Last week's Ami
Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Last week's Ami
- This topic has 71 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 6 months ago by Shimon Nodel.
December 24, 2012 1:54 am at 1:54 am #607544shmendrickMember
I first sat down with the ‘Ami Living’ section and randomly started reading an article called ‘The Present Prohibition’. Putting it straight, I have never read such a pointless article before. What exactly is the point of the article? To me, the article is summarized as such:
A husband’s chumras caused his wife much grief over a 10 year period to the point that she felt compelled to begin hiding her activities from her husband (‘with a large lump’ in her throat). Is this an article I want my teenage children reading? To me, there are two points they would learn from this article: 1) Being principled and having chumras is a bad thing (causing strife in the family), and 2) It is ok to do things behind a spouse’s back and even lie about it to them.
I put down that section thinking that this article was just written in bad taste and was an exception to the norm. So, I picked up the main section and began reading the editorial from the ‘editor-in-chief’, Rabbi Y. Frankfurter.
In it, Rabbi Frankfurter felt the need (‘for several reasons’) to respond to a reader’s (Rabbi Blesofsky) concern that Ami published the following quote in the name of Rabbi Noach Weinberg:
“Chasidim have 90 percent of Yiddishkeit and are only missing 10 percent. Which 10 percent? The first 10 percent – the 10 percent that all your Yiddishkeit is founded on.”
I was shocked that any learned person, a rosh yeshiva no less, would utter such an incendiary, insensitive, and uninformed statement. I was even more surprised that Ami would publish this statement in their magazine. This, of course, was Rabbi Blesofsky’s point in his letter to Rabbi Frankfurter.
Now, being that I did not read the previous week’s edition (where the quote was originally published), I was expecting Rabbi Frankfurter’s response to be something along the lines that the statement was taken out of context, that it was somehow misunderstood and actually had some positive message, or that the quote was from one Rosh Yeshiva and that it does not necessarily reflect the views of the Ami editors.
Instead, Rabbi Frankfurter’s ‘explanation’ was nothing more than suggesting that criticizing others actually fosters mutual respect. Really now. So Ami does stand behind Rabbi Weinberg’s statement and feels that this is something that Chassidim must be aware of so that they can ‘improve’.
Now, it is one thing to, with proper intentions and in the correct setting, criticize a specific flaw in someone else (for example, writing something like ‘Some misnagdim need to be more careful about Ahavas Yisroel.’ – which may or may not be correct but can always be improved). It is entirely another story to unapologetically accuse a huge percentage of Klal Yisroel of not having the basic foundations of Yiddishkeit (‘the first 10 percent’). This is simply ignorance, misguidedness, and old-fashion sinas chinom.
And, from a business perspective, why in the world would you intentionally insult such a large segment of your readership??
I am not a chosid, just a simple Jew that finds this disturbing. In a non-Jewish magazine, I would accuse the editorial of being antisemitic. Being a Jewish magazine does not give licence for being hateful.
It is very possible that other editions of your magazine stress respect for others in Klal Yisroel, but my impression from the first and only Ami magazine I read was that the true colors of the editorship are contrary to the values that I am trying to teach my children; respect for others and unconditional Ahavas Yisroel to every single Jewish person.
I am glad and appreciate that you offered a free six week trial period for your magazine. B”H I only needed one week to determine that this publication is not something I would want in my house.
Please feel free to share this message with Rabbi Frankfurter. I am sure he will appreciate this letter. After all, following the logic in his editorial response, this type of writing fosters more Ahavas Yisroel and mutual respect!December 24, 2012 2:05 am at 2:05 am #922111cantgetitMember
Business perspective indeed explains everything you correctly critique. If anti-semitism sells, it will be published.December 24, 2012 4:06 am at 4:06 am #922112YatzmichMember
This is one of the reasons that I stopped looking at Ami magazine many months ago. Many of their stories and articles leave you sayin, “What’s the point?” Some of the stories are just simply pointless without any (positive) lesson to to be taken from.
Also, many of their articles are just “a bi” to get under your skin or to cause animosity towards someone or some group.December 25, 2012 1:39 am at 1:39 am #922113shmendrickMember
Is there ANY redeeming value to AMI? I see that Satmar banned it (for other reasons). I think it lacks da’as Torah and just doesn’t belong in a frum house.January 20, 2013 12:15 am at 12:15 am #922114
Did anyone see this week’s article on the shidduch crisis?January 20, 2013 1:35 am at 1:35 am #922115Medium Size ShadchanMember
Id love to hear what they write would improve the Shidduch situation. Please share.
If theyre looking to continue in the direction they seem to be going, and negatively exciting people, they can suggest that NASI double the amount that must be put into escrow by parents of older girls, and blame and put guilt trips on those parents and girls who refuse.January 20, 2013 1:47 am at 1:47 am #922116WolfmanParticipant
I am not familiar with the quote from Rav Noach ZT”L. Where was it from when was it said? He was an adom godol. Why don’t you find out from his talmidim if the quote is accurate and what he meant by it? A tzaddik of his stature who excelled in ahavas yisroel deserves better treatment than being attacked on a blog.January 20, 2013 2:15 am at 2:15 am #922117
Was it a pro-NASI article?January 20, 2013 3:32 am at 3:32 am #922118BSDMember
I was very bothered by the Ami that had Farkas- the attorney for Webberman on the front cover. Firstly, many families do not want their children exposed to this whole topic, and I can’t see any positive benefit in bringing this story into our homes. Secondly, it gives a voice to Webberman, but no opportunity to R’ Horowitz to respond. If it turns out that Webberman is guilty, than Ami is complicit in silencing and farther intimidating the ability of victims to stand up to their oppressors. Is there any redeeming factor in that article? Did it serve any positive purpose?January 20, 2013 3:46 am at 3:46 am #922119
No mention of NASI. The first part demonstrated the truth of the age gap/population growth issue, of which you need no convincing. The second part described the work of some askanim who seek to alleviate the problem by lowering the age of the boys (NASI focuses on helping the older girls).January 20, 2013 3:58 am at 3:58 am #922120
Yes, Horowitz has many more opportunities to shoot from the hip than Farkas ever will. He is a blogger and he posts all kind of junk from the rumor mill all the time. Weberman is entitled to a voice far more than Horowitz, especially considering the complete lack of evidence in the miscarriage of justice from his show trial by a kangaroo court.
Would you like to be silenced if you were G-d forbid convicted of something you were innocent of by 12 jurors whose qaulifications to judge someones life is their being unemployed or homeless or drunks?January 20, 2013 4:54 am at 4:54 am #922121ThePurpleOneMember
nothing to do w this but i was reading this weeks ami living and theres suuch a sad story i was crying!! its called golden girl.. anyone else read it?? it was so heartbraking..January 20, 2013 1:45 pm at 1:45 pm #922122
12 jurors whose qaulifications to judge someones life is their being unemployed or homeless or drunks
And where do you have even one shread of evidence of thisJanuary 20, 2013 1:54 pm at 1:54 pm #922123
I’ve heard that phrased differently: too dumb to get out of jury duty.January 20, 2013 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm #922124The little I knowParticipant
I don’t know you, but the stupidity that emanates from your comment is in the superlative.
Firstly, have you been to jury duty lately? I have. The panels collected are not homeless, drunks, imbeciles. I speak from experience.
Next, Weberman had, and still has people who “believe” his innocence. No, there is no way to prove it, they just believe it. I don’t. You see, I spoke to Weberman, and I personally confronted him on his having women alone in his office late into the night. His attitude was, Don’t worry. He was suspect about his dealings with women for many years. I have no clue about this specific case, or whether he ever touched anyone. But I sooner believe these accusations than to disbelieve them.
Thirdly, Rabbi Horowitz does not generate stuff from the rumor mill. He has facts, and is willing to share them. From the intellect displayed by your comment, I am not likely to consider your pronouncements “facts”. Rabbi Horowitz does get that edge from me.January 20, 2013 2:50 pm at 2:50 pm #922125
Not every juror wants “out” some work for employers who will pay all their pay when on Juror duty (Like City Workers) and The trial only lasted a few weeks, its wasnt like a 6 month trial where they actually let you offJanuary 20, 2013 3:31 pm at 3:31 pm #922126Yiddishe KupMember
12 jurors whose qaulifications to judge someones life is their being unemployed or homeless or drunks
BH I am none of the above and if I was on the jury I would have pronounced him guilty.
There is enough circumstantial evidence to believe that the man is 100% guilty.
The kargaroo in that court was Webberman himself. OTOH that’s insult to the Kangaroo animal.January 20, 2013 4:08 pm at 4:08 pm #922128
BH enough Unemployed Homeless Drunks could perform the Mitzvah of ShofetJanuary 20, 2013 4:08 pm at 4:08 pm #922129Ben LeviParticipant
What in the world did Ami do wrong by having Farkas interviewd?
They had previously had Hynes the DA interviewed.
I would think that it is far more even handed and fare to the stated “victim ” to interview the Attorney prosecuting the case then a “advocate” on the victims behalf.
See they interviewed the Prosecution one week and the Defense another week.
Seems pretty fair to me.
However I suspect those taking issue with Ami are not doing so because of a supposed lack of fairness.
It is rather the very fairness they take issue with.January 20, 2013 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #922130
It is quite telling that right here people who weren’t even on the jury are not even embarassed to say they would convict someone without having even heard the full litany of evidence or full defense. This is without even getting into the admitted fact, even by the prosecution, that the entire case of cards was built on hearsay of a he-said/she-said case.
It makes one realize that some of the very commenters here are no better than the 12 off-the-street jurors who can qualify to sentence someone to life imprisonment with qualifications of no more than being an unemployed 18 year old high school dropout.January 20, 2013 4:21 pm at 4:21 pm #922131
The victim from his sins wasnt the only victim, more and more are coming outJanuary 20, 2013 4:36 pm at 4:36 pm #922132YentaParticipant
Not saying it isn’t true….there probably are….but right this second you are basing this on a NY Daily News article… aren’t you? Right? Right? Say it. You are.
And you are the same person who said that Hatzolah refused to treat Nuchem Rosenberg after bleach was thrown in his face a few weeks ago, when that clearly was not true. And that buba-maysa was all based on a NY Post article, which was totally 100% fictitious, and proven false when Rosenberg said himself that it was not true.
Stop while you are ahead.January 20, 2013 5:14 pm at 5:14 pm #922133MammeleParticipant
The fact that they are trying to shut Ami down, otherwise known as “trying to silence the media” makes me think they have something to hide.
I’m just playing by their rules, which basically are where there’s smoke there’s fire, and only sunshine can assure that the truth is revealed. Why the sudden fear of exposure?January 20, 2013 5:23 pm at 5:23 pm #922134Torah613TorahParticipant
Nothing to do with Ami, but I love jury duty! Can’t wait for the next one! I never get picked and get a day off work… what could be better!January 20, 2013 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm #922135
Whose trying to shut AMI down?January 20, 2013 6:10 pm at 6:10 pm #922136MammeleParticipant
Well, there is such a campaign by so called victims’ advocates. They are trying to get advertisers and subscribers to boycott Ami and thereby drive them out of business.
If you don’t believe me google “boycott Ami”.January 20, 2013 6:39 pm at 6:39 pm #922137
What a joke. Frum advertisers are not intimidated by these Al Shaptonesque Nazis.January 20, 2013 6:44 pm at 6:44 pm #922138achosidParticipant
2 years ago there was a kol korei banning the other frum website. It was signed by every rebbe, rosh yeshiva, and gadol in america.
and guess what, they have more ads then they ever had before.
the taliban approach to this type of bullying does not work anymore.January 20, 2013 6:52 pm at 6:52 pm #922140truthsharerMember
Tell that to the person counting how many pages Ami publishes each week.January 20, 2013 7:09 pm at 7:09 pm #922141HaLeiViParticipant
It seems to me that the Ami enjoys controversy, for the sake of controversy. To me that is poor taste and cheap behavior. To them it might mean success.
I don’t really see the need for any print media. The effort to put out weekly Kuntreisim to be read on Shabbos, if only it would go into Torah, would be fabulous.January 20, 2013 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #922142DaMosheParticipant
I’d love to see the original article referenced by the OP. Does anyone know where it can be found?January 20, 2013 7:17 pm at 7:17 pm #922143
They’ve increased in size in the last few issues.January 20, 2013 7:51 pm at 7:51 pm #922144BSDMember
“unemployed 18 year old high school dropout.”
The only truth in this statement is “18 year old”. Please check me on that.
“.but right this second you are basing this on a NY Daily News article..”
…and the girls mother who had a lot to lose(husband losing job, neices kicked out of school, son-in-law losing hechsher for his eatery etc) and nothing to gain.
…and the frum therapist who testified that it was her idea to have the victim report it to the police and that she showed signs of severe post traumatic stress syndrome
…and the victim who withstood 4 days of intense cross examination by a top attorney-who could not catch her on a single inconsistency
…most damning of all IMHO is the admission from Webberman himself that he was misyached with women in a way that is assur midioiraysa lichol hadaos.
Regardless of all of the above, assuming that we do not know whether or not Webberman is guilty, Ami is guilty of silencing all victims of these horrible crimes by granting an interview and front page coverage to Farkas.
Ami is also responsible to explain how this story pertains to a magazine that targets young orthodox readers. It has no place there-it is inappropriate and shows a lack of sensitivity on their part. Ask yourself honestly:Is this the kind of material you want your young and impressionable children to be reading?January 20, 2013 8:03 pm at 8:03 pm #922145
No PROOF of anything untoward. He deserves every benefit of the doubt. As Jews we are FORBIDDEN to believe a single allegation. All we can do is take precautions without believing a word.
Ami is to highly commended for taking the politically incorrect stand of giving a voice to a Yid who the entire media and blogging establishment condemned in a knee-jerk reaction.January 20, 2013 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #922146The little I knowParticipant
Forbidden to believe a single allegation? Did you really say that? That is one of the most foolish statements in this thread. You may referring to a completely mistaken understanding of the obligation to be ?? ??? ????, which actually does not obligate anyone to deny facts, but to be ready to accept alternative explanations. Since we are talking facts, the role of the jury is to establish facts by believability. This requires a “jury of one’s peers”, not experts. It is correct that the Torah does not account for a trial by jury, but that is the secular court who set the rules for that system. It is bizarre to expect a secular court to adopt the standards of a beis din and halacha to adjudicate a criminal.
As for benefit of doubt, NW already got that. Now it’s time to put him away. Next?January 21, 2013 2:50 am at 2:50 am #922147
A secular court and 12 jurors of one’s peers has no neemanus or believability or acceptability in halacha or Judaism. NW status to us remains the same as it was before the DA or court acted.January 21, 2013 3:46 am at 3:46 am #922149WolfishMusingsParticipant
A secular court and 12 jurors of one’s peers has no neemanus or believability or acceptability in halacha or Judaism. NW status to us remains the same as it was before the DA or court acted.
And, in your eyes, Levi Aron is not a murderer, since he was only convicted in a secular court.*
* And, before you point out that he confessed, let’s remind you that criminal confessions are completely disregarded under Jewish law.January 21, 2013 3:53 am at 3:53 am #922150
Since the community was unwilling or unable to punish this individual, the secular courts are the only recourse left.January 21, 2013 4:01 am at 4:01 am #922151
Are you really comparing a case in which the evidence is overwhelming, to a case in which the evidence is circumstantial?January 21, 2013 4:24 am at 4:24 am #922152
The community wholeheartedly believes that he is innocent.January 21, 2013 4:35 am at 4:35 am #922153WolfishMusingsParticipant
Are you really comparing a case in which the evidence is overwhelming, to a case in which the evidence is circumstantial?
I’m not making a comparison, I’m simply extending the rule that TLKY stated.
His statement was that a conviction in a secular court carries no weight. He made no qualifications based on evidence, procedure or anything else. As such, according to him, Levi Aron is also innocent.
The WolfJanuary 21, 2013 5:20 am at 5:20 am #922154
There’s a logical flaw in your argument. Even if conviction in a secular court carries no weight, that doesn’t mean that anyone convicted is therefore definitely innocent!January 21, 2013 6:31 am at 6:31 am #922155WIYMember
Im sure those in the community not being lied to or brain-washed and who also have permission to think for themselves (probably not all that many people come to think of it) believe quite strongly and rightly that he is guilty.
Anyone given all the facts available about the trial and everything surrounding the story would have to be really crooked to not see the truth.
The reason Satmar is fighting this is not due to his innocence. They know he’s a filthy dog. They are just afraid that the govt will now be keeping a closer eye on what is going on there and may uncover more such stories which will endanger their mossdos and cause principals to get into touble for covering up for evil wicked people in their midst.January 21, 2013 1:13 pm at 1:13 pm #922156
I think the community thinks if he is guilty its an indictment on the community, which most outsiders do not.
Most outsiders realizes that such a person is not an indictment on the community but an indictment on the person.
Satmar thinks this was a trial on the Satmar community, when the outside thinks it was a trial on Webberman the individual.
(Outsiders did not like that money was raised for his defense and it seemed he got better treatment than the victims- but that is a seperate issue)
Such individuals exist in all communities and when they are discovered its best to remove them and the community is better for it.January 21, 2013 2:15 pm at 2:15 pm #922157
No, WIY, they truly believe in his innocence.January 21, 2013 3:33 pm at 3:33 pm #922158
Because you believe everything you read in the papers. People who know the various parties personally have a much higher regard for him than for his accusers. (I know this from speaking to one person who is not a Satmar chossid, but does business in Williamsburg, knows all of the parties involved and thinks he’s innocent, as well as speaking to another person closely involved who doesn’r personally know the accused or the accusers, and personally thinks he’s guilty).
This doesn’t assure his innocence, but it’s unfair to vilify a community which is making an assessment based on knowing the people involved.January 21, 2013 4:13 pm at 4:13 pm #922159
He is innocent.January 21, 2013 4:17 pm at 4:17 pm #922160
So what do you think the agenda of Rav Horowitz is. He is not a “failed blogger” and nobody questions that he is doing things L’Shem shamayim.
I belive in Chemo Therapy, yeah it hurts to be taking those drugs, it makes you sick and throw up, but in the end you will get better because of itJanuary 21, 2013 4:23 pm at 4:23 pm #922161
Many people here feel its ok to give Chizuk to those somewhat to left on various issues, we can debate these things
But it seems when the roles are revered and some think some one the right need Chizuk, they are above Chizuk.
I think is wrong when dont by a Catholic Priest, when Done by an advisor of NCSY , a Professor at YU or a Satmar .
Wrong is Wrong. Being on the inside some might not see it this way granted, but they must be taught to understandJanuary 21, 2013 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm #922162WIYMember
Well sadly many people are naive and think that a “choshuv” person especially a Rabbi or a person of authority could never do such a thing. The problem is these people would never believe that a “Rabbi” did or could do such a thing. If you showed them a video they would say it was somehow faked. I think a lot of those people don’t want to believe such a thing were possible and its easier for them to believe that a “mmodern” girl who had issues growing up is lying than that he actually did such a thing. These people are not using their brains to analyze what went on here. Additionally I would assume 99% of Willitown never read ANYTHING about abuse or psychology and about the psychology behind abuse so they are very uneducated in these areas. So their beliefs of innocence are just based on their bias towards one of their own versus someone who “walked away” (or should I say was abused away).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.