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.