Deceased Non-Orthodox Jews Undeserving of Honors?

Click to enlarge.

     This is not a post about Israeli politics. This is a post about decency. The picture included with this post is from a letter from Y. Friedman to the editor of Hamodia, the nearly hundred-year old "daily newspaper for Torah Jewry." This is not a paper that the ultra-orthodox don't take seriously--if you visit neighborhoods like Monsey, New York, you'll see many houses marked with the Hamodia box for home delivery.
     The "About Me" section of Hamodia's website justifies the position in this letter quite clearly. They state that the purpose of their newspaper is "to assist in the critical battle against the strong winds of assimilation that threatened the very foundations of our nation. In this struggle for survival, these Gedolim and others recognized the power of a Torah-true newspaper as the appropriate response to the lure of the spiritual war being waged against the Torah camp by popular youth movements."1 This makes perfect sense for the Haredi audience targeted with its ultra-orthodox-centric "Torah perspective."2 With that understanding in place, it's understandable that this newspaper would not want to bestow any postmortem honors on someone who did not live an orthodox life.
     Let's back up for a second.
     The Hebrew term "zichrono levracha," abbreviated "z"l," means "of blessed memory" and is often used to denote a non-rabbinical figure of good character. Hamodia's use of the term after Ariel Sharon's name prompted reader Y. Friedman to write to the newspaper stating that he/she

was astonished and astounded to see that [Hamodia] honored Sharon with a very undeserving title "z"l" (Zichrono Levracha.) Even though the writer attempts to describe him as a very proud Jew, it seems to be quite irrelevant when the proud one is actually not practicing what he's proud of. Hamodia, being an orthodox paper with Torah values should of [sic] not honored an unorthodox person with this title. 3

     Hamodia's editor agreed with the writer of the letter that it was an "oversight" that a person who was not orthodox was given this honor. I thought about the baalei teshuva (newly religious) readers of Hamodia who might have non-orthodox family and might find Hamodia's stance to be offensive. I thought about the people involved in kiruv who read and support this newspaper. I thought of the potential BT's (baalei teshuva) who might find this article while spending a Shabbos at the house of an orthodox family and be put off by such a statement. Who gave Hamodia's editorial staff the right to decide who is of blessed memory and who is not? Why not err on the side of tactfulness? Why create a further embarrassment (chilul Hashem with your coffee, anyone?) by publicly passing judgement on whether or not someone should be given honors and by retracting honors given? Instead of backing the writer of the original article, the editorial staff apologized and took the stance that non-orthodox Jews do not deserve honors after death. Hamodia could have easily taken the high road and not even printed this letter. Instead, they opted to widen the rift between orthodox and non-orthodox Jews. I am not in favor of deceptive kiruv, but I'm puzzled as to why such a widely read publication would not take the opportunity to bring people closer to Judaism or just leave them alone, but instead play the "us and them" card.  It seems like there may be a bulb out in this light unto nations.


1. Hamodia. About Us. accessed January 25, 2014.
2. ibid.
3. Y. Friedman. Letters to the Editor. Hamodia. January 23, 2014. (note: at the time of publication of this blog, this letter did not appear on the online version of Hamodia. The picture submitted is from the print version only.)

Obscuring Women in Ultra-Orthodox Judaism

(Photos reproduced from ynetnews.com. 1)

     Making its way around the internet is the censored version of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising picture that the Bakehila newspaper recently published. In many ultra-orthodox communities, the blurring or covering the faces of women in pictures is common practice, and may be done in text books, on cereal boxes, in newspapers, and in any place that a female's face is found. Female cartoon faces are also censored. 
     One of the more widely-known occurrences of this type of censorship was in the May 6, 2011 issue of Der Zeitung, a Brooklyn-based Hasidic paper, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason, the director for counter terrorism, were erased from the picture, in conjunction with the newspaper's adherence to their modesty policy.  Apparently, Bakehila employs a similar policy. But these aren't the only newspapers to adhere to such strictures. The widely read Hebrew and English newspaper, Hamodia, billed as "the daily newspaper for Torah Jewry," also refuses to print pictures of women, due to their strict interpretation of the laws of tznius/modesty.

     Most troubling is that the readership of these newspapers are often the very same people who are looking to increase the numbers of ultra-orthodox Jews by supporting and/or engaging in kiruv efforts. Even more troubling is that those who are targeted by kiruv/outreach workers, have little or no knowledge of the actual goings-on  in the ultra-orthodox communities. Instead, the women and girls targeted by outreach workers are told that women are considered to be "on a higher spiritual plane than men," and that "women are closer to God." Sure, a compelling modern narrative has been created in which men and women are equal but have different roles to fulfill in their lives. Men must keep the laws of the Torah, many of which have specific time constraints. Women are not bound by those particular (time-bound) laws, since it is expected that they are also dealing with such things as child birth, child rearing, etc. New recruits to orthodoxy usually understand this. However, there are many laws that women recruits are not aware of until they are already committed to orthodoxy. While women learn fairly soon of the orthodox dress code, it is not advertised that the rules of modesty are so strict that they are often used, along with guilt, in order to control the women of ultra-orthodox communities. The photograph below is of a sign that was posted after the gruesome murder of eight year old Leiby Kletsky. It urges orthodox Jewish women to dress more modestly in order to be protected by God. Appealing to the women's fear that the little boy's fate may have been due to their collective immodesty, community pressure is exerted on them through the use of guilt, fear of God, and fear of losing God's protection. This notice indirectly blames the women for this little boy's murder. It could have been prevented if only the women were more tznius (modestly attired.)

Sign found in Boro Park, Brooklyn. Photo credit: G.G.

     While it is true that more liberal and more modern orthodox communities do treat women well, don't obscure their faces from their publications, and don't blame unfortunate events on a bare collar bone, these are not the communities that are targeting young people with outreach efforts. Most kiruv organizations are Hareidi/ultra-orthodox institutions that regularly adhere to, and teach these rules to their followers. It is ultra-orthodox kiruv organizations and ultra-orthodox rabbis who push these extremes on their new students, and turn out thinkers who regularly diminish women's presence in society.







1. Photo credit: Ynet News: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4361353,00.html