It’s hard to know exactly where to begin breaking down the monumental absurdity that is the NYTimes piece today about Jews and tattoos. For the record, I am among those who find tattoos incredibly sexy, on Jew and Gentile alike, so probably the best that can be said is that the Times has manufactured a wonderful excuse for some pics of nice Jewish body art. Here, in no particular order, are my gripes.
*The Times does an admirable job of demolishing the oft-cited myth that inked Jews can’t get buried in a Jewish cemetery. This is an old-wives tale, though one that still seems to scare some into keeping their bodies ink-free. But why oh why would someone so unobservant as to break the Torah’s rule against tattoos (more below) actually care about where they’re buried? There’s no real significance to burial in a Jewish cemetery. It just means you’ll lie next to other Jews for eternity. And who wants that?
*The article claims Jewish law on tattoos is “slippery.” Er, no. There are multiple sources in the Torah for the prohibition. What is “slippery” is only whether one considers those rules to still be applicable or if they are merely relics of an earlier age and therefore needn’t be applied, as one (presumably Reform) rabbi says in the article.
*Finally, why the hell is this piece in the Times to begin with? It’s not news, and it barely even qualifies as style. Susan Jacobs of the Jewish Journal, where I used to be editor, reported on changing Jewish attitudes towards tats years ago. If the newspaper of record wanted to also be the Jewspaper of record, at least stay ahead of the curve.
