Recently, the New York Times and the Washington Post reported the final outcome of a sad story that embarrassed the Jewish community. Rabbi Menachem Youlus, a sofer and Jewish bookstore owner in Silver Spring, MD, pleaded guilty to mail and wire fraud in a scheme to steal money from Save a Torah, a non-profit organization he had helped to create.
As the former editor of BabagaNewz magazine, I had published two stories about the courageous exploits of Rabbi Youlus, which now have been exposed as lies. Youlus had described himself as the Jewish Indiana Jones, a fearless rabbi who searched for sifrei Torah that the Nazis had defaced. According to his accounts, he rescued many sacred scrolls, restored them, and sold them to congregations.
When Youlus’s fraud became known, the Behrman House staff discussed what we should do; after all, the articles about the rabbi were still available on our website.
As we considered our options, we realized that two important Jewish values were present: Emet (truth) and Chillul Hashem (desecrating God’s name and bringing dishonor to the Jewish community).
We discussed:
1. Do we have an obligation to correct the story BabagaNewz had printed earlier? [Emet]
2. By telling the truth, would we be publicizing behavior that reflected negatively on the Jewish community? [Chillul Hashem ]
3. If we reported the story, would we be harming young Jews’ opinions of rabbis and others in positions of communal authority?
4. Do we have an obligation to help our young readers process the story, which they might already have heard on the news?
Our editorial debate was rigorous and the staff was split. When we are confronted with tough ethical issues, we often turn for advice to people we trust; we did so in this matter. We consulted two rabbis who have regularly commented on controversial material that we’re considering for publication. One rabbi recused himself from offering an opinion because he had a relationship with Rabbi Youlus. The other rabbi, Michael Broyde, who teaches law at Emory University, felt we had an obligation to print the story, explaining, “There is no significant chillul hashem in sharing information that is widely known already and it is a chance to address practical ethical conduct.”
You'll find our coverage here.
Did we respond correctly? I look forward to your comments.
