The Rosh Hayeshiva of Yeshivas Chofetz Chaim, Horav Hagaon Rav Henoch Leibowitz, zecher tzaddik l’vrocha, has passed away. The funeral is scheduled to take place at Yeshivas Chofetz Chaim, 76-01 147th Street in Kew Garden Hills, at 1:30PM on Wednesday.

Rav Leibowitz was a Rosh Yeshiva for over 60 years, inspiring generations of students. This is a tremendous loss for all of Israel.

My wife took one look at an advertisement in B’nai B’rith Magazine, and said “I see a post in your future.” She was right. At first, I was tempted to offer the following as if such an ad had actually appeared in the Jewish Observer. But given the level of careful thought and analysis which characterizes much of what is written on the Internet these days, I thought the likelihood that someone would half-read my post and go off on an inflammatory rant about the evil “ultra-Orthodox” who actually wrote this sort of book was entirely too high. So let’s understand from the beginning that the following has, to my knowledge, never happened. At least, not from those who favor traditional Judaism.

Imagine, for a moment, an advertisement in the august pages of the Jewish Observer, promoting a book aiming to convince you of the authenticity of traditional Judaism. There are, of course, any number of such books, discussing various aspects of the topic from a number of philosophical angles. But instead of laying out a series of arguments about why traditional Judaism is good, this book is entirely devoted to the idea that “liberal” Judaism is evil and wrong.

Imagine that the book is titled “Bondage of the Mind,” and the subtitle is “How Liberal Judaism Perverts the Torah and Enslaves the Jewish Soul — Toward a Better Understanding of the Religious Experience.” The ad calls the book “a powerful new message about truth and freedom,” and invites yeshiva and seminary students to participate in a $30,000 essay contest, discussing the following topic:

In his new book, R.D. Gold takes the following position: The doctrines of Reform Judaism — and, by extension, the doctrines of all liberal “denominations” of Judaism — are false. Therefore, it makes no sense for an individual to abandon his or her Jewish soul to the foolish and temporal pleasures of secular Western living and its demonstrably false promises of a happier and more satisfying life.

This is the excellently-expressed sentiment of English writer Abbott Katz, appearing in this week’s Forward.

“Ultra” — the modifier of choice for a press hawking its smudged cartography of Jewish religious life — has enjoyed a long, wearisome, dubious run, and it isn’t recusing itself from the discourse any time soon. The Jewish religious world occupies a bewilderingly disparate space, to be sure, but mapping its turf begs a measure of precision of which the media’s collective instrumentation seems largely incapable — and “ultra,” with its Latinate tinge, redolent of cultic cadres pushing their faith to mysterious extremes, badly misreads the coordinates.

Most complaints about the use of the “Ultra” modifier stop there — pointing out that the term is both inaccurate and pejorative, and seems to lump Satmar Chasidim together with Kahanists and Yigal Amir. But Katz takes his case a step further, pointing out that the use of any modifier on the term Orthodox implies that we are in some way not the original or genuine article.

After all, if there are ultra-Orthodox Jews, then there are merely Orthodox ones as well, and what makes the recourse to “ultra” so pernicious is its very status as prefix, a descriptive tack-on to a more primeval, integral Judaism of truer provenance. Orthodox Jews seem to be seen as marking the spiritual baseline, while the “ultras” are typed as a kind of fanatic insurgency, sparse but dangerous.

In a guest column in the Jerusalem Post, Rabbi Murray Singerman argues that “We Jews are too dedicated to defending theological turf.” He suggests that the divisions within Judaism are a major cause of assimilation: “When the decibel level of strident carping drowns out the beauty and positive values of all streams of Judaism, outsiders will choose to remain on the outside, and those on the way out will quickly join the ranks of the unaffiliated… For the sake of the future of the Jewish people, it is time for our rabbinic leadership to reach out to other denominations and find the will to pray together in one sanctuary.”

When I reached the end of the article, I noticed that the author was described as “a businessman in Baltimore.” At that point I scrolled back and noticed his name. I know him primarily through his daughter, who was my wife’s student. This well-written, well-argued opinion piece is only what I would expect — as they say, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. It is unfortunate that what he argues for so eloquently strikes me as a road to nowhere.

You can’t wallpaper over the cracks in Jewish unity. The divisions between the definitions of “Judaism” are far too real, far too serious, and far too wide. And furthermore, he presents no evidence to support his novel assertion that these divisions contribute negatively to Jewish affiliation.

A few weeks ago, the Jerusalem Post published another article with a similar, and what might appear to be an even more ambitious goal: that for the benefit of both the Conservative and Reform movements in Israel, the two should merge. A comparison of the reasoning in the two articles, however, demonstrates that it is the latter which makes the more cogent argument.

Everyone knows that “Money can’t buy happiness.” It turns out, though, that this is yet another case where the conventional wisdom is wrong. Money can buy happiness if you spend it the right way. And in this case, the right way is charitable giving.

A study published in this week’s edition of the journal Science found a consistent relationship between giving and happiness. For example, they studied the employees of a medical supply company who were given bonuses of several thousand dollars each. Researcher Michael I. Norton, assistant professor at Harvard Business School, said that they determined “the size of the bonus you get has no relation to how happy you are, but the amount you spend on other people does predict how happy you are.” Professor Elizabeth Dunn of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, who led the study, also said that those employees who devoted more of their bonus to “pro-social” spending came out higher on the happiness scale. This confirmed the results of an initial survey of 632 Americans, which also showed a clear correlation between spending on other people and general happiness.

It is true that having money can’t provide happiness. In the words of an older article in the Washington Post, about a $30 billion pledge (yes, thirty billion dollars) by investment guru Warren Buffett:

A wealth of data in recent decades has shown that once personal wealth exceeds about $12,000 a year, more money produces virtually no increase in life satisfaction. From 1958 to 1987, for example, income in Japan grew fivefold, but researchers could find no corresponding increase in happiness.

Two familiar stories: “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” and “George Washington and the Cherry Tree.” For argument’s sake, let’s take George Washington’s name out of the second story, because he’s so famous. In the first story the boy and his sheep are both eaten because of the boy’s persistent lies. In the second, the boy is praised for his honesty.

Which one of these stories would make a child less likely to lie? If you’re like most people (75%, in a recent survey), you would answer that “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” would be the more powerful motivation.

You would also be wrong. The virtue of honesty, rather than the threat of dire consequences, was by far the more powerful motivator. This is one of the conclusions of a study by Dr. Nancy Darling, a developmental psychologist, described in New York magazine.

It is interesting how this jibes with an educational system that focuses upon the virtues of good conduct. The Torah mandates that children replace “finders keepers, losers weepers” with “Eilu Metzios” — “these found objects are his, and these he is required to announce.” Nonetheless, one could also point to the rather fantastic consequences in “Wolf,” and conclude the children were capable of discerning between likely and unlikely consequences. They knew that if they lied on the tasks that followed, they were unlikely to be eaten.

I have a son approaching Bar Mitzvah age, which means he will be needing Tefillin shortly. My mother mentioned that her grandfather’s old Tefillin were in a package in a basement. I had never known of them before, but as you can imagine was excited to learn that they existed. Well… when I opened the bag my wife and I were dismayed. The batim, the boxes, were green. Mold green. We thought that after years in a wet basement, all was lost.

When I opened them, however, I got a surprise in the opposite direction. Not only were the parshiyos (the written parchments) in decent condition, but the writing was truly beautiful. I showed them to an expert sofer, who restored them. They are perhaps 150 years old, and the writing, he said, was only used by a pretty elite group. The batim were constructed from multiple pieces of leather, which we wouldn’t use today with such fine parchments. But what we found inside them were hidden gems. “He spent his money on the writing,” said the sofer. And who knows… what spiritual impact might have been felt from that level of sacrifice for the sake of a Mitzvah, four generations later?

The parshiyos are written in the Ksav, the font, attributed to the Alter Rebbe of Lubavitch.

When I read the responses to my earlier post, “A Hopeful Sign for Chabad?“, I was extremely pleased to see the fiery denunciation of the ‘Meshichist’ wing from commenters who identify with Lubavitch. I think a tad more forbearance is appropriate towards those other commenters who previously encountered opinions similar to Eli Soble’s from far more prominent figures within the movement. The fact that the JPost found no one better known than Soble to voice this tripe is a hopeful sign, but we cannot pretend that it has always been so.

When the Chief Rabbinate decided to reject a convert who accepted all the Commandments but professed the belief that the deceased Lubavitcher Rebbe is the Messiah, we should have expected a debate to follow. The Jerusalem Post took the role of host, giving us the ex-somewhat-Chabad Rabbi Shmuley Botach declaring “Chabad messianists: Wrong, but still Jews,” and Rabbi David Berger replying with “Rabbi Boteach, you’re wrong about Chabad.”

Now, the latest, from Eli Soble: “Our Rebbe is the messiah.” Troubling, to be certain… but how authoritative a representative is this author? He is described only as “a former Chabad rabbinical student and active in the movement’s educational work.” He’s not a Rabbi or a Shaliach, much less a leading figure within Lubavitch. Many self-declared Lubavitcher Chassidim contradict his statements and quotations in the article comments, as well.

On the day the Rebbe died, a reporter for WCBS News radio in New York gave air time to a young Chassid assuring us that the Rebbe will “get up,” that he will rise from the dead as Moshiach. I recall posting on an early Jewish mailing list that we should all respond with empathy to despondent chassidim while rejecting that viewpoint, and having a relatively prominent figure in Chabad’s Internet presence accuse me of causing Jews to waiver in their belief in the Coming of the Messiah. I’m not making this up.

Perhaps the fact that the JPost could find no more prominent an authority than a “former rabbinical student” who is “active in the movement’s educational work” to declare the departed Rebbe the Messiah is a hopeful sign. Meaning even if the belief is still common within Chabad, as I am sure Rabbi Berger would hasten to say, people are more and more reluctant to proclaim themselves adherents. Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but that would be a most welcome development.

We’ve all heard the accusation that President Bush “lied” about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, and did so in order to lead the nation to war. We’ve heard people argue it was grounds for impeachment. John Kerry made it a campaign issue (while admitting that we might still find them), and on that basis very nearly became the leading mortal custodian of our safety.

Now, Hussein’s interrogator has gone public with his interrogation. In reality, it tells us nothing we didn’t already know. Iraq had WMDs in the past — it used WMDs in the past — and the conclusion of every intelligence agency in the free world was that Hussein still had them. The interrogation only tells us why we all thought so: because Saddam Hussein deliberately locked the doors to Iraq and kept it secret that all his WMDs were destroyed.

Bush was not lying. He, the US Congress, the CIA, MI6, the Mossad, and all the rest unanimously believed what Saddam intentionally led them to believe. That’s not lying — at least, not for those of us still cognizant of what a lie is. [I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at this "Bush lied" campaign. His predecessor, whom Bush opponents supported, was truly a world leader in the redefinition of truth and falsehood.] Saddam only got rid of his WMDs because he had to, he continued his research into new and better ways to kill us, and in the meantime — to keep Iran at bay, and under the mistaken impression that Bush Jr. would merely launch a Clintonesque air campaign — made sure all believed that he still had them.

Why is this a Jewish issue? There are both practical and philosophical reasons for this otherwise off-topic post. On the one hand, all too many are seriously considering putting another Clinton in the White House. If you want to know why no one knew what Hussein was thinking, you need to ask the one who decimated the CIA. And, on the other hand, call it hakoras hatov, simple gratitude. I was in Israel when Saddam sent his Scud missiles raining down upon us. He sent large financial payments to the families of suicide bombers, to encourage more of them to kill innocent Jews. And for all the lives lost in the Iraq War, let’s be honest. “The hearts of Kings are in G-d’s Hands” — George Bush didn’t make that decision on his own. We truly have no idea what Hussein could have done if his weapons program had been allowed to continue, but I, for one, thank G-d we never shall.

According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, Israeli teens are turning to alcohol because their lives are empty.

A national program to get teenagers interested in productive ways to spend their time is needed to reduce the “emptiness” that causes a growing number of them to drink alcohol, according to a Bar-Ilan University sociologist.

Dr. Yossi Harel-Fisch, director of the International Research Program on Adolescent Well Being and Health at BIU’s School of Education’s criminology department… told The Jerusalem Post in an interview this week that he is very concerned about the phenomenon… “I have been saying for years that Israeli society is running after risky behaviors rather than dealing with causes and trying to prevent them. The rise in alcohol use comes comes from a lack of positive content in children’s lives. School should become a positive experience; clubs, youth movements or volunteering can help fill the void. We don’t offer them alternatives, so instead of offering something constructive, they look for new risky behaviors and things to occupy them.”

The observation about teenagers turning to alcohol when they feel emptiness in their lives is not surprising. That’s something we all know — or should know — and must address. The unexpected part of this report is the blunt recognition that this emptiness is such an endemic part of Israeli adolescent life. The early Zionist dream was all about meaning and purpose. It’s all gone, and Israelis know it. With tens of thousands of Israelis searching the mountains of Tibet for enlightenment, this is also not surprising in and of itself — the surprise is that they recognize the problem.

From the Jewish Council for Public Affairs:

January 19th is one of the most important contests in the Democratic and Republican quests for their parties’ nomination for the presidency. It is also Shabbat.

This year, the Nevada Democratic and Republican parties have decided to hold their primary caucuses on a Saturday, with citizens required to report by 11:30 and 9:00 AM respectively, right during morning religious services. When I called the political parties in Nevada to inquire as to whether or not there were measures being taken to help accommodate those observant Jews who wished to participate in the caucuses, I received mixed results… Neither had an adequate answer as to why the caucuses had to take place on a Shabbat morning.

Nevada has one of the fastest growing Jewish populations in the country, and its 65,000-80,000 Jewish community members are expected to have a disproportionate impact on the results. I do not know how many of these Jews are observant enough to be effectively barred from participating in the caucus. I do not know how many of these Jews will be pushed into the uncomfortable position of choosing between attending synagogue and participating in a cherished American civic tradition. I DO know that it is highly unlikely that the state’s political parties would choose to hold these caucuses on a Sunday morning during church services.

Apparently this was the first time the Council president, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, ever rejected a speech as “inadmissible.” So after you watch, you can have a look at the various comments which he admitted with thanks to the delegates.

According to a recent study by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, “Jewish individuals and foundations in the United States gave 95% of their dollars from gifts of $10 million or more to secular causes and 5% to Jewish causes between 2001-2003.”

“While Jewish organizations do a reasonable job attracting smaller mega-gifts, those from $1-2 million, they are failing dramatically to attract the biggest gifts that Jews make to non-profits. The trends over eight years are remarkably consistent – Jewish mega-gifts exceeding $10 million to Jewish organizations were rare eight years ago and remain notably infrequent,” according to Gary A. Tobin, president of IJCR.

This is an interesting and less-studied side effect of the decline in Jewish affiliation. The wealthiest Jews are passionate about their causes and passionate about giving — willing to donate over $10 million to their favorite causes. Their favorite causes, however, are less and less likely to involve Judaism.

Michael Bloomberg, for example, has given over $300 million to Johns Hopkins University, and in 2006 alone donated $165 million to 1,000 different organizations. The recipient organizations support arts, education, health care, and social services, with a special emphasis on reducing tobacco use. But none of the listed organizations is even a Jewish social services organization, much less one teaching Judaism.

Admittedly, I was as surprised as anyone to see “Gentile Lubavitcher refused conversion” in the Jerusalem Post. While it may be true that the belief that a deceased individual is the Messiah is foreign to normative Judaism, it is quite a step further to say that this belief alone disqualifies a potential convert. Note that this might have some bearing on the previous discussion concerning what is “Outside the Pale” — that although one cannot point to certain beliefs and label them “heresy,” one can still say that they place a person outside the mainstream community. [N.B. Comments regarding the aforementioned belief, as well as a continuation of the "Outside the Pale" discussion, will not be accepted in this thread.]

Whatever emerges from that discussion, one point has clearly been made: Rabbinical Courts have standards. It’s about complying with the standards, and not a matter of excluding people based upon politics. One can dredge up dozens of stories of dubious conversions held under Orthodox auspices that were allowed to get through — perhaps what is going on here is an elimination of loopholes of that nature. But it is as well-known as it is obvious that the Lubavitcher movement aligns itself with Orthodox Judaism, and supports the growth of Orthodoxy in the Holy Land. If the Court was interested in pandering to its chosen clientele, this is the last thing they would have done.

Contrast, if you will, the following:

“Orthodoxy” is not a separate religion from Judaism. If you have converted to Judaism, under the authority of any legitimate rabbinic authority, you are a Jew. Jewish law does not recognize a distinction between different branches, despite the refusal of orthodox authorities to accept non-orthodox conversions.

This story, thankfully, has a happy ending. The runaway is home and safe.

Those not hiding in a cave or immersed entirely in Torah study for the past two days — and in either case, why would you then be reading Cross-Currents? — are undoubtedly aware that Ann Coulter has it out for the Jews, insisting that we all need to be “perfected.” And for this, Coulter — no stranger to controversy — is being pilloried in the media. CNN said that she “took a sharp swipe at Jews — that’s at least the way a lot of people are interpreting it.”

The only problem is, that’s not what happened, she demonstrated not an iota of anti-Semitism, and the media is taking her to task for being nothing more nor less than a traditional Christian, and quite a tolerant one, at that. The media’s true target is traditional religion, and it would do for traditional Jews to be part of setting the record straight.

What happened was that Donny Deutsch, a Jewish talk-show host, asked her what her dream America would look like. And she said it would “look like New York during the Republican National Convention.” Note, of course, that for her to want everyone to be Republican is not considered offensive. No one would dare condemn her for thinking her political ideology is correct. After all, Teddy Kennedy and MoveOn.org have the same flaw in a very different direction.

But Deutsch isn’t satisfied with the answer. He says no, no, not just the politics, what’s the country going to look like. And she says “Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like Joe Lieberman, the Republican Party would look like Duncan Hunter…” Hey, did you notice? Her model Democrat is a kike! Some anti-Semite she’d make… which, of course, explains why the edited videos skip this passage. Deutsch isn’t done, so he keeps after her until she says “Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They’re Christian. They’re tolerant. They defend America, they…” and we’ll never find out what else they are, because that’s when Deutsch leaped down her throat.

To: Ernest Adams
From: Yaakov Menken
Subject: Your article in the Jewish Week
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:18:00 -0400

Dear Mr. Adams,

I was quite intrigued by your article ["Straddling the Color Barrier," Aug. 31] in the NY Jewish Week, and thought to email you once I found your address at the bottom. Your sincerity and thoughtful attitude are obvious in your words, and for this reason I thought it especially worth corresponding with you when a few passages struck a disconsonant chord.

In particular, your friends’ warnings that the Orthodox “are rigid and racist” caught my eye. You repeat it twice, but then go on to recount your personal experience as you began dating: “Orthodox rabbis and congregants were veritably welcoming, with one prominent Orthodox rabbi promising to find me a wife as he encouraged me to move into his Brooklyn community.”

The JTA is reporting that Metropolitan Schechter in Teaneck, NJ will be closing. Metropolitan Schechter was formed just last year when Manhattan Schechter closed and merged with Teaneck’s Schechter Regional. As a result, this closure leaves the Conservative movement without a high school in the New York region. As I wrote here previously, administrative, managerial, and fundraising issues aside, this closure still reflects the failure of the Conservative movement to “walk the walk” on Jewish education.

Meanwhile, Broward County, Florida is about to become home of the first-ever “Hebrew Charter” school, delivering a secular education with a Hebrew-language emphasis, devoid of Jewish content. As Jonathan Tobin points out, the latter’s opening, no less than the former’s closing, “is a direct threat to the one institution proven to be our best investment in our future:” the Jewish Day School.

With an twist of phrase that would have done George Orwell proud, Israeli Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch rebuked those proposing Knesset legislation to restrain the Court, calling the proposed legislation “a direct blow to the democratic character of the State of Israel, a blow to the substantive democracy that has been built here and is the pride of the state.”

The Knesset, of course, is elected by the population of the State of Israel. The Supreme Court, by contrast (and it is practically alone among High Courts in the civilized world in this regard) exercises near-total control of the selection of its new members. Thus the Court does not represent a balance between diverse perspectives within the populace — it represents only itself. It is, by a vast margin, the least democratic of all branches of government in Israel. It also exercises greater power than the other branches; as the State proudly declares on its web site:

The Supreme Court also sits as the High Court of Justice. This function is unique to the Israeli system because as the High Court of Justice, the Supreme Court acts as a court of first and last instance. The High Court of Justice exercises judicial review over the other branches of government, and has powers “in matters in which it considers it necessary to grant relief in the interests of justice and which are not within the jurisdiction of any other court or tribunal.” As a High Court of Justice, the Supreme Court hears over a thousand petitions each year. [emphasis added]

The Court can self-select when it considers a matter relevant. It can override the legislature, State and local authorities and their officers, and the religious courts. It also continuously demonstrates a left-wing, secular bias in its decisions — no wonder that the Court and the leaders of the left are in an uproar at the prospect of someone forcing the Court to behave in a matter more consistent with its role in a Western democracy.

From the Urban Dictionary: “Being confuddled is when your confused about being confused but u dont know wot your confused about so your completly confuddled.”

One of the more frequent complaints about Cross-Currents, at least from those to our philosophical left, is that it so frequently critiques that same left, particularly the heterodox clergy and the modern Jewish movements. Our usual answer, stated at its least diplomatic extreme, is that Cross-Currents is merely the first attempt at an antidote to a steady and poisonous flow from the secular & “mainstream” Jewish media. Given that conventional outlets let their ignorance and even animus towards observance show all too often, Cross-Currents serves a valuable function by providing an alternative.

I wonder how our critics would have us address the following, real-life situation. Several weeks ago, Rabbi Avi Shafran published a piece called “Conversion Confusion,” which eventually made its way into the august pages of the New York Jewish Week. In that article, Rabbi Shafran deflected criticism — from certain Orthodox Rabbis — of Israel’s Orthodox Rabbinate for “raising obstacles to prevent non-Jews from entering the Jewish fold.” Inter alia Rabbi Shafran made reference to an obvious point about conversion: “Sincere acceptance of the responsibility to strive to observe all of the Torah’s laws — or ‘kabbalat hamitzvot’ — is the very sine qua non of Jewish conversion. A convert need not be conversant with all of the laws but must nevertheless embrace them in principle, as the Jewish People did at Sinai before receiving the Torah.”

Recently, Rabbi David Ellenson, president of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, and co-author of an upcoming book “on 19th- and 20th-century rabbinical responsa on conversion to Judaism,” replied with his own article, entitled “Conversion Complexity.” He wanders into a debate between Orthodox sources, yet I have heard no chorus clamoring that he has grabbed the opportunity to take pot shots at the Orthodox. Furthermore, his article obfuscates the obvious and clouds the clear, undermines understanding and corrupts knowledge (I was doing just fine until I tried to find an appropriate verb beginning with ‘k’). So I think it not entirely out of place for me to wonder what our critics would have us do. Should we ignore it and allow such ignorance to be the last word on the subject? Or, perhaps, would they merely prefer that I, or anyone with even a basic knowledge of Hilchos Geirus, the laws of conversion, squelch our honest amazement that the author of a book on responsa on conversion, who stands at the pinnacle of the Reform movement’s educational system, would demonstrate himself to be so uneducated on the contents of the very works about which he is supposed to be writing?

Today’s Jewish World Review carries an article about Saraa Barhoum, “the young star of Hamas television’s best-known children’s show.” The show is “best known for bringing the world a militant Mickey Mouse look-alike and then having him killed off by an Israeli interrogator.”

As I commented three months ago, when news of faux Mickey reached us, “We all know that terrorists are the fault of the occupiers, who create an environment of hopelessness and despair in which young men and women see nothing better in their future. We’re sure it has nothing to do with using a Mickey Mouse clone to train young children to ‘annihilate the Jews’ and, well… see for yourself.”

UPDATE: The owner has been located and the item(s) returned.

If anyone knows this person, please leave a comment (it won’t be published) or email. He left something in Baltimore. The spelling above is transliterated, so the last name could be spelled differently.

The story is told of a classical Reform temple somewhere in America where they blew a French Horn on Rosh Hashanah. Younger members of the congregation were dissatisfied with this, and proposed using a Shofar. Some older members took umbrage at the suggestion — one exclaimed, “these youngsters have no respect for our traditions!”

Whether or not this story is apocryphal (and the Rabbi who told the story gave no indication that it was), the underlying tension that it describes is all too real and becoming ever more pronounced. As described in the latest NY Jewish Week, active young members of the Reform movement are adopting traditional practices and rejecting “innovations” in ever greater numbers. This came to a head when the staff at Kutz Camp, the Reform movement’s teen leadership camp, brought in a jazz musician with a keyboard for a “creative approach” to Ma’ariv, the evening prayers. Forty campers — one-fourth of those in attendance — found the service so disconcerting that they spontaneously walked out.

This was a weekday Ma’ariv, on the evening of US Independence Day, July 4. These are not kids whom we would imagine say a weekday Ma’ariv frequently enough to grow attached to the traditional service — but they do. In the words of a 16 year old girl, social action VP of her temple youth group, “when the prayers were very nontraditional, they felt botched; the music was so distracting. It seemed so disrespectful.” This girl is from California, no less.

When Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, advises that “we should be prepared to explore everything, even things that would have been unthinkable to parents and grandparents,” and when HUC Rabbinical Student David Singer says “we’re looking for things outside the box in which our generation feels comfortable experimenting and expressing our Judaism in ways that haven’t always fit into the established norms” — they’re not talking about Tikkun Olam in Darfur, dance circles, or the embrace of “alternative lifestyles.” They are referring to kashrus, tzitzis, and Shemiras Shabbos!

Perhaps Aksa-TV was getting too much flak for using a Mickey Mouse clone to teach children to “annihilate the Jews.” So they decided to take him off the air — but by having a Jewish agent murder their mouse. Normally when a fictional story is based around real-world events, the events and background are truthful. But Tel-Aviv is not stolen Arab land, and according to a French TV investigation, Mohammed Al-Dura was killed by Palestinians firing at an Israeli outpost, not by the Israelis returning fire. Need we mention that Israeli interrogators do not murder those they question?

Children are being educated from birth to hate the Jews, based upon an entirely fictitious rendering of the history of the modern State of Israel and Arab warfare against that state. And somehow this, too, is the Israelis’ fault.

hat tip: Ori Pomerantz

A few weeks ago, a reporter for the Florida Times-Union called with a few questions about sheitels, the wigs worn by married Orthodox women to cover their natural hair. The result is this morning’s column in their ongoing series called “Dare to Ask,” and I am frankly impressed with how accurate and how friendly the coverage turned out to be.

From the title alone, “These wigs reflect code of modesty,” you see the reporter isn’t out to mock or degrade. It’s very easy to imagine how negatively this article could have gone, and which stereotypes could have been perpetuated. Instead, I and the others interviewed had the opportunity to rebut and dismantle those mistaken impressions, and thus paint a far more favorable picture of what, to the secular viewer, initially appears to be an arcane and even repressive practice.

Modesty, of course, isn’t about repression but moderation. Our community keeps private what others broadcast, and that was apparent in the article. Reporter Phil Milano posed challenging questions provided by his readers, such as the following from the accompanying podcast: “Yeah, but these wigs look so great nowadays that it almost defeats the purpose!” We then had the opportunity to point out that even a well-made sheitel isn’t natural, and is usually immediately distinguishable to the practiced eye.

Wonder of wonders, the whole Indian hair thing didn’t even make it into the article. And not only that — he closed with my best line. What more could we ask for?