Lionel Kopelowitz
The obituary for Dr Lionel Kopelowitz, (JC, August 2) by Geoffrey Alderman lacked balance. As such, it failed to do justice to a long life, well-lived, mostly in the causes of helping others whether as a GP or as a volunteer supporting and leading many secular and Jewish communal activities, not to mention as a man passionate about family and education.
Compared with the frequently eulogistical obituaries you publish, this set out to be critical.
That may be fair enough but a well-written obituary that deals with disappointments should also address and describe the high notes of achievement. In Lionel’s case, that should have included proper measure in looking at his long service at the Board of Deputies, not only as its president, but for many years prior and beyond. The destructive “slant” of disproportionately long column inches hides a vast number of positive and valuable contributions made across so wide a spectrum of life, starting at a young age and continuing even up until his death at 92. The way this obituary was written sits at odds with the tone of your news item at page 13 (‘Father’ of community Kopelowitz dies at 92).
Even hasty internet research would have enabled delivery of greater accuracy, whether as to the correct maiden name of Lionel’s widow, Sylvia, a reference to his step-daughter, Jennifer, which was omitted, and to remember to record, as it behoves in an obituary, achievements of nationally acknowledged significance. Surely readers would wish to know that as recently as in 2015, Lionel, by then in his late 80s, was appointed MBE for services to interfaith relations.
Jonathan Kropman
London NW3
The acerbic comments contained in last week’s obituary to the late Dr Lionel Kopelowitz while the family were still in their shivah week brought no credit to any of those concerned.
This will in no way sully the memory of a thoroughly decent man who possessed in abundance the most important attributes of communal leadership, namely absolute integrity and a lifelong commitment to communal service.
(Rabbi) Yisroel Fine
London NW4
I found Geoffrey Alderman’s obituary of Dr Kopelowitz both offensive and unnecessarily hurtful to his family and his many friends. While he could be legitimately criticised for his handling of the chair at the Board of Deputies during his term of office, his long life of service to our community both in the north east and later in London earned the respect and affection of a multitude of friends and acquaintances for a whole range of service outside the Board.
Brian Barnett
Stanmore
I am writing on behalf of the council and community of the United Hebrew Congregation of Newcastle upon Tyne regarding the obituary of Dr Lionel Kopelowitz.
Members of our community were extremely disappointed and upset at the quite inappropriate and totally unnecessary targeting of certain issues, which were highlighted and which somewhat unfairly and unjustly demeaned the honour and due respect that the obituary should surely have been intended to reflect.
Anthony Josephs
President, United Hebrew Congregation of Newcastle upon Tyne
Might you remind your obituarist that the focus of an obituary should be the deceased, and not the writer?
It will not do for Professor Alderman to compare everyone else to himself or, to be more precise, his own view of himself — for who can withstand that comparison?
David Wolfson, QC
Temple, London
Time to get better
It is quite appalling that a husband can refuse his wife a get for 15 years and then only grant it for a considerable payment (JC, Aug 2). Both the delay and the payment were sanctioned by the Beth Din, which considered itself powerless to take any alternative course.
The prophet Micah said “Justice, Justice shalt thou pursue.” Does the Beth Din consider that it has pursued Justice? Does the Beth Din not consider that it has condoned what is tantamount to blackmail?
The argument that the Beth Din is bound by the Torah to pursue the course it took is mistaken. Firstly, it has not followed Micah. Secondly, many of the laws of the Torah are of their time. The Torah is packed with laws that are no longer operative. Do we sacrifice pigeons to atone for sins? Are there cities of refuge to which a manslayer can flee? Can a husband or father annul a woman’s contracts?
Every legal system, including Judaism’s, has means of amending its laws to meet changing circumstances. Underlying the rule that the husband’s consent to providing a get is the assumption that the husband owns his wife until he releases her. That assumption is abhorrent in modern society. To maintain it is a disgrace and a stain on Judaism.
English law has various means of achieving a just result where a person refuses to sign a document which a court considers in law and justice he ought to sign. Do not tell me that is impossible in Jewish law. “Justice, Justice shalt thou pursue”.
Kenneth Zucker
London N2
The Hebrew word for a religious bill of divorce is get, which is an abbreviation of gemar tov (good ending). In the case of Shmiel Kahan, who demanded a substantial sum from his wife for such a bill, a more appropriate term would be osheq (extortion).
The religious authorities have time and again proved impotent in such agunot cases and have even on occasion encouraged the wife to meet the husband’s exorbitant demands to expedite a settlement. Putting up posters shaming the husband has proved futile and far from expressing concern that the get was secured by blackmail in this case, Dayan Gelley, head of the London Beth Din, merely said he was “very glad the situation has finally been resolved”. Reading between the lines, he’s probably relieved at the avoidance of yet another scandal.
Any joy over Mrs Kahan’s deliverance must be mitigated as Mr Kahan’s unwarranted windfall will encourage others to follow his odious example.
With that in mind, it’s time to make representations to the government to provide a remedy. They have already outlawed forced marriages and the protracted denial of a get is much the same kind of thing. Two measures are necessary.
First, the extortion of money for a religious divorce should be subsumed into the Theft Act under the category of demanding money with menaces. Any money paid to a husband in these circumstances should be defined as “proceeds of crime” and liable to seizure.
This would mean that anyone who solicits or accepts payment of this kind and flees the country would be subject to an international arrest warrant and ultimately to seizure of assets. Furthermore, any third party advocating or aiding such monetary demands, including representatives of religious authorities, should also be subject to arrest.
Second, current legislation enables the courts to withhold a decree absolute if a Jewish husband denies his wife a get. This civil law approach is of little use when the husband abandons his wife and doesn’t care whether he is divorced or not. Instead, on the day that a decree absolute is to be granted to a Jewish couple, the civil court should summon the husband and representatives of the Beth Din to be present in order that a get be written and handed to the judge prior to the final decree being issued.
If a husband fails to answer the summons, then once again, an international arrest warrant could be issued on the grounds of contempt of court. Under these conditions, a Jewish woman whose marriage has irretrievably broken down would at last be able to divorce her husband and obtain a get.
In the shtetl of old, in such cases, recalcitrant husbands were beaten until they gave a get. When someone objected to this on the grounds that a get can only be given at the husband’s free will, without pressure, the ingenious rabbinic answer was “we beat him until he agrees to give the get under his free will”. Substituting a term of imprisonment for a beating would be a more humane way of achieving the same result.
Herbert Goldberg
Pinner, Middlesex
Shechita by George
While George Eustice is not a supporter of shechita (JC, August 2), in government he adhered to government policy, ensuring the protection of shechita. His personal opinion does not diminish the validity of the ample body of scientific evidence in support of shechita. Brexit brings significant new challenges and Shechita UK will continue working hard with Defra and, where appropriate, Mr Eustice, to ensure the continuation of shechita in the UK.
Shimon Cohen,
Campaign Director, Shechita UK
Coke and cash
CST mirrors the Coca-Cola recipe: secret, no open votes, no mandate and no public accountability. One would ponder to grasp the absence of heroic CST lifesavers outside Strictly Orthodox synagogues; mainly, that they are visible Jews versus the bankers in the questionable Brick Lane mural.
A strange sensation can perhaps be felt when a self-promoted underground institution welcomes circa £13 million from the Government.
Shraga Stern
London N16
Homeless World Cup
Last week, I brought a team of homeless men and women from the Israeli charity Kick Start to play in the Homeless World Cup in Cardiff (JC, August 2). It was an emotional experience for the players, many of whom have struggled with alcohol and substance abuse. Being part of the team, training as a group, and having something to aim for has hugely helped their rehabilitation. And being welcomed by Myisrael, the UK charity that supports us, and the Cardiff Jewish community, who hosted them in their homes and synagogues, showed them the city and took them to a Man Utd game, has helped restore the team’s faith in humanity.
Omri Abramovitch
Founder and Director,
Kick Start
