Everyone’s minds and hearts are still with the Kletsky family. How can one absorb such a terrible, brutal and senseless crime commited by another member of our community?
How could G-d let a thing like this happen to a young innocent child?
That is a question that we cannot deign to answer but what be important is to consider not one crazed murderer but the thousands of Jews from Boro Park and beyond who turned out to search for Leiby and the thousands more in hidden corners of the globe quietly shedding tears over their tehillim books.
The story reminds me of a story Rabbi Eliezer Silver witnessed shortly after the concentration camps were liberated in 1945. It seems that there was a Jew who had a pair of tefillin and he made a neat profit charging his fellow survivors to use the tefillin to daven with. “How awful, “said one of the survivors. “A Jew charging his fellow Jews to put on tefillin. “Yes,” said Rav Silver but don’t think of the Jew who is charging, think of the dozens of others who are prepared to pay the price.
And so it should be with us. The Boro Park community showed all of New York City and in fact the entire world the depth of our caring. In a city where murder is commonplace we showed the world that we the Jews still place ultimate value on one Jewish life and that is a Kiddush Hashem of the Highest Order.
We have much reason to be proud.
Meir Zev,
Let me take this opportunity to welcome you to Beyond BT.
You’ve made many points and I’m sure Menachem has counterpoints, but I’m bothered by the fact that the two of you are having a “getting-personal” discussion in the midst of an Achdus post during the Three Weeks.
If either of you or anybody else can suggest ways we can have meaningful discussion with respectful tones, it would be greatly appreciated.
I don’t know the first thing about Mr. Lipkin so my comments, as such, are not about him. For all I know, Mr. Lipkin may be a frum Jew who is a very big tzaddik and also a right wing Republican.
What I do know about him is how he communicates, and it is quite clear to anyone who is old enough to have lived through the turmoil of university life or the streets in the 60s or has engaged in any serious inquiry into Marxism on an academic level that Mr. Lipkin has outed himself as a poster boy for this grand daddy of all left wing tactics:
“All one has to do is call someone a racist, homophobe et al., and then one is absolved from dealing with such person on a substantive level.”
I wrote the above paragraph in my second post, and does it not perfectly describe Mr. Lipkin”s modus operandi?
In two posts Mr. Lipkin has proffered ad hominem attacks across the board in lieu of substance.
He goes from accusing me of racism in his first post to accusing “our community” of having a virulent streak of racism in his second post.
I ask everyone to re-read Mr. Lipkin’s posts very carefully. Is there so much as one attempted statement of fact to back up any of the nasty charges that he tosses around with such abandon?
Mr. Lipkin says that choosing Harlem as my example is racist, but he gives no reason why it should be so.
He makes the charge that “our community” has a virulent streak of racism without troubling himself to back up that with anything in the way of facts. He then says that my choice of locale reinforces his undocumented charge of community wide racism. The how and why of it he conveniently leaves out.
He then again says what I wrote is racist, once again without troubling to insert the word “because” after the word racist.
He then attempted to insulate himself in advance against the possibility of reasoned rebuttal by admonishing me to:
“Please spare your excruciating apologetics.”
You may say what you will about the substance of my first two posts, but would anyone credibly contend that either of them was written in an apologetic tone?
And then we get this winner:
“That your statement is a Chilul Hashem speaks for itself.”
He again omits that all important word “because,” leaving yet one more of his statements to float in the air, untethered to anything substantive by way of facts.
Mr. Lipkin then puts forth a classic that Saul Alinsky would be proud of. After stating, “That your statement is a Chilul Hashem speaks for itself,” he then runs this past us:
“Your protestations just reinforce it.”
Mr. Lipkin here informs us that even though he himself did not make the slightest attempt to back up his empty assertion, “That your statement is a Chilul Hashem speaks for itself,” any attempt that I might make to put some facts on the table in way of rebuttal of this empty charge, becomes by some form of perverse reasoning a reinforcement of his position.
And then comes his parting shot:
“It’s fascinating seeing how certain you are of your assertions when at the outset you admit that “there is no way of proving it!”
Did he say certain? Certain about my assertions?
Mr.Lipkin accuses me of a Chiliul Hashem for stating that (in my opinion) we care more about the tzoris of the Goyim then even the Goyim do.
I then went on to say:
“Now I may be wrong about that, but it most certainly wasn’t a Chillul Hashem to aver such a thing and neither was it racist.”
Query: Does “Now I may be wrong about that” come across as the fruits of blind certainty?
To state that Jews have a higher threshold for rachmones is not racist. It’s Torah. We are taught by Chazal that we are rachmonim the sons of rachmonim. The Gemara also tells us that if a Yid doesn’t have this special quality of mercy that is ascribed to us, he is suspected of not being a Jew!
We are hard wired with this quality and it is encoded on are DNA, so much so that even the Arabs who have inherited a measure of this trait cannot shake it off in spite of their other natural tendencies.
If Mr. Lipkin insists that we live in an egalitarian world in which Jews are the same as everyone else then he does not have the slightest connection to authentic Torah hashkafa.
He also does not give any indication whatsoever that he has a mature understanding of the words that he tosses around like Molotov Cocktails. Every single statement of his points in the other direction.
I can guess where most of the ideas that you have expressed come from, but it would only be a guess, so I won’t speculate. We don’t need two people making baseless accusations. One’s enough.
One thing is certain though. None of what you have said, neither the rant about racism nor the babbling about Chilul Hashem is grounded in the Torah.
You are flying solo.
Why not land, learn what it means to think like a Jew from authentic sources and teachers, and then take your place with the rest of us.
Choosing Harlem as your example was, whether you want to admit it or not, racist. Believe me, I’m no Mr. PC, but our community has a virulent streak of racism and you choice of locale just reinforces that. Maybe YOU aren’t racist, but what you wrote was. Please spare your excruciating apologetics.
That your statement is a Chilul Hashem speaks for itself. Your protestations just reinforce it.
It’s fascinating seeing how certain you are of your assertions when at the outset you admit that “there is no way of proving it”!
I said:
“While there is no way of proving it, I have not the slightest doubt that when two girls go missing in Harlem, more empathy and angst is felt in the Jewish neighborhoods for the missing and their families than in Harlem itself.â€
Menachem Lipkin was not a happy camper, and replied with:
“This awful statement is as much racist as it is a Chilul Hashem.”
The word “racist” in its current usage has been distorted by the Radical Left (I apologize for the redunancy)beyond any conventional meaning.
By inappropriately using this word, you unwittingly advance the part of Leftist agenda that has for decades successfully subverted basic meanings of words so as to use them to bludgeon opponents rather than discuss whatever issue is at hand.
All one has to do is call someone a racist, homophobe et al., and then one is absolved from dealing with such person on a substantive level.
If you give it some thought you will certainly figure out why you were just plain wrong on this. And if not, I will be happy to explain your mistake in excruciating detail.
As far as Chilul Hashem goes, it seems to be the flavor of the month around here. First Mr. Balinsky accuses Jews of being guilty of it because we allegedly only care about ourselves to the exclusion of the goyim, and then Mr.Lipkin accuses me of the same thing for stating that (in my opinion) we care more about the tzoris of the Goyim then even the Goyim do.
Now I may be wrong about that, but it most certainly wasn’t a Chillul Hashem to aver such a thing and neither was it racist.
Whether or not the statement was awful is a matter of opinion, not of fact, so if that’s Mr. Lipkin’s opinion he entitled to it.
“While there is no way of proving it, I have not the slightest doubt that when two girls go missing in Harlem, more empathy and angst is felt in the Jewish neighborhoods for the missing and their families than in Harlem itself.”
This awful statement is as much racist as it is a Chilul Hashem.
Beyond that, I’ve seen countless news segments over the years showing case after case of hundreds of volunteers searching for missing kids in towns all across America.
Yes, the community response for Leiby was wonderful, but the numbers are as much a result of the sociology of a close-knit, densely packed demographic as anything else.
Let’s not tarnish the one silver lining of this horror.
“we should place ultimate value on all life”
That’s what the author meant. She didn’t say “Jewish” to exclude others, she just happened to be talking within the context of the Jewish community. I mean, really…why do people look for ways to be offended?
It’s natural to care more about one’s own kin. Jews, however, are renowned for also helping people in general.
Mr. Balinsky writes:
“Actually this borders on a chilul Hashem of the highest order-we should place ultimate value on all life, irrespective of Jew or not.
Yes, we will mourn members of our community, but when does our sense of superiority blind us to world around us in our own cities where we fail to mourn the loss of other children killed.”
For the benefit of anyone who didn’t notice, the quotation above is a conclusion. Anything in the way of facts that might give rise to such a conclusion is apparently AWOL.
While there is no way of proving it, I have not the slightest doubt that when two girls go missing in Harlem, more empathy and angst is felt in the Jewish neighborhoods for the missing and their families than in Harlem itself.
To insinuate otherwise is canard.
If on one of the the mixed blocks in Boro Park an Italian mother came out of her house shrieking that her nine year old was missing, you can be sure that dozens, if not hundreds of local Jews, including the Shomerim and Hatzaloh would immediately join in the search.
He also stated:
“I am not only asking this of the author of this piece, but myself as well.”
If you have a problem with goyim then deal it. Don’t use it as a brush with which to smear Klal Yisroel.
“Everyone’s minds and hearts are still with the Kletsky family”
There is no question that the Jewish community responded to the kidnapping and horrible murder in a way that the author rightfully admires.
“In a city where murder is commonplace we showed the world that we the Jews still place ultimate value on one Jewish life and that is a Kiddush Hashem of the Highest Order’
Actually this borders on a chilul Hashem of the highest order-we should place ultimate value on all life, irrespective of Jew or not.
Yes, we will mourn members of our community, but when does our sense of superiority blind us to world around us in our own cities where we fail to mourn the loss of other children killed.
I am not only asking this of the author of this piece, but myself as well.