Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » Unorthodox

Unorthodox | Book Review (and analysis)

rabbifink — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:01:18 +0000

I read Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots. It is unorthodox. It is a rejection. But I did not find it scandalous. Not at all.

There is so much about this book that needs to be discussed. Let’s get a bit of insignificant criticism out of the way. For starters, I found the writing decent. Not excellent. It got better as the book progressed, but the early chapters were tedious in my opinion. The writing is over-descriptive to a fault. Too many sentences have too many adjectives and adverbs. The book doesn’t allow the reader any imagination. There’s no room for the reader to breath. It’s sensory overload. It’s almost like the author is trying too hard to prove herself as a good writer. Personally, I found it quite annoying.

The story is unremarkable. Shorter version of the book: Girl raised by her grandparents because her mother is a lesbian who left the community and her father is mentally ill has high anxiety and feels constrained by the limiting lifestyle of her community eventually leaves the community. It’s not a story we haven’t heard before nor is it a story we will not hear again.

The truth is that anyone with high anxiety will not have an easy time in any tight-knit, insular community. It’s not really that chasidic Judaism didn’t work for Deborah. It’s that her difficult childhood and personality didn’t work well in the high pressure society of chasidic Judaism. She probably would have been fine in a more moderate form of orthodox Judaism. Unfortunately for her, she was born into extreme circumstances.

Honestly, there was nothing “scandalous” in the book. (I will address the one scandal that has been manufactured at the end of this post). In other words, the book, fairly accurately describes the life of a chasidic girl in Williamsburg. It is insular. Education is placed at a minimum. Marriage is the goal of childhood, motherhood is the goal of adulthood. This is no scandalous. This is fact.

There are in fact, renegade renegade mikva attendants. There are libido charged teenage boys who are inappropriate toward girls (and other boys). There are stories of talking fish. People did burn their wigs. Secular books are frowned upon. Superstitions are rampant. People gossip. Especially about young married couples. There is abuse and it is covered up. There is prejudice against members of other chasidic sects and certainly against non-chasidic Jews, especially modern orthodox Jews and Sephardic Jews. Strange tales like eating pig will make you vomit are told. These are just the expected social conventions of the insular chasidic community. Nothing to see here.

But are these items an indictment of the entire chasidic community? Certainly not. Bad people and dumb ideas exist everywhere. The biggest gripe I have is simply the imaginary principle that there are no bad people or dumb ideas in the community. There are and knowing there are goes a long way to fixing those people and ideas.

The book brought me to tears twice. For a sap like me, that is not a good showing. Hush made me cry a ton of times. Even Unchosen: The Hidden Lives of Hasidic Rebels moved me to tears a bunch of times. Unorthodox was not an emotional book. The only moments for me were the birth of her child and the when she and her son come to grips with the fact that the unhappy, broken, marriage is over. That’s it. The rest felt a bit detached and unremarkable.

But I like to find social commentary and universal lessons in this kind of book and I think there are some important issues the book raises.

Deborah’s personality is to question and to learn. In her community this is a dangerous trait. Her first step off the path was learning Talmud. That’s an innocent curiosity in most orthodox communities, even for a girl. But Deborah had to hide it. She couldn’t ask questions about what she had learned. With this her rebellion began.

Although Deborah relates to her grandmother as a rebel. I don’t think she realized how special her grandfather was. At least, what is recorded in the book paints Zaidy as a good guy. He avoids the Satmar politics. He is willing to read a newspaper after 9/11. He doesn’t believe in superstition and stories like the talking fish in New Square. He is also a bit of a rebel. In my eyes, Zaidy is a reasonable guy throughout most of the book. What’s unfortunate is one negative portrayal made its way onto the book jacket. But other than that incident, he seems to be a good guy. I think that his independence of allegiance and thought are worthy of praise and if more of his neighbors were like him, I think many issues in the insular community would be mitigated.

Her shortlived marriage leaves many unanswered questions. I would have liked more details. She says they fight. About what? The book doesn’t elaborate. She talks about their neighbors in Airmont. I am from Monsey, I know those people. I would have liked more about that period of her life. The life of what has become known as a “Tuna Beigel”. They dress somewhat chasidic but are much more liberated. Why didn’t that lifestyle work for Deborah? These are areas of the book that feel rushed and unfinished.

My favorite part of the book was the twist of fate that began with a visit to a Kabbalist. He told Deborah that her number was “nine”. On 9/9/9 just after midnight, Deborah had a life-changing motor vehicle accident. She says that the Kabbalist was right. Her number was nine. Somehow, I don’t think that is what the Kabbalist had in mind. But it’s poetic justice that his words were used by Deborah to rationalize her departure from the community.

The overall “lesson” of the book, if there is one, is that her whole life, as a good Chasidic girl, Deborah was taught to trust her intellect over her impulse. She was supposed to use her knowledge of Jewish law and thought to guide her and not allow her emotions and passions. Her freedom came when she put her impulse ahead of her intellect. Judaism is really all about placing one’s intellect above their impulse. Everyone from Maimonides to Luzzato talks about this. The trick is to channel one’s impulse into positive, creative, useful activity. One is not required to suppress everything about one’s self. Rather, one is supposed to use the intellect to guide one’s passions and creativity. The goal is to use one’s personality to improve the world.

More balanced, moderate forms of orthodox Judaism provide a better framework for avoiding this damaging problem. Most careers and opportunities are available to orthodox Jews. There are a few exceptions. Perhaps it would be useful for the more moderate versions of orthodox Judaism to focus on this aspect of Judaism. Even better, if the more insular versions of orthodox Judaism like the chasidic sects mentioned in Unorthodox or the new insular communities in the non-chasidic world would allow these doors to be opened for their communities.

There is somewhat of a happy ending to the book, even for religious, orthodox Jews. Feldman says that she is still proud to be a Jew. In a different sense than before, but still, she is not a “self hating Jew” as some have claimed. This is a positive development in light of her difficulties with her community,

To close, allow me to address what has become the biggest controversy over this book: The murder cover-up.

Feldman tells the story of her brother-in-law calling their home and telling them that a heinous murder had just occurred in Kiryas Joel. He was personally there as a Hatzalah member and he claimed that there was a cover-up of the murder.

In the book, the story is told as a rumor. The book makes no claim as to whether or not there was a murder. The only claim being made is that this is what she was told. The point of the story is to illustrate that no one would have a hard time believing that a murder was covered up. As a reader, I am deeply troubled that a rumor like this is even possible. But I did not ever think that Feldman was reporting on something with facts to back it up. This was a record of a conversation that she recalled. The issues that remain are not whether or not there was a murder. It is a much more basic issue. Whether or not a murder could or would be covered up. I don’t think anyone would find this impossible, what with all the cover-ups of sex abuse, domestic abuse, fraud and corruption. That is the real issue. Whether or not she should have investigated and looked at police reports is irrelevant in my opinion. I don’t think Feldman thought that including this anecdote in the book would be as scandalous as it has become. I would have preferred if the she had made it clearer that the episode was rumor. But that is how I took it.

In my opinion, Unorthodox is a good book. Some are calling it a chillul Hashem. I find this ironic. Here is a woman who left the community. She tells her story. The story seems entirely plausible. But because she left it is chillul Hashem. Yet, when people who stay in the communirty commit crimes, acts of violence, are unseemly for other reasons, that is not a chillul Hashem. Quite the double standard if you ask me. All communities have what I call “abhorrent beliefs”. Is it a chillul Hashem when our abhorrent beliefs or practices are exposed truthfully? That’s a hard question to answer. More important is the challenge of dealing with them in a modern world. This will be addressed in a future post. Maybe even tomorrow. (Update: Posted - What to Do About Abhorrent Beliefs in Religions?).

Should you read Unorthodox? It’s interesting enough. Deborah’s story is unique enough to hold your interest. The inside information about the insular communities of Williamsburg and beyond is worth your time. If you are looking for high drama and massive scandals look elsewhere. It’s “good reading”. Not “can’t miss reading”.

Recommended for adults only.

Click here to purchase from Amazon: Unorthodox

The Good Wife: Unorthodox, From a Rabbi / Law Student Perspective

rabbifink — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:33:59 +0000

The Good Wife is a new legal drama on CBS. The show is great. Usually the legal issues are portrayed correctly (at least from a law student’s perspective) and the character development of the main character has been superb.

This week’s episode revolved around a chasidic couple living in Chicago who were responsible to fix a fallen eruv wire, but since it fell on Shabbos they had to wait until Shabbos had ended and in the meantime a woman claims she fell over the wire and is suing for 1.2 million dollars in punitive damages. The title of the episode does not refer to the couple, rather it refers to their lawyer with an unorthodox approach to law.

Read on for my comments, critiques and a HUGE PLOT HOLE.

The defense is based on the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech, and claims that the couple has the right to practice their religion and a jury should decide if they are liable when they believe it would be wrong for them to fix the eruv wire. That defense fails when the wife (a recent baalas tshuva / one who returns to Orthodox Judaism later in life) is found to have been making phone calls to her father on Shabbos. If she calls her father on Shabbos she should also be able to fix the fallen wire. Ultimately, the defense shows that the entire slip and fall was concocted and the jury finds for the defense.

You can read a full synopsis of the episode here or, even better, you can watch the show (at least for the time being) on CBS.com.

The portrayal of the chasidic community, the laws of eruv and the relationship between the chasidic couple were pretty good. BUt there were a few things that they got wrong. It is so funny to me that any orthodox Jew would notice the nuances that are incorrect but the entire staff of the show does not see the mistakes. Ironically, last week’s episode of The Good Wife revolved around a witness who could not tell the difference between 2 black men. It seems that people from other ethnicities have a hard time seeing the nuances of other ethnicities. It is no different when Hollywood tries to portrays Jews. They simply don’t have the sensitivities to the finer details of orthodox Judaism, especially chasidic Judaism.

Things They Got Mostly Correct

The chasidic garb. She was wearing typical women’s dress. Subdued colors and very modest. He was in black and white with his hat nearby at all times.

Strollers. Everyone had strollers in the chasidic neighborhood.

Kosher markets. There was a kosher market within walking distance.

The shomrim guy. He looked like every non-chasidic Hatzalah (Jewish volunteer ambulance core) guy I know.

The intimacy between the couple. Most couples on the show celebrate victory with public hugs and kisses. The chasidic couple did not embrace in public, but their connection was displayed by touching each other’s hands secretly.

Mistakes

The chasidic guy never smiles. That is just not nice.

The chasidic guy has a “tchup”(coiffed hair), chasidic men have hair that is cut very short.

The chasidic guy has a trimmed beard, that is not common at all.

The chasidic guy has a RING! (I mean, come on, that’s an easy one!)

They say an eruv “creates a symbolic courtyard“, that’s not quite true, an eruv joins many domains into one common domain by surround the entire community with a wall. (But that is a hard one.)

A young chasidic boy has a leather kipa perched awkwardly on the back of his head.

Something That Bothered Me

The wife was a twice rehabbed drug loving party girl who found chasidic Judaism while incarcerated. Showing her revival as a chasidic Jewish woman bothered me slightly. It was if to say, one has to be so crazy to find chasidic Judaism attractive. Maybe I am nitpicking, but it bothered me just a little.

HUGE PLOT HOLE

When the plaintiff got injured it was Shabbos. She was asked why she was walking through this neighborhood and she said she was going to the market. She was asked why this market if there are four markets closer to her home and she said because this market is the kosher market where they sell gluten free products.

Do you see the problem? (answer below)

This is an inexcusable error. CBS, next time you want to do a show with chasidic or Orthodox Jewish characters and plot elements you can hire me. I will be your rabbinical consultant and make sure you get it right.

The Good Wife is a great show. One of the reasons it is great is not the attention to detail. A twitter buddy of mine also noticed a legal problem a few weeks ago. I guess when you are law student and a Rabbi you are going to notice the mistakes of Jewish culture and law.

(Plot hole answer: The kosher market is closed on Shabbos. She could never be walking to a kosher market on Shabbos!)

Read this blog post by @matthue about his experience as an extra for the episode!