The plural of "mensch" has always been "menschen" ("Mensches: Some Big-Hearted Angelenos You Would Be Proud to Know," Jan. 6). Come Purim, will we read about "hamentasches"?
I was impressed, though, by the dedication of those featured in the accompanying article.
Ruth L. Brown
I do not profess to be a Yiddish linguist, but I learned my Yiddish in the Sholem Aleichem Folk Shul in Perth Amboy, N.J., about 65 years ago, where everyone knew that the plural of "mensch" was "menschen." Please tell me whether or not I'm correct.
Ed. Note: According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the plural of "mensch" is either "mensches" or "menschen." We chose the style closer to English, but feel free to come by and discuss it over some beigelech and blintschikes.
We were disappointed by your editorial/news story, "Tis Never the Season for Chrismukkah" (Dec. 23), with its premise that interfaith or intercultural celebrations shouldn't be tolerated.
The predictable seasonal staple about how children are confused by joint celebrations provided no evidence to support that conclusion. It was a missed opportunity.
Instead of probing how Jewish communities can respond sensitively to the growing number of intercultural or interfaith families, it adopted the contemptuous tone articulated by Rabbi Harold Schulweis, who dismisses those who want to combine holidays as "totally ignorant," misguided and misinformed. By disparaging and discounting non-Jewish members of intermarried families, Jewish leaders put their heads in the sand and push them away.
In our secular Jewish organization, the Sholem Community (www.sholem.org), we've welcomed intercultural families who have been made to feel uncomfortable at synagogues.
We don't ask non-Jewish family members to reject their backgrounds. We discuss how family members can honor each other's heritages with respect and understanding. We explore common cultural themes in seasonal festivals, and we've seen how families can observe loving and warm, respectful celebrations.
This approach doesn't work for everyone but is appropriate for people whose outlook is cultural and secular. Instead of the my-way-or-the-highway approach, families who honor each other's cultures and traditions can enrich their own experiences, their humanity and connect themselves and their loved ones to their Jewishness.
The Sholem Community
In his opinion piece, "IRS Errs on Endorsing Candidate Charge" (Jan. 6), Rabbi John Rosove correctly observes that the Tax Code prohibits, at the risk of loss of tax exemption, intervention by synagogues and other charities "in "any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."
It does not prohibit all political activities. Charities, including synagogues, can take positions on legislation -- that is lobby -- so long as their lobbying activity is not substantial. (Positions on initiatives and referenda, as well as positions on nominees to the federal judiciary, are considered lobbying.) Moreover, these organizations can take positions on questions of public policy without limit.
Thus, even had Rabbi Rosove named leaders in his erev Rosh Hashanah sermon in October 2005, he would not have violated the campaign prohibition, since no election was looming. Nonetheless, since he did not mention any leader's name, Rabbi Rosove could have offered this same sermon just days before an election without any violation of the prohibition.
In unofficial guidance, the IRS has treated discussions of issues of public policy without mention of candidates' names as falling outside of the category of campaign intervention.
Temple Israel of Hollywood
John E. Anderson Professor of Tax Law
Loyola Law School
I write in response to Amy Klein's thoughtful article on "Orthodox But Not Monolithic" (Jan. 6). While your reporter generally presented both the spirit and the substance of my remarks on the issue of women in Orthodox Jewish communal life, I was misquoted as stating that no women currently serve on the board of the Orthodox Union (OU).
While I noted that there are currently no women officers in the OU, I did not suggest that there aren't any women board members. I know better than that. My wife, Vivian, is one of the most active members of the OU's Board of Governors.
OU National Vice President
Like every apologist for illegal immigration, Rob Eshman makes a case for "assimilation" of the undocumented, while ignoring the wholesale violation of our laws and sovereignty that got us into a fiscal and social quagmire ("The Slop Sink," Dec. 30).
According to the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., the net cost of public benefits and services for illegal immigrants in California is $10 billion a year -- a structured deficit that no one in Sacramento is willing to address. L.A. County public hospitals lose $340 million a year providing uncompensated care for undocumented immigrants.
Here's the kicker: The proposed Totalization Agreement with Mexico will provide Social Security benefits to Mexican nationals and, by extension, illegal immigrants. The price tag: $345 billion over 20 years.
Jennifer Garmaise's article ("Taking Winter Break on Jewish Time," Dec. 30) did not address the logistical and economic impact that shifting winter vacations to late January has on families of moderate means. Far from "disrupting vacation plans," moving winter vacation from late December poses a serious challenge to parents who work outside the Jewish community, particularly single parents and those families where both parents must work in order to make ends meet.
Many of these parents hoard their sick leave and vacation time in order to take off for Yom Tov. Taking a week off in January (when alternative forms of child care are not available) in order to care for children out of school poses a financial hardship and, sometimes, a barrier to employment altogether. It is also difficult to see what educational or religious benefit the children gain from this week.
Giving the children a week's break at Chanukah (as is done in Israel) would not completely solve the child care issue, but at least it has a logical Jewish rationale. Starting winter break on Dec. 26 would comply with Rabbi Feinstein's ruling, while alleviating the child care situation.
Offering affordable day camps would also go a long way toward addressing the needs of ordinary working parents who sacrifice in order to send their children to Orthodox Jewish day schools.