Deciphering Der Yid code (Part 1)

"Munkacz, Hungary, 1939"


(Although several weeks after the fact maybe we can use this editorial as proof of the general approach to issues in that camp and as a Yiddish lesson as well....)

It seems like decades of education and mingling is not enough for me; I have yet to REALLY understand what the Hogeh De'os at Der Yid really mean to say when they write their editorials. All those years speaking only that "dialect" of yiddish and - if I may say so myself - excelling at reading, writing and conversation did nothing for me as far as the esoteric and complicated meanings of the "Organ of Orthodox Jewry" go. This despite most of my melamdim religiously reading that publication and belonging to the groups supposedly represented by that Organ, and then eagerly sharing that information with their innocent students. So I'm not sure what it is I'm missing here, but apparently I am! Let's read it together and I'll give you my opinion of what I read and what I as a reader thought their intention was, and you'll correct me where you think I went wrong, shall we? We'll do it slowly so that all of us can understand, even the non-Hungarians among you....



The article begins by lecturing us not totally in the know of Tzionistishe Historye that there was a time - during the British Mandate - when the Zionist establishment was to become the sole representative body for the Jews in Palestine. "Erliche Yidden" - as they like to call them - finally achieved - after much hishtadlus - that they could opt out of the Zionist Kehillah if they so pleased by signing a declaration. A "יציאה דאקיומענט" it was called. It stated that they had no shaychis to that congregation, although it isn't clear to which congregation they DID belong... Gedolei Yisroel everywhere "forced" frum Jews to get that yetziah document from the English, and that was the greatest form of opposition to the Zionists at that time. The article says that many Jews, even while employed by the Tziyonim, kept that yetziah paper with them, despite earning their livelihood from those which they said they opposed... The right to exclude oneself ended in 1953 (I don't get that part, do all Jews officially belong to the "Zionist entity" now?) But this week (the week of the Mumbai attacks) we learned that the battle to resign from membership in the Zionist entity goes on, and not only for the living, but also for those who left this world, and despite their known opposition to the Zionist ideal.


Okay, nice history lesson there, coupled with some jabs at the Israelis, which is to be expected. Nothing terrible, though. Inappropriate as an editorial, yes, but again, to be expected.

Der Yid Continues: The tragedy at the Chabad House bears more discussion. When a simple Jew, a father of eight children would die in an accident that in itself would be a terrible tragedy and would require us to examine our personal lives and make the necessary corrections. A kashrus mashgiach is a shliach tzibbur - a messenger for all of us - and if the tragedy happens with a mashgiach, one who makes sure that we have kosher food to eat, then the death is אחד מן החבורה, one of our group, which requires even more introspection and teshuvah. The whole chaburah=group then needs to do a cheshbon HaNefesh and see where they've erred. Add to that when it happens to a Derhoybene Yid, ah Bnon Shel Kdoshim, then we REALLY need to worry, because the tragedy becomes exponentially greater.... אמר הצאפ: Where do we see that a Bnon Shel Kedoshim has special status when it comes to tragedy? Notice that neither one of the others murdered in Mumbai deserve even an honorable mention, all they say is דער אומגעקומענער, in singular term. I guess only Reb Leibish was killed in Mumbai as far as they're concerned? No. When it suits them later on in the editorial they do mention that others were killed, but only to prove their heartless, idiotic point, not to c"v mourn.

המשך יבא בעז"ה