UPDATE: I was right. The relevant votes were deducted overnight / early today, Feb. 1. Please vote for us anyway.

[FURTHER UPDATE: A friend said this is "petty." Nothing of the kind was intended. It is obviously true that anyone actually trying to win these awards is "campaigning." We are, Gil is, there's even a contender who created an animated "Vote for me" graphic which he's appending to every post. And there's nothing wrong with emailing your friends and asking them to come read your blog and vote -- that's what JIBs are supposed to do, increase readership. It has already worked, by the way, and our thanks to David of IsraellyCool for putting this all together.

There is something wrong with two people running around to all the terminals in the computer lab and sticking in votes for your favorite blog. That's what we suspected (myself and the other two CC writers who vetted my remarks), and we were right. And I was also right that the esteemed author of Hirhurim was in no way involved.]

This is the first of two follow-ups to Eytan Kobre’s piece yesterday. He spoke about the marginalization of the Orthodox in the media, and that, of course, is the reason we are unusually focused upon what would otherwise be a whimsical blog popularity contest.

Last Friday marked the 250th anniversary of the birth of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Being somewhat partial to his music, it seemed appropriate to come up with something positive and Jewish about him.

One thing we share is that the Church hated both of us. Mozart was on the Vatican’s list of banned music, and remained unheard within its official walls till 1985. (The Church has since come around, and moved closer to my tastes. The present Pope has spoken out against the primitiveness of rock in a way that would get many yeshiva mashgichim to nod approvingly.) Another is our longevity. Two hundred and fifty years from now, we will still be around. Unless the Caliphate triumphs, so will Mozart, which is more than I can say for Numa Numa or even MBD.

That didn’t seem enough. Then I remembered a wonderful essay written years ago by Rabbi Natan Lopes-Cardozo, albeit about Bach, rather than Mozart. He contrasted Bach to Beethoven, showing that the latter broke all the previous rules concerning composition, while Bach (and Mozart) worked within the traditional protocols. It reminded him of the frequent charge leveled against observant Jews – living within set, defined rules must be stultifying, restrictive, and utterly damaging to creativity. Here is a choice quote from the essay:

To work within constraints and then to be utterly novel is the ultimate sign of unprecedented greatness. This is what Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832) the great German poet and philosopher meant when he said:

This morning’s JPost has this headline: Haredim riot in Jerusalem, Abu Kabir. “Hundreds of Haredim rioted in Jerusalem’s Mea Shearim neighborhood,” it says, “in protest over an autopsy carried out on the body of a haredi woman who was found dead in her northern Israel home overnight.”

You have to read eight paragraphs down to find out why the autopsy was “necessary:”

Weisel was found dead in her Kiryat Ata home late Monday night after an apparent burglary, police said. The autopsy carried out at the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute indicated that the haredi woman had indeed been violently murdered as police suspected.

Excuse me, but if they needed an autopsy to confirm a violent murder, the Israeli police make the Keystone Cops look like Sherlock Holmes. It is very easy to confirm that trauma injuries killed a person without slicing and dicing.

Everyone knows that chareidim are hopelessly out of touch with modernity, hapless Luddites who are forever placing bans on this or that aspect of the fearsome outside world. This being so, you’d think that if from within this group of dolts there emerged a handful of individuals who summoned up the courage to, say, a) create a blog that harnesses the power of technology (=modernity=good thing), and in so doing b) reach across the religious divide to open a dialogue with other kinds of Jews as well as a window onto their own insular and mysterious lives, and c) use reasonably good prose and evince a decent grasp of contemporary culture — well, that would be a good thing, right? And it would merit coverage by the non-Orthodox Jewish media, true?

So, how to explain why, in a recent feature article on the JTA website regarding the relatively new phenomenon of Jewish blogs, the only ones that seem to draw the writer’s attention are those that are, to varying degrees, subversive of Orthodoxy from within, or antagonistic to it from without?

The phenomenon of Ortho-bashing is real, although reasonable people can debate just how widespread it is and whether specific claimed instances of it are actually that. Merely the latest confirmation of this comes from the admirably plain-spoken Jack Wertheimer of JTS, in a response in this month’s Commentary to critics of his recent article on the Jewish birthrate (and whose rumored candidacy for JTS chancellor, if not already doomed by this various politically incorrect positions on contemporary Jewish issues, was certainly not enhanced by the following):

[My critics] likewise chafe at at my positive assessment of what Orthodox Jews have achieved. In fact, they blame Orthodoxy itself, and its failure to “adapt,” for all sorts of ills besetting the contemporary Jewish community, including, no less, widespread intermarriage. There is a book to be written about the intolerance of many liberal Jews . . . who eagerly embrace Jews of every stripe except the Orthodox. (emphasis mine)

In the Jewish and Israeli Blog Awards, we are #2 in the Jewish Religion category (and #1 in the other three categories in which we were nominated). Since all the top competitors are re-emphasizing the blog awards and calling for votes, please help us to retain our position:

• Best Overall
• Best Jewish Religion Blog
• Best Designed Blog
• Best Group Blog

Since you can vote every three days, even those who voted for us last week can likely vote again now. Please do!

While this is all merely for fun among those familiar with the “J-blogosphere,” we hope that a win in the “Overall” will help our media relations. For that reason, we hope even those who read few blogs but ours will help us out. However, in the Jewish Religion category I have a long-time friendship with other leading candidates (Gil, who is leading, in particular), and I’m happy in the #2 slot. You can confirm that your vote will help us stay #2 in that category before voting.

If you only have time for one, please vote in the Best Overall category, and thanks for helping.

No, this isn’t crazy. It’s a theory that could even turn out to be true. I don’t mean to suggest that the Hamas victory is definitely good news — but it could well be so.

First of all, as my brother-in-law already said:

The Hamas win is bad news only to the PA thugocracy, and to misguided naifs that maintain the fantasy that any of the Palestinian leadership ever had goals other than the total destruction of Israel. In reality it has been clear for several years that the only difference between the PA and Hamas approach to the “peace process” was in tactics, not strategy.

The PA has been funding terror for years. Remember the Karina-A? Remember Arafat’s payments to suicide bombers that the IDF discovered in his office? So the fact that terrorism will now be funded directly by the PA will hardly be new. So it’s hard to see what the bad news is here.

From Amanda Rush of customerservant.com, comes a new indication that Microsoft is out to make everything easier — even quickie conversions.

She gives me credit for noticing the truth stranger than fiction to go with this joke, but the latter is in a class [sic] by itself.

Not often do Torah Jews find much cause for rejoicing in the headlines. The recent implosion of the virulently anti-religious Shinui and the public humiliation of its acid-tongued leader Tommy Lapid, however, is a happy exception to the general rule.

In the Shinui internal elections to select its Knesset slate for the upcoming elections, Lapid won an embarrassingly close victory for top spot on the list over a virtual unknown. Next, his faithful sidekick and the man responsible for bringing him into the party in the first place, Avraham Poraz, was defeated for the second spot on the list by Ron Lowenthal, a Shinui member of the Tel Aviv City Council.

Lapid spun his narrow victory as testimony to the vigor of Shinui’s democracy. But when Poraz lost, even after Lapid had threatened, “People must understand that if Avraham is not elected, they won’t have a party,” Lapid lost his enthusiasm for Shinui’s vaunted democracy. He and Poraz and most of Shinui’s MKs promptly announced that they were taking their bat and ball and going home. (They are still figuring out how to get their hands on the millions of dollars in Shinui’s coffers.)

The columnists have not stopped laughing at Lapid since.

From Rabbi Hillel Goldberg, Intermountain Jewish News, Denver, CO

It’s nothing personal. The Rev. Pat Robertson is friends with Ariel Sharon. He prayed with the prime minister last year. But facts are facts and G-d is G-d. The prime minister has been struck down by G-d for dividing the Biblical land, giving the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians.

So believes — and says — Pat Robertson.

Many find this shocking.

“Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” A variation of Voltaire’s famous maxim might be that unequivocal public criticism is the price the virtuous community must pay to vice.

David Klinghoffer challenged me to produce sources to demonstrate that it is ever appropriate to criticize other Jews. In my last two posts, I have tried to show that there are indeed circumstances in which the obvious prohibitions - lashon hora, ona’as devarim, public embarrassment, and self-aggrandizement through the shame of another - all do not apply. The next step is to show why denouncing wrongdoing is sometimes not just permitted, but is laudable.

Truth be told, my major disagreement with David is whether there is a need to cite chapter and verse at all. The Gemara often states that no Scriptural proof-text is needed for a position that is rationally demonstrable. Denouncing evil within our community – by the right people, at the right time – in my mind is so clear, that no further proof is necessary. I wonder whether David’s residing on Mercer Island in Seattle leaves him out of touch with the realities I experience in my part of the galaxy.

Those realities are best introduced by a story. Some years ago, a non-Jewish journalist of great influence did a piece that many of us found strongly offensive. I wound up taking him to lunch, and broaching the subject of our disagreement only at the end of a very amiable meal. I learned that he was much closer to an appreciation of Israel’s predicament than I had thought, but still made some one-sided demands upon her that I thought were unbalanced and unfair. I called him on it. Why was he so ready to demand what he thought was the moral high road from Israel, without any parallel demand on the Arabs?

Well, the finals are upon us. Cross-Currents, having successfully navigated the first round in all three categories for which we were nominated, is now up in four categories:

• Best Overall
• Best Jewish Religion Blog
• Best Designed Blog
• Best Group Blog

In this vote, “vote early and vote often” is legal — once every three days.

Why is this important? Well, Cross-Currents has a unique mission. As expressed by Rabbi Adlerstein:

For decades, Torah Jewry in America was at the mercy of editors who were often antagonistic or at best benignly tolerant of our community and our views. The world of the “blog,” or web-based journal, has changed all that. Today, we have the opportunity to share what the “world of Torah” is all about — what we believe, what we stand for, and what we have to contribute — without an external filter dictating what we can and cannot transmit to a reader, and how often we can say our piece.

Not having posted here since November 30, I feel obliged to put something up if only to demonstrate that reports of my blogospheric demise are at least somewhat exaggerated, even if it means contributing one of those short posts that make Rabbi Menken kvell. And so . . .

The other day, the New York Times had this to say in an editorial on the Alito hearings:

The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around Judge Alito’s confirmation. But the public is skeptical. In a new Harris poll, just 34 percent of those surveyed said they thought he should be confirmed, while 31 percent said he should not, and 34 percent were unsure. Nearly 70 percent said they would oppose Judge Alito’s nomination if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal–which it appears he might well do.

Now, the notion that a Justice Alito or any Supreme Court justice in history will “vote to make abortion illegal” is — as any beginning law student will affirm — nonsense. Let me qualify that: I suppose that if a justice was to make the case that fetuses enjoy personhood under the Constitution (hey, if Wild Bill Douglas wished to accord such status to trees, then . . .) and government support for abortion procedures is seen as deprivation of that person’s life, then we’d have a jurisprudential argument for an abortion ban. But last time I checked, not even Nan Aaron and Ralph Neas were trying to scare the American public with that specter (pardon the term!), so outlandish a scenario is it (although, come to think of it, not more so than John Roberts as supporter of abortion clinic bombings).

Jack Abramoff emerges from the courtroom wearing a black fedora, and instantly the media pounce on the fact that he is an Orthodox Jew. If he were a Roman Catholic layman, would it matter that he is a lobbyist of questionable ethical standards? If he were a Lutheran? A Baptist? Not at all. But he is Orthodox, and that is all that matters to columnists, editorialists and reporters.

Is this a manifestation of latent anti-Semitism? Perhaps there is an element of this involved, but we must also not lose sight of some mitigating factors. One of these is that out there in the world there is a great curiosity about Orthodox Judaism. Orthodoxy has always been shrouded in some sort of mystique, and was largely unknown. It is only recently that it has entered the American religious mainstream as a full-fledged participant. The natural result is that there is great interest in it, and a spotlight is cast upon its adherents – especially those who wander from the straight and narrow.

In a way, this is a kind of tribute to Orthodoxy. It is a recognition that Orthodoxy has a higher standard, and anyone who would stand under its umbrella is held – I think rightfully - to this higher standard. Were Abramoff a Conservative or Reform Jew, his religious affiliation would be of little interest. It is his Orthodoxy that makes him worthy of note.

Is this unfair? Perhaps so. But be mindful of one of the major teachings of Judaism, the concept of Hillul haShem, Desecration of the Name. This means that every Jew is responsible that the good Name of the God of Israel be preserved; he or she is bidden to behave in such a way that the good Name of God – which he represents - not be sullied, and that, on the contrary, it be sanctified. The more pious the Jew, the greater his responsibility in this regard. Those who wear the mantle of God, who are known as pious and God fearing, are held to a higher standard than those who disclaim any attachment to God or Torah. Any misbehavior on their part casts a shadow not only on them personally, but also on the Name of God to Whose teachings they claim fealty. Hillul haShem is one of the great and terrible transgressions within Judaism, just as its mirror image – Kiddush haShem, Sanctification of the Name of God - is one of the great positive mitzvot of Judaism. In today’s world, like it or not, it is the Orthodox who are considered to be the carriers of Jewish piety and Godliness, and in our all too mortal hands lies the potential of either desecration or sanctification of His Name. It may be unfair, but those are the unalterable, immutable facts of Jewish religious life.

23 bTevet

Fifteen years ago I asked a rebbe in an Orthodox Jewish Day School in S. Diego [he has since moved elsewhere] what he would do to improve Jewish education if he had a windfall of 10 million dollars. He didn’t hesitate. He said he would hire religious gym and sports teachers. In his neck of the woods, if the day school students would see their gym teachers (who are often students’ role models) davening and studying Torah, this would have a tremendous impact on them. In a more serious vein, he said he would use the money to double the salaries of the morot and the rebbayim of the schools, as well as to increase substantially the remuneration of the principals.

I thought of this when last month I read a story put out by the JTA newservice, and subsequently publicized in the Jerusalem Post and elsewhere, with the somewhat confrontational and sensational headline “Yeshiva University’s center seen as attempt to counter Orthodoxy’s rightward shift.”

[BTW, what is wrong with a rightward shift?]

The sad story of a contemporary writer critical of the Vaad Hatzala and its Holocaust rescue work took a bizarre turn last week. Cross-Current readers get the inside story first.

January 17, the anniversary of Raoul Wallenberg’s capture, had been chosen by the organizers of International Rescuer Day 2006 to convene a conference honoring Jewish and non-Jewish Holocaust heroes. Dr. Efraim Zuroff had originally agreed to participate, but cancelled when he learned that Prof. David Kranzler, a noted Holocaust historian, was also scheduled to attend. Dr. Kranzler had been deeply critical of Zuroff’s treatment of the Orthodox Vaad Hatzala. Dr. Kranzler’s setting the record straight was the cover article in Jewish Action (Fall 2002) [Full disclosure: This writer is on the Editorial Board of Jewish Action, and a friend of Cross-Currents contributor Jonathan Rosenblum, who publicly debated Zuroff on the issue.] Zuroff’s non-attendance was the subject of a Jerusalem Post article on the brouhaha.

Dr. Alex Grobman, himself a Holocaust historian and Zuroff’s successor at the Simon Wiesenthal Center provides some interesting context and background in a personal correspondence that he has allowed to be released.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Dr. Efraim Zuroff boycotted a lecture by Professor David Kranzler yesterday in Jerusalem. Dr. Zuroff is angry that Professor Kranzler has exposed his work on the Vaad Hatzala as a biased and an extremely flawed work, and that he attacked his intellectual integrity.

Since our upgrade on January 2, the new Akismet spam blocker has prevented over 1000 spams from getting into the moderation queue. That’s in under three weeks. In that time it only let 2 spams through, and I’ve never seen a valid message falsely labeled as spam. That’s remarkable.

So with all apologies to those who found the old security image to be a major pain, now you know why it was so necessary! A special apology, though, to Amanda Rush of customerservant.com, who is vision-impaired and therefore could only comment after the upgrade. Anyone having trouble can always email blog at our domain (cross hyphen currents … always good to keep addresses in ways computers cannot read, as it prevents even more spam from coming in!).

Which leads to a new question. Many outreach organizations are interested in a flexible and easy-to-update web site, and WordPress fits the bill quite nicely (with some custom extensions that we built). We (at Project Genesis) would like to offer a variety of designs, and are hoping that some volunteer artists will come forward with WordPress themes that will look good for an outreach organization, community kollel, or other Jewish learning service.

Any takers?

From Rabbi Avi Shafran, Am Echad Resources

“One of the 613 Mitzvot is ‘Tikkun Olam,’ to heal or repair the world,” declares the Social Action Committee of a Massachusetts temple. The assertion is characteristic of the widespread ignorance these days about Jewish basics, not to mention the misrepresentation of the term tikkun olam.

There are indeed 613 mitzvot, or commandments, in the Torah, but none of them is tikkun olam – a phrase that, of late, is as frequently invoked (Google reports 226,000 references) as it is erroneously defined.

The term has its roots in the Mishna, the earliest Talmudic source-material, where it is employed as the philosophical principle behind a number of rabbinic enactments intended to avoid social problems. For example, the institution of a legal mechanism that can circumvent the sabbatical year’s automatic cancellation of debts is justified by the concept of tikkun olam. As is the requirement that divorce documents include the signatures of the witnesses. Similarly, whenever tikkun olam is invoked by the Talmud, it refers to actions taken by rabbinic authorities to address communal concerns.

My correspondent, who pointed out the case going on in California that I wrote about yesterday, sent a new email today:

Rabbi Menken, re: Calvary Chapel suit and your C-C post on it, I wish I had seen this USA Today article when I had emailed you Sunday. I’ve been following this case for months, because I’ve been trying to convince myself that it isn’t sheer antipathy toward religious content that is driving the UC administrators to nix courses. And yet, that’s the conclusion I’m left with when I read this question posed by a UC spokeswoman: “What we’re looking for is this: Is the course academic in nature, or is it there to promote a specific religious lifestyle?”

“Or“? . . . as in these two objectives are mutually exclusive? The spokeswoman’s question speaks volumes of the low regard UC administrators have for the place of religion.

This article also finally pulls in the larger issue of the impact the outcome of this case will have for non-Evangelical religious schools. If you’re interested in the topic, I do recommend that you look at the article.

Unlike other of our handiwork that may have ethical implications – medical advances and design of clothing come to mind – technological innovations inherently are ethically neutral. Much of what we now take for granted is little more than tiny chips that have the capacity to contain an astounding amount of information or to perform complicated tasks in no more than the blink of an eye. How technology is used is another matter.

As a rule, technology that is utilized for visual purposes poses a greater challenge to religious sensibilities than technology that is aural. The ready explanation is that what the eye sees has a significantly greater impact on behavior and attitudes than what is merely heard. This is akin to the familiar Talmudic principle, lo t’hei shmiah gedolah mi-re’ah. Hearing is less reliable than seeing.

This may explain why certain innovations that may be problematic from a religious Jewish standpoint do not evoke strong negative reactions. The cell phone, which is now indispensable to most of us is also a frequent instrumentality for improper midos, as when it interrupts tefila. It is addictive and results in the enormous waste of time or bitul and (along with conventional telephones), it is a great catalyst for lashon hara. However, rabbinical hackles were raised only when cell phones became Internet accessible.

Yes, Rev. Pat Robertson has apologized, but one question remains: why were Israeli officials so incensed at him for suggesting that Sharon has been punished because he willingly surrendered part of the Holy land to its enemies. Granted, the timing of his statement was unfortunate, but does that justify Israel’s angry response to cut off its agreement with him to help build a Christian center in the Galil?

It is not that I like the idea of Israel aiding and abetting Christian projects that do nothing to strengthen Jewish heritage, and have the potential of doing just the reverse. Even if such projects bring in millions of Christian tourists, one wonders if the spiritual price we ultimately pay is worth it – even though the evangelicals are our best friends today.

But I am puzzled by the intensity of Israel’s reaction to this one statement. Is it that Robertson claims to have entrée into the mind of God? I happen to agree that no mortal should claim knowledge of why the Immortal One does this or does not do that – but surely this is not the first time that Robertson has said such things. Any good evangelical thinks this way. Nor is he alone. Many Israeli rabbis have donned the mantle of omniscience as well, ascribing various tragedies to lack of Jewish observance. This kind of presumptuousness on Robertson’s part does not of itself warrant the rage of the Israeli government. There must be more to it.

In an earlier post, I published the sharp but friendly remarks that we traded, on camera (so to speak) and off.  I took up the challenge to offer a halachic defense of the permissibility – indeed mandate – to publicly distance ourselves from malfeasance in the community.

Please keep in mind that this is a blog, not a printed responsum.  Bloggers get to share unpolished thoughts in the hope that the criticism of others will show them if they are off base.  If your ego can’t take the beating of scores of people homing in on your mistakes, don’t blog.  What I present here are some thoughts arranged in the usual manner of a responsum, but without the careful consideration that results from taking halachic thought back to the beis medrash.  In my mind, I can only gain.  If my arguments have any merit, I will help a few people understand some Torah issues.  If I am wrong, the process will help me better understand those Torah issues.

Hey – somebody has to throw out the first ball.

With Super Bowl fever about to engulf the country, I begin to think about the wonderous role of professional sports in our national culture. Many of my friends discouraged their children from following professional sports, feeling that the elevation of junk yard peasants to the status of heros would threaten their childrens’ values and life goals. Since I was fairly comfortable that no child of mine would be capable of more than eight minutes of continuous physical exertion, I was fairly confident that a career in professional sports was not a life’s path I needed worry about discouraging. Moreover, with the paucity of recreational venues for me to take my children, and my eagerness to play hero to my boys, I found Shea and Giant Stadiums to be wonderful bonding arenas. But aside from serving as a parenting device (and my kids amazingly seem to drop their interest in the box scores once the high school charm of Torah studies kicks in), and a topic of safe conversation in the office (”so, those Knicks, eh?”), professional sports also highlights many lessons that would otherwise have been elusive to me. The magic of marriage is one such example.

When I was about eight years old, my father took me to my first sports game, in no less than the holy temple of professional hockey, the Montreal Forum, a’h. I vividly recall my wonderment at the passion and excitement of the crowd. The cheering, the booing, the chanting and the wailing. I recall remarking to my father that it was curious that so many people actually had money riding on the outcome of the game. After trying to figure out how I knew about sports betting (my Dad still does not know that I ran book on the ‘73 NHL playoffs), my father advised me that the vast majority of the crowd had not bet on the game. I then spent the remainder of the evening, and days thereafter, trying to figure out why the crowd cared about whether the home team won. I then began to question why people, who do not have an equity stake, ever consider a professional team “their” team, particularly since few players were born, went to school, or even live in the home town. Years later, I determined that the basis of the relationship of a fan with his team serves as an insight into one of the ingredients of the magic potion of a solid marriage.

You see, a fan really has no cerebral reason to cheer for his team. The team may play ineffectively (or in sports vernacular - stink) and the team may change its players annually. Occassionally, one’s team may even hail from a distant town. But once I have selected a specific team as “my team,” it is my team, to live by or die. There may be no way to articulate the logic behind my allegiance, and no tangible justification for my pride in my team’s accomplishments or my sadness at the team’s defeat. The team may absolutely never win the big game. But, you gotta remember, it’s my team. Ask any Cubs fan.

Though varying to degree by cultural norms, a spouse is supposedly chosen via thoughful consideration. Whom can I best assist through his/her life’s work, and who is most able to assist me in mine? Who will make the best parent for my children, and who will take care of me, and allow me to take care of him/her, when necessary? And who is the smartest, kindest, and most attractive to me? And when a person is found who meets the various criteria, a glass is broken and a family is born.

An astute Catholic reader, noting the recent discussion of religion in the schools here, alerted me to another case now going on in California. The University of California, which is that state’s public university system, has decided that students using Christian texs in biology, physics and even humanities do not meet the minimum admissions standards to UC, and therefore said that students in the Calvary Chapel schools taking those courses would not be eligible for admission.

The university claims, according to their counsel in the case, that it “is simply establishing what is and is not its entrance requirements. It’s really a case of the university’s ability to set its own admission standards.”

I don’t buy it. It is already well-established that children emerging from private Christian schools are better equipped for college than graduates of the public system. Students matriculate to UC from schools literally all over the world, any of which may be “deficient” in one or more areas.

The English course would have included reading material from many major authors, from Hawthorne to Tolkien. The syllabus called it, “an intensive study in textual criticism aimed at elevating the ability of students to engage literary works.”

What started as a poorly constructed blog entry of mine has morphed into an ongoing exchange with David Klinghoffer.  Some of it has been public; some in the form of private correspondence between us.  With David’s permission, I am making bringing to light the originally non-public part of the exchange, for the edification and comments of our readers.  Since David intends to publish more pieces about the issue, I think this thread may be worthwhile.

It all began with an exchange on beliefnet.com between Rabbi Eliyahu Stern and David.  Rabbi Stern excoriated Jack Abramoff for putting Jews and Judaism in a bad light.  David (hereafter DK) responded:

DK - Stern [Rabbi Eliyahu Stern] calls Jack Abramoff an “embarrassment to Orthodox Jews.” Why should we be embarrassed? Are we supposed to be so naive and childish as to think that no one wearing a kippah will ever act in an unethical manner and end up in the news columns for it? Am I supposed to be embarrassed that Orthodox Jews are human too?

Here’s where I came in.  I actually intended to praise Abramoff, not bury him.  I wrote that my guess on his much-commented-on donning of a black hat was a product of his wanting to minimize the chilul Hashem of appearing before the entire world in a yarmulke.  I wrote about this approvingly.  (David has since informed me that my guess is just plain wrong, and he will be publishing the real reason in a forthcoming piece.)  I then went on to differ with David about whether the rest of us should feel embarrassed by Abramoff.  (Unfortunately, I then made the mistake of writing about yet another issue.  What I wrote proved to be a bust, which I hope I recovered from through my explanation.  In any event, it deflected attention from the chief point of my blog – that the actions of any public Jew are seen by others as emblematic of Jewish values, and are therefore always potentially a chilul Hashem.)  I will reproduce what  I  (hereafter, YA) said, leaving out all the other areas we discussed besides the issue of denouncing malfeasance publicly:

Mrs. Schmidt’s title is excellent, and I’m glad that she took me to task for not considering the original Hebrew version of the article in question.

I agree with most of what Mrs. Schmidt wrote, but still believe that my piece on Presence of Malice was accurate both in general and in the details. Paranoid? No.

True, I never read the Hebrew version of the same article — until she pointed it out, I had no idea that it was translated at all. I plucked it off haaretz.com under the impression that it was originally written in English. I fully agree that the title seemed to have been grafted on by a hostile editor… actually, that’s almost precisely what I wrote about the last paragraph. [There are several substantial differences between the Hebrew and English versions -- and I did not find that last paragraph in the Hebrew. I suspect the same editor may have been responsible for both.] [UPDATE: Upon more careful reading I discovered basically the same passage, but buried in the middle of the article -- and pointing out that lower salaries are balanced by non-financial considerations.]

Had I known that the Hebrew article was published under a far more balanced headline, I probably would have merely skimmed the article rather than doing such an extensive analysis in my earlier piece. But does this change my evaluation of the terms “lured” and “sweatshop”? I see no reason why it should. The English-language headline remains as unreasonable as ever.