Editorial: When will we learn to stick together?

Issue of July 18, 2008

This Sunday is the 17th of Tammuz, the fast day that marks the beginning of the Three Weeks leading up to Tisha B'Av.

Against that backdrop, the responses to writer Chananya Weissman's recent two-part commentary on an Israeli charity were instructive.

In case you missed it, Weissman wrote strongly worded criticisms of Kupat Ha'Ir, which, he feels, markets itself inappropriately. Among other things, he feels they take advantage of the ignorance, hopes, and fears of ordinary people to secure donations by taking credit for all sorts of Divine interventions in people's lives. He also feels that many of the ideas and philosophies present in their literature run counter to basic Torah principles.

Virtually all of the many responses to his comments were verbal — phone calls to our newsroom, or face to face remarks. Many were positive, others decidedly not. Some of the negative reactions were calm; others sputtered vitriol, and personal attacks. One person even questioned Weissman's semicha. Well-reasoned disagreement, disappointingly, was in short supply.

Another slew of commentary rolled in when the first article was re-published online by the vosizneias.com website. Close to 200 readers weighed in. A fair number of comments were considered by the moderators to be so toxic that they were never posted, we were told.

Those types of comments appeared to be the rule, rather than the exception, when another popular site, theyeshivaworld.com, posted an article and pictures of Rabbi Moshe Tendler visiting Har HaBayis. You may not know this, but visits by Torah-observant Jews to carefully circumscribed areas on the Har HaBayis have been a regular occurrence now for a number of years. This visit was newsworthy because it was Rav Tendler, a Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University, and son-in-law of Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l.

Most of the comments posted online about Rav Tendler were, frankly, shocking. Almost all were anonymous, by people who seemed to indicate an allegiance to the popular definition of Da'as Torah, but said the most utterly disrespectful, disparaging, ranting, insulting things about an Odom Gadol and posek who doesn't fit into their “Gadol” template. A few made torturous attempts to justify their lashon harah, but most didn't bother.

(By the way: objections that “no one really pays attention to websites anyway” no longer hold water — those two sites, between them, have more visitors daily than any other form of Jewish media can honestly claim.)

Jewish history records many personal attacks. Joseph's brothers sold him down the river. Dathan and Aviram couldn’t stick to the issues when they chose to attack Moshe personally. Do'eg verbally attacked King David. The First and Second Temples were destroyed, the latter because of baseless hatred. Some Talmudic debates were taken to extremes. No wonder it is suggested in Avos (5:20)_ that a good "machlokes" is only one which is "l'shem shamayim" — which presumably means by "heaven's rules" i.e. sticking to issues without personal attacks and vitriol.

Compare and contrast our current battles between, unfortunately, opposing camps of Orthodoxy, with the cover article in this week's New York Magazine.

A young mother caught between two extremes — secular, assimilated grandparents, and a mother who chose to move to Kiryas Joel where the young woman was raised and placed in an arranged marriage. She chose to leave and took her daughter with her, but the child was snatched from her and taken back to KJ. If the mother prevails, this girl appears likely to be robbed of her birthright: her formal Jewish education.

The young woman came off as having been exploited. She may have become “worldly” in some limited ways since leaving KJ — if foul language, and admitting to some experimentation with controlled substances are “worldly” — but her overall level of sophistication seems quite low, and it seems doubtful that she was competent to fully consider the impact the article — and accompanying pictures — might have on her legal case.

But, perhaps most disturbing, was the tone of the article, itself. Fair and balanced, it was not. The writer made no secret of his distaste for Orthodox observance and the particularly low esteem in which he holds the Chassidic and Charedi worlds. It's not clear if he considers Modern Orthodoxy any less distasteful and it doesn't really matter. The point is, we fight bitterly among ourselves, and with such little derech eretz, but in New York Magazine observant Jews are all alike — all lumped together in one basket of crazy.

When will we learn?