16 May BUD LIGHT, HOBBY LOBBY, ANGEL BAKERY AND YOU: REPRESENTING THE BRAND

If you are boycotting
a product, company or
service because you
are angry, frustrated,
disappointed, or
committed to your
principles, you are far
from alone. According to a recent survey,
a quarter of Americans are boycotting a
product or company they had spent money
on in the past. Some are taking a political
position, others a stance on social issues,
and the result is more and more people are
expressing themselves through their
wallets.
Last month, Bud Light learned this
directly. They launched a sponsorship
partnership with actor and TikTok
influencer Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender
activist, which provoked strong backlash
against Anheuser-Busch, the parent
company of Budweiser and maker of Bud
Light. Bud Light sales plummeted with
calls for boycotts until the company
ultimately pulled the campaign and put
their Vice President of Marketing on leave
of absence.
Founded in 1970, Hobby Lobby is the
largest privately owned arts-and-crafts
retailer in the world, with over 43,000
employees operating in 48 states. It was
started by David and Barbara Green,
devout Evangelicals who list as the first of
the company’s core values: “Honoring the
Lord in all we do by operating in a manner
consistent with Biblical principles.”
Hobby Lobby has been at the center of
several national controversies as a result
of taking strong positions on (and in some
cases litigating) issues from
contraceptives, LGBT, publicly endorsing
Trump, and taking out an ad calling for a
Christian-run government. In recent
years, Hobby Lobby has confronted
countless calls for boycotts.
The boycott movement has made its way
to Israel. Among my earliest memories of
visiting Israel is eating a delicious
rugelach from Angel’s Bakery. The iconic
bakery, Israel’s largest, produces 275,000
loaves of bread and 275,000 rolls daily
and controls 30 percent of Israel’s bread
market. Founded in 1927 in Mandatory
Palestine by Salomon Angel, Angel’s
Bakery today exports to the United States,
United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and
Denmark.
Last week, outside supermarkets in
major cities in Israel, boxes of Angel’s
products remained untouched, and a

growing number of high-volume
customers, particularly large Yeshivas,
were cancelling orders. A huge order for
Meron for about 50 million NIS was
reportedly canceled.
What happened? Was an Angel’s product
found to be contaminated? Was there a
Kashrus violation? Were workers being
underpaid or mistreated? The controversy
had nothing to do with ingredients,
kashrus, or employee conduct. The source
of the boycott that could cost the company
potentially hundreds of millions of shekel
was a social media post by the company’s
chairman of the board, Omer Bar-Lev.
Bar-Lev, a longtime Labor Party
politician and former Minister of Public
Security, participated in a protest outside
the Bnei Brak home of Rav Gershon
Edelstein, considered by the Chareidi

community to be the Gadol HaDor. Bar-
Lev posted a picture of himself with the

“Brothers in Arms” protest group on
Twitter, writing, “Beyond and in addition
to the importance of military service to
everyone, the law of “No equality in the
burden” [i.e., the Draft Law] that the
coalition intends to enact is the bribe of
[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu
and [Finance Minister Yariv] Levin to the
Haredi parties so that they will vote in
favor of the coup d’état.”
Charedi politicians immediately
expressed outrage, with United Torah
Judaism MK Moshe Gafni tweeting,
“Omer Bar-Lev and Angel’s have no
respect for the Torah! You should seriously
consider whether you can trust their
kashrut. Bar-Lev does not understand
what the Torah is and what is great in the
Torah and everyone has to calculate
whether it is possible to buy food products
from them. I despise him!”
Labor Minister Yoav Ben-Tzur (Shas)
attacked Bar-Lev as well, saying
“Freedom of expression is not the freedom
of humiliation, Omer Bar-Lev and the
group of privileged people who
demonstrated outside the house of Rabbi
Gershon Edelstein disgraced the honor of
the Torah and there is no forgiveness for
that.”
The call for boycotting Angel’s was
swift and the response and cooperation
came quickly, sending a loud message not
only to Bar-Lev, but also the board of
directors and management of Angel’s.
Some have pushed back expressing
support for Angel’s and Bar-Lev. Yisrael

Beiteinu chairman Avigdor
Lieberman posted two pictures
of himself purchasing challah in
Angel’s, writing: “On the way
home, I stopped to buy challos
for Shabbat in Angel’s Bakery.
As far as I know, the State of
Israel is still defined as a
democracy and people are
allowed to express their
opinions. We won’t allow
Charedi askanim to harm the
livelihood of Israeli citizens.”
This story has not yet

concluded, and it remains unclear if Bar-
Lev will walk back his post or even resign,

or if he will double down and hope that
the Bakery will weather the storm.
Whatever your personal opinion on
judicial reform, the proposed draft law
and any of the other issues being highly
contested in Israel, this episode raises
what I think is a fascinating question.
When it comes to Bud Light and Hobby
Lobby, I understand why people wouldn’t
want to patronize or support companies
that formally take positions or support
policies they strongly disagree with. The
episode of Angel’s Bakery, however,
seems different. The company didn’t
advocate a position, didn’t partner with an
activist, and didn’t launch a provocative
or controversial marketing campaign.
The company did not express any position
about the Draft Law or judicial reform. A
private individual, not acting as a
representative of the company, expressed
his opinion, whether you agree with it or
not.
Should we boycott every business or
hold every company accountable for the
personal opinions of its board members?
Do we look into the campaign
contributions, analyze social media posts,
and track every company executive before
deciding if we should purchase from that
brand? What about the other board
members, management, or high-level
employees, how far in the company
should we go?
While those questions may seem
extreme, it seems Bar-Lev made waves
specifically because he is the chairman of
Angel’s, the current face of the company.
When he took on that role, he accepted
that he would be synonymous with the
brand and that his choices, actions, social
media posts, and statements, implicit and
explicit, would be associated with the
company he chairs. Being the face of a

company or brand means people will feel
either more aligned or more alienated to
the company based on the impression you
leave. And fair or unfair, that must be
considered before every post, position, or
participation.
What’s true for Bar-Lev is true for each
and every one of us. We may not have
signed up for it but being Jewish means
you are the face of our brand, you are
synonymous with the Jewish people and
with our values, our Torah, and most of all
our Creator. When people have positive
experiences with you and impressions of
you, they will think more highly about the
Jewish people and Hashem. If they have
a negative interaction or experience with
you, they won’t only harbor impressions
or feelings about you, but by association
they will think more critically about our
whole people.
We read just last week, v’lo sechalelu es
shem kodshi v’nikdashti besoch b’nei
Yisroel, do not desecrate Hashem’s Holy
Name, instead, sanctify His name among
the Jewish people. Rav Pam noted that
these words appear adjacent to the
expression Ushemartem mitzvosai
v’asisem osam, observe My laws and
perform them because the greatest
responsibility to “represent” the brand,
the people who will most be associated
with the total Jewish people and our
Torah, are the observant community.
Rabbeinu Bechayei notes that there is no
middle ground, no neutral. There are only
two alternatives provided. With every
speech, action and behavior, we are either
helping the brand or hurting it, advancing
our cause or setting it back, bringing
people closer to Hashem and His Torah or
causing them to feel further away.
Every time we grab the keyboard to post
or proverbial microphone to demonstrate,
we need to know, we are the chairman,
one wrong move and others could boycott
what we hold most dear.