Letters to the Editor 9-11-09

Defending Kennedy

To the Editor: I am writing to comment on the Kosher Bookworm’s article: “The Kennedy legacy: American tragedy or betrayal?” (September 4, 2009). Kennedy was highly supportive of Soviet Jews and was an early and courageous visitor of refuseniks and dissidents when he was in the USSR. In 1978, Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) came to long-time refusenik Alexander Lerner’s apartment to discuss how the U.S. Congress could help refuseniks be granted the right to emigrate. When Kennedy returned two years later, Lerner invited Andrei Sakharov and Elena Bonner to join the discussion focusing on the plight of dissidents in jails, labor camps and psychiatric hospitals. Typical of his support for people afflicted with health problems was Kennedy’s successful effort to enable the Katz family to emigrate. Their infant daughter Jessica had a malady which prevented her from absorbing anything except baby formula that was unavailable in Russia. The story was chronicled in the American press and recently on CNN. In a JTA article on August 26, Eric Fingerhut wrote:  Kennedy “was one of the earliest, strongest champions on behalf of Soviet Jewry,” said Mark Levin, executive director of NCSJ: Advocates on Behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia. “He was always proactive and didn’t wait for NCSJ and other organizations to come to him — he was always looking to see where he could make a difference.” Levin noted that whenever Kennedy met with Soviet officials, in Washington or in the Soviet Union, he would bring lists of those he wanted to see released. “He never forgot we were talking about individuals and families,” Levin said. I hope this helps set the record straight. Philip Spiegel Florida The writer is the author of Triumph Over Tyranny: The Heroic Campaigns that Saved 2,000,000 Soviet Jews (Devora Publishing; 2008) To the Editor: A simple Google of Kennedy/Soviet Jews will reveal countless instances in which the late Senator Kennedy directly helped alleviate the plight of Soviet Jews, and many quotes from Israeli leaders praising Sen. Kennedy’s efforts. It’s incredible that Alan Jay Gerber (“The Kennedy legacy: an American tragedy or betrayal?”; September 4, 2009) could fantasize an opposite view. Opinion, by all means; unfortunately, his column possesses no semblance of reality. Irv Lichtman Oceanside

Zero-sum game

To the Editor: There are inconsistencies in the August 28 issue (Editorial) that I feel compelled to address. When Orthodox members of the community felt they were not represented on the Lawrence School Board, they nominated and elected representatives that they felt would share their views. Other voters feel that things are being done in their names (to paraphrase your editorial) by a president and administration they didn’t endorse or vote for. A judge wisely threw out their frivolous lawsuit, supporting the right of a legally elected administration to act in accordance with their perceptions of sound school administration. On the other hand, your editorial complaint about an administration that “we didn’t endorse or vote for” denies the right of the duly elected administration to act in accordance with its own judgment. The American public decided that the Republican candidates were not the “people’s choice.” Having gone from a barely-elected majority to a “vocal minority,” Republicans are doing all they can to discredit President Obama and, in the words of one Senator, “bring him down.” And having gone from a majority to a “vocal minority,” the non-Orthodox litigants in the school board case are trying to bring down the elected school trustees. Neither group of “anti’s” is good for America and both ignore the fairness of a democratic electoral system. And, to quote William Shakespeare, I wish “a plague on both their houses.” Leon Schwarzbaum North Woodmere

More Secular Education

To the Editor: I tend to be pretty direct, so forgive me if I seem impolite. I trust that Dr. Yitzchok Levine (“Less secular education is the answer”; August 28 2009) does not hold a doctorate in education, for that would be most unfortunate. I read with disbelief that reduced secular education for our children in yeshivas is an acceptable alternative for him. I was raised in the south Bronx, a son of two poor Holocaust survivors, who couldn’t even afford shares in Co-Op City, thereby keeping me in East Tremont until 1973 — a desert for Caucasians, let alone Jews. I traveled to a Talmud Torah on the Grand Concourse. Thankfully, I was admitted to Bronx High School of Science (also, I might add, attended by Rabbi Yaacov Lerner of Young Israel of Great Neck!), for I was zoned for one of the worst high schools in the City. My daughter attends North Shore Hebrew Academy in Great Neck. You can be sure that I would not have her there were it not for its quality secular education alongside full religious immersion. Yes, for her Bat Mitzvah at women’s tefillah, she read from the Torah as well as any ba’al Koreh. Before I went into financial management 10 years ago, I worked for 20 years at senior levels in city, state and federal government and hired many, many people. I can’t tell you how frequently I came across poor writing skills from our yeshiva graduates, as well as a good many other secular deficiencies. We need to continue to improve secular studies, not “dumb down” the Jewish community. Our greatest sages learned from the collected wisdom of the ages, alongside our holy Torah. We as a people have always added civilization’s best to our tradition and breadth of knowledge. Possessed of this knowledge, we contributed more than any other people to civilization. The financial problems experienced by Jewish day schools (admittedly accentuated by the economy, Madoff, et al) is more than anything else a problem of “every Jew making Shabbos for himself.” Instead of cutting down our children’s worldliness, we need a national board of Jewish education, a bit like the Canadian model: centralizing personnel placement, payroll, procurement, standardization, etc. All our schools can have their own communal boards, but we require a national movement to centralize Jewish education. Imagine the savings and resulting benefits to our children’s education from a centralization of administration, city-by-city or state-by-state. Yes, the charedim will still want to be on their own, but for the future of quality education in a Jewish environment, serious reflection by the rest of us on centralization will be required. Dumbing down and ghettoizing our Jewish people is not the answer. Tradition need not be sacrificed to this end. Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld Great Neck The writer is a Trustee of the City University of New York

Something isn’t kosher

To the Editor: In view of the requirement to show concern for one’s fellow Jews’ money, I feel compelled to apprise you of the following situation. I purchased some chopped meat last week at one of the three local kosher supermarkets. The sticker had printed on it a weight of exactly 1 pound. When I brought it home and weighed it on my kitchen scale, it displayed a weight, with the packaging, of only about 14.5 ounces. When I brought it back to the supermarket, they confirmed the short weight. The person in charge explained to me what causes this. He said that they calibrate their scales on Friday afternoon. Since, he continued, they have to rush home for Shabbos they don’t have time to make sure that their scales are accurately calibrated. Aaron M. Bernstein Lawrence

Singles stay home

To the Editor: I read Etta Chinskey’s article (Long Island’s Singles Go West; August 28 2009) and sympathize with her situation. There definitely is more pressure on religious singles to marry at a young age than secular singles. After all, “pru urvu” [be fruitful and multiply] is the first mitzvah in the Torah. I am a married West Sider and over the past 30 years have observed the West Side become the capital city for Orthodox singles from all over the world. However, I would discourage Orthodox singles from moving to the West Side. In this community of singles there is a lot of Hachnosos Orchim [hospitality]. My friends and I host many singles for Shabbos and Yom Tov, hoping that they will meet their bashert at the Shabbos table, but it rarely happens. There is lots of camaraderie and socializing among singles but these friendships usually do not end in marriage. The singles feel very comfortable on the West Side because it’s a community of singles and a way of life but they do not necessarily move to the next stage. This comfort zone is almost a deterrent to marriage and singles who wish to marry might  be better served by living in a neighborhood where there is pressure to marry. Karin Feldhamer Manhattan

NCYI reevaluated

To the Editor: My admiration to Mr. Jonathan Bell for his courage and insight calling for the reevaluation of a National Council of Young Israel and Orthodox Union merger (Letter to the Editor; Sept. 4, 2009), realizing that the NCYI is no longer what it was. With NCYI’s abolition of delegate meetings as well as regional and national conventions, the Council is no longer accountable to its membership and in turn, its member synagogues. Adding the National Council’s irrelevancy on the social and political scene, is all the more reason to seek a merger with the OU. Some 18 or 19 years ago, at the behest of the president of the Orthodox Union, my father, Rabbi Ephraim Sturm, was asked to prepare a position paper for an OU/NCYI merger. The plan had 3 phases which called for joint ventures, followed by a merger of the lesser departments with the larger departments of the other, and then, the final phases of unity. Since the Council’s then-president rejected the paper outright, there was no need for an OU response. Today unity is much more difficult. The NCYI’s excellent financial position with millions of dollars in the bank gives it a negative incentive to merge. However, Mr. Bell may be successful in abolishing the Council’s mandate of branch dues in favor of the OU’s position of free synagogue affiliation and  individual (not synagogue) voluntary membership dues. This can be achieved by a strong leader or core group encouraged by a groundswell response of the Young Israel membership. Otherwise Mr. Bell’s courageous observation will be just a cry in the wilderness of indifference. Ava Sturm Strauss Far Rockaway

Parsha responses

To the Editor: I very much enjoyed Rabbi Billet’s article on Shiluach Hakan (“Baby birds and their mother”; August 28 2009). His words beautifully articulate the issues I have had with understanding this mitzvah for years. I have no ready answer for you except that at the very least it seems to me that if you don’t need the eggs/baby birds leave the nest alone. But I am not sure that I am correct. More senstive minds than mine disagree. Elliot Goldofsky MD Great Neck To the Editor: I don’t know if I have a “good answer” to the questions posed by Rabbi Billet (Baby birds and their mother; August 28 2009), but I do have a different perspective. Rabbi Billet concludes that shiluach haken (the law requiring sending the mother away before taking eggs or young birds from a nest) cannot be based on compassion to animals because the Mishnah (Berachot 5:3) states, “One who says (in prayer) ‘Your mercy is demonstrated through the treatment of the mother bird’ is to be silenced.” But the Talmud (Berachot 33b) gives two possible reasons why this prayer may be objectionable. One interpretation (which Rabbi Billet accepts) is that the prayer suggests that G-d’s laws are based in mercy rather than fiat. The other interpretation is quite the opposite — that the prayer is objectionable because it implies that G-d is more merciful to one species than another. Maimonides (Guide For The Perplexed 3:48) accepts this latter interpretation, because Maimonides argues that all Torah commandments have reasons (note Bamidbar Rabbah 19:6 says that G-d revealed the reason for the Red Heifer to Moses). Rabbi Billet’s more powerful point is that it would have been more merciful to forbid disturbing the nest altogether (see Ikkar Tosafot Yom Tov on Berachot 5:3). But sometimes the Torah limits its demands on humanity, knowing that our capabilities are limited (see Maimonides, Guide 3:22, discussing why G-d commands animal sacrifice when the practice has many troubling theological implications). Many (e.g. Rav Kook) have argued that the very permission to eat meat is a divine concession to human needs. Perhaps G-d made a judgment that requiring shiluach haken, rather than asking for the nest to be left alone, would be the best way to get the most compassionate behavior out of the most number of people. Rabbi Noah Gradofsky Temple Israel of Long Beach