By Michael BenEzra
Having read Jeremy Rappaport’s Viewpoint about how “Religious clubs should lighten up,” there are a few comments I’d like to address, and a few questions I’d like to answer so that I might clear up any misconceptions offered by the author to the reader. Before I do, I’d like to clarify that I am not speaking on behalf of Hillel, Chabad, or any other organization or individual. I am speaking on my own behalf.
First of all, I don’t know how many conservative Jews would appreciate being described as being “between Jews for Jesus and Matisyahu.” Seems to me it was a humorous way to describe to non-Jewish students what being a conservative Jew means. I’m not bothered by this so much as a conservative Jew might be. However, I am bothered by the disrespect shown to the Rabbis on this campus, and the members of the mentioned Jewish organizations who take part in publicizing their events.
The argument made is that “[Jewish organizations on our campus] have turned Judaism into a product.” Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I find this to be a gross misrepresentation of the motives and intentions of everyone involved in the Jewish organizations on campus. Every organization on this campus has tables, flyers, sign-up sheets, and people to spread the word about joining the organization, or being part of an event. The notion that anyone is “recruiting as many buyers as possible to reach some sort of quota” is really unfair to every club-but to single out the Rabbis into a context of “marketing religion”? Asking people to be part of a celebration as a community is perfectly reasonable, and has nothing to do with quotas. Don’t the conventions of basic human interaction suggest that “the more the merrier”? It’s not as if the Rabbis make some sort of a commission off of a person saying a prayer that takes no more than 30 seconds out of his or her day. A Rabbi doesn’t get a promotion based on how many people he can get to show up to religious services. The language of marketing and pressure is used to compare Judaism to Cutco, and in turn, to suggest that the Rabbis are victimizing students (which I’ll get to in just a moment). As a Cutco salesman, I certainly don’t appreciate being made the embodiment of arm-twisting, force-feeding victimization. While I don’t speak on behalf of anyone else, I would be willing to bet the Rabbis of Hofstra don’t appreciate it either.
A situation is described involving the holiday of Sukkot, and the sukkah-mobile. The assertion is made: “Rabbi Lieberman felt it was ethical to walk back and forth from there to the clock, carrying a lulav branch and an etrog, looking for victims.” Victims? Really? The Rabbi does nothing more than give a Jewish student the opportunity to take part in a religious observance, reciting a quick blessing for the holiday, but he’s described as looking for victims? Rappaport says something about “his sales pitch.” I don’t know what he thinks the Rabbi is selling, but if it truly bothers him that much, all he has to do is say “no” and walk away.
“Rabbi Lieberman dragged me into the sukkah, pressured me to say some blessings and eat some pastries.” No, he didn’t. No Rabbi on this campus has ever forced anybody to do anything. No student has ever had a non-kosher food item taken away from them so that they might be forced to keep kosher. No student has ever been thrown into the back of a van, blindfolded, and dropped off at the Rabbi’s house for Friday night services. Rabbi Lieberman has never “dragged” anyone anywhere to do anything. As for being pressured to say blessings, the notion is ridiculous. If you couldn’t bring yourself to simply say no, there is nothing stopping you from walking away. Further, the Rabbi is accused of judging the guy. “I felt ashamed after this incident, knowing I had been forced into practicing my own religion and basically looked down upon by an Orthodox follower, who most likely thought I wasn’t pious enough.” I repeat: nobody forced him to do anything. If there’s anything to be ashamed of, it’s accusing a man who provides Jewish students an opportunity to celebrate their holiday of looking down on you for not doing so. For this, I believe Rabbi Lieberman is owed an apology.
If the Rabbi hasn’t been insulted enough, his wife and children are brought into this, as if they were a ploy to inspire guilt in the hearts and minds of students so that they shouldn’t say no. “How is one to say no?” Rappaport asks. It’s simple enough. Just say no. I’ve done it a few times myself, and never once has it resulted in the man looking like a failure in the eyes of his family.
Let’s take a look at the incident between Rabbi Katz and Jeremy Rappaport where Katz asks Jeremy if he’d like to attend a basketball game between the Knicks and the Tel Aviv Maccabi Elite. Rappaport admits to saying that “he wasn’t sure,” a response that not only permits, but basically demands a follow up question, perhaps an incentive to become sure, or the chance to attend a different function altogether. He could have ended the whole conversation by saying “I don’t want to go.” What does he do instead? He lies to the Rabbi. Paragraphs earlier he was questioning how ethical it was for a Rabbi to give Jews the opportunity to say a blessing, and now he’s brazenly admitting to lying as if it’s justified, and worse, as if it’s the only way to get the Rabbi off of his back.
After describing the situation, Rappaport says “I don’t believe there is one Jewish student at the University who would find these behaviors ethical.” The only one whose behavior I find unethical is Rappaport’s behavior. I have spoken to Jewish students and non-Jewish students alike who find nothing wrong on Rabbi Katz’s behalf. He goes on to say “Our chapters of Hillel and Chabad have taken something as sacred as religion, and have turned it into the timeshare industry!” A wildly unfair accusation directed at not just the Rabbis (Rabbi Katz isn’t affiliated with Hillel or Chabadedi, by the way), but at every member, staff and student alike, of these organizations. It bewilders me how after admitting to lying to a Rabbi, a person can question what the Rabbis are doing to the sanctity of religion. For this, I believe Rabbi Katz, Rabbi Lieberman, Rabbi Mitelman and everyone associated with Hillel and Chabad are owed an apology.
When a person puts his name and number on a piece of paper for any club, it basically says that they’re giving the club permission to do no more than make them aware of the opportunity to take part in an event. Nobody is being forced to do anything, nobody is shoving sign-up sheets in anyone’s face (and a minor detail, Hillel has never had a table on South Campus). Nobody is measuring anyone’s piety according to trips to Israel or political parties, or how many events are attended. Rather than lie to a Rabbi or insult him publicly by way of a newspaper article, you can just say “no.”
I am not doing what I am condemning Rappaport for; I’ve personally confronted him with the article in my hand and expressed to him all I felt he had done wrong. None of the parties who have been insulted in the previous article deserved it, nor should the readers be stuck with such an unfair impression of them in their minds.If religion is so important and sacred, then a Rabbi asking a Jew to say a prayer is not an exercise in victimization, and lying to a religious leader-any religious leader, is unacceptable. What is also unacceptable is unfairly accusing Rabbis of being self righteous and telling them to “shove it.”
Michael BenEzra is a junior marketing student. You may e-mail him at [email protected].