From the US edition of the Yated: When "Orthodox" is really “Kosher-Style” Reform

An important article published in the American edition of the Yated Ne'eman newspaper. Many of the points raised are more than relevant to our own "Orthodox" bodies.

When "Orthodox" Is Really “Kosher Style” Reform

By Rabbi Avrohom Birnbaum

There comes a time when one is compelled to take a stance. Our sages tell us, “Bemokom she’ein ish, hishtadel lihiyos ish - In a place where there is no man, try to be a man.” When it comes to addressing the increasingly shrill attacks on Judaism, halacha and mesorah by people who call themselves Orthodox rabbis, and the near deafening silence by organizational Jewry, we are left with no option other than to take a stance. We would have preferred that the stance be taken by publications affiliated with the Orthodox Union, RIETS, the RCA or Young Israel. Unfortunately, that has not been done…yet.

THE PRIMACY OF LANGUAGE

Let us begin by talking about language. Language is important. Very important. If one uses a word or idea and continuously hammers away promoting that word or idea, that language and its associated meaning become mainstream and shape the narrative. A few examples:

Occupation. The Palestinians have used this word ad nauseam to describe the Israeli presence in Yerushalayim and Yehudah v’Shomron, Judea and Samaria. The Israelis are “occupiers” - a terrible connotation. Menachem Begin would say, “We are redeemers, not occupiers.” Nevertheless, the use of the word “occupation” has been so successful that even right-wing Israeli politicians use it today.

  Speaking about Yehudah and Shomron, the “West Bank” is another example of how language can transform Yehudah and Shomron, an undisputed piece of Biblical Eretz Yisroel, into just the west bank of the Jordan River.

 Then there is the word “terrorist.” For some reason, when it comes to terrorism against Israel, the perpetrators are no longer “terrorists,” but “gunmen” or even “freedom fighters.”

“We can’t be judgmental,” say the New York Times and the mainstream world press, “can we?” Perhaps the Israelis are the terrorists and the Palestinians are “freedom fighters,” they connote. These terms, however, infiltrate, and if they are used enough, they become the mainstream narrative.

“Pro-choice” is another. Pro-choice really means pro-abortion, or pro killing unborn children. “Choice” makes it sound so benign, like the waiter asking if you would like chicken or meat. But that, too, has gone mainstream. Once the media adopts the language of one side, it inevitably becomes the default language, for better or for worse. Today, the term “pro-choice” has been adopted by virtually everyone. It is a term that, at its core, legitimizes the snuffing out of unborn life.

THE HIJACKING OF THE WORD “ORTHODOX”

Language is very important, words are important, and that is why the abuse and misuse of the word “Orthodoxy” when describing Jewish affiliation must be analyzed and challenged.

 Over the last few years, a group of clergymen who call themselves Orthodox rabbis have begun engaging in a headlong dash to introduce Reform innovations and label them “Orthodox.” They insist on calling themselves Orthodox rabbis and classifying their behavior and innovations as “Orthodox” or “Open Orthodox.” They are using - nay, abusing - language to deceitfully try bringing Reform Judaism into their synagogues, many of them affiliated with the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) under the guise of Orthodox. They are co-opting language, lying and calling themselves Orthodox in order to slip under the radar and introduce Reform anti-Torah, anti-halacha innovations into Orthodoxy.

 It is high time we started using language correctly to unequivocally declare that these clergymen are Reform rabbis and unveil their insidious sneaking of Reform practice into Orthodox synagogues by having the audacity and moral turpitude to call it Orthodox. 

It’s time to label “Open Orthodoxy, “Yeshiva Chovevei Torah,” “Morethodoxy” and “International Rabbinic Fellowship (IRF),” et al, as Reform organizations. Yes, they are Reform organizations. No, they are not (yet) affiliated with Hebrew Union College, but their behavior, their innovations, and their own stated aims are exactly those of the Reformers of old.

 It is precisely because language is important that these organizations and their rabbis should be called what they are: “Reform” organizations, “Reform Rabbis” and “Rabbahs.” This writer will henceforth call them what they are and we hope that other publications who value halachic Judaism will do the same.

 REFORM PRACTICES UNDER THE GUISE OF ORTHODOXY

 Let us now give a quick refresher course on just a sampling of their latest excesses, which are completely consistent with bygone Reform innovations:

TAMPERING WITH THE SIDDUR:

 One of the things that characterized early Reformers was their discomfort with the siddur. They felt that it was backwards, antiquated, and not in keeping with the “enlightened” times in which they lived. They therefore decided to cut out and change sections that they felt did not belong in a “progressive” age.

Last month, a clergyman named Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky advocated removing the brochoh of “Shelo asani ishah.” Rabbi Kanefsky decided that the brochoh takes away from a “woman’s dignity.” He is obviously far more cognizant of what dignity is than our holy sages of the Gemara who instituted this blessing. His halachic rationale would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic. He writes, “Simply for lack of male reproductive organs, otherwise qualified women are still barred from the rabbinate, and from many positions of communal leadership. She can be a judge, but not a dayan. A brain surgeon, but not a posek. And often she must content herself with davening in a cage in shul, from where her desire to say Kaddish for a parent may or may not be tolerated. This is no way to run a religion that claims wisdom as its inheritance…”

 Is this the laughable halachic rationale that a rabbi who purportedly represents the “People of the Book” puts forth? It looks more like a political stump speech. Is Kanefsky a rabbi or a politician?

 ASSAULTING LAWS MANDATED BY THE TORAH:

Let’s analyze another Reform nugget from Kanefsky’s diatribe: “She can be a judge, but not a dayan… This is no way to run a religion that claims wisdom as its inheritance…”

As my esteemed colleague, I. Schwartz, pointed out in his Yated article some weeks ago, “Kanefsky assaults halacha, treating dinim de’Oraisa (such as women not serving on a bais din) as if they were capriciously invented by some hateful and prejudiced rabbis, scathingly reprimanding the halacha: ‘This is no way to run a religion.’” Is criticizing a halacha derived from a gezeiras hakosuv and suggesting we do away with it not Reform practice?

 Later, Rabbi Kanefsky pulled his article off the internet and wrote the same thing in language that he thought would be a bit more palatable to people not as “enlightened” as he.

LEGITIMIZING CONDUCT THAT THE TORAH LABELS TOEIVAH

Rabbis affiliated with “Open Orthodoxy” have written and released “A Statement of Principles” seeking to legitimize and neutralize the aversion to acts that the Torah calls “toeivah.” Rabbi Hyim Shafner, a clergyman who claims to be Orthodox, wrote on the Morethodoxy website that “the engagement of a couple involved in toeivah should be celebrated at the Kiddush in shul with a cake that says mazal tov.”

I kid you not. This was written by a rabbi who calls himself Orthodox.

 I ask my dear readers and anyone seeking to minimize the attack on Hashem and His Torah that Open Orthodoxy represents: Is this cavalier discarding of p’sukim in the Torah, discarding “outdated” p’sukim to conform with the “enlightened” view of this issue, not Reform Judaism? Surely, it is. Are these rabbis who advocate such aberrations not Reform rabbis? Surely, they are, regardless of what they call themselves.

 Language is important and we cannot let Reform rabbis hijack the name Orthodox in an attempt to spread their malignant disease. We have allowed their reprehensible conduct, their lies and their obfuscation to metastasize for far too long.

Space constraints prevent us from outlining other Reform practices that they have instituted, such as the ordination of women rabbis, tampering with the chupah ceremonyby allowing the kesubah to be read by women, and interfaith rituals. Perhaps worst of all, the IRF has made a mockery of the laws of geirus, not even requiring kabbolas ol mitzvos, the acceptance of mitzvos, as a prerequisite for conversion. And the list goes on.

“KOSHER STYLE” TARFUS

They have been very clear about their objectives. Just as Reform proposed changes in the most sacred of matters, halachos and practice to conform with what was then in vogue, so are Open Orthodoxy and the others trying to take Judaism and make it conform with the left-wing liberal ideals in vogue today.

 The insistence by Open Orthodoxy, Morethodoxy, IRF and others to call themselves Orthodox is an insidious campaign of obfuscation of their goals to deceive unwitting Jews into believing that you can call yourself an Orthodox Jew while conducting your life like a Reform Jew.

 The only difference between them and Reform is that they insist that their brand of Reform should be “kosher style” Reform. We have all seen those delicatessens labeled “kosher style.” They sell a mean corned beef on Jewish rye sandwich, delicious kosher style pickles, a piece of kishka reminiscent of the kishka your grandmother could have made, but it is all treif. Glatt treif.

 Open Orthodoxy is Reform Judaism for those wanting a certain comfort level with Orthodox ritual and some aspects of Orthodox practice, but just as those delis are glatt treif, so is Open Orthodoxy. In this sense, they are worse than conventional Reform. Just as unwitting Jews may mistakenly patronize kosher style delis, look at the menu, and assume it is kosher when it is actually treif - after all, who would sell kishka if not a kosher place? - so too, unwitting, often innocent Jews who don’t know any better are being ensnared in the trap laid before them by the Reform purveyors of Open Orthodoxy.

 THE TIME HAS COME…

In 1956, a famous p’sak halacha was released by many of the great roshei yeshiva of that era, prohibiting collaboration of any sort with Reform and Conservative clergy. I have absolutely no doubt that if they were alive today, the roshei yeshiva would treat Open Orthodoxy and all of its mutations with the same stringency.

 As I. Schwartz pointed out a few weeks ago in these pages, Open Orthodoxy has given us ample proof of where they stand. They have repeatedly shown that they have no fidelity to halacha, no fidelity to the words of Chazal, and no fidelity even to p’sukim in the Torah itself.

The only weltanschauung to which they seem to have deference is the liberal value system in vogue in university campuses and certain corners of the media and intelligentsia.

 It is finally time to take a stand. Organizational Orthodoxy must take a stand. Anyone who holds dear the word of Hashem, the Torah, and the Shulchan Aruch cannot afford to sit on the sidelines.

 The holy Chofetz Chaim writes (laws of loshon ho’ra, 8:5), “It is permitted, and even a mitzvah, to speak loshon ho’ra about an apikores.” The Chofetz Chaim defines apikores as someone “who denies the Torah or the prophecies of Yisroel, either the written Torah or the Oral Torah, even if he says that he believes in the entire Torah except for one verse or one law which is derived from the Torah through the principles transmitted at Sinai.”

 As outlined above and in the article by I. Schwartz, the Reform rabbis who are purveyors of Open Orthodoxy have shown time and time again that they wholly conform to the Chofetz Chaim’s definition of apikores.

It is time for organized Orthodoxy to take a stand. It is time for Agudas Yisroel, Young Israel, the Rabbinical Council of America, the Orthodox Union, and the leadership of RIETS to publicly ostracize Open Orthodoxy and declare it beyond the pale of Orthodoxy.

 The Gemara (Shabbos 54) states that he who is able to protest and doesn’t is himself culpable in that transgression. The Gemara (Gittin 55) teaches us that when rabbonim do not protest, it is even a greater transgression: “From the fact that the rabbonim kept quiet, it shows that they agree.”

 As we approach Rosh Hashanah, the Yom Hadin, we must all conduct a din vecheshbon, a self accounting. Will we and the organizations with which we are affiliated be able to say, “We did our part in stopping an organization that is attacking our holy Torah and our holy Mesorah”?

And a vintage cartoon depicting the products of the JTS seminary (from the "On the Main Line" blog:

 

AJN again kicks Shabbat in the guts



Though rarely surprised at anything that the AJN does, readers who cherish their religion and its traditions were sickened and disgusted by the paper featuring the AJAX Chilul Shabbat team on their front page. Adding to the insult, this was done only a few days off from Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, when even Jews who have little to do with Judaism all year, come to Shul and pray for health and prosperity.

Obviously this publication has absolutely no Jewish values at all.

And the same goes for Michael Burd, who is a regular in the letter pages of the AJN as well as the Age, defending Israel from its enemies and critics. One had expected that he would be the last person to praise the trampling of Shabbat and the Torah. Such blatant desecration of one of the major tenets of our faith gives you "inspiration"!?

Shame on all of you; Ajax, AJN and Burd!

As for the following advertisement in the Sydney edition by Harvey Norman, we seriously wonder, which moron advised them to invite the Jewish community to join them for a Saturday-only "re-opening fun day"?

Shouldn't someone explain to Harvey Norman that just because the Jewish News insults the sensibilities of observant Jews, it doesn't mean that they too should do so?

How do you spell Aria in Hebrew?

Received from Sarah H.
I noticed this announcement in the AJN and wondered about the Hebrew spelling of Aria. אריה after all is a boy's name!

(For more on interesting names see here.)

Tzetz, Shmetz - abi gezunt!

From Yankel B.

"Interesting to see how none of the 3 clergymen featured in the ad nor anyone on the staff of the AJN noticed the incorrect spelling in the Hebrew version of עץ חיים.

Ameratzus reigns..."

Sure does. Reminds us of  "Temple Nit Yisrael"

The Pishers present.....

How 'progressive' of them...

What's going on here? - 2

Family issues...? (Strangely, the AJN overlooked to mention the fact that Rabbi Moshe G. happens to be Rabbi Yossi Feldman's uncle.)

What made Rabbi Moshe Gutnick resign from the RCNSW? Staying there as a member shouldn't block his ORA aspirations?

And what about last week's flurry of 'media releases' re the Feldman v. AJN spat? Did the AJN apologise or not?

We offer our readers both versions. Hopefully they can make more sense of this than we could.

VERSION # 1

AJN apologises and Rabbi Yosef Feldman resumes RCNSW Presidency

In a stunning about-face, the Australian Jewish News publicly apologised today regarding a recent controversial story that called for Rabbi Yosef Feldman's resignation from a senior rabbinic position.

On 29 July 2011, the AJN ran a front page story about Rabbi Yosef Feldman entitled "Top Rabbi Must Quit". In a related Article and Editorial, reference was made to a leaked internal email discussion amongst Rabbis in which Rabbi Yosef Feldman put forward certain views in relation to the reporting of child abuse allegations to the Authorities. The AJN interpreted those views in a negative light, berating Rabbi Feldman for suggesting them and calling for his resignation as President of the Rabbinical Council of NSW.

In today's edition, the AJN admits that since the publication of their first article many Rabbis "have since contacted us to confirm they regarded the comments as Halachic conjecture in the context of an academic debate" and in a Statement from the Executive of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, also published in today's edition, the Rabbis go further and assert that "The Executive Members of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, alongside many rabbis across Australia, are of the opinion that the views propounded in those emails were simply conjecture within the context of Halachic discussion and did not necessarily reflect Rabbi Yosef Feldman's personal opinion on those matters." The Rabbis express dismay at the AJN's "interpreting in an unflattering way selected quotes from those emails."

In today's lengthy article, authored by AJN National Editor Zeddy Lawrence, the newspaper refers to its original negative coverage and says that "we recognise and fully appreciate that there are those who felt we could have been less forthright and more sensitive in the way we covered it, and we apologise for any unnecessary distress caused."

"Newspapers are perceived as ignoring ethical and sometimes legal boundaries, in their quest to enthral readers and boost sales. It would be churlish of those of us in the industry to ignore that sentiment. Likewise, it would be churlish of The AJN in particular to turn a blind eye to the feelings of many members of the community about the manner in which we handled the story regarding Rabbi Yosef Feldman."

"In this instance, if there are those who feel we have been sensationalist, then we must take that lesson on board as we move forwards."

The newspaper compares Rabbi Feldman to respected Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth Lord Jonathan Sacks, concluding that "we wish Rabbi Feldman well in all his endeavours and look forward to reporting on his positive impact on the community in the months and years ahead."

As a result of the AJN's initial onslaught, Rabbi Feldman had stepped aside temporarily from his role as President of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, in order to clear his name. In today's Statement, the RCNSW Executive informs the community that he has resumed the Presidency, saying that "The RCNSW looks forward to the contribution that Rabbi Yosef Feldman will continue to make together with his Executive in his role as RCNSW President, which he has now resumed."

"It is a fact of human nature that 'sorry' is one of the hardest words to say. Bearing this in mind we warmly welcome the AJN's willingness to acknowledge that their coverage may have been sensational, as well as their apology for the unnecessary distress caused. In particular we laud its undertaking to thoroughly review the way matters of this nature are reported in the future as well as the acknowledgement of its Editor regarding the fine character of Rabbi Yosef Feldman and the significant contribution that he has made to the community."
 
Also published in today's AJN is a Letter to the Community by Rabbi Yosef Feldman in which he states that "I unreservedly and emphatically condemn all forms of abuse, particularly child abuse. Perpetrators must be brought to justice in the Australian legal system, and I condemn the suggestion that paedophiles deserve protection from that legal system. I believe, as asserted by the major Australian Beth Dins and reported in the AJN, that all credible allegations of abuse should immediately be reported to, and dealt with, by the appropriate Government Authorities."

Rabbi Feldman continues that "I believe that I was seriously misrepresented in material that was recently published by the AJN", nevertheless he concludes his Letter wishing the AJN well and thanking his "colleagues on the RCNSW Executive as well as many Rabbis in NSW and across Australia for their unstinting support in recent times."

"I am hopeful that we can all move forward in unity for the benefit of our community."

VERSION # 2

JOINT PRESS RELEASE BY THE AJN AND RABBI YOSEF FELDMAN

 AJN and top rabbi look ahead to a peaceful new year

The Australian Jewish News and Rabbi Yosef Feldman, President of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, have this week come to a peaceful agreement in relation to the publication of remarks made by him on the subject of child abuse.

On 29 July 2011, the AJN ran a front page story about Rabbi Yosef Feldman entitled “Top Rabbi Must Quit”. In a related article and editorial, reference was made to a leaked internal email discussion amongst Rabbis in which Rabbi Yosef Feldman put forward certain suggestive views in relation to the reporting of child abuse allegations to the authorities.

The AJN today acknowledged that its coverage may have been considered sensational and apologised for any unnecessary distress this caused.

 Rabbi Yosef Feldman acknowledged that while the reporter Joshua Levi did not misquote him in the article, he believes that the context of the email discussion was not clarified. However, he acknowledges that the views he expressed could have been misunderstood. He apologises for any distress caused to the community as a result.

 In today’s edition of the newspaper, the AJN admits that since the publication of their first article, many rabbis “have since contacted us to confirm they regarded [Rabbi Yosef Feldman’s] comments as halachic conjecture in the context of an academic debate”.

 In a Statement from the Executive of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, also published in today’s edition, the Rabbis go further and assert that “The Executive Members of the Rabbinical Council of NSW, alongside many rabbis across Australia, are of the opinion that the views propounded in those emails were simply conjecture within the context of Halachic discussion and did not necessarily reflect Rabbi Yosef Feldman’s personal opinion on those matters.”

 In today’s lengthy article, authored by AJN National Editor Zeddy Lawrence, the newspaper refers to its original coverage and says that “we recognise and fully appreciate that there are those who felt we could have been less forthright and more sensitive in the way we covered it, and we apologise for any unnecessary distress caused.”

 “In this instance, if there are those who feel we have been sensationalist, then we must take that lesson on board as we move forwards.”

 For his part, Rabbi Feldman stated in today’s edition, “I do acknowledge that things I wrote in emails to rabbinic colleagues could have been taken out of context and indeed misunderstood.”

 He went on to “apologise to my rabbinic colleagues as well as to the Jewish community as a whole for any embarrassment caused to them by the publication of material based on my emails”.

 He added: “I unreservedly and emphatically condemn all forms of abuse, particularly child abuse. Perpetrators must be brought to justice in the Australian legal system, and I condemn the suggestion that paedophiles deserve protection from that legal system. I believe, as asserted by the major Australian Beth Dins and reported in The AJN, that all credible allegations of abuse should immediately be reported to, and dealt with, by the appropriate Government Authorities.”

Comparing Rabbi Feldman’s contribution to the community with that of Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth Lord Jonathan Sacks,  The AJN concludes that “we wish Rabbi Feldman well in all his endeavours and look forward to reporting on his positive impact on the community in the months and years ahead.”

 As a result of The AJN’s initial article, Rabbi Feldman had stepped aside temporarily from his role as President of the Rabbinical Council of NSW in order to clear his name. In today’s statement, the RCNSW Executive informs the community that he has resumed the Presidency, saying that “The RCNSW looks forward to the contribution that Rabbi Yosef Feldman will continue to make together with his Executive in his role as RCNSW President, which he has now resumed.”

“It is a fact of human nature that ‘sorry’ is one of the hardest words to say. Bearing this in mind we warmly welcome the AJN’s willingness to acknowledge that their coverage may have been sensational, as well as their apology for the unnecessary distress caused. In particular we laud its undertaking to thoroughly review the way matters of this nature are reported in the future as well as the acknowledgement of its Editor regarding the fine character of Rabbi Yosef Feldman and the significant contribution that he has made to the community.”

 Rabbi Feldman concludes his Letter wishing the AJN well and thanking his “colleagues on the RCNSW Executive as well as many Rabbis in NSW and across Australia for their unstinting support in recent times.”

 “I am hopeful that we can all move forward in unity for the benefit of our community.”

 This Press Release has been approved by both parties. Please disregard a previous version which had not yet received the approval of all parties involved.

Footnote: If Rabbi Yosef Feldman is the "Top Rabbi" what does that make his father, Rabbi Pinchus Feldman?

Here is the article by Zeddy Lawrence. Though not quite sure if he is really comparing "Top Rabbi" Feldman with "Chief Rabbi" Sacks...

Reflections on our role as Reporters
By Zeddy Lawrence, National Editor of the AJN

IN recent days, my mind has drifted back to 2002 and the furore that surrounded the publication of The Dignity of Difference by the Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth, Lord Jonathan Sacks.

Accused by ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Manchester of heresy for implying that Judaism did not have a monopoly on spiritual truth, Chief Rabbi Sacks eventually admitted some of his statements had been open to misinterpretation and may not have accurately conveyed his personal feelings on the matter. As well as rewriting the controversial passages in the book, he issued a statement saying “The problem lies in the use I make of words.”

It was not the first time the chief had cause to regret his terminology. A few weeks earlier he had been lambasted for claiming in an interview that events in Israel sometimes made him feel “uncomfortable as a Jew” and that Israel was forced into postures “incompatible …with our deepest ideals”.

For all the flak he received - and boy was there flak! - the chief was and is still held in the highest esteem, and it is a tribute to the man, rather than his ‘problematical words’ that he invariably pops up in almost every top 10 list of Britain’s most influential and respected public figures.

And so to the present day and the furore that greeted Rabbi Feldman’s comments on the matter of child abuse, as reported in The AJN. ‘Problematical words’ indeed. Taken from an email exchange with fellow rabbis, many of his peers have since contacted us to confirm they regarded the comments as halachic conjecture in the context of an academic debate.

Others in the community, however, read them another way and were understandably dismayed by the opinions expressed.

Which is where The AJN came in.

It is interesting to note the praise heaped on the paper when, in campaigning spirit, it lobbies for Gilad Shalit, it exposes anti-Zionist politicians or it forces online bookshops to remove anti-Semitic books from sale on their virtual shelves. Just last week, a Perth-based ticketing agency removed the option “Occupied Palestinian territories” from its drop-down address menu for overseas subscribers after The AJN alerted them to its presence.

As proud inheritors of the title ‘The Fourth Estate’, nothing fills journalists or newspapers with greater pride than effecting a change in society on behalf of its readers.

But turn that same campaigning zeal within the community and for those caught up in the spotlight, the paper goes from hero to zero.

As a newspaper, we have a duty to represent our readers and take up the baton on their behalf when they feel a grievance towards individuals or institutions that they sense are not acting in their best interests. Likewise, we have a duty to inform our readers of any perceived failings that their leaders may have. As a newspaper and as a journalists, it is our tradition to take a stand.

However, as a newspaper serving a specific community, we face additional responsibilities. One is to promote a sense of unity and pride within that community and in our communal institutions, another is to endeavour to best represent that community to the outside world.

Inevitably, these obligations will occasionally come into conflict, and when these circumstances arise we have to make tough decisions as to what side of this narrow editorial tightrope we should fall on.

Some will welcome our decision and applaud us for our strident stance. Others will feel we have overstepped the mark and condemn us for sensationalism.

We are not the first, nor will we be the last newspaper to stand accused of this charge. Indeed, in the wake of the allegations that have struck at the heart of the Murdoch media empire in recent weeks, the entire media industry is feeling the heat.

True or not in the current climate, newspapers are perceived as ignoring ethical and sometimes legal boundaries, in their quest to enthral readers and boost sales.

It would be churlish of those of us in the industry to ignore that sentiment. Likewise, it would be churlish of The AJN in particular to turn a blind eye to the feelings of many members of the community about the manner in which we handled the story regarding Rabbi Yosef Feldman. While we stand by the content of the story, we recognise and fully appreciate that there are those who felt we could have been less forthright and more sensitive in the way we covered it, and we apologise for any unnecessary distress caused.

With Rosh Hashanah fast approaching, it is timely for us all to take stock of our actions over the past few months. The AJN is no exception. Drawing on our experiences, we must consider our shortcomings, and resolve to do better, in the year ahead. In this instance, if there are those who feel we have been sensationalist, then we must take that lesson on board as we move forwards.

For a newspaper, as for rabbis, it is not always easy being all things to all people. But we do our best, just as they do their best.

Whatever was written in our story does nothing to detract from the tremendous contribution both Rabbi Yosef Feldman and his family have made to our community, or the esteem in which he and they are held.

And as with Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, it is Rabbi Feldman’s deeds and purpose that are ultimately the mark of the man, rather than some ill-chosen words.

That being the case, we wish Rabbi Feldman well in all his endeavours and look forward to reporting on his positive impact on the community in the months and years ahead.

Finally, we feel that had Rabbi Feldman continued with his threatened legal action against the AJN, it would have done far more towards ensuring that the newspaper rein in the types of attacks and reporting that it dished out both to him and to Adelaide's Rabbi Engel.

Pity that. Additionally, a temporary reduction (or better still a total halt to) Chabad advertising Australia-wide, would have taught them an important lesson on respecting readers and advertisers.