October 7, 2005
Torah Values Remain
Mandell Ganchrow and his supporters need not be concerned that Yeshiva University is any less committed to the values of Torah u-Madda than it has been in the past (“Yeshiva University Catching Flak For Dropping Old Hebrew Slogan,” September 30). On the contrary, the Center for the Jewish Future was established by Y.U. President Richard Joel precisely to bring the message of Torah u-Madda, so elegantly articulated by its former president and current chancellor, Norman Lamm, out into the grassroots of the North American Jewish community and beyond.
The words “Torah u-madda” continue to appear on the seal of the university and, as such, will continue to appear on all the university’s official documents and in public venues as well. The Y.U. flame symbol was created in 2003-2004 as an additional style vehicle to express the ongoing Torah u-Madda mission of the university with the Y, representing the yeshiva, highlighted in the foreground and the flames representing the flames of Torah and madda.
It was never meant to replace the old symbol which continues to be the seal of the university and the fundamental value that animates its very existence.
Rabbi Jacob J. Schacter
Senior Scholar
Center for the Jewish Future
Yeshiva University
New York, N.Y.
What’s all the tzimmes about on the matter of Yeshiva University jettisoning its time-honored slogan “Torah u-Madda” in favor of “Bring Wisdom to Life” — whatever that vapid phrase may mean?
The reality of the Y.U. experience of recent decades is that for many at the core of the university — the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary and the Beth Midrash — the Torah u-Madda ideal lost its resonance long ago. Whatever the reasons for the increased polarization in the Orthodox world — and they are both broad and deep — thl1he question remains about how many in the contemporary Y.U. community take seriously the classic Y.U. notion of “synthesis,” that religious and secular studies enhance and enrich each other.
Jerome Chanes
New York, N.Y.
No Bush Speech Boycott
Although I chose not to attend the “Celebrate the 350th” dinner in Washington to which I was invited and at which President Bush spoke, my decision was not a reflection of any desire on my part to engage in a boycott (“Professors Plan To Boycott Bush Speech,” September 16). I was not involved in any organized protest.
My decision was based solely on my judgment as to how best to utilize my limited time. Given my need to teach, complete work on a manuscript about American Orthodoxy and prepare a public lecture, I felt a trip to the dinner in Washington would take too much time.
The fact that the president was speaking was not for me sufficient incentive to make me change my mind. But I did not intend to make either a political statement or stage a boycott protest by my action.
Samuel Heilman
Distinguished Professor of Sociology
Queens College
City University of New York
New York, N.Y.
Focus on Author’s Issue
The real identity of S.A. Halevy, the pseudonymous author of a column in the Jewish Voice and Opinion, is unimportant (“Anti-disengagement Column Fuels Speculation About Author,” September 30). What is important is that Halevy’s article is not just an “anti-disengagement” column, as the Forward reports, but a tragic, heartfelt cry, from someone who feels betrayed by a loved one.
Halevy’s article was written by one who experienced the expulsion from Gush Katif personally, as I did. My umbilical cord — linking me to the birth of the state in 1948, creating a connection of nurturing and love — was torn asunder by the events of August 15-17, when police, soldiers and anti-personnel equipment arrived in Gush Katif to expel the people and turn the unique and thriving communities to rubble. Certainly this action can be described, as it was by Halevy, as perpetrated by “another oppressor of the Jews.” Halevy is right in almost all his observations about the rabbis, the fund raisers and all those who supported and carried out the expulsion.
As for Halevy’s remarks about the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America being “spineless” when they “chose not to take a position on the disengagement plan,” I am in total agreement with him. We look to our rabbis for guidance and leadership. When they stand on the sidelines silently, permitting the abomination to occur, they are accomplices.
The uprooted Jews were promised compensation for their homes, farms and hothouses. Should the American Jew, who is told to mind his own business and not interfere in Israeli affairs, now be asked to foot the bill for this foul deed? My answer, along with Halevy’s, is a resounding no.
I will give to the individual refugees, and to Honenu, the legal aid organization that defends the hundreds of Jewish minors arrested by the Israeli government because of their “ideology,” but not one penny to the Israeli government, nor to the American mainstream Jewish organizations that supported the expulsion.
Halevy, whoever he or she is, should be applauded for sounding the alarm, rather than suffering attacks for speaking the truth.
Helen Freedman
Executive Director
Americans For a Safe Israel
New York, N.Y.
Promoter of In-marriage
I am not a fanatical foe of intermarriage. What I am is a strong proponent of in-marriage (“Filmmaker Sues Philanthropist Over Documentary,” September 16).
I and my foundation reach out to those who have intermarried with genuine respect and sensitivity, with the hope of connecting interfaith families to our Jewish community. Every program of the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation is open to Jewish and interfaith families.
In 2002, I began an Interfaith Outreach Initiative in our community. Free introduction-to-Judaism classes, fully subsidized conversions to Judaism and free workshops for interfaith families are the cornerstones of my interfaith outreach efforts, which are increasingly acknowledged as paradigms for replication in other communities.
Keeping our children Jewish by enhancing Jewish pride is the mission of the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation. Countless interfaith families in our community have come to understand and value this mission. Jewish and interfaith families are having positive Jewish experiences, participating in fully subsidized teen trips to Israel and free Jewish living and learning programs.
I am pleased to report that our programs, which help keep our children Jewish by encouraging our children to be proud, stay Jewish and marry Jewish, are experiencing record participation by Jewish and interfaith families.
Robert Lappin
Trustee
Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation
Salem, Mass.
Canadian Pluralism
B’nai Brith supports Canada’s system of religious pluralism — a valued tradition in this country — which is far from the zealous multiculturalism to which Kathleen Peratis contemptuously refers in her September 30 opinion column on whether sharia courts should be allowed under Ontario’s 1991 Arbitration Act (“Only Human: When Kabul Came to Canada, and the Rabbis Fought to Make Sharia the Law of the Land”).
As Canada’s foremost Jewish human rights organization, active in this country since 1875, we believe that our unique multicultural model affords each individual the right to voluntarily enter into a faith-based arbitration process. This right of religious freedom is guaranteed in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is a matter of core conviction, and not of blind faith, as Peratis suggests.
Moreover, had Peratis read in full B’nai Brith’s recommendations to the government of Ontario, she might have learned of our insistence that the concerns that the Muslim women have expressed about possible human rights abuses in sharia-based tribunals not only be heard, but that stringent safeguards be established to address these concerns.
Indeed, B’nai Brith made its support for faith-based arbitration conditional on the government’s implementing this long list of safeguards, which would have offered protection to Muslim women and to other vulnerable persons. Since the government has apparently concluded that the sharia-based system is incompatible with Ontario’s human rights standards, we hold that this is insufficient grounds for removing from the Jewish, Christian and other religious communities the rights that they have historically been able to access under the Arbitration Act.
Frank Dimant
Executive Vice-President
B’nai Brith Canada
Toronto, Ontario
I recently wrote two articles challenging the stance of Canada’s organized Jewish community toward sharia and Jewish arbitration, and have made few friends for it. The short-sightedness of the Canadian Jewish leadership is unfortunately displayed in many other instances, but few Canadian Jews take them up on it.
David Ouellette
Editor
Judeoscope Magazine
Montreal, Quebec
A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.
We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.
If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
