To the Editor:
I read with great interest the op-ed piece by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky entitled the “Spinning Wheel,” which cast aspersions on Rabbi Avi Weiss, founder of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and rabbi of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale. The claims made by Rabbi Pruzansky in the piece cannot go without a response as they are misleading and false. [For full disclosure, I am a Teaneck resident and Rabbi Avi Weiss’s son-in-law.]
In his ranting about Open Orthodoxy, Rabbi Pruzansky claims that Rabbi Weiss has embraced:
1) “The female chazzan.” This is false. A woman has never been the chazzan at a minyan in the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, the shul Rabbi Weiss has lead for over four decades.
2) “The female rabbi.” Rabbi Weiss has ordained a Rabbah/Maharat, not a female rabbi. While these women are congregational leaders and have completed the requirements to be ordained, they only perform those roles that are halakhically acceptable for women.
3) “The dilution of conversion standards.” A claim made without any basis.
4) “The mixed church choir performing in shul.” To be clear: this has never been in conjunction with tefillah. It is a community-wide program held at the synagogue on Martin Luther King’s Birthday. It is a celebration of the ideals that Dr. King and the Jewish community share in regard to equal treatment of all God’s creations. Songs are respectfully chosen with appropriate spiritual messages to all communities in attendance. This exemplifies Rabbi Weiss’s message that a shul is not only a minyan factory but a community center for education.
5) “The enunciation by some of his cherished disciples of heretical ideas on Sinai.”
While this may or may not be true, I can assure you that there are many rabbis who have been ordained over the years from the most illustrious yeshivot who have strayed from our primary beliefs. Does this impute the Orthodoxy of the yeshiva as a whole? I think not!
6) “The celebration of same sex marriage in defiance of Jewish law.”
Once again this is a perversion of the truth. Rabbi Weiss is firmly committed to the halakhot as they relate to homosexuality. However, this does not mean that he excommunicates those who have made this their choice of sexual orientation. There are 613 mitzvoth in the Torah and even the fervently Orthodox do not claim to keep each one. We allow Sabbath violators to enter into our shuls every day and give them aliyot. Does this mean we celebrate the violations they have done? Of course not. There is a wide chasm between accepting someone versus celebrating their lifestyle.
7) “The initial rejection was founded not upon the alleged lack of credibility of Rabbi Weiss on a personal level,but, I ASSUME, on a simple, categorical judgment made by the Rabbinate” [emphasis mine]. Rabbi Pruzansky, don’t “assume.” The Chief Rabbinate’s decision was based on aspersions made by those holding “positions” within the RCA.
8) “A decision on merits would not have involved politicians, lawyers, and PR flacks but a meeting between Rabbi Weiss and representatives of the rabbinate explaining why his innovations are within the boundaries of halacha and mesorah, and why he should therefore be construed as an Orthodox Rabbi like all others. Need we wonder why that was the road not taken?”
Yes you may, and let me enlighten you to the answer. As has been the case over and over again, Rabbi Weiss “took one for the team.” In recent years, the Chief Rabbinate has disqualified many letters sent to them by American Orthodox rabbis testifying to the personal status of their congregants. But rather than taking the easy way out and finding a solution for himself only, Rabbi Weiss accepted the public embarrassment. In this way, other rabbis would be spared. Indeed, Rabbi Weiss is in a unique position. At his shul he has the unwavering support of his congregants and board; he has no fear, as other rabbis might, of losing his pulpit. Imagine those other pulpit rabbis who are on a three- or five-year contract. What will happen when their congregants find out that their rabbi’s letters are not accepted by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel? (This is not great for contract negotiations.) Rabbi Weiss felt that the process of letter affirmation was unfair. Accordingly, he courageously addressed the issue for all of Orthodox Jewry and their rabbis.
Furthermore, if you have issues with Rabbi Weiss why air them in an op-ed piece? Would it not have been better to meet with Rabbi Weiss personally? Is this really the proper road to take?
9) “Rabbi Weiss—unabashed lover and conscious unifier of Jews—is wittingly causing a schism in the Orthodox world.”
Rabbi Pruzansky, we finally agree about something. Yes, “Rabbi Weiss is an unabashed lover and conscious unifier of Jews.” Unlike others who use their pulpit to foment divisiveness and cast negative aspersions onto our fellow Jews, Rabbi Weiss tries to unite Am Yisrael. He is constantly looking out for the best interest of the weakest and neediest within the community. He is surely not causing a schism in the Orthodox world as many see it, but rather promoting a caring, inclusive and halakhically-grounded Judaism.
We are all entitled to our opinions and I respect Rabbi Purzansky’s fidelity to halakha, but casting aspersions about others is dangerous and divisive. “In righteousness shall you judge your kinsman.” Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:15
Mark Levie
Teaneck
To the Editor:
Scarlett Johansson is a big fan of SodaStream. She’s such a big fan the other day she told Oxfam to take a hike. She resigned from her position as an Oxfam Global Ambassador for the perennially anti-Israel non-profit. We say right on, Scarlett. We’re tired of institutions who, lock-step, pile on Israel.
In my mind Oxfam isn’t much better than the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS). They don’t like SodaStream either. In case you weren’t aware, SodaStream is the Israeli maker of a hugely popular consumer home soda maker that’s environmentally friendly, economic for average households, and “sexy” (I’ll get to that later.) But the problem for the BDS people is SodaStream’s principal production facility is located in the industrial park of a suburb of Jerusalem, Maale Adumim. Maale Adumim, and its industrial park, Mishor Adumim, are located in territory the Palestinian Authority is attempting to claim. That’s why, despite how popular the SodaStream soda maker is, the BDS Movement would like everyone to boycott it.
This boycott, however, presents a couple of problems for them.
First problem: the BDS boycott of SodaStream has the potential to do harm to the very people they profess to champion: Palestinians. But they hate Israel so much they’ll do anything to destroy it. Even if it means hurting the 500 Palestinians who are employed at the facility in Mishor Adumim. Even if it means those 500 people–whose salaries at SodaStream are substantially more than elsewhere in the West Bank–will lose their livelihood and their ability to support their families.
Second problem: SodaStream is incredibly popular. It has made quite a splash among environmentalists. Landfill use may actually shrink because of SodaStream. That’s because one Soda Stream machine can replace the more than 10,000 bottles and soda cans an average American family uses and discards over a period of five years.
SodaStream is all the rage. You can buy a SodaStream at Bed, Bath & Beyond, Chef Central, or many other places, including online. Here’s the sexy part. You know it has hit the big time when it’s scheduled to run a commercial, with Scarlett Johansson, in one of the coveted Super Bowl spots on Sunday. It’s already gotten millions of views.
I’ve got a message for the BDS people…and for Oxfam. Throwing 500 people out of work is unprincipled and cruel. Not appreciating the work of a Global Ambassador, who has done amazing work for their causes for years, is wrong-headed and myopic. Finally, telling people they shouldn’t buy a product everyone loves is useless. Maybe this time, Oxfam and the BDS people may actually have bitten off more than they can chew…or more than they can gulp.
If you have comments about this message, email me at [email protected].
Jason M. Shames
Chief Executive Officer
Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey
To The Editor,
Regarding “Getting More For Your Tax Dollars” by Teaneck councilmember Elie Katz (January 23rd)
From the time the four-day week “experiment” was imposed in August 2009, Teaneck residents pleaded for restoration of full service. Staggered work schedules from Monday through Friday were repeatedly recommended by residents, meeting after meeting, but were summarily ignored by an unresponsive Township Council. The harm from the loss of 220 Fridays was significant, the savings from the four-day schedule were illusory, and there were no added costs to restore the five full days of service we residents have always been paying for.
There is something severely wrong when a Township Council can eliminate basic services without seeking public input and then try to take credit for giving back what it took away.
In the past four years, Teaneck’s municipal tax rate increased by 14.6% while residents saw days of service at the Municipal Building drop by 20%. At a time when we all need to figure out how to make the most of our scarce financial resources, Teaneck’s taxpayers have been expected to “do less with more.” For 2013, with the Municipal Building closed for 52 Fridays, the municipal tax rate was up 5.8%, quadruple the statewide average and almost triple Governor Christie’s 2% cap. Since Mr. Katz took office in 1997, Teaneck taxes have doubled.
Teaneck needs a Township Council that recognizes that it has made many costly mistakes over the past four years and that the only way it will dig itself out of the mess is by actively seeking the participation, advice, and guidance of its residents and taxpayers. We don’t have that council, and we need to start making changes now.
Alan Sohn, Teaneck
To the Editor:
Unfortunately Ronit Peskin paints an inaccurate picture of Women of the Wall. She mis-characterizes WOW. WOW’s tefilah is respectful. It is W4W who are disrespectful in their attempts to silence women who come to pray.
In addition, Ms. Peskin misrepresents me completely. The only correct facts about me written in the article are my first name and that I resigned from the WOW board over its decision to move to Robinson’s Arch (a decision which should delight Ms. Peskin and her supporters). I am not Orthodox, nor do I have the honor of being among the founders of WOW. o-WOW does have among its members many of the founders, but other long-time supporters like me are also part of the group. o-WOW indeed stands for “Original Women of the Wall.” More information is available on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/originalwomenofthewall/
Our group, like WOW is a pluralistic group including women and men from all denominations of Judaism. It is true that o-WOW finds it hard to understand how Orthodox supporters of WOW find the proposed move to an egalitarian site at all plausible.
Cheryl Birkner Mack
Jerusalem, Israel
To the Editor:
I write in response to the article in the last issue (“Three Gifts You Can Give Your Daughter” by Rivki Chudnoff).
Let me first say that I do not usually read newspapers yet very much enjoyed doing so this past weekend. Many of the articles were informative and I actually learned a few things I did not know before. However, one of the informative and well intentioned articles seemed misplaced or at least inappropriate for what I will call a family paper, a Jewish family paper. While no topic should be taboo, the forum it is discussed in or made public in should be carefully chosen.
Being a family newspaper, I question whether the article geared to parents and what to teach their puberty age daughters and explicit nature of the directions should be included. Not only adults read these papers, but impressionable children as well. Topics which are otherwise “gender specific” should be just that and kept out of the paper. I understand there was an article two weeks ago about marital intimacy which would also be questionable as to whether impressionable children should be subject to. I am not offering a solution as to how to make these articles public, but I am sure there are forums available for people to reach out to just men or just women.
I urge the paper to highly consider keeping articles of this nature (gender specific) out of the paper for the benefit of the children reading and the parents who have to deal with the onslaught of questions and premature education that follows (or lack of and misguided children who obtain answers in all the wrong places).
Moshe Teitelbaum
