I will make one comment about the so-called “watchdog” mentality,
as applied to a well-known scandal of a few years back. The
newspaper editor who “broke” that story insisted that he “went
public” not because he wanted to sell papers and enhance his
own reputation as a journalist, but because “nothing was being
done.”
Then, two years later, he “broke” a similar story after a
whole set of steps were taken, and, in fact, the first line
of his story was that a Bais Din was about to be convened
in order to find out the truth.
This tells you something about the truthfulness of the so-called
“justification” for his publication of the first set of allegations.
I am not saying that those who should have done better supervision
are not worthy of criticism – but I’m saying something about
the motivations of self-appointed watchdogs.
I've criticized Rosenblatt publically (and deservingly) but
when it comes to the Rabbi Baruch Lanner and Rabbi Matis Weinberg
cases, he should get a medal. He protected children/young
women/men from sexual predators something that in both cases
rabbonim involved were incapable of. These predators preyed
on our community for decades.
Rabbi Yaakov Menken what you have written shames us all. You
owe Rosenblatt a public apology.
What research have you done in these cases? Have you spoken
to the victims? Does the truth even matter to you?
It wasn't a beit din at all and it wasn't convened to find
out the truth.
It was merely a tribunal that gave permission to forward the
allegations to a beis din in Israel that refused to hear the
matter.
Khunrum writes: Ms Sopee and I were walking back from breakfast
this morning and saw a guy coming towards us with a neck brace.
I asked him if he had been in Phukett. He, a fellow American,
replied in the affirmative and told us he and his wife were
lucky to be alive.
Then he lifted up his tee shirt and showed us the damage.
He was black and blue with huge welts and abrasions all over
his chest and legs. He said his wife was beat up too and had
suffered torn ligaments on both her legs. They were in their
hotel when the waves hit and were underwater for awhile. He
said he was rolling around from the force of the surge and
thought he had snapped his neck. He said the things that bump
into you like furniture and other debris cause the damage.
That is, if you don't drown first.
I shook his hand and commented that it was a Happy New Year
for him in advance. He smiled and agreed. There but for fortune
eh! what?
Young Israel of Woodmere
rabbi Hershie Billet (past president of the RCA) is taking
over the Rabbinical Council of America (centrist Orthodox
body) investigation of rabbi
Mordecai Tendler and is going to try to get the women
who've complained about Tendler to interview over again (some
of them have been through it with rabbi
Mark Dratch and the Praesidium
team, not the sharpest group around).
The RCA is run by rabbi
Basil Herring who bears responsibility for turning over
the RCA's complete file on Tendler to Tendler.
The women who spoke to the RCA and its investigators believed
that the RCA had assured them on anonymity, which is normal
for these type of investigations, as opposed to criminal investigations
where a person tried has the right to confront his accusers.
Rabbi Tendler then sicced his lawyers on to some of the women
who complained that Tendler coerced them into bed in exchange
for a divorce or some other favor.
The RCA's investigation into rabbi Tendler has run tens of
thousands of dollars and is being paid for by special donations.
The RCA doesn't have the resources (without special contributions)
to do these investigations, especially not ones on powerful
rabbis like Mordecai Tendler, who have their own fiefdom and
their own expensive lawyers ready to get rough and dirty with
their opponents.
I sent rabbi Billet an email a few days ago to discuss rabbinical
sex abuse. He did not respond.
I'm blown away by the quality of the rabbis recruited to
blog on www.cross-currents.com,
including: Emmanuel Feldman, Jonathan Rosenblum, Yaakov Yosef
Reinman, and Yitzchok Adlerstein.
These are men I've been reading for years.
Let good blogging drive out bad blogging (of which I've contributed
more than my share).
The founder of the blog is rabbi Yaakov Menken of Torah.org.
He's tied in with the Ner Israel crowd and is a staunch supporter
(or, "not totally clueless" to give another perspective) of
rabbis
Eliezer Eisgrau,Matis
Weinberg, and Mordecai
Tendler.
Rabbi Menken writes about the Eisgrau case here:
Right now, there is a web site carrying extremely serious
allegations about a member of our community, allegations which,
if believed, would result in the immediate termination of
that individual’s employment – or great damage to the company
that employs him. The “evidence” against this person comes
entirely from a blog (and another web page created by the
blogger), which also contains a series of allegations against
various rabbis and others who are “protecting” this individual.
Anyone who knows any of these people knows that the allegations
are ludicrous. If the allegations had a hint of truth to them,
then (given their nature) the rabbis in question would be
first to tell him he must leave his job. The allegations were
discredited long ago – but certain people don’t care. They
would rather besmirch the innocent based upon “testimony”
which changes substantially each time the story is re-told.
I posted in reply:
Dear rabbi Menken,
Congratulations on your new site and on the stellar credentials
of your contributors.
There is no beautiful teaching that can not be abused. Judaism's
laws and teachings about forbidden speech, about lashon hara,
are not a shield from independent scrutiny, nor a club to
beat away all inconvenient facts. The prophet Nathan had no
problem saying to King David, thou art the man.
Judaism is a constellation of values and practices. You can't
seize one interpretation of Jewish law (the Chafetz Chaim's
teachings on lashon hara) and claim it trumps all other values.
For instance, when there is a life at stake, that value trumps
all of Jewish law but for three laws.
The record of the Orthodox community in Baltimore regarding
rabbinic abuse is not stellar. Some disinterested reporting
(so long as it is accurate) may be a good thing for your community.
The links rabbi Menken refers to are here
and here.
The evidence against Eisgrau was serious enough (coming from
Eisgrau's daughter and others) that it initiated a lengthy police
investigation. The detective who conducted the investigation
has told people that he believed the charges had credibility
but he encountered a stonewall of no cooperation from the Baltimore
Orthodox community, and so was not able to do his job.
A couple of persons in Baltimore who investigated the charges
independently were hounded and harassed by the Baltimore Orthodox
establishment and cowered into silence (not because they believe
Eisgrau is innocent).
One interesting thing I've encountered in the reactions of Orthodox
rabbis to The Awareness Center and reporting on sex abuse is
that many of them cheer on reporting on certain colleagues (such
as Mordecai
Gafni) but abhor it on other colleagues. And frequently
it does not seem to be a matter of misreporting facts that bothers
them. Rather they want scrutiny on fellow rabbis they view as
a danger and little scrutiny on rabbis they view as good.
As Gary Rosenblatt laid bare in his reporting on rabbi
Baruch Lanner, the Orthodox Union protected a child abuser
for about three decades.
Certainly there is a dramatic difference in the facts on the
ground in the Lanner, Gafni and Eisgrau cases. Lanner was convicted
of crimes and imprisoned. Gafni confessed to statutory rape.
As for Eisgrau, the case is more murky. Accusations were made
by several persons, a detective investigated, but no charges
were filed. Nobody wants to come forward by name to say that
they were harmed by rabbi Eisgrau who retains the trust of Baltimore's
Orthodox establishment.
Rabbi Menken on his new blog makes one of those cheap shots
that immediately alerts me that somebody is not thinking but
rather looking to make a cheap shot and score rhetorical points
at the expense of truth and merit.
He writes: "...about the motivations of self-appointed watchdogs."
I reply:
Aside from appointments by God, whose appointing should we
respect? Who appointed you to start this website? Whoever
it is, does that, in and of itself, make your website and
your writing more valuable? If The Los Angeles Times appoints
a reporter to do a story, does that, in and of itself, make
it superior to a story chosen by a freelancer? When Dan Rather
and CBS News appointed itself to run a false story about George
Bush and his medical records and military service, was that
false story, because it was appointed by a corporate news
entity, make it superior to the accurate stories by bloggers
who appointed themselves to the story? Of course not.
If the great rabbis of our generation appointed you to set-up
this website, it does not make any of your posts necessarily
more important, more true, more in line with Torah values,
than the rantings of somebody in California. A blog, an article,
a book, a speech, a painting, have to stand on their own merit,
and not on the merit of who appoints them.
Regarding Rabbi Menken's comment: "I would prefer (strongly)
that we not discuss individuals."
Thankfully this attitude widespread in the Orthodox world and
other circles does not permeate Judaism's sacred texts. From
the Bible to the Talmud, Judaism's sacred texts are filled with
discussions and descriptions of the intimate (and often bad)
behavior of individuals. Jewish sacred text has no compunction
about holding Jewish leaders accountable for not only their
public decisions, but their private lives (certainly to the
extent that their private behavior affects the public). My
fervent wish is that respectable Jewish weeklies were as lively
as the Torah and numerous Talmudic discussions.
Shmarya tried to post to the new site:
If Rosenblatt had not broken the Lanner story, Lanner would
still be abusing children. Further, Lanner had a history of
abuse that went back almost 30 years, the OU had heard many
complaints about him over that time period, but the OU did
NOTHING until The Jewish Week published its story.
Rosenblatt held that story for a long time before publishing
it. During that time, Lanner abused more children.
Perhaps Rosenblatt has decided that waiting for rabbis to
police their own ranks is no longer justified. Indeed, the
rather long comment you deleted contains Halakhic support
for making that decision.
Perhaps you could address those Halakhic points. After all,
they are right on topic.
I was not offended that Shmarya's post has yet to appear on
the Cross-Currents site nor that one of my own was deleted for
violating its protocols. Cross-currents is the home of various
Orthodox rabbis and they have every right -- moral, Jewish and
personal -- to moderate the comments. I (and Judaism) have no
problem with certain forms of censorship, if one wants to call
this that.
Rabbi Menken writes: "Luke - You want to criticize ideas? Public
statements? Fine. But to publicize the wrongdoing of an individual
without Torah sanction violates an explicit Torah prohibition.
It’s not the Chofetz Chaim’s interpretation, it’s black-and-white.
That’s being a self-appointed watchdog – arrogating for one’s
self that which only a communal entity (in the Torah world,
a Bais Din) can do. Anyone can critize an idea – even mine.
But there are rules about impugning individuals. And thus that
thread is closed."
There are rules but all rules have to be applied in a context
and weighed against other rules and other values. Plenty of
Bais Dins have been wrong (think about the number that protected
rabbi Baruch Lanner and humiliated those who brought truthful
and important allegations against him) and plenty of individuals
have been right (think of those pushing to bring Baruch Lanner
to justice). In the end, you can't take refuge in one Jewish
law as interpreted by certain rabbis as an excuse to stand by
while the blood of your neighbor is shed. In the end, you have
to do what is right (which should be informed by sacred text
which has stood the test of time, by community, by your conscience),
even if your particular Bais Din does not approve. Only God
is all good and all knowing, not a group of rabbis.
The Chafetz Chaim and his peers (the Orthodox rabbis who ran
Europe's observant communities) condemned thousands of Jews
to death by telling them to stay in Europe (in the approximately
50 years before the Holocaust). Observant Jews stayed (while
more secular Jews left for America) and they were slaughtered
by the Nazis.
The Orthodox rabbinic establishment was overwhelmingly opposed
to the creation of the modern state of Israel. Without it, thousands
more Jews, observant and otherwise, would have died in the past
50 years and probably another six million Jews would have ceased
identifying as Jews.
Orthodox rabbinic establishments are fallible and they can not
be allowed to be the sole determinant of right and wrong. Orthodox
Jews can not skip the agonies of moral choice by seeking refuge
in the rulings of particular rabbis (even though such rabbis
should be consulted).
As Your Moral Leader, I must speak on this important matter.
Why did so many have to die?
I need to tell you what I honestly believe, based on my long
years of study of sacred text.
To quote Comrade Amalek, God wanted some more angels to look
over the rest of us, so he harvested a few hundred thousand
of his most favorite people to be near him.
"Sit by the river long enough and the body of your enemy will
float by."
Mendel Slutsky writes: "Why do you read what slant-eyed goyim
have to say? You should read only the sacred texts, lest you
be tainted with goyishe ideas."
My friend Khunrum was once in the Peace Corps. Now he teaches
at a community college in the South. Several times a year,
he flies to Thailand to distribute alms to the needy.
Due to my Asperger's Syndrome, I did not even think how this
recent tsunami could affect my friend Khunrum who likes to
celebrate every year in Southeast Asia the birth of the Christ
child.
Friend: "So is Rum floating a dozen miles or so off the shore
of Thailand or what? The more time that passes without any
communication from him, the more possible it is that he was
washed out to sea."
I emailed Khunrum and he responded:
I am high and dry in Bangkok. My girlfriend and I were up
country in Udon Than when the waves hit. I didn't even know
about it until the next day.
It's a terrible tragedy. Your concern is well appreciated.
A very Happy and prosperous New Year to you. I'll be back
on the 10th and look forward to another year serving on the
Luke Ford Advisory Committee.
Over 50,000 dead. Do white people care? I'm not sure.
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."
Josef Stalin
"We naturally tend to be more affected by events that concern
people who look like us." Chaim Amalek
When I was asked to contribute to the article Lilith magazine
was preparing about Carlebach's alleged sexual misconduct,
I refused, asking why they would not publish articles about
living rabbis who have transgressed, who still transgress,
rather than writing about a deceased rabbi, about cases which
cannot be investigated formally because the accused rabbi
is deceased. They chose not to write about living rabbis who
are accused of sexual misconduct. I had the same experience
with Moment magazine. I was told they would not publish anything
"against" rabbis. An assistant editor there told me that a
rabbi who was regular contributor to the magazine had effectively
"killed" the article I submitted to them which she, and possibly
others there, wanted to see them publish. Further, in trying
to find a publisher for this book, several large publishing
houses told my agent that they "would not 'take on' the rabbinic
establishment."
The Orthodox Union and Rabbinical Council of America
On the morning of January 25, 2002, I placed a telephone call
to the Orthodox Union in New York City to see if anything
had changed as a result of the Rabbi Baruch Lanner case...
I informed the receptionist who answered that this was a long
distance call, and that I wanted information about whether
the Orthodox Union or Rabbinical Council of America has a
policy regarding rabbis' sexual misconduct. The call was given
to a man who sounded angry from the minute he answered, and
became angrier by the minute. I repeated to him that I was
calling to ask if the Orthodox Union or the Rabbinical Council
of America has a policy regarding sexual misconduct by their
rabbis. He said, "I do not know what that means." Then, he
snapped, "Any behavior that is contrary to halacha is not
permitted." I asked what that meant. He said, abruptly, angrier,
"Any behavior contrary to Jewish law or civil law is not permitted."
I asked how a woman who has a complaint would proceed. He
said, angrily, curtly, "Send me a letter; I presume your name
will beon it," assuming I have a complaint. I asked, "What
is your name?" He barked, "Rabbi Steven Dworken." I asked
him to spell it. He did, curtly.
I asked, "What will be done with the letter? Is there any
written down procedure? Who will be involved? How will you
handle it?" He said, tersely, still sounding very angry, "We'll
see. This is an internal matter. Shabbat shalom!" He sounded
almost as if he were spitting the latter words out. The words,
which mean have a peaceful Shabbat, and his tone were in entire
contradiction. I could only shudder at what a woman who might
call about having been abused by a rabbi would do at such
a hostile response, and I could imagine her fear, her tears.
I make the San Fernando Valley my New Delhi. I walk around
picking up young women, put them to bed, and study the Bible
with them. Yet this comparison is never made. Why must I incessantly
be compared to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? To other geniuses
with a touch of madness? How long until my philanthropic works
are recognized as widely as my intelligence and photography?
Rabbi Basil Herring, the CEO of the Rabbinical Council of
America, came to Los Angeles this past weekend with his divrei
Torah and black hat for the Orthodox Union convention held
each year on the weekend closest to Christmas.
As the executive vice-president of the RCA, rabbi Herring
was, in the final analysis if not in the specifics, responsible
for the leak of the RCA's file on rabbi
Mordecai Tendler's to rabbi Mordecai Tendler, whose attorneys
proceeded to send off threatening letters to the women complaining
about the rabbi's alleged misuse of rabbinical power to get
laid.
The women who allege the sexual misconduct of rabbi Tendler
say they were promised anonymity by the RCA investigators
and were furious when they were found out they had been lied
to.
Rabbi Herring, as you would expect in these matters, is not
commenting about this repeat of the RCA's sorry handling of
the long-running
rabbi Baruch Lanner affair.
So does anyone care about rabbi Herrings's misuse of power?
Not in LA it seems. The LA Orthodox community could not pile
enough honors on him. The introductory speeches he received
could not have been more extravagant.
I am about to watch an excerpt of the Vincent Gallo (he
reminds me of myself) movie The
Brown Bunny (2003).
Though I'm only going to see three minutes worth of the film,
I want to share my feelings with you in real time.
Oh my. This is so wrong. Stop! Quit that Chloe! Won't somebody
do something? We're defining deviancy down at a time when
we should be raising moral standards not lowering them.
Won't somebody please think of the children.
What would the prophet Michah say? Let righteousness flow
like a mighty stream.
Can you believe she's doing that in a real movie? Whatever
happened to human dignity? The sanctity of marriage?
I'm closing my eyes now. This has all been a big mistake.
Normally my life is an endless cycle of grim duties and
stern responsibilities. Pleasure is something I think of as
best left to the goyim.
One of the grimmest duties in my life, next to daily prayer,
is going to the Post Office. Usually I am served incompetently
by scowling affirmative-action hires.
Of late, however, a little ray of black sunshine has shone
into my life. My local Post Office has a beautiful black woman
behind the counter. She has never serviced me, but at least
I get to look at her while I wait in line. She smiles and
laughs with almost everyone. Her white teeth flash and her
eyes make merry. She has no wedding ring.
But the good times don't stop here.
Librarians tend to be the one group of civil servants who
are helpful. Of late my local library has had a beautiful
young black woman behind the counter. I always hope that she
will be the one who will check out my books and tapes.
I notice the Orthodox Jewish guys are always flirting with
her. I want to feel like one of the kehilla, so I do too.
I remember this one black girl told me in 1995 that she had
a problem with Orthodox Jewish men. Most of them wouldn't
touch her, not even shake her hand. One man said that while
he could not have --- with her, she could ---- him.
I met this Puerto Rican woman at a Dennis Prager singles event.
She was warned by the secular Jews in her law office that
she should stay away from Orthodox Jewish guys at Prager's
event because they will only want to ---- her.
I believe I was able to show this woman a kinder gentler Orthodoxy.
That's me. Saving the world one woman at a time.
I wonder if either of these women (at the Post Office or the
library) are interested in living in my hovel and converting
to Orthodox Judaism through my own Beit Din (composed of Putative
Marc, Chaim Amalek and Khunrum)?
If I were only married to a black woman, nobody could accuse
me of racism. With such artistic freedom, I'd be sure to win
a Pulitzer.
I could then classify my writing as a business owned by a
black female, and we'd pull in major government contracts.
Maybe it would just be easier to stop writing unfunny, lame-ass
prose in the voice of a 12-year-old girl?
I
just endured another singles column by Esther D. Kustanowitz
of The Jewish Week. She reviewed the new book "He's
Just Not That Into You."
My bias: While I have not read the book, I have dated and
talked to women about dating, and I think the wisdom in the
title is a gift to women (and men who obsess endlessly over
why a woman rejected him, if only he had done something different,
etc). With few exceptions (for painfully shy, troubled or
insecure men like me), if a man is truly interested in a woman,
he will find ways to see her. And if he doesn't call and if
he doesn't find ways to run into her, the odds are 99-1 that
he's just not that into her.
If someone does not return your call, it is not because they
are too busy. Almost nobody is so busy that they can't spare
60-seconds to call you. Somebody who does not return your
call is simply saying that you are not important to them.
If somebody does that to you, you should simply face that
cold hard truth and not ask more of a relationship than the
other person is willing to give.
Esther writes: "I just can’t bring myself to embrace the approach."
The approach of the book is the cold hard truth of reality
and to reject it is to reject reality.
Esther writes:
Because HJNTIY is written by two very funny people, Liz Tuccillo
and Greg Behrendt, it’s absolutely laugh worthy. Behrendt
presents a harsh argument; Tuccillo’s touch balances the tone.
She has her issues with the approach, but points out that
every women could use a reminder “that she’s smart and valuable
and worthy and gorgeous and deserving of everything she ever
wanted.”
“Better than nothing is not good enough,” Behrendt says, and
at the risk of sounding elitist, he’s right.
Not every woman (or man) is smart. Not every woman (or man)
is valuable (in the dating market sense, yes, in God's eyes,
every human being who conducts himself honorably is worth a
whole universe, but God's eyes are not the same as the eyes
of those who want to get married). Not every woman (or man)
is worthy of the one she desires. Not every woman (or man) is
gorgeous. Not every woman (or man) is "deserving of everything
she ever wanted." To think otherwise is to willfully delude
oneself.
Esther writes: "...Behrendt insists, women must keep their standards
high."
No higher than men should. Keeping your standards too high for
your own relative match-attracting worth is self-destructive.
Esther writes: "The truth is, there’s no painless way to tell
someone, at any stage of a relationship, that you’re not really
interested. I’ve been on both ends of that conversation, and
I’d rather have dental surgery than experience either again."
I can't speak for Esther, but for me and for everyone I've had
an honest discussion with on this (mainly men) -- when you are
the dumper, the pain is minimal compared to the pain of being
dumped. Yet I hear women all the time claiming that how painful
it was for them to dump someone. I think that often this is
a way women have of deluding themselves that they are so wonderful
and sensitive.
Women are the choosers in the dating game. They initiate two-thirds
of divorces. I bet they initiate most break-ups of long ongoing
relationships as well.
Esther writes: "I’d like to believe that a woman should ask
a man out if she wants."
Sure, but most of the time it won't work for her. When women
become the aggressor in the dating chase, men tend to shut down.
I do. Though much of this reaction in me might have to do with
my age. I feel tired much of the time and prefer to be the passive
partner. Perhaps I would chase women more if only my van would
start (that was both a literal statement and a metaphor). Doggone
it if a five degree slope doesn't mean I will be cranking the
starter 25 times to get going.
I need a woman who will give me a car that runs right. I need
a woman to give me an oil change every 3,000 miles. I need a
woman to tune me up every 15,000 miles (changing all my fluids
and lubing my chassis). Is this too much to ask, Esther?
Esther writes: "To hail a mantra as the solution to your romantic
problems is to deny nuance and uniqueness in your fellow daters."
A cliche like much of her article.
Esther's column reminds me of the general ethos of Jewish papers
-- Jews are swell and why don't we all lie down like lambs and
love each other platonically as we overflow with the feeling
that every Jew is unique and of infinite worth and deserving
of a good marriage.
As for my view, I think many Jews are scum, that bad Jews (needlessly
cruel) have little worth, that all good Jews are not going to
get along, that most Jews, like most humans, delude themselves
with respect to their unduly high view of their own character,
and that many Jews have made choices (or have been burdened
with DNA or crappy upbringings) that makes it exceedingly difficult
for them to marry and find happiness.
All these criticisms being said, I continue to read Esther
every so often (about once a month) because I get the sense
from her writing that she is a fundamentally decent and kind
person and a good Jew. These qualities far outweigh her tendencies
to indulge in self-serving cliches and fantasies about the ways
men and women relate.
I read "The
Committed Marriage" by rebbetzin Esther Jungreis. The rebbetzin
is single and available. Perhaps, as a commenter suggests, this
Esther is the one for me. Why should 40 years age difference
disturb me? I like 18-year olds, why not older?
I must be a good person because I get invited to cool parties.
Last night, Cathy Seipp, Cecile and I had dinner with LA Times
food critic Charles Perry at the home of TV producer Kate
Coe.
I had to park half a mile away and hike uphill past Adam Parfrey's
place because my van has trouble starting unless it is parked
on the flat (even then it can be a heart-stopping experience,
good thing I haven't had a date in a while).
For a man who has published books translating medieval Arabic
cookbooks (Charles is literate in almost all the languages
of the Middle East and knows how to cast Harry Potter-type
spells), Perry is woefully ignorant when it comes to Jamba
Juice. Those elitist Timesers.
For me the perfect meal is a Jamba Chocolate Moo (large) and
a vegetarian tostada from the Good Earth. In that order.
Charles worked for Rolling Stone for about a decade (circa
1966-76) as a copy editor and writer. He got to know Tom Wolfe
(said he had a smile and a manner that just made people want
to talk to him), Joe Esterhausz, and Hunter S. Thompson (Charles
copy-edited his 1972 political coverage that turned into the
book Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail). Charles recalls
all the Rolling Stone editors reading Thompson's book Fear
and Loathing in Las Vegas at once and it made the world seem
more vivid, colorful and exciting.
We discussed Alfred Kinsey and his courageous exploration
of inter-generational and inter-species ---. Nothing like
talk of ---------- to help the digestion. I contributed some
heartwarming anecdotes that I had heard through my vast journalistic
explorations. From
Cathy Seipp's party report: The Coes have a big Christmas
tree in the living room, so this was Luke's cue to toss his
seasonal insult in my direction: "How does it feel to be among
your fellow gentiles?"
I did NOT say that, Cathy. I turned to the goyim as we were
leaving and said, "This time of year is a big deal for you
goyim, isn't it?"
Sheesh, you make me sound so insensitive. I was not talking
to you Cathy for you are a proud (though Judaicly ignorant
and non-observant yid who eats pork) Jew. I was talking to
the ones God did not choose.
....... Another
woman complains about my invading her dreams.
The real reason I have not wanted to pass along Cathy
Seipp's complaints about the Century City Westfield Shoppingtown
to my fellow Aussie Orthodox Jew is that I've been making
a few extra shekels there during this holiday season working
as a Santa Claus. Yes, I've tucked my tzitzit in and allowed
beautiful young women to bounce up and down on my lap while
I holler, "Ho! Ho! Ho! Have you been a naughty girl?"
I met a girl at shul. She's 25. She's getting a masters
in Interior Design. I baited her with how appalling my hovel
is. She took the bait and offered to redesign it for free.
I accepted.
She came over today. When she stepped inside, she was shocked
and horrified. For the next 90-minutes, she kept repeating,
"Get a bed." She said she felt scared. I think she was glad
to leave after a lunch of a shared bagel with peanut butter
(she turned up her nose at the offer of the chocolate soy
milk).
When I showed her my van, her esteem for me did not rise.
I failed to communicate to her that worldly possessions hold
no interest to me because I am so spiritual.
I remember I met a beautiful woman for coffee about three
years ago. The place was closing. We walked to her car. I
asked her if she wanted to come back to my place. She said
yes.
She walked in. She was appalled, particularly by the large
stack of AVN magazines by the door (I threw them out the next
day). Within a couple of minutes, she said she wasn't feeling
comfortable in my hovel and could we walk around the block.
A Jewish woman I loved (several years ago) said to me her
idea of roughing it was a three star hotel. One Friday night,
I brought her over to the hovel to light metaphorical Shabbos
candles but she was appalled and made an exit as soon as politely
possible.
I think this is all kinda cool because I
am a rock. I am an island. And a rock feels no pain, and an
island never cries.
Chaim writes Luke: Lately you've been combining 2 posts as
one, which have nothing to do with each other - usually one
is your personal life (a lovely afternoon with Cathy, inviting
a pretty young lady in to redesign your home) with the religious
(a gay Jew and his dog, child molestation.) Get it together
and set those boundaries, boy.
Rabbi David Wolpe of Temple Sinai (C) served as moderator:
"Did Chanukhah happen? And if so, what does it mean?"
Rabbi Steven Carr Reuben (of a Reconstructionist shul): "Yes.
My approach to all sacred text is like... I expect that everyone
sitting at the table has had the experience of being quoted
and then looked at it in the newspaper or periodical and thought,
that isn't what I said or meant."
Rabbi Naomi Levy (Conservative): "Rabbi Wolpe knows a lot
about that."
Rabbi Reuben: "The likelihood that people are quoted accurately
in texts that are thousands of years old are not high. These
texts can retain their holiness in part because they are old..."
Rabbi Pinchas Giller (Orthodox rabbi who works as a professor
of Jewish mysticism at the University of Judaism): "There
are difficulties with the question. There was definitely a
violent war that took place at the end of the dark ages period,
the 200 years between the end of the stories of the Tanach
and the Maccabean wars. We just don't know what happened.
We have little record of that.
"One group of that war were religious zealots who [made war]
on Jews [who had assimilated]. There are two pages in the
Talmud on Chanukkah. There are more pages on how to go to
the bathroom. They had such discomfort with the violence of
the narrative that they coined the notion of the miracle.
And that came into being as the reason for Chanukkah. A thousand
years later, the sage Ramban said that Chanukkah is all about
that moment where the priest in the temple lights the menorah.
That silent moment is the essence of Chanukkah. The original
event is one thing. The way it has been taken later on is
another thing.
"If Chanukkah were re-enacted today, the [Orthodox] Jews of
the settlements on the West Bank, and of the Borough Park
neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Williamsburg and the junction
of La Brea and Beverly [Blvds] would pour out of their neighborhoods
and hold guns to the heads of assimilated and liberal Jews
and say, be like us or we will kill you. That's what it would
be like to re-enact the actual story. That's the part that
actually happened. It certainly has evolved."
Rabbi Levy: "All our holidays are constructed that same way.
There are legends that we make that gather around some little
points in our history. They may grow out of an agricultural
festival... Judaism's response to darkness is to light a candle."
Rabbi Reuben: "Some people would say it was the zealotry of
the Maccabees who wouldn't be my congregation, a liberal congregation,
who kept Judaism alive."
"It wouldn't be any of the liberal strands of Judaism who
would be the assimilationists. All of us in the room who are
wrestling with what does it mean to be Jewish are on the other
side [against the assimilationists]."
Because Jews have been a minority wherever they have lived
for the past 1800 years, Jews have come to define themselves
by what behaviors and attitudes distinguish them from the
non-Jewish majority. Thus, Jews are much more obsessed with
how Jewish they are, and that other Jews are not being Jewish
enough, than are Christians or Muslims (where Islam is the
majority religion).
Rabbi Wolpe: "Pinchas, what was there in Greek culture that
Jews could not take on?"
Rabbi Giller: "That religion was cosmetic, that you could
move in and out of. That everyone does what they feel like
doing and everything is ok. That there are no immutable lines.
If you are going to secede everything, that is one thing,
but if you try to straddle a fence, to carry on Judaism but
let the world in, that's a hard place to be. There are people
who would rather close up their Judaism.
"Nietzsche said that when you find something humorous, it
means that something inside you has died. When you see people
still responding to Judaism...[it means that Judaism is alive
and that is a miracle]. When I see some of my colleagues being
jaded to [the enormous enthusiasm of people discovering Judaism
for the first time], I wonder what in you has died.
"I was brought up in a small town in the South. My family
was active in the civil rights movement. There are many small
town Jews out there. Once you get past LA, it is not a comfortable
place for a Jewish child. They don't speak so benignly about
the warm fuzzy experience of Christmas. It is a time when
many of them are imposed upon, interceded with. We are in
a culture now that is hurtling towards blurring the line between
church and state. Many Jews are taking a short-term approach
that that is good for us. It is not good for us. It is not
good for that little kid in middle America, the only Jewish
child in his high school. Chanukkah [reminds] us that we have
to hold out. We have to hold against.
"My sense of dislocation about the Gentile culture I was brought
up in, particularly having to do with my childhood the civil
rights movement, expanded out to a general suspicion of the
culture that dovetailed into life in the late '60s which led
me towards a fuller realization of Judaism.
"We have to honor that aspect of Chanukkah about drawing lines,
before we say we're all clergy, we're all religions incorporation.
We're all working together. Sometimes that is not true."
Rabbi Wolpe: "You don't evaluate your religious outlook the
way you evaluate a medical decision. Faith is an orientation
towards life. It is not a toting up of results. It is an encounter,
not a rational decision. Anything you approach as rational,
you must first separate from yourself."
I went to see this cartoon (The
Incredibles) with my friend Cathy Seipp who insisted on
it. (I wanted to see the new Alexander Payne movie Sideways
but Cathy says she would not feel comfortable seeing any film
with me that is racier than PG (though she did insist on Psycho
several months ago, was was rated R).
I understood the movie as a parable of my relationship to
Dennis Prager. I was the creepy vengeful Buddy Pine/Syndrome
and Dennis was Bob Parr/Mr. Incredible. My
unauthorized biography was my revenge on my hero.
When it was all finished, the credits were rolling and we
could leave so I could return to my Talmud (and get the Cowboys
score, they lost 12-7 to Philadelphia), she asked me if I
enjoyed it.
"Yes," I said, seeing no choice in my answer (I did laugh
a few times).
"See?" she said, happy to point out a moral to the story.
"Every movie doesn't need to have a ------ ---- scene."
Earlier, she had referred to the ---- ---- scene in Lawrence
of Arabia. I don't remember any such scene. I think Cathy
is more sensitive to suggestions of ---- --- than most people.
During the HIV-crisis this Spring, she had me explain to her
the meaning of the mysterious phrase "------ ----."
It was quite the talking point between us for a good ten minutes.
Dear Cathy stays awake some nights wondering who is more weird
-- our new friend Lewis Fein or me.
* I agree with many of your complaints. I don't like the name
Westfield Shoppingtown. I prefer the old name -- Century City
Shopping Center. I prefered to be able to park my van in the
center. I prefered the old parking rates. But when compared
to moral decline sweeping across America, and the need for
a local synagogue to have windows so God can properly look
in on Peter Lowy's son's bar mitzvah, these are minor matters.
* I don't like to complain to anyone, particularly not a member
of my community. Peter donates a lot of money to good causes,
so I'm not going to bother the man.
* It is the purpose of business to make as much profit as
possible (while staying within the law).
* It is forbidden by almost all theaters to bring in outside
food and drink.
* I hate the AMC movie chain because it runs about 10-15 minutes
of commercials before every movie, in addition to 10-15 minutes
of previews (and many of their screens are small).
* Jesus suffered on the cross so that we could live with him
forever. Just as Jesus suffered, so must we. We all have our
crosses to bear, and $3 parking for staying six minutes too
long at Westfield is minor compared to what the son of God
did for us two thousand years ago.
Cathy wanted to bring Sunday's New York Times to lunch with
us but I said no. In response, she insisted that I snap out
of my affectless staring-out-into-space manner which she attributes
to medication but it is really the result of years of deep
spiritual work on my part.
Religious people like me do not need to go to cartoons to
put some excitement in our lives. For me, getting up at an
ungodly hour every morning, stumbling to shul unshaved and
unwashed, wrapping myself in leather straps so tightly that
it cuts off the blood to my left arm, and repeating the same
prayers I've said 5000 times before is about all the excitement
I can handle, particularly if there is an attractive 70-year
woman saying kaddish in the corner.
The recurring theme of my meetings with Cathy is that the
world (and fellow writers in particular) would be a much better
place if everyone listened to Cathy, who knows so much more
than the average mortal (and you ------- know I'm right, she
says).
Cathy wants me to:
* Get a bed.
* Lose my affectless manner and be genuine with people instead
of holding them off with irony and sarcasm
* Get a new car
* To submit articles to publications that pay (instead of
blogging and self-publishing through IUniverse)
* Be more supportive
William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil
and Religious Rights, took umbrage. “A lot of Catholics in
this town are saying, ‘Is that how Jews are looking at us,’”
he told The Jewish Week, “‘that you scratch a Catholic and
out comes a latent anti-Semite?’”
Last week, Donohue provided the answer to his rhetorical question.
And the answer is, in his case, yes.
In a Dec. 10 appearance on MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country,”
Donohue railed against the possibility that Michael Moore’s
documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” would receive an Oscar nomination,
while Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” would not.
“Who really cares what Hollywood thinks?” Donohue said. “All
these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular
Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.
It’s not a secret, OK? And I’m not afraid to say it. That’s
why they hate this movie. It’s about Jesus Christ, and it’s
about truth. It’s about the messiah.”
Donohue continued: “Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to
see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families.
I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional
values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have
nothing in common.”
The host for this Jew-bashing fest was — surprise! — Pat Buchanan.
Instead of calling Donohue out, he turned to panelist Rabbi
Shmuely Boteach and asked why secular Jews hate America and
love Michael Moore.
Read the transcript, and you’ll begin to wonder what looking
glass you’ve fallen through. Boteach did a superb job in the
role of Moses Nachmanides, the 13th-century scholar who was
forced into public disputations over religion with Christian
opponents.
“I’m amazed that we’ve made this a discussion about secular
Jews,” Boteach said. “I have got to tell you that Bill Donohue,
who I otherwise love and so respect, ought to be ashamed of
himself, the way he’s spoken about secular Jews hating Christians.
That is a bunch of crap, OK?”
Donohue’s accusations, goaded on by Buchanan, turned nastier:
Boteach: The fact is that Jewish people are incredibly charitable,
good, decent family people.
Donohue: I didn’t question that.
Boteach: Hollywood has become a cesspit because it’s secular,
period. Don’t do this — don’t tell us that it’s secular Jews.
Donohue: So the Catholics are running Hollywood, huh?
Boteach: Soon, you’re going to start telling us that the NBA
is violent because it’s black people, all right, Bill? No,
no, no. When people behave badly, just hold them individually
accountable.
Donohue is clearly on the right flank of the Catholic world,
but he is far from a fringe character. His organization, based
in New York, claims a membership of 350,000 and has some significant
mainstream names attached to it.
On the group’s Web site, Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop
of Los Angeles, offers this endorsement: “I encourage you
to join the Catholic League, which defends not only the interests
of Catholics but of all victims of anti-religious bigotry.”
Um, almost all.
So far, Donohue hasn’t apologized, and Mahony and others haven’t
publicly chastised him, resigned their memberships or done
anything to indicate that blaming “secular Jews” for all that
is rotten in contemporary culture is perhaps out of bounds.
The comments buzzed through the entertainment community, evoking
equal measures of outrage, disbelief and humor. Suffice it
to say that in the wake of the scandals concerning priestly
pederasty, Donohue didn’t get a pass for his “anal sex” remark.
It seems indecent to have to point out the obvious, but here’s
a quick reality check for Donohue:
1. Jews don’t control Hollywood, corporations do. If you have
a problem with smut on TV, tell Rupert Murdoch — not a Jew
— to sink “Temptation Island.”
2. Hollywood is profit-friendly and risk-averse. Religion
and politics are risky subjects. Knowing what they know now,
99.9 percent of studio execs would have green-lit “The Passion”
faster than you could say “Scary Movie 7.”
3. The vast majority of Hollywood movies are positive, uplifting
and moralistic, anyway. “Ray,” “The Incredibles,” the upcoming
“Lemony Snicket” — great entertainment and great values.
I've thought about this a lot and I just can't disagree with
Donohue over anything he said. Secular
Jews do run Hollywood (about two-thirds of the leading players
behind the scenes are secular Jews). They do tend to be
hostile to organized religion. The most organized form of religion
in America is Roman Catholicism. As some thinker put it, anti-Catholicism
is the new anti-Semitism.
I agree with Dennis Prager that if every Jew left Hollywood,
it would not raise its moral tone.
Orthodox Jew, talk radio host and movie critic Michael Medved,
in his book Hollywood
vs America, developed these themes at greater length. As
did Dr.
William Pierce.
David writes:
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you citing Medved as an example
of someone responsibly looking into the culture of Hollywood,
and William Pierce as an, umm, irresponsible example? Thus,
an exploration of the role that secular Jews, as such, play
in Hollywood can be done legitimately, or as in the case of
Pierce, as fuel to bigotry? If so, its a good point."
Yes, that was my point. I never felt comfortable with Pierce's
exterminationist thingy.
Here are three comments left on Yori's blog that he deleted:
Anonymous said: It's sad that to protect your Rebbe you've
chosen to
embrace False Memory Syndrome arguments. I guess you'll ignore
"...the vast, aching literature of remembering and forgetting
among Holocaust survivors..." if it helps your Rebbe. Even
if such arguments are at the expense of the memories of my
relatives and yours, both those that were murdered by the
Nazis and those that survived after the most horrible of tortures
of the Holocaust.
The buzz-words are false memory syndrome.
February 17, 1997
The Scotsman
page 11
But is it a ploy by accused adults to explain away allegations
of abuse by their grown-up children?
THE first time the notion of false memory syndrome was successfully
fielded in a British trial was in 1994 when the father of
a 33-year-old care assistant, Fiona
Reay, was acquitted at Teesside Crown Court in the north of
England of sex offences against his daughter committed throughout
her childhood.
The father was a middle-aged Scottish seafarer whose lawyers
discredited his daughter's testimony by suggesting that she
was the victim not of her father
but of false memories planted by "regression therapy". Defence
barrister Toby Hedworth told the court about a "worrying phenomena"
of people believing "phantom
memories" induced by therapists. After hearing this hypothesis
the jury took only 27 minutes to dismiss the charges of rape
and indecent assault. It is odd that this case does not feature
in a new book by the American journalist Mark Prendergast,
Victims of Memory. More than 700 pages long, it promises to
be an encyclopaedic survey of "false memory" in the English-speaking
world, a contagion spreading
throughout the English-speaking world.
Why then does Prendergast's book omit Fiona Reay's case, the
first in Britain, particularly since - unusually - in this
debate we can hear from both
sides: the accused and the accuser and other witnesses, with
a professional or personal stake in the story. The Fiona Reay
story uniquely satisfies
journalistic manners - the duty to tell not only the "who,
what, where and when," but also to report conflicting versions
of events. It relieves the journalists of the problem of belief
- for or against "false memory" - and returns us to the real
stuff, the actual sequence of events.
The medical records in Fiona Reay's case - first told in full
in The Scotsman - confound the false memory hypothesis. She
didn't magically "recover" buried
memories. Her tragedy was that she had never forgotten. It's
all there in her medical records.
Toby Hedworth and the father's solicitor, David Smee, had
seen Fiona Reay's medical records and therefore, knew that
this could not be a case of "false memory".
"Did I say that it was?" said David Smee when it was put to
him after the trial. His job, he said, was not to pursue the
truth but to protect his client, to get
him off.
This landmark case does not trouble Mark Prendergast. He ignores
it. Despite its vast length, his book makes no concessions
to journalistic etiquette.
"False memory" is a new concept. It is not a scientific concept,
it has not been adopted as a clinical diagnosis. It was formulated
by accused adults to explain away allegations of abuse made
by their grown-up children.
Some of its advocates were already familiar figures in the
sexual abuse war zone: a founder of the American movement
is Ralph Underwager, a Lutheran pastor who
says he gives evidence in hundreds of child abuse cases a
year - always for the accused adult. He was the only American
expert witness to appear before the
Butler-Sloss judicial inquiry into the Cleveland child abuse
controversy in 1987, when he said that social workers "lie"
and "fabricate" evidence of child abuse.
Most allegations, he says, are not merely unproven: they are
false.
In the Nineties, Underwager's crusade against false allegations
by children was extended to false memories among adults -
usually induced by therapists. Hundreds
of accused adults found sanctuary in the movement inspired
by Underwager, a veteran of the courts and the campaign trail.
So confident was Underwager that he gave a long interview
with the Dutch paedophile magazine Paedika pronouncing that
paedophiles should be "more positive" in promoting paedophilia
as "God's
will" and blaming feminists for a jealous hostility to men's
interest in boys. He had to quit the False Memory Syndrome
Board. Undaunted, the movement spread
to Britain in 1993, promoted by a retired naval officer turned
property developer, Roger Scotford, who was faced with accusations
by two of his daughters. Traumatic amnesia or repression doesn't
happen, he says.
Based in his spacious Georgian home in the midst of Wiltshire
countryside, Scotford encourages journalists to hear his story,
including his detailed re-telling
of specific acts of alleged abuse, and to listen to an Ansaphone
tape recording of his daughter shouting at him and demanding
that he leave her alone. The tape is
played as evidence that his daughter is hysterical. Scotford
admits, however, that she is protesting against his bombardment
with false memory material.
Scotford went public after private encounters with his daughters.
His campaign houses around 800 files from accused adults.
He claims these are all false memory
cases. However, a random reading of the files reveals something
rather different: simply letters from accused adults protesting
their innocence.
The British Psychological Society, fearful that bad therapy
might be yielding a crop of "false memories", went to work
on Scotford's files and discovered that
three-quarters contained no reference to "recovered memory".
Those that did included no references to how memories had
been retrieved. The rest are merely adults denying allegations
of abuse: many files were "sketchy", others were just notes
of telephone
inquiries.
The BPS then canvassed the professional community and found
that a fifth reported recovered memories of abuse after amnesia
- but before seeing any therapists. Even more, a third, had
clients who recovered memories of other traumatic experiences.
Concerned with the impact of the debate on services for abused
adults and children, NCH - Action for Children, one of Britain's
big children's charities, conducted its own research among
clients and found that fewer than 10 per cent had ever forgotten.
The issue, then, is not so much forgetting as remembering.
Where did this leave the debate? Like Roger Scotford, Mark
Prendergast has been accused by his own daughters. His reply
to them is this book. The book is
not about false memory: it does not show how this misty process
is supposed to happen. It isn't a journalistic investigation,
it doesn't give both sides
of an argument - indeed you would not know there was a debate
at all from this book. Its thesis is less concerned with false
memory as such than the cultural
revolution that has allowed the abuse of children to become
knowable.
Prendergast's target is everyone who has revealed childhood
abuse: there isn't as much sexual abuse as the survivor movements
say there is; there's no such thing as repression or traumatic
amnesia; and in any case its effects aren't so bad after all.
11:47 AM
Anonymous said...
Yori's Rebbe = Moonish = Rabbi Jeremy Hershy Worch
Not the New York Times
The Rabbi Eliezer Incident
Eeryone present around that famous seder table was
recovering from a bloodless revolution
By Yori Yanover and Larry Yudelson. Research by Rabbi
Hershy Worch
...
12:40 PM
Anonymous said...
"In that context, we loom to our Jewish >publications to help
us gather information on all subjects so >that we may make
informed decisions.But Yoram doesn't
want you to have all the information."
----- He has left out the reason he is attacking the
Awareness Center and Luke Ford.
The reason Yoram Yanover is upset with Luke Ford? A
profile of his friend that Luke is writing for an
upcoming book. see:
The reason Yoram Yanover is upset with the Awareness Center?
An unamed case they've posted about his friend.http://theawarenesscenter.org/wrprabbi.html
"In all areas, a balanced and educated approach should be
encouraged, but in the hot area of allegations of sexual abuse
by clergy we expect of our own media to
be balanced, rational and careful. Luke Ford's uninspired
questioning of a figure which has come to represent the most
aggressive brand of activism in this field is leaving us,
the readers, misinformed, if not outright disinformed."
-----Except Yoram doesn't disclose his interest in this "story"
he's posted. His aim? To protect his Rebbe and friend at all
costs.
The Producers: Profiles in Frustration: 3
XXX-Communicated: A Rebel Without A Shul: 2
Yesterday's News Tomorrow: Inside American Jewish Journalism:
3
Total royalties for the month: $42:31
Regarding my next book, I get this email: "Everyone has a
yetzer hara. To cast aspersions on the Rabbinate because some
of them have been sexual predators is a character assasination
on all rabbis. Just because someone has succumbed to this
low level, does not mean he did acts because he was a rabbi.
I think you should reconsider your book."
Chakira
writes: This page is taken from a book called Otzar HaBrachos,
by Rabbi Michael Peretz of Mexico City, Mexico.[1] Obviously,
the image is patently offensive. Should we see the funky,
presumably homeless, and very black man in the picture we
are, according to Peretz, obligated in the blessing of Meshana
HaBriyos (MhB). This is a blessing which Artscroll limits
to “exceptionally strange-looking people or animals,” and
which Artscroll translates as “who makes the creatures different.”
Schwab's analysis is borne out by her personal and professional
experience, and by cases that have gained notoriety. When
Robert Kirschner, senior rabbi of Congregation Emanu-El in
San Francisco, was accused in 1991 of harassing, exploiting
and abusing female congregants, students and an employee,
the board of directors voted to keep the matter secret for
the sake of everyone involved, especially Kirschner's wife
and children.
Jacobs' congregants in the San Fernando Valley concealed his
affair with Green while it was going on, and kept silent even
after her murder. "This is the same silence," writes Schwab,
"that I and other women found/find when we reported/report
our experiences to rabbinic authorities." It was silence,
Samit believed, that killed Green and Carol Neulander.
Polish Jewish community chooses an American
as its new chief rabbi
By Carolyn Slutsky
WARSAW, Dec. 13 (JTA) -- The Polish Jewish community has turned
to an American as its new spiritual leader, filling a post
left empty since 1999.
The Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland appointed
New York-born Michael Schudrich as chief rabbi of Poland late
last week.
Schudrich would become the first person to hold Poland's top
rabbinic position since the resignation of Menachem Joskowicz
some five years ago.
Asked about the significance of an American rabbi assuming
Poland's highest title, Piotr Kadlcik, the union's acting
president, expressed no reservations.
"We have no Polish rabbis now, though we hope within two years
to graduate two rabbis from the yeshiva," he told JTA. "We've
known Rabbi Schudrich for years, and he knows Poland."
Schudrich, an energetic, bearded man with a perpetual smile,
first came to Poland in 1973 as part of a United Synagogue
Youth program that traveled throughout what was then Communist
Eastern Europe.
Chances are likely that either a) your account will regard
this email as spam or b) your own eyes--undoubtedly due to
dealing with thousands of incoming furious emails daily--will
also regard this as spam and you won't bother reading it in
any case. But because of a class on midrash & ethics I'm taking
and a section we're doing on lashon hara I just read your
shocking expose of Gafni--by whom I admit I was also fooled
once upon a time. So then I tried to figure out who you are
that you could write all this, and I discovered your website
and related links, where I found mentions of your next book
about rabbis who molest girls.
So here's my question:
What do you get out of all this?
I mean, besides fame and money, the obvious answers, I suppose--
But really, do you get some sort of fulfillment from waving
around a red flag, pointing a great big finger and saying,
"this one's a liar!" "this one's a rapist!" and so on and
so forth? You must have some sort of beef against what you
consider to be the "establishment", no? I mean I didn't read
your other profiles in full, but are there any--is there anyone--you
admire? Are there any you praise? Something must have brought
you to Judaism, but now it looks like you're intent on destroying
its leaders--and hey, in the Orthodox world, to be quite honest
that's pretty much fine with me. And yes, yes, undoubtedly
Gafni is a world-class creep and very dangerous to the kind
of little girls who were never taught how to take care of
themselves, and sure he needs to be exposed, so kol hakavod
on that one, I guess. But haven't you noticed something about
yourself, that this in particular seems to be your obsession?
Especially after your creepy little blog about shaking hands
with women, yeesh...I always thought the shomer negiah stuff
was beyond idiotic, but I suppose if the majority of men are
as ridiculous about these things as you are about that then
clearly I need to think twice before I offer to shake hands
with another man. But surely not all men are like that, and
possibly, you know, the shomer negiah thing and the obsession
with molesters is, well, related...and a little...well...taking
things further than they need to go? You think?
I'm just curious about what you think you're really after
here.
I reply:
I get emails like yours all the time.
I can't expect most people to know about the economics of book
publishing, but there are a thousands things I could do that
would make more money (work at McDonalds) or gain more fame
(write about other topics etc).
The reason to write this (same reason for my other books) is
that it is an important matter that nobody else is doing adequately.
It is an important and compelling topic that I can do well and
contribute to the world and to the Jewish community. That leaves
me with a deep unshakeable sense of leading a meaningful life
(that comes from doing what you do well in a way that is a blessing
to others).
As for my own psychology, that is between me and my friends
and my shrink and my rabbi etc.
As for my general motivation to create and to make laughter,
I do what I do the best I can and know that some people will
understand and appreciate it. I do not write to gain general
approval. I write for the narrow audience that gets my work,
and I do not worry about the 90% who do not.
When you have to explain humor, it ceases to be funny. You either
get it or you don't. I'm not going to write in crayon with different
colors to distinguish satire from straight reportage. You should
not read a phone bill the same way you read a love letter. You
have to have some literary sensitivity to different forms of
writing.
Regarding people and institutions I adore, I've written about
them in depth.
Regarding lashon hara, Judaism's sacred texts have no problem
with holding Jewish leaders accountable for their behavior.
"Thou art the man!"
When you expose misdeeds, you get heat from the narrow group
of people affected negatively (as well as from people who have
a kneejerk response to anything that is hurtful or smacks of
gossip), but you rarely hear from the majority of people who
are wiser and better informed because of your work (because
they have no incentive to thank you because they don't think
about who brought them the information, but those affected adversely
have every incentive to complain).
Cheers, Luke
PS The deepest things I am after in life I am not likely to
disclose to a stranger.
I seek to live my life by Torah law. This means that I attempt
to not shake hands with women or have any physical contact
with these objects of temptation. Unfortunately, though I
view myself as a moralist, I am susceptible to certain weaknesses
of the flesh.
Thus, there have been times over the past few years when I've
shaken hands with beautiful young women (the old bags I completely
shun, not entirely for religious reasons). While my long periods
of deprivation makes even the most fleeting forms of inter-sex
contact a sensual experience, it is frequently lacking in
satisfaction because many women only allow a squeeze of a
few fingers, rather than the palm action that makes a proper
handshake so satisfying.
When a man only squeezes my fingers instead of engaging my
whole hand, I find that creepy. With women, it is disappointing.
If I am going to sin, to quote Martin Luther, I might as well
sin vigorously, but even more believe that no matter how many
times I commit fornication or murder, I can still be forgiven
if only I sing Christmas carols during Chanukkah with Chaim
Amalek outside the homes of my favorite Orthodox rabbis.
I've been seeking a title for my new book on Orthodox rabbis
who are sexual predators. A friend suggested "Under the Pulpit."
I just thought of this line from the harrowing movie The
Magdalene Sisters (2002): "You're Not a Man of God." The
subtitle: "Orthodox Rabbis Who Are Sexual Predators."
My web site is probably not the place for polemics on the
modern state of American Judaism but let me say that if you
ever want to turn a Jew off to institutional Judaism, make
them do a JCC tour of America and see what happens. The closed-mindedness,
conservatism, isolationism, elitism, xenophobia, and plain
old rudeness are so endemic in this community I can see why
so few Jewish people these days, especially young ones, are
involved with Jewish life. And it is a shame because cultural,
non-sectarian institutions like JCCs, which were founded to
be open to everyone, should be the most welcoming of all.
And yet very few are.
As I was saying to a friend of mine the other day, it is not
the "Jew" part I have trouble with, but the "ism." American
Judaism needs to find a way to be more welcoming, not less,
but sadly it seems that in many of these communities those
who speak the loudest are those who are most observant and
also most closed-minded, and they spread a kind of negative
elitism regarding which kind of Jew is better, and how non-Jews
should be treated, that poisons the institutions as a whole.
Chaim Amalek writes: "She's right, of course. I have found New
York Jews to be an especially elitist, closed-minded, inbred
and even Indian-Giving/dreidel-stealing bunch. No wonder so
many smart, nice Jewish people like this Amy end up married
to gentiles. (And no wonder that a nice Jewish boy like you
cannot and will not find a nice Jewish girl to love him. Perhaps
the Almighty will rectify this situation by sending you a gentle
gentile girl much like you, but younger and mentally healthier.)
Increasingly I wonder what the experience of Palestinians living
under Jewish rule is like on the West Bank."
An ethicist is one whose judgement on ethics and ethical codes
has come to be trusted by some community, and (importantly)
is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others
to mimic or approximate that judgement. Following the advice
of ethicists is one means of acquiring knowledge (see argument
from authority).
The term jurist describes an ethicist whose judgement on law
becomes part of a legal code, or otherwise has force of lawde
jure) state sanction.
Some jurists have less formal (de facto) backing by an ethical
community, e.g. a religious communityIslamic Law, for instance,
such a community following (taqlid) a specific jurisprudence
(fiqh) of shariah mimics judgement of a prior jurist. Catholic
Canon Lawtheologian or simply a prominent teacher. To those
outside this tradition, the jurist is simply an ethicist who
they may more freely disagree with, and whose input on any
issue is advisory. However, they may find it hard to avoid
a fatwa or excommunication or other such shunning by the religious
community, so it may be hard advice to ignore.
Outside the legal professionspiritual traditionphilosophers
or more practical mediatorideology. Modern ethicists often
take the view that ethics is only about such resolution.
The list of ethicists demonstrates the extreme range of people
who have made, or contributed to, ethical debates. It also
demonstrates that not all individuals who do so can be considered
to be good moral examples by all.
Great music is often not immediately accessible. Sometimes
you have to listen several times to appreciate it.
I had that experience with the second CD in Air Supply's Greatest
Hits twosome.
CD1 had the familiar favorites -- Lost in Love, Every Woman
in the World, All Out Of Love, Chances, The One That You Love.
CD2 I listened to once and ignored it for six months. But
now I've listened to it several times and I'm lost in love.
It's every CD in the world to me. The
Air Supply Christmas album (1987) makes the perfect Chanukkah
gift for that special Jew in your life.
I'm lobbying rabbi David Wolpe to bring Air Supply to Friday
Night Live.
From
an Amazon.com review: Love 'em or hate 'em, no one can
argue that Air Supply wasn't one of the most prolific and
popular soft-rock presences on the airwaves during the first
half of the 80's decade. This group, or duo technically, of
Russell Hitchcock and Graham Russell had their lush and sometimes
over-the-top productions consistantly occupy the top-5 for
three years. Their tunes continued to appear on the charts
less consistantly in the mid-80's but there's no denying the
legacy they left. As popular as they were and still are to
many, there are almost as many who despise their often syrupy,
Spectorian in splendor, odes to love. They are second only
perhaps to the Carpenters in the degree of love-hate they
elicit from music listeners both now and in their heyday on
the charts. If you are not a fan, then no collection of Air
Supply's works would be of interest but for those who connect
with these guys' music, selecting from the myriad of CD's
available is the challange. For those seeking a "greatest
hits"-type package, there are many available, however in spite
of the parade of domestic collections, titles such as "ultimate"
and "definitive' notwithstanding, there are still no truly
complete domestic packages. For whatever reason, every domestic
collection leaves off at least one of their charted hits yet
with 18 or so tracks available on a CD, one wonders who is
making these decisions to drop legitimate singles for b-sides
and the like. This Taiwanese import is one of the few packages
that does in fact contain all the American top-100 hits, including
the domestically-evasive "Lonely Is The Night", Air Supply's
last charting single. Beyond the American hit singles within
the 36 tracks on two discs offered here are album cuts, Asian
hits, a few Russell Hitchcock solo tracks and a few cuts from
their "Greatests Hits Live" album. All in all, this represents
about the best overview of Air Supply's music. Add in its
decent sound quality and the substantial liner notes booklet
with song-by-song commentary by Russell and Hitchcock, and
you have the best overall package for these icons of 80's
soft-rock and pop.
JR774 writes: All of the 36 songs featured on it are wonderful
songs to listen to when you are in a sentimental mood, especially
if your heart has just been broken! Brilliantly the lyrics
to Air Supply songs seem to articulate human emotions to a
tee.
People keep asking me how is my Chanukkah. It is a perfectly
normal question yet it leaves me nonplussed. If I were to
answer honestly, I would reveal too much about myself.
Something happened inside of me in the last few months of
2001 and I haven't been the same since. What was once warm
and loving and enthusiastic has turned cold. What was once
soft is now hard. What was once done in joy is now done in
obligation, if it is done at all. I don't want to say anymore.
Yet I will. You can believe you are prepared for things. You
can believe you deserve punishment for your misdeeds. You
can believe that you should shape up and not feel certain
ways. Yet, in the end, you are what you are -- imperfect,
callous and vindictive. The heart has reasons of its own that
the mind (or conscience) can never understand. And sometimes
those reasons can be petty and mean, and those nasty feelings
can taint your divine service.
As I chose to stay in Egypt, I don't think I deserve Chanukkah.
During the cocktail and latkes hour at Temple
Sinai (Adventures in Judaism II program co-sponsored by
the University of Judaism)
Sunday afternoon from 4-5pm, I spent much of my time (while
clutching David Horovitz's book Still
Life With Bombers) talking to two women who are married.
Then I spotted a beautiful blonde with curly hair down past
her shoulders. She had a peaches-and-cream complexion. She
looked smart and witty and elegant. I was about to walk over
and hit on her when I realized that she was rabbi
Naomi Levy (author of two books I've enjoyed) and married
to Jewish Journal editor
Rob Eshman.
At 5pm, rabbi David Wolpe moderated an hour-long panel discussion
between Orthodox rabbi Pinchas Giller, a
professor at the University of Judaism and an expert in kaballah,
rabbi Levy and rabbi Steven Carr Reuben of the Reconstructionist
shul Kehillat Israel.
Rabbi Wolpe has the ability to speak to people, particularly
young people, in ways that no other rabbi can. I sensed a
palpable disappointment in the Friday Night Live crowd a few
months ago when he was away at the General Assembly (of Jewish
organizations) in Cleveland.
Rabbi Wolpe began the panel by noting that as you grow up,
you discover that everything you learned in Hebrew school
was wrong.
I believe he referred, among other things, to the miracle
of the oil (supposedly it was only enough to burn for one
day, but it burned, according to Jewish legend, for seven
days for the Maccabees over 2000 years ago so they could rededicate
the Temple). A history professor at Yeshiva University was
almost excommunicated in the 1960s for voicing disbelief in
the miracle writes rabbi Joseph Telushkin in his book Jewish
Literacy.
Scholars say that the Maccabees were trying to celebrate Succot
when they cleansed the temple. Rather than their struggle
being primarily against the Syrians and Greeks, it was against
Helenizing Jews.
All Jewish holidays have historical, national, agricultural
and religious elements interweaved, much of them based on
pagan customs but transformed by the Jewish commitment to
ethical monotheism.
That's why it is pointless to say Christmas is pagan. You
can just as easily say Succot (a Jewish festival in the fall)
is pagan. The important thing is that for the religious Christian
and Jew, pagan rituals have been transformed by belief in
the one God.
Rabbi Reuben talks about how people can misunderstand each
other. It's not a big deal if historical events did not occur
as the Bible depicts them.
Rabbi Wolpe says he knows about being misquoted.
What he did not say was how deeply he feels he was burned
by Los Angeles Times reporter Teresa Watanabe, who, in the
most famous article on Judaism in a decade, seemed to say
that rabbi Wolpe told his congregants that the Exodus from
Egypt did not occur.
What I believe the rabbi said, or certainly meant, was that
the evidence suggests that the Exous did not occur as the
Bible says it did.
Rabbi Wolpe pressed the panelists if they believed in the
seven-day miracle of the burning oil, and if they believed
in miracles against the laws of nature (such as the sun standing
still in Joshua). The panelists all gave disappointingly vague
answers. Frankly, they did not answer his question. They just
orated about the miracles that around us every day, such as
a child's smile.
I am agnostic about miracles happening against the laws of
nature. I believe in God and that he created nature and that
he has the ability to stop the sun from rotating around the
earth and to raise the dead. I would never publicly dismiss
any of the miracles of Jewish sacred text (that is part of
my obligation in living within the Orthodox community, not
to publicly dispute its essential teachings even if I privately
have my doubts).
I found rabbi Giller the most interesting panelist. As an
Orthodox Jew, he has obligations that are numerous and specific
and frequently go against the bent of disinterested scholarship.
Rabbi Giller said the rabbis of the Talmud coined the notion
of the miracle of the oil (I think he does not believe that
a one-day supply burned for seven days, which would be heretical
in fervent branches of Orthodoxy).
Nothing rabbi Giller said could be disputed by modern scholarship.
Rabbi Levy: I believe in the idea of the miracle.
I wonder how her husband would react if she said, "I believe
in the idea of loving you."
It's like those leftists who say they believe in the idea
of the United States. They believe in the Constituation. But
when it comes down to practical matters, they diss America
(credit this thought to Dennis Prager).
Rabbi Levy talked about the magic of meeting a Christian female
pastor in Westwood who is married to a Jew. Rabbi Levy holds
a monthly Friday night service in her church. Rabbi Levy felt
magic when she met the women.
Rabbi Levy said she did not feel magic when she met her future
husband. "It took him months of work. He wore me down."
Pinchas Giller pointed out that in the '50s and '60s, the
religion of most non-Orthodox Jews was Israel. Then it became
the Holocaust, so that Holocaust scholars became pundits (does
he mean Michael Berenbaum?). Now it's spirituality.
Rabbi Giller looked perplexed through much of the discussion.
His lips formed silent responses as the other rabbis spoke.
As somebody who interviews people all day most every day,
it is pleasure to have others ask me my opinions of things.
And when the questions become social and philosophical, I
often cite George Gilder (author of Men
and Marriage) that the most important question every society
must answer is what do you do with the men. In particular,
male sexual drive must be channeled into the marital bottle
(to quote Dennis Prager).
Yes, I fail to live up to my own admonition as I am 38 and
never married. But I still hold by the ideal, even if I haven't
lived up to it.
I was reminded of this matter by a remark by rabbi David Wolpe
at Friday Night Live
at Temple Sinai in Westwood December 10. He pointed out that
the service and its programming afterwards were aimed (and
sponsored for) people aged 21-39, and while the synagogue
did not want to discourage people older than that from attending
a religious service, it did request that such persons at least
bring a younger friend. And that afterwards, people older
than the targeted demographic should leave so that programs
aimed at people 21-39 could be enjoyed solely by that age
group.
Rabbi Wolpe noted that the synagogue had received numerous
complaints about older men trying to "socialize" with the
young women, and that such men should have the dignity to
remove themselves before they were asked to leave.
Applause immediately rippled through the synagogue, most of
it from young women. At the same time, I sensed that many
of the older men in the shul were offended.
I wholeheartedly agreed with rabbi Wolpe's sentiments but
did not applause because it is against Jewish custom to applaud
during a religious service (and because I think that as a
journalist, I should be removed and reserved and monk-like,
to quote J.J. Goldberg of the Forward).
I was sitting by one man who was near 50. He leaned over to
me and said, "Does this mean we should leave now?"
Miffed, I replied, "I'm 38. I'm staying. This service is for
people 21-39."
Have my sins written themselves on my sagging features so
deeply?
During the socializing, I spoke to a couple of men in their
40s who were furious at rabbi Wolpe's remarks. They were furious
that he had emphasized older men trying to socialize with
young women. Such remarks were sexist, ageist, exclusionary
and all sorts of horrible things.
A couple of women in their 30s told me that the rabbi's remarks
were rude. Still, overall, I sensed widespread approval of
the rabbi's remarks.
As I said to one man, men do tend to be sexually predatory.
Men are far more likely to hit aggressively on women than
vice versa.
What I did not say but passionately believe is that people
should have enough dignity that they do not try to attend
events explicitly designed for another age group. As I hit
my 40s, I'm not going to be attending Friday Night Live anymore
(please God, I'm going to be married).
Over the past couple of years, I've noticed an increasing
number of older people, folks going into their 60s and beyond,
coming to Friday Night Live and trying to hit on the young
women. It's not right.
It's one thing to lie about your age on JDate (which I think
is wrong), but it is even worse to invade religious services
explicitly targeted at a group of people who tend to have
little to do with organized Jewish life (young singles).
Friday Night Live used to be filled to overflowing with people
21-39. As the old people have moved in, the young people have
fled. There are plenty of Jewish events for people over 40.
Why not leave FNL alone?
For my sins, I've
been exiled from four of my favorite Orthodox synagogues.
Do I hang around these shuls? Do I try to walk in and see
if anyone catches me? Do I harass them? Do I speak ill of
them? Do I start campaigns against them or their rabbis? Do
I threaten to write letters to the Jewish Journal against
them (as I heard people threatening to do Friday night against
rabbi Wolpe)? No way. (Well, I did sneak in once to a shul
that had banned me (I write about that in my memoir). I got
caught and vowed that I would never do it again.)
A confession: I have gone to several UCLA Hillel day of learning
events (during Passover) explicitly aimed at people 18-30
(while I've been well into my 30s).
All my life I've been excluded from homes, organizations and
the lives of people I wanted to be close to, because of nasty
things I've written and said. I enjoy saying what I think,
and I hope that I am willing to pay the price. I'd like to
think I have some dignity, and when I am not wanted by someone
or something, I stay away (unless my writing or other responsibilities
oblige me to investigate).
Now, I have been clueless many times in not reading the signals
of those who think I'm creep. I have been pretty aggressive
with hitting on women (particularly in my younger days). Yet,
I want to believe that my recognition of these flaws in my
character better enables me to appreciate the wisdom of rabbi
Wolpe's remarks.
Despite the rabbi's words, there were over a dozen men well
over 40 walking around the FNL program after services. How
are they going to feel when they eventually get tapped on
the shoulder and asked to leave?
You market yourself aggressively and I don’t say that based
on some secret understanding of you that the general public
is blind to. I would take full advantage of any opportunity
to promote the Jewish
Journalism book because it already has three strikes against
it: (1) expensive cover price; (2) expensive self-publishing
deal that will probably negate you seeing profits from the
book any time in the near future, compounded by (3) a subject
matter with limited interest. This is an interesting passive-aggressive
game you play, not too dissimilar to the time that editor
wanted you to write a piece for the back page of his magazine
and you protested that you don’t write “didactic essays” before
you finally caved in and contributed something. Further, hanging
in a corner of the room at a party while waiting for the “hot
chicks” to hit on you does not qualify you as self-effacing.
All of your web sites, in essence, are about you, you, glorious
you. A “self-effacing Adventist” would never aspire to be
anyone’s “moral leader” and assert rights to a moral purity
that isn’t there in the harsh light of the day.
You know, you used to be amusing but lately I’ve been thinking
that your fifteen minutes is ticking down to about fourteen
and three quarters. I would take advantage of any opportunity
to give some momentum to that last fifteen seconds.
Khunrum writes: "Excellent Luke, Stand your ground. Lecture
the Hebes on the disproportional amount of Jews represented
in the ---- biz...go get 'em tiger."
I have a confession to make. Over the past two months, I've
played a nasty trick. But now it is time that the truth be
told. I am rabbi Hershy Worch. He is but a product of my imagination.
"Rabbi
Jeremy Hershy Worch" is no more real than Chaim Amalek
or Cindy Plenum or Khunrum or Helpful or Fred Nek or Mordecai
Tendler or any of the other colorful characters who fill
my nightmares and populate my writings.
Sabbath afternoon, I stopped by a mate's place on my way
to shul to daven mincha (pray the afternoon service). He and
his teenage daughter were watching Spiderman. Between deep
thoughts on Torah, I caught a few glimpses of the movie. My
mate and daughter pointed out that the parallels between me
and Peter Parker, Batman's alterego, are eery:
* We're both penniless practicioners of the news trade.
* We're both awkward with women and maintain our chastity
for the sake of higher ideals.
* We both live in one-room hovels.
According to
IMDB: "When bitten by a genetically modified spider, a
nerdy high school student gains spider-like abilities which
he must eventually use to fight evil as a superhero."
Then we heard his Orthodox wife and kids coming home and my
mate quickly turned off the TV and computer and jumped into
Shabbos-mode. I ambled off to pray.
Probably the greatest disappointment in my life is that, at
present, I live thousands of miles away from My Moral Leader's
office (i.e., hovel). This is where Mr Ford dispenses advice
to the forlorn and perplexed. Not that I want the sort of
hands-on care that Mr Ford kindly shows his (many) female
followers. Good grief, NO! But I really do need some sort
of personal counselling from a trusted source: a wise man
who not only knows the difference between right and wrong,
but who also has the steely determination and boundless self-discipline
to do the right thing at all times. This is where I fall down.
My capacity to make good ethical decisions is severely lacking.
I usually know what is the right thing to do, but when presented
with a choice between the right and the easy thing, I always
do the latter.
"What's the most inappropriate place you've
ever had an erection?"
Cathy
Seipp recaps a conversation from last night:
Lewis: "That would have to be during my internship with the
L.A. County Coroner's office. There was this 75-year-old African-American
man laid out on a slab, and I couldn't help it, his pectoral
muscles were just so well-developed..."
Me: "Lewis!"
Lewis: "OK, really, I guess it was when I walked in on my
mother in the shower."
The blog Protocols (primarily aimed at an Orthodox audience)
held its swan song party Wednesday night, the last day of
the blog.
Chaim Amalek, an elderly man, very heavy, with a cane and
coarse gray hair, writes me:
Chaim: Well, I was there, at KGB bar.
Chaim: A very semitic looking crowd: short, dark, and not
very friendly.
hanka444: how was it?
hanka444: any hot chicks?
Chaim: I sit down and this Jewess starts distributing stuff,
first dreydels. She puts one on the table right in front of
me, then quickly scoops it up to deposit on the table next
to mine.
Chaim: Then she hands out some flyers touting the novel literary
series "Novel Jews" to everyone. But me.
hanka444: What did she look like?
She was one of the Jewesses who emceed it. There was one hot
chick there, a blonde, who left just as things got started.
I suspect that she was not a Jewess.
Chaim: Like a standard Jewess. Maybe a bit taller than average;
about 5'6:, short to medium black hair. Thin.
Chaim: They all look like one of three or four types.
hanka444: Did you talk to anyone interesting?
Chaim: A swarthy crowd in an establishment whose walls were
festooned with propaganda posters from the failed Bolshevik
disaster. Very fitting.
Chaim: In the center of the room sat a group of 8 or 9 older
"inner party" types. They ignored me as I took careful notes.
hanka444: See Steven Weiss?
Chaim: That guy Steven Weiss lit the menorah. He has a beard,
Chaim: is younger than I thought, said the blessing.
Chaim: People mostly ignored me even when I attempted to start
conversations.
Chaim: But I won't soon forget that unfriendly bitch who put
a dreydel on my table and then removed it to give to others.
Chaim: Few skull caps except, I think, for that Weiss guy.
His might have been the only one there.
hanka444: Does this treatment make you anti-Semitic?
Chaim: Well, I suspect that over the years similar has happened
to you, has it not?
hanka444: yes
Chaim: And?
hanka444: I feel like you are a part of me.
hanka444: I try to keep it under control.
Chaim: Really, the most unfriendly crowds I encounter in NY
are crowds of Jews. If they don't know you, if they cannot
play Jewish Geography with you ("Oh, you went to camp with
my cousin Shekey"), then they don't want to have a thing to
do with you.
Chaim: I shouldn't complain. It's lots worse for Palestinians
living near Zionists.
Chaim: Now, concerning all these "hip" jews celebrating their
liberation in a bar festooned with posters from the old Soviet
Union (mostly the Stalin years), I wonder how the victims
of Bolshevik tyranny would view that scene.
Chaim: Imagine, if you will, a the reaction to a group of
Christians celebrating Christmas in a bar decorated with swastikas.
I thought it very insensitive for Jews to celebrate anything
surrounded by all that Stalinist propaganda. The late Dr.
Pierce and Yggdrasil would each have had a field day with
the scene.
Alana Newhouse replies: "Chaim -- I fear I swiped your dreidel,
in what was clearly a misguided attempt to distribute the
precious toys to the neediest cases. I apologize for the bad
manners. And I'm sorry you didn't have much fun, though I
still thank you for attending."
Chaim replies: "Hah! This woman did not give my dreidel to
a child or to a homeless man (as if!); she gave it to a very
prosperous looking group of Jewish doctors and lawyers. And
then there was the matter of those announcements for "Novel
Jews." Everyone around me got one - but me. And I mean everyone.
You know, there would be less antisemitism in the world if
you house hebrews learned to treat others as you would have
them treat you. The goyim are watching more often than you
know.
"I feel bad about mocking [Aboriginees]. We should treat all
of God's Children with love and kindness. I guess the spirit
of Christmas is within me now, exluding the savage spirit
of Chanukkah.
"How can I get into the spirit of your holiday when a dreidel
is placed before me and then snatched away to be given to
more conventionally successful semites?
"See, whenever I try to connect with my Jewish roots, I am
rebuffed. I just don't know how you manage."
The Jewish Week has learned that a committee from the Rabbinical
Council of America, the largest organization of Orthodox rabbis
in the country, has shared the findings of an eight-month
investigation with the accused, Rabbi Mordechai Tendler, a
well-known spiritual leader in the Monsey community, to allow
him to prepare a defense.
It is alleged that the rabbi then contacted at least one of
the women named in the report and sought to intimidate her,
a charge denied by the rabbi’s attorney, Arnold Kriss.
Also under dispute is whether the women who spoke to the investigator
knew that their names would be shared with the rabbi.
ME writes:
I'm putting together a few posts based on the RCA/Praesidium
investigation.
I don't want to tell victims' stories or identify individual
victims'
stories. But I'm completely disgusted by what the RCA and
Tendler supporters
are doing. They're basically intimidating victims and trying
to whitewash
the whole situation.
But I do want to send a message to Rabbi Mordechai Tendler
and his
supporters that this will no longer be tolerated.
To do this I will be disclosing how Rabbi Mordechai Tendler
operates. What
his MO is, how he grooms women he exploits, how he intimidates
his critics.
I will be disclosing some of the "pick-up" lines he uses with
married women
and agunot, where he likes to have sex and other tidbits.
Some of this
information is salacious in nature but midah k'neged midah.
If Tendler and
his goons want to intimidate victims they need to know there
will be severe
consequences.
It may take a few days to edit this material before I post
it as I want to
be very careful.
I was approached about a year-and-a-half/2 years ago to look
into this
situation. So be assured, I've dotted my i's and crossed my
t's.
My information identifies 10 distinct female victims, only
9 have
co-operated with the RCA/Praesidium investigation. The 10th
has signed a
confidentiality agreement with Rabbi Tendler for a reported
$100,000 and an
agreement to turn over physical evdence to Tendler and to
never discuss the
matter with anyone ever again.
PETA received a whistleblower complaint about this slaughterhouse
in 2003. Based on the complaint we were very concerned about
the manner in which this particular slaughterhouse performed
shechita, and we wanted very much to resolve this problem
quickly and quietly with AgriProcessors to ensure that both
kosher and federal laws were being upheld. We did everything
in our power to work with AgriProcessors to improve conditions
at their facility, but they refused to work with us (you can
see these letters--ours
and their attorney's. We then sent an undercover investigator
to work in the slaughterhouse for several weeks, and what
we found was far worse than we could have ever imagined. In
fact, Dr. Temple Grandin, who has worked in more than 30 kosher
slaughterhouses and who has been the subject
of a very kind story about her work with shechita says
this is the worst she's ever seen, is "horrific," and that
everything this place could be doing wrong, they're doing
wrong.
Have
you watched the video? Don't you think this sort of cruelty
should be addressed? I want to stress, again, that we tried
to do this w/o fanfare; we were rebuffed.
PETA has conducted similar investigations into secular slaughterhouses
and facilities all over the world, and this is in fact the
first investigation that involved kosher slaughter in any
way. Prior to this investigation PETA conducted an undercover
investigation into a Kentucky Fried Chicken supplier slaughterhouse
in Moorefield, West Virginia, and we have since been seeking
changes to the slaughter process at this facility similar
to those we are seeking in the case of AgriProcessors. In
a country that raises and kills over 11 billion animals per
year for consumption there will always be cruelty associated
with the handling and slaughter process. In the the case of
AgriProcessors we simply ask that they uphold the standards
of Jewish and federal law to ensure that the animals die as
painlessly as possible. Quite honestly, no one should be more
upset at this moment that those who have trusted that seeing
“kosher” on the label of this food meant there was no cruelty
involved in its production, for that was a lie.
I am outraged and incensed by what I saw on this tape, as
is my family and congregation. This kind of cruelty flies
in the face of everything we stand for as Jews, and everything
shechita stands for as a humane form of slaughter. As a Jew
and one of the coordinators of this campaign I can assure
you that our efforts carry with them no bias. Like compassionate
people everywhere, we categorically oppose unnecessary cruelty
and will fight it in any form.
No more trachea-pulling/throat-ripping.
A second cut to slash the arteries only. (I.e., no more #1.)
Stunning or killing animals still walking after slaughter.
1) "PETA employee Tal Ronen misrepresented himself to Rabbi
Shar Yoshuv
Cohen, Haifa's Chief Rabbi, as a baal teshuva (returnee to
authentic
Judaism) interested in proper slaughter practices."
2) Ralph Benning, 40, a ''Torah-observant Jew'' who is an
inmate in a
Georgia prison can wear a yarmulke at all times and be served
kosher food,
the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled.
Courtesy of the Awareness Center YahooGroup:
Case of Ralph Harrison Benning, Fulton County, Georgia
1)
Abuse victims often get less therapy than molester `No follow-up
unless parents have money,' says DA
by Gayle White Staff Writer
Atlanta Journal and Constitution
January 10, 1987
...
- In September 1985, Ralph Harrison Benning, 23, pleaded guilty
to molesting
and murdering Peter Downing Howell Jr., 8. Benning told police
he killed
Howell on the site where he was molested as a child. "Assaulting
Downing was
like a re-enactment of something that had happened to him,"
a police officer
said.
...
2)
BENNING, RALPH H
GDC ID: 0000427174
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
DOB: 12/26/1963 RACE: WHITE GENDER: MALE
HEIGHT: 6'03''
WEIGHT: 211
EYE COLOR: UNKNOWN
HAIR COLOR: UNKNOWN
SCARS, MARKS, TATTOOS
INCARCERATION DETAILS
MAJOR OFFENSE: MURDER
MOST RECENT INSTITUTION: HANCOCK STATE PRISON
MAX POSSIBLE RELEASE DATE: LIFE, W/POSSIBLE PAROLE
TENTATIVE PAROLE MONTH: N/A
ACTUAL RELEASE DATE: CURRENTLY SERVING
CURRENT STATUS: ACTIVE
KNOWN ALIASES
A.K.A. BENNING,RALPH
A.K.A. BENNING,RALPH HARRISON
STATE OF GEORGIA - CURRENT SENTENCES
CASE NO: 198322
OFFENSE: AGGRAV ASSAULT
CONVICTION COUNTY: FULTON COUNTY
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 09/16/1992
SENTENCE LENGTH: 5 YEARS, 0 MONTHS, 0 DAYS
CASE NO: 198322
OFFENSE: MURDER
CONVICTION COUNTY: FULTON COUNTY
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 07/05/1986
SENTENCE LENGTH: LIFE
STATE OF GEORGIA - PRIOR SENTENCES
STATE OF GEORGIA - INCARCERATION HISTORY
INCARCERATION BEGIN INCARCERATION END
10/09/1986 ACTIVE
Shmarya called rabbi Basil Herring about the kosher slaughtering
case with PETA vs Agriprocessors in Iowa. Rabbi Herring hung
up on him. Shmarya called him back and asked him about the
leaked file in the rabbi Mordecai Tendler case. Rabbi Herring
said he could not talk about it and hung up again.
I got this note from a group of men and women in Australia
who prefer to remain anonymous regarding rabbi
Jeremy Hershy Worch:
Hershy Worch came to Melbourne, Australia with his wife and
young family in 1995. He was initially employed by the Hillel
Foundation. As rabbi of the Hamakom Synagogue, he was then
financially supported by members of his community from the
years 1995-1997. During this time both his behaviour and demeanour
with his female students were consistently predatory, manipulative
and abusive. He proactively sought 'romantic' and sexual relationships
wtih many many women, specifically targeting those who were
emotionally vulnerable and fostering acute dependency. He
consistently used his role as counselor to make sexual advances
towards those who came to him in need. He had 'romantic' sexual
relationships with married and unmarried women who ranged
in age from 20 to 50.
His inappropriate behaviour towards female students included:
Physical sexual interactions
Predatory behavior in the pursuit of women: e.g. late night
phone calls and invitations to teach women privately.
Using the teaching of Torah as a tool of seduction.
Using group situations with himself at the centre - that utilized
his musical, vocal and narrative 'talents' - to manipulate
individuals and create a cultic environment around 'Kabbalah'
classes.
Using his relationships with students to influence them to
'rescue' him by financially and publically supporting and
defending him.
His abuse of his position as rabbi, chazzan and counselor
traumatized this community leaving wounds that took and are
still taking many years to heal. Reputations were publicly
compromised and personal lives were taken over.
Those who have followed his career since he left Australia
and returned to the United States have observed a repetition
of these patterns.
We trust that with our testimony and others you will do everything
within your power to expose Hershy Worch and warn individuals
and communities who may be vulnerable to his 'teachings' and
promises of insight and enlightenment.
Jack writes: Yerachmiel Begun, the owner of the "Miami Boys
Choir" company, doesn't pay the boys at all. If anything,
they pay for the privilege of making him money.
I don't like the fact that we can't let our children use the
bathrooms unsupervised at malls because of nonsense like this.
Note: Michael Katz, 48, of Wyckoff, development director for
United Jewish
Communities (Charles Kusher used to be a board member).
1+2 deal with arrest
3 background on Katz
4 mandatory Charles Kushner connection
1)
Mall restroom sting nets 5 on lewdness
Thursday, December 2, 2004
By BRIAN SPADORA
HERALD NEWS
PARAMUS - Five men were arrested and charged with lewdness
and criminal sexual contact for masturbating in a restroom
at the Bergen Mall.
The five men arrested were Robert Callahan, 73, of Dumont,
Larry
Eisenberg, 70, of Englewood, Michael Katz, 48, of Wyckoff,
Bernard Kearny,
38, of Wallington and Nestor Santos, 53, of Englewood.
The lewdness charge, a disorderly person's offense, relates
to exposing
oneself.
The criminal sexual contact charge, a misdemeanor, stems from
touching
oneself sexually in front of someone who does not consent
to watch, Cary
said.
2)
Five men arrested in mall restroom
Thursday, December 2, 2004
PARAMUS - Five men were caught masturbating in a public restroom
Tuesday
afternoon during an undercover sweep at the Bergen Mall, authorities
said.
Police arrested Bernard Kearny, 38, a salesman from Wallington;
Dr. Larry
Eisenberg, 70, of Englewood, a freelance anesthesiologist;
Robert Callahan,
73, a retired banker from Dumont; Michael Katz, 48, of Wyckoff,
development
director for United Jewish Communities; and Nestor Santos,
53, a data-entry
clerk from Englewood.
3)
Mission seeks to expand local ties with beleaguered Argentineans
Wiener, Robert. Jewish News. Whippany, N.J.: Jul 1, 2004.Vol.LVIII,
Iss. 27;
pg. 8
Saddened by much of what they witnessed, yet heartened by
the ways a
troubled people is fighting back, 13 members of the UJA Campaign's
Young
Leadership Division returned June 18 from six days in Argentina.
"Argentina had a very active Jewish community," said Michael
Katz, associate
UJA Campaign director at United Jewish Communities of MetroWest
New Jersey.
"Then, in 2001, the economy went into a freefall."
Katz said experts at the Ariel Job Placement Center in Buenos
Aires told his
delegation that before the collapse Argentina had 4,000 Jews
they considered
poor. After the collapse, the number rose to 38,000.
"The middle and upper-middle classes were literally driven
into poverty,"
said Katz. "People who were poor to begin with were devastated
completely.
It did not just affect Jews. It was across the board. But
our job as a
Jewish federation is to reach out to Jews in need, wherever
they may be, and
try to help them."
With that aim in mind, the 13 men from MetroWest flew to Buenos
Aires on
June 13, then to the federation's embattled sister city of
Tucuman.
"We've developed a relationship there with the rabbi and the
day schools and
the Jewish community center and various organizations, so
we have a hands-on
feel," Katz explained.
"Not only do we offer them money through the [American Jewish]
Joint
Distribution Committee, but we can come in and assess a special
need. For
instance, in a building that provides community assistance,
we installed an
elevator so that people -- especially the elderly -- could
get to the third
floor where food packages were being distributed."
Robert Wiener can be reached at rwiener@njjewishnews.com
Article copyright New Jersey Jewish News.
4)
Kushner Fallout Unclear; Scandal's effect on philanthropist's
giving 'open
question.'
Dickter, Adam. The New York Jewish Week. (Manhattan edition).
New York,
N.Y.: Jul 23, 2004.Vol.217, Iss. 08; pg. 1
When mega-philanthropist Charles Kushner was charged last
week with conspiring against his brother-in-law in a sex video
scandal, New Jersey Sen. Jon Corzine wasted no time returning
more than $80,000 of the billionaire developer's campaign
contributions. His New York colleague, Charles Schumer, gave
some $4,000 of Kushner cash to charity, according to press
reports.
The accusations against Kushner, one of the marquis names
in American Jewish philanthropy, have also placed New Jersey
Gov. James McGreevey in a bind, having received $1.5 million
in donations from the embattled businessman over the years.
McGreevey and a Democratic campaign committee this week gave
a total of some $13,000 in donations from Kushner to a medical
research foundation.
Kushner is most closely associated with the Joseph Kushner
Hebrew Academy in
Livingston, named for his father, a Holocaust survivor, and
the Kushner
Hebrew High School. He is also a board member of Touro College
in New York,
the Rabbinical College of America in Morristown, N.J., Yeshiva
University's
Stern College for Women and the United Jewish Communities
of MetroWest New
Jersey.
I am writing this letter to keep you informed about allegations
made by
an animal rights group known as People for the Ethical Treatment
of
Animals (PETA) and what the Orthodox Union is doing in response
to those
allegations.
Earlier this week, PETA released an undercover video showing
scenes of
cows staggering and bellowing in agony for several minutes
after their
throats were cut by the shochet. PETA focused its attention
on one
particular plant, AgriProcessors, Inc., but these accusations
have
implications for all kosher shechita, particularly because
the video has
received attention in the media world, beginning with an article
in The
New York Times, on Tuesday, November 30th.
The Orthodox Union is very concerned about these accusations.
We are
sensitive to the inhumane treatment of animals, and empathize
with those
who are upset by the images of cruelty recorded on this video.
As you
well know, the Jewish faith abjures cruelty to animals and
enjoins us to
be as humane as possible in our legitimate utilization of
animals. That
shechita is a very humane method of slaughtering animals has
been
substantiated over the past century by numerous scholarly
articles and
scientific opinion.
We are therefore carefully studying the video and reviewing
the
procedures at the AgriProcessors plant. Meanwhile, an additional
supervisor has been put on duty at the facility in question,
to monitor
that all proper kashrut and humane practices are being followed.
We wish to draw your attention to the following facts which
help provide
a perspective on this matter for you and your congregants:
1. While unnecessary cruelty to even one animal is intolerable,
one has
to look at the total picture before judging the matter. During
the time
span that the video was taken, thousands of animals were slaughtered
by
the plant in question. We have no way of knowing what percentage
of
that number resulted in the kinds of scenes that were seen
on the video.
Viewers of the video will note that it does show regular instances
of
shechita where the animal expired rapidly, without the suffering
observed in other animals.
2. The United States Department of Agriculture supervises
this
slaughterhouse and has found nothing amiss in its practices.
We have a
very cooperative working relationship with the USDA, and know
that USDA
officials visited the plant subsequent to the release of this
video, and
were satisfied with the slaughtering that they scrutinized.
3. Slaughtering animals for human consumption is never a pretty
sight.
An abattoir is obviously a place where one will see living,
vibrant
animals transformed into meat. This is generally a bloody
and
unpleasant experience, but this is universal. Indeed, PETA
acknowledges
that the shechita process is better than most general slaughtering.
4. The Orthodox Union will not engage in maligning PETA in
any way, nor
in questioning their motives. PETA and its adherents have
a view of
animal rights to which they are entitled and which they can
legitimately
espouse in a free and open society such as ours. We do, however,
assert
that religious entities such as ours, or our Moslem cousins,
also have
rights within a free society. Those rights, grounded in the
U.S.
Constitution, include the ability to prepare animals for consumption
in
the religiously prescribed manner.
5. We continue to vouch for the kashrut of all of the meat
prepared by
AgriProcessors, which was never compromised. Like all the
more than
6,000 plants-producing all kinds of foodstuffs-that are certified
by the
OU, it has always been under our regular supervision.
At this point the Orthodox Union:
a) is committed to maintaining the highest ritual standards
of shechita
without compromising the halacha one whit. That being said,
we will
strive to the best of our ability to see to it that any cruel
or
inhumane practices, which are by definition separate from
the shechita
process itself, do not occur;
b) is coordinating with other kashrut agencies, and rabbinic
and
communal organizations, to assure the most effective response
to this
matter;
c) is preparing "talking points" which will be made available
to members
of the Orthodox Union and the interested public;
d) will be placing educational materials regarding shechita
on our
website, www.ou.org;
e) is proceeding with the good counsel of professional consultants
and a
range of community leaders to effectively respond to the world-wide
concern about this matter.
Finally, we request that no one present himself to the press
as an
expert on this matter, since several rabbinic figures have
commented to
the press in ways that have confused the press and the public.
Please
refer all such queries to Rabbi Menachem Genack, who heads
OU Kashrut,
at 212-613-8125, or to my office, 212-613-8264.
Of course, we remain open to input and suggestions from each
of you.
I close with best wishes for a Shabbat Shalom and a Happy
Chanukah.
Watch the video here:
http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/
Best Web Log on the issue:
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/
For Immediate Release:
December 3, 2004
USDA LAUNCHES CRUELTY INVESTIGATION AS ORTHODOX UNION & CHIEF
RABBINATE OF ISRAEL ADMIT “INHUMANE” & “NOT KOSHER” PRACTICES
AT OU & ISRAELI-APPROVED PLANT
PETA Vows to Push for OU Policy Commitment, Prosecution of
Iowa Slaughterhouse
Things turned south for AgriProcessors yesterday as the United
States Department of Agriculture sent inspectors to the plant
to investigate charges of illegal cruelty to animals and top
kosher authorities condemned the practices. The world’s largest
glatt kosher slaughterhouse and the only one in the U.S. certified
to ship to Israel has been, for days, hiding behind the USDA
and its kosher certifiers, both of which moved to distance
themselves from the plant yesterday.
The USDA, which inspects and approves the plant, announced
that it had launched what it said would be a comprehensive
investigation, which will include investigation into the actions
of its own plant supervisors.
PETA’s investigation found that standard practice at Agriprocessors
includes shocking animals in the face with electric prods,
ripping their tracheas and esophagi out of the throats within
5 seconds, and dumping them from the restraint, at which point
some struggle to stand, bellow in agony, and attempt to flee,
with the tracheas and esophagi hanging from their throats,
some for as long as three minutes. PETA has arrayed veterinary,
academic, rabbinic, and slaughterhouse inspector experts who
say that these animals are fully conscious the entire time.
The chief rabbinate of Israel told the Jerusalem Post that
meat from the animals in PETA’s video is “not kosher” and
said, about animals stumbling and still conscious for minutes
after their throats are slit open, that “it normally takes
30 seconds to a minute for the cow to lose consciousness if
shechita [the cut] is done properly. . . he did not cut one
of the jugular veins, so blood is still flowing… It looks
as though the animal wasn't slaughtered properly.”
The Orthodox Union, the world’s largest kosher certifier,
which had been defending the practices, reversed course yesterday,
telling the New York Times (Friday edition), that “the video
‘raises all sorts of questions.’” Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb,
the OU’s executive vice president, “said he found the procedure
‘especially inhumane’ and ‘generally unacceptable’ but wanted
to investigate how regularly it happened.”
Also yesterday, Iowa Department of Agriculture veterinary
supervisor Mike Miller told the Waterloo Courier that kosher
slaughter, done properly, is, in direct contrast to what PETA
found to be standard at AgriProcessors, “‘fairly quick’… He
estimated animals feel pain for 10 to 15 seconds and no more
than half a minute.”
“Recognizing that there is a problem is better than denying
it, of course,” says PETA President Ingrid Newkirk. “But these
animals were treated in ways that would warrant felony cruelty
to animals charges if these were dogs or cats, and this was
in gross violation of both Federal and kosher laws, as well
as basic human decency, and all this happened on the OU's
watch. The horrific cruelty that the OU permitted for so long
requires serious corrective action and a policy from the OU
to make sure these horrors never happen again.”
Part I: What the Experts Say About Animal Consciousness at
AgriProcessors, Inc.
PETA’s investigation into an AgriProcessors kosher slaughterhouse
in Postville, Iowa, revealed egregiously cruel slaughter methods
being used—where cattle suffered after having their throats
cut and being dismembered while still fully conscious. Many
instances of prolonged consciousness were documented after
animals had their tracheas and other internal organs gouged
out with a hook and knife. Experts from academic, veterinary,
meat industry, and religious disciplines had the following
comments about the degree of consciousness demonstrated by
animals in the footage:
Temple Grandin, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University
Dr. Grandin is internationally regarded as one of the leading
experts on farmed-animal slaughter, handling, and welfare.
She has served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the American Meat Institute and has visited 30 kosher
slaughterhouses and countless nonkosher plants.
? “This tape shows atrocious procedures that are NOT performed
in any other kosher operation. Removal of the trachea and
other internal parts before the animal has become insensible
would cause great suffering and pain. Many of the cattle on
this tape had this dressing procedure performed when they
were still fully sensible. Several cattle were walking around
with the trachea and other parts hanging out of them.”
? “In conclusion, many of the cattle that had their trachea
removed were fully conscious and fully sensible. The duration
of complete sensibility was probably prolonged by the pain
of having their inner tissues cut and pulled during this dressing
procedure.”
Holly Cheever, D.V.M.
Voorheesville, New York
Dr. Cheever received her A.B. from Harvard and D.V.M. from
the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University with
a class rank of #1. She has worked as a dairy practitioner
and has vast experience with cattle, including in a slaughterhouse
setting.
? “I have watched cattle die from a barbiturate overdose,
from the use of firearms, from cardiopulmonary failure, from
meningitis, and also from stunning and slaughter in a slaughterhouse.
Therefore, I am well qualified to discuss the behaviors of
the cattle depicted in this distressing film footage, which
unequivocally and unarguably indicate that the cattle were
conscious and suffering an agonal and inhumane death.”
? “There is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that
the majority of the cattle shown in these many incidents are
fully conscious as they are dumped from the apparatus [with
their throats cut and tracheas removed]. Some actually make
conscious, directional attempts to escape … [one] actually
manages to walk and crawl through a doorway, away from the
killing area …. Some try to escape through the front of the
restraint apparatus after their throats are cut and before
they are dumped out …. While on the floor, many make very
conscious attempts to stand and crawl forward, even with repeated
attempts, but can’t due to the slippery bloody floor and their
failing strength. Their thrashing is desperate and clearly
directed at attempts to rise …, rather than the uncoordinated
random neuromuscular firing of a dead animal. Others are too
weak and in shock to attempt to stand, but struggle to right
themselves and to adopt a sternal (i.e. lying on the chest)
position with head thrusts and attempts to roll upright ….
Some clearly react to stimuli: [one] startles in response
to a blow from a worker, [another] resists the repeated attempts
of a worker to push him/her over and re-rights himself/herself
each time. Even more disturbing than the actual evidence of
their consciousness is the length of time it can persist:
[one animal] is still clearly alive after 3 minutes as the
shackle is attached to its leg, and [another] lies immobile
for one and a half minutes, then tries to struggle into the
sternal position after almost 2 minutes.”
? “In conclusion, it is my professional opinion that these
animals as cited above showed clear evidence of consciousness
and therefore would experience terror, pain, and extreme suffering,
some for as long as 3 minutes, after their throats are cut.”
Gary Dahl, Representative
U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Meat and Poultry Inspectors
Union
(American Federation of Government Employees)
Mr. Dahl has worked as an inspector for the USDA Food Safety
and Inspection Service for 21 years, including 11 years in
slaughter production. Mr. Dahl does not speak for the USDA,
but for himself and those he represents.
? “Put it this way, most of the animals shown on the tape
were so conscious and aware of what was happening that if
the floor wasn’t slippery with blood and the door was open,
they would have made a beeline for daylight in order to escape.”
? “I have reviewed the kosher slaughterhouse footage you sent
me and the suffering of these animals was obvious, as was
their consciousness after they had their tracheas removed.
For animals to be allowed to remain mobile and be able to
thrash around after this procedure is uncalled for and inhumane.”
? “The amount of time that [one particular] animal is fully
conscious on the floor, partly dismembered, causes the animal
pain and suffering.”
? “[One particular] animal was dumped from the restraining
device totally conscious and aware, with his trachea hanging
out. The animal was totally mobile. If an animal comes out
of the device totally conscious and walking around in the
manner of this one, then that animal should be desensitized
through a knocking procedure. To be subjected to this kind
of dismemberment while still fully aware and conscious is
not fair to this animal.”
? “After being dumped from the [restraining device with his
throat cut, one particular] animal then gets up and moves
around. The animal is aware and alert to everything that is
being done to her.”
Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen
Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Israel
? “I was surprised to see that immediately after the [religious
slaughterer] makes the cut, a worker who is probably not Jewish
jumps to the animal and tears away its entire throat. Also,
I was surprised to see that even after that brutal act, the
animal seems to still be alive and walked a few steps, and
then it took about four minutes until it fell down and died
… This procedure is not only cruel and therefore unacceptable
by Jewish religious law. It also cannot be certified as Kosher,
as the animal must die as a direct result of the ritual cut.”
Shimon Cohen, Shechita UK
?The New York Times, December 1, 2004
? “[A] spokesman for Shechita U.K., a British lobbying group
that defends ritual slaughter against the protests of animal
rights advocates, said after watching the tape with a rabbi
and a British shochet that he ‘felt queasy,’ and added, ‘I
don’t know what that is, but it’s not shechita.’ The spokesman,
Shimon Cohen, said that in Britain an animal must be restrained
for 30 seconds to bleed, and no second cut is allowed. Done
correctly, Mr. Cohen said, a shochet’s cut must produce instantaneous
unconsciousness, so AgriProcessors’ meat could not be considered
kosher.”
Rabbi Ezra Raful, Israel’s Chief Rabbinate
?Jerusalem Post, December 2, 2004
? “Israel’s Chief Rabbinate … told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday
that it would not consider as kosher cows that appear in an
undercover video of ritual slaughtering at the AgriProcessors
Inc. plant in Postville, Iowa. . . .‘You see there, it looks
like he ripped out the trachea and esophagus. We do not allow
the animal to be touched after the shehita until the main
part of the bleeding stops …’”
? “Raful, who has supervised kosher slaughterhouses all over
the world, including at AgriProcessors, said he has never
seen the ripped throat practice before … ‘Look,’ noted Raful,
‘he did not cut one of the jugular veins, so blood is still
flowing. That’s another reason for not accepting that shehita.
It looks as though the animal wasn’t slaughtered properly.’
Raful said it normally takes 30 seconds to a minute for the
cow to lose consciousness if shehita is done properly.”
Rabbi David Rosen, Former Chief Rabbi of Ireland
?The Forward, December 3, 2004
? “‘I certainly saw enough evidence of mobility on the part
of the animal to conclude that it is not dead,’ said Rabbi
David Rosen, former chief rabbi of Ireland and one of the
rabbis whose comments are used in PETA’s literature. Also
troubling for Rosen was what he saw as the ‘pulling out of
the trachea and esophagus by hand’ after the incision had
been made. ‘I’ve been in many slaughterhouses in my time,’
he said, ‘and I’ve never seen anything like that.’ On the
whole, Rosen concluded, what is shown in the video is a ‘flagrant
violation’ of Jewish law, or halacha.”
Part II: What Science Says About Signs of Consciousness Demonstrated
by Animals at AgriProcessors, Inc.
Science has conclusively established universally recognized
signs of consciousness—including righting reflexes, head lifting,
rhythmic breathing, blinking, and coordinated movement such
as walking and standing. All of these were clearly demonstrated
by animals in PETA’s footage from AgriProcessors. Below is
just a small sample of the readily available literature from
scientists about these indicators:
The European Food Safety Authority’s Scientific Panel on Animal
Health and Welfare, made up of eight experts in the field,
was asked by the European Commission to prepare a report on
the welfare aspects of slaughter. In the document, “Welfare
Aspects of Animal Stunning and Killing Methods,” the authors
conclude that signs of consciousness include rhythmic breathing,
corneal reflex, righting reflex, and attempts to raise the
head.
The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
has issued a document, “Guidelines for Humane Handling, Transport
and Slaughter of Livestock,” which states that signs of consciousness
in stunned animals include regular breathing, a blink reflex,
and righting reflexes.
The National Assembly for Wales’ Agriculture Policy Division
issued slaughter guidelines stating that if a stun to render
an animal unconscious is effective, the animal “will not attempt
to stand up” and “[n]ormal rhythmic breathing will stop.”
It goes on to state that animals who deviate from this have
not been rendered unconscious properly and must be re-stunned.
The Australian Department of Education, Training, and Youth
Affairs discusses both ritual slaughter and slaughter with
stunning and provides guidelines for operators in its document
titled Oversee Humane Handling of Animals. It found that signs
of consciousness include “blinking,” “rhythmic breathing,”
and “any attempt by the animal to raise its head.”
The New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry states
in one of its “Code of Recommendations” that ineffective attempts
at rendering an animal unconscious through stunning can be
recognized if the animal demonstrates “persistent and rhythmic
breathing” or attempts “to raise the head.”
The Danish Meat Research Institute found in 2001 that in a
slaughterhouse setting, “behavioural and different physiological
reflexes” to evaluate degrees of consciousness included “corneal
reflex …, regular respiration, excitation …, spontaneous blinking
of the eye …, and attempts to stand up” where “regular respiration”
was defined as being “deep and having regular intervals, i.e.,
different from superficial and occasional gasps.”
The Institute of Meat Science and Technology and the Institute
of Zoology at Universidad Austral de Chile’s Veterinary Science
Faculty published an article in Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria
in 2003 examining sensibility in cattle at the slaughterhouse
and used the following “sensibility signs” to quantify their
findings: “rhythmical breathing, vocalization, corneal reflex
and eye movement, [and] attempt to stand up or head elevation.”
An article published in Research in Veterinary Science by
D.K. Blackmore (1984) looked at the onset of insensibility
during the slaughter of unstunned cattle and used “coordinated
body movements” as a criterion in the study.
Dr. Temple Grandin of Colorado State University, advisor to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, wrote that signs of sensibility
in all types of stunning and for ritual slaughter include
rhythmic breathing, spontaneous natural blinking, righting
reflexes, raising of the head, and a tongue that “goes in
and out.”
All of the behaviors discussed above (including animals who
stand up or walk away) are demonstrated by cattle at AgriProcessors
after having their throats cut and tracheas removed. This
provides scientific confirmation that these animals were conscious
for significant lengths of time, several minutes in some cases,
resulting in prolonged agony.
Rabbi Avi Shafran, director of public affairs for Agudath
Israel of America, writes:
It would seem a promising premise for story about Chelm, Jewish
folklore's fabled town of the clueless. The resident philosopher
sagely informs his fellow citizens that since he can't perceive
his own face directly he must not have one. Besides, he explains
to the townsfolk, as anyone can plainly see, what seems to
be his face clearly resides in his mirror.
The Chelm tale idea is inspired not by hopeless simpletons
but by celebrated scientists. Like Yale psychology professor
Paul Bloom, the author of a new book, "Descartes' Baby," about,
as its subtitle puts it, "what makes us human." In a New York
Times op-ed, Professor Bloom lamented human beings' stubborn
commitment to "dualism," the philosophical idea that people
possess both physical and spiritual components. He pities
those who, like his six-year-old son, insist on pretending
that there is an "I" somehow separate from the physical cells
of one's body and brain.
The boy's father, though, knows that his son's intuition is
wrong. "The qualities of mental life that we associate with
souls are purely corporeal," he asserts confidently. "They
emerge from biochemical processes in the brain."
Joining the call to re-educate and enlighten the backward
masses is Professor Bloom's admirer at Harvard, the gifted
psychology professor Steven Pinker, who, in a newsmagazine
essay of his own, mocks those who think of the brain as "a
pocket PC for the soul, managing information at the behest
of a ghostly user." Professor Pinker advises us to set aside
such "childlike intuitions and traditional dogmas" and recognize
that what we conceive of as the soul is nothing more than
"the activity of the brain."
Or, as they might say back at the University of Chelm, since
the soul seems perceptible only through the brain, the brain,
perforce, must be the soul.
Sometimes, though, intuitions are right and interpretations
of evidence (especially the lack of it) wrong. Scientists,
after all, as the noted British psychologist H. J. Eyesenck
famously observed, can be "just as ordinary, pig-headed and
unreasonable as anybody else, and their unusually high intelligence
only makes their prejudices all the more dangerous." Some,
moreover, are prone to a perilous folly: the confidence -
despite the long and what-should-be chastening history of
science, littered with beliefs once coddled, then discarded
- that they have, eureka, arrived at conclusive knowledge.
Were the contemporary dualism debate merely academic, we might
reasonably choose to ignore it. Unfortunately, though, the
denial of humanity's specialness - the unmistakable ghost
in the Bloom/Pinker philosophy-machine - is of all too formidable
import.
The negation of the concept of a soul - the holy spark of
the divine that was infused into the first man and that makes
all his descendants special, requiring them to act in a special
way - has had, and continues to have, deep repercussions in
broader society.
The idea of the soul goes to the very heart of many a contemporary
social issue. It directly influences society's attitudes regarding
a universe of moral concerns, from animal rights to abortion;
from the meaning of marriage to the treatment of the terminally
ill.
In the absence of the concept of a human soul, there is simply
nothing to justify considering humans inherently more worthy
than animals, nothing to prevent us from casually terminating
a yet-unborn life, nothing to prevent us from considering
any "personal lifestyle" less proper than any other, nothing
to prevent us from coldly ending the life of a patient in
extremis. Indeed, employing our brains just a bit further,
neither would we be justified to consider any insect our inferior,
nor prevented from embracing unbridled immorality or wanton
murder. Put succinctly, without affirmation of the soul, society
is, in the word's deepest sense, soulless.
There is no escaping the fact; the game's zero-sum: Either
humans are something qualitatively different from the rest
of the biosphere, sublimated by their souls and the responsibilities
that attend them; or they are not. And a society that chooses
to believe the latter is a society where no person has any
reason to aspire to anything beyond the gratification of the
instincts or desires we share with the animal sphere. A world
in denial of the soul might craft a utilitarian social contract.
But right and wrong would have no meaning at all; for the
individual, there would be only the cold calculus of biological
survival and the pursuit of pleasure.
The notion is hardly novel, of course. Humanity has encountered
"materialists"-those who see reality as limited entirely to
the physical - on a number of occasions. Men bent on de-spiritualizing
humanity's essence were the high priests of the Age of Reason
and the glory days of Communism.
The very first "materialists," though, may well have been
the ancient Greeks, who placed capricious gods where, today,
some professors seek to ensconce nerves and synapses.
Hellas, focused as it was on reason and inquiry, produced
unprecedented celebration of the physical world. Hundreds
of years before the Common Era, Erastothenes calculated the
earth's circumference to within one percent; Euclid conceived
and developed geometry; Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric
theory of the solar system. And the early Greeks' investigation
of the physical world included as well, and prominently, the
human being. But only as a physical specimen, essentially
an animal.
Accordingly, much of Hellenist thought revolved around the
belief that the enjoyment of life was the most worthwhile
goal of man. The words "cynic," "epicurean," and "hedonist"
all stem from Greek philosophical schools.
And so it followed almost logically that the culture that
was Greece saw the Jewish focus on the divine as an affront.
The Sabbath denied the unstopping nature of the physical world;
circumcision implied that the body is imperfect; the Jewish
calendar imparted holiness where there is only mundane periodicity;
and modesty or any sort of limits on indulgence in physical
pleasure were simply unnatural.
The Greeks had their "gods," of course, but they were diametric
to holiness, modeled entirely on the worst examples of human
beings, evidencing the basest of inclinations. And while Hellenist
philosophers spoke of a "soul," they employed the word to
refer only to what we would call the personality or intellect.
The idea of a being "in the image of G-d, of a soul that can
make choices and merit eternal existence, was utterly indigestible
to the Greek world-view.
As it is indispensable to the Jewish one. With the passage
of centuries and the example of those who lived the Jewish
faith, humanity became heir to the earth-shattering idea that
it is in fact special within creation, and charged with living
as special; that our souls are eternal and what we do makes
a difference.
Chanukah is when we focus on the crucial difference between
the ideals that animated the Jewish people and those that
embodied Hellenism. May the holiness that seeps into the world
this year through the Chanukah candles of Jewish homes everywhere
help counter the modern-day attempts to deny reality, and
leave a more soulful world in its wake.
Who financed this RCA investigation of Mordecai Tendler
because the RCA apparently did not have the funds to do this
without special help?
Before the Tendler case happened, the Orthodox Union hired
Praesidium for another case. Praesidium was extensively used
by the Catholic church. There was a lot of controversy about
the competence of the Praesidium. The OU was warned about
the Praesidium. The RCA was warned about Praesidium but hired
them anyway.
I asked RCA executive vice president (aka CEO), rabbi Basil
Herring, via email, about the RCA leak to rabbi Mordecai Tendler
of its file on rabbi Mordecai Tendler (and the sexual misdeeds
alleged against Tendler). He did not reply.
I sent him this question: "I'm curious why you leaked the
Mordecai Tendler file to Mordecai Tendler?"
Rabbi Basil Herring is married to the niece of philanthropist
Stella K. Abraham.
It has come to the attention of The Awareness Center that
confidential information regarding individuals who have made
allegations against Rabbi Mordechai Tendler has been handed
over to him by a high ranking member of the RCA.
The alleged survivors of this case were not consulted prior
to this incident. The alleged survivors did NOT have legal
representation during the investigative period. There was
no one representing each of their own personal interests.
For more information regarding this please go to: Protocols
1) The Rabbi who gave the victims' confidential information
to Tendler should be removed from the RCA publicly at once.
2) Rabbi Tendler should be immediately expelled as well for
taking that information.
3) The RCA should publicly appologize for the damage they've
done and take full responsibility. That means every Rabbi
involved in this process, personally and publicly.
4) The RCA should immediately bring in an independent investigator
to investigate the conduct of RCA officials in the Tendler
affair. The outdside investigators should have the authority
to produce a public report with recommendations.
5) Any alleged survivor of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, and of
any other case being investigated by the RCA should be immediately
notified. They should also consult with a personal injury
attorney (of their choice) regarding this matter. Attorney
fees should be payed by the RCA.
Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen has become a focus of the Schita
controversy over the past days. To make the halachic declaration
he made and then to retract it
seems reckless to me.
1) Mudslinging Mars Israel's Campaign For Chief Rabbis
by David Hoffman
Washington Post Foreign Service
880 words
20 February 1993
The Washington Post
Hardball elections have long been a feature of Israel's secular
politics,
but the campaign that ends this weekend for the country's
two chief rabbis
has been marked by an unprecedented bout of mudslinging.
The front-running candidate for Ashkenazic chief rabbi has
been accused of
making romantic advances to a woman who was not his wife.
Another candidate
is fending off charges that he was a coward during Israel's
war of
independence. There have been allegations of wiretapping and
of slander -
and a tone that many Israelis have found more than a little
unsettling for
an institution that is supposed to carry high moral authority.
The contest became unseemly enough that this week an appeal
was made to
Israel's high court to delay the election, but the court refused.
On Sunday,
80 rabbis and 70 public figures, many of them secular, will
choose the two
chief rabbis, who serve 10-year terms. One is for the Ashkenazic
Jews, of
European origin; the other, for the Sephardic Jews, of Oriental
extraction.
Lau's supporters have also blamed his chief rival, Shear-Yashuv
Cohen, for spreading the reports, a charge Cohen denied.
Cohen too has been in the spotlight. Cohen was wounded and
captured by the
Jordanians in the 1948 war of independence. But a monthly
magazine recently
quoted a letter from one of his commanders, written at the
time, alleging
that Cohen had tried to avoid dangerous combat situations
and once had to be
threatened with a gun to take part. Cohen is viewed as far
more liberal than
Lau and recently stirred the ire of the ultra-Orthodox by
suggesting the
possibility of scrapping the requirement that all Israelis
be married
according to strict religious tradition.
2)
WIRE STORIES
DIRT FLIES IN ISRAEL'S RABBI CAMPAIGN
by CLYDE HABERMAN - New York Times News Service
21 February 1993
Portland Oregonian
3) One focus of this story that hasn't been addressed is the
financial impact on
Agriprocessors. The articles below indicate that there may
be liquidity problems.
1) Bank employee pleads guilty to fraud
23 March 2004
Associated Press Newswires
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) - A former employee of Citizens State
Bank in
Postville has been sentenced on her guilty pleas to two counts
of bank
fraud, U.S. Attorney Charles W. Larson Sr. said Tuesday.
Teresa Downing, 43, of Postville, pleaded guilty last May,
admitting in
federal court that, in 1998, she made false entries in the
bank's records on
behalf of a customer.
Downing said she hid the fact that $1,140,000 in checks written
on
Agriprocessors Inc.'s accounts in New York and deposited in
the company's
account in Postville were not sufficient to cover the deposits.
She hid the insufficient fund checks by not debiting Agriprocessors'
account, resulting in unauthorized loans to the company.
The kosher meat plant is one of the largest employers in Postville,
a town
of 2,273 people about 80 miles north of Cedar Rapids.
Downing also admitted to embezzling over $78,000 from the
bank's accounts
for her own personal use, from 1992 to 1999.
4) Jewish Telegraphic Agency. New York: Apr 01, 2004.
A woman who worked at one of the country's largest kosher
meat-packing
plants was sentenced to prison for bank fraud. Teresa Downing,
43, of
Postville, Iowa, who worked for Agriprocessors, one of the
largest kosher
meat-packing plants in the country, was jailed this week for
five months
after pleading guilty last May to hiding $1.14 million in
bad checks from
the company's New York bank to its Postville accounts, which
resulted in
unauthorized loans to the company, The Associated Press reported.
She also
admitted to embezzling more than $78,000 from Agriprocessors,
which is owned
by a Chasidic family.
A rabbi in the RCA gave their complete file on rabbi
Mordecai Tendler to rabbi
Mordecai Tendler. The women who accused Tendler were not
allowed such access to the file. The women spoke to the Praesidium
investigator on the belief that they would be kept anonymous.
It feels like a bad rerun of the 1989 Baruch Lanner case.
Tamara, in turn, is just one of a growing number of Jewish
women writing about their inner lives, their families, their
passions and their Judaism in such diaries, commonly known
as ‘web logs’ – or, more simply, as ‘blogs’. Together they
offer an unprecedented insight into a sector of the Jewish
population which has traditionally been under-represented
in conventional media.
By means of blogging many women, particularly more Orthodox
ones, have found a way to circumvent restrictions placed on
them by their social circles, and gain a strong public voice.
They are communicating directly with their peer group and
with others, forming online communities and gaining personal
followings. As blogging moves further into the mainstream,
this can only increase; yet another indication of changing
social structures within the Jewish community, the more assertive
tendencies of women within today’s society – and a significant
phenomenon with the power to change the way Jewish women of
all walks of life perceive and are perceived.
Where does the notion come from that women's voices are not
being heard in Jewish life? They have as much secular education
as the men. They comprise half the students at Reform and Conservative
seminaries. They work as rabbis at hundreds of synagogues.
There is currently a controversy raging about the practice
of one particular
slaughterhouse. I have intentionally ignored the e-mails I've
received about
this for the following reasons:
1. I don't know enough about the facts in this case. Even
a legitimate video
put out by a respected non-partisan organization (and no one
can honestly
call PETA respected or non-partisan) needs to be analyzed
and considered.
Knee-jerk reactions by either side are rarely a good thing.
2. I know the people at the OU and they are good people. They
are not going
to pass non-kosher meat off as kosher, regardless of the amount
of money or
the number of jobs at stake. On the other hand, if they think
there is a
problem they will do more than just say that there is a problem.
They will
look to fix it if possible or find other alternatives.
3. I have broached the subject with my contacts and they are
being wisely
cautious. When I hear something and I get permission to post
it, I will.
Right now, all I've got is what the journalists have written
and they are
not to be believed on complex matters of halakhah, particularly
in defaming
people who have earned (not they need to earn it) the benefit
of the doubt.
1) This is a processing issue, not a kashrut or halachic issue.
There is no indication the initial schita was not done properly.
Quite the
contrary, it appears by all indication to be acceptable.
The OU:
>Rabbis Menachem Genack and Yisroel Belsky, the chief experts
for
>the Orthodox Union, which certifies over 600,000 products
as kosher
>- including Aaron's Best meats - said the killings on the
tape, while
>"gruesome," appeared kosher because the shochet checked to
make sure he had
>severed both the trachea and esophagus.
The chief Rabbanute:
>"Technically, the shehita is kosher, but some of the things
they do
>deviate from the rabbinate's guidelines," said Rabbi Ezra
Raful, head
>of the rabbinate's international shehita supervision department,
who
>watched the PETA video together with the Post.
Without inspection of the knife in person, it's impossible
for any person
viewing this tape to make a determination of any problem.
At this point the animal is dead, at least halachically. No
Tzar b'alei
chaim issues remain. Once the schita is done the animal is
considered
dead/unconscious. While Peta/the US government or even other
experts may
still consider the animal alive or conscious for a period
of time,
halachically we don't.
Thus, the problem comes at this point. You can see there are
differences in
processing attitudes (Australia they stun the animal at this
point, in
Israel they don't speed up the bleeding process). These are
not
halachic/kashrut issues. All the meat is fine at this point
as long as it is
now koshered properly.
2) But clearly the way meat is processed is different at this
plant than
many other plants (I'm not going to go into all the differences):
A. rotating drum so it can be killed while upside down
B. "You see there, it looks like he ripped out the trachea
and esophagus. We
do not allow the animal to be touched after the shehita until
the main part
of the bleeding stops."
It seems that A is as required by Orthodox rabbis in Israel
(which is likely
why this was the only American plant allowed to export to
Israel).
It's not clear to me why B is being done. I can only speculate:
a. this speeds up the process (time and money consideration).
b. gets more blood out
c. to remove the tongue immediately so that workers do not
accidentally
spray it with warm water as they clean up the blood/animal/area
(which would
make it impossible to kasher)
I suspect a combination of a and c is the real reason. Basically,
to kill
the animals quickly. Kill one, clean up, kill the next.
Clearly I understand why some are upset about the way schita
is done here.
If you consider the animal is still alive after schita for
a few seconds or
minutes or accept the movement described as proof of life
you should be
angry. But halachically, again, we consider the animal dead.
For some this is a scientific question, for some this is a
religious
question and for others it's a mix of the two: When does life
cease? When
does consciousness cease?
As people and groups differ on the answer, the debate and
differences
between groups are both understandable and proper.
I don't think any party is doing anything wrong here.
Peta and others believe that life has not yet ended. Thus
what they see is
cruel. They would prefer other methods to reduce the pain
to the animal.
The problem is that others believe that the animal is dead.
Thus there is no
cruelty. Further, halachically we believe that the stunning
before schita
causes pain to the animal. As such we are against such cruelty.
Let me make it clear, Halachically, no unnecessary suffering
can be caused
to the animal in the schita process. Anything, such suffering
would render
the meat to be unusable.
The problem is Halachic Judaism differs from Peta in when
death occurs and
what constitutes suffering. These are legitimate differences.
I would note that Halachically the unnecessary cruelty to
animals without
purpose is forbidden (obviously the use of animals for a purpose
of food /
clothing is not unnecessary cruelty). Whether it is a biblical
or Rabbinic
prohibition is an open question. Regardless, it is prohibited.
Further, as noted above, in the use of animals for food we
have very strict
laws that do not allow for causing pain to the animals prior
to schita.
After that point, it is just a slab of food. We don't have
the same attitude
towards animals as Peta and others do.
We believe that God has given us the right to use animals
as a source of
food (now that we no longer live in Gan eden). Peta obviously
takes a much
different view.
3) It is troubling that Rabbinical leaders are making reckless
statements
outside of their competence without proper consideration.
For example:
>More than a week ago, Ronnen showed the video to Rabbi
>She'ar-Yashuv Cohen, chief rabbi of Haifa, who issued a
>statement that "the procedure of this shehita is definitely
>unacceptable by halachic standards. This procedure is not
>only cruel and therefore unacceptable by Jewish religious
>law. It also cannot be certified as kosher, as the animal
>must die as the direct result of the ritual cut."
>
>But in a telephone interview with the Post, Cohen
>(who is a vegetarian) was much more equivocal. "I'm
>not an expert on the laws of cruelty to animals in Halacha,"
>he said. "AgriProcessors' kosher supervisor, Rabbi Haim
>Cohen, claims that tearing out the windpipe reduces the
>suffering of the animal," he added. "If that is true, the
>shehita is kosher."
This is very troubling. First it wasn't kosher, now it may
be? Such
recklessness is unacceptable.
4) Claims of anti-semitism here are reckless and not helpful.
It really
shows how poor our approach to dealing with the media and
public concerns
are.
5) It is clear to me that Rubashkin is acting properly here.
He is simply
relying on what the Rabbinical supervisors/experts are determining
should be
done.
6) Despite my belief that halachically the schita is OK (or
at least, I
don't see evidence of a halachic/kashrut problem), there is
room to
institute processing changes that make animal slaughter more
acceptable to
groups that differ as to when an animal is no longer alive/conscious.
This
can be done without compromise to halacha or kashrut. The
advantage as well
is that in the long run schita will be more acceptable publically.
We all have the same ends, reduce the suffering of the animal.
We simply
differ on methods and definitions.
7) The above analysis is based on my assumption that the schita
has been
done properly. Without inspecting the knife or watching it
up close, I have
no choice but to rely on the schochtim/rabbonim involved.
Actual schita
takes a split second and it is impossible to make any determination
from a
mere video. There is nothing that I have seen or read that
indicates to me
otherwise.
I don't believe the movement of the animal after schita proves
life/consciousness (at least from a halachic standpoint).
Once the shochet has used the single slice of his razor-sharp
knife, the
animal is food not a baal chyim that feels pain or suffers.
No matter how
grotesque or sickening the scene appears.
As I noted, I understand how others legitimately feel and
believe otherwise.
8) I am open to other's opinions and criticism of my evaluation.
But if you
disagree with me please base it on something and please be
aware that not
everyone has the same beliefs as you. These are theological
questions and I
believe there is room for differing opinions here.
9) I have not addressed more (what I consider) minor points
in this
controversy. But I think my approach gives a basic overview
of the
situation.
10) Everyone needs to take a step back here and more closely
evaluate the
issues and seperate them out. This is a processing issue not
a
kashrut/halachic issue. This is not a matter of treifut, this
is an
arguement concerning when animals are no longer alive/conscious
and how meat
is processed.
All are valid issues. But stop confusing them with kashrut.
Kashrut deals soley with the schita and kashering processes
(and seperation
of meat and milk). Processing of the meat beyond that is a
seperate
non-halachic, non-kashrut issue.
Who? Daniel Halevi Bloom, a freelance editor and reporter,
invented these Jewish grandparents (the names are Yiddish
for Grandma and Grandpa) in 1983 to bring Hanukkah alive for
children, particularly those without living grandparents.
Back then the medium was snail mail, but Mr. Bloom reckons
that today's Bubbie and Zadie are e-mail users.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Bubbie and Zadie Enliven Hannukah!
WHAT: Jewish kids are invited to write special Hannukah letters
to a
special, magical (and maybe imaginary, who knows?) pair of
Jewish
grandparents named Bubbie and Zadie. Yes, the Bubbie and Zadie
of us
all! Kids can write, adults can write, anyone may write!
FREE PROGRAM. ALL LETTERS WILL RECEIVE A REPLY... FREE OF
CHARGE.
WHEN: Hannukah is Dec. 7-15, 2004 this year. Letters can be
written
anytime from now on, .....before, during and after Hannukah.
EMPHASIS:: Children can write about their wishes and dreams
forHannukah, not so much about presents, please, but about
family
get-togethers, feelings about relatives near and far, anything
they
want. To life, to life, l'chayim!
IN RETURN: Bubbie and Zadie (the sort of imaginary, fictional
creations of a middle-aged Jewish dreamer) will reply with
an Internet
email letter of their own. FREE OF CHARGE. This is NOT and
NEVER WILL
BE a commercial site. Never will be. [This is not about making
a
profit. This is about honoring our prophets.] Money does not
fuel this
engine. Naches does. Not nachos, NACHES!
WHY? Why not! -- Jewish kids have been writing print letters
to Bubbie
and Zadie since 1983, when the New York Times first "discovered"
the
program in a feature article by Times reporter Nadine Brozan.
Over
10,000 letters have been mailed to Bubbie and Zadie by Jewish
children
in all 50 USA states, as well as from Israel, Japan, Taiwan,
Europe
and around the world. The letters are priceless, heartwarming,
amazing
artifacts of modern Jewish culture.
ALWAYS FREE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CHARGE FOR THIS PROGRAM
AND NEVER
WILL BE. [The founder of this project is a silly young man
who has no
sense of making money or business acumen. His head is always
in the
clouds. He is a pure luftmensch. Go figure.]
WHO: The founder/creator of this program created Bubbie and
Zadie as
fictional characters for Jewish children in 1983. Subject
of 1983,
1984, 1985 major newspaper stories by New York Times, NewYork
Daily
News, Washington Post, LA Times, Miami Herald, AP, Reuters,UPI,
Jewish
Week, and Chicago Sun Times, Montreal Gazette, Toronto Sun,
Jerusalem
Post -- over 400 media outlets worldwide reported on Bubbie
and Zadie
in 1985. Kids still write letters to them each year, in print.
But
now, in the Age of the Internet (who knew?) here we are on-line!!!
Yes, Bubbie and Zadie online. Read about us in the New York
Times for
December 2, 2004. Google us there. [We made the Times that
day, thanks
to some savvy PR juggling by our longtime benefactor, Danny
Howie
Bloom. That guy sure knows how to plant stories, doesn't he!]
WHY NOW: 2004, 2005, 2006....forever and a day! -- The founder/creator
of this program said he wants to give Bubbie and Zadie a second
life
online, using the Internet as a communication tool between
Jewish kids
and their beloved"Bubbies and Zadies" nationwide, worldwide.
The
Internet makes this possible. And now ... Bubbie and Zadie
have an
Internet/email presence.
WHERE: everyWHERE! CyberSPACE is GLObal. Cosmic. E-ternal.
EMAIL: bubbie.zadie@gmail.com (This is GMAIL, also known as
Gefilte Fish Mail)
FREE OF CHARGE. repeat: FREE OF CHARGE. The founder of this
project is
doing this out the goodness of his heart. He doesnot need
money.
SMILE!
------------------------------------
Childen will sometimes receive a letter similar to the one
below.
BUT...changes can also be made to tailor the letter replies
to each
child. (Zadie is a retired tailor. Bubbie is a former typesetter
for
the Brooklyn Eagle.) Some letters will be very personal and
folksy.
Let us know what you want, what you need! We can work miracles!
(and
we get lots of help from You Know Who! -- the name that cannot
be
uttered!!!)
FOR EXAMPLE, the letter might look like this:
An online letter (what else?) from Bubbie and Zadie,
As Hannukah approacheth, December 2004
Dear ___________ ,
It is almost time for Hannukah again this year, and Bubbie
and Zadie
are getting ready to visit you and your family -- through
the power of
loving imagination, of course!
Are you ready?
As you know, Bubbie and Zadie love you and think of you often.
Even
though we are getting up there in age, we still remember what
it is
like to be young and excited about the coming of Hannukah
-- the
family playing games together, spinning the dreidel, eating
the
special Hannukah foods and, yes, those lovely little presents
each
night of this wonderful holiday!
But the main thing about Hannukah, at least as far as Bubbie
and Zadie
are concerned, is the love and compassion for others that
emanates
from the glow of the candles on the menorah.
Yes, Hannukah is about Jewish culture, Jewish history, but
it is also
about love -- the love that continues to go around the world
year
after year, from parents to children, from brothers to sisters,
and
from grandparents to everyone! So, dear children, have a very
Happy
Hannukah this year, and please remember us to your folks,
too. They
were once children, too -- as were we!