rabbi Hershel Schachter, arguably the most
influential instructor at Yeshiva University’s affiliated rabbinical
seminary, took the modesty argument one step further in a recent commentary
on the weekly Torah portion.”
Notice the slick rhetorical move. Having presented unproven assumption #1 (the lack of flexibility and the fear/hatred of the outside world) and unproven assumption #2 (that this attitude is evident in treatment of women’s issues, for the reasons mentioned) as facts, Newhouse can now use R’ Schachter’s statement as a phenomenon that fits in to – and indirectly proves – her thesis. [It’s clear that Newhouse considers Schachter’s statement to be a proof (or a support) from the words, “Lest anyone think the aforementioned post is simply an idle thought...”]
The problem is, however, that R’ Schachter’s statement does not, by any reasonable standard, provide the slightest bit of significant evidence for Newhouse’s pyramid of assumptions. Read it. And answer this – From which points in the text is it clear that R’ Schachter:
a) is more rigid than were rabbis two decades ago?
b) harbors a certain fear of/hatred for the outside world?
c) views women as feeble subjects? (And views them as such more so than did rabbis two decades ago?)
d) maintains his view in order to protect women’s intellectual and sexual virginity?
e) believes the predatory outside world and women’s own sinister instincts are the greatest danger to women?
The answer, of course, is – Nowhere. And so, the example with which Newhouse attempts to demonstrate that her thesis is not “an idle thought” does nothing of the sort. [Newhouse’s point may, in fact, not be an idle thought, but that’s not the point; the point is that R’ Schachter’s statement - contrary to her assertion - does not prove it, in whole or even in part.]
Now, Newhouse is within her rights to dismiss Schachter’s statement and say that she knows what really is behind his “ruling.” But if she wants to do that – and that, in fact, is what she has done – she should admit it openly. But she doesn’t. She suggests that a straightforward reading of Schachter’s argument supports her own thesis – when, in fact, nothing in R’ Schachter’s words even remotely supports her conclusions.
2) Newhouse’s a priori rejection of Schachter’s halakhic reasoning
Commendably, Newhouse concedes that the “hubbub” surrounding the monkey/parrot issue is “misleading.” I agree with her. Presumably, she realizes that this sort of statement, in which an unrealistic hypothetical is posited, is a standard (and effective) method – within halakha (and other legal systems as well) – of concretizing the abstract reasoning upon which a legal ruling is based by providing its most extreme application. (In this case, the hypothetical of a monkey reading the ketubah is employed to illustrate the notion that the reading of the ketubah is not an integral or necessary component of the marriage ceremony.)
However, given Newhouse’s sensitivity to the terminology of halakhic discourse, it is surprising that her cursory treatment of Schachter’s legal opinion betrays a total lack of perspective on how halakhic (or other legal) arguments are constructed.
Newhouse rightly points out that R’ Schachter “acknowledged that this [i.e. a woman reading the ketubah] was technically permitted” but that, in Schechter’s words, “nonetheless it is a violation of kvod hatzibur to have a woman surrender her privacy to read the kesuba in public.” What does Newhouse take from this?
“he [Schachter] freely admits that a woman reading from a wedding contract does
not violate the Torah; instead, he stretches the concept of modesty until it
prohibits an act that just doesn’t sit right with him (apparently, the laws bend
and flex, but only in one direction).
In portraying Schachter’s decision in this way, Newhouse flat-out ignores the central basis for Schachter’s opinion: the analogy Schachter makes between the ketubah question and the issue – dealt with in medieval Jewish legal sources – of whether a woman is permitted to read the Torah or receive an aliyah in the synagogue. (The accepted ruling in the latter case is that the woman should not read the Torah or receive an aliyah if there are men who could fill these roles – because of, kvod hatzibbur.)
Leaving out this basis for Schachter’s opinion is patently unfair because Newhouse implies – actually, she pretty much says it straight out – that Schachter’s ruling derived from his own personal taste rather than on any reasonable basis. The precedent Schachter cites tends to undermine this claim. Now, Newhouse may in fact believe that Schachter’s analogy to reading the Torah is faulty and that he decided the law based on his personal preference, but honesty demands that she at least acknowledge that Schachter did provide an ostensibly reasonable precedent upon which he claimed to have based his decision.
Instead, Newhouse pretends – once again – that Schachter’s statement unambiguously confirms her own (stated-but- never-proven) thesis.
Conclusion
Newhouse laments the fact that someone would publish “such an insensitive, simplistic view on a topic certain to arouse a great deal of emotion on all sides.” My thoughts exactly.
Professor Alan Mittleman writes: The only Jewish paper I read--the only one I know of worth reading--is the Forward. If there is such a thing as a national, serious Jewish paper of record, the Forward is it. As you know, there are no longer intellectual journals that "everyone" must read. The general intellectual world is too divided and diffused for there to be central addresses for intellectual discourse. That's the case in the Jewish world too. The Forward is about the best we've got, as far as a newspaper is concerned. I also like the Jerusalem Report, but for current Israeli news I try to read to Haaretz online regularly.
One thing I've noted recently is the proliferation of online digests of news stories, commentaries, editorials, and analyses such as those produced by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs or the research center in Montreal. In these cases, editors look over dozens of publications and put together links to useful
articles on a daily basis. This is good for the news consumer and it also provides intellectual stimulation (e.g. you can contrast a Washington Times or NYPost op-ed with an NYTimes op-ed very quickly). I suppose that this sort of thing, as well as blogs, will increasingly displace traditional news sources for busy readers.
While it is true that The Jewish Week pays more than the Forward, a Forward editor tells me that there are much better endorsement opportunities at the Forward.
Also, Alana "absolutely gorgeous" Newhouse will soon be releasing her own line of fragrances, provocatively titled: Virgin, Forbidden Knowledge, Shorts, Monkey, Parrot, Engagement, Ketuba, Gemilut Hasidim.
Eve Kessler kindly pointed out that I used some racist language below. That was not my intention and I am very sorry. It's just that I've walked the mean big city streets for too many years now and the language of those I've associated with has rubbed off on me.
Shul today was a deeply moving religious experience which makes me want to be more than I am. I read and finished Nathan Englander's FOR THE RELIEF OF UNBEARABLE URGES (nothing in it to make me think a second time) and still had time left over for Barchu, shma, repetition of the Amidah, the rabbi's drasha, catching up with friends, and an hour-long conversation with the shiksa security guard.
I want to interview Charles Fenyvesi. Jewish Ledger Managing editor Lisa Lenkiewicz told me: "Charles Fenyvesi was at the Washington Post, then Bnai Brith magazine, then Washington Jewish Week, then he got a job at US News & World Report. That was our big excitement. One of ours made it into an important magazine. It doesn't happen that often."
The best posters on Frum Sex: Oy_it's_so_humid, and maybe heimish25 for frum stuff, aronteitelbaumrules for dirty stuff. one900s likes to argue semantics and science. The group is four years old, and gets up to 60 posts a day.
"The most oft-updated site shop for Jewish kitsch and personal commentary in the blogosphere." -- Jewsweek Magazine "If you only have time for one Jewish blog, make it this one." -- Jewish Journal North of Boston
Support protocols via PayPal:
Earn Protocols money by applying for this no-annual-fee credit card (you can cut it up when you get it -- we still earn a referral fee):
Any time you purchase something at Amazon, click on the link below first, and Protocols earns a referral fee.
