HasidicNews.com

Compromise is Possible on the Circumcisional Herpes Simplex Dilemma.

An infant recently died after contracting Herpes Simplex in the course of the oral suction performed by the mohel (performer of circumcision) as part of the traditional Jewish circumcision ritual.

In fact, similar deaths have occurred sporadically over the past couple of decades and the NYC Department of Health in 2004 flirted with the idea of banning the practice, which isn't strictly part of the ritual --it appears to be more custom than requirement-- but ultimately decided against it. Instead, after describing the risk and making it clear that many mohelim have found alternative ways to perform the suction, they issued an extremely subtle warning to parents on the city website:

The Health Department recommends that parents ask the mohel several days before the bris if he practices metzitzah b'peh. This will give time to talk to your doctor and consider other options for circumcision.

avoiding a direct plea to parents to resist metzitzah b'peh, which may have been perceived as religious meddling.

Needless to say, the city's suggestions never made any headway in the community. For one, parents are mostly not aware of this website so as to become aware that there is any danger whatsoever in the traditional ritual. In addition, so long as Rabbinic leaders in the community insist that oral suction is absolutely necessary and ought not be abrogated regardless of the possible medical risk, there is no plausible way to effect change. Many community members will more readily heed the advice of a Rabbi than a doctor, even on medical matters, presuming that the Rabbi has spiritual power even over mundane matters such as medical risks.

And so now, upon the additional instance of an infant death due to circumsion-transmitted herpes, there are once again calls to have the state or city outlaw the practice.

But while the black and white options have been explored, the shades of gray unfortunately haven't. The city need not ban the practice in order to eliminate the bulk of the risk and the community need not abandon its tradition.

I recommend that the city or a private entity be established to evaluate and certify ritual circumcisers. The criteria for certification will largely be based on the circumciser's testimony that he has never had any symptoms that would indicate infection with the Herpes virus. Since the infection is often latent and it is difficult if not impossible to detect the virus in a typical blood test, a one-time outbreak of oral herpes symptoms would be the most pragmatic way to determine the presence of the virus.

If community members know that they don't have to be any less frum (properly observant of religious law) in order to avert a major risk factor inherent in the traditional circumcision ritual, then they will very plausibly start demanding from their circumcises that they be "certified".

I do not want to see this certification process made mandatory. Moreover, it would ideally be administered by a Jewish or independent body. This way the community does not feel imposed upon or interfered with. Ultimately this is in the interest of those who practice religious circumcision and so they should be at the forefront of the effort to render their practices safe. And in any case, since herpes virus testing --in the latent stage, at least-- is not possible, we must ultimately resort to the voluntary cooperation, trustworthiness and truthful affirmation of the mohel and the desire of the community to be in compliance.

It is relatively easy to weed out non-compliant circumcisers. Since no given individual is ever expected to become a mohel, those who are not qualified need not be exposed to embarrassment resulting from public knowledge that they are unqualified. Once an individual becomes mohel they will have been made aware of the Herpes Simplex virus symptoms and they will be advised to voluntarily surrender their certificate and "retire" if they believe to be affected, thus preserving their dignity while simultaneously averting unnecessary fatal risk to newborns.

The notion that the community cannot be trusted to police themselves is, in my opinion, incorrect. On the contrary, it can be argued that if the burden is placed exclusively on the community, then there is much greater incentive for diligence and care regarding the matter being regulated since they cannot shift the burden on any external entity.

Devouring the Knish

Unpious.com's lengthy "roundtable" pre-release withering denunciation of Feldman's book has been widely read and debated among both the OTD sector and the fringe community. As noted in some of my previous articles on this topic, Feldman's book has, puzzlingly, emerged as a ligature between a sizable portion in the OTD sector and the fringes of Haredi Judaism.

Many in the OTD world are seeking to distance themselves from Feldman's sentiments by proclaiming themselves to be "post-modernist". THEY, unlike Feldman, have moved on in life and no longer feel resentful toward the community they left behind, while Feldman's book is brimming with anger and bitterness -- they contend. Furthermore, Feldman is lying through her teeth! How do they prove it? Well, let's nitpick it like a legal treatise or a blatt gemara and twist it out of context.

There you have it, Feldman is all lies. Hasidim are happy -- their lifestyle is vindicated. OTD's are happy -- they are much too "sophisticated" to harbor --or to EVER have harbored-- any ill will against their former community.

Now Unpious has adopted a new stratagem. Instead of appearing outright hostile,they recruited "The Knish" guy --one who goes by the nom de guerrere Mordechai Ovitz and is avowedly Modern Orthodox but does not reveal his true identity-- to review the book. In its twisted logic, it seems, a Modern Orthodox (MO) fellow can be trusted with a fair review of Feldman since he doesn't hail from a Hasidic background and thus cannot be accused of peer jealousy or revenge against their ex-community. So let's see what he has to say:

NOTE: Before continuing, please read the Knish's review of Unorthodox on Unpious.com. It is also highly advisable to read the book before passing any judgement, for good or for bad, and before proceeding to behold me devouring he Knish, as follows:

Knish: "Regarding the accuracy of claims made in the book, I’m not qualified to comment."

...and that's exactly what he goes on to do. Not only does this fellow not know what goes on in the Hasidic world, by his own admission. Not only does he go on to do precisely what he isn't qualified to do: comment. But he also passes judgement. "The book is deeply flawed". He "knows" that Feldman's report of a story being told her regarding the Penis-gate murder is inaccurate. He "knows" that there is plenty of affection and compliments being bandied about in Williamsburg.

Knish: "Hella Winston is a fine reporter, but I doubt it taxed her excessively to find out the truth behind the story of the alleged murder."

Are you kidding me? You call this "fine reporting"? You now pretend to know that it's "factually incorrect" that the boy was murdered?

I don't have any doubt either about her investigation not having taxed her excessively. That's because there never was an investigation. This whole story is about an alleged cover up. By definition that means that the community --including officials in the village government who are able to manipulate their county and state overlords to some degree-- is attempting to cover up the true circumstances of the death and proclaim it a suicide when it may have in fact been a homicide. So Winston goes and interviews the family who is alleged to be the murderer and the KJ village spokesman who is alleged to be part of the conspiracy. You call that an investigation?

So she says there is a death certificate. Feldman never said that a death certificate was NEVER issued. As she narrates in the book, when the story was recounted to her on that very same day, the body was reportedly buried without a death certificate having been issued AT THE TIME the story was recounted, in contravention of the law. That's what Winston SHOULD be investigating: WHEN the death certificate was issued and whether state officials are certifying to have examined the body. Instead she conveniently ignores those pivotal questions, and instead shifts the focus onto irrelevant matters such as the way the boy died, which isn't in dispute, and the age of the boy which doesn't matter one bit.

Knish: "The book is also tainted with myths, mistakes, and poor editing. The very first sentence contains a myth about Satmar (that it’s named after Saint Mary; it isn’t)".

Who cares? She is not an investigator or a scholar. The litmus test for acceptable narration in this type of genre is not whether events and facts are true; it's whether they are BELIEVED to be true. The fact of the matter is --and Knish probably agrees with me here-- that in folk etymology, tracing its origin all the way back to Hungary, the town of Satu Mare was believed to be derived from St. Mary. That's where the buck stops. Satmar inherited this etymology and so did Feldman; end of story.

And the bible says that Isaac was so called because he and his wife laughed at God's promise of a son. Does that make the Bible "deeply flawed" when it is discovered that that's not the real etymology of the name, Mr. MO?

Knish: "Her indiscriminate mixing of aberrations with things that are common in Satmar damages the book’s flow and accuracy, even as a memoir. The book is riddled with it: that a Satmar woman would expect to never fly on a plane (pg. 9)". Mr. Knish, I really don't know if you're trying to pull a fast one here on readers who haven't read the book or you sincerely misunderstood it. Let me quote it for you, buddy:

"I know it’s strange for me to enjoy visiting the airport itself, when I know I will never even get on a plane, but I find it thrilling to stand next to my father as he waits for the person he is supposed to pick up... -- Feldman, Deborah. Unorthodox (p. 9). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

She is talking about never getting on the plane on those visits to the airport accompanying her father; not about NEVER IN LIFE getting on a plane. How can you misread this?

Knish: Feldman's lack of sympathy for Chaya and Eli.

Very good point there; she is very subjective in that respect. Ultimately, however, the book does not purport to be balanced. As a memoir, it should be judged on what it purports to do and that is express the sentiment that she harbored while contending with characters that made her life miserable. It is HER perspective that the audience primarily wants to hear; not a full, balanced analysis of the root of the quibbles with her various antagonists.

Knish: "The end of the book makes pretty clear that she claims no loss, and definitely no regret, from what she left behind. But life is rarely that neat, and the Satmar community for all its flaws is more than a conglomeration of horrors".

Why is it so unbelievable that she perceives no loss and no regret? Remember, according to her narrative she was treated as a misfit and nuisance all along -- and she was aware of the stigma that marked her. Why wouldn't a person in such a situation breath a sigh of relief and rejoice without looking back, after leaving such a punitive environment? Satmar indeed isn't a "conglomeration of horrors" for most of its members, but for her --and many others-- it WAS! What's so hard to grasp?

Then when The Knish is done wielding the stick, he transitions to dangling the carrot: snooty apologetics. [I'm paraphrasing here]: "I don't blame Feldman for leaving Judaism altogether; after Satmar brainwashed her that it held a monopoly on Yiddishkeit, she was understandably and pitiably too shallow to see the redemptive aspects of Judaism, e.g. Modern Orthodoxy, what I practice".

Hey Mr. Knish, has it occurred to you the possibility that Feldman is simply not interested in MO? Maybe what she wants is "swimming with dolphins, boating, biking, camping" just like the MO do, PLUS, not practicing Orthodox Judaism altogether? Since when is Orthodoxy the "One and Only Right Way to God", employing an expression of yours? FYI, there are millions of Jews in America --the overwhelming majority in fact-- who swim with the dolphins and boat AND adhere to forms of Judaism not substantially different from what Feldman has now adopted for herself. Why does she have to experiment with MO on her path out of what you admit is a repressive, maladaptive society? Is it because MO happens to be agreeable to YOU? She overlooked MO; so what, it's her right.

Knish: "she shares with many ex-fundamentalists the trait of being too easily impressed. The teachers she meets are all paragons of brilliance..."

I wonder if you have any clue at all of what it's like growing up in Satmar Williamsburg? And this after prefacing with a self-disqualification from commenting on a lifestyle you're not familiar with. I grew up in Satmar and I can testify that given the utter disdain in which secular education is held and its sheer absence from the conscience of Hasidic adherents, she has every reason to be impressed with such a novel phenomenon. In fact, reading her memoir, that's precisely what we expect. If she weren't highly moved by her first encounter with a scholar in her favorite field, literature, her narrative would THEN have been suspect. I too was very impressed the first time I read about evolution, for instance. And his is NOT a bad thing; I am proud of it.

Knish: She refers to her desire to not be Chasidic as a desire to be “normal.” (Pg. 214) “I’m going to be normal, so normal no one will ever know.” On pg. 230 she writes that she doesn’t “own any normal clothing” so she buys jeans. But normal depends on context, and even wearing jeans can be a sign of conformity to a sub-sect (just ask the skinny jeans-wearing hipsters that share her maligned Williamsburg).

Oh Knish, come on, this is the most lame argument ever. You're gonna preach about cultural relativism to someone who grew up in a society where mainstream cultural ideas and icons were not even discussed, let alone considered a valid lifestyle? Feldman's task after leaving such a cloistered society is to enrich her life experiences and exposure to the mainstream, NOT to philosophize how it's possible theoretically to deem the fundamentalist Satmar culture "normative", as opposed to the moderate mainstream.

And just for the record. while I would consider entertaining the notion hat there is more than one norm in out contemporary, heterogeneous and pluralistic society, Satmar is hardly a good example of a viable constituent in the American melange. The Satmar sub-culture is more like a cult that thrives on indoctrination, ignorance and restriction of physical and mental freedom than a valid alternative to mainstream society. Being a member of Satmar is not like deciding to join the hipster community in North Williamsburg or choosing to pursue a Wall Street career and mingle with the 1%. Satmar is not a variation of the normative; it's a world unto itself, a life apart.

Oh Knish, you sure make a scrumptious meal! My favorite: Kasha Knish...

Haredi Aversion to Media Exposure

As proprietor of HasidicNews.com and HasidicWilliamsburgTour.com, I have been contacted by a couple of media entities recently who have asked my help in getting Hasidim in front of a camera. In July 2011 it was a representative of Oprah's Next Chapter seeking an up-close documentation of a Hasidic family; several months later it was the Zig Zag Productions company looking to produce a movie for National Geographic featuring Hasidic life through the lens of a dozen or so small businesses owned and managed by community members.

In both cases, however, my efforts were futile. In the Oprah case, I explained to her rep that it would be very difficult to secure the cooperation of any Hasidic family other than a Lubavitcher. I repeatedly noted that without significant compensation there is virtually no chance that anyone would agree, since the mere exposure to TV is NOT cause celebre; it is, in fact, a likely cause for approbation and would possibly constitute grounds for expulsion of kids from educational institutions. She had difficulty grasping this concept; it seemed that she suspected me of attempting to extort money for a task that should have been easily achievable gratuitously.

After a while and some consultation with a friend, I suggested Abe Karpen, the actor from "I love New York" who quit that movie project after intense pressure from the Williamsburg community where resided. Even after quitting, however, his name was already too tarnished for him to remain in town, prompting a move to Monsey, NY. I thought that perhaps Karpen would agree to the show since he had already tainted his reputation anyway regarding media collaboration; yet he was still staunchly Hasidic. But my suggestion evidently didn't bear any fruit and when I inquired about it later I did not get any response. Ultimatley, it became apparent that Oprah chose to go the classical, tried-and-true Lubavitch route, and her appearances were featured on her OWN TV network in February this year under the title America's Hidden Culture.

But the culture shown on her show isn't quite hidden. Lubavitch is known to crave publicity and its members are very eager to communicate with strangers, Jew and gentile alike about their faith and practices. Lubavitch is in a league unto itself when it comes to the observation and analysis of Hasidism in America. They make an okay second-best choice for a show insistent upon exposing Hasidic family life to the world, but Lubavitch culture was never quite hidden to become exposed. There's nothing surprising or revealing in her show that isn't accessible to any private individual seeking to join a Lubavitch family for a dinner, let alone to a media entity.

That Oprah couldn't get her hands on the real deal --dining with and interviewing a Satmar family from Williamsburg-- is a testament to the highly effective iron curtain that stands between the non-Lubavitch Hasidic sector and the gentile world. Samar and its satellite communities have successfully fostered an environment where no one would contemplate breaching the unwritten rule of not exposing family life to the media.

WHY HAREDIM ARE AVERSE TO THE MEDIA

But why he aversion to media exposure? -- you ask.

There are several explanations to this:

1. Lack of communication facility. The Satmar's --unilke the Lubavichers-- speak Yiddish as their primary language. A typical Satmar man is not capable of expressing himself well in English, let alone elucidating the complex religious rules under which he operates. A TV production company can more easily overlook this drawback since it has more editing leeway before it releases a final show. The Hasid, however, is afraid that the media will select unflattering segments to include in the show where they may have fumbled are expressed themselves inaccurately.
2. Resistance to the subject matter. Satmar's do not want to be asked why they do the things they do. In Traditional forms of Judaism, asking why we must do what God commands us to do is inappropriate. Since we can never truly fathom God's will and instruction, asking questions can only lead to trouble if we resultantly forsake his commandments because we deem them irrelevant. In fact, this is also the reason Satmars are averse to general cultural interaction outside their community. They are trying to avoid any encounter of practices or ideas that will inevitably tempt them and challenge their traditions.
3. There is, in fact, no answer. The Satmars truly don't have an answer to many of the questions they would likely face. For example, the laws of "family purity" were eloquently explained to Oprah in the aforementioned show on both amorous and sociological grounds. This is because the ability to explain religious laws is an inherent component in the Lubavitch jurisprudence. Every "shaliah" (emissary) is trained to explain to non-observant Jews why it is beneficial to adopt a Torah life and this training permeates the Lubavitch culture at large. For Satmar, in contrast, it never occurs to the average adherent to ask themselves why why their women go to the mikveh once a month? They simply take it for granted and have no tolerance to anyone suggesting that life might be better off otherwise.
4. Modesty. Satmars believe that they ought not flaunt their accomplishments to gentiles, lest it incite anti-semitism. The reasoning goes that if a gentile detects something to be envied in the Hasidic community, Hasidim are liable to suffer persecution as the gentile attempts to emulate it or snatch it from them. It's the same idea that underlies women's modesty practices.

DF (Deborah Feldman) Still in the Headlines

The Haredi world is still debating the fallout of the Deborah Feldman book: Unorthodox, which has reached far beyond Feldman's home base in the Haredi-Jewish-saturated Metropolitan New York. Haredim are failry image-conscious; they are aware that the average American looks at them askance, at a loss to make sense of the contradictory signals of integration and isolation Haredim convey in their day-to-day intercourse with strangers.

What many Haredi members are pondering these days while walking down a street in Manhattan is: what does that gentile staring at me think of me now that he's read Feldman's book? Does he think that I never dated my spouse before marriage and so I'm a sucker for being coaxed into an unloving, arranged marriage? Or, how silly must the woman siting across me in the Subway reckon me to be that I put up with all the Mikveh ritual purity rules?

This --no doubt-- is what engenders the gut-level conviction that Feldman is ipso facto trouble. No mater how delicate she approaches the topic of Hasidism in America, it can never reflect positively on them.

But this is largely imagined since most gentiles have not read her book, and those who did, do not necessarily see dogmatic ritual as negative. Watch --for instance-- this video clip in which a "Hasidic apologist" explains to Tyra Banks how beautiful Orthodox Jewish marital laws are. The Audience seems convinced.

It's not the Hasidic sense of inadequacy that has them scurrying for the panic button. There's a far greater existential threat that permeates the entire Haredi community. Everyone is asking: if fire has befallen the cedar tree, what hope is there to the hyssop of wall (Talmudic proverb)? If the very core of Judaism --the bulwark against assimilation, to which overall Jewry has been gravitating persistently ever since the Civil Rights Era-- is rotten, how can we be confident in the long-term viability of more liberal Haredi forms of observance that allow secular professions and extensive interaction with the mainstream?

After scouring the public opinion on DF over the last week, HasidicNews.com has discovered a surprising vacillatory pattern in disposition toward her book and persona, as it plodded its way across the diverse and highly-opinionated spectrum of Haredi Jewry.

Core Hasidic -- those who dwell and work in the core of the Hasidic world, are not educated and have only second-hand knowledge of DF. They say: "nebekh, zi kimt fin a tzebrokhene mishpukhe" (It's a pity; she stems from a broken family). We are lucky no to be in her shoes.

"Enlightened" Hasidic -- those are Hasids who are not content with the narrow feed of information available inside the community. They surreptitiously engage various subversive elements on Facebook and through their Blackberries (Yes, it's the only place in the world where the Blackberry is still "cool"). They "know" the world, but ultimately it's all empty; the Torah life is better. They say: DF is bitter, she had some bad experiences and so she's looking to get even with the family and community that dissed her. I would respect her more if she had left quietly.

YU/ Yeshiva R. Chayyim Berlin -- those are professional, "Torah and Science" folks. They say: I give DF a lot of credit for telling her story without embroiling the community she came from. She does not make her struggle to be free of the Hasidic world, a struggle AGAINST the Hasidic world. Cool! Considering the circumstances, it could have been a lot worse.

OTD but envious (OTDBE?) -- those are Off The Derekh folks, just like DF, but not quite "just" like her. They feel they are just as talented and just as deserving to have been just as successful. But since they're not, it's obvious that DF is just plain wrong. She's just a plain liar, making up her stories in order to sell; capitalistic opportunism at its best. One day THEY will show the world the true and proper way of expressing the OTD sentiment. In the meantime everything DF asserts is fabricated and exaggerated and non-representative of life in the Hasidic world.

OTD/principled -- those are the folks who left Haredi Judaism out of principle and are bona fide educated. They are properly equipped to evaluate a message critically without becoming distracted by irrelevant characteristics of whoever happens to be the author of the message, or similar personal quarrels and as hominems. They judge the book by the level of empathy they feel for the protagonist as she endures trials and ordeals that are very similar to what they themselves experienced on their path out of the Jewish ghetto.