The Feldman Flare-Up Timeline

The art that accompanied 'Orthodox Paradox' adds to the implication of tampering with a photo. It plainly shows an outline of a person missing from a scene. It's not a party scene (it shows men with books, fringes, tefillin, etc.), and it's a piece of art (by R. Kikuo Johnson), but a man is shown as a negative outline: no color, no detail, as though someone had been cut from the colorful scene with scissors.

Surely this was commissioned to accompany the piece, and it would be most interesting to see what was asked for.

Now that we see the actual photos from the party, it's plain to me that choosing a photo that doesn't show everyone present is a much less exclusionary act than the implied Photoshop session. My sincere apologies to his classmates, who I had accused of enjoying his company but being unwilling to admit it publicly. I'm so very sorry to have been insufficiently skeptical.

However one characterizes the group photo that was used, the point is that Prof. Feldman sensed that he was ostracized from the community for marrying a non-Jew. Instead of spending time and energy debating the merits of the photo, or exactly HOW the photo was described, or the semantics of "the" vs. "a", why isn't the Orthodox community responding to the crux of the essay? My sense is that the reason for the focus on minutia here is because the real response would have to be, "yes, intermarriage is the most grievous breach of the Orthodox social contract, and there is no tolerance for it in the community". Look for responses to the Feldman essay on Aish's website, and you'll see what I mean.

So the real question is about tolerance, and I believe Prof. Feldman is totally on-target when he senses that there is little or none within the Orthodox community.

well, this story gets more and more interesting...and complicated.

i still feel bad that Feldman and his wife have to endure this unfortunate situation. on the other hand, they were not the only ones cropped out of the photo. so they shouldn't be taking it so personally. besides, this photo was from 10 years ago! but i still stand by my opinion that the school should have taken photos of just the alumni, sans their spouses and kids. that way they could have avoided this whole meshugas altogether.

Anon 10:18 brings up the real question about the Noah Feldman flare-up: tolerance. the photo cropping is secondary compared to the real issue. Chabad are the only Orthodox group who show any semblance of respect and tolerance towards all Jewish denominations, including those Jews who have intermarried. in addition, there are Orthodox Rabbis who disapprove of intermarriage but prefer to retain the intermarried rather than excommunicate them. so we can't point the finger and say that all Orthodox Jews are intolerant and judgmental.

The article was fueled not by the desire for an intellectual critique of orthodoxy-but rather by the urge to intellectualize an emotional rant.A legal and social critique of Orthodoxy, even a scathing one, should not fall for such simplistic, facile reasoning coming from a sophisticated legal mind.

Clearly, there's an emotional wound in Feldman and an unresolved ambivalence about his own choice of non Jewish spouse. The tone and the intellectual flaccidness of his analysis reeks of personal vendetta and his lack of integrity and sloppiness in discussing Orthodoxy has indeed caused a lot of harm. Ygal Amir and Goldstein? That's it? That's who he is going to talk about as representative of Orthodoxy to an audience who, by and large, is absolutely ignorant on the topic. Any effort to mention the halakhic creativity of certain groups, as he did in the Q&A here was entirely missing. Again, Feldman was pissed, felt dissed and he was going to settle his score.

He and Jeannie Suk got cut out from the picture? So were other Jewish peers. His kid does not get mentioned in the Orthodox school birth announcements.What do you expect? Just move on. Furthermore, Feldman writes that his Maimonides school peers have been nothing but courteous and, moreover, he seems to have a warm friendship with a couple of them. They, clearly, have accepted him and his life choice. However, Feldman can't expect them to, as they clearly don't, to endorse him as a life model for his children, just as Noah Feldman does not endorse theirs to his own children.

I'm not one to ignore the otherwise problematic aspects of orthodoxy-women's issues, homophobia, or about the social pathos within Orthodox societies. But I do know about the beauty of halakhic praxis and its compatibility with a liberal, civic minded outlook is perfectly attainable.Noah Feldman did the wider public, Jews, Orthodoxy, his family and own scholarly abilities a disservice.

SD

Wow, it does seem that this whole episode is an overreaction on the part of everyone involved. Obviously the photograph was not 'photoshopped' as had been implied by Noah Feldman. Which only makes the hypersensitive response by many of the defenders of Modern Orthodoxy seem even more so. Golly.

Thanks for publshishing the actual photo's.

ah. the long awaited photos. thank you.
as part of the kerfuffle i did express my doubts about the photo-cropping on 7/26:

The NYTimes must apologize for not properly researching the background of the article i.e., for not uncovering and running the notorious cropped picture -- if it indeed does exist. The absence of the picture speaks volumes.

The Times' substitute for that "real" cropped picture -- a tasteless cartoon of a missing Yeshiva boy amongst others davening with Tefillin left me aghast.

that same day i wrote a rap song for noah. and i did defend our tradition of photo-cropping on the 25th, and lampoon jeannie's book on the 24th. and then i explained what "to noah-feldman" someone means on 8/5 and i published kissinger's reply to noah on 8/9 all of which is here http://tzvee.blogspot.com/search/label/Stupid%20Jews

but my compliments to you for the earlier noah interview and for the present photos!
tzvee

Very appropriate that he should be cut out of the photo since he "cut out" himself from the Jewish people by marrying a gentile.

He may have been raised as Orhtodox Jew but he no behaves as one. What he needs repentance for is the calumny and slander against Judaism in his article.

Maybe at this time of year, close to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, Joey and his website needs it too for its inherent ignorant Jewish views that verge on the worst aspects of antisemiticism.

Very appropriate that he should be cut out of the photo since he "cut out" himself from the Jewish people by marrying a gentile.

He may have been raised as Orhtodox Jew but he no behaves as one. What he needs repentance for is the calumny and slander against Judaism in his article.

Maybe at this time of year, close to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, Joey and his website needs it too for its inherent ignorant Jewish views that verge on the worst aspects of antisemiticism.

We Jews are too inbred a people (have you been to Brooklyn lately?) and need the hybrid vigor that only infusions of fresh blood can bring. Encouraging Jewish women to marry African-Americans would do wonders for us in the street battles with the urchins of Islam that are sure to come. And there would be no controversy over the religion of their offspring, who could then be mated to even the most orthodox of Jews.

Besides, this sort of strategy is sanctioned by examples provided both by Torah and modern life. Jewish bigshots from Moses to Spielberg have taken born-shiksas for their wives, with happy results for the Jewish people.

Although I am 100% in support of Israel, and Jews keeping to their own until the Second Coming, I do hope you realize that eventually you are going to have to put away this silly, childish jibber-jabber, start eating pork bellies and accept Jesus as your Messiah.

Tobin Maker, Resident Pastor, Baptists for Brownback 2008

Feldman lied.

Honestly, as a person from that type of community, they probably didn't consider whether or not she was a convert, there are plenty of Asian converts these days, but rather the fact that she was wearing pants, which tends to immediately raises blood pressure among the right wing elements. My guess is that the pants were more at issue than the conversion status when the choice of photos was made. Outsiders to Modern Orthodoxy don't always get these insider issues (pants and sleeves on women, mixed swimming, certain types of haircuts, etc. In the traditional community, the kind of black hat one wears is a signifier of community, so don't get a black hat with a feather on the brim, if you want to fit in!)

This Chaim Amalek must be from NYC. If he'd come to the west coast, he'd see plenty of different colors. Furthermore, he's obviously never been to Israel, where over 60% of the population is olive colored or darker. Anyway, enough of Jews perpetuating these anti-semitic myths. Your average European, whose family lived in the same village for hundreds of years, is more likely inbred than any Jew, whose ancestors have circulated around the world to marry. Check the bone marrow registries, and you'll see that Jews are the hardest to crossmatch. In Israel, almost everyone is "racially intermarried" and as such its very hard to find unrelated donors. So don't look to your English-ancestry neighbors for guidance with regards to avoiding incestuous marriage.
Furthermore, in the early centuries of the first millenium CE, it was common to intermarry and conversion was easy, until the church made it punishable by death, sometimes to a whole community, hence the contemporary strict laws (and why they should be alleviated).

Please....deliver us from the "support" offered by such "friends" as Rev. Maker.
He supports Israel...but we must accept Chrisitanity...or rather the true Christianity as he defines it. Please, Reverend, go campaign for Senator Brownback and leave the Jewish community alone....oh, by the way, I will certainly repeat your sentiments to the senator and see if he endorses them.

Mark Weber
Jewish Secular Community of Cleveland
lastdetective@yahoo.com

It's really quite evident to me that this isn't an issue of pants or Koreanness. The photos with Feldman and his fiancee are clearly just worse photographs. They're all, hanging off the edge of the group. And it would look stupid to include them.  Case closed, I win.

My dear Aunt Edna says to tell you that she wants her glasses back.

Tell your Aunt Edna if she wants them back she can do it the same way she got her false teeth back. I'll be in the bedroom.

Those glasses are actually Izzy Grinspan's. 

Congrats, Joey, you are an ANTISEMITICIST!  I hope the yet another cowardly anonymous author of the previous masterpiece  of hateful spite has nothing to do with Judaism, otherwise we do have ta problem with the racism raising its ugly head among us and we need to do something about it.

Mark Weber,

 If you are a secular Jew, as you claim, why so much fuss about Reveren's words? Or you think that you can have political support of Christian Zionists without paying for that?  You think they want Israel for you? They want it for themselves, silly man. They just use Zionists not to let Moslems in. The do remember how their ass was kicked and how Crusades finished and now they want Jews to do it for them. Later, the good Pastor will show you so much love, you would be ready to convert to Shintoism!  Bravo, Pastor! You have to give it to our Christian friends - they still remain honorable knights and ever conceal their true intentions!

I furiously reject accusations that I am an anti-Semiticist, demand that my name be cleared, pretend that my career will be damaged, et cetera. I admire William Chomsky much more than his prat son, and you might even call me a PhiloSemiticist. In this day and age, when so many seek to deny that Hebrew is a Semitic language at all, but rather some mongrel creole, we can no longer afford to be choosy. Every Semiticist is a prince.

"A number of years ago, I went to my 10th high-school reunion, in the backyard of the one classmate whose parents had a pool."

That looks like an apartment building behind the group. Where is the backyard? And nobody is in their bathing suits. Where is the pool? So the description that NF gives in the opining of his essay is ever more misleading....

Columbo

Anonymous (Columbo) -

Yes, where the hell is the pool? And bathing suits! We want to see Orthodox Jewish girls in skimpy bikinis! Oh, yes, and he does not look at all like he was 10 years out of school! Liar! And his wife! How can one be sure that she is Korean? She looks Chinese or may be Japanese! How do we know? Its all lies, damn lies! 

Seems he cropped HIMSELF out of the big picture, when he divorced himself from the Jewish people to go skirt-chasing after goyim. If he can't come to his senses and do teshuvah, then he should at least have the decency not to stir up hatred for his own extended family, no matter how estranged from it his actions have led him to be. Acting like he's practicing authentic Judaism yet "married" to a non-Jew is like a ham and cheese sandwich from a "Jewish" deli who's proprietor shrugs and says, "Well...it's kosher-STYLE..."

At least he will be with someone he loves. Or likes a lot, right? Mazel tov!

Photographers are very skilled at grouping people so they can all be included in one shot – yet no such shot of Feldman's class reunion supposedly exists. Why?

Because the photographer chose not to take that picture – in other words, he created a scenario where Maimonides could choose whether to include Feldman or not, and have an 'excuse' if they chose not to.

No professional photographer would have accidentally framed shots like that.

You see this type of photography done at weddings and bar mitzvas, when the family wants to cut crazy Uncle Harry out of photographs without letting crazy Uncle Harry know he's being, for want of a better word, out-framed.

Put simply, the job of the photographer is, all things being equal, to get everyone in the shot. That this professional photographer did not do this is not a sign of incompetence – it is proof of Feldman's claim.

This should read:

Photographers are very skilled at grouping people so they can all be included in one shot – yet no such good shot of Feldman's class reunion supposedly exists. Why?

And the answer is the photographer did not frame it. He could easily have done so, but he did not. The picture eventually used is framed along the natural lines of the group. Note the semicircular arrangement of the right side of the picture. This is what makes the cut.

Indeed, Larry Eisenberg, that criminal mastermind, is behind all of this. He chose to position the guests so that Feldman and Fiancee would have to be cropped!

No, seriously, you're taking a lot of liberties by assuming this photographer could've but chose not to include the pair. It's a freaking Jewish class reunion. It would've been a lot of work to go, "Ehmm, okay, you six on the left, three of you move in, the other three round out the right side of the picture. Yeah. Walk all the way over there."

No, I've never seen a photographer do that. You're reading into it.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the photographer's name is Lenny Eisenberg. I think i know him.

No, I've never seen a photographer do that. You're reading into it.

You obviously know little about professional photography.

And like that- my ruse of being an expert on professional photography is shattered!

But, regardless of how little I know about professional photography, it doesn't change the fact that I've been at weddings, graduations, public events, and things, and have never seen a photographer do that.

"You obviously know little about professional photography."

Haha, that reminds me of when Hillel Halkin wrote an article in Commentary on the faked memoirs of Jacob d'Ancona.  Someone wrote in and said, "Clearly, you know nothing about the Italian antiquities market. NOTHING!" Haha, that's great.

"nor did he claim to have been "intentionally cropped out" of a photograph, nor did he "give voice" to "calumnies perpetrated by anti-Semites."

You're the one who claimed that Feldman was "airbrushed" out of the photo. Feldman never corrected you, and when I asked you how you came to the conclusion that he was "airbrushed" (and you don't airbrush someone mistakenly, so you were also implying intent), you said it was from your understanding of the New York Times article.

The article said no such thing.

You spun the story as befits your ideology, just as the critic you are snidely dismissing did.

Why don't you just admit it? It would give you credibility, in my eyes at least. Or maybe all you really want to do in this magazine is preach to the choir of self styled "progressives", rather than influence the thinking of people who generally disagree with you.

Lame.

Oich, yes, been distracted by the Foxman issue and haven't updated this page, only a note on the page to "explain airbrush issue." Must do that now.

UPDATE: Basic issue on the "airbrushed" issue now up there. It wasn't a spin but rather my honest misreading--the same misreading that underlies the Orthodox Union's claim that Feldman slandered Modern Orthodoxy by misrepresenting their actions. So I don't think my error did any good for Feldman or for an agenda that seeks to focus on the perceived shortcomings of the Orthodox rather than on the question of whether Feldman tendentiously mischaracterized what Maimonides did with the photo. The defense of Feldman is "that's absurd, he never even SAID that they cropped or airbrushed his photo," whereas clearly I read the article as claiming they they had. But in any case, I edited my question to indicate my understanding that Feldman said they had "airbrushed" the photo, when he had not explicitly said that.  So that was a significant mistake on my part, and one I should have addressed sooner. And comments are of course welcome.