Dear Editor:
I received my copy of Volume 2, number 1 of The Jewish Review. This is my first
exposure to it.
Please accept my congratulations for this
very fine publication. The articles are full of intelligent comment and important
insights--especially Ira Berkowitz' plan for Jewish Literacy, Rabbi Basil
Herring's reflections on the tensions between truth, unity and principle, and the
sensitive and powerful interview with Rabbi Marc Angel about death and life and
on being an orphaned adult, to mention only a few.
Equally heartening was the openness of the
tone. While solidly based on Orthodox values and observance, you show
consistent respect for the non-Orthodox, the non-observant and people that you are trying to
reach. Even such little touches as the comment ?use of the male or female
pronoun should be understood to refer to both genders? shows a sensitivity to
values that are not always respected in the Orthodox community.
In short, you have the promise of being an
important publication that can speak to a wise
variety of people and bring them closer to Torah. May your work prosper and go
from strength to strength.
Rabbi
Irving Greenberg
[Rabbi Greenberg
is a founder and current President of CLAL, The National Jewish Center for
Learning and Leadership.]
Dear Editor:
In the September-October, 1988 issue of The
Jewish Review appeared an article on Yemenite Jewry by Andrew Krakauer. In his article, the author states that anti-religious Zionists sought to
destroy the
religiousity [sic] of Yemenite Jewry. The implication
is that all Zionists are anti-religious. This is simply not so. Some Zionists
are anti-religious--others are not. Rav Kook and his followers, for example, were
and are Zionists, but religious. Mr. Krakauer should
have said that anti- religious elements were involved, not anti-religious Zionists.
Mr. Krakauer would be advised to choose his words more
carefully.
Joseph
Rosenbloom
Dear Editor:
?A Women's View? in your last issue states the ?process of separation
[between wife and husband during menstruation] parallels the relationship
between the Jewish people and God.? This metaphor conflicts with some basic
Jewish concepts regarding the nature of God, freedom of choice, accountability
and reward and punishment.
In Deuteronomy, Chapter 30, God tells the People of Israel they
will be rewarded if they keep His commandments and punished, ifthey do not. ?... I have set
before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life ...? The
People of Israel are given the choice of nearness to or estrangement from God.
On the other hand, menstruation is a natural biological process over which
women have little, if any, control. Menstruation is not an act of free will.
Applying the metaphor and saying separation and reunion with God is
like the separation and reunion with a husband as the result of menstrual
cycles, implies a belief in a fickle God whose mood swings are determined by
time and nature and are not a response to our actions. This is not a God who ?grants
kindness to a pious man according to his deeds and gives adversity to a wicked
man according to his wickedness,? (Yigdal) and not
the God of Judaism.
Conversely, saying the separation and reunion between husband and wife
is like the separation and reunion between God and
Barbara Mazor