The Beren Campus buildings have recently been graced with two YU Purim publications - The Closetator and Kol Hamishtakker (spoofs on the YU newspaper The Commentator, and the Jewish thought magazine Kol Hamevaser, respectively). Excited at the prospect of having a laugh over my dinner the other night, I picked up a copy of each while waiting for the elevator.
Allow me a brief definition of Purim merriment, courtesy of Wikipedia. There are two classic types of humor associated with Purim.
A) “Purim Torah” - “humorous, satirical writings... Purim Torah authors, often displaying an amazing grasp of Jewish knowledge, playfully use some of the far-fetched methods of Talmudic logic and Biblical exegesis in order to reach absurd conclusions.” Purim Torah generally consists of comical, yet erudite Torah teachings, or things like linguistic tricks.
B) “Purim Shpiels” - humorous plays or skits that tend to affectionately exaggerate and poke fun at certain qualities of well-known figures (from Tanach or present-day Jewish life, such as a community Rav or teacher) and elements of recorded stories (again, from Tanach or recent community events). These satirical parodies are popular in yeshivas and shuls.
The Kol Hamishtakker was, in my humble opinion, a fantastic blend of wit, wisdom, and (literally) laugh-out-loud humor. They successfully created a “Purim Torah” publication, in every sense of the term. The articles incorporated the classic pilpul learning style of a beis medrash in the silliest of matters, and utilized many little twists on language, resulting in a great Purim publication.
When I picked up The Closestator, however, I was immediately shocked with the very first headline: “Prominent Rosh Yeshiva Emerges from Closet” with a large digitally edited photo of “R’ Twersky” literally coming out from a closet. I was so upset and appalled at the reference that I had a moment of actual nausea.
How could such a bizayon of a Torah authority be publicly printed? Yes, it was all in the name of “simchas Purim,” but there are halachos that need to be taken into account before such “jokes” are made public. There are lo ta’asehs of nezikin (physical damages), lashon hara, ona’as devarim, and embarrassment that one could easily violate when creating Purim shtick. (See “Purim Pranks in Halacha,” a translation of a shiur by R’ Yosef Zvi Rimon on Virtual Beit Midrash)
In this particular case of this article, there are serious issues of ona’as devarim involved. The source for this issur is Vayikra 25:17 - “V’lo tonu ish et amito…” “You shall not wrong one another,” which the Sefer Hachinuch (338) clearly defines as “not shaming people or causing them pain in any way.” Not only is this a matter that cannot be ignored when involved in Purim shtick, but it gets even more problematic when the subject of the shtick is a mechanech, because at that point, both a person and the Torah (which he teaches) are being made fun of. Kal v’chomer, in the case of a Rosh Yeshiva!
Aren’t we told that the Jews of Persia re-accepted the Torah on Purim? (“Ki’yimu v’kiblu,” Esther 9:27) What is the point to Purim shtick if it makes a mockery of that very same Torah and the Rabbanim who transmit it?
Additionally, we know that Purim and Adar are the time when we are told “macho timche et zecher Amalek,” to wipe out the remembrance of Amalek. How do we keep this mitzvah today? According to one interpretation (forgive me, I can’t remember where I saw it), Amalek represents the midah of leitzanus, or mockery, which is achieved by approaching wisdom or Torah and finding one tiny thing wrong with it, publicly declaring that, and thus undermining all authority and credibility which that wisdom contains. We can destroy Amalek today by eliminating that negative midah from within ourselves. But if this is the exact midah that is utilized in creating Purim shpiels (i.e. - making a gadol b‘Torah and the Torah he teaches the butt of one‘s joke), it is allowing Amalek to continue existing. Certainly, this is antithetical to the everlasting message and meaning of Purim!
I believe there is a very fine line between proper “Purim Torah” or “Purim Shpiels” and bizayon v’leitzanus. I don’t think it is unfair to say that The Closetator, at times, crossed that line.
Regarding the particular article; I understand the line of thinking. It was very shticky and sharp to have a literal spin on the phrase “come out of the closet.” When one reads the whole article, there are, admittedly, some funny lines. And I can understand the writer’s though process; “Well, who would be the funniest subject to write this about?” R’ Twersky seems like a perfect subject, given his vehement opposition to the entire episode of the gay panel.
But that is where the line was crossed. It is by very virtue of the fact that R’ Twersky was such a serious force of opposition that he was the most inappropriate choice. Had the subject been anyone else, such as a fictional student, or possibly even Rabbi Blau (given his involvement in the panel), the article would have been less (if not at all) offensive. But any redeeming humor in the article is overshadowed by the shocking lack of kavod for a Rosh Yeshiva.
Maybe its just a girl thing, and this is how guys do Purim. I wouldn’t know. I did see the YU Purim shpiel from last year on YouTube, which did make fun of rebbeim (in front of them, no less) - but it seemed to me that there wasn’t an offensive nature to the jokes. At least, it didn’t bother me. And some kind of light-hearted, affectionate teasing of mechanchim (in the context of a Purim shpiel) seems to be permitted sometimes (see footnote 8 of the above article).
Maybe The Closetator article bothered me because it was so in-your-face, so openly ridiculous, and with a picture. Plus, it was such a delicate topic. If anyone heard R’ Twersky speak in response to the panel, it was really intense. I’m not paskening here, but making fun of something so incredibly serious is in poor taste and cannot possibly be mutar.
Maybe it’s just a difference in the subject matter of each publication. The Kol Hamevaser is a machshava/Jewish thought magazine, and consequently, all of the articles have some element, usually a very large portion, of analytical Torah and Jewish philosophy to it (in the regular editions). Thus, it is expected and appropriate that the Kol Hamevaser’s Purim publication is of this “Purim Torah” nature (in keeping with the above definition).
The Commentator, however, is a general student newspaper, not directed at Torah (or science, such as Derech Hateva, for example). The articles in this publication are of an informational, not analytical, nature. They report on events, happenings, student body undercurrents, etc. It would be out of place to expect all of their articles to be of a Torah-centric nature, which is the Kol Hamevaser’s area of expertise. But this does not mean that The Commentator, a Yeshiva University publication, should be void of Torah values. Even if it is a Purim edition.
Now, one could argue that the Kol Hamishtakker had their fair share of mockery. But there are two differences. The first is that the Kol Hamishtakker dealt with these serious matters with an appropriate delicacy and distance (and definitely not as often as The Closetator - one needs to merely look at the title and banner of the publication to see a running theme in it).
Secondly, the articles in the Kol Hamishtakker had some sort of philosophical message. To quote the authors, “[We] wrote articles making fun of everything YU, with a kernel of truth so strong it could never be ignored.” A perfect example of this is the charming, lengthy, Dr. Seuss-esque poem dealing with that unanswerable question of how to define “Modern Orthodox” (“Bistu Modernish?” p. 17-20). The Closetator, on the other hand, seems to have no agenda or message, other than distasteful mockery of everything.
We could then compare The Closetator to the Stern Purim publication, The Unobservant. It too is a newspaper of a general sort, not focused on Torah. The Unobservant seemed, to me, to be harmlessly cute, not bitingly sharp or (pardon the harsh language) boorishly humorous. (I could bring more examples from The Closetator that rubbed me the wrong way, but I won’t.)
Please don't think that I have anything personal against the writers or editors themselves. I don’t know a single one of them, and I am sure that they are all upstanding b'nei Torah. The only thing that disturbs me is their judgment regarding what was and wasn’t appropriate for the Purim publication.
Maybe it’s a matter of personal taste. But humor at the expense of kavod haTorah is undoubtedly antithetical.
My only hope is that next year, IY”H, we can celebrate Purim with the true, unsullied, pure, and effective simcha that is the hallmark of Adar.
(Please pardon the length of this post. I just needed to express my thoughts and feelings. Thanks for understanding.)
