Letters to the Editor	Print

Volume 3 , Issue 4 (March, 1990 | Adar, 5750)

To the Editor:

I would like to respond to Chanukah: A Celebration of Freedom (The Jewish Review, Vol. 3, No. 3).

It is historical fact, not generally known, that the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts Bay Colony seriously contemplated establishing Hebrew as their official language. This example of religious intervention in affairs of state was not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Most bore scars from the religious wars of Europe. They had personal knowledge of the abuses of political power to serve wealthy religious institutions. With their experience with religious strife, they sought to protect ?these United States? from destructive political struggles by religious contenders. In high hopes, they forbade Congress to act ?respecting an establishment of religion.? Every use of tax supported property or institutions on behalf of an organized religion threatens this Constitutional protection.

In Sarasota, FL, the Lubavitcher rabbi with approval of the Mayor and one of the Christian clergy placed a menorah in a public park in face of opposition from all other local rabbis. Because they believe in obeying the law of the State no less than the Bible, most Jews consistently support the Constitutional sanction against public support of organized religion. The display of any spiritual and historical symbol in celebration of what is in actuality an annual merchandising orgy becomes vulgar and offensive. Religious symbols belong in the home or a place of worship, not in an advertisement and certainly not on public property.

In contrast to the menorah, the creche, or the crucifix, the yuletide tree has a pagan tradition, as seasonal as cherry blossoms, without specific links to organized religion. Its presence on public property is open to challenge only when it is tied to a specific religious system. Who would see anything sectarian in PEACE ON EARTH: GOOD WILL TO ALL? That message might have been delivered by Gorbachev.

Marc M. Rosenblum

Gainesville, Florida

Dear Sir:

Your message about ?blind hatred? (see, Sinat Chinam, The Jewish Review, Vol. 3, No. 2) was interesting and commendable. However, the comment ?perhaps, too, without the Conservative and Reform, more Jews would have been completely lost ....? is speculation without an iota of truth. Concerning the clergy of those anti‑Torah movements, my deepest feelings come from the passage ?those who love Hashem, hate evil.? Not only do these masters of deceit deny the divine origin of Torah and ridicule our laws as old‑fashioned and obsolete, but most of them are atheists. Perhaps you may feel that these are strong words, but won't you agree with me on the following points?

The Reform and Conservative clergy have caused a spiritual holocaust on this continent because:

• tens of thousands of Gentiles think they are Jewish,? vis a vis Reform and Conservative phony conversion practices;
• tens of thousands of innocent Gentile children think they are Jewish because of the non‑Halakhic conversions of their mothers;
• tens of thousands of Jewish children are mamzerum because of non‑halakhic divorce and marriage rituals;
• tens of thousands of Jewish souls never saw the light of day because the anti‑Torah clergy declared that abortion is permissible;
• Jewish homosexuals have received sympathy for their abomination of a life‑style thanks to the above mentioned leftist clergy.

In conclusion, we of the laity are confused when our congregational rabbis do not obey their teachers, the roshei yeshivos. Over thirty‑five years ago, Gedolai Yisrael, issued a P'sak Halakha forbidding organizational contacts with the Reform and Conservative. This P'sak is still in force today.

Yitzchak ben Chaim,

Acting Chairman

Council for Authentic Judaism

Brooklyn, New York

The Jewish Review responds ? The imprecise use of language is, historically, perhaps, a leading cause of the world's conflicts, and the greatest cause of the sinat chinam at which the Publisher's Message (see, The Jewish Review, Vol. 3, No. 2) was directed. ?Anti‑Torah,? ?masters of deceit,? ?most of them are atheists,? ?spiritual holocaust,? ?leftist clergy,? are symptomatic of the ?swords that [Jews] are plunging into each other ?? with little or no benefit to show. While there are certainly serious problems with the perspective and actions of non‑Torah movements, the more important questions remain unanswered by Mr. ben Chaim's letter: Does the negative language used by many groups including, evidently, the Council for Authentic Judaism, serve any purpose other than to ensure the insularity of some small percentage of Orthodox Jews? Isn't it more prudent to spend the time and money available finding positive ways of ?lighting the sparks of true Yiddishkeit? in those they criticize?

To the editor:

I read with interest the article by Orrin Tilevitz entitled Mending Walls (Jewish Review Vol. 3, No. 3). It appeared to me, as I read on, that Mr. Tilevitz was using Borough Park and the so‑called ?charedi? community as a scapegoat to air his grievances regarding artificial ?walls? and ?fences.?

In his article, Mr. Tilevitz states that ?the charedi community feels itself under siege? and seems to denigrate rulings by recognized Torah sages which he sees as supporting this ?siege? mentality. In the first mishna in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) we learn that the Men of the Great Assembly taught that one should ?<193> make a protective fence around the Torah.? This refers, among other things, to the community (i.e., the Rabbonim who lead the community) setting up certain safeguards to ensure that halakha will not be transgressed. In another mishna (ibid. 1:7) we learn that one should ?keep away from a wicked neighbor,? a concept which reinforces the notion of safeguards. Pirkei Avot, however, is not halakha, but rather a general guide on how to live a Jewish life. The concept of building a fence around the Torah is fully in keeping with Judaism, which is not only a set of rules and regulations, but also a moral way of life. The benefits of this way of life are evident when we observe problems with drugs and crime which, for example, occur at a statistically much lower rate in the Orthodox community than in the general population. In actuality, ?fences? exist in close knit communities, whether Orthodox or Reform, Jewish or Gentile. Indeed, any closely knit ethnic or community group must set its own ethical or religious boundaries within which its members can best function.

Mr. Tilevitz goes on to quote Reb Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, and attempts to give examples of his ?extreme? rulings. The halakhically observant Jewish community is distinguished from other community groups by virtue of its adherence to a spiritual mentor. This may be a chasidic Rebbe, a Rosh Yeshiva or the Rav of the local synagogue. What separates these leaders from other community members is their Torah scholarship coupled with their understanding of Jewish communal and individual concerns. Jewish leaders throughout the generations up until the present day have not cloistered themselves within the synagogue or yeshiva walls, but have involved themselves fully with the everyday problems and concerns of the community they serve.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, was an outstanding example of a true Jewish leader. Those of us who didn't know him personally, are fascinated with stories of his grasp of halakha and the compassionate way in which he applied Jewish law to solve the problems of those who came to him in need. Although not directly stated, the overall impression one gets from reading Tilevitz's article is that Reb Moshe's halakhic decisions are being questioned, even denigrated. Now, within Judaism, one is certainly permitted to question a halakhic ruling if this is done properly, that is by referring to the question that was asked and the complete ruling given and then by citing contrary sources and showing how they apply to the case at hand. It is unfortunate that Mr. Tilevitz took snippets from different rulings to ?prove? his point, but failed to consider each of these rulings in their original context.

The Jewish Review has always advocated the tolerance and understanding of Jews with differing levels of observance. Occasionally an article appears, like the one by Orrin Tilevitz, in which I find a great deal of tolerance for Jews who are less observant, but very little for those who are ?stricter? in their interpretation of halakha. It sometimes seems that we Jews are still trying to emulate the non‑Jewish society in that, even though we ourselves may wear kipot as a means of identifying as Jews, we frown upon others who wear their Judaism more openly ‑ such as those who wear black hats or peyot. It would be refreshing to see this double standard recognized for what it is by all sections of the Jewish community.

Naftoli Biber

Mr. Tilevitz responds ? Mr. Biber makes several typically Borough Park assumptions, all of which I would challenge: non‑observant or less‑observant Jews are ?wicked neighbors? from whom one must keep apart; the roles of the posek and the chasidic rebbe are the same; Jews who dress in black hats or peyot are more outwardly Jewish than those who wear knitted kipot. Mr. Biber also appears to suggest that merely restating Rabbi Feinstein's ?extreme? views (Mr. Biber's characterization, not mine) on Reform and Conservative Jews and Judaism implicitly indicts those views, a suggestion which speaks for itself.