Curing Cancer the Torah Way

A very thought provoking essay was posted on Cross-Currents on June 24 authored by Rabbi Dovid Landesman entitled A.Y. Karelitz, M.D.

Here is the part that interested me:

I brought an example once from the Iggerot Chazon Ish and was somewhat astounded to discover that none of my students had ever heard of the author. I digressed and told them the story of Professor Lev and what he had said. I then described the impact that the Chazon Ish had on halachah in our generation, especially in regard to mitzvos ha-tluyot ba-aretz. This led into a general discussion about great rabbis.

One hand in the back of the room shot up.

“Rebbi? Based on what you‘re saying about the Chazon Ish and the way you describe him, isn‘t it possible that if he had dedicated his time to medical research rather than full time Torah study, he might have discovered a cure for cancer?”

“That‘s a possibility although there is no guarantee that it would have happened,” I answered.

“Well, let‘s assume for a moment that he did discover the cure for cancer. Would that not have had a greater impact on the world than his contributions to learning?”

This is certainly a very legitimate question and one that is commonly asked in various forms (as I will illustrate shortly). I applaud Rabbi Landesman for providing a very fitting and poignant response:

“Quantitatively I think you might say that given that more people might have benefited. Qualitatively I‘m not sure, because none of us knows precisely how important Torah learning is to the preservation of natural order. When the Talmud tells us ein ha-olam mitkayem ella al hevel pihem shel tinokot shel beit rabban – the world only exists because of the study of the children – they were telling us that Torah study is the energy that fuels nature. Take it away and natural order collapses. Had the Chazon Ish gone into medical research – had he become A. Y. Karelitz M.D. – who knows how much quality Torah learning would be missing in this world.”

Although I thought that his response was a true answer and appropriate to a more secular mindset, I also thought that it slightly missed the mark.

He is saying that based on how we measure (qualitative vs. quantitative), the achievement in Torah can be considered no less far-reaching. With this response, Rabbi Landesman concedes that the Chazon Ish's great achievements in learning may have come at the expense of great achievements in medicine. Though Torah study supplies the energy that fuels nature, it does not directly alleviate the plight of cancer sufferers.

I am not so sure about that. And I think Rabbi Landesman missed out on an opportunity to deliver an hashkafic message that is simpler, less esoteric and more relevant to the petitioner's question about curing cancer. So I stepped in to fill the void. Here is the comment that I posted on Cross-Currents:

I have likewise dealt with the question of “If the Chazon Ish would have been able to cure cancer…” but in a slightly different guise. The way I am asked the question is: “If all of the Jews would sit and learn Torah 24/7 as advocated by Ravi Shimon Bar Yochai (Brachos 35b), who would be the doctors to heal those who get sick?” My response addresses both forms of the question and follows a more theological track.

For starters, we can always rely on the response presented by RaShb”Y himself in Brachos 35b which is that non-Jews would come voluntarily and fill that role. HKBH is the Chonen L’Adam Daas and He is quite capable of inspiring whoever He wants – Jewish or not – with the requisite wisdom to make the medical discoveries that would help mankind. If HKBH wants a cure for cancer to be found, He has no small pool of “servants” that He can choose Himself to lead to the right place.

Nevertheless, I might expect this response to fall short of satisfying the questioner because he would ask: “But the Chazon Ish was blessed with extraordinary brilliance and understanding, why not assume that he is the ‘chosen servant’?”

So here is where I take the theological track:

HKBH tells us Himself in no less than 3 places in the Torah (okay, once it’s through Moshe) that if we faithfully follow His dictates, we won’t get sick! What this says is that the only reason we have cancer is because we are not “mushlam” (complete) in our avodas Hashem. If we would be, there would be no cancer. This is G-d’s promise in no less than 3 places in the Torah (Shmos 16:26, 23:25 and Devarim 7:16).

What the Torah is telling us is that working toward “shleimus” in Avodas Hashem is the cure for cancer (or – the way to avoid getting it in the first place. ‘An ounce of prevention…’). As such, one who devotes his life to helping Jews fulfill their role as a Mamleches Kohanim and a Goy Kadosh - as the Chazon Ish did - is doing more to cure cancer than anybody in medical school.

Yes, I know we are far from mushlamim and in our day even Kedoshim are stricken with the dreaded disease R”L, but had the Chazon Ish been A.Y. Karelitz M.D., we would be that much further from true Avodas Hashem and the cancers that much worse.

Y. Hirshman - Achas L’Maala V’Sheva L’Matta (1a7b)

Incidentally, as I have written in the main theme of my book and in numerous posts, this concept applies to every malady that affects mankind, not just sickness. War, economic turmoil and poverty, infertility, Shalom bayis - all of it is here because we are not living up to our potential in Avodas Hashem.

So if anybody asks: If every Jewish male 18-26 is studying in Yeshiva, who would protect us and fight our enemies? Here is the answer:

Why is there war? And why do we need soldiers? Because we are not committed enough to Torah learning. If we were (Vayikra 26:3), there would not be any war (Vayikra 26:6) and we wouldn't need any soldiers.

Why is there poverty in the world? Because we are not careful in gezel (Targum YB"U Shmos 20:13).

And why are there droughts and water shortages? Because we bear false witness (Targum YB"U ibid.)

And why is there poor shalom bayis? Because we do not do G-d's will (Mishlei 16:7 and Yalkut Shimoni 954). If we did, we would not need marriage counselors and divorce courts.

And why are there infertile couples? Because we (i.e., collective society - not necessarily the individual couples) are not careful on the light mitzvos that people trample with the heels of their feet (Devarim 7:12). If we were, we would not need fertility clinics (Devarim 7:14).

And who tells us exactly how to perform these "light" mitzvos properly so we know all the Halachic nuances and can avoid "trampling them with the heels of our feet"? And how to do the ratzon Hashem so we can have Shalom Bayis? And how to deal in dinei mammonos so we can forstall poverty and avoid droughts?

The Chazon Ish, that's who. And other Gedolim like him.

So here they are (or were), doing the work of these cancer researchers and fertility experts and marriage counselors and of the entire IDF.

So what do we need them for?

Well, somebody has to win those Nobel prizes.

"Kuf" is for Kiddush Hashem

Klal Yisroel is still limping along lopsided. Here in Eretz Yisrael we are about to hear Parshat Chukas while those of you in Chu"L are going to hear Parshat Korach. Of course, next week, IY"H, everybody will hear Parshat Balak and we will again be one big happy family.

I heard a cute vort a few years back that applies to all three of these Parshiot and it goes like this:

In all three of these Parshiot there is an episode wherein a small faction of Klal Yisrael rebels against HKBH and thus initiates a Chillul Hashem. Consequently comes one of the Bnei Amram who channels G-d's revenge and, with this, brings on a Kiddush Hashem.

The name of each Parsha contains three letters and in all of them there is a "kuf". The kuf represents the Kiddush Hashem in each of these Parshiot. Thus, in Parshat Korach where the episode of Korach and his rebellion - and it's aftermath - are at the beginning of the Parsha, the kuf is the first letter of the name of the Parsha - Korach.

In Parshat Chukas, the episode in question is the demand of Bnei Yisrael for water after the passing of Miriam and HKBH answering their request by providing water from the rock. Although Moshe was reprimanded for not making an adequate Kiddush Hashem, it was nevertheless a Kiddush Hashem albiet of lesser impact. Since this episode occurs in the middle of the Parsha, the kuf in the name of the Parsha - ChuKas - is in the middle of the word.

Finally, in Parshat Balak, the episode of Kiddush Hashem is represented by Pinchas' valiant respo0nse to the transgression of Zimri. Since this occurs at the very end of the Parsha, the kuf is at the end of the word that is the name of the Parsha - BalaK.

Who is it that taught us this interesting tidbit?

Well, I heard it a few years ago from my wife. She attends a weekly woman's prayer group that meets at the Kotel HaMaaravi every Wednesday morning. The vort was relayed to the group by Mrs. Marsha Goldin. She is the mother of Binyamin Goldin, one of the autistic Jews who have been transmitting messages to the Jewish world by way of Facilitated Communication and who I have been referring to in some of my most recent posts.

In an FC session that took place approximately 9 years ago, the communicator asked Binyamin to say a dvar Torah. Since it was this time of year, this tidbit is what he said. The FC technician who managed the session was Rebitzin Kalmanovitz, the wife of the current Rosh Yeshiva of the Mirrer Yeshiva in Brooklyn. She had never heard this vort previously and none of the Rabbanim that it was relayed to had heard it as well. It does not seem to be in print in any known sefer or Pirush.

I confirmed the entire matter with Binyamin's father in a recent conversation. He said that the text of that session is still in existence and if he can locate it, he will send me a copy.

I had written in an earlier post that I do not know enough about FC to campaign for or against it. But to focus on the Kiddush Hashem in all these Parshiot is certainly worth campaining for.

ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל

Good Shabbos!

The Lunatic Club

My previous post drew numerous comments. Becaue of the outwardness of the post, I am more inclined to directly respond to the comments than in some less essential posts.

The following is part of a comment posted to the post. I initially wanted to respond in the comments section but I newly learned that there is a limit of 4096 characters to a post comment and I exceeded it. And so I will post the response here in a new post.

The comment was:

yechezkel:

"That's right. I am in cahoots with Fishman , Rav Amnon Yitzchok, the "Tzaddik nistars", the autistics, Chamish and all the other doomsday preachers and I am not afraid to admit it."

but the tzaddik nistar was shown to be saying falsehood. rosh chodesh sivan came and went, and people are still making aliyah. are you willing to state that the Tzadik Nistar was a lunatic?

See also comments from Ari, Baruch and Baal HaBos.

Now, my response:

Why don't you ask me a better question: Since all the time the "Tzaddik Nistar" was preaching R"Ch Sivan, the autistics were saying , "We don't hold by timetables", ergo, they are not in sync with each other, so how can I be in cahoots with both of them?

But, in Talmudic fashion, the kasha points to the terutz. And this also addresses the first question by Baruch, as well:

There are 2 aspects to theses "doomsday" preachers - (1) Their message and (2) their predictions. I buy into their message, but I have a guarded view on the predictions.

If you follow the autistics they have one major message: Every Jew ,if he knows what's good for him, should do teshuva and come closer to Hashem. People who remain distanced will have less chance of surviving the chavlei mashiach. This message is in line with chazal in Sanhedrin, Sota and Shabbos as well as in divrei neviim. They are just saying that the time is real close. As a secondary agenda, they are pushing 3 issues - to be mechazek in chessed, tznius, and to come to eretz yisrael. The only thing that I really took out of the "Tzaddik nistar" was another voice on the advisability to getting to eretz yisrael.

The arichus in my post with how I saw things in 1997 was trying to point out that I personally felt this way, way before I ever heard of the autistics or the "tzadik nistar". I am merely recruiting them as allies. As far as predictions, I never relied on them and, as the autistics say, make your judgements based on what it says in the neviim and chazal and on what is going on around you.

Also, just as many chashuva people have predicted the arrival of mashiach and it has not yet come but we believe it will - IOW, don't brush off "good" predictions just because somebody's "deadline" has passed, I don't think it's a good idea to so quickly dismiss some negative predictions just because their "deadline" passed. The gemara says that Ikvisa d'Meshicha and milchemes gog and magog will be horrific ordeals and we need to be zocheh to be saved from them, who needs deadlines?

Now, back to the Obama Deception, let me say that I heard about a push for a "Global Economy" or world government before I saw this (which was just last week, BTW) and the FEMA "Concentration" camps. As I said in an earllier response, the parts that impressed me were the statements made on camera by Obama, Kissinger, Imannuel and the cult-like worship of Obama. Again, most of these things I was aware of before I saw the film. The film just jazzes it all up. There is just too much of this "conspiracy theory" that isn't theory to brush it off. The economic downturn is very real, and if it was orchestrated, it's very scary. Anti-semitism is growing eveywhere, and this was not even mentioned on the film.

As for Ari's comment, I (and the autistics) are not trying to insinuate that the Jews in these other countries are not in just as much danger, just the opposite, it is Ari's "sanguine" perspective that somehow the American Jews are any bit safer that the autistics are trying to combat. As you can see, I am a "student" (and first generation descendent) of Holocaust history and the "It won't happen here" card was already dealt and lost. If that's all that Ari has to rely on, he is walking on thin ice.

Anyway, to summarize, my feeling is based mostly on maamarei chazal and neviim, historical precedent, and intuition. I don't need anybody's predictions. I only draw on these other sources for "comraderie". The more voices say the same thing, maybe somebody will listen.

So bottom line, it's too early to say if the "tzadik nistar" is a lunatic and so what if he is? I still agree with his message. I truly feel that every Jew should do teshuva, be mechazek in chessed and tznius and I also think that a Jew who is not already in Eretz Yisrael when things get really difficult, will need to have extraordinary zechusim to get out.

The only question is - are things really going to get that difficult?

I don't know! But I am not waiting around the US to find out.

Life of a Salesman - * A Must Read*

My fate is to live the life of a salesman (I sure just don't want to die the Death of a Salesman.) My father, AMV"Sh, is a salesman. And he is my role model. So my motto in life is "What's good for Daddy is good for me." So, he is a salesman and I am a salesman. There is only one slight difference. He is a successful salesman, and I am not.

My father's wit and charm (and chasdei shamayim) - i.e., his "salesmanship" - got him through the Holocaust. While in Melk, a Nazi guard took a liking to him and would slip him an occasional apple on the sly. My father got badly injured while in Melk. Whereas most people as badly injured were sent on a one way trip to the camp infirmary, a Nazi guard (perhaps the same one) "looked the other way".

After the war he went into the diamond business and (again b'chasdei shamayim) became one of the most successful diamond merchants in Natwich. He could sell coal in Newcastle.

So, following in my father's footsteps (no concentration camps though, B"H) I set out to be a salesman. My first try was - naturally - the diamond business. I did okay in Natwich as the ground support for Papa but when I moved to Eretz Yisrael to fly on my own it was flop city. Diamonds lost their sparkle, but I am a born salesman! So I don't give up. I tried my hand at souvenirs, plastic change purses, portable massage tables, jelly beans, odd lots of cell phones, vibrating chairs and even real estate.

Not a nibble.

But I am not one to throw in the towel so quick. As they say, "Old salesmen never die - they just go out of commission."

I had to find a market that wasn't saturated. Then it struck me. I will sell Torah Judaism! Not stam Shabbos and kashrus and tefiillin like Aish sells. No, I will sell G-d's Secret Recipe for success from Parshat Bechukosai. G-d made it Himself and it's guaranteed for life (this one and the next). It's so inexpensive and very few have already bought it. How can I go wrong?

So I wrote One Above and Seven Below. Who would turn it down?

Now I have about 800 books gathering dust in my machsan and Amazon moved 5 books over the last 6 months. (To order, click HERE).

So now I am getting desparate. What else can I possibly sell?

Well, my previous post kind of gave away the new line I took on. I decided to change tactics and instead of pushing what nobody is selling, I want to push what many others are selling. I am even going into competition with my own brother who works for Nefesh B'Nefesh.

I am selling Aliya!!

Why?

Because we are in danger!

That's right. I am in cahoots with Fishman , Rav Amnon Yitzchok, the "Tzaddik nistars", the autistics, Chamish and all the other doomsday preachers and I am not afraid to admit it.

I buy The Obama Deception theory lock, stock and barrel and I urge everybody to take it very seriously.

Here's why:

Back in 1997, when I first told my father that I planned to make aliya, he asked me: Why? Now, in everything I've written I have blamed my wife for duping me into making aliya but that's just half the story. And it's not what I told my father. I told him (in 1997):

"There is going to be a mahapecha - a cataclysm - in America that will force the Jews to leave. It happened in Egypt and it happened in Spain and it happened in Europe and, when G-d is ready, it is going to happen here as well. And I feel it coming. I don't think America will last another full generation. As such, there is no long-term future for my children here. Why should I live out my life here and when things get worse, my children will have to come as struggling 'greenhorns'? Let me go now and I'll be the greenhorn and my children can acclimate to Israeli society and be 'first class' citizens."

What bothered me? I noticed a few changes. Two things specifically. The first was that My parents' generation was one of upward mobility. Most Jewish families had 3-6 children and day school tuition and health services - though less advanced - were at reasonable levels so they did not consume such a major proportion of average income. Thus it was not hard for earners to pay for basic expenses and have earnings left over for savings and amassing equity. Note, this was the era before "global economics" when Mom and Pop businesses flourished.

In my generation, Jewish families (Torah community) were becoming bigger and less spaced out and tuition and health care expenses skyrocketed. Thus, young householders - I am talking about working ones - were always playing "catch-up" with no reasonable prospects of getting ahead. By the time I left America (6 children aged 9 and down), even if I were to receive a sudden earnings increase of, say, 20%, every dime would be swallowed up by the tuition shortfall. So why strain to earn more money? I saw that the "American dream" was fading away and it looked to me as if G-d is starting to close the faucet. Conversely, the 1990s became the most prosperous era ever to grace Eretz Yisrael. It ended with the "dot-com" crash in the year 2000 and never rebounded.

This was the classic line of, "If I am going to live here (US) and struggle, I may as well live there (EY) and struggle!"

But the second factor was that my adulthood saw the transition between the tyrannical Carter administration and the benevolent Reagen administration. No president before or since Reagen ever understood the importance of befriending Israel and the risk to American security posed by the Islamists. Of course our friend Ayatollah Khomeini helped him understand it. Regardless, his was a pro-Israel administration (despite the Pollard fiasco) and both Israel and America prospered. One would expect that the ensuing Republican Bush I administration would maintain the status quo. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Bush went the other direction which was a let down in itself, but I could deal with that. He was an oil man so he sang the song of the Saudis and James Baker was no friend of Israel. But then something happened that I couldn't understand. A precursor of the current financial meltdown occurred in the guise of what was known as the Savings and Loan crisis. So in 1989 the United states banking industry was in trouble for making too many "bad loans". That means loans to people or businesses without adequate credit. A bit later, as the banking industry is trying to recover, Israel, who had a perfect credit rating, wanted to borrow $10B from private American banks - at interest - to absorb Soviets. All they needed was loan guarantees from the US government. This would have been a healthy jump-start for the sagging American economy and Bush could do nothing but gain. Yet, surprisingly, Bush withheld approval for the loan guarantees because of Israel's "policies" in the West Bank.

Something wasn't right. I understand that Bush doesn't give a tittle for Israeli interests, but this issue is American and his own interests. Let's understand this, this is way before Oslo. There were significantly less Moslems in the US (18 years ago) than today and the Jewish voting bloc, largely democratic, was much more substantial than the Arab one. The American economy is in recession after the S&L fiasco and Bush's popularity is down. Here comes Israel with a perfect credit rating and wants to give the American lending industry some much needed business in the private sector and all they want from the government are some loan guarantees. In a worst case scenario and Israel defaults, Uncle S becomes the creditor. You can bet, Israel won't want that to happen.

So it's a pretty safe deal. In fact, credit was never the issue. But what happens? Bush, on behalf of the American people tells Israel "No thanks. Take your business elsewhere." And I couldn't understand it. This was right before an election year! The economy stayed flat into the soon-to-come elections and Clinton whips Bush on the motto , "It's the economy, stupid!" And I even voted for Clinton the Democrat! America and Bush just shot themselves in the foot because Israel was maintaining the same status that were in place for 23 years! Does this make sense??

Something is going on behind the scenes. And America is on it's way down.

Then, for the next seven years, Bill Clinton, the liberal with all the Jewish friends and his Jewish-born, Holocaust refugee Secretary of State, Madeline Albright just continued dancing down the same road. I could understand Oslo, but what did America gain from Wye? America is inviting the Moslims in, along with opening the south border to millions of illegals to do American jobs at half price while manufacturing outsources itself to China and Thailand and we are buying Japanese and Korean. Meanwhile, Johnny can't read (Spanish) and Carlos can't read English.

I didn't see a future.

Until recently, I thought - like everybody else - that all of this social decay was just a result of goyish-minded shortsightedness mixed with complacency and the domination of today's hedonistic pleasures over tomorrow's hangovers. Kind of like America's policy of "Buy now, pay later." But the absurdity of the Obama election and his total reversal on all his promises of "change" for the better plus his dictatorial demeanor have led me to suspect that maybe something more sinister - and more dangerous - may be involved. And when I viewed The Obama Deception, as far out as it is, there was nothing about it that didn't make sense.

I think everybody needs to watch The Obama Deception and compare it to events as they unfold, and pack your bags and get the dickens over here. To understand what it is saying, you must be familiar with certain international and national organizations. So first check out these bodies:

• Bilderberg Group
• Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
• Trilateral Commission
• Federal Reserve Act
• FEMA

Then watch this:

• FEMA Detention Center

And then watch The Obama Deception all the way through (the scariest part starts at 1:23:00).

And then click here:

• Nefesh B'Nefesh

Am I convinced that Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Federal Reserve and IMF are all a bunch of sinister money lords plotting to take over the world?

Of course I'm not. But they are no tzaddikim and chazal tell us (Sanhedrin 71b):
כנוס לרשעים רע להן ורע לעולם

"An assembly of wicked people is bad for them and bad for the entire world!"

But believe it or not, that's not the part that got me. The part that got was the sight of the American mobs all starry eyed and mesmerized cheering (Yes, we can!) and saluting Der Feuhrer Obama right after he said something that is not in their long term interest. Whatever he says is gospel. They are doing it just like the Russians did it in 1917 and just like the Germans did it in 1937 and just like the Chinese did it (when?).

Watch out! Here we go again!

So, call me a gullible conspiracy alarmist nutcase or whatever, but I happen to find The Obama Deception to be quite plausible.

Why?

Because it all happened before.

Oh yeah, in another time, at another place, to other people...

But the other time was less than a century ago. And the other place was not so far away - where our grandparents used to live. And the other people were...well, my motto is: "What's good for Daddy is good for me."

So, do I have any buyers?

Augh-gh-gh!!! The life of a salesman!

Tova HaAretz Meod Meod

Anyone who has ever made aliya will tell you that you will never get here by talking about making aliya, no matter how much talking you do. There is only one way to make aliya – you must (figuratively) open a calendar and throw a dart at it. When the dart hits a date, you mark it as the day that you are going, and don’t pull out the dart! Our “dart” hit at July of 1997...

The above paragraph did not make it into the final cut of my book but, maybe, it should have. In any case, for those of us already here in Eretz Yisrael, Parshas Shlach is up this week. You folks still straggling behind in Chutz l'Aretz are - well - still straggling behind.

Parshas Shlach represents the challenges in bitachon that are part of living in Eretz Yisrael. Though I can attest that moving an established family to Eretz Yisrael is no small feat, once done, it is no small achievement, either. Not everybody is zocheh. But everybody can be zocheh. It depends on why you want to come. The key is bitachon and emunah. To make a successful Aliya one must be willing to feel like a grasshopper. But then he can become a giant.

In honor of Parshas Shlach I am presenting the complete Aliya story from my One Above and Seven Below autobiography. Some parts made it into the book but most of it did not. Some people will be able to relate to it, and others will say that their personal circumstances are not as favorable as ours were. Still, one thing I must tell everyone: if you have a serious opportunity to come here, it is a message to you. Do not ignore it. Don't get yourself wait-listed for the last flight out.

Still, at the end of the day, everybody winds up where HKBH wants him to. One thing I said over at my daughter's sheva brachos was:

40 days before the yetziras havlad, a bas kol goes out and says בת פלוני לפלוני . Taken at its word, this chazal is saying that sometime about 25 years ago, a bas kol went out and pronounced that the daughter of Yechezkel Hirshman is destined to be the wife of this young man. The interesting thing is that, 25 years ago, Yechezkel Hirshman didn't happen to be married! He was hanging around Lakewood, New Jersey and telling shadchanim that he needs a girl who is willing to follow him to Natwich (pseudonym for my home town) so he could go into the wholesale diamond business. Meanwhile, this fellow was a zygote by some family in Beit-El (not exactly the chareidi capitol of the world)! Yet, here we are 25 years later in Yerushalayim celebrating the sheva brachos of the new couple. How did we get here from there?

Well, here's how:

Aliya Story

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Other Creative Writing one above and seven aliya

Evolution - Fact or Mishu-Gosse?

For all you folks in Chutz L'Aretz who have not yet heard Parshas Naso, here is an excerpt from the Mirdrash on pasuk 7:1 (BaMidbar Rabba 12:8):

לכך אמר שלמה צאינה וראינה בנות ציון במלך שלמה ... ד"א במלך שלמה במלך שברא בריותיו שלימים ברא חמה וירח על מליאתן וכל מעשה בראשית בקומתם נבראו שנא' (שם ב) הארץ וכל צבאם בר קפרא אמר אדם וחוה כבני כ ' שנה נבראו

When King Shlomo said "Go out and see, you daughters of Zion, in the King 'Shlomo'..." he was referring to HKBH and called him "the King Shlomo" meaning the King that created all His creations complete (שלימים). He created the sun and the moon in their full state and all of the makings of creation were created in their full height (i.e., fully developed) as is written וכל צבאם (this is understood by Chazal to mean בכל צביונם - i.e., in their full majesty - see Chullin 60a). Bar Kapra said: Adam and Chava were created as 20 year old beings.

This is a Midrashic reference to what is known as the Gosse Theory - the assertion that G-d created an "old" world. A world that looks like it's been here for a real long time. Such a theory would, in one fell swoop, nullify all the "evidence" that the world created itself over billions of years by suggesting that all the "evidence" was planted by G-d. Accordingly, there would be no conflict between religious dogma and paleontological findings.

Now the Gosse theory is amazingly simple, unsophisticated, and un"scientific". And, besides, why would G-d do such a thing? Also, it alleviates much needed conflict, controversy, and skepticism. For these reasons, many "intellectuals" reject it. But not because it can't be true.

Personally, I am not an intellectual. Most of my commenters and other intellectuals have said that about me and they must be right. Most of them went to college and I didn't. But I did read The Man Who Never Was (in Yeshiva) and I figure that G-d must be at least as intelligent as British Military Intelligence (don't snicker now). The book also explains why G-d would "plant" misleading "evidence". For the same reason they did it - to mislead us. G-d doesn't want us to be able to prove that He exists. So He created an intermediary that we call "Nature" (teva). He allows "Nature" to rule the world and formed the world to look like it was created by his intermediary, "Nature".

Why did He do that? So we wouldn't be able to know for sure that it's Him. For our own benefit. (I wrote about this in my previous post.) So says the Navi Hoshea (Hoshea 14:10).

Because this all makes sense to me, I am quite willing to accept the Gosse theory. Simple minds like simple answers. Of course, there are other simple answers to age-of-universe issues. The predominant one is that even though we use the term "5769 years לבריאת העולם " in our Kesubos and wedding invitations, we don't necessarily mean 5769 years from the beginning of בריאת העולם, we mean 5769 years from the end of בריאת העולם meaning when Adam HaRishon was created on the 6th day of Creation. There were 5 days of creation that came before the debut of Adam HaRishon. 5 long days - or 5 short days, depending who you ask.

We measure time based on the rotation of the earth and it's movements vis a vis the sun and the moon. But there was no sun and moon until the 4th day. So, the first few days of creation could have taken a real long time to an outside observer. Also, it is feasible that G-d employed simulated evolutionary processes in forming the world which could have been accelerated into 5 real days. As Einstein said, it's all relative.

Thus, geological formations and fossil records don't really tell us much. They don't tell us how old the world is, only how old the world appears to be. As such, I wrote in a footnote on page 143 of my book:

There is quite a bit of debate among Torah scholars as to how much ‘real time’ the world was in existence before the debut of man. I am not taking sides in this debate. Whether the actual time was 5 days or millions or billions of years, our contention is that it was all a concerted preparation for the advent of man. Man is the culmination of Creation and, therefore, the entire span of Creation was one prolonged Creation of man.

Thus, I have a hard time understanding why so many people, including Jewish ones, are digging so deep into the earth in order to "prove" evolution. It will not help them decide whether or not to accept Rambam's 13 principles.

To date, I have not been too interested in discussing evolution as I wrote in the footnote on page 143. I feel there is no need for it. This topic is beaten to death in the blogosphere, particularly in the neighborhoods frequented by the Jewish skeptics. Bottom line is, if you want evolution, read Slifkin. He'll make you feel good. If you don't want it, read Rabbi Avigdor Miller - and Chovos HaLevavos.

But I decided to discuss it now, partly because it is an extention of my previous post about belief in G-d, and partly because, one day last week, (between the wedding and Sheva Brachos and Shavuos, I actually did show up at the office for 2 days) I passed by 2 co-workers - both American, one newly religious and one religiously "agnostic" - who were having a discussion. As I past them by, one asked me: Why is it that chareidim deny evolution?

I liked the way he termed it: deny evolution - not reject evolution. As I wrote in my book (page 128):

Every intelligent person knows that the whole world came about through evolution. That’s what the great scientists say; that is what they teach in all the great universities; that is what has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Only undereducated, unenlightened, primitive, backward people could question the truth of evolution.

Now, knowing this person (the "agnostic" one) and the subject matter and hearing how he asked his question, I knew in advance how this discussion will unfold. As I tried to give him the chareidi perspective, which required a few minutes of devoted listening to structured detail, he broke in to my diatribe at regular intervals (every 3 words) with a deflecting argument. As expected, we didn't get anywhere. All told, it meant that he clearly did not ask the question because he was interested in hearing a satisfactory answer. He asked it in order to reassure himself that there is no satisfactory answer. (It's hard to stay agnostic if you find answers to your questions.)

Skeptics don't like simple answers. It interferes with their skepticism.

Perhaps my blog audience is a bit more attentive and I can get in a full sentence and I can discuss the answer I started to give. So here is what I tried to tell him.

We chareidim, and Creationists in general, have no need for "evolution". We can get by just fine without it. Consequently, we can afford to be more discerning, skeptical and critical about the material that is presented as "evidence". Evolutionists must substantiate some form of evolutionary theory, so they are forced to accept loose fitting evidence as absolute, interpret inconlusive findings to match preconceived theories, and to artificially elevate theories into proven facts in order to substantiate other theories.

Here is how I wrote it on page 129 of One Above and Seven Below:

We chareidim think that evolution is absurd. Recorded history – which amazingly goes back no further than five to six thousand years – has yet to document any instance of any extant creature becoming more complex than it ever was. No one has yet caught a jellyfish even thinking about growing a backbone. But evolutionists have a lot at stake. So much so that they are compelled to advocate the absurd.

This is merely my way of pointing out that with all the literature and media that promotes evolution, there is not one bit of empirical proof that any organism can or ever has undergone a "developmental" anatomical change. Yet, it's not for lack of trying to come up with it.

I said so to my 2 questioners and one immediately challenged me with an account of one certain moth that used to always have a particular body color as that was it's genetic coding. When a population of these moths were moved to a different habitat where the trees were a lighter color, new generations of the moth were emerging with the genetic propensity to match the lighter color. The moths did not change color after they wrere born so it is not a physiological change like a chameleon but rather a genetic mutation to adapt to the environment.

I asked if there were any anatomical changes or is it just pigmentation. He said , "Only pigmentation. But it's not a big leap to assume genetic adaptation for anatomical changes as well."

What comes out is that this fellow concedes that there is no observed instance of a creature changing it's genetic code for anatomy to meet new conditions. Only pigmentation. This means that this moth which was a moth 5000 years ago is still the same moth but can reprogram it's genetic code for pigmentation. There is no reason to assume that it did not have this innate ability 5000 years ago. So the organism hasn't changed at all. It merely employed a congenital color adaptation mechanism that was always part of it, though it may have been dormant for some time.

I told him that this limited and confined level of genetic adaptation is not "denied" by anybody, especially since it is observable science and if you would like to call this limited mutation "evolution" then I will gladly concede this meager shadow of "evolution".

What we chareidim "deny" is what nobody has yet to produce - a species with one particular anatomical composition that gives birth to a second generation that sports something different about it's anatomy. Not a genetic mishap but an adaptation. Not an individual but a generation. With viable continuation (this means males and females would have to make the same genetic adaptation simultaneously).

Still he wanted to claim, "It's not a big leap to assume genetic adaptation for anatomical changes as well."

This is today's science, what you see you see and what you don't see you assume. And it boils down to how big a leap is it. Your opinion is that "it's not a big leap" and so evolution is a fact. My opinion is that so far a cat has never given birth to a fish or even to a catfish and a chimpanzee has never begat anything more intelligent than another chimpanzee. And it never will. A panda's thumb is not going to get any new digits.

I think it's an insurmountable leap.

So, IMHO, if you have to rely on "It's not a big leap" to establish evolution as a fact, excuse me for not signing on.

In my travels around the blogosphere to try to understand how skeptics (or non-believers) think, I chanced upon a site of one who calls himself Atheist Jew (R"L). His most recent post shows a video of a fascinating creature called the Hairy Frogfish which propels itself on its fins like legs. This poor soul (the blogger, not the fish) somehow thinks that the existence of this creature is a challenge to "creationism". That's Hoshea 14:10 for you.

In the blurb for this video, the blogger writes:

Yes, the frogfish doesn't have legs, but those fins are darn close, that it
doesn't take a genius to figure out that with a little time, fish can evolve
into amphibians if water and food sources started to dry up in a certain
ecosystem.

This is all very nice. And I am certainly not a genius. But why don't we take some of these fish and place them in a controlled "ecosystem" where water and food sources start to dry up and lets give them a "bit of time" and see them change into amphibians? How about just to see them start to change into amphibians?

I can assure you it isn't going to happen. Not in his lifetime, not in mine, and not in anybody's.

But he can rest assured that he's got "evidence". Plus a whole "fossil record" full of missing links. I just have Gosse.

But I'll take the Gosse theory, and you can have the Mishu-Gosse theory.

Doubting Thomases...and Yosselas

Over at Emes Ve-Emunah, Harry seems to be taking a much needed hiatus from his standard "Up With Centrists - Down With Chareidim" fare. Yesterday's post dealt with a much more serious issue, and one that I completely agree with: the issue of waning Emunah - belief in G-d - in the greater Orthodox community.

Until my recent foray in the blogosphere, I was ill-prepared for the depth and magnitude of this issue. There are a lot of confused people out there.

Harry's post was actually well written and I do not have much to add to it. Still I want to present a short analysis of the issues of Emunah, perhaps it can help some people reduce the confusion.

All the players in the game must be aware of one principle: There is not any and cannot be any irrefutable empirical proof of G-d.


How do I know?

G-d told me. (Of course, for those of you who do not believe in G-d, then the Torah was written by a deranged prankster. Thus, a deranged prankster told me.)


Where?

Shmos 33:20. Here G-d (or the prankster) tells us: כ ויאמר לא תוכל לראת את-פני כי לא-יראני האדם וחי:

And He said, "You are unable to see My face, for a man cannot see Me and live."

Although there are many ways to understand this pasuk, one simple understanding is that if there were irrefutable evidence of G-d, and thereby we would be able to "see" Him, we would lose our free-will, our bechira. Not having free-will is tantamount to death.

And so, for our own benefit, G-d does not allow us to "see" Him with unequivocal clarity. This being the case, it is impossible to prove the existence of G-d to another person. Don't bother trying.

Still, G-d leaves His imprint all over the place. Anybody who looks for G-d can find Him. And therefore, a person is capable of proving to himself, and only to himself, the existence of G-d.

Who told me this?

King David told me this. He wrote it for me in Tehillim 145:18 and he left instructions to read it over at least twice a day. There he wrote: קרוב ה' לכל-קראיו לכל אשר יקראהו באמת:

Hashem is close to all who call Him, to all those who call Him in earnest.

What does this mean? It means that anybody who looks for G-d can find Him, provided one thing:

He calls in earnest. In other words, he wants to find Him.

And herein lies the key to Emunah - one will never believe in G-d unless one wants to believe in G-d!

What comes out is a true example of G-dly irony. Only a believer will find proof of G-d - and plenty of it. A non-believer will find nothing. This is because G-d is actually a real nice Guy and gives everybody what they want. If you want to find Me - here I am. You don't want to find me, you never will.

Thus Rabbi Avigdor Miller ZT"L says in his tapes that a watermelon is a proof of G-d. To someone like me who is interested in seeing G-d, I agree with him and see G-d in a watermelon. Also in apples and oranges, chickens and eggs, birds and bees, flowers and trees, mountains and seas, and, more than anything, in children. (For the life of me, I cannot fathom how anybody who ever produced a child of their own can doubt G-d; but that's just me.) But the scoffer scoffs at Rabbi Avigdor Miller and at the watermelon and at the children and at everything else and believes in the "fossil record". (Incidentally, I see G-d in the fossil record, as well.)

This a variation of the age old adage:

To the believer, there are no questions and to the non-believer there are no answers.


So a non-believer is somebody who doesn't want there to be a G-d. And a doubter is somebody who is not sure he wants there to be a G-d.

The question boils down not to: "Is there a G-d or is there no G-d?" but rather to: "Do I want a G-d or do I not want a G-d?" Or, as Tommy Lee Jones would say: "Can I handle a G-d?"


"What's in it for me?"
"Am I better off with a G-d or am I better off without one?"
"Is G-d good for me or not?"

Or - lets shorten that last question a bit: "Is G-d good or not?"

What is G-d, anyway?

Well, according to Rambam's 13 principles, G-d is: the supreme Creator of all that exists (Priciple 1), unique in his Oneness (Principle 2), and has no tangible form and thus cannot be perceived by Humans (Principle 3).

Most of us can handle that.
Why? Because it does not have much to do with us.
But let's move on.

According to Rambam, G-d also gave us the Torah through Moses (Principle 8), is aware of all of our actions (Principle 10), and will reward us for obeying Him and punish us for disobeying Him (Principle 11).

This means we have rules to live by and we are accountable to G-d for how we live up to these rules. It means that we cannot do whatever we want. It also means that when we leave this world, the game is still not over.

Some of us like this deal. We want G-d to be here for us and we are willing to be here for Him. And because this is what we want, we are willing to believe.

Others cannot handle this deal. As we say to the bee: We don't want your honey and we don't want your sting. They do not want G-d. And so they are not prepared to believe.

But, either way, nobody can prove it. It's not what you believe. It's not watermelons or fossils. It's what you want for yourself.

And so, G-d (or the deranged prankster) tells us in Parshat Bechukosai: If you walk in My ways and do My bidding - if you include Me in your life - I will make life very pleasant for you. It comes at a price but it is well worth it.

But, if you leave me out and refuse to look for Me, then you will never find me. If you want a G-dless existence I will give you a G-dless existence. And you can do whatever is within your power to do. I will not interfere. And you will become part of the "fossil record".

Sounds to me like the world is just one big foxhole.

Matter-o-money Leave

Okay, I am putting my blog on matrimony (matter o' money) leave. My daughter is actually getting married this evening, IY"H.

As I anticipated, I do not have time to do any serious blogging and I have to devise speeches for sheva brachos. I do not know if I will be able to post until after Yom Tov.

In the meantime, for good entertainment, there is a doozey post over at Emes Ve-Emunah where Harry bemoans the fact that Charedi'ism looks like it will trump "Centrism" and speculating why HKBH is letting it happen if, as we all know, "Centrism" is the "Derech emes" that HKBH really wants. It doesn't look like Harry caught on to my book, but, what is worse, I don't think that Harry ever really learned Maseches Brachos, specifically 35b.

In any case, back to the simcha at hand, I will leave the reader with a well known and amusing poem written by John G. Saxe in some time in the late 1800s. It tells of a young man asking his shidduch mentor for dating advice. The shidduch mentor is his own echo - and it comes back with some interesting answers. Here it is:

Echo - John G. Saxe


I asked of Echo, t'other day
(Whose words are often few and funny),
What to a novice she could say
Of courtship, love, and matrimony.

Quoth Echo plainly,--"Matter-o'-money!"

Whom should I marry? Should it be
A dashing damsel, gay and pert,
A pattern of inconstancy;
Or selfish, mercenary flirt?

Quoth Echo, sharply,--"Nary flirt!"

What if, aweary of the strife
That long has lured the dear deceiver,
She promise to amend her life,
And sin no more; can I believe her?

Quoth Echo, very promptly,--"Leave her!"

But if some maiden with a heart
On me should venture to bestow it,
Pray, should I act the wiser part
To take the treasure or forego it?

Quoth Echo, with decision,--"Go it!"

But what if, seemingly afraid
To bind her fate in Hymen's fetter,
She vow she means to die a maid,
In answer to my loving letter?

Quoth Echo, rather coolly,--"Let her!"

What if, in spite of her disdain,
I find my heart intwined about
With Cupid's dear delicious chain
So closely that I can't get out?

Quoth Echo, laughingly,--"Get out!"

But if some maid with beauty blest,
As pure and fair as Heaven can make her,
Will share my labor and my rest
Till envious Death shall overtake her?

Quoth Echo (sotto voce),--"Take her!"

From the Florida Sunshine Tree

From time to time, I like to discuss some of the pearls of wisdom that surface in my comments section. Today's comment (posted to my May 14 post) comes from a fellow who identified himself as E-Man, a 24 year old Capricorn from Miami who was born on the Year of the Rat and went to Skokie Yeshiva for High School (this means he left about 7 years ago so he wouldn't know Yaakov, 20 year old Pisces born Year of the Ice-Storm-on-Erev-Shabbos-Zachor) and on to other fine places.

E-Man writes as follows:

Just thought you should know, there are several commentaries that are on the chumash that are shunned by the charaidi community like Ralbag. So if I learn all the commentaries and Ralbag does that make be a new, superhuman like Jew?

Rather, you should say that a charaidi learns and understands the bible according to their current "Gadol." Charaidim are quick to rip the Ralbag and other ideas from rishonim that they find untenable, but will not dare say anything against the Chafetz Chaim or the Chazon Ish. That is probably a more accurate definition of a charaidi. Someone who does not go against the Rabbis of his current time.

Also, in regards to your definition that differentiates between charaidim and other Orthodox Jews, the toiling in Torah refers to toiling in Torah so you can perform the commandments properly. If the charaidim learn Gemorah as well as chumash they will see that in kedushin on 40 b there is a whole discussion of what the purpose of toiling in Torah is. That is to perform the commandments. SO in essence, the whole reason we toil in the Torah is, according to Rashi on the Gemorah, to perform the mitzvos.

Its not worth going into everything, but I don't understand why you constantly insult non-charaidi orthodox jews so much in your book. Does it make you feel better or something about your yiddishkite? Or is it so you can sell more books? I read parts of your book, but I just couldn't keep reading once I got to the discussion you overheard about what Moshe Rebbeinu would wear. It was really ridiculous to me and I didn't understand your point other than you thought Moshe would wear 18th century polish garb. That was just confusing. How do you know he wouldn't wear a suit in formal settings and khakis and polo shirt in informal settings. I actually am privy to info about some big Rabbis that do this, but shhhh don't let that leave the room.

Anyway, I also looked at your haskamos and at least one of the Rbbis was against the label of charaidi used here. He said that you described a torah true Jew. Which I, for the most part agree with. However, your constant knocking of non-charaidi orthodox Jews just left such a bad taste in my mouth. I am not anti-charaidi or anything, just anti a definition that seemingly makes them so much greater than a guy that believes in the Maimonides or Gersonides approach, science is helpful and can be used to describe parts of the bible. That is for ure not charaidi and you say he learns less?

Maybe next book you write can just be what a Torah true jew is, instead of just hat you consider a charaidi, since that definition is, at best, flawed.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Okay. Let's try to understand what this guy is saying:

Just thought you should know, there are several commentaries that are on the chumash that are shunned by the charaidi community like Ralbag.

Ralbag and who else? Can I get the whole list?

I am certainly glad that he thought I should know this because it is certainly news to me. At my age (way past 24), not much catches me unawares but this certainly does. Personally, I have never shunned the Ralbag and I never knew anybody in my Yeshivos (Lakewood, Mir) who shun the Ralbag but I guess there must be plenty of chareidim in Skokie and Miami who do shun the Ralbag. Of course, I do not learn much Ralbag on Chumash because my edition of Mikraos Gedolos does not happen to include any Ralbag on Chumash although I do have Ralbag in almost every edition of Nach. I've gone through most of Nach doing Rashi, Metzudos and Malbim. Not much focus on Ralbag but no shunning. I didn't learn much Radak or Minchas Shai either. Are they on the list?

Oh, I get it. He must mean Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag from the Triangle-K! Yes, it's true. Many chareidim do shun SunMaid Raisins and Mott's Apple Juice in favor of products from OU or other more "right wing" hechsherim. I also stay away from this hechsher (Hostess Twinkies are not for me) but sometimes my wife makes me buy the Craisins.

And it's true, we do shun many of his colleagues like the entire Rabbanut.

So if I learn all the commentaries and Ralbag does that make be a new, superhuman like Jew?

Probably not, but drinking lots of Mott's Apple Juice, Minute Maid Orange Juice and eating wholesome Wonder Bread and Sun-Maid Raisins might.

Rather, you should say that a charaidi learns and understands the bible
according to their current "Gadol." Charaidim are quick to rip the Ralbag and
other ideas from rishonim that they find untenable, but will not dare say
anything against the Chafetz Chaim or the Chazon Ish.

Let's go over that list again: Skokie Yeshiva, Shaalvim, YU, Lander College for Men, Talmudic University and looking to Med School and you are such an expert on Chareidim! And I am even learning new things from you! I guess Charedi'ism 101 must be a course in their curriculum (though they certainly do not feature my book!) I am very impressed.

That is probably a more accurate definition of a charaidi. Someone who does not go against the Rabbis of his current time.

Sorry. won't work. A typical chareidi will definitely go against most of the people who are called Rabbis at the current time.

Also, in regards to your definition that differentiates between charaidim and other Orthodox Jews, the toiling in Torah refers to toiling in Torah so you can perform the commandments properly. If the charaidim learn Gemorah as well as chumash they will see that in kedushin on 40 b there is a whole discussion of what the purpose of toiling in Torah is. That is to perform the commandments. SO in essence, the whole reason we toil in the Torah is, according to Rashi on the Gemorah, to perform the mitzvos.

H-m-m-m. This sounds familiar. Let's see, let's see...Oh yes!! Here it is - One Above and Seven Below - page 82:

Q. In the previous chapter, I set out to explain the “meaning of toil”. Yet, aside from the three principles that were quoted from Maimonides, all I did was to describe what toil doesn’t mean. Didn’t I forget something?

A. Guilty! Here are some details that I omitted.

Like almost any commodity, toil can be measured by two attributes: quantity and quality. The three principles listed above provide a quantitative perspective. We have still not, as of yet, defined toil in Torah from the qualitative perspective.

Thankfully, we can always rely on our dedicated teacher. Rashi does not leave us totally in the lurch.

On the phrase “And my commandments you shall guard” (VaYikra 26:3) Rashi explains, “You shall toil in Torah for the purpose of observing and fulfilling [the commandments] as it states ‘and you will study them and you will observe them to perform them’.” There is an end purpose to our Torah study – that we observe the commandments and incorporate Torah principles in all our daily activities.

Apparently, it's according to Rashi on Chumash, too.

Its not worth going into everything, but I don't understand why you constantly insult non-charaidi orthodox jews so much in your book. Does it make you feel better or something about your yiddishkite? Or is it so you can sell more books?

From the FAQ section of my book (page 7-8):

Important Note - The intention is to promote the conventions that the chareidim uphold. It is not meant to challenge the conventions of those who are not chareidi although, in some cases, it is an inevitable cause-and-effect. Although to some readers - who do not [yet] wish to identify themselves as chareidi - parts of this book may inadvertently seem patronizing or antagonistic, be assured that this is certainly not its purpose. I apologize in advance should this occur.

For those who have trouble with this passage (you are not alone), it says this:

The book does not actively or aggressively insult anybody. Nevertheless, it is a given that when comparing A vs. B, anything that is promoted as a strength or advantage to A is automatically highlighting a shortcoming to B. This is called the see-saw syndrome - raising side A automatically lowers side B. Thus although nobody insulted B, B is passively ipso facto insulted (antagonized).

I am only interested in raising the One Above side. It is a truth of physics that when one does this, the opposite (the Seven Below) side goes down. I have no control over it except that my point is that one should not be on the side that is diametrically opposed to "Im Bechukosai Telechu".
A number of people have told me that they are put off by the "condescending" message of the omnipotent tefillin-clad arm patronizingly reaching out over the sinking bare arms. My message to the reader is that, according to Vayikra 26:3, it pays to identify with the upper arm. Anybody who still insists on identifying with one of the seven sinking arms will certainly feel threatened and antagonized, but, don't blame me. I didn't write sefer VaYikra. I am just analyzing it.

I read parts of your book,

One cannot read my book in parts (as I wrote on page 9).

but I just couldn't keep reading once I got to the discussion you overheard about what Moshe Rebbeinu would wear. It was really ridiculous to me and I didn't understand your point other than you thought Moshe would wear 18th century polish garb.

That's because you couldn't keep reading. Incidentally, I didn't write that I thought he would be wearing 18th century Polish garb. I wrote that he would be wearing 21st century Rabbinic garb. Either that of 21 century Chassidish or Misnagdish rabbanim (who may be styled after 18th century Poland) or Sefardic or Yemenite or whatever else is out there.

That was just confusing. How do you know he wouldn't wear a suit in formal settings and khakis and polo shirt in informal settings.

The discussion is about what he would wear in public (formal settings, in your terms). We are not interested in what color his pajamas were. Most readers weren't confused.

I actually am privy to info about some big Rabbis that do this, but shhhh don't let that leave the room.

Wow, a 24 year old non-chareidi (if I read you right) from Miami and you have it in with all the biggies! I take my black hat off to you. And, rest assured, your secret is safe with me.

Anyway, I also looked at your haskamos and at least one of the Rbbis was against the label of charaidi used here.

It must be because he's from Miami.

He said that you described a torah true Jew. Which I, for the most part agree with. However, your constant knocking of non-charaidi orthodox Jews just left such a bad taste in my mouth.

Evidently, this Rav was able to understand what you seem to grudgingly acknowledge - the book is not about "chareidim" but rather about Torah-true Jews. I just happen to call Torah-true Jews "Chareidim" because that was certainly the case by Yeshaya HaNavi and - when we use Hashkafa as our definition - it is true today. This is the theme of Chapter 9 and, subsequently, of the whole book. Once you agree with this, then it follows that the ones that are called Non-chareidi" are those who are not full scale Torah-true Jews. The objective of my book is to entice more people to be full scale Torah-true Jews. The knocking comes from VaYikra 26:14-46. G-d wrote that, not me. I am just quoting it. Apparently, what He wrote leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

It must be something you ate.

I am not anti-charaidi or anything, just anti a definition that seemingly makes them so much greater than a guy that believes in the Maimonides or Gersonides approach, science is helpful and can be used to describe parts of the bible. That is for ure not charaidi and you say he learns less?

Excuse me? Is this somewhere in my book? I actually promote Maimonides' approach both on page 60 and again on page 114. But that was after you couldn't keep reading.

Maybe next book you write can just be what a Torah true jew is,...

No need. All you have to do is reread the book and substitue the word "Chareidi" with "Torah-true Jew". I suggested this in the last paragraph of the book on page 229.

Try it it works!

...instead of just hat you consider a charaidi, since that definition is, at best, flawed.

Critics write about the way I define chareidim as if I am alone in my definition. This is a case of denial on their part. I have written profusely, in my book and out, that there are clearly 2 general definitions of chareidim. One used by chareidim and one used by non-chareidim. My definition of chareidim is very much in line with Rabbi Grylak's (Chief Editor of Mishpacha magazine). The one he wrote in his Hebrew language book way before I wrote mine. (It is quoted on page 121.) In fact, if you perceive there are any differences, you are invited to discard the differences and just go with the common denominator.

I use the definition that chareidim use, and to date, no chareidim have written to challenge me on my definition. Makes sense. But, evidently, non-chareidim fantasize that even chareidim think like them. And that there is only one way to define a chareidi - their way. And so, they write that "most people" don't use my definition. Of course, they are right - most people aren't chareidi! But they also seem to think that for some reason I am obligated to use the definition that chareidim in general do not agree with, though nobody has ever explained exactly why. And they never will. Because they do not acknowledge - or legitimize - any other more general, less derogatory definition. (See Chapter 9).

That's why I wrote the book, to enlighten them that chareidim themselves think differently, and why. Chareidim can understand this. That's why they like my book. Non-chareidim are not as broad minded. That's why I wrote in the FAQs:

This book is meant to reframe common perceptions of what constitutes a “chareidi” and will present a definition that may differ from your preconceived notions. If you are already certain about what constitutes a chareidi and are not open to new definitions, this book will not work for you.

And so, this book will not work for someone like E-Man and I am not sure why he even read beyond the FAQs.

Well, at least he made it to the beginning of Chapter 4.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Likewise.

At the Drop of a Hat

Yes, I got the hat.

My rendezvous at the Tachana HaMerkazit came off without a hitch except that it really bothered me that I had to buy a ticket to Raanana (just kidding).

The driver's name is Shmuel Almog, by the way. I guess he lives in Raanana or the vicinity. Sweet fellow.

Now, if anybody knows what happened to my 11-year old...

One Above and Seven Below - The Secret of Parshas Bechukosai

And so, for the first time since I opened this blog last July, Parshas Bechukosai has arrived.

For those of you who have read my book, you know that the first section of Parshas Bechukosai is the heart and soul of Judaism for here, G-d is telling us in no uncertain terms what makes a proper Jew and what does not. And it is the secret of the Chareidim.

However, as the few people who comment on my blog seem to indicate, most of the readers have not read 1A7B. And so, l'chvod Parshas Bechukosai, I have transferred the pilot chapter of my book to iPaper in its entirety and am posting it right here.

I also transferred Yaakov's Story to iPaper and will post it after the feature chapter.

Enjoy, and when you review the Parsha this shabbos, pay attention to Rashi!

One Above and Seven Below_Scribd Edition

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Humanities Research bechukosai chareidi

And now - Yaakov's Story

Yaakov

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Other Creative Writing torah bar mitzvah

Good Shabbos!

Hats Off to Egged (Drivers)

Did I say something about hats not finding their way home by themselves?

What was I thinking?!

Ferster Hats, the most popular hatseller in Yerushalayim, offers to make up labels that display the name and phone number of the owner to put on the sweatband. This is a very prudent idea because, I don't know if anybody else noticed this, many black hats look alike.

Now, I did not really give up on my hat. As soon as I realized that I forgot it - when I noticed that I wasn't sweating as much as I should be - I ran back to the bus depot at Har Chotzvim (it's a good thing I work there) and tried to find the bus. The bus was gone so I went to a supervisor who told me as follows:

It takes 3 days for them to gather up all the forgotton items on their bus fleet and to sort them out. Then they are brought to their lost and found center at the main Tachana Hamercazit (much more convenient than their previous one in Talpiot!) and I can try to find it then. Good luck!

Thanks.

Well, that was Tuesday and I have been counting the days (Today is day 1 of sefiras HaKova...) and, lo and behold, I get a call from the bus driver (he wears a knitted kipa, incidentally). He said that he didn't want to give in the hat to Egged because he thinks that I will never see it again. He is not based in Yerushalayim but he will be here tomorrow (Day 2 of Sefiras HaKova) when he does a run on the 950 line to Raanana. He will be here from 7:30 pm and his bus goes out at 7:55 so I will have this 25 minute window to reclaim my precious crown.

How will this drama end? Will I make the dropoff or am I headed for another trip to Ferster? Will some lucky Jew in Raanana turn chareidi (perhaps the driver ;-) )?

Hang on to your hats!

Populations Growing and Shrinking

Since I've come to Eretz Yisrael I have frequently toyed with the idea of going up to Meron on Lag B'omer but, until this year, I have never followed through. To a minor degree, this was due to claims of less than reverent conduct that is known to go on in some spots and admonitions from some Rabbanim (Litvaks, as you would assume) not to go there on Lag B'omer in particular. To a greater degree, it was due to laziness and frugality - it is cheaper and easier to stay home in Yerushalayim. But I think it has been to the greatest degree due to fear. Firstly, the fear of messing something up as I have never done it yet. Secondly, the fear of getting squashed - I hate crowds! And thirdly, the fear of coming back with less than I came with (besides the money). Most specifically, coming back with less kids than I came with. Even though such a development would probably save a good deal of money, my wife still insists that when I go out with any number of kids, I come back home with at least that many.

Well, this year I took the plunge and I took a midnight express trip with only 2 sons (11 and 14). The trip went very smoothly and I managed to brave the crowds but still my main fear was realized. No, I didn't lose either of my kids but I left my hat on the bus.

Aside from that hats cost more than kids :-), kids seem to have an uncanny ability to find their way home all by themselves, even after we vacuumed up the trail of breadcrumbs (and gum wrappers). Hats just don't do that.

Anyway, Meron on Lag B'Omer is a lot like Meron not on Lag B'Omer except for many more people and a lot of free food. That's why, if you can pack a lunch, many gedolim say there is more Kedusha to go not on Lag B'Omer. I could see their point. Yet, there is still something mystical about visiting the graves of these deceased holy people on Lag B'Omer and that is - that it is being done by so many people who aren't deceased. Lots of people. Lots and lots of people. Hundreds of thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish people!

Yep. An Arutz-7 news piece claims that there were already 450,000 pilgrims by 6:00 am on Tuesday. If this is so, even if the tide subsided, there still must have been well over half a million visitors all told and more like 6-700,000.

Do you realize what this is? This would be 1 out of every 10 residents in Eretz israel including Druze and Arabs! If we just talk about the Jews, it was probably more like 1 out of 7 (14%). Of course, they were not all Israeli residents. Many were tourists and foreign students in Yeshivas and seminaries.

600,000 Jews! And what kind of Jews?

Predominately religious Torah observant Jews. They were of all stripes and there were even some chilonim but the concentration certainly focused on the more devout. I would guess it was somewhere around 60-70% "Chareidi" (2/3) comprising chassidic, misnagdic, Yerushalmi, Chabad, Breslov and Sefardi-Chareidi - and the rest were Chardal, RW Mizrachi, Hilltop, traditional Sefardi, and smaller concentrations of standard "dati" and MO tourists.

How's that for labels?

In any case it was 600,000 or more Jews who all identify with the spirit of Lag B'Omer and Rashbi and there was no factional strife of any kind. Hatzala was there, ZAKA was there, and throngs of cops and I am sure they didn't see anything but the most trivial order of business.

The fact that so many Jews are anxious to participate in this pilgrimage and that this number keeps increasing from year to year tells us something very comforting:

We are alive and well and growing. and, except for our Yishmaeli cousins, we are the only ones.

A friend of mine sent me an email containing the following You-Tube clip. It is about demographics and it is alarming. It claims that for a culture to perpetuate itself, it must have a fertility rate of at least 2.11. That means that on average, every couple (2 people) must produce 2.11 people to maintain equilibrium. The minute it is less than 2 people (i.e. 1.9), they are not fully replacing themselves. Below 1.8 (lets say 1.75) there is a serious decline as every 2 couples (4 people) are only producing 3.5 people to replace them. At 1.5 you are down to 3 people replacing 4 and at below 1.3 the situation is called to be irreversible. I am not sure why that is but it means that out of evey 1M couples (2M people), there will be 1.3M offspring or maximun potential 650,000 couples. But not every person gets married (especially in the West) and not every woman conceives. (You may ask - how come it doesn't look like there are any less Chinese with their 1.0 policy? You got me there.) If this would produce even 500,000 fertile couples (a highly optomistic 77%), they would require no less than 4 kids/couple to restore the next generation to 2M total (which is not even 2M couples).

Pretty bleak, huh?

Well the video suggests that all Western societies (and this would certainly include secular Jews) - except for the US if we include the "illegal" immigrants - is well below the minimum 2.11 rate and many are courting the 1.3 "irreversible" figure. The developed industrial Asians (China, Japan, Korea) are not doing much better.

Not so our Yishmaeli cousins. They are beating the 2.11 minumum by more than 3-fold. Polygamy has its rewards. This means that in just a matter of time, they will simply overrun the West. All Western societies are shrinking, even the Westernized Jews.

But, as we see from our trip to Meron, the Jews that are not so Westernized stand a chance. Unfortunately we are not as fertile as the Moslems. This is partly because we only get one wife each, and we usually take them a bit older. Also, we do have hetterim for family planning and, unfortunately, ample reasons to take advantage of them. And the fact that they don't have to send their kids to Orthodox day schools (they are actually infesting the public school system in the West) and we do also takes it's toll.

Still we are holding our own and doing a great job of it under the circumstances. The people who oppose increases in child allowance payments should take a good hard look at this video.

Here is the video. According to the You-Tube listing, this video is up since March 30, 2009 - less than seven weeks and it hads already been viewed over 5,800,000 times! It is not for the faint of heart:



And as for us, even though Lag B'Omer may not be the best time to make a trek to Meron, we should take comfort in these numbers and keep the numbers growing, BE"H.


Because in 20 or 30 years it's going to be only us and them.


P.S. While we are in the neighborhood, let's have a look at another video about how a nice young Jewish girl is sidestepping the Shidduch crisis. I think it behooves us to do something not only about the Shidduch crisis but about the Jewish education tuition crisis but quick!

Ki Li HaAretz - This Land is My Land - Eminent Domain

והארץ לא תמכר לצמתת כי לי הארץ

And the land shall not be sold for permanance; for the land is to Me. (VaYikra 25:23)

With these words, the Torah introduces to us a concept that has been part of civil law in many cultures throughout the world for generations: the law of eminent domain. Eminent domain is the right of a sovereign government to appropriate privately held land for the public good. It basically says that the government is the ultimate owner of the land.

G-d's eminent domain is of significance. And a sovereign state's eminent domain is likewise of significance. How so?

In a recent post, I disputed the claim of a rival blogger that the chareidi world is living in a world of chumros. My contention is that the non-chareidi world is living in a world of kulos. Let us review part of what I wrote:

Thus, I am not worthy to judge the Jews who in 1910 and 1917 had to implement a Hetter Mechira on Shmitta. Yet, as the name indicates, it is a kula - a hetter for what should, in normal circumstances, truly be assur. We know that it is not necessary today. But when somebody who wants to keep Hilchos Shmitta k'dikduko and does not want to rely on this controversial Hetter is called "a machmir" we have truly lost our Halachic compass.

I want to elaborate a bit on the issue of Hetter Mechira to explain why I (and the birds of my feather) think this way. There are 2 stipulations for a Hetter Mechira to be valid:

(A) It has to be a Hetter
(B) It has to be a Mechira

Stipulation A means that even if the "sale" is 100% Halachically valid and there is no question that "Halachic" ownership has been transferred to a non-Jew, we must establish that the fact that a non-Jew now "owns" the land exempts it from all of the laws of Shmitta. In other words, the Mechira may be good, but does that make a Hetter?

Stipulation B means that even if there is no question that the fact that a non-Jew now "owns" the land exempts it from all of the laws of Shmitta, we must establish that the "sale" is valid and that the land is, in fact, Halachically owned by a non-Jew. In other words, the Hetter may be good, but do we have a Mechira?

Unfortunately, both must be in effect. One without the other by definition invalidates the mechanism. So let's examine both stipulations and see if any of them are 100% valid or even close.

Stipulation A - The Hetter

This is relatively simple to deal with. We examine the simple case: If a non-Jew already owns land in E"Y with no mechiras necessary. Say his family [claims to have] owned the land for generations and all legal deeds and titles are in his name - does this suspend the laws of Shmitta?

As you would expect, this is a major machlokes in the opinions of the rishonim. There are numerous players, but 3 heavyweights stand out:

To the extreme right is the Mabit. He maintains that even if a non-Jew legally owns land, all the Halachos of shmitta remain in effect. This means that both the soil remains kadosh and the produce remains kadosh. As per the soil, this means that a Jew cannot work the land not as an employee, leasor, or sharecropper. Any produce that grows under these circumstances are fully prohibited. In terms of produce that grew from non-Jewish labor, it retains all Halachos of Kedushat Shviis. It may be consumed but... it cannot be sold for profit, cannot be exported, cannot be used for irregular consumption, is subject for biur, etc. According to the Mabit, selling the land accomplishes nothing since the Halachos don't change.

To the center is the Bais Yosef. He maintains that the land remains Kadosh but the produce grown through the labor of the non-Jew (or by themselves) does not. This is called Yevul Nochri. As such, a Jew may not lease and work the land and doing so makes the resulting produce forbidden. Thus, selling the land and "leasing" it back still accomplishes nothing with the minor exception of fruit trees and vines that produce by themselves. If the vines are tended by Jews, we are back to square one.

Most other poskim (I do not have names) support either the positon of the Mabit or the Bais Yosef.

The third and most lenient opinion is the Sefer HaTrumos and this is the foundation for the Hetter Mechira. The Sefer HaTrumos wants to say that, because we are in golus, all of Eretz Yisroel today has the status that the annexed land of Suria had in the times of the Bais HaMikdash. There, the Halcha was that only land that is owned by a Jew is subject to the Halachos of Shmitta. Land in Suria that is still owned by a non-Jew has no Kedusha of Shviis whatsoever and even a Jew may be employed to work on that land, or to lease with no restrictions.

The Sefer HaTrumos is certainly a "bar-samcha" yet this ruling came under much attack from his colleagues particularly because there is a Mishna in Challa that seems to negate this perspective. Regardless, the opinion of the Sefer HaTrumos is recognized as a "daas yachid l'hakel" and the general rule concerning a "daas yachid l'hakel" is that it can only be relied on in times of great necessity - "B'shaas ha'dchak".

Thus we see that even if the land is unequivocally under the ownership of a non-Jew, "rov deos" (most opinions) hold that it does not constitute a Hetter. The opinion that it is a Hetter (Sefer HaTrumos) is a daas yachid l'hakel. This is very far from being 100% valid.

Stipulation B - The Mechira

The Hetter is not enough. Even if there were no opposition to the opinion of the Sefer HaTrumos, we must verify the second stipulation, that the land becomes the rightful property of the non-Jew. Or, in other words, that it becomes "non-Jewish" land. There are numerous issues that play a role, many of them are technical issues were applicable in 1910 as much as today. But I only want to discuss one issue that not many people are aware of: Ki Li Haaretz - eminent domain.

As we wrote, eminent domain is the right of a sovereign government to appropriate privately held land for the public good. The implication is that a private owner is merely a junior partner in the land with a non-controlling (49%) share. Another perspective is that the state is the ultimate owner of the land under all circumstances and the legal "occupant" is merely leasing the land from the state on a long-term basis for a nominal fee. This implies that nobody who sells land from one person to the other is really selling it because the land does not actually belong to either of them. The seller is merely transferring to the buyer the rights to exclusive occupancy that he had procured from the state until now. Thus, no matter how thorough and "legal" a "Mechira" one does, the land belonged to the state beforehand and it still belongs to the state afterward.

What it Means

With this knowledge in hand, we note that there have been some very significant changes in circumstances from the time HaRav Kook, ZT"L, advocated the Hetter Mechira in 1910 to the present. The main change took place on 5 Iyar 5708 (May 14, 1948), 13 years after the death of Harav Kook, ZT"L. Both stipulations are affected.

Stipulation A - The main problem does not focus on 1948 but on more recent times (let us say from 1967 and beyond). In 1910 and 1917 (WW I), the drastic situation of a miniscule food supply was a clear matter of pikuach nefesh. No question about it. Thus, despite all the deficiencies in the Hetter Mechira, there was a clear Shaas hadchak which certainly justified relying on a "daas yachid". The direness of the situation was not merely related to the severe food shortage but to another aspect. I was told (I did not read this anywhere) that the Turkish authorities would not allow a farmer to leave farmland unworked. If one would neglect to work the land, the Turks would confiscate it. Thus, through the shmitta year of 1917, there was a double pikuach nefesh.

1917 relieved the second aspect of the dchak when the British overran the Turks and took over the country. They did not sustain this cruel policy (they implemented enough of their own), but, of course, we still needed to grow food for subsistance. Even this was not to the same degree, as the British opened up commerce to the West. Over the ensuing 80 years, our agricultural prowess (hydroponics and such)and commercial ties with the outside have steadily grown and, together with financial assistance from the diaspora (Keren Shviis, etc.), we see that even though shmittas may still be difficult - as they are meant to be - there is no longer any of the "pikuach nefesh" that was in place in 1910 and 1917 and even 1931 (Rav Kook's final shmitta year).

But there is one more ramification that does relate directly to 1948 and, ironically, it has more adverse "Halachic" significance for the Religious Zionists than for the chareidim. This is that the entire Hetter is based on the ruling of the Sefer HaTrumos that since we are in golus and all of the shmitta laws are Rabbinic, then we can consider all of E"Y as if it is Suria.

The problem is that the most extreme elements of the Religious Zionist camp, which happen to be the strongest advocates of the Hetter Mechira, want to maintain that the "conquest" of 1948 was a Halachic and divinely mandated conquest and we are no longer in golus! If not for the Western lackey government we would have rebuilt the Bais HaMikdash already! This is ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו and that is why it is appropriate to say Hallel with a bracha on 5 Iyar.

Well, if we are no longer in golus and the Kibush makes kedushas haAretz, then shmitta is d'Oraisa and we cannot consider mainland E"Y as Suria, can we? Now, for the chareidim this is no problem because nothing changed in 1948 and shmitta is still Rabbinic. But for the idealist RZs, even the Sefer Terumos is null and void. Obviously, they must hold that, since yad umos haOlam tekifa and we didn't build the Bais HaMikdash, the kibush falls just short of making Shmitta d'Oraisa. But if this is true, then אכתי עבדי דאחשורש אנן and I cannot figure out the justification to say Hallel. We must say that the kibush is just valid enough to justify Hallel but not valid enough to require proper shmitta observance. Hm-m-m. I suppose some people need to grow their hummus and eat it too.

Stipulation B - This is the real sticky problem. Remember that all this Hetter doesn't work if the land does not become "non-Jewish" land. Well, in 1910 when the Ottomans ran the place it can be argued that eminent domain made all the land into non-Jewish land even if the Jew did not sell it! And this can certainly be reinforced by the Turkish grow-or-go policy that I discussed earlier. Even after 1917 through 1935 when Rav Kook ZT"L passed away, the eminent domain was mandated to Bnei Eisav. 1948, however turns the situation on its face. Now, technically all the land is under the jusidiction of the Israel Land Authority or the KKL and they have no authority to sell it out of their authority! Hence, technically even rightful Arab owned land within the jurisdiction of the ILA is technically all Jewish owned land and possibly, even the kula of the Bais Yosef (that produce of non-Jewish land in E"Y does not have Kedushas Shviis) can come into question.

Obviously, all of this is perspective and not psak. Rav Kook is no longer here to give his opinion. There is no doubt that the circumstances that is was based upon have drastically changed. Also, the assurance that he gave to his chareidi colleagues that the Hetter would not be employed wily-nily and the essence of shmitta will not be forsaken due to the Hetter does not seem to have stood the test of time. We have no way of telling what Rav Kook, ZT"L would hold in today's circumstances. ואין לנו לסמוך אלא על אבינו שבשמים and Avinu SheBashamayim says this:

כי לי הארץ .

The land (alt.: the Earth) is Mine. Avinu SheBaShamayim - His A-lmighty Eminence - holds eminent domain.

It is not ours to work on the seventh year and it is not ours to sell on the seventh year unless He tells us otherwise. He talks to us through the tzaddikim and morei hora'ah of each generation. 99 years ago Rav Kook, ZT"L and Rav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector, ZT"L, were here to tell us that those who really need to can sell the land and work it. But neither of them are here to tell us this now.

משנה ח
שבעה מיני פרעניות באין לעולם, על שבעה גופי עברה: מקצתן מעשרין ומקצתן אינן מעשרין רעב של בצרת בא; מקצתן רעבים ומקצתן שבעים. גמרו שלא לעשר רעב של מהומה ושל בצרת בא. ושלא לטול את החלה רעב של כליה בא. דבר בא לעולם על מיתות האמורות בתורה, שלא נמסרו לבית דין; ועל פרות שביעית. חרב בא לעולם על ענוי הדין, ועל עוות הדין, ועל המורים בתורה שלא כהלכה.

משנה ט
חיה רעה באה לעולם על שבועת שוא, ועל חלול השם. גלות בא לעולם על עובדי עבודה זרה, ועל גלוי עריות, ועל שפיכת דמים, ועל השמטת הארץ. בארבעה פרקים הדבר מתרבה: ברביעית ובשביעית, ובמוצאי שביעית, ובמוצאי החג שבכל שנה ושנה. ברביעית מפני מעשר עני שבשלישית; בשביעית מפני מעשר עני שבששית; ובמוצאי שביעית מפני פרות שביעית; ובמוצאי החג שבכל שנה ושנה מפני גזל מתנות עניים.

The Genie of Ochel Nefesh and the Markey Bill

As of late, Mondays have been my busiest week days. I recently undertook a course to be certified as a Rabbinic Marriage Counselor. The course meets on Mondays in Bayit VeGan. So now, on Mondays, I leave the Har Chotzvim office in the late afternoon, scoot over to Bayit VeGan where the course runs until 9:00 pm and then dash back to Har Nof to catch HaGaon Rav Asher Zelig Weiss's weekly shiur from 9:00 to 10:00. Then I have a personal chavrusa at 10:30 til 11:00 pm and then I can go home (and practice what I learned in the Marriage Counselling course).

In short, I had a long day yesterday.

Rav Asher Weiss's shiur typically analyzes a Halachic topic that is related to the relevant Parsha, and last night, in light of Parshas Emor, Rav Weiss chose to discuss Hilchos Yom Tov. The topic he focused on was not actually in Parshas Emor but rather in Parshas Bo (Shmos 12:16) which was the "hetter" of doing melacha for אוכל נפש . In the main, he analyzed various opinions of the rishonim as to exactly which melachos are included in this hetter and which are not and why.

In the course of the shiur, he discussed the concept of "mitoch she'huttra, huttra" - מתוך שהותרה לצורך אוכל נפש הותרה נמי שלא לצורך אוכל נפש . This means that there are a few melachos that one may do on Yom Tov even if their primary purpose does not relate to "ochel nefesh" once it is already permissible to do these melachos for the sake of "ochel nefesh". This is a very bold leniency that is very uncharacteristic to normative Hilchos of Shabbos and Yom Tov. Typically, the opposite is true and the Rabbanan forbid things that are not forbidden from the Torah (e.g., handling of muktza, engaging a non-Jew, climbing a tree, riding an animal, etc.). This Halacaha certainly goes against the tide and, accordingly, we have to be very specific as to where and how to apply it.

Some poskim say that "mitoch she'huttra, huttra" only applies to הוצאה and מבעיר and others hold that it applies to a much broader range of melachos. Still and all, this chiddush of the gemara is confined to Hilchos Yom Tov and that's where it is meant to stay. It is not employed in other areas of Halacha. You might say that "mitoch she'huttra, huttra" is a genie that grants special favors to its master. And its master is Hilchos Yom Tov.

I sense that in the non-chareidi world, there is a bit of jealousy over the Yom Tov genie of "mitoch she'huttra, huttra" and that they have let the genie out of its bottle!

The most obvious and relevant example is the propensity of the non-chareidi Jews to litigate civil disputes in secular courts.

The secular courts are what we call erkaos ha'ovdei kochavim and there is no love lost between chazal and this institution. In a perfect world where there are Halachic courts - batei dinim - qualified and empowered to manage civil affairs, chazal have nothing but the fullest contempt for those who seek redress outside beit din (see Rambam Hilchos Sanhedrin 26:7). Alas, we do not live in our "perfect world". The opening section of Choshen Mishpat expressly mandates that today's batei dinim are not as qualified as the proper ones (musmachim in Eretz Yisrael). What's more, qualifications aside, their power to enforce rulings is very limited.

As such, in certain circumstances, there may be a need - a צורך - to approach a secular court. Most commonly this occurs in a case of siruv and לא ציית לדינא where one party does not abide by the ruling of a beit din. In these cases, a plaintiff may approach a secular court after beit din issues a license (harsha'ah) to do so. Additionally, beit din can not deal with criminals so a Rav may issue a harsha'ah when there is a criminal complaint that may involve pikuach nefesh and does not constitute mesirah (a very touchy subject).

We see clearly that due to pressing need, siruv or pikuach nefesh, the erkaos are "huttra l'tzorech". However, we do not find any authority that says about erkaos that מתוך שהותרה לצורך פיקוח נפש הותרה נמי שלא לצורך פיקוח נפש . That genie is the exclusive property of Hilchos Yom Tov.

Evidently, somebody let the genie out of the bottle. And this has the potential of causing more harm than good.

I noticed this phenomenon when I was doing research about Agunah issues in the scope of my book. Every agunah episode is a tragic situation and we would all like to do away with these heartaches. Nevertheless, there are very few true Agunot. A true agunah is a woman whose husband is not in position to give a get because he is either physically or mentally AWOL (or MIA). This is rare. Most "agunah" cases are actually cases of recalcitrance - מסורבי גיטין - where the husband and wife are both at the table and know to follow the rules but one of them doesn't want to play.

For true agunot, some creative ideas have been put forth such as annulments or "conditional weddings" but, unfortunately, there is very little Halachic currency in these accounts. I wrote about this at length in a previous post (click HERE).

For the more common cases of outright recalcitrance, there is a large and growing movement for pre-nuptual agreements. The goal of the pre-nuptual agreements are to motivate the stubborn player to cooperate by imposing heavy penalties for continued recalcitrance. Now, in theory, these prenups should be effective because there is no Halachic problem with getting one to cooperate with beit din. HOWEVER, there is a very severe problem with artificially "motivating" one to issue a get without the sanction of beit din. This is called a "get meusah" (forced get) and it is a recipe for an illegitimate divorce and other illegitimate issues.

And herein lies the pitfall of some of today's prenups. They are very meticulously and properly composed. A bit too meticulously.

You see, the problem is that most batei din cannot really enforce the punitive terms of a prenup. No surprise, seeing as they are meant for people who do not really respect beit din. But the wizards who compose them make sure that they are enforcible in a secular court, a bona fide binding contract. Now, there is no problem with this as long as first beit din rules that the recalcitrant party is in breech of contract and issues a harsha'ah for the injured party to take the prenup to a secular court to enforce it on behalf of beit din. However, this does not always occur. Often, a beit din may feel that, even though the time deadline has come to pass, recalcitrance has not been proven or that both parties are equally recalcitrant (very typical scenario) and there is no Halachic justification to enforce the penalties of the prenup. Whereupon, one party (usually the female one) runs to the secular court with the legally binding prenup - with no harsha'ah from beit din - and has a liberal Western minded judge (usually a female one) enforce the prenup. Since beit din did not authorize this, any money extracted may be Halachic gezel and a resulting get may well qualify as a get meusah.

This is playing with fire. But I guess we established that מבעיר is one of the melachos that everyone holds we say mitoch she'huttra, huttra!

Speaking of מבעיר, I want to discuss the burning issue that inspired me to write this post. This is what is known as the Markey bill. This is a proposed bill pending in the New York legislature that aims to assist victims of sexual abuse by temporarily suspending the statute of limitations on criminal charges and civil claims. There is a bit of disagreement among Orthodox askanim on whether or not to support this bill.

It seems that even before the swine flu we have been faced with a growing pandemic of revelations of sexual abuse within the greater Orthodox community. I am as distressed as everybody else to read about these stories and I bemoan the weaknesses that far too many "frum" Jews have fallen prey to and more so the plights of those who have been victimized by them. It goes without saying that victims of abuse should have full access to every resource that can aid in healing and closure.

Still, when it comes to what can be presented and litigated in a secular court we must tread carefully. We must not lose sight of what is muttar and what is not.

Now, I have heard that numerous rabbanim have allowed people to report suspected sexual offenders to the police and to press charges. Quite obviously a sexual miscreant is a menace to society and it can be deemed a case of pikuach nefesh to take these fellows out of circulation. However, when it comes to suing in civil court for monetary compensation, I don't really see any real pikuach nefesh and I am not sure that many erudite poskim permit it.

So now, on one hand, I have no problem at all with the Markey bill. All it does is eliminate the statute of limitations on claims and offenses that were prosecutable before the expiration of the limitations. I have never been a great supporter of the whole concept of statute of limitations being that no such concept exists in Halacha. But we do need to take a good strong look at what we are allowed to bring to a secular court even if we are within the limitation period.

In other words, let us pretend that today (R"L) a young man is molested in an Agudah affiliated camp or in some Yeshiva or Torah U'Mesorah institution. And let us assume that to this point, the camp or yeshiva administration, and certainly the parent umbrella organization, is not currently aware that the perpetrator is a sexual offender. Now, I understand perfectly that many rabbanim will permit us to "throw the book" at the perpetrator and press charges both criminally and civilly. But, are there Halachic grounds to sue the administrators or the incorporated entity of the camp or organization?

We are all influenced by western society's dogma of "all associated parties are responsible" that is the basis of mountains of litigation in Western courtrooms. Negligence here, negligence there. Everybody is responsible for the miscreant behavior of their children and spouses and their children's spouses and their spouse's children and their employees and their employee's spouses and children and for their products and for what their products produce and for everybody who can't read instructions and doesn't know that coffee is hot. In the West there is never an ingrown toenail without somebody to sue.

Is that what the Halacha says?

Here's what the gemara says:

חרש שוטה וקטן פגיעתן רעה החובל בהן חייב והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין. העבד והאשה פגיעתן רעה החובל בהם חייב והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין

This means that from an Halachic perspective, when an person inflicts some damage, it doesn't matter who their spouse is, who their parent is, who their employer is, as long as the parent/spouse/employer did not actively aid and abet the perpetrator, and more so if they were not aware of their destructive tendencies, then there are no Halachic grounds for compensation from them.

As for the Markey bill - If it merely exposed the perpetrator and stopped there I would consider it worthy of undivided support. But, as long as the claims can be extended to the "she'ar yerakos", we are playing with fire. A yeshiva, camp, or frum organization can and should only be sued in Beit Din on Halachic grounds. If there are no grounds to sue in a beit din, then there are no grounds to sue anywhere.

Let's keep the genie in the bottle.

Har Nof - An Aging Community?

I have been meaning to post this image for months. I was finally motivated to action last week to commemorate the mitzvah of מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן which appears in parshas Kedoshim. Though I still didn't get it posted by Shabbos.

The sign is found on Rechov Agassi almost across the street from Kehillat Bnei Torah. It has been there for as long as I can remember (about 20 minutes on average) and I am not aware of another sign like it anywhere in Har Nof or in the entire world, for that matter. I wonder if they have such a sign near Neve Simcha?

What is it doing of all places on Rechov Agassi? There are no old age homes in Har Nof. The average "baal habus" in Har Nof is about 45. The bus routes do not go down Agassi so it is a much quieter street than Shaulson or Katzenelenbogen. And it has enough speed bumps to keep draggers at bay and provide ample parnassah to all the mechanics in Givat Shaul.

Perhaps it pays to remind lower aged people that nobody ever gets any younger. Maybe we need to put a sign like this in Ramat Beit Shemesh?

רבי טרפון אומר: היום קצר , והמלאכה מרבה, והפועלים עצלים, והשכר הרבה, ובעל הבית דוחק

Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta - Revisited

Parshas Acharei Mos is coming up and it goes without saying that it holds a very dear place in my heart right there alongside the other 53 parshiot. This is because this parsha holds in it the source of the title of my magnum opus - One Above and Seven Below a.k.a. Achas L'Maala V'Sheva L'Matta.

In honor of this special occasion, I will present a golden oldie (or a summer rerun, depending on how you look at it), which is a repost of my August 20, 2008 post which explains the connection between the service on Yom Kippur and the main premise of One Above and Seven Below. Yes, this is one of the "Important Posts" that I have featured year-round on the sidebar of this blog in the section designated for important posts, but now that the parsha is upon us, it carries much more significance, as the pasuk says in Mishlei (15:23): ודבר בעתו מה טוב

So, here is the post in iPaper:

Yom Kippur Connection

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Other Creative Writing chizkuni one above and seven

Yom HaAtzmaut and Mehadrin Motorcycles

I believe in celebrating Yom HaAtzmaut.

No, I do not say Hallel. There is no mention in Shulchan Aruch to do so. Yes, I do say tachanun. There is no mention in Shulchan Aruch not to do so.

Nevertheless, it is a day off of work with full pay and that is certainly something worth celebrating.

Of course, when we do not need to go to work and all the stores, banks, and government offices are closed, and half of your kids (the female half) are home from school, there is more opportunity and incentive to ditch out to the beis midrash and learn and there is little excuse not to. And so, I was able to put in some extra Torah time in the early part of the day.

Still, even a secular holiday can be חצי לה' וחצי לכם and since we do not celebrate July 4th around here, I took up a very close friend's invitation to his mangal (barbecue) in Kochav HaShachar. (I also have a weakness for American kosher hot dogs).

These friends in Kochav HaShachar were actually referenced on page 68 of my book. The husband was my roommate and chavrusa when I was in Mir Yeshiva back in '81 and shared all the adventures that I wrote about. He is most certainly a chareidi by Kochav HaShachar standards (and mine) though perhaps not by Harry Maryles's. He told me that he "accidentally missed" the regular shacharis minyan and didn't have a chance to say Hallel. But he didn't say tachanun, either. There were 2 brissin in Kochav HaShachar this morning. (From 2 different families, a very rare phenomenon in a small Moshav).

Going out to Kochav HaShachar is a breathtaking venture in more ways than one. For one thing it is located on the wild side of the security fence where there have been known to be fireworks even when it is not Yom HaAtzmaut. In fact, along the way, by the turnoff to the Tapuach junction, there is a monument to a woman named Edith Mizrachi, HY"D, at the spot where she was murdered some years ago. This is a bit unnerving for us timid city mice who dwell in the "relative security" of Har Nof. Of course, Kochav HaShachar's most recent casualty was one of the 8 Mercaz Harav Kedoshim who was taken in Kiryat Moshe which is a whole lot closer to Har Nof (like walking distance) than it is to Kochav HaShachar.

But what is more breathtaking is the scenery of the drive. Kochav Hashachar is located smack in the middle of the north Judean Hills and, even if the Judean Hills are not the Alps, they are still very majestic. On one hand it is beautiful to look at a limitless expanse of unmarred and unpopulated natural landscape that seems to be standing guard over Yerushalayim just as Dovid HaMelech says (Tehillim 125:2):

ירושלים הרים סביב לה וה' סביב לעמו מעתה ועד עולם.

On the other hand, it's a bit disconcerting to come out of the congestion of Yerushalyim and see such an expanse of usable inhabitable land that is our nachala and to be forced to neglect it. It's not like the Yishmaelim need it or use it and, regardless, there is plenty of room for everybody.

One interesting thing about the trip is that I noticed that it seems the general population is becoming more G-d-fearing. I noticed a number of motorcycles along the way and - guess what??!! - they were all mehadrin!

That's right! Some of them were men only but even those that were mixed, every one of them kept the same protocol: the men were in the front and the women were in the back. Not only that, but all the women had their hair covered - even if nothing else was - and not with shaitels, mind you. They all had these snoods made out of very hard plastic and they even had lucite shields to cover their faces. For head covering, they put even the women in Saudi Arabia to shame.

What gevaldiga mesiras nefesh for tznius! I saw Kedoshim Tihiyu with every motorcycle. Now, if even the motorcycles can be mehadrin - why not the buses?

Scrooge and the Ghost of Lag B'Omer Past

Well, at least my previous post drew one solitary comment. But I must admit that much of it is over my head and I am having a bit of a time understanding this fellow. Perhaps it's tit-for-tat because I surmise from the comment that he had a bit of a time understanding me.

Perhaps my post was too long (no smirking out there). But, in a nutshell, these are the points I was trying to make:

1. Any Halachos or hanhagos that are clearly expressed in Tanach, Shas, and Shulchan Aruch (literal text) represent the normative execution of Jewish living and cannot be deemed chumros.
   
2. It is inherently dishonest to represent kulos - paricularly those that deviate from literal text - as normative execution to the point of characterizing literal text as chumros and intimating that upholding these "chumros" (i.e., precepts of literal text) are "beyond the norm".

If we are clear on this, let's have a look at part of this anonymous comment and try to figure it out:

Bah humbug! Any serious analysis has to look at halacha psuka in rishonim and achronim. For example, let's look at the conditions under which it's mutar to walk by a river where women are bathing. Or the discussions in rishonim of jousting (yes, on horses) as wedding entertainment. Or the discussion by even the aruch hashulchan about saying kriyas shma in front of women with uncovered hair.

Thanks, Ebenezer. To be honest, I am not up to date on these particular t'shuvos but I gather that what he is trying to point out is that some very prominent poskim have lenient rulings on these things. Regardless, it goes without saying that every authority holds that if any of these things can be readily avoided - they should be. And one who makes more efforts to do so is praised as tavo alav bracha. There is no posek that says that one can l'chatchila walk by a river that is populated by women in compromised positions, hire jousters for weddings, or say kriyas shma in front of women with uncovered hair. Thus, my post was merely saying that it is hard to consider somebody who goes out of his way to avoid these things, even in cases where they are difficult to avoid and there are valid lenient rulings, as being a machmir.

Further, I really don't know where any of these issues are different than Chalav Akum/Yisrael that was duly discussed (except that some of these are d'oraisa).

The following paragraph was even harder to understand:

But you don't want to go there anyway, or else you'd have to address the fact that it's blatantly against gemorah and shulchan aruch for a father not to teach his son a trade, and against the kesuba that we all sign for a husband not to support his wife. You come up with all the terutzim that the shulchan aruch would never consider, and then try to claim that the shulchan aruch is the yardstick!

Did you get that? Neither did I.

For one thing, I am at a loss to understand how a discussion about "chumros" and "kulos" turned into an issue of "for" and "against". I don't see how he addresses either of my points 1 or 2 above.

Let's go over this again:
If it is in Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, it is to be upheld. If not, it can be called a chumra.

Now Ebenezer brings up the subject about a father not teaching his son a trade. I know this will probably catch him by surprise (it actually even puzzles me) but there is no Halacha in Rambam and Shulchan Aruch whatsoever that obligates a father to teach his son a trade. At least, I have yet to find it. It is a clear braitha in Kiddushin 29a and, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why the Rambam and mechaber omitted it, but it is not there. Despite this, it is indeed in the gemara so I wholeheartedly maintain that one who teaches his son a trade is not being machmir.

Next he mentions something about a kesuba.

The terminology of the kesuba is designed to reflect obligations of she'er, k'sus, and onah that are mandated in the Torah and are discussed in the gemara (Kesubos 47b-48a) and are codified in Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 12) and Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 69). Yet, the kesuba is a contract and, like any contract, it's function is not to overrule the wishes of both parties that they agree on, it's function is to set the standards that are mandated in case both parties do not mutually agree. In other words, the contract states that the husband is obligated to provide his wife with she'er (ana eflach v'ozin v'echalkel), k'sus (v'okir yasech), and onah (u'lme'al l'vasaichi). The gemara and Shulchan Aruch determine the extent of the obligations. Yet, the husband and wife are free to work out their own formulas as long as there is mutual consent.

Thus, Ramabam clearly writes in Hilchos Ishus 12:6:

התנה הבעל שלא יתחייב באחד מן הדברים שהוא חייב בהן או שהתנת האשה שלא יזכה הבעל באחד מן הדברים שהוא זוכה בהם התנאי קיים חוץ משלשה דברים שאין התנאי מועיל בהן וכל המתנה עליהן תנאו בטל ואלו הן עונתה ועיקר כתובתה וירושתה:

And again in 12:9:

ובשאר הדברים תנאו קיים כגון שהתנה עמה שאין לה שאר וכסות על מנת שלא יאכל פירות נכסיה וכל כיוצא בזה תנאו קיים:

This is also in Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 69:6.

What Mr. Scrooge has taught me in his comment is that he has a hard time with the idea of men committing themselves to long term Torah study while married to wives who voluntarily agree to rough it to maintain this goal. And he supports his position from the "text" of the Kesuba. He calls these things "against the kesuba" and, earlier, "against the gemara", such as the gemara in Kesubos.

Kesubos? Did he ever study masechet Kesubos? Daf Yomi, perhaps?

He must have had the flu at daf 62[b].

Do you know what period this is? This is what we call "Sefiras HaOmer". We do not make weddings or take haircuts during Sefiras HaOmer. Do you know why?

The gemara in Yevamos (62b) explains to us that it all has to do with one man: Rabbi Akiva. The gemara tells us that Rabbi Akiva had 12,000 pairs of students and they all died in one period. And the world was devastated! It was without Torah! The Torah would have been lost from us forever but he managed to rear 5 outstanding disciples: Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosi, Rabbi, Shimon (ben Yochai), and Rabbi Elazar and they restored the Torah.

Did you hear that? The Romans had effectively destroyed all centers and avenues of learning. Nobody except Rabbi Akiva knew the Torah inside and out. Initially we had 24,000 scholars still available to maintain the flame of Torah, but, suddenly, they all died. And the Torah would have been lost from us forever (and us with it) if not for the erudition, scholarship, perseverence, and mesiras nefesh of this one man. He started over again and brought it all back.

How did he get to be such a scholar, leader, and moser nefesh?

Let's look at the gemara in Kesubos 62b-63a:

Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd of Ben Kalba Savua. He noticed that his daughter was chaste and worthy and said to her, "If you will be betrothed to me, I will study Torah." ...He went to yeshiva for 12 years. He returned with 12,000 students and heard an old man tell his wife, "How long will you accept being a living widow?"...She said, "If he would listen to me, he will stay another 12 years."... He went back for another 12 years and returned with 24,000 students...he sais to his students, "What is mine and yours, is actually hers."

24 years of no she'er, k'sus, and onah to sit and study! 24 uninterrupted years! This was not the YU semicha program. It was the equivalent, if not the superior, of Moshe Rabbenu learning Torah for 40 days and 40 nights. Every minute was needed for him to become Rabbi Akiva. And if he wasn't Rabbi Akiva, we would all be lost!

But wait! Didn't Rabbi Akiva have a wife? Didn't he write a kesuba? Doesn't it say that he must provide for her? Isn't this against the kesuba that we all sign? And he had a well paying job, to boot!

How can he do such a thing? What a skunk! So what if the Jews just underwent a Holocaust and a churban and Torah is being forgotten from Klal Yisroel?! It says in the kesuba you gotta work, remember?? Okay, so all of klal Yisroel will be swallowed up, but at least we won't go with an empty stomach.

This is what my commenter, Ebenezer, seems to think.

Now, of course, no woman is required to forfeit her marital rights and marry somebody who will study and not provide for her. If you don't want to marry somebody who is busy maintaining the Torah and keeping the Jewish people open for business, then don't.

But, then again, nobody will say about you, "What's mine and yours is hers!"

Truth in Harrassment: A World of Kulos

This world is a world of sheker. Sheker is the most plentiful commodity around and thus it is the cheapest thing on the market. I will not cease to be amazed at how many people are in the business of selling sheker but I am more amazed at how many people are buying it.

Why do they buy it? Like most of our made-in-China goods, the price is low and it is made to look like it is worth something. People think they are getting their money's worth. Truth is also available, but you have to know where to find it and it is not cheap. Truth always carries a steep price.

I will not sell any sheker. My book is cover to cover truth (Okay, let's forget about the opening of the Preface). That is why nobody is buying it. Also, Amazon has not discounted the price below $20 in about a year. Like I said, truth carries a steep price.

My book is a consumer's guide. It is meant to help people spot the truth in a sea of sheker. And this is what I have found myself doing in my most recent blog posts. Most shakranim do not really lie - they just bend the truth. And they do it by mischaracterizing concepts and using exaggerated terminology. I struggle to help people see through the mischaracterizations, distortions, and exaggerations.

There is a serious issue when one mischaracterizes concepts and then uses them as ammunition to make the innocent look guilty and the guilty look innocent. Thus, to call Jewish people thugs who do not meet the definition of thugs and people victims who do not meet the definition of victims and to call an event an attack that does not meet the definition of an attack is blatant mischaracterization and has no claim to emes (or to emunah). This was the subject of 2 recent posts (HERE and HERE).

Likewise, in another recent post (HERE), I took issue with somebody who called Bituach Leumi child allowance payments "welfare". This writer wrote that the scale that gives a bit extra to larger families - quite a logical phenomenon - is "punishing" those who do not yet qualify for the increase. A typical distortion: not yet qualifying for a bonus equals punishment!

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

One of the most commonly used mischaracterizations is the term chumra. It is almost always used to connote an activity that goes beyond the letter of the law and is technically unnecessary. For if it meets the letter of the law, how can it be a chumra?

So, how do we determine what is a chumra or not? The answer is we check what it says in the "law". If the law mandates it, or even if it merely "advocates" it, then it is following "law" and not a chumra. Our law is the Shulchan Aruch. So clearly, anything that the Shulchan Aruch tells us we must do or refrain from doing is basic "law". Moreover, even things that the Shulchan Aruch says that we should do or not do, even when there are grounds to circumvent it, is definitely not beyond the letter of the law.

This law is what we call "Halacha". If one is Orthodox and a proponent of emes and emunah, he follows Halacha. An Orthodox Jew who has smicha gets his smicha from studying and taking tests in Shulchan Aruch. It is his job to follow Shulchan Aruch and to teach it to others. It is an undefensible travesty to call anything in Shulchan Aruch a chumra (unless the SA iteself calls it a chumra).

Actually, the opposite is true. Often, the Shulchan Aruch or qualified authorities tell us that we can come up short of the letter of the law when meeting the letter of the law entails difficdulties. What we call shaas hadchak, hefsed merubah, tirchah yeseira, and the like. These are what is known as kulos.

It is a sad day in Israel as well as a distortion of the truth (i.e., sheker) when not relying on kulos are termed as chumros!!

For the past few decades we have been blessed with an extraordinary measure of affluence and religious freedom coupled with substantial technological advances. These have enabled us to become more learned on a general scale, to be better acquainted with the laws of Shulchan Aruch, and in a better position to observe these laws the way that the Shulchan Aruch recommends. This is not called being machmir this is called being medakdek b'mitzvos.

This luxory is a gift from Heaven. It is also a nisayon - a test. Many of our parents and grandparents did not have this luxory of affluence, learnedness, technological conveniences, and communal support. And so, they had to rely on kulos. They were necessary but they were nevertheless kulos.

How do we know?

Because their parents did not rely on them.

Thus, I must take exception to a recent blog post that has the temerity to call itself Emes Ve-Emunah for distorting the truth and terming what is medakdek b'mitzvos as chumros. Here is what he writes:

We now live in the era of the Chumra. I have discussed this phenomenon in the
past. It is not my intention to discuss the reasons. But I do think it is
imortant to look at some of the fallout – particularly as it pertains to parents.

"The era of the Chumra". Is that so? And what, pray tell may be the chumros that he refers to? Let's skip a paragraph:

What about the grandchildren? Grandparents might have a TV in their home. Can
a grandchild be allowed to visit a grandparent lest he be exposed? What about a
newspaper? There are inappropriate advertisements contained even in a
respectable newspaper like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal? Should
a parent risk exposure to such material by allowing a child to visit a
grandparent? What about the food? Should a child be exposed to a grandparent who
does not keep ChalavYisroel? What if he is finds a Hershey Bar in the cupboard
and asks if he can have it? Is it worth the chance?

Two issues of note are mentioned here. One is having a TV in the house. The other is Chalav Yisroel. The impression given by the poster is that observing (against and for, respectively) on these 2 issues are to be considered chumras! Of course, it does not say in Shulchan Aruch "Thou shalt not watch TV" but I would assume that the Torah's admonitions of קדושים תהיו and ונשמרתם מכל דבר רע are pretty fundamental. And Cholov Yisroel is mandated in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 115. Yes, we all know that Rav Moshe Feinstein has presented "solid grounds" (his words) to permit American milk, but he himself calls it a "kula". How can anybody with semicha in Yoreh Deah even insinuate that to adhere to Shulchan Aruch פשוטו כמשמעו is a chumra??!!

It is sad that we have come to this – and does not speak well of children
who have these questions. Many of these parents have sacrificed great amounts of
time and money into educating their children to be religious Jews. They have
been sent to some of the finest day schools and Yeshivos. The result is an Olam
HaChumros - a world of religious stringencies that parents never dreamed their
children would become a part of.

If one follows this progression to its logical end, the grandchildren will be even more Machmir. Either that or they will go off the track and become irreligious (The pendulum does swing back).

Olam HaChumros? Our parents and grandparents, through want and through need, created a world of kulos. The kulos were necessary for them and possibly even for us. But when a kula becomes Halacha p'suka, we are in trouble. Thus, I am not worthy to judge the Jews who in 1910 and 1917 had to implement a Hetter Mechira on Shmitta. Yet, as the name indicates, it is a kula - a hetter for what should, in normal circumstances, truly be assur. We know that it is not necessary today. But when somebody who wants to keep Hilchos Shmitta k'dikduko and does not want to rely on this controversial Hetter is called "a machmir" we have truly lost our Halachic compass.

It is a sad day in Israel when being medakdek b'mitzvos and not following kulos are called Chumras! And since the issue at hand is a the opportunity to be medakdek b'mitzvos, what is he talking about that grandchildren will be even more machmir? Shulchan Aruch hasn't gotten a bit more "machmir" in 450 years!!

To be sure, Kibud Av V'Em is a very serious and sensitive topic. The Torah knows in advance that there are going to be conflicts between Kibud Av V'Em and proper observance of mitzvos. This is why the Torah says (Vayikra 19:3):

אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְאֶת-שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ

Each man must revere his mother and his father; and he must observe my Shabbos.

On which Rashi says:

ואת שבתותי תשמרו. סמך שמירת שבת למורא אב לומר אע"פ שהזהרתיך על מורא אב אם יאמר לך חלל את השבת אל תשמע לו וכן בשאר כל המצות:

He must observe my Shabbos: It juxtaposes Shabbos observance to reverence of parents to tell us that even though I cautioned you on revering your parents, if they tell you to violate the shabbos do not obey them, and so with all mitzvos.

It is a very sensitive and complex task to understand when this limitation applies and how to apply it. Every case must be evaluated on its individual merit. In most cases, there are middle-of-the-road solutions where Kibud Av V'Em will not be readily compromised and dikdukei mitzvos can still be upheld. In some cases, one may be advised to accept a reasonable kula for the sake of Kibud Av V'Em. Halachic guidance is indispensible.

Nevertheless, glossing over the subject by declaring the dikduk in mitzvos that is available to us today as chumros is misleading and dishonest. It makes it look as if there are no grounds at all for challenging the applicability of Kibud Av V'Em.

More:

But I do think a lot of children end up only tolerating their parents and looking down at their Judaism. That sometimes causes them to minimize contact. I’ve seen it happen. I know of one case where a Frum parent is not invited to any of his children’s homes for the Pesach Seder. How sad is that?! What kind of values have his children really learned? What happened to Kibud Av V’Em?

I realize that there might be other factors involved –

No. There must be other factors involved. We all know scores of people who are more medakdek b'mitzvos than their elders and they have no problems interacting with them. These extreme cases are definitely the exception rather than the rule and clearly bespeak mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, I think it is very irresponsible to build any points from case examples where so much is left to the imagination. I honestly don't know where the author gets off on blanket indictments where he admits he does not know the dynamics.

like a parent who constantly criticizes his children’s Chumra filled lifestyles.

There's that dirty word again. Of course he can't say "Halacha filled" lifestyles because that would nullify his entire point.

But honoring one’s parents means biting that bullet.

Sometimes yes and sometimes not (see VaYikra 19:3 and Rashi). How do you know whether this is Yes or Not? There have been buckets of ink spilled on the issues of Kibud Av V"Em and what to do when parents and grandparents are lax in Halacha or accept kulos.

Our parents created a world of kulos. Kulos that their parents never observed. They did it because they had to. And it can be said that without these kulos, so many of us would not be religious today. We needed them. But they were kulos, nonetheless. In today's generation, we do not need many of these kulos any more. We have outgrown them and we can go back to living the lives of our great-grandparents.

If only Rabbi Harry would allow us.

Chag Kasher V'Sameach

It is now shortly before candle-lighting on Erev Pesach and I wanted to steal a few minutes to wish all my readers a chag kasher v'sameach.

I am certain there are already numerous news reports about how Bichas haChama came off in many parts of the world especially here in Eretz Yisroel so you don't need me to report. It was a spectacular event at the Kosel. As I predicted, I didn't go but 4 of my children went and they all had a lot to say when they got back.

Here in Har Nof there was a temendous gathering at the "summit" of the mountain. My son, Yaakov, remarked that this is the first recital of Birchas HaChama in Har Nof. There was no Har Nof 28 years ago. Maybe they said it here 2800 years ago (Probably not because the first Bais HaMikdash was newly erected around then so why not say it there?) All in all it was a great kiddush hashem and I hope it will be a greart zchus for klal yisroel.

The interesting thing was that it was a clear blue sky with perfect visibility despite certain doomsday predictions of a rainstorm. Lest you think it was all a bunch of hot air, I am reporting that the skies have darkend and there is light rain falling in Jerusalem as I write. My assumption is that the weather people weren't wrong, the clouds were really meant to come but HKBH held them back for us for a bit so we can say the bracha me'omek halev.

In other words, I maintain that by "natural" conditions it should have been dark and overcast and the clear blue skies were a hidden miracle.

Gut yom tov to all.

Chezkel

Where Were You When the Lights Went On?

This post is directed to the 30-plus crowd.

Birkas Hachama is 2 days away and we are all planning on how to make this once-in-a-quarter-plus-century event the most meaningful and memorable it can be. Of course, this got me thinking: how many of us remember if and how we proclaimed the bracha 28 years ago; or even 56 years ago for whom it applies (not me, for sure). How memorable was it for us 28 years ago?

I know that Eretz Yisroel is teeming with observant Jews and there are, ken yirbu, more than ever, who would like to recite the bracha at the center of the world - the Kotel HaMaaravi. I expect that there will be so many people there that it won't pay to brag about it.

"Oh, I said Birkas HaChama at the Kosel."
"Big deal, same here."

28 years ago there were much fewer observant Jews in Eretz Yisroel in general. Aside from that, Birkas Hachama was recited on 4 Nissan, not 14 Nissan so most of those myriads of precious Jews who came to E"Y special for Pesach hadn't yet arrived. So I can assume that the number of Jews who were actually at the Kosel last cycle can't compare with the number who will be there this year.

So, now I can brag.
I was there.

The funny thing is that it wasn't my first choice of spots. I actually wrote a bit about my previous Birkas HaChama experience in the autobiography chapter that I wrote for my book. Only, it's not in the book because I only printed pieces of the autobiography and this part didn't make the final cut. Still, loyal readers of mine were able to see it since it was part of the Menachem Begin exerpt that I posted to the blog on Feb. 9. For those who haven't seen it, I will repost the part about Birkat HaChama now. The section in the narrative was discussing a number of unusual events that took place in the one year that I came to study in Eretz Yisrael before I married; among them was Birkas HaChama. This is what I wrote:

Birkat HaChama (occurs once every 28 years). This is a special blessing that is to be recited when the sun returns to the original position in the firmament that it occupied when it was first created on Wednesday the 4th of Nissan.* This is not much of an event as it entails reciting a blessing that is all of nine words. Yet, since it occurs so rarely, there is a tremendous amount of hype that is generated as the date approaches. As this was shortly after the Camp David peace accords, the border to Egypt was newly opened and I and a few others planned to make a quick tourist pilgrimage to the land of de-Nile so that we could see those big pointy things and experience a true exodus from Egypt by the upcoming Passover. The only problem was that we could only designate the first week of Nissan for the excursion and the nine-word Birkat HaChama was to be recited on Wednesday and who did not want to utter this rare blessing at the Western Wall? As things developed, our initial group of about seven began to dwindle. The first fellow dropped out because he was a Kohen and then another for some other unrelated cause. Then a few others backed out so as not to miss Birkat HaChama in Jerusalem. I was the lone holdout because I had my heart set on the trip and I rationalized that it would be unique if we could tell our grandchildren (and whoever is reading this book) that we recited the Birkat HaChama in Cairo. On this I was completely outvoted, and so, I reluctantly remained in Jerusalem and recited the blessing at the Kotel. As presumed, I never did get another opportunity to go to Egypt.

Like I said, I really wanted to make the event a memorable one. Of course, it was nice to be at the Kosel. I remember that there was one fellow, I believe from the Eidah Chareidis, who was MC-ing the event. There were large scattered clouds and the sun was initially playing hide and seek. We couldn't say the bracha at the scheduled time because of the clouds, so the MC fellow was saying some inspiring words while we were watching the clouds move. Then, it suddenly looked like the sun was coming out so the fellow quickly said, "Luh mehr machen shoin der brucha: Baruch atoh..." And I made the bracha with him as the sun dived back for cover and I must say that I felt somewhat cheated. So much for being memorable! A few minutes later it made a grand appearance and those who held off at the beginning were able to say it with gusto.

With this, I am a bit curious who else has some anecdote to tell related to the previous occurrence of Birkas HaChama. I would be happy to see stories submitted to my email at 1a7b.author@gamil.com or in the comments section of this post.

As for this Wednesday's great event, I am certainly not going to Egypt. The question is whether I will try to go to the Kosel. I no longer am situated at Yeshivas Mir which is walking distance and it will be impossible to drive there. I was told that there are supposed to be some #2 buses going non-stop from Har Nof to the Kosel (with separated seating, I hope) but I have a bunch of little kids now (didn't have any then) and after the Bedikas Chametz marathon, I don't know if I will have the strength to get up that much earlier and brave the crowds.

It is a bit tedious saying Birkas Chama at the kosel because the wall itself blocks the sun, so the people there have to wait a bit until the sun is high enough in the sky to see it and l'chatchila, you need to wait until the entire sun is unblocked to say the bracha. This means just standing there and watching it slow-w-wly emerge and muttering to yourself, "Is it all the way out, yet?" From what I heard, this won't be before 7:15 and it depends on how close to the wall you are standing (the further the better!).

All this on erev yom tov!

Oh, and one other thing. They are predicting rain!

Not again!!


*The Birkas HaChama event came out on 4 of Nissan that year and I was led to believe that the date of 4 Nissan is the set date whenever it is said every 28 years. This certainly makes sense since we hold that the Creation took place in Nissan so that if the 4th day of Creation was the 4th day of Nissan that is certainly the Jewish date that the sun was created. I lived with this misconception until the discussion of the current cycle when, after almost 28 years, I first discovered that this is not the case!

Off the Beaten Track

Over at Emes VeEmunah, Harry is back to his preaching in favor of the egel hazahav. He titles his post The Eibishter Vet Helfen and he is trying to tell us that it is not really true. I wonder how he understands the pasuk (Tehillim 55:23): השלך על ה יהבך והוא יכלכלך לא-יתן לעולם מוט לצדיק

Here is how I understood Harry's post:
In order to have the materialistic (goyish) lives that we yearn for, we need to be as much like the goyim that we can allow ourselves. We need to know English (goyish, as Rabbi Nosson Wachtfogel, ZT"L, called it) as our first language and we ought to go to goyish bastions of learning to acquire skills so that we can work together with the goyim and share the American dream.

You know what I think? (If you are reading this blog, then you already know what I think). I think that HKBH "had it up to here" with our living with the goyish materialistic mentality and pulled the plug on the whole business. We strayed too far from Vayikra 26:3. I will not elaborate further. My position on parnassah has been clearly articulated in chapter 2 of my book.

What I do want to add is an old favorite of mine that was brought to mind from Harry's post:

One Sunday morning a Jew walks into shul and sees a tattered and despondent looking beggar at the door. A compassionate fellow, this Jew presses a twenty dollar bill in his hand and says: Gut zol Helfen!

The very next Sunday as he goes again to shul he sees the same beggar standing at the door looking much cleaner, a bit better attired and in a cheerful disposition. As he passes him, the beggar presses $600 into his hand and says to him:

"Gut zol Helfen was a longshot, but he came through in the 7th and paid out 60 to 1."

For us believing Jews, parnassah comes from Off the Beaten Track.

Children: National Assets or Liabilities? - The Child Allowance Fallacy

Sam Ser is a longtime buddy of mine and so I am on his email list as he is on mine. I think he is a very talented writer and a keen analyst. Okay, he's not a chareidi - but nobody's perfect. (Of course, he will say that I am a charedi - but nobody's perfect.) Most of what he writes does not cross paths with my subject matter. Still I respect him as a free-thinking person who can look at an issue objectively and not be taken with the ignorance of the masses. At least most of the time.
One recent blog post, however, says to me that his analytical prowess needs to be sharpened or his objectivity has shifted to off-mode. In this article, Sam demonstrates that he has fallen for or may even be actively perpetuating every fallacy and misconception that the child allowance pundits have pulled over the eyes of the ignorant public for decades. Eh tu, Samus?

The article was posted on March 25 and is entitled It Must Still be Purim. Though the article sounds plausible, it contains an overabundance of factual flaws. Let's have a look at an excerpt. I will colorize the flaws and discuss them in turn:

What a week of reversals this has become! First, Binyamin Netanyahu agreed to raise child allotments by a whopping NIS 1.5 billion over the next three years. Then, Ehud Barak won an internal Labor poll to join his party to Netanyahu’s shaky coalition.

This is rich — Netanyahu as Robin Hood, taxing the rich to rain money on the poor, and Barak playing the sidekick to Netanyahu. It must still be Purim.

Netanyahu reversed his own policy, from his time as finance minister under Ariel Sharon, of limiting child welfare payments. This policy, it is now generally agreed, was one of the key financial reforms that drove the country’s economy forward. Backtracking on this policy now runs counter to Netanyahu’s stated economic aims of cutting welfare payments and encouraging productivity.

It also undermines the social ideology behind the original move. What he had originally corrected was the inexplicable discrimination in payments that provided more money for the third and fourth children, and so on, than to a family’s first and second children. Obviously, this arrangement is desirable to haredim, who have large families. But it is indefensible on so many levels — because it attaches a higher value to one child than another; because it discourages the heads of large families, haredi and Arab alike, to seek employment; because it punishes small families with smaller payments per child.

Sam is making the following assertions:

1. Child Allowance increases = more taxes on somebody
2. Those being taxed will be the rich
3. The amount proposed is a "whopping" "rainfall"
4. Only the poor receive child allowances
5. Child payments can be construed as "welfare"
6. Limiting the payments drove the Israeli economy forward
7. The "large family" bill is inexplicable discrimination
8. She'ar yerakos

Each and every one of these assertions is inherently flawed and my friend Sam has either bought into the fallacies or is actively selling them. Now, let's find out what makes these flaws flaws:

1. taxing [the rich] -

With this term, Sam suggests that there will be additional or special taxes to cover child allowances.
This is patently false.
Child allowances come out of the till of Bituach LeUmi - National Insurance Institute (NII) - the Israeli equivalent to Social Security. Just as the American Social Security tax, the Bituach LeUmi tax has always taken a sizable bite out of everybody's paycheck. It's a little under 5% for mid-salary. Nevertheless, this percentage has been fixed for quite some time (at least as long as I have been here) and the notion of changing the amount - up or down - has never been up for discussion. Thus, there is none and will not be any taxation beyond what is already fixed.

The issue of child allowances is only how much BL money gets recirculated into the economy and how much just sits there in their coffers. Raising the child allowances would only have the effect of slightly reducing BL's year end surplus which probably gets spent anyway on less socially beneficial issues such as advertising, new furniture for their offices, "administative" costs, or "bonuses" for NII employees. As long as the child allowances do not exceed the BL intake nobody is being taxed, poverty is reduced and money is reinfused into the economy, much of it comes back in the form of VAT taxes on goods and services purchased with the money and personal income taxes of providers of those goods and services.

Bottom line is that giving more BL money for child allowances will cost us no additional money and is better for the economy and all concerned than not giving it and simply hoarding the money that we are paying.


2. the rich -

As I just wrote, the percentages of BL taxes will not change for high earners. What may happen is that, to compensate, the minimum earnings brackets for the higher percentages may be lowered as well as the minimum requirement from non-earners. In other words, currently the higher percentage kicks in at around NIS 4400/ month. If you earn less than that you pay a smaller percentage. If BL wants more money, they can't raise the high bracket. What they can do is lower that threshold to, say, 4200 /month thus making low earners pay more. Likewise they can (and will) raise the fixed minimum payment to BL from the current approximately NIS 130/ month to, lets say NIS 150 / month. Only non-earners pay the fixed minimum. Thus, it is actually the poor who would be taxed and not the rich.


3. rain money -

I don't really think that the increase or NIS 93 (currently $20) can be called a rainfall. Not even a windfall. And, like I said, the low earners may actually need to pay in more per month. Sam should stick to the news and forget about the weather. Incidentally, here is where I will take issue on the highlighted line in his opening paragraph which may be a fact rather than an assertion - "a whopping NIS 1.5 billion over the next 3 years..." Did you say over 3 years? Well that brings the annual amount down to a mere 500 M/ year, doesn't it? (Why didn't you up the ante and say NIS 3B over 6 years?) Are we forgetting that child allowances are not just for some children. They are for ALL children! So, if we assume something like 1.7 M children nationwide, we are talking about a "whopping" NIS 300 (or $75) per child yearly increase.

I don't know about you, but somehow this figure doesn't "whop" me.

4. on the poor -

I suppose we can substantiate this by acknowledging reports that most Israeli children are beneath the poverty level, but still, the rich are a minority in every society. Nevertheless, they get just as much, don't they, Sam?

5. child welfare payments -

Here Sam pulls one of the niftiest sleight of hand word tricks I have ever seen. We English speakers define "welfare" as "governemntal assistance to poor people because they are poor". So Sam has us thinking that this is what is happening here as well. Sam is banking on the fact that most Americans do not have an inkling on what child allowances are. This is because in America we have a different kind of child allowance. It is called "tax exemptions for dependents". In America somebody earns lets say $96,000 ($8000/ month) and he has 5 children. The government likes the fact that he has a nice brood of productive citizens and they recognize that these tykes are not cheap to raise. So they allow everybody - I mean everybody - to reduce their taxable income by $3500 per kid. If he is still above $78K, he pays 28% on what's left (I am making this very simple). Thus he saved 28% of 3500 - or $980 for each kid. This comes to $81.67/ month per kid which would be about NIS 335 today. So in the US, an average head of household ends the month with an allowance of 81.67 / kid in his pocket because the government doesn't take it away. At lower brackets it's less (lowest possible is $30 /mo /kid) and higher brackets it's more. Note that this deduction applies until the age 24 as long as the child is a student for which all you have to do to verify is say so.

This is not welfare. It is not government assistance to the poor. It is everyman's entitlement that applies equally to every citizen.

Here in Israel the system works differently. There is no such thing as an exemption for any children for any working man. thus a man such as me with double digit children pays exactly the same taxes as a bachelor (there is a deduction for women which was implemented only as an incentive for women to work). The Israeli government also recognizes, though to a much lesser degree, that children are an important and positive fact of life and they are not cheap to raise. But, instead of giving the working man a break in taxes which would serve to make more lucrative work more rewarding, the government, in it's infinite wisdom, works in reverse and gives a flat rate allowance to make it look like it is assisting childraising as well as to make it look as if the governmet is giving people handouts.

Bituach LeUmi money is not a handout. It is something that we all pay for!

Child allowances are not welfare. They are not assistance to the poor. This is not a handout. They are an entitlement to every parent rich and poor, religious or secular, jewish or non-Jewish in place of tax breaks which do not exist and in compensation for the BL payments that every citizen must pay. Every citizen - even a non-earner like a kollel man. Even if you don't work, you pay! Incidentally, I am a salaried man and I pay Bituach LeUmi from my monthly earnings. My wife does not work so she is exempt. But, do you see that Kollel guy down the block? Not only does he need to pay the non-earner payment, but his wife who is working pays BL out of her pay check. It may emerge that the Kollel guy pays more into BL than I do!

So child allowances is a universal benefit that we pay for! And nobody gets special treatment. Every citizen gets the same as every other citizen for kid #1 and every citizen gets the same as every other citizen for kid#2 and every citizen gets the same as every other citizen for kid#3, and for kid #4 and #5, and so on. Regardless of rich or poor, religious or not, etc. Yes, there is a slight increase for larger families of 3 or more kids and every single citizen is equally eligible to it (chorus-regardless of... ). Whoever takes advantage of this increase gets it and who does not does not (chorus - regardless...)

Now, I know Sam and I cannot accept that he is as ignorant as everybody else. He most certainly meant welfare as the word means - physical and emotional well-being. The allowances are indeed for the welfare - or physical and emotional well-being - of the children so technically he is not wrong in calling them welfare. He knows that, his readers don't.

Slick move, Sam.

6. it is now generally agreed, was one of the key financial reforms that drove the country’s economy forward -

Now let's see. 2 developments have been presented in recent years. One development is a claim that the economy has gone forward. Strange unintelligible numbers have been presented to "substantiate" that claim. The second development is statistical proof that poverty has risen dramatically in recent years as has unemployment and prices have risen dramatically. Now, I am quite skeptical there is general agreement that limits of child allowance payments are a key factor to the first development or even if the economy has indeed gone forward at all. What I am certain is there is unanimous agreement that it is a key factor to the second development.

Incidentally, if the economy is indeed up since the reforms, which would indicate that incomes are up, then it means that BL has been taking in larger amounts of money since that is where BL money comes from at the same time as it has been doling out less. If this is what "moving the economy forward" means, count me out (I already am)!

7. inexplicable discrimination -

Allow me to explain the inexplicable. As a first step, it pays to examine why this phenomenon is considered inexplicable to begin with. And the answer is that this is an outgrowth of the increasingly popular misconception that BL is a not-for-profit charity organization and the beneficiaries of the "handouts" are all urchins who take but do not give and are actually a social burden. In other words, the general impression is that children are a financial liability. Consequently, it is inexplicable that the more liabilities that one produces, the more he is supported for it.

But lets imagine for a minute - and I know it's hard for most of us, or at least for Sam, to do - that children are actually a financial asset. Would it not be wise to encourage and even reward those who generate more assets?

Now people seem to have an intellectual time warp where they imagine that adults were born adults and that children are born children and remain children forever. Let me assure you that my observations prove otherwise. Children turn into adults. All of them. And they are adults for longer than they were children. More than twice as long.

This says that each citizen should eventually do more than twice as much adult inputting into BL than he does child outtaking. Remember that we said that everybody pays. Even Kollel men, even students between 18 and 24. Only non-working housewives and soldiers are exempt. Note that very few kollel men stay in Kollel indefinitely. Most eventually go into chinuch, kashrus, retail business and such. Obviously some people pay in more and some pay for longer and in some cases the lifetime surplus may be somewhat higher in one sector than in another, but in general, the average person, no matter who he is, pays more into BL over his lifetime than he takes out. This is how BL stays afloat. Incidentally this is how Social Security is supposed to work even if it doesn't. Thus, here in Israel, every single additional citizen represents additional profit for BL.

So if you agree that in the long term every BL payment toward child support is an investment that will bring back profitable returns, it pays to encourage and even reward those of us who take the responsibility of producing these assets.

One other explanation to the increase for larger families revolves around simple economics. It is a fair assessment that the cost of raising a child (food, clothes, health, and education) comes to about NIS 500-1000/month . For argument's sake, let's settle on NIS 759. Child allowance for the first 2 kids is about NIS 159. Perhaps 20%. The parent needs to cover the difference. This means for one kid he is NIS 600 short. For 2 kids he is NIS 1200 short. By 3 kids, he is NIS 1800 short and you can see where this is going. The parental burden increases in multiples of an 80% shortfall. If we agree that a child is a national asset, I don't see what is inexplicable about bumping up the miniscule assistance from 20% to a "whopping" 25%.

8. She'ar yerakos -

This refers to the other arguments that Sam introduces on the "discriminatory" nature of the large family increases which I will deal with shortly. Before I do, I must note that Sam is taking us for a ride with this entire paragraph. This whole paragraph is totally irrelevant.

Why? Because all of the current debate within the coalition parties about increases in child allowances is for across the board increases in the amounts allocated. There is no focus or push on increased amounts for larger families versus smaller ones. Sam bamboozles us again by suggesting that the thrust of child allowance increases was to give or increase the large family discrepancy. Sam certainly had one too many. The push is to increase what each child gets based on the current formula. From what I have read, nobody is asking to change the 3 and up increase and, indeed, Shas and UTJ have purposely steered away from it. They are focusing on getting more money to the parent. Period. Ni-ku-da.

But now, let us deal with these

8a. higher value to one child than another -

Uh, Sam, can you explain this to me?? Child allowances are paid to parents for the amount of children. Say you have 4 children Avrohom, Yitzchak, Moshe, and Aharon (all born before 2003). For one child the amount is NIS 159. For 4 children the amount is NIS 862. That is NIS 226 more than 4 x 159. Evidentally, Avrohom is only worth 159 and so is Yitzchok. Moshe is worth NIS 191 and Ahron is worth a "whopping" 353. Talk about favoritism! You can bet Avrohom and Yitzchok are going to grow up with inferiority complexes.

Or will they? Hey, wait! In 5 years Avrohom turns 18 and the amount goes down to NIS 509. Apparently Avrohom is worth NIS 353 and Ahron needs to get the inferiority complex, or is it Yitzchok?

Now, if this bothers Sam, I have no problem if each kid (in this example) would just get NIS 216 from the beginning to end and I think neither would Shas or UTJ. Hey, we don't want psychologically maladjusted kids, do we?

Sam, I honestly expected a lot better from you than this.

8b. it discourages the heads ...to seek employment

This may have a grain of truth to it if the child allowances were benefits for the unemployed as is the American welfare system that Sam is fond of comparing this to. But, this is not welfare and it is not linked to employment. Further, as i said, child allowances barely cover 20% of average child raising expenses on a good month. A haredi or arab with a large family is facing a tremendous deficit and the 80% per child deficit will not discourage him from sseeking employment nor will the house full of whining kids. What will and does discourage the child heavy father from seeking employment are the heavy percentages that he must pay to BL as well as Mas Hachnassah and Mas Briut out of his earnings with no compensation for his parental burden.

Sam, trust me on this one.

8c. it punishes -

After complimenting Sam for some nifty new tricks, I have to groan for his using one of the oldest tricks in the book: saying that not qualifying for a reward equals punishment. This is nothing new. All democrats think this way.

Come on, Sam, we used to listen to Rush Limbaugh together. Here's how he would say it. Suppose I send you a bill for $1000 due in 30 days for goods that are worth $1000 with a note that if you pay within 5 days you can take a 3% discount. You don't feel like paying within 5 days so you don't get the discount and you have to pay the actual price. Are you being punished???

Well maybe you are if you consider children to be financial liabilities to BL. You should be rewarded for having less than 3 kids.

Personally, I think that Netanyahu is finally starting to sober up. But I am a bit worried about Sam. Lay off of the hard stuff, Sam, Purim is over.

Absolving the Casualty - The Torah's Perspective of Victimhood

Well, I suppose I let the genie out of the bottle. My comments section is still bare and my site-meter is still crawling but I couldn't leave that post unfinished.


The post is my response to the material posted by Emes Ve-Emunah and Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz entitled Blaming the Victim. It assumes a twisted position that only the perceived aggressor (meaning the one who "won the fight") is eligible to be judged and that the victim/accuser is totally immune. It implies that everything is black and white - the "good guy" is 100% blameless and the "bad guy" is 100% guilty.

I vehemently reject this position. We do not live in such a black and white world.

I wrote the post in Word with color formatting so I will post in in iPaper to preserve the formatting.

Absolving the Casualty

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Essays Academic Work rape torah

Posts that I Haven't Published - (Updated from March 23)

It looks like the frequency of my posts is tapering down. Coincidentally, so is the traffic on my site-meter though I am not certain which is the cause of which. After all, if the "velt" is not interested in what I write (and can I blame them?) there is really not much point in writing it.

Of course, there are other reasons why I haven't been posting much lately. One is that quality writing requires a lot of time and concentration and there is just too much going on - Purim, Pesach, "work", learning sedarim, family issues (all those birthdays), simchas (including the one I am making), and income taxes - to afford me that kind of unfettered time. Unlike some very prominent bloggers, I do have a life outside of this blog (or at least I would like to). Also, unlike some very prominent bloggers, I do not beg readers to buy my book but I am starting to reconsider this policy.

Another issue is coming up with timely, relevant, and original subject matter that can inspire and interest my readers. Heck, anybody can plug in video clips of Kuni Lemel. Now, it's not that there isn't good subject matter. In fact some important topics are constantly being addressed by my "competitors" now and again (and again, and again, and...) but by the time I can formulate a potent post on the chareidi "spin", the topic is yesterday's news. This says that behind the scenes there are actually quite a few half-written posts on (formerly) hot topics that have never seen the dark of night. Some recent examples:

I was looking forward to Parshat Ki Tisah for months to discuss a very controversial subject but it got past me. I did not take into account that the week of Parshat Ki Tisah is usually the week of Purim and that I live in Yerushlayim. You see, the difference between Yerushalayim and the golus is that in the golus you have 2 days of Yom Tov and 1 day of Purim. Here in Yerushalayim we have 1 day of Yom Tuv and 2 days of Purim. So Purim on Tuesday and Wednesday, Thursday is rehab and - shoin! - it's already Shabbos.

And what was my topic? The topic, which is little discussed and little understood, is based on the pasuk: כל העבר על הפקדים מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה יתן תרומת ה and the topic is:

What is the Halachic draft age?

This question is not as easy as it looks. I have done a good deal of research on this but not as much as I need to so I am not really prepared to give this subject it's full due (has Hirhurim ever discussed it?). From what I have found so far I have reached the following conclusion:

There is no Halachic draft age.

What do I base this on? Simple. It's not anywhere in Halacha! Go find it. The Rambam does not breathe a word about it. And why not? Didn't he codify all of Shas? Yes he did!

You don't mean...?

Yes, I do. It isn't anywhere in Shas. Not even in the eighth perek of Sotah (I reviewed all 2 1/2 blatt).

But, what about Rashi in Shmos 30:14?

Rashi may not be saying what you think he is.

Stay tuned. I hope to write about it eventually, perhaps when it comes up again in Parshat BaMidbar (that won't be easy because the wedding is on 2 Sivan, IY"H). Incidentally, if anybody is actually reading this and has any source material, I would be very grateful to know about it.

A second recent post that hasn't been published was meant to address some of the discussion that appeared in 2 widely read blogs (here and here) about the Elchanan Bizaglow affair. In my assumed role as defender of the Chareidi position I cannot afford to shy away from addressing these matters. In this case I will address them to Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz and Rabbi Harry Maryles who are much more outspoken than I.

Firstly, unlike Harry Maryles and Rabbi Horowitz, my policy is not to formulate judgments about controversial events and individuals unless the incriminating details are verified. This can only come from two sources - an objective observer at the scene or a voluntary confession from the accused.

Consequently, I will (and did) pass judgement on Bernie Madoff because he confessed to his scheme and pleaded guilty in an American court. I will not pass judgement on Yisroel Valis because he did not confess to anything (or, you may say, he does not confess that he confessed) nor were there any objective observers to the incident during or after. I will pass judgment on Naomi Ragen and Miriam Shears for their actions because they supplied a first hand account of their respective incidents. I will not pass judgement on the people who confronted them because they did not supply first hand accounts, nor are the accounts of their actions given by their counterparts objective (nor objectionable, in my opinion).

As far as the Bizaglow incident, beyond the fact that he pleaded guilty in a third world Israeli court, I don't know any other detail to be factual because I have not seen an account; not from him, nor his accuser, nor from anybody who observed the incident. As such, I am hesitant to judge it.

That said, I unfortunately can see the broad outline of the incident as being believable and , assuming it is factual, I, like Rabbi Horowitz, have no inclination to defend his actions. A vilda chaya is a vilda chaya.

Note - Speaking about half-finished posts, I am not done with this one but my writing time is up. I don't know when I will have time to get back and finish this post but I decided to push the Publish button on this anyway.

Continued...

In the time since I first published this post on March 23, I have done a bit more research. One development is that I need to spell this fellow's name Buzaglo. The second development is that I saw a few other write-ups and one of which, at Yeshiva World News, indeed gave a partial first hand account from the accuser which gives me more leverage to be judgemental. I don't think I need to lend my voice that this is not the proper way to deal with a breech of modest behavior.

Nevertheless, what drew my attention was the title of Emes Ve-Emunah's post which was actually the title of a response written by Rabbi Horowitz in the comments of his own post - Blaming the Victim. It conveys a very deceptive impression that there was no breech of modest behavior. While we may all agree that the response in this case was inappropriate it is wrong and irresponsible to suggest that it wasn't a response to something and that there was no breech of decorum at all. At least 2 commenters on Rabbi Horowitz's post said it straight out and I am thirding the motion:

Nothing, but nothing, occurs in a vacuum.

When somebody gets hurt, in most cases they crossed somebody's red line and in many of these, they knew they were crossing somebody's red line. The problem is that many of us do not respect other people's or a community's red lines. This is exactly what Miriam Shears did and it earned her the distinction of being the only person to ever get in a fight on a bus going to the Kotel for netz. Despite what the good Rabbis think, there is no Tznius Patrol in Har Nof and certainly there is none on the Number 2 netz bus to the Kotel at 4:30 in the morning. It doesn't need one - as long as Mrs. Shears is not in town. And this is exactly what Naomi Ragen did as well. For this, she got the publicity she was looking for.

Crossing a red line is a passive-aggressive action - with the accent on the "aggressive" side. Aggressive actions foment aggressive reactions.

Inapproriate behavior triggers inappropriate responses.

And although, like Rabbis Maryles and Horowitz, I do not condone the reactions, unlike them, I do not either condone the behavior that triggers them.

Whitewashing the "victims" does just that. Making out the "victim" to look "whiter" than he or she actually is serves to make the "aggressor" look blacker than he or she actually is. And I do not accept that. Though this may not be so relevant in the Buzaglo incident, it is very relevant in many other incidents and on a general scale.

So I set out to write a post to discuss what is and isn't a victim and what is and isn't a thug. From a sense of logic and from the point of view of the Torah. But, before I was done, the headlines moved on. It is close to being a finished product and I still may post it, but based on who got more stars on Rabbi Horowitz's comments column and who got less, I do not expect to find many willing readers.

Please tell me if I my expectation is wrong.

Ad Meah V'Esrim!

Chodesh Adar is birthday season at the Hirshmans. One of them, at least. We have 3 birthdays clustered around Purim and 4 birthdays (including mine) clustered around Chanuka. Also 2 at the beginning of Ellul and one just before Pesach and a few other scattered ones, ken yirbu.

So after vinching uhn Yaakov on 10 Adar we have Shloimie on 22 Adar (starts tonite!) and then Chani on 26 Adar הבאים עלינו לטובה.

This is for everyone in Klal Yisroel who has a birthday (in lieu of a present) no matter when:

Docutherapy: The Power of the Pen

Mrs. Weiss had just about all she could handle with her two prepubescent sons. These guys couldn’t find enough space for themselves if they were marooned on an aircraft carrier. This one’s making too much noise. He keeps the lights on too late, he shuts them off too soon. Why should I clean his mess? Whaddaya mean my mess…? Biff! Boom! Pow!... Mommmmm!!

Yes, it was time for an after-hours call to her “therapist”, her sister-in-law. “How do I keep these boys from hailing Armegeddon?”

Calm as a knaidle, her sister-in-law responds, “The next time they come to you with a quibble, tell them to put it in writing.”

Sure enough the next quarrel began right on schedule – three hours earlier than expected. “I had the book and I just put it down for a second…”

“Just put it in writing.”

“Wha…?”

“You have a complaint, submit it in writing.”

“Then what?”

“Then he’s going to have to respond in writing.”

“You mean I also have to write it down?”

“You bet!”

Silence.

“So get writing.”

More silence. In fact the silence prevailed for quite some time – right up until the next quarrel.

Mrs. Weiss was employing a technique that I call docutherapy. (Well, this case may not actually be docutherapy, but rather a variation that I call docu-phobia therapy, but the principle is the same.)

For the complete article, see the embedded document:


The Power of the Pen: The Case for Docutherapy

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Academic Work david burns cognitive behavior t

Will Not Kneel and Will Not Bow - Part II: Yefes in the Tents of "Shame"

Yefes in the Tents of "Shame"


There is an interesting discussion going on over at Emes Ve-Emunah. The discussion revolves around an entity that I had never heard about until I tuned into blogs: the Orthoprax.

If you are not sure what that is, you are not alone. Last I checked there were 76 comments posted to the initial piece many of which are debating the proper usage of the term. So after reading the post and perusing the comments, I for one, am still plenty confused. But the confusion does not start here.

We Jews are so-o-o creative! We always like making up new discriptive terms (see my post about chareidim and wings). Reform, Conservative, Traditional. Those are pretty easy to understand because they are in plain English. But here's a really hard one one: Orthodox.
Where did this term come from?

The Greeks, for Heaven's sake. It came from the GREEKS! (As does the term Hypocrite).

So what does it mean? Well, it's Greek to me.

Our sages were not very fond of the Greeks. The first step of Hellenization was when we translated the Torah into Greek. This is one reason why we fast on the 10th of Teves. The next step is when we refer to our hashkafas in Greek terms. First there is Orthodox. Then there is Heterodox and Conservadox. (These last 2 are just one plain pair-a-dox) and now there is Orthoprax.

But getting back to the term Orthodox, I think I have finally figured out what it means. It means: keeping the Torah like a Greek. How so? Consider the following about an "Orthodox" Jewish female NCAA basketball player at the University of Toledo. This comes from a recent Jerusalem Post article entitled Holy Toledo:

Shafir is not only a leader on the team, but she has become a role model in the Jewish community as the first female Orthodox Jewish athlete in the NCAA Division I competition, the top level of American collegiate athletics.

"One thing that we figured was to get in touch with a rabbi in town to find out what was most important. We then spoke to her uncle and father, who gave us a list of what Shafir would need. This included access to kosher food, a T-shirt under her jersey, not riding in a motorized vehicle on Shabbat and not practicing on Saturdays," says Cullop. "The list was not long, and we knew she would observe the holidays. Luckily the calendar works out in our favor. They were more concerned with school and appreciative of everyone finding solutions."

The Rockets have postponed all of their Saturday afternoon practices to Saturday evenings after sunset. However, Rabbi Chaim Bogonski and Shafir worked out a deal four years ago allowing her to play games on Shabbat. When Shafir was on the Israeli National Junior Team, she was the only Orthodox player. Bogonski ruled that since practice was work and games were fun, it was acceptable to take part in games that fell on Shabbat. This was important, since a majority of the games for Toledo are on Saturday afternoons.

So this is Orthodox? An Israeli girl coming to Chu"l to play basketball in public on Shabbos!? Oh yes, she is acting under complete Daas Torah a la Rabbi Chaim Bogonski. And, certainly, she wears a tee-shirt under her tank top and from the waste down she wears gym shorts just like the Kohen in the Bais HaMikdash! And she is a role model because she is an "Orthodox" Jewish athlete?

This may be Orthodox but it is Greek Orthodox. Antiochus would be proud. But I have my doubts about Mattisyahu (NOT the rapper!!!).

This is kneeling and bowing!

In a book entitled Where Heaven Touches Earth by Rabbi Dovid Rosoff, in the Glossary on page 611 he has the following entry: Chareidi: Orthodox.

I don't think so.

If this is Orthodox, then please do not call me Orthodox. In any case, I don't speak Greek.

What's a better term? Well, Yeshaya didn't speak Greek either. Not to us, at least. And he has a term for the Jews who do the right thing. You know what he calls them?

Chareidim.

He actually coined the term. He certainly must have been referring to somebody. He had a term for Orthoprax, too. But not in Greek. You know what he calls them? He calls them מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה (Yeshaya 29:13) - those who perform mitzvos by rote.

So the Orthoprax are actually nothing new. They've been around for quite some time. Just like the chareidim.

G-d fearing Jews don't need to act like Greeks. And we do not need Greek terms to describe ourselves. We do not need to bring Yefes into the tents of "Shame". And we are forbidden to kneel and bow.

For us, there are many old Biblical or Talmudic terms in Hebrew. Terms like tzaddikim, yesharim, anavim, yereyim, chassidim, kedoshim, perushim, chaveirim, chareidim or...just plain Yehudim. Like Mordechai HaYehudi. I'll take any one of them.

The bearers of any of these terms have one thing in common. They will not kneel and they will not bow. They will not send their daughters from Eretz Yisrael to Eretz HaAmim to play basketball on Shabbos in front of men wearing shorts and T-shirts.

לַיְּהוּדִים הָיְתָה אוֹרָה וְשִׂמְחָה וְשָׂשֹׂן וִיקָר

Will Not Kneel and Will Not Bow - Part I: The Jewish Problem

The Jewish Problem

King Achashverosh had a great problem. It was the Jewish problem. You see, King Achashverosh ruled over the entire civilized world - from Hodu to Kush. Everybody paid homage to him as the supreme king. The entire Middle East was Dar al Achashverosh. He could subjugate the whole world and he didn't even need nukes. But these Jews were a pain. It was one thing that they paid homage to a Higher Being. There were many ethnic peoples and each one had their deities. Let the Jews have theirs.

No, the problem was that the dhimmi Jews wanted a piece of the kingdom for themselves. A Dar al Yehud. They used to govern a small province south of Mesopotamia. And they still say it is their land. They plan to resettle that province and claim independence. If this happens it would usurp the totality of the king's dominion and set the stage for an opposing world superpower. That would be a disaster for the king and for the newly established Persian empire.

The Jews haven't been independent for just about 70 years now. They foolishly cling to their tradition that after 70 years their commonwealth will be divinely restored. Utterly ridiculous. Their G-d is as impotent as everybody else's. They are hallucinating. But some hotheaded nationalistic youths are stirring. They want to "manually stimulate" this fictitious repatriation.

The king decides to take matters into his hands. He will put an end to this nationalistic dream and he will do it with cunning. Although the Temple was only destroyed 59 years ago, he will date the apocalypse from an earlier phase and announce that the 70 year interim period has expired and no national restoration has even begun to form. He will commiserate with the Jews that their "G-d" has abandoned them forever. And then he will throw a big celebration welcoming the Jews as loyal and permanent subjects of the Persian empire. All state rights and privileges are open to them. Just forget about your nationalistic fantasies.

Achashverosh was a Persian. He was a son of Yefes, a cousin to the Greeks and the Hellenists. The sons of Yefes thought that the Jews can be won over by acceptance, lavishment, and acculturation. And as King Achashverosh saw the Jews participate in his celebration en masse, he knew his plan was successful and he withdrew into complacency. Yet, some years later he appointed a minister who hailed from the sons of Shem, an Aggagite. He alone knew the stubbornness that was the heart of the Jew (as is the nature of all the sons of Shem). He questioned the loyalty of the Jewish people to the Persian culture. So he devised an even more calculated plan.

He would enact a law that all the peoples of the kingdom must bow down to him. He knew that the Persians would readily comply, they are a very earthy people. But he wanted to test the Jews. If it transpires that each and every Jew will kneel and bow, then we may assure ourselves that their Jewish identity and nationalistic dreams are dead. And mankind need never again feel constrained by the morals of the Torah. BUT...If so much as one Jew will refuse to kneel and bow, then the Jewish cause has not died. For this one Jew may reignite within his fellow Jews the lost spark of the Torah and subdue the dominion of mortal men.

As such...if but one Jew refuses to kneel and bow, all Jews are a lethal risk...

ומרדכי לא יכרע ולא ישתחוה

To be continued...

Zachor Ess Asher Assah Amalek -The Root of All Hatred

About 3 months ago on Parshat VaYeitzei I wrote a post entitled The Biblical Therapist that discussed a proposed introductory chapter to Book Two of 1A7B and contained an excerpt. This chapter was an overview on the root causes of social hatred in the form of anti-semitism and chareidi-phobia. This actually began as a term paper for an adult education class I was taking in psychology and counseling.

Since that time I have discovered the wonders of iPaper (in case you never noticed) so, due to the timeliness of the subject, I have decided to release the entire chapter in iPaper. This can be found at the end of this post.

In the spirit of Purim, I have extracted the routine about the Biblical Therapist for those who have not read it and reposted it out of context into the body of this post. It still maintains its place in the chapter for the idea it was meant to illustrate.

Enjoy....

The Biblical Therapist

Therapist: Miss Lillith, please admit the first patient! Well-l-l, if it isn’t his majesty King Nimrod! What seems to be the trouble, O Mighty Lion? You don’t seem your chipper self today!

Nimrod: The Mighty Lion has a thorn in his paw.

Therapist: And who might this thorn-in-the-paw be?

Nimrod: A disloyal subject.

Therapist: An oxymoron, your Highness. Who could even think of defying you?

Nimrod: He calls himself Abram of the Opposite Side.

Therapist: Not a team player, is he?

Nimrod: Not in the slightest.

Therapist: What’s his game?

Nimrod: He claims there is an unseeable almighty G‑d who created the entire universe and basically runs the whole shooting match.

Therapist: Ridiculous! Well, if this “G‑d” is unseeable we can simply ignore Him, can we not?

Nimrod: Not really. This fellow’s been acting up lately.

Therapist: How so?

Nimrod: His father went on a business trip and left him minding the store. By the time poppa got back, every idol but one was in bits and pieces. Kid claims that the big one smashed the rest of them. Poppa kinda slipped up and remarked that the idol can’t do that. Kid says, “Ah-ha! So you admit these things are powerless!” Now people are talking. If this thing gets around, you know, no good for business.

Therapist: So, his Majesty is not interested in competition, is that it? How do you usually handle competitors?

Nimrod: Never had one.

Therapist: Well there were those fellows that didn’t cooperate on that tower project weren’t there?

Nimrod: Oh yeah, these guys were missing the team spirit; it was like they were talking a different language. In any case, these guys didn’t follow the safety rules. Most of them got involved in ‘work accidents’. Quite unfortunate.

Therapist: What about those towns out West that stopped paying their taxes.

Nimrod: They are just a bunch of ignorant boors who cannot seem to understand the social value of the tax system. For that reason, I am sending a specially trained group of tax collectors. These fellows have a way of explaining things.

Therapist: So I’ve heard. Does this Abram fellow pay his taxes?

Nimrod: On time.

Therapist: What about following safety rules?

Nimrod: Except for the first two.

Therapist: Correct me if I am wrong, your esteemed Majesty, those would be (1) the Mighty Lion is the King and (2) there is no other King. So, our thorny friend refuses to acknowledge these two unshakable principles?

Nimrod: He seems to have a slightly different version.

Therapist: Well then, perhaps there will be no one to fault but himself if he were to encounter a ‘work accident’. What line of work is he in?

Nimrod: Education - not an accident prone field. Besides, an accident would not be in my best interest. People may misunderstand and others may take his place.

Therapist: You could cut off his state funding.

Nimrod: I’d like to cut off a lot more than that. But he’s got a privately funded institution; doesn’t take a dime.

Therapist: But even so, he must comply with the state’s curriculum.

Nimrod: He assures me that he spends a great deal of class time discussing everything about our wonderful King. Now, I have a real strong hunch that he doesn’t mean me, only it’s been impossible to prove.

Therapist: Well, haven’t you sent him some ‘students’ from the Nimrod Knowledge Verification Department?

Nimrod: You mean the NKVD? Yes, I’ve sent throngs of them. Next thing you know they are all at the camel stations handing out candles and kerchiefs to the women and tying up the men with black leather boxes. Not one ever came back to report.

Therapist: But is he not required to abide by the rules of the Teachers Union?

Nimrod: He’s been turning down the membership. Says he doesn’t need the benefits.

Therapist: What does his Royal Highness’s union chief usually do with people who refuse to be a member?

Nimrod: He dismembers them.

Therapist: So, why not now?

Nimrod: Like I said, people are talking. We can dismember him but that won’t take care of his unseeable G‑d. I want to see his entire ideology go up in smoke.

Therapist: Perhaps his Eminence oughtn’t be so dominating. Maybe it would help if you showed him a little warmth, if you try to meet his ideas with a bit of fiery enthusiasm.

Nimrod: Yes, you’re right. Maybe I shouldn’t try to force him to see things my way just because everybody else does. Maybe I should leave him alone in a well-lit quiet spot and see how things heat up. The more I think of it the better I feel.

Therapist: Well then, O Great One. That sums it up for now. Please come back next week and let me know how things went. And, oh, as usual, this session is on the house.

Next patie…What is that Miss Lillith? Urgent call on Line 3? Sounds a bit frantic? Alright, I’ll take the call. Hello! – Yes, Mr. Caine. How are you? – Oh, I’m so sorry to hear that. – Your younger brother, huh? – Yes, you already told me that you think he is just so much hot air. - Yes, I see. You just couldn’t manage to get your offering to score points and – Ah-ha. He could do it and you just weren’t Able. – Please, Mr. Caine, you must calm down and try to relax. Perhaps, if you only improved the way you… – Uh-huh. Others have been telling you that lately? Well, maybe… – OK, OK. Just please calm down. What if you just had a nice talk… - You did? What was it that you said to your brother? – Nobody is supposed to know? Well, your secret is safe with me. Now, now, please, try to control yoursel… - What was that? He makes you want to just mur… – No, Mr. Caine, you can’t be serious. That will solve nothing. You must consider the conseque… – Mr. Caine, I beg of you, let’s not start a mutiny, please just take a deep breath and relax. Even if you were to “get away with it”, as you say, you must realize that you would be ostracized from society. You would become a drifter, marked for life - Mr. Caine, may I suggest an emergency appointment? Can you be in my office at 4:00? - Very well. In the meanwhile, just lie down and rest and don’t speak with anyone, especially your brother. You need not be your brother’s keeper. See you at 4:00, then? - OK, good-bye.

Miss Lillith, this client is quite distraught and I am concerned that he may do something irrational. Please alert the proper authorities and you may admit the next patient.

Ah yes, Mr. Lavan deCheat. It’s been what – about six years since you came to me last? And, how are you today?

Lavan: Not as good as yesterday!

Therapist: And what seems to be the problem?

Lavan: It’s my son-in-law, again. He ran off on me just when I was trying to get the upper hand.

Therapist: Would you like to tell me about it?

Lavan: Well, you know how it’s been these past twenty years. Just like I told you, this fellow comes to visit me without a dime. He didn’t even bring a bottle of wine for Shabbos. Now, I see a great opportunity here. I’ll get this guy to run my business, do the dirty work. You know, work myself up on his shoulders. I was just afraid that right after I show him the ropes, he’ll bolt on me and go into business for himself. So I had a great plan to pin him down for a while: promise him one daughter for seven years of labor, then, when the seven years are up, I’ll pull the old bride switcheroo and get him to put in another seven years for his beloved. I figured that by then he’ll forget all about his home town and he’ll be my personal sheep dog. I even threw in two extra daughters to make sure he stays put.

Therapist: Yes, yes. I recall you told me all that at our last session.

Lavan: Well, would you believe that after the fourteen years the ingrate wants to pack up and leave? After all I’ve done for him! He says, “What do I have to stick around for? You never even gave me a share in the business.” Come on, four wives aren’t enough? Now, I’m a bit worried because my boys who have been partying around all this time don’t really know how to run this business, they would just run it to the ground.

Therapist: Of course, Mr. deCheat. There is no need to go over the details from six years back. We did set a strategy then, did we not?

Lavan: Yes we did. We decided that I should give him a piece of the business, just nothing to get excited about. He’ll get all the freaks and rejects, which there won’t be many of cuz all of my sheep have been coming out white as snow. That’ll keep him in the fold without a controlling share.

Therapist: So how did that work out?

Lavan: Not like I expected. All of a sudden, freaks and rejects were in high demand. Nobody wanted a white sheep anymore. And - would you believe it? – all the first bred sheep were coming out speckled and striped and only the second litter was white. He was making a mint on my account.

Therapist: So what did you do?

Lavan: Like any self respecting businessman, I demanded to renegotiate the terms. I thought that would rile him up.

Therapist: And what did he say?

Lavan: He said, “No problem. You just call ‘em.” I said, “How about you just taking the patchy ones with striped feet.”

Therapist: And?

Lavan: The guy didn’t flinch. Three weeks later he’s walking around with a whole flock of patchy ones like that. I told him that I didn’t really mean patchy like that, I meant speckled ones with patches on the ankles. Three weeks later – Voila! A new flock just like we said. I changed the deal again but now I’m getting a bit suspicious so I send some of my boys to spy on him. They tell me that he’s been taking wooden sticks and putting stripes and spots on them and sticking them over the troughs. Ah-ha! So now I really give him a tough one – brown sheep with white patches at the shoulders, stripes on the legs and a speckled tail. Let’s see him do that with those sticks. All he says is, “No problem.” And three weeks later, there they are. Man, I must have done this 100 times. He’s got the craziest looking sheep that anyone has ever seen and I get all the white ones. Just, for some nutty reason, people are willing to pay five times more for his freaky sheep than for my normal ones.

Therapist: So your sheep don’t have much market value?

Lavan: No, I wouldn’t say that. My sheep still bring in big bucks. I’m the chief exporter of sheep to Canaan; they got no one there who knows how to raise them. You know our mottos: “Let deCheat and Sons Pull the Wool Over Your Eyes” and “There’s Nuttin’ Like Our Mutton”. I’m still raking in a hefty profit (of course, that’s not what my accountant tells the tax people). No, I ain’t goin’ hungry.

Therapist: Then why such a long face?

Lavan: Well, as rich as I kept getting, this lazy good-for-nothing son-in-law kept getting richer - on my stock! This really burns me up. I’m having bad dreams. I asked him if he ever gets bad dreams. He says, “No, I hardly ever sleep at night.” No wonder! He’s too busy counting sheep. They ought to be my sheep. This guy’s got my sheep and he’s got my daughters and he’s got my grandsons and all I have is this miserable mansion and all of these…

Therapist: Now, Mr. deCheat, get a hold on yourself. If you don’t like this fellow, why do you miss him?

Lavan: Because, as much as I got, he’s got more. And now he wants to relocate and open up his own operation down in Canaan. I had the market cornered there. He’ll blow me out of the water!

Therapist: Now, now, Mr. deCheat. I am certain that you can open new markets. I think that you would do splendid in Midian.

Lavan: I don’t care if I get Midian, Moab and the whole East Bank. If this guy is headed to Canaan, that’s where all the action is and I want it.

Therapist: So, what do you have in mind?

Lavan: I’m gonna go after him and see if I can’t uproot every last shred. Nobody gets the best of Lavan deCheat.

Therapist: Mr. deCheat, I am a bit less than optimistic about your chances for success, but if you feel that this will achieve your noble aims, then I wish you all the best. Please get in touch with me in, say, another six years and let me know how things are going. Oh, and, I don’t mean to be pretentious, but you still have an outstanding balance for our previous sessions.

Lavan: No problem, I’ll have one of my boys drop off some striped and speckled sheep – soon as they’re born. Thank you ever so much.

Therapist: Next patient, please. Ah. A new face. And to whom do I attribute this honor?

Patient: I didn’t really want to come but my wife kind of talked me into it.

Therapist: You must be a very devoted husband Mr…?

Patient: Hamdatha. Ben Hamdatha. My friends call me Haman. And I’ve got lots of friends.

Therapist: And a caring wife. Now, in what way can I be of service, Mr. Haman?

Patient: Well, I’m a pretty important guy. Got a top government position, friends in high places, you know. Lots of sons and a good deal of wealth and, you know, all of this is barely worth a cent to me just cuz of one guy who sits by the palace gate and I can’t get him to…

Root of All Hatred_Scribd Edit

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Academic Work one above and seven chareidim

On Chachmas Nashim and Offshore Bank Accounts

Yep, she finally did it. My first-born princess finally found herself a frog -- I mean, a prince. This daughter is the one I was lamenting about last summer. Well, b'chasdei Hashem, we got the job done without shelling out $15,000/year and without long distance web conferencing.

I am still for the web conferencing.

Last night was the vort and, as all my readers know, when I have a vort to say, I say it.

As a public service, I am posting the main portion of my address in an iPaper file. In my speech, I addressed many important issues that most people do not give adequate attention to. these include:

• Where do we see a reference to Vashti in the Torah?
• Who was a better wife for Achashverosh - Esther or Vashti?
• Did Achashverosh's taxes include accounts in Off-Shore investments?

May all of the singles in Klal Yisrael find their true mates בקרוב !

א פרייליכן פורים

Iyei Hayam Basic

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Creative Writing offshore vashti