"Unorthodox" Generating Ripples Throughout Orthodoxy.
Deborah Feldman, the ex-Hasidic 25 year old from Airmont, NY is whipping up quite a storm with her new book. It was officially released yesterday, on which day she held a reading event at a local Barnes and Bobles book store. A large crowd showed up for the event and the books sold out quickly (opportunist merchants are selling them "used" on Amazon for almost three times its nominal value).
The book currently holds the #7 rank on Amazon.com
It is is somewhat ironic that the loudest denunciation of her book and personal character emanates NOT from her indigenous Hasidic community but from the more moderately Orthodox. For example, someone who seems to be Yeshivish or Modern Orthodox organized a Facebook group to counter the book launch and "gather the truth" about the claims made in Ms. Feldman's book. Members were urged to show up for the book launch in counter protest.
The Hasidim are a bit oblivious to this; most of them deem her just another dissatisfied rebel from a broken family. The more moderately Orthodox, on the other hand, see her more as a threat to the reputation, morality and viability of their worldview. Today, in a casual conversation with my local Midwood librarian -- who identifies herself as Orthodox, though her hair is exposed and she approves of mixed seating in the interwar Orthodox style -- she expressed disdain at the book, which she sees as bashing and slandering Jews.
Negative feedback also proliferated on Amzaon's book review page, though the predominant opinion was favorable.
Hence, in this opinion article I'd like fend off some of the flak she has taken.
Critique 1: "there's nothing substantive gained; only bitterness" (Amzaon review).
My Repsonse: Of course there's bitterness. It's ipso facto a sad story of someone whose spirit was crushed for so many years, and of her struggle to break loose. Just because it's bitter does not make it hollow and substance-less. There are many highly thought-provoking anecdotes and sentiments. For many people in the mainstream, it's their first and only intimate glimpse into the window of the Hasidic world.
Critique 2: She hails from a troubled family and dysfunctional home (Yiddish: tzebrokhene hoyz).
My Response: I don't see the logical corollary here. So what? Even if it is correct to assume that she would not have left Hasidism and written this book if she had been raised by her own parents like every other "normal" kid, that still doesn't address the substance of the oppressive conditions which she is so furious about. Is the dysfunctionality of her household justification for the brutal evisceration of English novels from the educational system? Is it validation of her husband's treatment of her as a sex object? Does it make it okay to cover up gross improprieties committed in the Hasidic community?
It is true that many of the most vehement rebels stem from families or situations in which they were disadvantaged, rendering fertile ground for grievances to ferment. However, the argument could plausibly be made that it's the blithe contentment among those who do NOT encounter hardship that renders them blind to the problems and injustices committed in the community. A disadvantaged upbringing may actually be a good thing. Regardless, it does not address the substance of the matter; so it's a moot point.
Critique 3: "If she were truly moving on she would not trash her family".
My response: Huey! Every rudimentary student of Psychology knows that to move beyond an abusive experience it is crucial to be able to confront it. Otherwise, debilitating defense mechanisms develop which cause distortions in the mind and body which invariably manifest themselves later in life, especially in times of stress (Freud observed that some people suffered as much as limb paralysis due to mental defensive mechanisms against the conflicts posed by the "ego").
Moreover, she isn't out there to trash her family. She is mostly concerned with telling HER story. Her family, friends and community are collateral damage at worst.
Critique 4: Her book is an insult to Jews (or at least to religious Jews) and it may stir anti-semitism.
My Response: I am so tired of people playing the antisemitic card whenever they get a chance, as if it's a "get out of jail free" card; a panacea for all Jewish problems -- if only the world wouldn't be so prejudiced against us! This book address problems that each and every Jew --who is serious about their own collective welfare physically and spiritually and who is genuinely interested in the long-term viability and relevance of Judaism in the 21st century-- should be tackling. It is a wake-up call that the Ultra-orthodox have gone too far! It's time to reverse the radicalization trend and learn to work WITH the mainstream instead of against it.
Critique 5: The book is "revenge" for an unhappy life.
My response: Ms. Feldman clearly doesn't llike certain of the characters in her life but that is a far cry from vengeance. None of the characters have retained their real names and there is no personal attack against them. They are implicated in the mayhem but they are never the target of her objectives in life. Clearly her overriding goal is to disengage, to break free. It's disillusionment she harbors, not vengeance.
Critique 6: No attention given to spiritual facets of Hasidic practice, such as the menstrual immersion ritual.
My response: The book i NOT didactic. You wouldn't expect a religious doctor teaching hygienic precautions in the mikveh --for exmple-- to also teach their client the spiritual meaning of the mikveh; it's not his department, plain and simple. Her narrative is personal -- that's what makes it so engaging. For spiritual guidance, find youself a book in the spiritual section in the library.
Critique 7: "The Holocaust is punishment for Zionism" is a figment of her imagination.
My Response: She is not telling you her personal belief here; she is representing the official Satmar view. Having grown up in the Satmar community myself and studied the various classic Satmar literaure such as al hageulah veal hatemurah and veyoel moshe, I can vouch for the accuracy of this pronouncement. It is in fact the case that R. Joel Teitelbaum explicitly stated on numerous occasions his firm conviction that the Zionists caused the Holocaust; both by precipitating divine punishment for violating the three oaths and by inciting gentiles against Jews through their political agitation in Europe.
Critique 8: Her claim: Hasidim are driven toward incessant reproduction in an effort to replenish the large number of souls lost in the Holocaust.
My response: This is her personal take on it, it seems, --which she is entitled to-- drawn from her general milieu. It is difficult to pinpoint what exactly leads the Hasidim to such prolific reproductive practices. At this point in the game, I don't personally think that the Holocaust is on anyone's mind any longer; though this was likely more true in the previous generations.
Critique 9: It is easier to leave when someone has already forged the way [referring to Feldman's mom who left the community several years after her birth].
My response: There are no indications from her story that her mom had a palpable influence in her critical developmental years (in adolescence and in married life). Her mom's name was expurgated from the record. She didn't even know why her mom left until much later. While I concede that growing up without parents may have played a role in Ms. Feldman's ultimate estrangement and separation from the community, she wasn't consciously following in the footsteps of her mom.
In fact, her attraction to English literature --which seems to be the single most attributable factor in her transition-- probably had nothing to do with her mom's leaving. It was more in response to an emotional void she felt as a child; absorbing blow after blow from a stern aunt but never wowed by an adoring caretaker, her grandmother being emotionally disengaged.
Critique 10: It's a blatant lie that "there is no boob touching; mine were totally wasted" (in the New York Post interview).
My response: It seems that she is referring to her personal experience mostly, from which she may be hesitantly extrapolating to the rest of Hasidic Jewry.
While I do not agree that it is de rigeur for Hasidim NOT to avail themselves of their wive's boobs for sexual stimulation and gratification, I do thoroughly believe her that in her specific case and --I would add-- in many other ultra-sexually-restrictive families, it is true that men tend to concentrate on the bare necessities in the sexual process without as much foreplay or afterplay as in the American mainstream. This is because the notion is cultivated that sex is a holy act (it is euphemistically commonly referred to as the mitzvah -- the commandment; most Hasidim don't even know the real Yiddish word for it) and to engage in it excessively and frivolously is a a profanity of such a noble act.
Critique 11: It isn't true that people in Hasid-land "ride the front seat without seat belts" (New York Post interview).
My response: Let's not get bogged down here by the specifics. Her point is that there is a general lack of internalization of government safety regulations. It's as if Hasidim obey those regulations merely not to get caught; they don't see them is inherently protective.
I do agree with this assessment and my reasoning is --as she stated in her book-- that Hasidim see God as the ultimate protector. He can (and will?) save passengers from an accident even without the seat belt and if you are in His bad graces the seatbelt won't do you any good.
Critique 12: "No-one ever took me to a doctor".
My reaction: Avoiding a doctor out of principle is definitely NOT practiced commonly in the Hasidic community. In fact, like the rest of the population, Hasidim do not spare any money and effort to secure the best treatment for disease; sometimes in manners or embracing principles that are not so congruous with their overall traditions. I think she was speaking for herself only there.
Critique 13: The chopped penis incident was a suicide; NOT a homicide.
My response: People familiar with the family, know them to have been "farfrumt" (ultra-ultra-religious). The additional fact that the father appeared collected after the incident and according to the Hatzalah member's report had said that he "caught his son masturbating" is highly suggestive that it was a crime of passion. The father, being ultra-religious and viewing masturbation as the gravest possible sin, may have lost it in his rage and sewn his son's penis off with the jigsaw he found nearby after catching him flagrante deilicto. After he realized what he had done; he may have then decided to eliminate any vestiges of his crime by ridding the impotent and permanently crippled son of his life in a coup de grace to his throat. (Keep in mind that being a penis-less individual in a Hasidic community is virtually an inconceivable proposition).
I think that the hush-hush cover-up of this event is indicative that it was not a suicide. They wouldn't have treated a suicide like this; suicides occur relatively often and they are reported -- why shouldn't they be? Obviously, suicide is a diplomatically much-easier-to-bear version of events. Naturally, then --if my assessment is correct-- it would have been concocted and promulgated so as to not attract too much attention to the event.
We don't know exactly what happened. I cannot categorically rule out a suicide but the circumstances clearly converge in the direction of a homicide.
