Isaac Kaplan

Do Some People Have It Easy? Revisited

2008-05-04T12:44:00.004-04:00

I wrote about this two years ago, but the question is still relevant. That's why I'm discussing the issue once again.

Unfortunately, many of us or our loved ones have a big nisayon to contend with. Whether it involves health, parnassa, shalom bayis, shidduchim, chinuch - many of us struggle with something big. What can make it more difficult is seeing a neighbor or friend who seems to have the easy life - a nice home, fancy car, no obvious health issues, no older singles, no kids off the derech - what could be the guy's biggest challenge, choosing between a Lexus and an Infiniti? It's easy to be jealous of someone who seems to have everything going his way.

Many rabbonim, including Rabbi Paysach Krohn, say that such an attitude is wrong. "Nobody has it easy!" says Rabbi Krohn. Many challenges are only known behind closed doors. The neighbor with the fancy house may have tremendous shalom bayis issues that nobody except for a few close friends and family will ever know about. These days, many health issues are kept secret. Based on what Rabbi Krohn says, everyone's got a challenge, we just don't necessarily know about it.

But based on the gemara and other sources, I don't know if that's true. The gemara in Avoda Zara (3a) says that G-d does not give His creatures a nisayon they can't handle. Based on that, we can speculate that some people can't handle anything. In that case, the biggest nisayon G-d will give them just might be whether to shop at Bloomingdale's or Saks. If that's all they tolerate, that's all they'll get.

Rabbi Ezriel Tauber Shlit"a, in his work "Self Esteem" (highly recommended, by the way - this is not Dr. Phil/Stephen Covey fluff, despite the title) expounds on this point:

The greater a person is, the more is expected of him.

-snip-

"You must have Hashem's favor," the rabbi added. "Otherwise, He would let you have things easy. You must be able to overcome your despair. Hashem only challenges a person whom He knows can persevere and overcome. You must believe in yourself as much as He believes in you."

- When I was in yeshiva, some rabbeim would often discuss the "tehillim-zuggers" who were in Europe. These were men who didn't know how to learn chumash, let alone gemara. But they were still considered good Jews, my rabbeim said. Why? Their brainpower was limited, so their tafkid was to say tehillim. And because of that, they were great. Of course, if R' Akiva Eiger or the Chasam Sofer would've settled with being "tehillim-zuggers," that would have been tragic. All that potential, wasted.

In the same vein, perhaps some people have it easy when it comes to nisyonos. When it comes to challenges, they are the "tehillim-zuggers" of our time. They can't handle too much, so their nisyonos may seem easy to the rest of us. As Rabbi Tauber explains, nisyonos represent G-d's confidence in man's ability to rise to the occasion. And some people simply don't have what it takes.

It's also important to keep in mind the famous Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:12), that says that much of the evil in the world comes from people's own actions. The classic example would be a chain smoker who later gets lung cancer - many of us wouldn't feel too sympathetic - in a sense, this person dug their own grave. I think we can extend to this to similar situations involving social and emotional challenges as well.

- But as Rabbi Tauber writes, the key for anyone facing a challenge is to believe in themselves and rise to the occasion. Rabbi Soloveitchik zt"l expounds on this in "Fate and Destiny," another recommended read.

May G-d give all those facing a challenge the ability to realize this and overcome whatever difficulties they may be facing.

Not #1, But Definitely Top 10

2008-04-14T20:16:00.003-04:00

I'm usually a fan of Rabbi Yakov Horowitz's material, but I just can't agree with his latest post.

To summarize for those not willing to read the article: Yonason Rosenblum decries the extravagant Pesach celebrations at hotels. At one point, he quotes a rav saying that "Pesach in hotels" in the biggest threat to yiddishkeit today. And Rabbi Horowitz basically (and correctly) says that such a statement is ridiculous. However, he goes on to give the hotel guests a free pass:

For each of the past eight years, I have accepted invitations to join a total of four different Pesach hotel programs as a scholar-in-residence. Throughout that time, I never saw any of the exaggerated claims made by that Rav – guards at tea rooms, waiters almost trampled, and on and on. And to imply that there is “no ruchniyus” in a comfortable setting where mothers and grandmothers who toil all year long raising their children and volunteering for chesed activities can peacefully sit at the table and enjoy the Seder and their families is untrue and condescending.

This is where have to disagree with Rabbi Horowitz.

I'm not going to rehash the whole "materialism" and "gashmius" bit, although that's obviously a primary factor here. It's been done a million times before. I will say one thing, however:

Perhaps nothing signifies the obsession with materialism more than going to hotels for Pesach. Rav Soloveitchik compares the holiness of the Seder night to Kol Nidrei night (interestingly, one rav pointed out that on Erev Pesach this year, we will lain parshas Acharei Mos, which contains the krias hatorah of Shacharis and Minchah of Yom Kippur). Yet Pesach has gone from an ultra-spiritual experience to an ultra-materialistic experience. In a way, it's worse than the fancy car and the fancy home, because it's killed the meaning of one of the most weeks of the year.

-- But to me, the biggest reason why this makes the top 10 is the staggering sum of money that gets spent here. One rav told me that he heard this has become a billion-dollar industry. I’m almost certain that’s an exaggerated figure, but at the same time, when you see the pages and pages of resorts advertising in the Jewish Press, there are definitely tens of millions being spent here. And at a time when aniyim are suffering, mosdos are suffering, and there are so many great causes that can use the cash, this is terrible.

And granted, the richies also blow plenty of money on fancy houses and fancy cars. But in those areas, they don’t spend much more than the average Joe. How much more does it cost to lease a Lexus than a Toyota Camry? On the upside, probably about $10,000 a year. And when it comes to buying a house, in most frum neighborhoods, even a shnooky house costs an arm and a leg.

But even with inflation being another excuse for kosher retailers to jack up Pesach food prices, there is a significant cost difference between making Pesach at home and going to Cancun.

And all that money that aniyim and mosdos will never see is why I think this makes the top 10 list.

- So what’s the solution?

I don’t want takanos. The wedding takanos became the biggest joke in Flatbush. Plus, it would cause a serious loss of money to Katz, Lasko, Chaim Kaminetsky, and others. As much as these programs are wrong, I don’t think it’s fair to cause them to lose parnossa.

Then you have the people that say the rabbis should give mussar about the topic. Yeah, because that’s worked really well with TV, tznius, and materialism in general.

My suggestion? Start a campaign where the richies will match their Pesach travel expenditures with a matching contribution to tzedakah. (Of course, we would need a minimum threshold. The people spending Pesach in Fleischmann’s don’t need to get involved, because they’re probably in a hotel for the right reasons.)

I would love to see various mosdos and organizations band together to form such a plan. I would definitely list the donors in a full-page ad in the Yated and Jewish Press, thanking them for these donations. These richies love recognition, and if everyone sees they gave 75 grand to tzedakah, that’ll give them their glory. I would even try to get the more generous richies on board first, to try to pressure them to get everyone else involved.

Maybe we can’t stop people from going away for the holiday. But if we can at least give the aniyim and mosdos some of that cash, that's progress.

"Ess Shver Tzu Zayn A Yid"

2008-04-13T22:08:00.002-04:00

In my years in the yeshiva system, there was one anecdote that has recently bothered me. Maybe it wasn't the anecdote per se, but the way the rabbeim delivered it.

Here's the anecdote:

In the 1920's and 1930's, many American Jews assimilated. One gadol attributed the mass assimilation to a common saying that reflected the attitude of the Jews at the time: "ess shver tzu zayn a Yid - it's hard to be a Jew." Many Jews felt that their religion wasn't much more than a difficult burden. And at a time when many frum Jews were looking for jobs on a weekly basis because they couldn't work on Shabbos, perhaps we can't blame them for having such a negative attitude.

In any case, the lesson is: don't treat Judaism like a burden. Don't say, "it's hard to be a Jew."

This story bothers me on multiple levels:

1) Sometimes Judaism can be difficult. Keeping kosher in a small town in Middle America? Not so easy. Paying 5 tuitions, a mortgage, etc. in the tri-state area in 2008? Painful. Besides, Pirkei Avos discussed the concept of "l'fum tzara agra." Sometimes, Judaism is hard.

2) My bigger problem is, the rabbeim provided no solution to this problem. It's like a father telling a depressed kid, "cheer up." What the heck is that? For most people, emotions don't work like the on-off switch that turns on a light. They can't just get happy.

And in the same vein, if a kid finds Judaism to be a meaningless set of burdens, what's he supposed to do about it, after hearing the above? Just feel like an even guiltier schmuck for having those thoughts? That's really productive.

After telling such a story, a rebbi has got to follow it up with a discussion of what's great about Judaism, what's great about Torah and mitzvos, and the tremendous opportunity we've been presented.

3) And that leads into my third point: too many mechanchim portray Judaism as a bunch of meaningless burdens. They suck all the life and beauty out of Yiddishkeit, instead ranting about TV, concerts, and "kids these days." And then on top of that, they'll tell over an anecdote like the above. Again, just to make the kids feel even more guilty, I guess.

The best rabbeim I had weren't the ones who shouted until they were blue in the face about how evil girls are. The best rabbeim were the ones whose faces shone when a kid had a good pshat to offer, when a kid brought clarity to a difficult sugya. But that's a discussion deserving of its own post.

-- So in the end, I've got no problem with the anecdote - besides, the Torah says that one reason for the Tochacha is not serving G-d with joy.

But if there are no solutions given about how to get to that level of joy, then telling over the anecdote is pointless.

The Death of Quality

2008-04-07T20:32:00.004-04:00

I took a speed-reading course and read War and Peace in twenty minutes. It involves Russia.
- Woody Allen

There's an ad for a yeshiva which I find very disturbing. The yeshiva claims that by the time the kids get out of there after 12th grade, they'll have finished shas 40 times. And before that, while in grade school, they'll have memorized Tanach and Shisha Sidrei Mishna. Sounds amazing, doesn't it?

This place rubs me the wrong way in so many ways I don't know where to begin.

First off, the way they hype the kids coming out knowing all this stuff just sounds like a "get rich quick" scheme. From the get-go, something smells fishy. If only Rav Eli Teitelbaum zt"l were still around to tell these guys off the same way he ripped the MLM and network marketing schemes.

And assuming that, in fact, the kids will go through shas 40 times in high school. One of two things is going on: a) the kids are killing themselves and are having absolutely no free time at all, or b) the quality of those 40 times is basically non-existent. And this place claims they're gonna have a strong secular studies department, too. Whoever these kids are, I feel for 'em, and hope they stay frum after all this.

But what really gets to me is the learning by rote and the sole focus on bekius. If you're finishing shas 10 times a year, good luck squeezing a Rashi into the mix, let alone a Tosfos. It's scary, in so many ways:

- 1) Are these kids going to learn how to learn, how to think in terms of lomdus? No. Suddenly, that's not important. I know some will say that once they get to Israel, they'll start learning b'iyun. And at that point, their knowledge of shas will be extremely helpful. But let's be realistic: in many ways, they'll be way, way behind their peers, and they may be screwed up for life.

It's one thing if a kid joked around in high school and didn't learn much. Perhaps once he gets to Israel or Yeshiva Gedola, he can get serious and start thinking in learning. At least he hasn't developed any bad habits in his approach to learning.

However, a kid who goes to this school will have to develop a totally new approach to learning: after 12 years of pure memorization by rote, he'll suddenly be faced with unfamiliar rishonim and acharonim, as well as the formidable challenge of making sense of a challenging sugya. That's a tall, tall order, especially for someone entrenched in a diametrically opposite approach to learning all his life.

- 2) Besides, is there any precedent for this derech halimud in our mesora? Many of the same people who trash YU for not following the mesora are suddenly clamoring to send their kids to a place whose derech halimud flies in the face of everything we were taught about R' Chaim, R' Akiva Eiger, and the K'tzos, for starters. (Not to mention that we'll be lucky if these kids even know the names of those acharonim when they step out of high school.)

This yeshiva claims that some of the gedolim in Eretz Yisroel support a similar yeshiva in Israel, but so what? What's appropriate for Eretz Yisroel may be totally inappropriate for America. (If anything, the precedents set by the likes of R' Shraga Feivel, R' Hutner, etc. have proven as much.) Have any American gedolim signed off on this place?

- 3) Also, a school like this can only thrive in an era of image-itis. The fact that people go for this, it just goes to show that it's all about results these days, all about the numbers. Not about quality, just quantity. These fathers just want to brag that their kids finished shas forty times. Never mind that they probably went through it the way Woody Allen "went" through War and Peace.

Many times in life, quality isn't sexy. Quantity is.

- 4) Finally, I also believe that part of the appeal behind this school is that the kids will be so busy memorizing that they won't have time to think. Many right-wingers are anti-thinking; after all, it makes a rebbi's job easier if he doesn't have to answer a kid's tough hashkafa questions!
Thinking has become evil. Drinking kool-aid is the way to go.

One of my favorite gedolim stories was in the JO eight years ago, in an article commemorating the twentieth yahrtzeit of R' Yitzchak Hutner, ZT"L. He was on a bus when he saw one of his talmiding sitting with a sefer, learning on the bus. Rav Hutner turned to the talmid and said, "nu, so when do you have time to think?"

If only we had more rabbonim like him around these days, we wouldn't have schools like this, schools that represent the many ways this generation has gone wrong.

Baseball: Bring on '08! Predictions

2008-03-26T22:17:00.002-04:00

It's amazing how the World Series seems to end later every year, and yet the offseason seems to take longer and longer. For a short stretch in January, I almost lost interest in baseball - I hadn't been so out of it since '95. But then Santana and Bedard got traded, and it all got exciting again. And once I had the game on the other morning, the wait was over.

Anyway, it's prediction time.

-- The Orioles will hit the record books again, a year after losing 30-3 to Texas. I predict 125 losses for them this year. They lost Bedard and Tejada, and Roberts has had one foot out the door for months. They've got 19 games apiece against two of the best teams in the game, Boston and the Yanks, another 19 against a dangerous Rays team, and 19 against Halladay, Burnett, and the Jays. True, they've got Markakis and Adam Jones, but they've also got Steve Trachsel. It's gonna get real ugly in Camden, as Peter Angelos battles the Dolans for worst owner in sports.

-- World Series - Detroit vs. Arizona. I know Detroit's got bullpen issues, but if Zumaya and Rodney are healthy down the stretch, they'll be fine. I think Willis will improve, in spite of the NL-AL switch.

I know the Mets fans won't appreciate the Arizona pick, and neither will the Sabermetricians, because of last year's negative run differential. But I credit Melvin's use of the bullpen and general strategy more than anything else. Plus: these guys made it to the NLCS last year, before running into the red-hot Rockies. And they've added Haren, giving them a great 1-2 punch for a short series. Also, they've got a bunch of players who are young and whose best is yet to come, like Chris Young and Justin Upton. Compare that to the Mets, where you don't know what you'll get from guys like Delgado and El Duque.

I like Detroit in 6.

-- I'm picking Boston to win the AL East and Cleveland to take home the Wild Card. That means the Yankees miss the playoffs, and that means Cashman gets fired and Hank goes all-out to get Sabathia and Texieria. Not good for the game.

-- Rockies of '08? -- the Reds. I think they'll finish 2nd in the NL Central (Cubs in first), but they'll break .500 for the first time in a while, and in a couple of years, might be primed to bring the Series to Cincy for the first time since the Nasty Boys.

-- I like the Braves as the Wild Card. I think Hampton's gonna be Comeback Player of the Year. Francoeur and McCann will keep improving, and a full year of Teixeria will be huge.

-- Awards: AL MVP - Miguel Cabrera, AL Cy Young - Erik Bedard, AL ROY - Evan Longoria

NL MVP - Chase Utley, NL Cy Young - Johan Santana, NL ROY - Joey Votto

A Mechanech For All Students

2008-03-24T12:12:00.001-04:00

The passing of R’ Eli Teitelbaum ZT”L saddens me. I didn’t know the man personally, save for an unforgettable summer in Israel that I and so many hundreds of others experienced.

Like most people, I really got to know him from the Country Yossi articles and the ads for his various projects, not to mention the “How to play Casio and Yamaha keyboards” cassettes that have gathered dust in my basement. What really struck me about the man and his projects was how, as a mechanech, he attempted to reach out to all kinds of students with all sorts of talents.

We live in a time where, increasingly, the chareidi chinuch system is catering to the elite child and leaving the “mediocre” kids behind. If you can’t handle a summer in a learning camp, if you can’t handle 5 years of beis medrash (at least!) following high school, and if you’re even thinking about that four-letter word called “work,” you’ve become second-rate.

The litvishe system in Europe was like that, catering to the elite, and it was a resounding success – 85% of the Jews there assimilated.

One of the lessons of Parshas Vayechi is that each shevet has something different to offer, and that diversity is appreciated by Yaakov. True, there was a Yissachar who learned all day, but every other shevet was blessed for their unique tafkid and talents.

And Rabbi Teitelbaum had something to offer for all students, with all sorts of talents. A kid has a talent for music? Nothing wrong with joining a choir, or learning to play the keyboard. No hand-wringing about “bitul Torah.” A kid needs a break? Nothing wrong with a weekend in Canada, or a summer in Israel, or even attending a concert. He even started a middos contest, iterating the importance of a largely neglected area of Yiddishkeit.

Perhaps his last piece in CY was his most important ever, as he was standing athwart Chareidi Judaism, yelling “stop!” (my apologies to the late Bill Buckley for that one).

Finally, his thinking outside the box led to the Torah Communications Network and Dial-a-Daf, both tremendous services to the community.

If we had more like him in our community, we’d be in much better shape. Yehi Zichro Baruch.

Why Chareidi Schools Scare Me

2008-03-22T22:02:00.002-04:00

To me, it's about one thing: it may be very hard to get a kid to love learning Torah and Judaism, but it's very easy to get that kid to hate Judaism and Torah, and lose him forever.

Let's face it. You're dealing with a kid, someone exposed to all that Western culture and the mass media have to offer. The average 15-year old will want to have fun. And guess what? That's healthy. A kid that age who gets more excited over the Mets than a blatt gemara is probably more psychologically healthy than a kid that age with a 20-minute shmonah esrei. That's called OCD.

I had a rebbi in elementary school that, in retrospect, is one of the biggest tzaddikim I've ever met. I still remember the way his eyes lit up when someone asked a good kasha. But most of us didn't appreciate him; we were too busy passing notes or playing games under the desk. Most of the kids liked the other rebbi better, because he brought donuts to class. That's normal.

As the average kid matures and seeks meaning in life, chances are he will gravitate towards religion, especially if he grows up in a home where Yiddishkeit and Torah. And the "flipping out" phenomon has shown that even when the parents don't give a darn about Judaism, the kids will often seek the light of Torah on their own. That often comes with maturity; a 14 year old generally doesn't care about the meaning of life; but at 18? Much greater chance of that.

However, if a kid went to a school and developed strong negative associations towards Torah and yiddishkeit, good luck getting him motivated to come closer to G-d. It's extremely difficult to undo some of the stupid, stupid things that some rabbeim do and say.

Shalom Auslander's "Foreskin's Lament"contains some incidents that are simply horrifying. Here's a sampler: one kid's father passed away. The day after, the principal came in and told the kids, "a father is responsible for a son's sins until he turns bar mitzvah, so watch yourselves." Sickening.

And then there was that nutcase who was quoted in the Yated a few months ago, who said "if only everybody threw out their iPods, then Moshiach would come." What a moron. Or the morah who tells her class, "if anyone in here watches TV, get out; I don't want to see your face." Get help, lady.

How about the clowns that throw a kid out of class when they don't know the answer to a tough hashkafa question? And they call the kid an apikores and kofer, to boot.

Let's not forget the sickos who beat up kids in front of the entire class. That's a great motivator.

So a kid comes out of some of these schools thinking that G-d hates them, and that if they slip and say lashon hora once by accident, too bad - they're getting a first class ticket straight to hell. What happens? Either they become perfectionists and develop OCD, or they become apathetic, maybe even angry. And there's almost no chance of getting them interested in learning again, even as they mature. They become, to quote the Jewish Observer, "adults at risk."

The moderate/MO schools are far from perfect, and have problems of their own. But I highly doubt that anyone comes out of there hating Torah Judaism.

The Next Victims of The Shidduch Crisis?

2008-03-12T21:57:00.004-04:00

When you picture the victims of the shidduch crisis, a few images probably come to mind. Maybe you think of a 24-year old pouring out her heart in a letter to the Yated. Or maybe the single girl sitting at the chupa of her best friend, silently davening that she should be next.

But I think the girl under the chupa, the one in the wedding gown, may also be a victim of the crisis. Here's why.

The shidduch crisis has had a few ripple effects:

1) The pressure - because there's a crisis out there, many singles are feeling the heat, like they need to get married, quick! This obviously can lead to making a rushed, haphazard decision in choosing a spouse. An article in the Five Town Jewish Times deals with this point.

In addition, think about all the Jews that fall for image-itis. For them, marriage is all about image - the spouse, the mechutanaim, and the various elements of the wedding are all chosen based on what the neighbors will think. And many of the neurotic mothers (who are also a large cause of the shidduch crisis, but that's for another time) are freaking out and pressuring the kids to marry, because if the girl isn't married by 20, what will the neighbors think? It's reached the point where if a girl is going out and has an older sister who's still single, it's almost as big a black mark as having a sibling who's off the derech ("Why isn't the sister married? Is there something wrong with her?")

2) The glorification of marriage as being a "magic pill," something that cure all problems, not just the lack of a spouse. Daas Hedyot and Bad for Shidduchim have both done a great job discussing the prevalence of this attitude.

They don't make the connection between that attitude and the shidduch crisis, but I think it's definitely there. Many singles have developed such pressure and desire to get married that they get delusional. They then start thinking, "if only I was married." And it becomes a mantra to address every problem in their lives. After all, we've reached the point where some people are so desperate to get married, you'd think they just want to be married for the sake of being married, no matter that the guy may the biggest putz in Brooklyn. Why should they worry? After all, marriage is the only thing separating them from happiness! And once they're married, all their problems will be solved! And it's quite obvious that such an attitude can lead to big, big issues in the long run.

- What's the solution to these dangers? I don't think denying that there's a crisis would be helpful. The awareness of the shidduch crisis has led to some soul-searching and imprtant suggestions to address the crisis, and we need as much of that as we can get. And if people will get freaked out by the use of the word "crisis," too bad. Let them use their seichel in making the most important decision of their lives. The benefits of awareness of the crisis outweigh the costs.

Let's just hope enough people do, in fact, use their seichel, and prevent the "shidduch crisis" from G-d forbid turning into a "marriage crisis."

Top 5 Avraham Fried Albums

2008-03-10T22:22:00.004-04:00

To me, Fried is the best in the Jewish music business. By a mile. It's like listening to Vin Scully broadcast a ballgame, and then trying to hear someone else do it - Sterling, Cohen, Rose - whomever - some do a decent job, some are awful, but even the very good ones don't match up.

What does Fried have going for him? Four things. One, the voice - one of the best, probably the best in the JM business. He's one of those guys with whose got the powerful voice for the fast songs, and the soft voice for the slow songs (think "Yisimcha"). Two, he's got a great composer in Yossi Green, easily the most creative JM composer out there (I'm not a big Rottenberg fan, and I like Brazil, but the creativity isn't there as much.) Three, the guy puts out albums for the sake of putting out albums, not to get his name out there so he can sing at weddings. As a result, you get the feeling that effort was put into most of his songs, at least. Most importantly, Fried's not a performer - the guy sings from the heart. He's out there to inspire. I don't listen to Jewish music for entertainment, only inspiration. If I want entertaining music, there's a lot of better stuff out there than Eli Gerstner or Lipa or whomever. And let's just say it isn't stuff that's sold in Galpaz.

So my top 5 Fried albums are as follows:

5) We Are Ready! (1988) - Okay, "Avrohom Yogel" definitely sounds dated, but it was HUGE in its day. The title track is a cringe-worthy English song, easily the worst on the album. But Fried redeems himself with a criminally underrated "Yedid Nefesh," only recently made famous by Shwekey on one of those albums where they turn a bunch of old songs into medleys. "Tania" is one of Fried's all-time best tracks. There are a few decent fast songs on here too, the most noteworthy being "Eliyahu HaNavi." "Shavas Aniyim" is also worth a listen.

4) Aderaba (1991) - Side A on here is tremendous - "Kol Yisroel" is my favorite Fried opener, "Aderaba" is my favorite Fried song in terms of lyrics, and Nisht Gedayget and HaShomayim are very very good. Plus there's "Kaitzad," typical Laufer song, but a good one. Side B has a good opener in "Hinei," then another classic Yossi Green epic in "Ki Hamitzvoh." Fried's vocals soar on that one. The rest of the album doesn't feature anything noteworthy.

3) No Jew Will Be Left Behind (1981) - I love early Fried for his voice - it sounds much sweeter on the earlier albums. The album opens with "Kel Hahodos," a fast opener later made famous by Uncle Moishy. This is the only Fried album with two English songs, and both are surprisingly very good. "Kanei" is a standout track, and Fried's vocals on here are simply incredible. The "Ani Maamin" of the Kedoshim is one of the most powerful Jewish songs ever recorded. Only problem with the album: too short. If you have just 8 songs, you've gotta leave the filler out.

2) Forever One (1983) - This is another great early Fried album. "Invei Hagefen" has withstood the test of time, "Mishoch" and "Tzomo" are like typical Green songs, with the slow semi-chazzonish beginning leading up to a fast ending. "Forever One" doesn't make you cringe - impressive for a Jewish English song. Side B has a couple of excellent slow songs: the Yiddish "Tateynu" and an inspiring and criminally underrated "Acheinu," better than the cold Lev Vnefesh version. "Me'eyn" is my favorite closer for a Fried album; it's one of his catchiest songs.

1) Brocha V'Hatzlocha (1995) - One of my biggest problems with Jewish music is that far too often, you spend 15 bucks on an album with one or two hits and 10 songs that were composed when someone was in the john or waiting on line at the pizza shop.

Aside from an awful English song, every tune on here is tremendous; the key here is the fast songs. On some Fried albums, the fast songs sound kinda bland; they're nice, but they don't stand out. Here, all of the fast songs have a distinct sound, and give this album a consistency that is somewhat lacking on the other albums. "K'Sheim" "Sisu" and "Bracha V'Hatzlocha" are all solid, and "Odom Doaig" is another home run by Green. And the slow songs are Green classics - Chabibi and R'tzei are the typical slow/chazzanish to fast/joyful epics, executed flawlessly. "Yisimicha" is beautiful. "Zechor" didn't hit it too big, but it's a great song too. This is my second-favorite Jewish album of all time (Regesh III is #1, if you must know).

A Purim Lesson for 2008

2008-03-06T22:47:00.005-05:00

Was going to do a more conventional blog tonight, but I'm a little shaken from the events of today, and thought a dvar torah would be appropriate (although not directly related to today's events), especially with Rosh Chodesh Adar II on the horizon.

The first perek of the megilla discusses the seudos that Ahasuerus made for his kingdom. The megilla doesn't just go through the significant parts of the seudah, such as the incident with Vashti and Memuchan (which at first glance, is the most critical part of the first chapter). Rather, the megilla goes on and on detailing the grandeur of the seudah. Similarly, in the second chapter, when it comes time to pick a new queen, the megilla spares no detail in telling us the various trivialities of the process - the cosmetics, the eunuchs, etc. Why?

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik ZT"L explains it beautifully in "Days of Deliverance:"

"When the curtain rises on the first act, what do we see on the stage? A feasting, pleasure-loving, and pleasure-pursuing society. The Book of Esther did not spare words in portraying vividly, with refined artistry and sarcasm, the repugnant addiction of the king, princes, courtiers, ans servants to lascivious pleasures, to the incessant pursuit of an ever-fugitive satisfaction. We read of the habits of an orgiastic society that was tired and exhausted because of satiety, yet anticipated another satiety to be tried for the sheer novelty of it.

- snip-

The Scripture, which is tight-lipped about the lives of Moses, Abraham, and Isaac, becomes suddenly so loquacious in narrating the story of the king's wives, banquets, and the degenerate life at court. Why? Because only in a non-rational environment could irrational man-Satan arise. Only people who were pursuing pleasure - for whom values had no fixity, norms no ultimate validity - could tolerate man-Satan, irrational and destructive and cruel; only people addicted to the beautiful and pleasant could have stood by and watched the smoke rising from the chimneys of the crematoria climbing to heaven."

-snip-

A society of Shaashgaz and Hegai must produce a Haman.

I would also like to think that maybe this is another way to understand the gemara of "mipnei she'neheneh miseudasso shel oso rasha" - because we were obsessed with the seudah and the feasting, we became so oblivious to the developments around us that nearly led to our destruction.

The first thing that came to mind after reading the Rav's pshat was something Michael Savage has often said: this country is too obsessed with celebrities, movies, sports, and other pleasures to care about the horrible forces (both from out and within our country) that threaten our very existence.

And Pinny Lipschutz, a man I almost always disagree with, made the same point a few weeks ago. He discussed how many of us read about the horrors of Sderot. Perhaps we let it affect us for a second, if at all, but often we just forget about and turn to discuss Pesach in Cancun.

-- The megilla is teaching us a very important lesson. The first step to progress, to doing our hishtadlus in making things better - is simply to give a darn. Take account of what we care about in life, what's important to us, and see what's up on the list. If we're too blinded by money, movies, clothes, celebrity gossip, and sports, we can't make a difference. We'll be too obsessed with pleasure to see things collapse around us. (And I'm not one of those hand-wringers who's anti any pleasure not involving a daf gemara. I'm a big fan of pleasure - in moderation, and without losing sight of real life.)

You look around the frum community, and it's fraught with problems - kids-at-risk, the shidduch crisis, kol koreis without due process, etc. One big reason why many problems still fester - too many people don't care. They're too worried about making the next buck, the next vacation, the next fancy car to even stop and notice the way things are going wrong.

And that's why this is one of the most important lessons of the megilla, one that remains painfully true a few thousand years later.

Bringing Meah Shearim to Brooklyn

2008-03-03T19:02:00.000-05:00

This piece from the Jewish Star brings to light one of my greatest fears: the attempt by the kanoim to turn Brooklyn into Meah Shearim, Ramat Beit Shemesh, Bnei Brak, pick your chareidi paradise.

I have a hard time accepting the psakim of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shteinman upon myself. Don't get me wrong - I have the utmost respect for them and their Torah knowledge.

But to me, they're like Rav Ovadiah Yosef - another individual whose knowledge and greatness I respect. The man is a tremendous talmid chacham - see it for yourself by looking at a page of any of his seforim. But I don't follow his psakim. Why not? They're not meant for me or my community - I'm not sefardi, so I don't follow that approach.

The chareidim in Eretz Yisrael live in a different world, a world where "learning a trade is poison," where shaving is an issur d'oraysah, chalav stam is treif, and the list of differences goes on and on. According to many of the statements and psakim of the gedolim there, many of us here are getting a first-class ticket to hell. So while I respect the rabbonim there, I don't believe that they're "our" poskim, the same way that R' Ovadiah is not a posek for the J-Dubs.

I've always believed that there are many factors that go into halacha, including social factors, and there certainly is proof of that all over (shaas hadchak, mipnei darchei shalom, and others). And I think it's reasonable for any posek who's paskining for a tzibur to have some knowledge of that tzibur, their upbringing, their struggles, their beliefs, etc. And maybe some psakim can be made without such knowledge (for example, the law of forgetting a part of davening), but in many instances, the people and the community are a big factor in psak.

And that's what's troubling about the process here - are the gedolim in eretz yisrael fully aware of the issues facing our communities, such as the kids-at-risk and the much larger exposure to the media that golus brings? Are they fully aware of the way many of us live our lives here, struggling for hours to earn a living in a secular world?

-- The impression I've always had is that since Rav Moshe passed away, there hasn't been a pre-eminent American posek hador. It's a big, big problem. And the problem is manifesting itself in this manner - the kanoim are trying to turn New York into Bnei Brak, and it's just plain wrong. That's one reason the whole wig fiasco outside Chaim Berlin rubbed me the wrong way. What's next, asking the city council for separate seating on the B9? Tznius police on Avenue J? Protests outside of Touro College?

Don't get me wrong - the chareidi enclaves in Israel have a lot going for them that we're lacking, but they also have a lot of problems. And all the kanoim will end up doing is importing those problems. Not in my backyard!

The Lipa Ban and Al Sharpton

2008-02-26T20:14:00.004-05:00

Ok, so my last post was a little off - but then again, I was discussing the average Brooklyn Jew, not Lipa or Gertner. Apparently, they were influenced by the ban, you think?

I've reached the point where there are so many stories and theories out there, that I don't know who to believe. I don't know who's right, who's wrong, and perhaps we'll never know.

What ticks me off is the way this was apparently handled. The way I feel about the matter now is how I felt after Imus got fired last April. Here you had a guy who made mistakes, and he made a very big one with his infamous line. But the way he was treated that week, the way he was dressed down by Sharpton, the way he was dumped by MSNBC and CBS Radio - it made you feel like the bad guys won. The punishment didn't seem to fit the crime - most people would've been cool with a short suspension, but Sharpton wanted the guy to be fired. Sharpton won.

I feel like Lipa and Sheya Mendlowitz are like the I-man here. Maybe they've made their share of mistakes, but you feel like it should never have gotten this brutal for them. And the same way the Imus Ranch lost a lot of dough from the whole thing, I feel terrible for that wonderful tzedaka in Eretz Yisroel.

- Like so many other bans before it, this one was poorly executed. And I hate to say it, but it feels like the "bad guys" won here too. Obviously, the rabbonim deserve our utmost respect, but that's the gut feeling out there. What could've been done differently? A lot of things, in my opinion.

-- If Mendlowitz is right that he first heard about the ban on the internet, then that's very, very hard to justify. Where's the due process? When did "dan 'lkaff zchus" end up in the same dustbin as "yafeh torah im derech eretz" and "eilu v'eilu divrei elokim chaim"? I would love to see the Agudah or one of the rabbonim come up with a set of procedures to be followed in dealing with bans. Perhaps some sort of arbitration/mediation process would be nice. Sure, the rabble-rousers out there would have what to say no matter what, but for most of us, I think it would bring a lot of piece of mind.

-- I think the ban should've been clearer. More details, more info. Explain what the problem was, what's being banned, instead of a vague kol korei. If there's more transparency, there's less room for people to accuse the great ones of playing politics and kowtowing to the kanoim. Let's face it: A vague, super-harsh ban is like an open invitation for lashon hora and motzei sheim ra. I can't imagine it's too many steps removed from lifnei eevar.

When you go through a tshuva, it's always breathtaking to see the process, see the rav deal with the many facts out there, see the rav go through the steps, try to figure it all out, and end up with a psak. When a rav leaves no stone unturned, maybe you can't understand his logic, but you certainly respect it.

Again, I can't say who's right or who's wrong, I simply don't know enough. But I'd like to think there are ways to do this where we can limit the lashon hora, the ripping gedolim, and all the hate out there. There's gotta be a better way.

The Lipa Ban - Is Anybody Really Listening?

2008-02-24T14:39:00.005-05:00

Like so many bans before it, the Lipa Concert ban has got all the bloggers flared up. You know the drill: centrist/leftist Jew rips the gedolim and the kanoim, and chareidi commenter ("I'm only on here because my rosh yeshiva said I should!") tries valiantly to defend the gedolim, all the while calling the blogger a kofer, aprikores, mevazeh talmid chacham, racist, sexist, and homophobe.

I'll leave the discussion of who's right, who's wrong, etc. to those blogs. My reaction to this controversy - when it comes down to it, does anybody really care? Is anybody really going to change their ways and cancel their tickets because of this pronouncement? Does anybody still care?

I believe that very few people take these pronouncements seriously anymore.

After all, the turning point for most people was the wedding takanos. The rabbis who signed said they weren't going to show up to the weddings that violated the takanos. Yet the richies kept making their weddings in the Sheraton Meadowlands and Brooklyn Marriott with all the trimmings, in clear defiance of the takanos. And guess what? The roshei yeshiva still showed up! I don't know of a single rich guy who switched his daughter's wedding from Ateres Avrohom to Ateres Shlomo because of those ads in the Jewish Observer. And I never heard of one rabbi boycott a wedding that violated the takanos. And I'm SURE we would've heard about an incident like that.

The whole wedding takanos fiasco taught us not to worry about these "kol korei"s. You could defy them and live to talk about it.

Sure, some chareidim tried to save face for the rabbis - "yeah, they didn't mean for it to be taken seriously, it was just meant so that the people making smaller weddings wouldn't be embarrassed, so that they could just say they were following the takanos..." - aside from the disturbing thought that some gedolim were playing the same political games as Hillary and Obama, the message was - don't take what we say at face value! Don't take us THAT seriously! And if that kol korei was about politics and quasi-hidden agendas, who's to say that the other ones are any different?

At the end of the day, the wedding takanos was a PR disaster for the Agudah and the Moetzes. And it's only gone downhill from there, with Slifkin, Kolko, etc. Even the Indian shaitels - a bunch of women wore snoods for a day, a horrible comedy album was inspired, and then life went back to normal.

- Plus, who were the Gedolim trying to target here? The MO and chareidi-lites are unaffected by this ban. As for the chareidim, many of them aren't going to concerts; Reb Laizer Ginsburg and others have been ripping concerts for years. Furthermore, most chareidim have their own rav/ rosh yeshiva that they speak to for their shailos. So why should they listen to an ad in the Hamodia, if they have their own authorities with whom to discuss the issue?

(Lawrence Kaplan has a terrific essay about how the concept of "daas torah" only came to life following WWII, after the destruction of European Jewry. In a future post, I plan on giving my take as to where "daas torah" is headed today. And most people having their own rabbeim is a big part of that.)

In fact, I have a chareidi uncle who has a bunch of rabbeim with whom he discusses shailos and other issues. And he recently borrowed one of my books, one that was heavily banned a few years back. So clearly, he's not taking that ban seriously. My Lakewood cousins, on the other hand.... well let's just say, my uncle better be hiding that book in a safe place, if he knows what's good for him.

Where's The Baldie?

2007-08-22T12:20:00.000-04:00

I've heard of a few people who recently discovered that their grandparents or great-grandparents were chassidim. And even though these guys came from a modern-orthodox background, they've decided to "go back to their roots," so to speak, and started wearing a bekeshe on shabbos.

I don't get the whole thing. First of all, chassidus is only 300 years old. So if you wanna go back to your roots and emuate the ways of old times, why stop there? Why not try to emulate your ancestors of the 1600's (when chassidus was just a thought, at best)? Why not try to follow the culture and garb of the rishonim, the geonim, or the amoraim?

And even if you wanna say that they've decided they feel a connection to chassidus, perhaps more so than other groups that their ancestors associated with, so why do they draw the line at putting on a bekeshe? Go all the way! Get the zero haircuts, the Egyptian peyos, and try to go to tish every Friday night. Learn the Sfas Emes, Reb Tazdok, and other chassidish classics. I wouldn't expect these guys to dunk in the mikva every morning (it can be a hassle), but that should be an eventual goal. If they're trying to give their great-grandfather nachas, they've gotta go all the way. What, they think the guy's a moron? They think if he peers down from heaven and sees his great-grandkid in a bekeshe, he'll think his kid has truly gone back to his roots? Come on guys, don't insult the man's intelligence.

Now, some may argue that the guy isn't comfortable changing his entire look and lifestyle, so when it comes to being chassidish, this is where he draws the line. But what does wearing a bekeshe mean? To me, it's a very insignificant change. So shkoyach, Friday night the guy sticks out in shul. But aside from shabbos, the guy looks like every other person walking through Midtown Manhattan! Part of chassidus (before you even get into the hashkofo aspects) was developing a unique identity and a unique look. So I don't see the significance of wearing a bekeshe for a few hours on shabbos. What does it mean?

But in a society that is often obsessed with image and appearance, such antics don't surprise me. And as I've written about before, sometimes, it seems that even many "genuine" chassidim have only a skin-deep connection to chassidus, rather than feeling the dveykus that the Besht intended.

- When I was in Israel, I met a former chareidi-lite guy who became chassidish. But to his credit, the guy got the look down to a T. He grew a beard, peyos, cut his hair short, and even had the 3/4 length underwear going. And he started hitting the mikva daily. That's how it's gotta be done. As the old cliche goes: when you do something, do it right.

Selig's Second-Worst Moment

2007-08-09T14:14:00.001-04:00

My take on Bonds breaking the record is very similar to my analysis of the Kolko fiasco. While Kolko was certainly at fault, I said that Margulies deserved to bear the brunt of the blame for not nipping the problem in the bud and getting Kolko the hell out there years ago. So too with Selig. I hate Bonds as much as the next guy, but Selig is the real villain here.

And years from now, when we assess Selig's legacy, the #1 low point is easily that day in September 1994, when he cancelled the World Series. As a Yankee fan, I couldn't bear to watch. A great season with Donnie, Buck, O'Neill and Jimmy Key was shattered. And baseball died in Montreal.

But Bonds breaking the record is easily second on the list. Bonds' milestone homer is a sad coda to the steroids era, and the commissioner's inaction in dealing with the issue. (And McGwire's homer in '98 is on the list as well.)

I give the guy credit for finally addressing the issue a few years ago and setting up a disciplinary system, but it was too little, too late. And what's he doing to address HGH and other designer drugs that BALCO cooks up? Is he staying a step ahead of the cheaters?

In a way, I can't totally kill Selig for what he did, because perhaps looking at where baseball was in '95, he had no choice. The game was still reeling from the strike, and maybe a steroids scandal in 1996, which would've involved big names like McGwire and Juan Gonzalez, would've killed the game, making it about as relevant as the NHL come 2007.

But to me, that's Selig's legacy in a nutshell. From a business standpoint, the game is in its best shape ever, with lots of new ballpark and record-breaking revenue. But the price has been the integrity of the game. Steroids, interleague play, ads all over - this is not the game we had in 1988.

Frum Guys And Law School

2007-07-01T00:22:00.000-04:00

When you look at the career choices of most frum guys (I'm talking about the working guys) in their low-mid 20's, law school is probably the most popular choice. Why law school? What's so appealing about three years of law school, usually followed by a high-stress job? I think there are four reasons, with some overlap:

1) money/prestige
2) can't think of anything else to do
3) that guy in Lakewood
4) passion for the law

1) money/prestige - This is the first reason that comes to mind. The opportunity to get a six-figure job right out of school is very appealing to many people. And money equals prestige. The ability to get a nice car, brag, put the diploma on the wall, and talk about cases nobody else understands are all point-scorers.

This category depends, however, upon the school the guy's attending. Any school on the US News Top 10 (Columbia, NYU, Penn) is definitely prestigious, and often a ticket to the prestigious big-firm job. But the guys who go to Brooklyn Law or Hofstra, I don't see the prestige there (or the money, for that matter). Especially now, where every other frum guy is going to law school. Maybe they're trying to impress their grandparents, who think that ANY law school is impressive. Or perhaps they feel cool when their great-aunt goes over to them at a simcha and asks them how to fight a parking ticket.

On a practical level, the fact is the cost of living as a frum person is ridiculous these days. More than one person has told me they chose law school because it's the quickest way to make the kind of money to support a frum family. As long as the guy enjoys working at a firm, that's a fair argument. But otherwise, that's insane. Someone's gotta slodge through 12-hour-plus days just to pay tuitions, etc.? Ridiculous.

2) Nothing better to do - There are a lot of guys who can't think of anything in particular that they wanna do with their lives. They hated science in high school, so medicine, dentistry, and PT/OT are out. They couldn't stand math, so forget accounting or finance. So they go for law. And frum guys figure that because law is just like Gemara, it's the most natural fit. Plus, you can make a lot of money.

I also think the chareidi approach towards secular passions is a big factor here. In yeshiva, you get the impression that because work is evil, you shouldn't follow a particular passion or ability you have when it comes to choosing a career. Sometimes I got the feeling that they don't want you to enjoy work, because you're not really supposed to be working. In which case, choosing a career isn't based upon one's abilities and passions - rather, it's all about the money.

Of course, the Chovos HaLevavos (in Shaar HaBitachon) says that one should pursue a career in an area that he enjoys. But that gets quoted about as often as the Rambam's take on kollel.

3) That guy in Lakewood - This category applies to the BTL/Touro crowd. Many yeshiva guys totally forgo a college education, because some guy in Lakewood got a 175 on his LSAT, got into an Ivy League school, and got a cushy big-firm job. So why go to college if you can take an exam, ace it, and skip those four years? And still make more dough than those losers from Brooklyn College who majored in Accounting?

The problem here is, two things: First, how many guys can get a 170 on the LSAT? Not too many. I know, I know, the LSAT is just like gemara, but who said these guys are all good at gemara?

Plus, these guys are leaving themselves one career option: It's law school or bust. So if they bomb on the LSAT or go to law school and hate it, what else can they do? They're screwed. But again, if their other passions have been quashed, it's not a huge deal.

4) Passion for the law - these guys are probably going to law school for the right reasons, and are the vast minority on this list. These are the ones who can name you every Supreme Court justice since 1870, the ones who pore over Justice Scalia's opinions the way I pore over a boxscore. If they're going to law school, good for them. Many of them end up as clerks and law professors.

Then you have some people that have great skills for lawyering. They're great debaters, great negotiators, and excellent BSers. For them, practicing law is a good fit. If they're willing to go through the years of doc review until they finally can utilize their skills, that is.

Finally, many of the frum girls who go to law school probably fall into the latter category. After all, the ones looking for working guys won't have the burden of supporting a family, so money is less of a factor. And the girls who don't know what they wanna do with themselves usually pursue something else, such as PT/OT, speech therapy, or teaching. And of course, no girls fall into category #3 above.

-- And with Orthodox Judaism moving more to the right, fewer guys are going to college. And granted, many of that crowd will be learning. But I still think you'll see more of the BTL-LSAT crowd pursue a law degree. Hard to believe as it is, I think the number of frum law students will only keep increasing.

Will Blogging Last? Part 2

2007-02-08T16:54:00.000-05:00

(see below for part 1 - this is one of those posts that will make no sense unless you start from the beginning - sorry!)

Why will most blogs end? Because most people have only so much time to read the paper, go to the news websites, and otherwise get their info for the day.

So say, for example, in addition to my daily routine, I want to spend a small amount of time every day learning about personal finance. I want to know which mutual funds to invest in, how to afford to send my kids to college, etc. Let's say I allot 15-30 minutes a day for this. I would start with the Wall Street Journal and SmartMoney magazine, maybe watch some Jim Cramer, and stuff like that. If I only have 30 minutes to learn about this stuff, why would I focus on what the average Joe is writing a blog, when I have no idea whether the author knows his a** from his elbow? I'm much better off sticking with the experts. Besides, the stuff in the Journal is much better written than the average blog. The same logic holds true for any topic one wants to learn about, whether it's politics, sports, or guitar.

Part of my epiphany came the other day, when I was reading a piece by Ezzie about Joe Biden's comments about blacks. Halfway through the piece, I realized, with all due respect to Ezzie, I am wasting my time. If I want to know more about the incident, let me see what experts like George Will or Bob Novak have to say on the matter. Why should I waste my time listening to a 24-year old accountant, whose knowledge of racial issues is probably minimal compared to that of the Washington pundits and insiders?

I think many people will come to the same realization, and many of these "average Joe" blogs will get less and less readership. And in many cases, that means that the writers will get fewer comments, and therefore be less motivated to write on a daily basis (unless they have NO life or an incredibly strong urge to get their voices out there). I do think the few talented "average Joe" bloggers will continue to succeed, but overall, there will be a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" contest. And most bloggers will not hack it.

And in fact, Joe Schick, a guy who used to write about Israel and sports, has recently retired from blogging. I'm sure Joe's a bright guy, but why should I read his take on these issues when people with much greater expertise are writing about them in Commentary or in Sports Illustrated? I'm sure Gary Myers and Joel Sherman know much more about the Jets and Mets. And again, I believe Joe will be the first of many bloggers to jump ship.

But hey, as long as Olney and UOJ are out there, I'm a happy camper.

Will Blogging Last? Part 1

2007-02-08T16:26:00.000-05:00

Has blogging reached its height yet? It's hard to know. There are thousands of blogs out there, and I'm sure someone has attempted to count them all. The problem is, making an accurate count would be difficult. Do you filter out the blogs that haven't updated in a while? How long would you consider "a while"? And what of blogs like Daas Hedyot (and now myself as well, I guess), that only post very sporadically? Does a blog have to be daily? Weekly? Should they be counted equally?

As an introduction to this piece, I would divide blogs into three categories, with some slight overlap: expert blogs, niche blogs, and everything else (for lack of a better term, I'd call them "average Joe" blogs.)

Expert blogs are written by experts in their field, and usually aren't "blogspot" blogs, but are often part of a news/information website. For exampler, Buster Olney's excellent baseball blog on ESPN.com would fit into this category. So would conservative pundit Mark Levin's blog on nationalreview.com. And even though the guy creeps me out, former ESPN researcher David Pinto of Baseball Musings is probably an expert, too. These blogs are written by experts in their respective fields, people who have spent many years making a living analyzing and discussing the issues they blog about.

Niche blogs aren't necessarily written by experts, but they discuss issues and ideas you won't hear about anywhere else. The Orthodox Jewish world, because of its insularity and secretiveness, is a great breeding ground for niche blogs. UOJ and Harry Maryles give you points of view that the right-wing Yated and JO and the pareve Jewish Action and Viewpoint would never present. You won't find that stuff in any book or sefer in Eichler's, and not even at the YU book sale.

Then there's everything else. People who discuss the same well-trodden issues as everyone else out there, and just add their point of view. They'll give their take on politics, sports, personal finance, dieting, and throw in the occasional personal anecdote or cute link to a YouTube video.

I think the first two categories of blogs are safe for years to come. But the last category, I believe, will be a passing phase. And many of these "personal" blogs will eventually go the way of the pogo stick.

Why? That's for Part 2.

Where's My MULE?

2007-01-01T14:27:00.000-05:00

Who needs a PS3 or a Wii when you've got a Commodore 64? So many great games on there, I don't know where to begin. I spent many a childhood hour watching my brother Floyd master the highways in Action Biker, using his wild imagination in Gary Kitchen's Game Maker, playing with his avatar in Club Caribe, and trying to collect the most crystite in MULE. I don't care what anyone says; MULE kicks Sim-City.

Check this link out, and make sure not to download the game. Unless you want to get re-hooked on MULE, that is.

America's Comeback

2006-12-31T10:16:00.000-05:00

I don't like being one of those bloggers who just links to other stories, but the Wall Street Journal had a great piece about one of my favorite '70's guilty pleasures, America. After being maligned as a cheap imitation of CSN and Neil Young (especially on "A Horse With No Name," they're finally getting their due.

Other People's Aveiros, pt. 1 -- Being Judgmental

2006-12-25T11:45:00.000-05:00

When we see someone doing an aveira, very often there's a sense of anger that kicks in. How can those two not be shomer negiah? How can that married woman not cover her hair? How can that guy miss minyan so often? Maybe we'll even back up our convictions with a line from Chazal that discusses severe consequences for anyone who transgresses that particular aveira.

Based on Rav Dessler's revolutionary approach to bechira (Michtav M'Eliyahu Vol. 1, p. 113 - Strive for Truth, Vol. 2, p. 52) , though, I believe none of us has any right to pass judgment on the aveiros of others. Rav Dessler discusses how each of us has a nekudas habechira, which he compares to a battlefront. As all Risk fans know, in a war, the front will often shift, depending upon the successes and failures of each side. Sometimes you retreat, sometimes you cover ground. But ultimately, what matters is where the fighting happens - at the battle front.

Rav Dessler says that our "battlefront" in choosing between good and evil comes "where the truth as the person sees it confronts the illusions of falsehood within him."

Rav Aryeh Carmell expounds on this in "Strive for Truth":

"Behira only comes into play when one is tempted to go against the truth as one sees it, and the forces on either side are more or less equally balanced. The point at which this equilibrium is reached obviously varies with the individual and depends upon many factors, such as herdity, environment, education, etc."

For example, Rav Dessler says that many of us don't think about driving on Shabbos or eating at Chili's - because we've been raised that way. There's no bechira there. On the flip side, many people just speak lashon hora because it's so ingrained in their system; they don't even realize it's wrong.

He adds that the bechira line often shifts from place to place, often as a consequence of one's positive or negative choices (which, he says, is the pshat in the line in Pirkei Avos: "Mitzvah Goreres Mitzvah, Aveira Goreres Aveira"). And one is responsible for the shifts in his points of bechira that occur as a result of choices he made.

What comes out is that we can't cast blame on others for their sins, because everyone has a different level of bechira. Do we know what x's level of bechira is? Do we know all of the factors that went into his level of bechira? Think about the examples in the opening paragraph. Is it within that woman's point of bechira to choose whether to cover her hair or not? Is it within that guy's level of bechira to choose to go to minyan? We don't know. Only God knows.

Now, I know some people will say, "well, I know x, and he grew up in a very frum home, went to chareidi yeshivos, and now, he plays poker, hangs out with women all the time. Don't be naive; he for sure knows better! He probably started off with a higher level of bechira, and lowered it because he doesn't give a darn!"

But that point of view is extremely short-sighted. Rav Carmell lists numerous factors that play into where the nekudas habechira lies. We don't know what kind of emotional issues x was born with, or was challenged with while growing up. I think psychological factors are HUGE here. And that's what part 2 is all about.

The Two Faces of Mashgichim

2006-12-21T19:20:00.000-05:00

After blasting the sems yesterday, time to give the yeshivas some equal time.

When I was in yeshiva, I always wanted to connect with the mashgiach. He seemed like such a holy, warm, and caring person. And many of the good guys seemed to be very close with him. However, I never connected with any of mashgichim I had.

Part of the reason might be because I didn't have any huge problems in my yeshiva days, thank God. Some guys were breaking up with their girlfriends or fighting with their parents about college. I had more minor issues: I was a perfectionist, didn't enjoy learning as much as others, and couldn't shake off the bug for sports, music, and the occasional tv show.

But the main reason I couldn't connect was as follows: when I would hear them give a mussar shmuz, the ideals they set were so lofty that I felt like a piece of crap hearing their depiction of a true "ben torah." How could I approach the mashgiach if I read yesterday's New York Post, and he just ripped anyone who reads that rag? How can I tell him what I do wrong? Won't he glare and yell at me, and tell me I'm getting a first-class ticket straight to hell? And let's say I tell him I don't really enjoy learning? I'm gonna give the man a heart attack!

So I figured, better not to risk anything. And I kept reading the Post, listening to rock, and staying out of the mashgiach's office.

At the same time, however, many guys would come out of the mashgiach's office saying how down-to-earth the man was. One friend discussed his passion for movies with the mashgiach, and I was impressed with what I heard. (Long story short, the mashgiach didn't tell the guy to quit cold turkey, as I would've expected.)

But in the end, I was confused. I thought, "okay, maybe the guy is down-to-earth, but he doesn't know me at all. Maybe he thinks I'm on a really high level and will tell me never to touch the paper again. And I feel far from ready to do that." So in spite of this guy's positive experience, I still stayed away.

But in the end, I don't see how their current approach is effective. (I'm sure they have a mesorah for their approach, but I certainly don't comprehend the effectiveness of it for today's times.) A mussar shmooze with such lofty goals and chumros will not appeal to the bums, who are probably spacing out, if they've even bothered to attend. The shtark guys aren't coming within 10 feet of a Billy Joel album, so there's nothing to worry about there. That leaves the guys in the middle. But if the vitroilic mussar is reaching for the stars, many of the middle guys will get discouraged and just dismiss it. And that'll just keep them farther and farther away from ever entering the mashgiach's office.

Seminaries and the Shidduch Crisis

2006-12-20T09:35:00.000-05:00

I think I have the solution to the shidduch crisis. Where's Pinny Lipschutz of the Yated? This is front-page material.

Close down the sems. Lock 'em up. Send everyone home.

Many times, girls come back from sem with all sorts of ideals. Their heads are in the clouds, and there's a lot they want to accomplish. And let's forget the girls who want learning guys for now -- even the ones that want working guys, they'll want someone who will learn two hours a night, never miss a minyan, talks to his rebbi all the time, be "spiritual," (whatever that means) and someone who will say divrei torah at the Shabbos table for two hours. And he must never, ever want to walk into a movie theater.

Sounds lovely. Problem is, who are these 19-year-old girls getting set up with? 22-23 year old guys who aren't idealists anymore. And many people change a lot from 19 to 23.

Very often, the guys have been in America for a few years. If the guy plans on working, chances are he's doing the yeshiva/college thing. When I was in Israel, I also left feeling very idealistic. At one point, I wanted to learn three hours a day, no matter what I was doing. When you get to college, though, and you see what the real world is all about, you start seeing what a struggle it is. And those ideals get tempered by reality. They get tempered by the fact that, in the frum world in 2006, there is no 9-5 job that will earn you a decent living (and we're not even talking about having a mansion with a Lexus in the driveway). And unfortunately, between work, a wife, a family, and simply, exhaustion, it's not always so easy to put in those two hours a night.

So the girls go out with a guy whose views are such, and they think he's a shaygetz. So forget it. A few years later, she starts coming around with her hashkafos, but by that time, the bitterness and frustration of shidduchim have set in, which make finding the zivug all the more difficult. The propoganda of the sems is causing a lot of trouble and frustration.

Is it important to be idealistic? Absolutely. You've gotta have goals in life, and something you want to accomplish. But like everything else in life, moderation is key. And the sems have to tell the girls what a struggle raising a family and making a living can be, and how to have appropriate ideals in that context.

And as I've said many times, in the long run, hashkafos aren't that important. I think midos are much more important, because people's views change. And someone with good midos will probably be more amenable to change and compromise than a jerk who happens to have the "perfect" hashkafos.

Two alternate suggestions:

- There are some girls that are more intellectual, and have a strong interest in learning. I think sem should be limited to those groups, and the classes should be more text-based and intellectual (works better for that crowd, anyway) than full of propaganda.

- It may make sense for girls to wait a year or two after sem before dating, simply to get a bearing of what they really want in life and in a zivug. But with communal pressures as they are, this will never happen.

Top Ten Simon & Garfunkel Songs

2006-12-18T10:17:00.000-05:00

CORRECTION: Paul first heard the lyrics to "April Come She Will" from a girl he met in England, who told him it was an English nursery rhyme. "Richard Cory" was based on a poem that Paul read in junior high.

- Been busy like crazy lately, so all I've had time for is a quick top-ten list. I should be back in the saddle in a few days, however.

Every yeshiva guy's first foray into secular music leads to Simon and Garfunkel, a couple of Jewish guys from Queens. Their stuff does have a Jewish sound, with the harmonies, the acoustic guitars, and all. Some of their stuff is great, other stuff is super-cheesy.

I also happen to think Paul's solo stuff is much, much better than his stuff with Artie. I have a draft titled "Why I hate Art Garfunkel" in the works. For now, let's just say that if Simon and Garfunkel never break up, we never get Graceland.

Anyway, here's the list:

10 I Am A Rock - it's my Dad's favorite; I had to put it up here. (Simon did this one in his '00 tour; I thought that version was better than the original.)
9 At the Zoo - Paul gets Orwellian.
8 Leaves That Are Green - Catchy tune, depressing lyrics - that's very Jewish.
7 The Sound of Silence - this is #1 on most people's list; I'm a little sick of it, and the thought of the Variations version gets me nauseous. Still a haunting classic, though.
6 A Hazy Shade of Winter - the Bangles did a cover of this in a lame comeback attempt. Their butchering of this song pissed me off. I love the opening riff to this one.
5 April Come She Will - one of my favorites from the Central Park concert.
4 Scarborough Fair - classic. My uncle claims that Paul ripped this tune from a "Dror Yikra" he heard when he was young. It's probably a Jewish rumor.
3 Mrs. Robinson - they did not sing this one in the yeshivas. In one place I attended, there was an old joke about how someone asked the mashgiach if you could sing a song with Jesus' name in it. To which the mashgiach replied, "you mean Mrs. Robinson?" Sorry for ruining your day with that one.
2 Cecilia - they sure as hell didn't sing this one in yeshiva. Very catchy tune; great stuff.
1 The Boxer - this classic never gets old. The tune and the lyrics are just incredible. I once read that Paul was originally ticked off about the "lai lai lai" part, because he had no words for it. But in the end, the song would simply not be the same without it.

Overrated stuff:
Homeward Bound - nothing special; another song mutilated by Veroba and Co.
Feelin' Groovy - cheesy. I hate this song. I cringed when they played this in the '03 reunion tour. The thought of a couple of 60-year-olds singing this is just plain creepy.
Bridge Over Troubled Water - maybe I'm just sick of it.
America - I know everyone gets excited about the New Jersey Turnpike reference, but I think this song is nice but no effect.

Thoughts on Originality

2006-12-07T09:36:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes said, "there is nothing new under the sun." So, does it even pay to try to be original? After all, it's all been done before.

When it comes down to it, though, we all want something original. Originality is a key to success, and it comes up in nearly every area of life.

For example, when I was in yeshiva, I never liked the rabbeim whose whole shiur consisted of simply spitting back rishonim and acharonim. If I wanted to just hear R' Shmuel Rozovsky's approach to the sugya, I would look it up. I wanted something original, something I wouldn't find in any sefer.

Likewise, my dad hates when Shwekey puts out an album of all covers of old songs. He wants to hear new stuff, not the same songs that Carlebach sang 30 years ago. (Then again, 9 times out of 10, the new Jewish music is horrendous; or, it's just a rip-off of the old stuff!). And similarly, nobody wants to hear a stand-up comic repeat the same cliched, predictable lines, and nobody wants to see a blogger beat the same issue to death, or simply parrot an editorial from the Times.

And almost every person wants to be original in some way or another. People in business or investing have to "think outside the box" to succeed. And even when you're telling a joke, you'd rather say your own punchline then just repeat something you saw on Seinfeld.

- The problem is, as the years go by, it gets harder and harder to be original. There's only a finite number of good ideas out there, and every day, more of them are getting used up. There were many more novel ideas out there in 1996 than there are now.

- Also, originality can often be a relative term. Something that's original to us may be an old story in Japan, and vice versa. But if we don't know that such an idea exists, we'll still be impressed with their originality. These days, however, with blogs, Youtube, etc., the world is much smaller. So someone's comedy routine in Australia will make it to our country much, much faster than it would have 10 years ago. And the amount of information on the internet is astounding. How many blog pieces by anyone deal with issues that were never, ever discussed elsewhere?

- These days, it seems like we often have to settle for being unoriginal, but throwing in a twist of originality. Going back to the above examples, a rebbi might use someone else's approach to a sugya, but throw in his own kasha at the end, so at least you got something novel from the shiur, and it wasn't just a discussion you could've found on the seforim shelves. And in business, many successful models aren't original from scratch; they may be based on other models, but the new versions may be more efficient and less flawed than the old one. And those nuances that make that model successful are the elements of originality there.

And then there are the pareve people who say everything is original, because everyone has their own style of doing things. So if 30 people blog about the same topic, make the same arguments, and come to the same conclusion, all 30 pieces are original because each of those people has a unique writing style and manner of expressing themselves. Or with the music example, people can say, "that's Shwekey doing HIS version of a Carlebach song; it's a different voice, so it's original."

But that's just too much for me. In theory, it may be original, based on the above logic. But if I read it and don't get the satisfaction of something new, instead thinking "that's an old story," or "where have I seen this before?" then to me, it's just the same old song and dance. I don't care who's writing it this time.

The First Sign

2006-12-05T17:05:00.000-05:00

Maybe it's because I need more important things to do with my time. Or maybe it's because I think about food too much. But I get very excited when a new kosher restaurant/fast-food joint/grocery opens up in my neighborhood. I know I've gotta try their schawarma, their burgers, their sushi, whatever they've got.

And then the inevitable occurs. The prices slowly creep up, and the level of service slowly creeps down. Your steak sub has more lettuce than steak in it. They keep misplacing your order. Their food tastes like oil.

After far too many of these experiences, I've come to realize the precise point when a business is going south: it's when they start using generic bags.

Think about it. When was the last time you went to Starbucks and got an "I Love NY" bag? Or went to the Gap and, instead of getting their signature navy blue bag, got a quasi-transparent bag that says "Thank You" fifteen times on it?

I was a big Circa fan for a while. I loved the make-your-own pasta bar, and their sushi was good, too. Then one day I got some stuff to go, and guess what? No more "Circa" bags. They gave me a plain white shopping bag. (Or it might've been one of those "Thank You" jobs.) Not long after that, they stopped the make-your-own-pasta thing, and now, they're no longer.

For a while, I was getting takeout from Dougie's, too. And the bags with that classic logo was replaced by a plain opaque plastic bag. And now, they're gone too.

My favorite was when a heimishe grocery near me stopped using their own bags, and got a whole run of bags from some church in South Carolina. There were rabbis in my neighborhood walking around with challahs in bags with psukim from John and Romans. That place: gonzo.

I don't know how many of you notice the bag you get your food in, but maybe you should pay attention next time. It could be the sign of something coming.

10 Biggest Sellouts in Pop Music

2006-12-05T16:36:00.001-05:00

I hate when an artist sells out. They've got their niche, their cult following, they're talented, and they're being ambitious. Then they decide to sell records. Sometimes selling out works, other times it backfires, and they you have some guys who sell out from day one (like Foreigner and 3 Doors Down), but here's a list of 10 artists that I wish would go back to what they do best.

10) U2
Sellout song: City of Blinding Lights
They reinvented themselves in 1991 with the incredible "Achtung Baby," and did a great job doing dance on "Pop." The album did great in Europe, but was a bust here. So they've tried putting out two more "Joshua Tree"-type albums. And when they made me pay to start going to their website, that was the last straw. After their last album got panned, I wonder if they guys will be as full of themselves.

9) Hall and Oates
Sellout song: Out of Touch
Listen to their early stuff, and they were doing some interesting things. They were on their way to becoming a white R&B duo. Instead, they put out some of the cheesiest videos of the 80's.

8) Rod Stewart
Sellout song: What a Wonderful World
This loser hasn't written a new song since Bush 41 was in office. Why do people buy his crappy cover albums? His voice isn't even that powerful anymore. I'm all for a mass boycott.

7) Jefferson Airplane/Starship
Sellout song: Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now
I never thought they were that good as a psychedelic 60's band, but they were undoubtedly lame as an over-the-hill 80's group.

6) Led Zeppelin
Sellout songs: All My Love, Fool in the Rain
Years ago, I bought Led's final album "In Through the Out Door" at a used record store. I sold it not long after. When you've got Jimmy Page, why do you need to use synths? And why does my local classic rock station play the garbage from this album?

5) Genesis
Sellout song: Invisible Touch
They were totally different under Peter Gabriel (prog-rock in the vein of Yes and Rush), and in the early Collins years, they put out great stuff like "Abacab." But then they became an adult-contemporary group. At least Collins saved his cheesiest stuff (Groovy Kind of Love, etc.) for his solo junkets, rather than embarrassing the rest of the band.

4) Eric Clapton
Sellout songs: The Way That You Use It, Change the World
The guy's been putting out so much dreck that it's hard to imagine that he was once a rock legend. Watching this guy now is about as painful as it was to watch Jordan on the Wizards. At least once in a while Clapton puts out a solid album like "From The Cradle" to remind us he's still not totally shot.

3) Crosby, Stills, and Nash
Sellout song: anything from '88 to '94
These guys went from legends to garbage. You've never heard their sellout songs; they were that bad. They should've done what fellow harmonziers Simon and Garfunkel did and just stayed apart.

2) Aerosmith
Sellout song: I Don't Wanna Miss a Thing
Let's be frank: they were better before they got sober. Listen to "Rocks." They don't belong on Lite-FM.

1) Chicago
Sellout song: Hard to Say I'm Sorry
These guys were as unique as they come: a rock band with horns? And they were so good. Sometime in the 80's, they decided to become as stale and cliche as it gets. And their niche was having a lead singer with a voice like a woman's. Depressing.

Picky Guys

2006-12-01T09:45:00.000-05:00

Occasionally, you'll come across a guy who's a little older (say, over 27) and not married. Why not? Because he wants a girl who's not just "very pretty." She has to be beautiful. On a scale of 1 to 10, she's gotta be a 20.

And some picky guys take pride in having such an attitude. "I can't settle for anything less." "Any girl who marries me HAS to be beautiful." It's as if the guy is saying, anyone who isn't a supermodel doesn't deserve to marry me. I can only go for the kind of girls that celebrities and athletes end up with. Then you have those who say, "I'm simply not attracted to any girl who isn't stunning." As if it's not their fault, it's just the way they are by nature. Please.

I think these guys are full of it. And one of three things is going on there.

1) The guy is insecure. VERY insecure. He's worried about what everyone's gonna think at his l'chaim, or what people will say if the pictures get posted on Only Simchas. So the idiot doesn't even like the girl because HE finds her attractive; rather, it's all about what OTHER people find attractive. How pathetic. And it's not even the girl's personality that the guy is worried about, or her middos, or their chemistry. It's all about what everyone else will say.

For a more extensive discussion, I highly recommend Dr. Benzion Sorotzkin's discussion of the issue. His article is a must-read for anyone trying to make sense of the current shidduch crisis.

2) It could be that such a guy is a homo. I think anyone with some taavas noshim will go for most girls. Now, I don't expect most guys to be as wild as Bill Clinton and go for the likes of Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky. But when it comes down to it, the majority of girls out there are attractive. And a little makeup and the right clothes can help most people. Plus, if you enjoy someone's company, the looks just keep growing on you. So if someone can go out with a girl who's a "7" (on a scale of 1-10), enjoy their company, and still not feel attracted, then something else must be the issue.

And interestingly, homosexuality might stem from the same causes as the insecurities discussed in paragraph 1. See Dr. Sorotzkin's site for more.

3) A lot of it might just be immaturity, especially when you're dealing with a 21-year old guy on the market. Many guys who have just started dating often don't know what they're looking for in a girl, what they want out of life, what their goals are, etc. But when it comes to guys in this category, they often come to their senses within a few years. Like most people, they grow up. They realize that looks are not what it's all about, and they start focusing on more important factors in a potential mate. But when you're talking about a guy who's 29 and still is super-picky, they're probably in the first two categories above. Then again, some people never grow up.

Freedom vs. Discipline in Yeshivos, Pt. 2

2006-11-28T16:30:00.000-05:00

There's a ton more to say on this issue, and, as I alluded to in part 1, the freedom vs. discipline debate ultimately hinges on the unique groups and personalities in question. But there are a few things I'd like to focus on, that I believe have relevance for all groups:

- I think the approach to rules has to based on a cost-benefit perspective: what's the cost: how much will it adversely affect the bochrim? How restrictive will it be? And on the flipside, what is the level of spiritual danger if there is no such rule? How much will the learning be affected? And another very important factor: will the rule be very commonly broken anyway?

The way I see it, there are two commonly-used rationales for rules, both of which I think are faulty approaches: 1) to avoid any kid doing or seeing anything inappropriate. So because some newspapers, there can be no non-Jewish papers in the dorm. It doesn't matter whether it's the Wall Street Journal or the U.S. News or the New York Post - it's all no good! And because one kid went off the derech because of goyish books - ban 'em! And then 2) what are the other places doing? Which rules would be good for the school's reputation? Dress codes are a good example of rules coming from the latter rationale.

The latter approach's flaws are obvious. The first approach has a tendency of being too overreaching. A lot of those rules are based on unusual incidents or wishy-washy concepts like "the kedusha of the yeshiva" and stuff like that. And very often, these rules end up going further than they need to go.

Also, many people think that simply having more rules makes one a better Jew. There was a comment thread on UOJ's blog about a certain yeshiva, and one commenter defended yeshiva x by saying, we're the best because we have more rules than any other place out there! What stupidity. Does that make for better learners? Or for more mentally stable guys? Does one get more olom haboh for going to a place with more restrictive rules? Not in this religion, to my knowledge.

People seem to lose focus when discussing or setting rules. I think the point of rules is to keep some order in a yeshiva and to ensure that things that are clearly objectionable aren't brought into a dorm (so for example, I'm all for a rule banning porn). At the same time, though, there have to be outlets for all sorts of people; basketball and bull sessions are not always enough. And this is where the cost-benefit analysis comes in. So let's say a guy's into literature. Nothing wrong with that, especially if he has a chush for that line of thought. So if he sticks to classics and stays away from the steamy romance junk, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. An across-the-board ban of novels, in my opinion, is too overreaching.

- Another important factor is that if yeshivos are going to take away people's pleasures, they have to provide alternatives. And that means making learning enjoyable and meaningful.

The yeshiva I went to, as restrictive as it was, was nonethless a very successful place. I believe that it was because the rabbeim taught with joy and enthusiasm. Torah was something you can enjoy, and not just something you had to do in order not to burn in hell because of bittul Torah. If the rabbeim are charismatic and passionate about Torah, then it's a much "easier sell" to the guys. The most successful rabbeim come off as being happy and content, not burnt-out and miserable. So if they're of the hand-wringing "I'll-shout-till-I'm-blue in-the-face" variety, then I don't see a place with rabbis like that turning out decent guys. Maybe they're learning, but chances are they're miserable.

Another aspect to the whole discussion is high school vs. beis medrash. That's for a different time. I've rambled enough for now.

- By the way, I'll be busy for the next month or so. Things will be a bit quieter here.

Thoughts on Gym Nuts

2006-11-23T21:19:00.000-05:00

I was at the gym the other night, and I was thinking about some of the regulars, the ones who are ridiculously muscular. And I was wondering, why? Why do they go?

When I think about people who go to the gym, there are two categories: 1) people who go to stay fit, energized, and healthy, and 2) people who go because they want to look buff.

I fit into the first category. When I came back from learning in Israel, I started driving everywhere and eating all the food I missed in Israel (Dunkin' Donuts, Entenmann's, etc.). And I put on 35 pounds, and started feeling sluggish and lazy. Thankfully, I was able to take some weight off, and no longer have to deal with having a pot belly before I was 40. So for me, going to the gym is all about keeping off the excess weight. It's also refreshing and it really wakes me up.

But the people in the second category, what's up with them? I find it weird when a guy is into his body so much. It's interesting how a man can sometimes be so feminine and so masculine all at the same time.

Now if the guy's gay, then I don't have any taanos. That's what they're into in that community, so whatever.

But otherwise, what for? If you look decent and have some personality, brains, and most importantly, self-confidence, you shouldn't have much of a problem attracting women. You don't need to look amazing. And if you have no personality or you're a schmuck, having the huge pecs will only take you so far. And if someone's wife/girlfriend is that demanding about the guy's looks, then come on. If that's all they care about, then you're talking about a lousy relationship. Then again, if the guy is super-demanding about how his significant other looks, I can't fault such a woman for giving her man a hard time.

And if you're doing it for yourself, then what's that all about? So you can feel good about yourself when you're in the shower? Or at the pool? If that's the case, that's sad. That just means that you don't have a whole lot going for you, so you figure that by working out like crazy and having a chiseled physique, that'll give you value as a person. As if that'll make you feel good about yourself and give you self-confidence. See a shrink, buddy.

Freedom vs. Discipline in Yeshivos, Pt. 1

2006-11-21T21:08:00.000-05:00

Back in my yeshiva days, I went to many of the "top" places. Most of the guys were serious learners. Sure, there were some clowns, as there are in any yeshiva, but not as many as other places.

The high school and the yeshivos I went to were very strict about rules. For example, when I was in Israel, many neighborhoods were off-limits. So if your uncle wanted to take you to Cafe Rimon? Too damn bad. You had stay in yeshiva and eat the stuff they served there. And novels, newspapers, and non-Jewish music were off-limits. There were strict dress codes, to boot. In a different yeshiva, radios were a no-no. The yeshiva even had raids, where the mashgiach went into the dorms and confiscated anything he found objectionable.

And when people questioned the authorities about the rationales behind such rules, the answers were always the same: "these distractions will take you away from learning," "such materials don't belong in the heilige yeshiva," and "it's all tumah and the yetzer hora."

A few years later, I met many people who had frummed out in other yeshivos. And these yeshivos, mind you, weren't nearly as rigid as the places I went to. And nevertheless, these guys didn't embrace their taavos and choose a life of bar-hopping and hanging out at the beach. Instead, they were shtarker and enjoyed learning much more than I did.

And on my side of things, while at that time, I understood the rationales for my yeshivos having such rigid regulations, and enjoyed learning, I still felt something missing. I felt the urge to see what was out there, to be able to roam wherever I wanted, to go to the bars and the beaches, and see what it was all about. Was it my yetzer hora? Or an actual urge to see the world and have a good time? Maybe I needed a break?

So for a while, I was a little jealous of the guys in the more relaxed yeshivos, the ones that could do whatever they want. And after they got it out of their system, they could learn like crazy.

At the same time, however, I could understand why my place was so strict. After all, for every guy who went to a yeshiva with fewer rules and frummed out, there were guys who embraced their taavos and became obsessed bars, movies, and the like. And then there were a few who'd get into drugs. Not cool. And maybe in a place with strict, rigid rules, that doesn't happen.

So what's the better approach? A strict approach that attempts to ensure that nobody will develop a taavah for something other than learning, or an approach that gives someone more freedom to feel out their passions and desires?

The simple answer? Chanoch L'Naar Al Pi Darko.
The complex answer? Part 2 of this piece.

Top 10 Billy Joel Albums

2006-11-20T09:34:00.000-05:00

I have a thing for lists. So when Burry Katz put up part 3 of the '90s "Jump-the-Shark" series, I got jealous. So it was time for another list from yours truly.

I've been a big Billy Joel fan for a good few years already. I've gone from being casual fan to becoming a fan of the b-sides and the songs you'll never hear on the radio or in concert. And unlike many other artists, it seems like many of his albums have a unique sound or theme to them. And for the list, greatest hits compilations and live albums don't count.

This looks like a Listmania list from Amazon.com written by some punk with nothing better to do. Too bad. Let the countdown begin!

10 - Streetlife Serenade (1975) - Good all-around album, though unspectacular. The Entertainer is a classic, and Los Angelenos and The Weekend Song sound better live. Roberta is underrated. Interesting tidbit: it was the last Billy album with instrumentals (and no corny lines about his classical album, please).

9 Glass Houses (1980) - Amazing Side A (You May Be Right, Fantasy, Don't Ask Me Why, Still RnR, Leyna). Crappy Side B (especially the French song).

8 River of Dreams (1993) - solid final album for Billy, but not as great as his classic stuff. It was cool when he did "Great Wall of China" and "Lullabye" on his last tour.

7 Piano Man (1973) - I'm real sick of the title track, but the rest of the album is great. Has a country-western feel to it (Traveling Prayer, Billy the Kid, Stop in Nevada). And there's "Captain Jack," too.

6 Cold Spring Harbor (1971) - Where it all began. Billy's style on here seems totally different from all of his subsequent stuff; I can't pinpoint what it is. Maybe it's because his voice sounds whinier on here. And that could be why I could never really get into this album. Nevertheless, "Tomorrow is Today" and "Falling of the Rain" are must-haves.

5 Storm Front (1989) - So many great songs on here. Many songs sound lame on the album (thank you Mick Jones), but are killer live. Get concert versions of "We Didn't Start the Fire," "Storm Front" "That's Not Her Style" "Extremes" and "Shameless" and see what I mean. Plus, "Leningrad""The Downeaster Alexa" and "And So It Goes" are some of his best ballads.

4 52nd Street (1978) - Billy's jazz album. Many of my favorites are on here, like "Big Shot," "My Life" "Stilletto" "Zanzibar" and "Honesty," plus great lesser-known tracks like "Rosalinda's Eyes" and "Until the Night."

3 The Nylon Curtain (1982) - Very interesting album. It took a while to grow on me, and once I figured out that it was a tribute to Lennon, I really came to appreciate it. Though this album has hits like "Allentown" and "Pressure" on here, for me it's all about the album tracks (he played a bunch of them on his last tour, which was pretty cool, except the casual fans in the crowd had no interest in hearing "Laura" or "Room of Our Own")

2 The Stranger (1977) - This album has more radio hits than any other Billy Joel album ("Scenes" "Only the Good Die Young" "Just the Way You Are" "She's Always a Woman" "Movin' Out" and the title track), which overshadow gems like "Vienna" and "Get it Right the First Time" (he used to do the latter at concerts in the late '70's, and hasn't done it since. Nowadays he has to sing everything on a lower key - it would probably sound horrendous).

1 Turnstiles (1976) - There's one lousy song on here (track 3 - All You Wanna Do Is Dance), but otherwise, the album is a home run. No, a grand slam. Great songs through and through, and a lot of interesting themes - New York ("New York State of Mind" "Miami 2017"), leaving California ("I've Loved These Days" "Say Goodbye to Hollywood"), and pursuing your dreams ("James"). The arrangment on this album aren't great, and everything sounds better live, but the songs themselves are just terrific. Plus, this has a cool cover, so that helps catapult this album to #1.

Didn't make it - An Innocent Man: I like this tribute to the 50's, but hearing clips of Uptown Girl on all those promos for the "Movin' Out" musical got me sick of it. I have to be in the mood for cheesy music for most of the stuff on it. Cool music videos from this one, though (especially "Keeping the Faith").

The Bridge - very mixed bag. I like Matter of Trust and Baby Grand, but I hate Running on Ice. And even the good songs don't really stand out. Overall, it's just a very mediocre Billy Joel album; still better than most of the stuff in your record store, but it's very hard to get excited about this one.

GUEST POST: Things That Have Jumped The Shark Since the 90's, Part 3

2006-11-18T18:46:00.000-05:00

Burry Katz is a blogger from the pre-blog days currently making a comeback. A lot has changed since his first go-round, and, appropriately enough, he's decided to add to the list of things that have fallen off since the 90's. And yeah, check out his blog; it's one of my favorites.

I am deeply humbled and honored to give you Part Three of this truly original series. So without further ado, here goes:

(1) Essex on Coney - To borrow a late '90s phrase, this used to be "The Place." Where did the yeshiva guys go before Dougies? Essex ! Aside from the Pepsi cans on the ceiling, it had the early 1900s mystique with the nostalgic murals and the poster of baseball's 500 homer club. It seemed like some guys went there every freakin' night! In the early 2000s they tried to make the place upscale, but it never regained its luster. Sure it's still kicking, but it ain't what it used to be.

(2) AOL - Before anyone knew what a DSL was, there were only a few ways to access the web. Sure, the computer nerds knew about modems back in the '80's, but for the rest of us idiots, AOL was THE way to get online. I remember when my friend Nick and I visited our buddy Billy in Queens . This was shortly after AOL allowed unlimited access and the lines were always busy. Nick picked up the phone and Billy's roommate busted a gut. "It took me 15 minutes to get online! And now I lost it" Nick almost broke down and cried. But once cable modems and DSL made dial-up a thing of the past, AOL had to scramble to come up with a reason you should pay 27 bucks a month for something that's essentially free.

(3) Video Stores - Along the same lines, video stores were big, but then came Netflix and goodbye Blockbuster. Sure, you find one here and there, but who'd pay 5 bucks to rent a DVD when you can pay $17 a month and get however many you want? Blockbuster responded with a mail-order business of their own, but too little too late.

(4) Collarless Shirts - This was such a fad that David Schwimmer even wore one on an early Friends episode. My friend Chris loves to dress fashionable, so he picked up about 15 of these, and hasn't worn one in about, oh, 10 years.

(5) Dress-Down Fridays - When the dot coms were hitting it big, it became a cool thing to go to work in casual clothes. After all, if you're sitting in front of the computer all day, who needs to wear a suit? So all the guys with their hot stuff attitudes showed up to work on Fridays with a loose-fitting button-down shirt and khaki pants. And they thought they were sooooooo cool. How cool did they think they were when they were collecting unemployment three months later?

(6) Starbucks Imitators - My friend Floyd wasn't a big Starbucks fan, and not because he refused to pay three bucks for a cappuccino. Rather, he preferred Timothy's. Poor guy. Once the recession hit in the early 2000s and people didn't have as much money to burn, the Starbucks competitors went bye-bye.

(7) Secaucus, NJ - When you wanted good clothes at an affordable price, you went to the Secaucus outlets. I remember going there with my brother and circling for a spot. The place was packed! Revisited in 2004, and it was a ghost town. I'm talking grass growing in the street cracks. The fact that all the stores were spread over many blocks and you needed a road map to get around was always retarded, but once Jersey Gardens opened and you had a choice, you had to be a nut to shop in Secaucus.

(8) Boy Bands- Backstreet Boys, N Sync, 98 Degreesâ€¦ Huge. Now? They're in the bargain bin along with New Kids on the Block. Damn, I was so jealous of those guys! Little did the girls know how uninterested these boys were in them.

(9) Connie Chung - In 1993 co-anchored the evening news with Dan Rather on CBS. Now, she's lucky she's married to Maury Povich or she'd be completely forgotten. Last seen on a Saturday night show on MSNBC (which is the graveyard as far as TV ratings are concerned) and cancelled after about a month. How the mighty have fallen!

(10) Dr. Laura - Cultural icon ala Dr. Phil, she had it all - a hot radio show, bestselling books, a TV program - and then she offended the homos and she was gone so fast it made my head spin. Leaving Judaism didn't win her any points, and yes, she's still on in some parts of the country, but she's become an afterthought.

(11) Dot Bombs - In late '99 when the dot coms started failing, people got all horny and it became a huge thing to make fun of these defunct companies. Books and websites popped up all over mocking the founders of pets.com, furniture.com, cyberrebates.com, and asking, what the hell were they thinking? "This company wasted $50 million. That company blew through $70 million." And so on. When a dot com folds now, nobody sneezes.

(12) Fetish for One-Hit Wonders - I remember shows and albums dedicated to One-Hit Wonders. Aha's Take on Me, Toni Basil's Mickey, Chumba Wumba, et cetera. People loved it. Now? Ah. (Hand wave.)

(13) Chicago Bulls - Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Bill Cartwright - the names roll off the tongue. Those guys were unbeatable. And just when you thought they might get beaten, Jordan would hit a shot at the last second and win the game. The Knicks could never overcome them, and neither could the six teams they faced in the finals during the '90s. Once MJ left and they dismantled the team, they disappeared off the face of the earth. Granted they've made the playoffs a couple of times lately, but nobody pays attention to them. They might as well have gone the way of baseball's Montreal Expos.

(14) Rabbeim Without Beards - Unless you're a Modern Orthodox school, forget it. No beard, no job. It's that simple.

(15) Using the Word "Phat" to Describe Something Cool - Who doesn't remember saying that you went to a phat concert last night? Ah, the bad old days.

Backs to the Wall

2006-11-16T22:27:00.000-05:00

I'm sort of embarrassed to say this, but I'm looking forward to hearing the Agudah's discussion of blogs next Thursday night. I'm excited to see them confront the issue for the first time. But don't blame me. It's my parents' fault. I grew up seeing the Jewish Observer come in the mail every month, with the cool, enticing covers staring me in the face. When we got the "Kids at Risk" issue (in '97 or '98), that was a huge deal. They even gave out free copies to every kid in my sister's school.

And part of me is delusionally optimistic that, unlike so many issues they've dealt with before, the Agudah will actually deal with this issue normally.

You see, I think they've got a lot at stake here. Blogs are the biggest threat the Agudah and the Charedim have faced in a while. Bigger than TV, movies, rock and roll, the internet, wealth, and Vegas.

Why? Because blogs like UOJ, Daas Hedyot, and Harry Maryles (who would cringe at seeing his name in the same sentence as those guys, but whatever) are great at creating forums for those disenchanted with the chareidi system. I can't tell you how many times I've been on those blogs and seen a thought that had come to mind in my yeshiva days, only to have been drowned out by a strong rush of kool-aid. There are lots of problems with the chareidi hashkafa and system. But in a world where any dissent is stifled and condemned as being "k'neged daas torah," (or simply the voice of your yetzer hara) problems are allowed to grow and fester.

(I don't think blogs like Misnagid or Ben Avuyah are a threat to Agudah. Those blogs aren't anti-charedi; they discuss emunah issues, which affect YCT, OU, and the RCA and every group of Jews. Those issues don't interest me. I don't think Judaism's authenticity can be proved by logic; if it were, we probably wouldn't have the nisyonos of emunah and bitachon. Anyway...)

So part of me hopes that Zweibel and some other rabbi will get up there and deal with the issues. Maybe a rabbi there will say, "the blogs have raised a lot of important and difficult questions, and we'd like to address them tonight. Kollel is a great thing, but it's not for everyone. And it's not a system that can sustain itself. And people should encourage the girls to go for working guys, and discourage the sems and yeshivos from brainwashing people. And about the wedding takanos, and the Slifkin affair? Listen, gedolim are human. They're extraordinary humans, humans that are very intelligent and caring. Humans that deserve a lot of respect. But they make mistakes on occasion, too. And we at the Agudah will do our part to help everyone find Judaism to be meaningful and important."

But then I wake up and realize that the chances of this happening are about as great as George Steinbrenner saying, "I've come to the realization that having a payroll of over $200 million is terrible for the game. Competitive balance is the lifeblood of baseball, and we would like to do our part to make baseball fun and exciting in all 30 ballparks. So Brian Cashman and I have decided to trade Jeter to the Royals, A-Rod to Pittsburgh, Rivera to Washington, Abreu back to Tampa Bay, Damon to the Marlins, all for single-A players. And we threw some cash in the deal, too."

And I realize that all that will happen is that Agudah will put blogs on the taboo list. Down there with TV, movies, the internet, and all the other things responsible for every issue in the frum community. That's right. The kids-at-risk, the shalom bayis issues, the materialism, the hidden aveiros -- all because of Hollywood, the media, and Western culture. And now blogs, too.

So much for all that.

Why White?

2006-11-15T09:28:00.000-05:00

Let's face it. White shirts are boring. After wearing nothing but white shabbos shirts for as long as I can remember, I'm getting tired of it.

Of course, in judgmental Brooklyn, I'm probably better off walking into shul in my boxers than wearing a blue shabbos shirt. Why is it such a big deal? Is it because the MO do it? Is it not part of the mesorah or something?

When you think about it, much of the shabbos garb that we wear has changed drastically over the years, and I don't just mean the emergence of single-breasted suits. Take ties, for example. Ties as we know them have only been around for a couple hundred years, according to Wikipedia. Yes folks, the Rambam did not wear a tie. Neither did the Gra. So wearing ties on shabbos is not a Jewish tradition. And that's one of the reasons the chassidim don't do it.

So our shabbos dress code has evolved with what's considered formal in each generation. And these days, colored shirts are fine. Plenty of people wear blue shirts for interviews. Even President Bush wears one on special occasions.

Besides, the machers with the bright ties would probably look half-normal if they wore a colored shirt. Those bright orange ties go better with blue than with white.

The whole thing makes no sense. A suit with loud orange pinstripes? No problem. A loud, hot pink tie? Totally fine. But if someone walks in with a striped shirt? The guy's an oddball. Folks, there are some very stupid people out there.

Getting An Aliyah

2006-11-13T16:16:00.000-05:00

I never understood why some people go crazy about aliyos. Some people fight tooth and nail for an aliyah, they'll pay tons of money for one, and they'll scream at the gabbaim if they're not called up often enough. What's it all about?

I just don't get it. I mean, it's a kibud, but how many people really take it seriously? Has any ever said, "you know, I thought Chaim Yankel was a real loser, but now that he got shishi, hey, the guy is cool! I wanna be his best friend." No. Doesn't happen. So why do people go so crazy about aliyos? I'll admit that Maftir Yonah is pretty cool to get. But the richies who get it don't need that kibud to get everyone slobbering over their tuchuses. They just buy it to rub it in our faces. (Nah, seriously, it's nice to see them giving lots of money to a shul.)

Besides, the few people who go home after davening and analyze the aliyah recipients like Tony LaRussa goes through his lineup card are in serious need of a life. (Gabbaim, of course, are the exception to the rule here. It's there job to follow this stuff, after all.) One guy in my brother's shul always has to know "who got shlishi? who got revi'i?" Get a life. You're telling me you have nothing better to worry about? In that case, I envy you.

One thing that I find nice about an aliyah is that you get to express your pride as a Jew and a recipient of the Torah. I try to think about "asher bochar bonu" and "v'chayei olam nota b'socheinu" when I get an aliyah. It gives you the opportunity to think of how we're supposed to feel honored and priveleged that we've received the Torah. However, I wonder if the people who go nuts over getting called up to the Torah actually think of the brachos when they're up there.

Some people get excited about an aliyah because then they get a mi shebairach for them and the family. Heck, we all get one. Ever look at the Mi SheBairach after Yekum Purkan? It says "kol khal hakodesh hazeh." Everyone's included. So who needs a mi shebairach where every cousin has to be mentioned by name, and a tremendous bizayon bais haknesses occurs as a result? I'll pass, thank you very much.

So overall, I can't go too crazy about an aliyah. I won't turn one down, but to lose sleep over not getting one? Please.

-- One thing I find VERY patronizing: People who give a big shkoyach to the kohen after a Monday morning aliyah. Come on. The guy only got called up there because he was the only kohen in the room. That doesn't earn a shkoyach in my book. Certainly not one with a big cheesy smile and double-handed handshake.

The 90's JTS List, Part 2

2006-11-09T13:47:00.001-05:00

In part 1, I listed 15 things that have jumped the shark the most since the 90's. A few commenters left some fine suggestions. Well, here's 15 more:

1) Republicans in Congress - the Republican Revolution of 1994 feels like a million years ago. They came in with a lot of promise and a "Contract with America," and left with record spending, huge deficits, and scandals.

2) Pleats - Thanks to all the metrosexuals, Structure became ExpressMen, and now Gap's pleated khakis are no longer available in store. What a shame. Pleated pants are much more comfortable, and less exposing, too.

3) Celine Dion - When Titanic came out, everyone thought "My Heart Will Go On" was the best song ever written in the history of mankind. I wasn't impressed. I'll take Mariah Carey over her any day, both in the looks and voice department. And Mariah's had a huge comeback, while Dion has slipped into irrelevance.

4) Bonkers Bagels - Two lessons here: 1) don't expand too fast; 2) Israelis do pitas and lafas, not bagels. When my cousin went into the Har Nof branch and was told he couldn't get a bagel, only a cholly roll, we knew these guys were done.

5) Light grey suits - Borat wears one. Enough said.

6) The Yankees - their payroll shot up like crazy, and all the classy guys left. Now they've got jerks like A-Rod, Moose, and Randy Johnson, and all those guys can't do anything in the clutch. They've been an October embarrassment for the past five years. Give me O'Neill, Brosius, Curtis, Leyritz, and Sojo over those clowns any day.

7) Scott Ferrell - "You Da man!" "How could I be the man if you the man!?" The yeshiva guys loved this nut. Plenty of Yankels and Yossels from Brooklyn called up and heard him do that stupid pouring sound effect. Aside from Buster Olney's blog, the term "The Man" is no longer used. And the yeshiva guys have moved on to ESPN Radio's Stephen A. Smith.

8) Teal - The Marlins were into it, the Mariners were too, and so were the Devil Rays. This is embarrassing, but I was into teal suits for a while, too. But with the Diamondbacks being the last baseball team to officially drop teal from the unis, I think teal has officially jumped the shark. It's about time.

9) Newt Gingrich - I had teachers who despised this guy back in the day. He was probably the most hated Republican of the 90's. Once he started talking health care reform with Hillary, I knew he lost it. These days, he does a softie interview with O'Reilly every now and then. His book from a few years ago is probably in the B&N bargain section by now.

10) The Atkins Diet - everyone thought they were hot stuff when they melted off 50 pounds in a month. Then they realized it's kind of ridiculous to swear off carbs for life. And guess what? They got sick of eggs and steak, whipped out the challah and Entenmann's, and got fat again. And to top it off, Atkins filed for Chapter 11.

11) Music stores - First The Wall went down, then Sam Goody, now Tower is closing up. Who's next, Virgin or FYE?

12) Wal-Mart - The libs really started ripping them the past few years, and now Target is on their tail.

13) Ford - when my grandfather got his '91 Escort, my oldest brother couldn't contain his excitement. Now the Escort and the Taurus are no longer, and Ford has been taking quite a bath lately.

14) Car alarms - Thanks, Rudy. I hated when it would rain on Shabbos and all of these would go off. I was always fascinated by the evolution of the alarm chimes. At one point, the various alarms had unique chimes. Near the end, though, the alarms featured a medley of all the different chimes. One of my creepy neighbors was once singing along to the chimes medley.

15) Michael Jackson - I was watching the 1993 Super Bowl halftime show on YouTube the other night. Wow. The guy was talented, and worshipped. After his Yidi Kolko incident and a few lousy albums, he's sold Neverland and is trying to appeal to European countries ten years behind.

Hey, there's still more to come.

Thoughts on Small Talk

2006-11-08T14:26:00.000-05:00

- Small talk fascinates me. No, not the actual small talk itself. Please, I'm not THAT creepy. It's the concept that I find very interesting, especially the way many people deal with it.

- Generally, there are three types of people. People who are always up for small talk, and are very creative in bringing up topics. You know the types, the ones that just walk out of the pages of Dale Carnegie's books. Then you have those who just don't do small talk. They have no interest. They'd love to talk in-depth about a halakhic or hashkafic issue, or about what the Mets need to do this offseason, or what makes a certain person tick. But the small stuff? When you give them small talk, you get a bunch of one-word responses: "yeah," "uh-huh," "right." For them, it's a waste of time.

I find that I, and many others, fit into a third category. For me, it depends on the place, time, and person I'm talking to. So if I'm tired and not in the mood, I don't want to hear about the newest restaurant in town. But on a good day, I can talk about my weekend plans for hours. And it depends on the person, too.

- Problem with small talk: whatever category you fall into, it's a necessity. If you want to get a job, you've gotta be able to chat about crap. And if you're walking home from shul with the neighbor you're not that friendly with, time to talk about the kids. The worst is when you have someone over for a Shabbos meal that you don't know too well. It's either small talk or a meal full of dishes clanging and cole slaw chomping.

- And when you see someone on a semi-constant basis (like classmates and neighbors), when do you take the next step and talk about deeper issues, stuff you actually care about? If you move too fast, the other person will feel too uncomfortable. You gotta ease your way into it.

Take my dad, for example. He has a neighbor named Bernard, a nice guy that he's not that close with. My Dad complains that every time they end up walking home from the local shteeble, Bernie only talks about his grandkids. "Shloimie just started walking, Rivky's in first grade this year," same stuff every time. Problem is, between my dad and Bernie, nobody wants to take the next step, and risk actually talking about a topic with substance. So every time they meet, it's all about the grandkids.

- That's the problem with small talk. You've gotta be a little creative. And certain topics are taboo.

If you haven't seen someone in a while, you can't bring up family or work, in case G-d forbid there was a divorce or someone got fired. The worst is when you ask a no-longer-engaged person "when's the wedding?", only to find out there is none.

So what can YOU talk about? That's for another time.

Esau or Jacob? (Pride and Protests, Part 2)

2006-11-06T22:21:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking more about the upcoming parade in Jerusalem. Actually, I heard that a Haredi rabbi called this a "war" in Jerusalem, and he publicly cursed the head of the Israeli Supreme Court, saying the man should die of a heart attack. And he said that the head of the Jerusalem police should die by choking on a piece of treif meat. (Great kiruv scheme right there. I'm sure the non-religious would love to hear that one.)

All the talk of reacting violently to the parade is sickening. The last person I've heard to publicly wish for Jews to die -- the president of Iran. Is this who the Haredim want to emulate? Is this who they want to become?

In a few weeks, we'll be reading about those famous twins, Esau and Jacob. Every second-grader knows the story: that while Esau battles with his hands and with violence, Jacob's power is with his voice, with the power of prayer. On my first post on the issue, I said that we should pray that the parading transgressors should see the Light and do tshuva. I haven't heard anything like that from the Haredim. All I hear is "war."

I saw a great editorial on Ynet regarding this matter. The guy makes a lot of sense, though I wouldn't go as far as he does. I wouldn't say I support the parade - I'm against it, but I'm also against any Chilul Hashem from the other side.

And I agree with Jak Black's take on this one - the Haredim should take a cue from Gandhi, not from Ahmadinejad.

Things That Have Jumped The Shark Since the 90's, Part 1

2006-11-03T10:48:00.000-05:00

Ah, the 90's. It's been just a few years, and not surprisingly, many things are still the same. The internet is still huge as ever, with Google, MySpace, and YouTube giving tech a small comeback. Cellphones, too, are here to stay. Hillary Clinton is still one of the most powerful and influential women in America, as is Oprah. Rush Limbaugh is still the king of political talk radio. And you still hear a Seinfeld or Friends reference come up in everyday conversation.

But some things have fallen off since then. Big time. Here goes:

1) The New York Knicks - when was the last time you saw a bunch of hotshot Yeshiva high school kids chanting "go New York go New York go"? Yeah, I can't remember either. And nobody's cared about the Rangers since '94, while we're at it.

2) Dedi - everyone was so crazy over the guy back in the day. Now it's all about Shwekey and Lisa Schmeltzer. I guess in this century, Sfardim and Chassidim are cooler than Israelis. And Dedi's breakup with Yossi Green was a huge factor here.

3) Hilfigers - I remember when there were crowds waiting outside the door to get into the Hilfiger outlets in Woodbury Commons. Now, nobody's in there, except for the people from countries that are ten years behind on every trend. Was that BS email about his anti-semitic rant on Oprah what did him in?

4) The Expos - Larry Walker, Delino DeShields, Pedro Martinez, John Wetteland, Vlad Guerrero and so many others.These guys were supposed to be good, real good. Then the strike hit, and Montreal died a slow, painful death. Thanks, Bud (and George).

5) Grunge rock - I think rap did them in. Or maybe it was Kurt Cobain's suicide. Many of these bands still exist in some form, like Audioslave (Soundgarden and Rage) and Velvet Revolver (GNR and STP), but nobody really cares. One of my favorites, the Gin Blossoms, put out an album this summer. Nobody noticed.

6) Netscape - who even uses this browser anymore? Between IE and Firefox, they're done. At one point, they were the Pepsi to IE's Coke. Now, they're RC Cola at best.

7) Big round gold-framed glasses - Plastic frames have made a big comeback, but these guys haven't. And I have a feeling they won't be coming back anytime soon.

8) MTV and VH1 - In the 90's, they occasionally showed videos. I especially miss Pop-Up Video and Divas Live.

9) Law and Order - Jumped the shark after they put the ditzy Elisabeth Rohm on there. (Angie Harmon was my favorite ADA.) And since Orbach left, forget it. Looks like SVU and CI are Dick Wolf's only hopes.

10) Mark McGwire - I still remember watching Trachsel give up that now infamous homer, and then seeing McGwire hug his kid, Sosa running in from right field, and the embrace with the Maris family. Big Mac was on top of the world. As late as 2001, if you would've told me the Cardinals would make the World Series and McGwire's name would totally go unmentioned, I would've thought you were outta your box.

11) Abie Rotenberg - He had the Marvelous Midos Machine and kumsitz classics "Hamalach" and "Acheinu" (both overrated, but whatever). Aish was pretty good too. But all his stuff from the past few years is horrendous. Name me the last time you were at a wedding and heard an Abie song post-1997.

12) Discmans - thank Steve Jobs for that one. I feel like an idiot for spending 180 bucks on one of these dinosaurs, not long after my bar mitzvah.

13) Dougie's - once the hottest restaurant in Manhattan. I remember exactly when it jumped the shark - our whole family went to the Brooklyn restuarant right after it opened, we couldn't wait to hit the ribs and wings -- and the food turned out to be nothing special. Then the other branches' food (including the original one) got lousy, too. The franchises live on, of course, but that destination on W. 72nd St. is no longer.

14) Wuss music - Yes, I miss Richard Marx, Bryan Adams, and Michael Bolton. And "Walking In Memphis" by Marc Cohn is one of my all-time faves. The hand-wringers got upset about the "Christian" line in that one.

15) Double-breasted suits - they have about five of these left on the racks at Syms. I wouldn't be caught dead in one. And to think that so many of us thought when single-breasted came back in the late 90's, they were merely a passing fad.

There's more to come, but I'm open to suggestions from the commenters.

Pride and Protests

2006-11-02T09:27:00.000-05:00

The Gay Pride parade is approaching in Jerusalem, and the question is, of course, whether to protest or not, and how to protest?

I think we're much better off not protesting. Don't get me wrong; I believe in the Torah's view of that sin being an "abomination," and I find many gays to be creepy, to boot. But for a few reasons, I think we should just sit tight while the gays prance through Jerusalem:

1) When you look at the history of such protests in Jerusalem, they always seem to lead to chilul Hashem. Whether it's throwing rocks at cars, or spraying bleach at non-tznius women, or even the stabbing that occurred last year, we always come out looking terrible. I was going through R' Baruch Epstein's Mekor Baruch over the yomim tovim, and he discussed how his father R' Yechiel Michel ZTL, when doing business with goyim, went above and beyond the relevant laws in order to avoid even an inkling of chilul Hashem. Shouldn't we take the strong possibility of chilul Hashem seriously? Shev V'Al Taaseh Odif.

2) And let's say we protest. Will that turn the gays straight? Will that suddenly make them attracted to women? What good will come out of this protest? To the mainstream media, we'll come off as intolerant bigots. Whether they're right or wrong is not the issue (of course they're wrong), but the question is what effect will such a protest have. I don't see much good coming from it, and the potential for negative press is huge, especially if people get violent.

And most frum Jews know how evil homosexuality is, and hopefully most of them are bothered by the aveiros in Jerusalem. So by protesting, we're just preaching to the choir. As for the non-frum, I think there are better methods of kiruv out there.

2a) Building on point #2, do we want to develop an image of being anti-everything? When you look at the portrayal of Haredim in the press, it's generally very negative. We're anti-this, anti-that. As wrong as the parade might be, you've gotta respect the gays for being proud of who they are. Where's our pride? Is our religion about being proud of Judaism, the Torah, and our relationship with God? Or is Judaism about hand-wringing and complaining over everyone who doesn't agree with our worldview?

3) Besides, plenty of other aveiros are done in Jerusalem. I've been to the Old City, where women shamelessly walk scantily clad just a few yards away from the Kotel. So let's protest that. Let's protest the people who gleefully speak lashon hora, a sin tantamount to the "big three." Unfortunately, we're still in golus. So why pick on the gays? Plenty of straight people have made out in the streets of Jerusalem.

Speaking of golus, I think we should address the issue as follows: by praying as we did a month ago, that God place His fear in all people and that they should repent. I'd be cool with an Agudah-style kinus tefila, though that would seem like a strange response. But a protest? Things will get ugly, as we know all too well. Dirocheha darchei noam.

-------

This post reminds me of a hilarious exchange on last week's episode of "The Office":
Toby: Okay, Michael, are you aware that you outed Oscar today?
Michael: What? What does that even...
Jan: Coming out is a significant moment for a gay person. And they should be allowed to select the timing and manner of announcing it.
Michael: Well, gay pride, right? Gay pride parade? It's not like..Gay Shame Festival.

Thoughts on the Death Penalty

2006-10-30T20:23:00.000-05:00

Recently, I've seen ads for rallies and protests against the "racist" death penalty. Usually it's the far-lefties, the "free Mumia abu-Jamal" crowd. So I brushed off the protests as typical radical-left nonsense. After all, one of my rabbeim ripped Mario Cuomo ten new ones for being anti-death penalty. (This was the pre-Giuliani era; crime was a hot-button issue.) And of course, a quick peek at parshas mishpatim tells us simply that if one person kills another, we've gotta kill the murderer.

But later on, I started thinking about those gemaras in Makkos, where there's a machlokes whether anyone ever received the death penalty from Beis Din. And how according to R' Elazar ben Azaria, if Beis Din killed once every seventy years, that Beis Din was referred to as a "bloody beis din."

Clearly, life is precious. And that's a big part of the reason why, at one point, I was thinking that maybe the Bill O'Reilly approach to the death penalty makes the most sense.

In a nutshell, O'Reilly proposes as follows:

Killers, rapists, drug kingpins and terrorists should all be subjected to life in prison without parole in a federal work camp. This special prison system would be run military style and be located on federal land in Alaska. It would be in effect a gulag.

Here the worst criminals in the country would be banished and forced to labor eight hours a day, six days a week in the harsh climate. They would be denied television, computers, exercise equipment (as if they'd need it) and most other "comfort" items. Their mail would be screened, and they would only be allowed a few visitors per year.

If the criminal did not cooperate with the work detail, his food rations would be cut, and he would be placed in solitary confinement.

Ideally, I think O'Reilly's proposal is a great one. The problem is, practically, the liberal judges and special-interest groups will have none of this. If they went all crazy over Gitmo, how do you think they'd respond to this? And even if, at some point, Congress had the guts to pass such a law, as soon as the Dems would take over Congress or the presidency, they would close up shop. Or just leave it to the lefties on the courts. Maybe they would even grant these rodents parole, and have them walk the streets.

Besides, there are two factors that have to be considered from a frum standpoint.

The halachos of murder by a Ben Noach differ from Jews. They don't require hasra'ah, for example. And according to some, abortion by a Ben Noach would be tantamount to murder, which is not the case for Jews (except perhaps by partial-birth abortions). So perhaps one can derive from here that the standards for the death penalty are much different in their cases. The chareidim would probably say that it's because goyim are evil, but I'm not gonna go there right now.

Also, the gemara says that where murder is rampant, the death penalty was to be given out more often in order to scare off potential murderers, and to let them know that Beis Din means business. Here too, though, what does that mean, that murder is rampant? In the Dinkins era, certainly murder was rampant. Thank God, things have quieted down since then. In which case, perhaps the standard has to change. But how quiet does it have to be to go back to a "higher-standard" death penalty? Where does one draw the line?

Besides, the whole concept of giving the death penalty more often as a deterring measure is also a bit troublesome. What if it turns out someone incorrectly received the penalty, and wouldn't have been killed under the "higher-standard" regime? Do we say he has to "take one for the team," so to speak, and be killed as a lesson for potential murderers? How do you explain that to his family? Hard to understand that one.

Bring on the Dark and Cold

2006-10-29T12:36:00.000-05:00

To me, there have always been three signs that it's really winter. Three signals that summer is gone, the holidays are over, and we're in for a long, dark, cold winter and too few days off from school.

The first, and most obvious sign, is the end of the yomim tovim. To me, the day after simchas torah is one of the most depressing days of the year. Heck, taking the sukkah down after yom tov is full of negative associations. Growing up, taking the sukkah down represented all the fun of the yomim tovim and the days off being over; now, it would be school, school, and more school, all the way till Pesach. And going to shul and seeing the navy blue p'roches for the first time in weeks made me feel the same way.

That's come and passed. Besides, now that I'm done with yeshiva, I still have to work on chol hamoed, so I don't really have that feeling when the yomim tovim end.

But my two other signs of winter have both occurred over the past 48 hours:
the end of the World Series, and the changing of the clock.

I think one of the reasons I never really got into football was my associating it with those dark and cold winter Sundays. I also hated Sundays growing up, so that certainly didn't help the cause.

To me, baseball is all about summer, nice weather, and the approaching end of the school year. I think of Bob Murphy talking about the beautiful weather, and watching the clear sky over Shea or Fenway. Positive associations. And those positive feelings last till the depths of October. As long as baseball is being played, even if Placido Polanco is wearing a hooded t-shirt underneath his jersey, to me, it's still summer.

And then, baseball is over. Time to focus on something else, like schoolwork. And the offseason still feels like forever, even though time moves so much faster as you get older.

And then you change the clock, and the sun sets at 4:30 in the afternoon. Then you have those frantic Fridays. And as a kid, we used to get dismissed from school at 4:30. I hated walking out of yeshiva, on to the school bus, and seeing the sky darken as we headed to my stop.

So here we are, in for the annual long haul. It better be good.

"Worse Than The Dor HaMabul"

2006-10-27T16:01:00.000-04:00

Parshas Noach seems like the perfect time to write about a statement I heard from a prominent Hasidic rabbi in my community. He claimed that these days are "worse than the Dor HaMabul."

Interestingly, he used this negative line to give chizuk by saying that in a way, our commitment to mitzvos and to steering clear of aveiros is more meaningful as a result.

But I didn't find his idea to be inspiring. If anything, it's depressing. Yay, we're living in a crappy time!

Besides, were there thousands of people sitting and learning during the dor hamabul? Were there g'machs of all sorts during the dor hamabul? How bad can we be already?

And even if you want to say, "oh, he was just referring to the pritzus out there." Then say so! I believe that if someone makes such an outrageous statement, they've got to be very clear as to what they're saying. Don't just make blanket, extreme statements that are subject to misinterpretation.

- And my ultimate beef with the statement: how does he know? Was this rabbi around during that time? Rashi says that the world than was so corrupt and full of z'nus that even the animals began interbreeding. Now I know that, unlike today, one couldn't get instant access to porn in their living room or office. But I have yet to see a bird mate with an elephant. And who even knows what exactly went out back then? The Torah is full of vague words like "shachas" and "chomos," which are subject to various interpretations by rishonim. Okay, there was a lot of sex and crime, but just how much? Was every person guilty, only a majority, who knows?

This brings to mind the people that say, "it's a crazy world out there today." I think it's a terrible thing to say, and reeks of ingratitude to God. It's like saying, "why did You bring us into this crazy world, God?" I'm more of a fan of the Rav Miller approach, of looking at the beauty of the world, and standing in awe of the tzelem elokim. At the same time, we don't need to igonre the daily challenges and opportunities that life provides. It's a lot less depressing than thinking of the dor hamabul all the time.

Why Monsey?

2006-10-22T13:17:00.001-04:00

Who remembers when it all began
Out here in no man's land
Before they passed the master plan
Out here in no man's land
- Billy Joel

I hate Monsey. I can't stand the place. I have nothing against the people. Fine, wonderful people live there.

But why did people have to start a large frum community in middle of nowhere? Why do all the people from Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island have to spend at least an hour plus to get there? Why does every trip to The Atrium or Ateres Charna take forever?

I have no problem with Englewood, Teaneck, or Bergenfield. Right off the GWB? I can live with that. Passaic and Edison aren't too bad, either. And Long Island is pretty close to everywhere, although the Van Wyck and the LIE are bad news. But to Monsey, it's the West Side Highway or Grand Central to the GWB, the whole Palisades, then the Thruway, then Route 59... it's crazy!

And good luck finding your destination with those one-inch street signs. Which idiot decided that a town can only be considered suburban if the street signs are impossible to read?

Let's face it. Route 59 is a disaster. There's always traffic on there. Always. Why the heck is it one lane wide? And all those hills don't help the cause, either. I hate it when you get off the Thruway, think you're finally there, and then have to sit through 20 minutes of traffic on 59!

Why couldn't people just settle in Yonkers? Or someplace closer to NYC? Why Monsey? Why in middle of nowhere, yet still close enough that we're all obligated to go to simchas and to pick up girls there for dates?

That's the worst, dating in Monsey. You can't take the girl anywhere in Monsey, because everyone's gonna see her. So you have to go elsewhere. Okay, for the first date you go to a hotel lounge, whatever. But after that, what do you do? Spend an hour going back to Manhattan for a decent restaurant? Gimme a break.

And it doesn't get much worse than driving down the pitch-black Palisades Parkway after dropping off a girl, still fuming over a date from hell. And still miles away from home.

The Others

2006-10-18T21:38:00.000-04:00

I was watching Scorsese's documentary on Bob Dylan last night, "No Direction Home." When he got to the part where Dylan goes to New York and the Village the first time, there was a discussion of how happening the music scene was there at the time. There were tons of people playing in clubs and in Washington Square Park, hoping to get noticed and make it big. In Dylan's case, of course, we know what happened. The guy ended up doing okay for himself.

But what about the others? Almost every time I read a biography of someone wildly successful, I always end up thinking about the ones who never made it big. The ones who, like most of us, just had ordinary lives.

A buddy of mine read a book of a business luminary, and found it to be very inspiring. He said, "the lesson from this book is to think big and dream big. That's how the guy got so successful." But to me, the question is, for every entrepeneur who makes billions, there are many other businessmen who fail. Are you telling me that the others didn't dream big?

One thing I've noticed in almost every biography I've read, whether it's about a president, a baseball HOFer, or a CEO - at some critical point in their life, they caught a break. Someone noticed them at a certain time, they got some random piece of advice, whatever.

When it comes down to it, it's probably not a bad thing to dream big. It's a great motivator. But you still need the breaks, the hashgacha pratis. And things like that, not so much the dreams, the abilties, and the efforts, are often what separate the famous ones from the footnotes.

Sell High

2006-10-10T22:46:00.000-04:00

Haven't had a chance to think about the usual hashkafic issues. My mind's been on the Yankees and their unexpected early playoff exit. I've had most of the same thoughts that have been bandied about by the pundits and talk-show hosts (chemistry, Joe Torre, A-Rod, etc.) so I've decided to do what I always try to do, and post something original for the blog.

People have discussed trading A-Rod, and ESPN.com's Jim Caple even suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that the Yanks trade Jeter.

Two guys I would trade? Matsui and Cano. Matsui has a track record for being a very solid hitter, and the Japan PR would give a team a few millions. That increases Matsui's value. Keep in mind that with the wrist thing, he's not a sure deal to be at top form, anyway.

Besides, it's time for the Yanks to give Melky Cabrera an everyday position. And who else can you move in that outfield? The Yanks aren't gonna trade Damon. And Abreu's not going anywhere unless the Yanks eat some of the $16 million he's due next year. So that leaves Matsui as the odd man out.

As for Cano, I know Yankee fans will go crazy, but the guy's value may be at its highest point. He might get injured, and pitchers might figure him out. Besides, his free-swinging ways don't fil with the Yankees mentality. The Yanks can get lots of good young pitching for Cano. With his age and potentially huge ceiling, Cano is one of the most valuable Yankees on the trade market.

And who will play second? Bring back Soriano. The guy proved he could play in New York. He was clutch in the 2001 postseason. And of course, the guy can flat-out run. After the A-Rod and Pavano debacles, and seeing Renteria and Clement fall apart in Boston, it's clear that any player going to New York or Boston must be mentally fit for the occasion. Otherwise, forget it. And based on what he did when he was here, Soriano can handle New York.

Forget A-Rod. He's the kind of guy the Yanks should build around, especially considering how his stock has fallen the past few years. (If they had a manager that could motivate A-Rod.... that's a different story. I think Torre gets too much credit as a motivator. Come on. In '96, he had guys like O'Neill, Tino, Cone, and Duncan. These guys wanted to win, no matter who the manager was.)

One big lesson from the Detroit debacle: The Yanks could use some young pitching. And selling high will get them plenty of it.

Welcome To The Show?

2006-10-03T20:26:00.000-04:00

One minhag I'm not sure if I understand is the minhag to start shacharis the morning after Yom Kippur a few minutess early. I know of a few shuls that do this, and one yeshiva I attended had a similar minhag. In yeshivos, of course, bein hazmanim begins after Yom Kippur, so there was a small crowd for the "early" yeshiva shacharis; everyone went to the local shuls for the later minyanim!

But what's the idea here? Is it to show God that we still have the Yom Kippur spirit within us? If that's the case, I really don't get it. If anything, it's kind of insulting God's intelligence. Are we trying to fool him into thinking that we're carrying over inspiration from the day before? And let's say after that shacharis, we go back to our daily routines - did that early shacharis make a difference? God knows all too well whether we'll carry over the inspiration from Yom Kippur to the coming year, or if we'll simply revert back to "normal" after the Day of Atonement.

I'm not sure what the mekor of the minhag is, or if there even is a mekor for this (looked through a few halacha and minhag seforim to no avail). But the idea of "showing God" something makes no sense to me. At best, it's silly and at worst it's quasi-heretical (in implying that God is naive).

What Me Daven?

2006-09-30T22:55:00.000-04:00

Saw an ad for a tzedaka organization that promises, "if you donate to us, we will have the gedolim daven for you before Yom Kippur."

Sounds like a great idea right? After all, what can be a better way for us to go into the high holidays than to have a godol like Rav Steinman, who does nothing but learn all day, have us in mind in our tefilos?

Besides, doesn't it make more sense for our gedolim to daven than for us to do it? After all, we are such flawed people. Many of us speak lashon horo, and even a quick skim through Shmiras HaLashon will display many quotes from the Zohar about how are tefilos aren't accepted if they come from a mouth that speaks lashon horo. And many of us sin in other ways, whether it's a shmiras ha'aynayim issue or talking during davening. And there are plenty of sources (Zohar, Kav Hayashar, etc.) for how those acts can screw up the acceptance of our tefillos.

So surely, it would seem that having Rav Elyashiv daven for us would be much, much more effective.

In reality, however, let's not fool ourselves; we've still got our work cut out for us. Why else would we be commanded to daven? And if you're a believer in "b'shvili nivra haolam," it would also make sense that we've gotta help our own cause.

But you've gotta wonder if, between the daas torah revolution and this particular idea, many individuals may develop a more lax attitude when it comes to davening and mitzvos, instead preferring to have the gedolim do the heavy lifting instead.

"Jewish" Movies and Anti-Semitism

2006-09-30T22:26:00.000-04:00

Not sure why this article by Rabbi Daniel Lapin came to mind recently. It was probably because I was watching "The Frisco Kid." (cute movie, but nothing special) But it got me to think about the issue.

For those who don't want to read Lapin's whole piece, basically, he rips movies like Woody Allen's stuff and "Meet the Fockers" for portraying Jews in a negative light. Jews in these movies come across as neurotic, sex-obsessed wackos. And Lapin thinks we should protest such movies.

I partially agree with Lapin, at least in the sense of the clear double-standard here. If a movie came out that played off of all of the negative stereotypes of black people, one can imagine the outcry from Jackson, Sharpton, and plenty of politicians. But when it comes to the Jews, nobody says a word.

But where I disagree with Lapin is that I think nobody takes these movies seriously. Think about it. Many Jews are successful doctors, lawyers, bankers, and businessmen. When a non-Jewish patient goes to a Jewish doctor, does the non-Jew think that he's being treated by a Woody Allen clone, by some super-neurotic nut? I don't think so. If the general public bought all the stereotypes about Jews from these films, I think it would be very difficult for a frum Jew to get a decent job today. And it would be very hard for a Jew to walk down the street without being laughed at or taunted.

What it comes down to is that, Thank G-d, we've done a very good job dispelling any credibility about actual Jewish life from such movies. When people deal with Jews in a professional or social context, they don't think they're talking to Alvie Singer or Cliff Stern. So until these movies' stereotypes have any reperscussions, we've got more important things to worry about than to waste our time protesting them.

Stepping It Up On Rosh Hashana

2006-09-24T20:49:00.000-04:00

One thing I've always found fascinating is how it seems like almost everyone steps it up a few notches on Rosh Hashana. Whether it's the chareidi who learns all day and hasn't seen a newspaper since he visited his grandmother, or whether it's the porn addict who's probably best off reading a newspaper, whether it's the baalebos who tries to learn every spare moment, or the baalebos who hasn't cracked open a gemara since Soncino was the most popular translation out there, it seems like almost everyone gets serious on Rosh Hashana. The Chazoras HaShatz, which is usually full of hushed conversations, becomes totally quiet. The two-minute shemoneh esrei grows a lot longer. Especially if you've got an interlinear machzor, or the "Pathway to Prayer."

Some people keep it turned it on even after davening has ended. They come home and try not to discuss sports, movies, or gossip at the yom tov meal. They try to open a mishnayos instead of the New York Times. And they have the carrots, the leeks, the round challey (any commenters know the origin of that name, btw?), and the other segulos with which they can hopefully merit a successful new year.

But then, the year starts, and usually, the status quo sticks around. How many people with parnosso issues step it up on Rosh Hashana, only to have another year of "more of the same"? How many people looking for a shidduch pour out their hearts on the Day Of Judgment, only to come to the next rosh hashana still single? How many people daven on rosh hashana, only to R"L be confronted with challenges and tragedies?

And every year, it seems like one rabbi gets up there and says, "this past year was a difficult one. And the tragedies and wars that occurred this past year were all decreed on the past Rosh Hashana, one year ago!" Yes, that same Rosh Hashana where we thought we gave it our all. Where we thought we tried hard enough.

Yet, year after year, we come to Rosh Hashana, and we try again. We pull out the machzor, go through shemoneh esrei with added fervor, and once again, give it our best shot. What keeps us all going? What stops so many of us from saying "I tried this last year, and look what happened. Why should I do this again?"

- I think there are two issues to think about here. One is the whole tzaddik v'ra lo issue. Definitely plays a big role here.

The other is, after we step it up, are those fervent desires for real? Or do they disappear far too soon? Maybe it isn't enough to just put on a show. After all, God knows what we're all about. And maybe the change has gotta last.

With that in mind, may we all merit to take whatever inspiration and spiritual progress we've made on Rosh Hashana and have it last, and have it change us, and have it be more than just a two-day show.

Still Alive

2006-09-07T14:05:00.000-04:00

.. and pretty busy. Be back soon!

Top 5 Beatles Solo Albums

2006-08-14T12:39:00.000-04:00

My cousin used to be a big classic rock fan, before he sold all of his CDs. He had every Beatles solo album out there, even some of the Ringo stuff, but no Rubber Soul, no Abbey Road, no White Album. Why would such a big fan of John and Paul skip their best material? Because the solo albums were cheaper, my cousin reasoned. I guess that might've worked for him, but as for me, I'd rather have one Beatles album than 3 Paul albums.

But in case you want to follow my cousin's lead and pick up some Beatles solo stuff, here's my pick for top 5 Beatles solo album.

#5) George Harrison, Cloud Nine - George tries mixing his sound with the 80's, and it works really well. Forget the most famous song from the album, "Got My Mind Set On You," which I don't even like that much. There's so much good stuff on here, and the nice thing is that George is much more approachable when he tries doing the 80's than when he does the Indian stuff. The arrangements clearly sound dated (especially on "If That's What It Takes"), but the album is still solid.
Listen to: "Cloud Nine" "When We Was Fab" "Devil's Radio"

#4) Paul McCartney and Wings, Band On The Run - Most of Paul's solo stuff is crap, but this is as close as he ever got to his performance with the Beatles. The title track especially feels like a Beatles song, with that slow start and the suddenly rocky ending. Most of Paul's solo stuff sounds either like he's trying to do too much or that he doesn't give a darn. This album sounds just right.
Listen to: "Jet" "Let Me Roll It" "Nineteen Hundred And Eighty Five"

#3) George Harrison, George Harrison - You won't hear any of the songs from this 1979 release on the radio, but this is some of George's best material. The album might be George's wussiest album, but it brings out the best of his softer stuff. Plus, his guitar playing is still top-notch here. The only low point is "Here Comes The Moon," which doesn't even come close to its counterpart.
Listen to: "Love Comes To Everyone" "Blow Away" "Not Guilty"

#2) George, All Things Must Pass - Also known as the best double album ever. And even though there are a ton of songs on here, almost all of them are home runs. The Spector wall of sound is kind of annoying at times, and you kind of wonder what this would sound like without a lot of his shtick (how long till "All Things Must Pass... Naked"?). But nonetheless, this is a classic.
Listen to: "If Not For You" "Hear Me Lord" "My Sweet Lord" "Isn't It a Pity" "Wah Wah"

#1) John Lennon, Imagine - I've always thought of Lennon's material as hit-or-miss. You can have a song like "In My Life" or "Dear Prudence," and then a dud like "Because" or "Revolution 9." But with the exception of "I Don't Wanna Be A Soldier," everything on here works. I'm also sick of the title track, but "Jealous Guy" is my favorite John song ever, including his stuff with the Beatles. The songs are much better than the stuff on his Plastic Ono Band album, which was simply too raw for my tastes. But this piano-based album is excellent, and is easily Lennon's best solo work.
Listen to: "How?" "Oh My Love" "Oh Yoko" "Crippled Inside" "Gimme Some Truth"

Middle-Aged Men With Cool-Guy Glasses

2006-08-09T21:36:00.000-04:00

After a weekend in my parents' Flatbush-filled summer community, I saw something that's simply gotta go: 50-year old men with cool-guy glasses. You know, the ones where the side bars are 3 inches thick, or where the whole thing is made out of plastic. Or where they do something wacky with the colors, or the design. I mean, are these guys watching too many Devil Rays games or something?

It's one thing to be young and wear cool guy glasses. I can't stand how some of these guys think they're hot s--- for having those glasses, but you know what? They actually look good on a lot of people. It adds something to their face, and they even look half-normal with them on.

But when you're talking about a middle-aged man with a beer keg for a stomach, and a combover that's spread out like the Chinese fan I got for giving $5 to Chinuch Atzmai in 3rd grade, you're telling me that's normal? The guy looks totally uncool, and he thinks that a pair of plastic glasses will change everything? Suddenly, he'll be COOL, and all the 20-year olds will start shmoozing with him during davening? Gimme a break! Maybe after Weight Watchers, Rogaine, and Botox, he'll stand a chance.

I know, one day I might G-d forbid be a nerdy-looking 45-year old. And you know what? I'll be wearing the same plain pair of glasses I have on right now.

If someone's going through a midlife crisis, let them drive a convertible or go rollerblading in the park. I've got no problem with that. But these guys walking around with their nutty glasses look just plain goofy.

-- Another great cover: "Saturday Night's Alright For Fighting," by the Who. I like Daltrey's vocals better than Elton John's. Plus, all the homophobics out there can now enjoy a very good song.

Sinas Chinam

2006-08-07T15:15:00.000-04:00

The best part of the Nine Days being over is that you can write a blog piece ripping other people without some hand-wringer commenting how all of the blogs should be full of happy-feely stuff because sinas chinam destroyed the Bais HaMikdash. It's just that I find the term "sinas chinam" thrown around all over. The literal translation is "baseless hatred," and most of the time, when someone hates someone else, there's something to it, like the other guy screwed them over in business, or embarrassed them, etc. But how many people hate someone else for the heck of it?

Now according to the Torah, it would seem that any sort of Sinah is assur. The pasuk states simply that "one must not his brother in his heart," without distinguishing between baseless hatred and any other sort of hatred. But interestingly, the gemara which discusses the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash only focuses on baseless hatred. It seems like that is a step worse than hatred with a basis, and that's easy to understand. While the Torah forbids me to hate someone who screwed me over in business or was snobby to me in high school, that doesn't seem as wrong as hating someone for the heck of it.

- And a blog post that happens to criticize other people isn't "sinas chinam"! Just because someone criticizes other sects of Judaism doesn't mean they hate them. Heck, let's say I make fun of chassidim. I make fun of the Egyptian peyos and the broken English, whatever. It's wrong, it's immature, maybe there are elements of lashon hora in some cases. But is that sinas chinam? Just because I made fun of chassidim, that means I hate them? Doesn't sound very logical to me.

Frankly, I don't see that much "hatred" in the frum community. Obviously, many chareidim disagree with the MO, and vice versa. So maybe we don't necessarily love one another, which isn't too great. But "hate" is a strong word. How many of us really hate other Jews? Not just finding other people annoying, being indifferent to other, or just not being interested in having dinner with other Jews? But actual HATE?

Fasting And The Purpose of Fasting

2006-08-01T20:58:00.000-04:00

I hate fast days. Especially the long, hot summer days. It's not like I get hungry, I just ger headaches, I get tired, and I can't concentrate on anything except for an old sitcom on a DVD. Back when I was in camp, some of the nerds played marathon games of Risk on fast days. But to do anything deeper than that? I simply don't have the energy, and I'm sure many people feel the same way. When I was in yeshiva, the mashgiach would give a mussar shmooze before maariv to discuss the inyona d'yoma. I tried going once or twice, very few people showed up, and I fell asleep soon after.

I always feel bad in a way. I can never get emotionally into a fast day, the same way I can feel a Shabbos or Yom Tov. Yom Kippur is different, simply because you're in shul all day, and the tefillos are simply powerful. But a regular fast day? I just feel like crap. And ironically, it's simply because I'm fasting that I feel like I get nothing out of fast days. I've always wondered if it would make more sense for me to eat and be able to concentrate on learning and reading about the issues we're supposed to focus on during a fast. Obviously, you can't do that, but sometimes I think I would get more out of a fast that way.

A big part of the problem: The lack of spirituality among us. How many of us think of our relationship with God? Do any of us feel close to God? After all, Tisha B'Av isn't about mourning the Beis HaMikdash per se, but rather about mourning the lack of Shechina among us and the resulting barrier between us and God.

But to feel that, you have to feel some sort of connection to God. And if you have no connection to God, you have no idea what you're missing. As it is, considering we never experienced life with a Temple, we don't know how much better life would be with it. We can speculate, maybe imagine it somewhat, but it's not the same.

Anyway, may it be God's will that we should fast no longer, and that we celebrate the redemption soon.

Old Mussar Seforim

2006-07-26T19:09:00.000-04:00

I left off my last post with a question. If human nature and our environment have changed so much over the years, what do we make of mussar seforim from 200 years ago? Do we disregard them, or at best take them with a large grain of salt, because the world was so different back then? Or do we say, chas v'shalom! Torah is timeless, and these old mussar seforim are as relevant today as they were in 18th Century?

One of my rabbeim made an excellent point regarding this matter. He said, when someone has a shailah these days and wants to look it up in a sefer, they don't open up a Rif, a Rosh, or a Rambam. It's not to downplay the greatness of these seforim or their authors. And when one tries to understand a gemara clearly, their comments are vital.

But learning gemara and getting an answer to a halachic shailah are two very, very different things. There was no electricity in the Rif's times. It was a different world then. Plus, halacha takes into account many social factors and personal factors (ever heard of a "sha'as ha'dchak"?). What might have been an accurate answer for one society can be totally off-base for another group of people. (Another reason you can't paskin from these seforim is that we may have a different mesorah than those rishonim, or the mesorah may have evolved since then (which is an oxymoron, but whatever), and other reasons beyond the scope of this post.)

So in 2006, we probably can't even use a mishna brurah anymore. We're better off relying on R' Ribiat's books, Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchaso, and the like.

The same is true, my rebbi said, when it comes to mussar seforim. We can't rely on the Shaarei Tshuva to tell us how to behave in 2006. It's not a knock on Rabbeinu Yonah, and I'm sure there are many things to learn from that great sefer. The same way that the Rambam has many of the yesodos of today's halachos, Shaarei Tshuva and other classics are the foundations of mussar. But I don't see how they're a practical guide of how to live in the 21st Century.

So if one wants to take mussar seriously, and really apply their principles to everyday life, it would seem like only the seforim from R' Wolbe, R' Matisyahu Solomon, R' Elya Lopian and R' Dessler would be most appropriate. Why? Because the world has changed, and they understand the problems we face far better than those who lived centuries ago.

Have People Changed?

2006-07-25T19:03:00.000-04:00

When you look at some of the chinuch experts of our generation, you'll sometimes find a rather liberal approach. For example, Rav Wolbe ZTL was very opposed to hitting children or getting angry at them. And Dr. Benzion Sorotzkin seems to advocate more of a hands-off approach in some regards, such as not forcing your kid to go to shul. And in general, he encourages teachers and parents not to be too strict.

But when you talk to past generations, you hear about hard-line, ultra-strict rabbeim. You hear about "the strap," and parents and rabbeim who would occasionally give their kids a beating with a belt or ruler.

The question is, were these mentors wrong for practicing this kind of discipline (and possibly lucky that more people didn't go off the derech or have serious issues), or perhaps such methods aren't intrinisically wrong, but simply were more suited for previous generations, and are no longer effective approaches in 2006?

Of course, you also have some hard-liners who will stick with their age-old approaches, and mumble something about "mesorah" or "chodosh assur min hatorah" (which, by the way, is one of the most misconstrued lines ever) in supporting their old approaches. And these people are the same ones that laugh at a concept like "self-esteem" or "ADD" as a recent invention.

I think people have changed. After all, the world around us has changed so much, how can we not be affected? To me, it starts from the fact that, for the past 50 years, Orthodox Jewry has had its most materistically successful era in centuries. B"H, we live in relative peace, we can have almost any job we want, and we live in a country with civil liberties and religious freedom.

I'm not going to get bogged down into detail now, but growing up in a drastically different environment, people will turn out differently. Duh, people are affected by their surroundings. Perhaps because we're more spoiled and used to getting our way, acts of force are ineffective. Maybe in Europe, where everything was a struggle, perhaps people were more tolerant of getting whipped.

I was at a graduation recently, and the principal of the yeshiva said "the world around us has changed, we now have airplanes, internet, etc. but we as people haven't changed; we still need to eat, we still need sleep, etc." On a basic level, perhaps the rabbi is right. But on a psychological/mental level, I don't see how such a statement makes any sense.

There's a lot more to discuss here. One topic that comes to mind is approaching mussar seforim of the past. If the mussar seforim of 200 years ago were addressing very different people, what can we glean from them? Must we take their words with a large grain of salt, assuming that the psychology of the people of their era was a big factor in their mussar? Or do we say that these eternal words of Torah are applicable to every generation?

Okay, this post is too long already. I'll give you my take (and that of a rebbi of mine) next time around.

Is Shatnez-Checking a Multi-Million Dollar Industry?

2006-07-23T21:02:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Abadi of kashrut.org has long since decried kashrus as a "multi-million dollar industry." That is a whole discussion in and of itself, and one which I don't know nearly enough to comment on. But I've heard a little about shatnez, and I would like to speculate on the possibility of that being a big money-maker.

One of my rabbeim once said that shatnez-checking is not necessary, at least for American suits. He said that the suits that have shatnez in them are so miminal in quantity to the ones that don't that we can rely on a rov. He admitted that the Hugo Boss-type suits would require checking. But the likes of Perry Ellis and Nautica? Not necessary, he said.

I think the shatnez checkers are useful in preventing people who buy fancy suits from transgressing the lavin. But when it comes to cheap American suits, do we really need to check them? After all, if we rely on a rove, we're fine! We're off the hook!

Let's say one would rely on the gemara's principles of rov and kol d'parish mayruba parish to eat a piece of meat. If the piece of meat is, in actuality, treif, was the guy over an aveira? No! He relied upon a rov, and once you do that, you're fine.

So for the purposes of full disclosure, why don't the shatnez companies say that if you get a Stanley Blacker suit, you're automatically fine? Instead, they advertise of the horrible chumros of shatnez, instead of the possible kulos involved. (One lab had a hat pasted on the wall, with a label saying "a young boy wearing this hat complained of headaches. Turned out, the hat had shatnez in it, which was causing the headaches!") And for a large family buying their children suits for yom tov, shouldn't they be spared the heavy expense of shatnez checking, especially if there's what to rely on?

Perhaps the mentality that "if someone wears shatnez, even if they're relying upon a rov, the tumah of the aveirah is still there!" comes into play here. And did they even have shatnez labs in Europe? Or is it a new thing?

Covers, part 1

2006-07-20T10:46:00.000-04:00

Hey, if we can't listen to music, at least we can talk about it.

Cover songs are so interesting. Some give you a new angle on an old hit; others butcher a classic.

I'm not including songs from albums of covers. Talk about excess!! A cover is a treat when thrown in with some new stuff. But once you put cover albums out, come on. Just a cheap way to make money. Just ask Rod Stewart.

I was gonna do a top ten list, but I had more than ten good covers in mind. Plus, I didn't really have an order for them. So I'll just give you a list of covers I like and those I think leave the original artist rolling in their grave.

THE GOOD:
Hey Girl, Billy Joel - underrated. And haunting. On Carole King's recent live album, she tries singing the high part. Her voice isn't what it used to be; it sounds awful.

Superstition, Los Lonely Boys - Stevie Wonder done Texican style, complete with guitar jamming. Very cool.

Girlfriend, Michael Jackson - Before McCartney and Jackson collaborated on Thriller, Jacko did a cover of a McCartney solo song on Off The Wall. He does one heck of a job. The original, like many McCartney solo songs, just plain sounds weird.

Little Wing, Derek and the Dominoes -Clapton and Co. do Hendrix. And vocally, I like Clapton better than Hendrix. He sings with more feeling, especially on this song. Since "Tears In Heaven," Clapton sounds like he's singing from a hot tub. No emotion.

Gimme Some Truth, Pearl Jam - It's on one of their live albums, and they give a grunge-rock interpretation to this John Lennon classic. As a bonus, they update the Nixon line to a George Bush reference.

Without You, Mariah Carey- MUCH better than the original. Her voice is powerful. I don't know why everyone was crazy about Celine Dion in the 90s. Mariah kicks any day.

Endless Love, Luther Vandross and Mariah Carey - great duet here. My buddy Jack thinks the original is better. I DO disagree.

Total Eclipse Of The Heart, Nicki French - Her voice is much more tolerable than Bonnie Tyler's (whose isn't?), and I like the fact that she added a dance beat. French has now joined Des'ree, Dionne Farris and Jennifer Paige as 90's one-hit wonders.

Please Mr. Postman, The Beatles - Come on, it's a zeiss song, Thankfully, once they got to Rubber Soul, the Beatles stopped being zeiss and put out some decent music.

If Not For You, George Harrison - George does Dylan, and does it much, much better than Dylan. He sings beautifully on this one.

Stormy Monday, The Allmans - One of their many blues covers, on arguably the best live album ever, "Live at The Fillmore East."

Train Kept A-Rollin', Aerosmith - good stuff!! One of their best live cuts.

Knockin' On Heaven's Door, GNR - another Dylan cover, redone as only Axl and Slash could do.

THE BAD: next post.

Can We Agree On Anything?

2006-07-19T19:43:00.000-04:00

In my neighborhood, there are various gatherings for tefillah going on tonight, due to the war in Eretz Yisroel. It's a great idea, but something about it disturbs me.

Why do Agudah and the OU, in a time of national crisis, have separate programs? Why can't we have one big program co-sponsored by both? What would be better, in a time of commemorating a churban caused by sinas chinam, than to have an event that bridges the gaps and settles the differences? And what about b'rov am hadras melech?

But, no! I don't know who's to blame here, but apparently, the two groups can't put together a joint program. Even in a time of crisis. To me, it's simply pathetic.

I could understand not hooking up with the Conservative and Reform. There might be women leading services and other tznius issues, so perhaps, sadly, we've gotta stay away. But last I checked, both Agudah and OU people are both shomrei torah u'mitzvos.

So if politics can get in the way in a time like this, then, as a people, we've got a lot to work on.

Anti-Zionism and Passion for Eretz Yisroel: Can They Coexist?

2006-07-17T21:23:00.000-04:00

This was a topic I've wanted to address for a while, and thanks to a comment on the last post, here goes.

I went to chareidi yeshivos throughout my yeshiva days. I heard a little bit about the greatness of Eretz Yisroel, maybe a few Chazals like "avira d'yisroel machkim." But it was an afterthought at best. Mostly, I heard a lot about how bad the chiloni government was, and how, as a result, yom ha'atzmaut shouldn't be celebrated. And then I heard about why chareidim shouldn't serve in the army. And the Israeli Day Parade? Chazer treif.

Throughout the years, I always got the feeling that my rabbeim were straddling the fine line between "Israel" and "Eretz Yisroel." In fact, one Yeshiva I attended during the Intafada had a special mi shebeirach for Eretz Yisroel, lest they chas v'shalom bless the medina.

I hate to say this, but I honestly feel more passion for the Mets than for Israel or Eretz Yisroel or whatever you want to call it. And American politics gets me much more excited than Israeli politics. And this is even after I've gotten sick of both parties here. When I was in Israel, I spent a few shabbosos with my Dad's high school classmates who had made aliyah many years back. I never understood why they were so crazy about the land. I just didn't get it.

And, to be frank, it's hard for me to feel the pain of the land, to feel the tension, to feel the urge to talk about it. It's simply not on my mind. Where I work, there are nonobservant Jews who are more worried about the situation than I am.

- To me, the chareidi system is at fault here. They're so busy straddling the Israel/Eretz Yisroel line that they forget to instill passion in us for the land. And image-itis is a big factor here. They don't want to look all Modern Orthodox now, that would be horrible! So we can't talk about that holy land with the horrible government! Or to go to a rally with our brothers who happen not to be religious - can't do that! So instead, you have tons of people who don't care much about the land, and just go to Israel for sukkos because all the cool guys are hanging out at the Plaza.

Subtelty is nice if you're a trial lawyer trying to make the winning argument for your client. But when it comes to instilling passion for the foundations of our religion, I say, to hell with subtelty. Let's develop the feelings for the land, and we'll worry about the details later.

How Feminism Saved The Chareidim

2006-07-16T19:27:00.000-04:00

I'm sure if you ask any chareidi Lakewooder if he's a feminist, the guy would look at you like you were nuts. You'd probably hear the guy mumble something about "kol kvoda bas melech pnima," and then walk away. In fact, when Harry Maryles recently discussed the brocha of "sheli asani isha," Lakewood Yid, of all people, quoted a Rambam with very strict standards of tznius for women, standards that haven't been observed for years.

The irony of the matter is, BMG would probably be a lot smaller if not for the feminist movement. The chareidim ought to give a big kudos to a lot of those pioneering women out there.

Think about it. Women are probably the biggest source of income in Lakewood. I mean, does everyone have a loaded father-in-law? I think not. In many cases, the wives are picking up the slack financially.

And in the 1950's culture, what lucrative jobs were available to women? Sure, they could teach in a bais yaakov, but that's not a big moneymaker. Especially the places that don't pay on time. Some people could've been secretaries, but there's not a whole lot of cash there either. Now, girls can go to law school, dental school, med school, they can go for accounting, finance - jobs that, for women, were unheard of years ago!

Another benefit is that feminism gives these girls a much broader opportunity to pursue their ambitions. When the woman is expected to be the breadwinner, she can pursue a career, while her husband, with his more flexible schedule, can tend to household chores.

This is also one of the reasons why very few chassidim are in kollel for more than a year or two. Very few chassidish women have great jobs. If you're principal of a girls' school, NOW that's a big deal! So then the husband's gotta put bread on the table.

Rav Miller, ZTL, was a traditionalist who believed that wives should be in the home. But in his world, of course, there would be 50, maybe 100 kollel guys in the whole Lakewood.

10 Things Stupid Drivers Do That Piss Me Off

2006-07-10T20:18:00.000-04:00

Sorry it's been awhile since last post. I'm tired of being all serious, so I figured I'd get personal. I have a love-hate relationship when it comes to driving. One of my favorite thrills is riding down the highway, AC on full blast in my face, and the iPod blaring. And nothing gets me more agitated (sorry for a "Mom" word there) that sitting in traffic on the West Side Highway at 12 midnight on a Saturday night. Here are ten reasons why sometimes I simply can't stand driving.

10) Taxi drivers - these mishuganas can't do anything right. They're nuts. Except for the slowpokes, that is.

9) People who don't let you change lanes - this happened to me once on the Belt. I was trying to switch lanes, and was going normal speed, but the guy next to me kept going faster. The schmuck didn't want to let me in.

8) The brainless people who just sit there when the light turns green - By the time they start moving, the "don't walk" sign is already flashing. Hey morons, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but: GREEN MEANS GO!!!!! Keep that in mind next time you're driving.

7) People who pull over next to me at a stop sign - gets me so nervous. Just wait an extra friggin' minute, and you can make your left! It doesn't save you any time! And yes, if I haven't gotten through the intersection yet, chances are it's because there's a car coming!

6) People who don't look before they merge - I hate these idiots. I nearly ran into one of these people on the Van Wyck, and also at the GWB entrance. Have a little patience!

5) People who talk on their cell while driving - They're always the ones going slow, not signaling, taking too long to go when it's green. I agree with the NY law wholeheartedly. Almost as bad as the pedestrians yapping on their cell who almost walk into your car. Space in!

4) People who run stop signs - maybe I'm just bitter because I once ran one and got a ticket for it. But when I'm going down the street and some guy finally stops halfway through the intersection, while I have to swerve to dodge him - come on! WTF?

3) Slow drivers - they're dangerous, and they're annoying. The worst is when the light's about to turn yellow, and some selfish schmuck just crawls past the light. And of course, I'm stuck behind the red. Gets me so mad.

2) People who don't signal - big pet peeve. BIG pet peeve. Dangerous and annoying. Besides, it doesn't take a genius to slam the signal bar down before you turn or change lanes.

1) People who cause traffic jams - If there's construction or an accident, I can understand. But otherwise, come on! Let's freakin' move! I don't have all day!

And traffic jams late at night on weekends? Inexcusable. No reason for it, and THAT is the ultimate pissoff.

Developing Love For Learning, Pt. 1

2006-07-02T17:15:00.000-04:00

In yeshiva, one of the "sales pitches" used by the rabbeim and mashgichim to get you to learn is that you will be happiest by choosing such a route. We hear countless stories of gedolim whose love for learning was tremendous. I've had rabbeim whose eyes lit up when someone in the class asked a good kasha or made a good point. And I've heard myriad Chazals and statements from mussar sforim testifying that Torah is the ultimate thrill, so to speak.

Yet, the more I think about these Chazals and anecdotes, the more I have difficulty understanding them.

But I was in yeshiva for a while, and I never felt it. I'm gonna save my personal experiences for part 2, but I can name many, many other guys who were in yeshivos and didn't enjoy learning. I can name a good few guys who learned well for a few years and then burned out. What were they missing? Why weren't they feeling it?

Some people will claim that "they weren't in the right yeshiva," "they had a bad chavrusa," and the like, but I don't know. I can see them perhaps clouding the joy of learning, but to make people want to leave yeshiva? What happened to the simchas hatorah?

And then some people blame the media. They say that these yeshiva guys who are busy reading books and watching movies are too distracted to learn well. And again, the "sales pitch" is that if only they would give up their "shmutz" and focus solely on learning, they would enjoy learning so much that they won't miss their other semi-intellectual pleasures of life. But is that true? Maybe some people are simply not cut out for in-depth learning, no matter what.

Besides, people vary greatly when it comes to what they enjoy. Some people enjoy art. They can spend hours at a museum enjoying the finer points of some painting. I know I never got into the stuff. I tried going once, and it simply didn't do anything for me. Some people enjoy the sciences; others can't stand that stuff.

And l'havdil, I think the same is true when it comes to Torah learning. Let's face it. People with great intellectual capacity, great attention spans and great mental stamina have a much greater chance than someone who can barely make a leining, someone who can barely pay attention to
a shiur, and someone who has very little interest in some of the arcane topics that come up.

- One way that the "sales pitch" helps is that it makes learning feel more meaningful. After hearing all about how important learning is, I feel good after an hour of learning, because I know it's better than an hour of TV or an hour of reading a novel.

But think about this way. Let's say I was brought up in a society where botany was the most important thing in the world. And from day one, we were trained that the best way to spend every waking moment would be to study plants. Eventually, even if I can't stand the topic matter, chances are that I'll feel good studying botany. After all, I've been taught that this is the most important thing in life. I've been taught that I was brought to this world to study plants. So when I do that, I'll feel pretty fulfilled.

Anyway, back to the nimshal. So when I learn gemara and end up feeling that emotion of achievement, is that real? Is that the simchas hatorah kicking in? Or is it all in my head?

More to come in Part 2. I'll talk about my experiences in yeshiva, and learning in general.

The Death Of The Simple Life

2006-06-28T14:16:00.000-04:00

I was thinking about my great-uncle Dave recently, and thinking about how people like that simply don't exist anymore.

Uncle Dave worked in the post office for many years, making a modest living. He retired many years ago, and supported by a pension, lives a simple life. He's got a small apartment, no car, and no luxuries. The only thing he's passionate about? Gemara. He wouldn't miss his shiur for the world, and even throughout the day, he's got jus gemara by his side.

And it's not like Uncle Dave is a big talmid chacham. He's not a moron, but intellectually I would say the guy is pretty smart, but nothing special.

The sad thing is, people like that simply don't exist anymore. Why? I think there are two huge factors at stake:

1) Anyone who's even remotely passionate about learning is pressured to learn all day, and feel like a shaygetz otherwise. And many, many people would appreciate learning much more if it were something they did for an hour or two per day, rather than something they're (hopefully) doing for 7-8 hrs a day. And that's a discussion in and of itself.

2) The bigger factor here? Money. The cost of living has gone up so much, as have the general standards of living. So to live even somewhat comfortably, you've gotta make a lot of money. And there's a lot of pressure for frum guys to go to law school or med school, where there's more potential for quick money.

How many guys out there would go for teaching? If any guy would work in the post office, he'd be laughed at. So you want a job with less pressure, so you can learn more? Then why don't you just go to Lakewood? And for the shidduch resume, forget it. If a guy wanted to be a plumber because the hours are flexible, well, good luck getting a girl to say "yes" to that.

And even a guy who's a good, sincere guy, has to stress over paying the bills. There's the physical stress of putting in heavy hours, and the emotional stress of thinking about it all the time. Such stress gets in the way of spiritual growth. Foremost on the guy's mind is money, how to make it, and how to survive day-to-day.

The only ones who have it easy here? The sons and sons-in-law of the richies. They work for their father or shver, and that stress of making a living isn't there. But so many of these people are more passionate about poker than learning, and growing up in a spoiled environment doesn't help the cause. And to be rich and spiritual? VERY hard to pull off.

What can I say. Times have changed. A lot.

Warren Buffett: Chosid Umos HaOlam

2006-06-27T22:26:00.000-04:00

Big news this week was that Warren Buffett pledged over $30 billion of his fortune to Bill Gates' foundation.

In my elementary school, one of my rabbeim was once discussing how much more generous the Jews are than the goyim. Well, in Buffett's case, while he definitely went against the Gemara of "al yivazvez yoser michomesh," his generosity (and Bill Gates's, while we're at it) definitely puts us to task.

What also amazes me about Buffett is that the guy lives simply. He has a small house in Omaha, Nebraska, and we all know the guy can afford more. I don't know how religious the guy is, but I have to respect him for exerting self-control and choosing to live a low-key lifestyle. There are quite a few Jewish communities that can learn from him.

And the fact that Bill Gates wants to step down after 2008 to focus on charity work? It's a beautiful thing. I'm sure the guy could go on and try to make more money, but he's choosing not to. Gotta give him credit for that.

When I hear about people like Buffett and Gates, it makes me mad how so many of my rabbeim had nothing but bad things to say about goyim. Sure the guy's not perfect, but then again, who is? There's a lot to learn from Buffett, that's for sure.

An Alternative Fat Tax

2006-06-22T19:24:00.000-04:00

The politicians are in the news again, trying to curb fast food joints. Their latest shtick? Trying to redo zoning laws to limit fast food joints, especially in low-income neighborhoods.

This is a disturbing and unfair precedent. After all, the only reason there are so many fast food joints is that there's lots of demand for it! People have very little free time, and need a quick and cheap meal. All these laws would do would make the poor poorer, and give these politicians another lame excuse to pry away our hard-earned income.

Also, it's unfair to the skinny folks out there. I know many guys who could have 3 steaks a night and not gain a pound. And then there are people out there who "fill quickly" and thus stay thin as a wire. Why should they be deprived of their McDonald's fix?

To me, the only fair solution would be that for everyone over x number of pounds, they should be charged double for using city buses and subways.

After all, their weight doesn't affect me or anyone else otherwise. I have nothing against fat people, especially the jolly ones, like Norm from Cheers. It's when I'm commuting and they take up three seats on the train (or all the standing room) that they get under my skin. When I was in 8th Grade, there was a heavyset women that got on the bus every day and took up an entire two-seater. Chutzpah!

The only question is, practically speaking, the implementation of such a scheme would be a logsitical nightmare. How do we enforce it? Do we let station agents and bus drivers make their own judgment calls as to who should pay double? Do we spend thousands of dollars on scales at each turnstile? And let's say someone has a lot of luggage with him? I say pay double also, I hate people who get on to the subway with tons of stuff! And some morons will probably go to court and file some silly lawsuits. It would be a disaster.

To me, it only makes sense to pass anti-fast food laws when it comes to kids. When a kid sees Ronald McDonald and a Happy Meal with free toys, of course he'll come running to eat that crap. And that kid doesn't know how artery-clogging that stuff is. So the same way that the "Camel" camel had to go in the early '90's, I would send the Happy Meals packing. And maybe don't let them advertise on kids channels, while we're at it.

But if I want my greasy burger, I don't want anyone giving me a hard time about it. And if there are some people who will gorge themselves on that stuff and never do a stitch of exercise, well - NMP - Not My Problem.

Brooklyn And "The Basics"

2006-06-20T19:00:00.000-04:00

My good friend Michelle has a piece discussing how a rabbi, in a speech about derech eretz, made a big deal about some senators drinking directly from a water bottle, rather than from a cup. Her piece brought to mind a thought I've had for a long, long time, so I guess it's appropriate to discuss it now.

I find that in Brooklyn, most rabbis and rabbeim will almost never discuss a "basic" halachic or mussar issue. Instead of talking about tznius and covering your knees, rabbis will discuss whether hagbah is done with a 180 angle or a 360. It also reminds me of a story that happened when I was in high school. A rabbi came to speak before rosh hashana, and was talking about making kabalos. The rabbi said not to go overboard with kabalos, and that we should simply make a kabala to learn 5 extra minutes a day. The rabbeim in the high school got all upset. What do you mean, you're telling them to learn ONLY 5 minutes extra!? They should be encouraged to learn much more than that! Never mind that R' Schach ZTL once was mekabel to bench from inside a bencher till Chanukah, but I guess we're better, right?

Why shun the basics? Two theories:

a) Many Yeshivos and Bais Yaakovs are obsessed with image. They're competing with each other to be the best so they can get all the richies to give them dough. So only the yeshivos and sems that focus on the most arcane and extreme elements of halacha and hashkafa have a shot at being the Harvards of Brooklyn. If a kid came home and said "my rebbi gave a shmuz about how we should be respectful to our parents," people would say, yeah, I knew that in first grade. What kind of morons are in that yeshiva, that they have to hear the basics? But when you talk about water bottles, you give the impression that, "our bochurim are so great and so refined, that the only thing left for them to focus on is drinking from a cup instead of a bottle!"

b) This one's more pertinent to shul rabbis. Congregants who hear about the basics feel like their intelligence is being insulted. "Why is the rabbi talking about being careful with hilchos shabbos? What does he think I am, an Am Ho'Oretz?" So the focus on the arcane, to me, is a form of the rabbis trying to score points with the congregants, and to give them that feeling like "wow, I know all the basic halachos, so now we can focus on the hypotheticals that happen once every 50 years!" How else do you explain these discussions about hagbah, when many people are struggling with basics in areas like brachos, shabbos, lashon hora, tznius, etc.?

One person who didn't shun the basics? The Ramchal, ZTL, who said that Mesilas Yesharim was not full of earth-shattering chiddushim. Rather, it was merely a reminder of the basic tenets of mussar, which we all too often forget about. Many people could take a lesson from him.

Chassidus in 2006

2006-06-18T09:59:00.000-04:00

If you read the papers, it seems like the chassidic movement is past its prime. Whether it's the ongoing civil war in Satmar, the Boro Park riots, or the occasional financial scandal, it seems like the chassidim get nothing but bad press. And it seems like everyone out there knows a chassid or two who has cable, watches movies, and generally seems apathetic towards yiddishkeit.

When I was in yeshiva, the age-old issue of working for a living vs. kollel came up. I argued that perhaps we should follow the "Torah Im Derech Eretz" approach advocated by R' Samson Raphael Hirsch, ZTL. But someone said, "no, what Rav Hirsch had in mind was only meant for that generation, to help combat the influence of the haskalah. But his mehalech was not intended to be applicable for all-time."

Recently, I've been speculating whether the same logic holds true for chassidus. A quick disclaimer: I'm not here to discuss the general issues of chassidus such as davening late, blindly following rebbes, etc. I'm just discussing whether, assuming chassidus is "legit," is it still a solid movement these days?

When the Baal Shem, Baal HaTanya and other early rebbes started the chassidic movement, you can see why it made a lot of sense at the time. Culturally, it was a totally different world. People lived in ghettos, and it was still possible to stay away from the goyish influence. The media wasn't all over the place. Financially, things were much different than they were now. Very few people had money. And very few Jews were "professionals."

In 2006, things have changed drastically. The chassidish focus of avoiding the media, newspapers, and anything goyish can't work anymore. Even in Boro Park or Williamsburg, you can't avoid it. There's a whole world out there, a world full of temptation, and a life that looks a lot freer than the confines of chassidus. Maybe the chassidim that are engrossed in learning and who find their movement meaningful won't feel deprived. But many of them, especially those in the business world, can be much more tempted than their counterparts at the turn of the 18th Century.

Besides, think about how, during the riots, they chanted "No justice, no peace." They must've gotten that from somewhere, and chances are it wasn't from the rebbe's tisch. And I'm sure the rebbe didn't teach them to punch out the chassidim who are for the other rebbe. Instead of an approach telling them to shun all tumah, perhaps an approach for dealing with the inevitable clash with the media would be more sensible. And the fact that they can't even play basketball because it's goyish. I think that's a little crazy. Most kids need an outlet. Either it'll be basketball, or smashing police cars.

In 2006, the costs of living are astronomical. I've heard there are many chassidim in Touro, and it's definitely a step in the right direction. For all the stories of nissim in business, the fact is that a college education is an important part of hishtadlus these days. And I'm only speculating here, but perhaps if more chassidim were professionals there would be fewer business ethics issues in those communities.

Additionally, perhaps more than any other sect of Orthodox Jewry, Chassidim give women the fewest opportunities to learn or have any job with an intellectual aspect to it. There's teaching, and that's about it. Again, when chassidus began, very few women worked. In 2006, they see a society where women have many more opportunities. So for the more shallow women who couldn't give a damn, their yiddishkeit is devoid of meaning regardless. But even for the ones who are smarter and more ambitious, how can they enjoy yiddishkeit if they see it as stifling their opportunities to grow and accomplish?

- Maybe there aren't thousands of chassidim going off the derech. Maybe many of them seem to be happy and content with their lot. But again, do we know how meaningful their yiddishkeit is? Do we know how many of them commit egregious sins secretly? Do we know how many of them are unhappy and feel stuck in a rigid culture?

Let's not forget that chassidus is a relatively new movement. (If Judaism started at mattan torah, that was over 3300 years ago. Chassidus is only about 250 years old.) It started as a response to what was happening in the world around them. And as such, it only makes sense for the movement to be further cognizant of our current culture and how it can adapt to be as successful as possible in today's world.

The Making Of The Apathetic

2006-06-15T21:47:00.000-04:00

There are a lot of frum Jews in my community that, at first glance, don't seem to fit any of the common categories of Orthodox Jewry. The men play poker, see plenty of movies, and the women often straddle the fine line of tznius. So maybe they're MO? Chas V'Shalom! On Shabbos, they're walking the street with their big black hats covering their velvet (no srugies!!) yarmulkas. The kids can only go to yeshivos where the rabbeim are chareidi, lest the children be tainted with krum hashkafos. So now they sound chareidi, right? Yeah, but the movies and the cable don't go with that.

Some call these people "Centrists." Others call them "Chareidi Lite." My moniker for them? "Frum apathetic." I think they, more than other group out there, simply go through the motions of frumkeit. Sure the men may daven and go to a daf shiur, they only eat kosher and will never, ever use the Flatbush eiruv, but they feel no passion for yiddishkeit. No spirituality, none at all. And they seem pretty unhappy.

How does that happen? How does a kid who only went to the best yeshivos turn out to do all the mitzvos, but feel no passion about yiddishkeit.

It's a complicated topic, probably a two-parter, but I blame the doom-and-gloom rabbeim. The ones that make God out to be a tyrant. The ones that tell you that once you do certain aveiros, you're screwed for life and going straight to hell. (Oddly enough, many of those rabbeim don't tell you that one of the reasons for the tochacha was due to not serving God with simcha.) The ones who say that working for a living is a backup plan.

In many cases, it's an approach to frumkeit that's very frum, but without any margin for error. It's devoid of any joy, happiness, or feeling. And if you screw up once, there has to be an overwhelming feeling of guilt.

So let's say you don't have the self-control to avoid doing aveiros and the discipline to sit and learn all day? Well, you're guilty! And the best way to deal with the guilt? Just stop giving damn. Don't worry about this stuff. Have a good time, go to minyan so you get a good shidduch, and do what you enjoy.

I often heard people jokingly say, "I'm gonna go to hell anyway, so why should I care about...?" Yeah it's a joke, but unfortunately, the corny cliche of "there's truth to every joke" sadly applies here.

The counter-argument is, what's wrong with the rabbis laying it all on the table? Besides, is it better to have the kids feel happy about yiddishkeit, but at the same time embracing their taavos and not being taught to be careful about various halachos?

I have what to say about that, and that's for another time.

Deference

2006-06-13T21:02:00.000-04:00

As promised, here's a follow-up post on the issue of deference. I don't know a whole lot about the halachic process (is there even such a thing anymore?), but I just wanted to express my thoughts on the matter.

To me, the issue of deference came up after the Slifkin ban. What I heard was that many gedolim saw that R' Elyashiv had signed, and once they saw that, it was enough for them. And like a bunch of dominos, they all placed their names on the ban.

Now, even assuming that R' Elyashiv is the #1 gadol hador and entitled to such deference, two things bother me:

a) Isn't it a bit disingenuous to sign something solely on the basis of someone else's opinion? When I see a Rav's signature, I'd like to assume that means he thoroughly analyzed the facts and relevant halachos of the issue, and came to x conclusion. But I don't think most people would assume that the signature was merely a reflexive move following someone else's opinion.

b) Who said R' Elyashiv was presented with the case correctly? This was true especially in the Slifkin case, where the kanoim put together a booklet of out-of-context statements from Slifkin's book. Would R' Elyashiv have said the same thing had he read the whole book? Or had he understood English? In other words, is Daas Torah still Daas Torah even when it's based on inaccurate facts and possibly incorrect presumptions?

The issue has also come up in the Flatbush eruv controversy. Many people out there have said that R' Moshe was not presented with accurate facts regarding the situation in Flatbush. It's one of those classics which bring out the chareidi/ MO divide.

The Gedolim Top 25?

2006-06-12T18:46:00.000-04:00

In a comment thread, Lakewood Yid was asked why American charedim follow the Israeli gedolim, when they have their own gedolim to follow, and without the cultural divide issues. He responded by saying: "And besides, tell me who in US compares to R' Elyashiv and R' Kanievsky."

And in his most recent post, Bari VeShema rips the rabbis in the Halachic Donor Society, claiming that they're not qualified to pasken , saying that "But the overwhelming majority of these Rabbanim feel that they have a right to an opinion, when they are eminently unqualified to render one. They may have learned the Sugyos and responsa involved, but - if you haven't learned through all of Shas with Rishonim, Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, you're not a 'player'. Sorry to disappoint you."

When chareidim pull out arguments like these, it reminds me of a couple of third-graders fighting about "my daddy is better than your daddy." Do we know who's better and who's not among today's gedolim and rabbonim? Is there any way to measure anyone's ability and bekius? Besides, how does Bari VShema know how much those rabbis know? Did he test them?

Perhaps we should develop a system similar to the one found in NCAA football. Instead of ranking USC, U of Miami, Nebraska, etc. we can rank the gedolim. For all of the MO's and yeshivish out there who are unsure who's number one, we can develop a ranking system that will rank the gedolim in order of greatness, so we know who to follow.

And maybe we should have different divisions for the different gedolim, the same way that the NCAA has some schools in Division I, some in Division II, and some in III. So if a gadol knows shas and poskim, maybe he's in the top division. But if he only knows sugyos, then I guess he's in Division II. And what if he knows kaballah? What if his midos are exemplary? Now you see how silly this is getting.

And besides, even if a gadol is #1, does that mean we have to follow him? Is he the posek for all of klal yisroel, whether they're litvish, chassidish, sephardic, whatever? Nobody doubts, or should doubt, the greatness of R' Chaim Kanievski SHLITA or YBL"C Rav Shach, ZTL. But if I followed their piskei halacha, I'd have to drop out of college and throw out my shaver. Should we respect their gadlus? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we have to follow them.

So to me, to even contemplate the question of "who's a greater gadol?" is silly.

Two exceptions, though. One, I'm only limiting my point to the question of two contemporaries in the same generation. We live with the maxim of "niskatnu hadoros," so I would say it's safe to assume that, for example, R' Chaim Soloveichik was greater than anyone around today.

Also, there's something to be said for deference when it comes to psak. Any posek deciding a shailah today ought to factor in the opinion of other gedolim. But how far should that go? That's to be discussed in my next post.

Top Ten Overrated Jewish Songs

2006-06-11T10:49:00.000-04:00

It's a shame that jewish music has jumped the shark. It's too bad that people only put out tapes to get their names out so they can make real dough singing at weddings. And even though I barely follow the Jewish music scene anymore, I still like to reminisce on my childhood days of MBD, Fried, Journeys, and all that other good stuff.

Anyway, I'm sure many of you have been to a wedding or kumsitz or something and thought, "not that song again?" Or "what's wrong with everyone? Why does everyone like this song? It's not THAT good." So with that in mind, I present my top ten overrated Jewish songs:

10) "Onoh Hashem" - Carlebach; I don't think the song itself is that bad; it's just that when people try to sing it and can't reach the high part, it just sounds awful.

9) "Tov Lehodos" - Shalheves Boys Choir - This Jewish one-hit wonder put out a song that has been sung in yeshivos and camps for years now. Maybe it's not that good. Or maybe it was once good, but the overkill got to me. Whatever it is, I can't stand this song anymore. I'll give it one thing - it's probably better than the Rabbis' Sons version, although my grandparents would disagree.

8) "Yaaleh V'Yavoh" - Miami - The song itself is okay. I don't know; for some reason, I just get really creeped out when I'm in a room with grown men singing a song I associate with 30 prespubescent kids' voices. I just find it very weird. I guess that logic applies to any Miami song.

7) "Ya Ma Mai" - Chaim Dovid - I never got into this one. I find it annoying and uninspiring, except after a few shots of hard liquor. And then, of course, anything is inspiring, especially if it has a catchy beat.

6) "Naar Hoyisi" - Dveykus III - One of my least favorite Rottenberg songs. I find the tune cheesy, and the words just don't get me going. As an aside, Dveykus jumped the shark with this album. I really don't like it. (Another possibility for a JTS moment: when Scharfman has to catch his breath on "Shalom Aleichem" on V. Volumes I and II are two of the best Jewish albums ever, except for the fast songs. But III has too many duds. Volume IV was a slight improvement, but Volume III was a turning point, without question.)

5) "Lmaan Achai" - Carlebach - A kumsitz staple for years, I never liked this one. The tune is too dirgey. The low part takes forever.

4) "Mimkomcha" - Carlebach. I'm talking about the chazzonish one, not the other one (which isn't much better). So slow, so long, it has no tune, and it's the same thing as anything the professional chazzonim do. It's great for comic relief. Let's just say that, far too many times over the past few years, I've had to hold back from cracking up during kedusha. If you can't sing the nigun, don't use it! Is it that hard to understand?

3) "Atoh Sokum" - Carlebach - I never got this one. Cheesy tune. Plus, I associate that pasuk with slichos. I always found it bizarre to take a pasuk from slichos and put a fast tune to it. Even on Yom Kippur, every year, I always think about the chassidish "Avini Makeini" during davening. Great song, really lightens me up on Yom Kippur. But something about it feels very wrong.

2) "Hamalach" - Dveykus IV - I think Nachum Segal called this the best song of the '90's. Heck, I'll even take the Shloime Dachs version over this one. In fact, I once tried using the Dachs version for L'cha Dodi in an old man's shul. Let's just say it didn't go over too well. Next time, I'll stick to a nigun that's at least 100 years old, just to be safe.

1) "Acheinu" - Lev V'Nefesh - I think some people in Uzbekistan were inspired by this song. Maybe if all I had grown up with were Russian polka songs, I'd find it interesting. But after Fried's powerful Acheinu on "Forever One," I can't listen to this one. Too cold, too dirgey, and I really don't like Abie' s voice. Abie cannot belt it out anywhere nearly as powerfully as Fried, or even Abish Brodt.

HONORABLE MENTION - Anything by Lipa. I really don't get the hype over this guy. He has one song that sounds like a ripoff of "Peanut Butter" from an old Olson Twins CD (it was my sister's, I promise! She listened to it every day for a year). And there's one song that sounds like "Hey Dum Diddle Dee Dum," the Uncle Moishy classic. Plus he does that cheesy Lion King song, which pissed off a lot of chassidim. Maybe people like him because of his cool glasses. What does that make him, the Jewish Lisa Loeb? Whatever.

Ripping the Shidduch System

2006-06-07T20:05:00.000-04:00

Well, Chananya Weissman is at it again, ripping apart the shidduch system, instead calling for a system of "natural meeting."

I've been through the shidduch system for a few years now, and I have a few beefs with it, but overall, it's a very effective system.

After all, for all the talk of the "shidduch crisis," the fact is that the system works for most people. People like Weissman focus only on all the horror stories and all the problems with the system, but they don't give a fair and balanced picture of it. You go to onlysimchas on an average night, and many of the engagements there were a result of shidduchim.

Like every system out there, it has its flaws. And I'll admit that it's not for everyone. Plus, like everything else out there, it's subject to abuse. So there are people out there who ask ridiculous questions and who dump guys for not wearing a suit. But if the system is used with some common sense, then shidduchim don't have to be as crazy as they often are.

And for those who complain that shidduch meetings are awkward- just loosen up! Life is full of awkward moments. When you get a new job and meet everyone for the first time - it's awkward. Using a pick-up line on some girl at a bar - awkward. Just chill out, develop some confidence, and get over it.

- And the argument I always make is, okay, you have a problem with the shidduch system? Find me a better alternative.

The majority of people on the shidduch scene are guys and girls who have gone to separate-sex yeshivos, (and some even having gone to seperate colleges like Touro) and have zero experience talking to a member of the opposite sex. That alone makes things awkward. Plus, the heterophobia taught by the yeshivos and sems doesn't help the cause. So to expect these same people to meet a girl on their own is simply unrealistic.

That's my biggest beef with Weissman's piece. He has no plan of how to implement a practical method of "natural meeting," especially for the right-wingers.

If I had to give one piece of advice to a prospective dater, it would be "have fun, and don't take this crap too seriously." And that's something that can work for anyone, no matter what circle of frumkeit they're in.

Taking Action

2006-06-04T12:38:00.000-04:00

Last week, one of my neighbors came over for Shalosh Seudos. Mike has always had beefs with the chareidi/yeshivish system, their schools, etc. and last week was no exception. He was ripping the yeshivos for telling everyone to become learning guys, saying that the system benefited the richies while it screwed the poor, who can't get any shidduchim because they can't support the young kollel couple. In the past, Mike has ripped the local yeshivos for being obsessed with money and image rather than focusing on properly being mechanech the kids.

Yet Mike would fall into the "do as I say, not as I do" category. He sends his kids to the same yeshivos that he's been ripping apart for years. Plus, two of his kids are the same "learning guys" that he has a problem with. Why isn't the guy consistent?

I think it comes down to the fact that almost nobody out there wants to take action. Obviously, Mike alone couldn't do anything. With his chassidish background, he's not about to convert to MO. Aside from all the difficulties in switching frum cultures, he's probably got his share of beefs with the MO system, too.

But let's say Mike wanted to join with like-minded people and form a group or put together some sort of protest. First off, many people drink the kool-aid and have no problem with the yeshivos and their mehalchim. Second, even if people have beefs similar to Mike, do they care enough to do anything about the situation? Most of them are too busy running their businesses and dealing with the stresses of everyday life. And many of them are more interested in sports or the latest gossip going around the neighborhood.

You do have some people out there who take action by themselves, such as Jeff Kirschblum (with the life insurance for rabbeim) and Marvin Schick taking on the high price of tuition. But to deal with some of the messier issues, you've gotta stay anonymous.

Interestingly, perhaps this is where the blogosphere comes in. I keep thinking back to UOJ, who could not have done what he's currently doing 5 or 10 years ago. Sure, he could've sent his mass mailing and filed his lawsuit. But how else could he have publicized his articles? How else could he have created a forum where others could share their experiences and opinions on the system?

Of course, I don't agree with much of what UOJ says or believes, but you've gotta admit that he's had a strong influence on the community. This just might be the best way to take action with some of the thornier issues among us.

Respecting Other Religions

2006-05-30T19:53:00.000-04:00

This is one of those very broad topics, and it touches on many other issues, such as the cardinals visiting YU and the Jewish role in the culture war. But for now, I'd like to go for a very general view.

What got me thinking about this topic was a discussion with a friend of mine about George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord." Is there something to be said about the guy expressing his religion and longing to be close to God, or is it all silly anyway, because he's not Jewish and his religion is false?

I don't think there's anything intrinsically signficant about a non-Jew following their religion. In most cases, it's avoda zara, so what good does it do for us? What good does it do for the world?

But that said, there's something to be said for the effects of religious non-Jews, in two ways:

1) Most religious non-Jews generally will follow the seven mitzvos of Bnei Noach. It's unclear whether those mitzvos have a transendental positive effect on the world as when Jews do mitzvos, or whether they're merely meant as a civil code so that the nations don't live in chaos. (According to the latter understanding, it's a bit unclear where the prohibition on blashphemy fits in; according to the former, why is there no inyan of "arvus" when it comes to the seven mitxvos? But ANYWAY....)

And even if their mitzvos don't have a spiritual positive effect, their religious practices still make a difference. After all, the Jewish world is strongly influenced by the non-Jewish culture. For example, the fact that divorce is no longer taboo in the non-Jewish world has lead to an increase in divorces in the frum community. And in the 1970's, when everyone including Jimmy Carter was becoming a born-again Christian, many baalei tshuva returned to the fold.

Of course, in the case of the Muslims, their return to fundamentalism has not done much good to the world. But in moderation, religious practice is not problematic, especially in America, where the courts preserve religious freedom.

2) The other benefit from the non-Jewish religious practice is that we can take some mussar from it. Perhaps, for example, we can look at a song like "My Sweet Lord" and think about whether we've felt a longing to be close to God. And perhaps from their search for meaning in life, we can take a lesson and try to make the routine practices of Judaism more meaningful. I'm not saying that we should study the world's religions in-depth to get all sorts of lessons from them, but there are certainly things we can pick up from them, even from passive observation.

So I don't see how their worshipping whatever they worship makes the world a better place. But their observance of their laws certainly is not a bad thing. And let us not forget Ben Zoma's statement - "Who is wise? He who learns from all people."

Do Some People Have It Easy?

2006-05-27T23:29:00.000-04:00

You know the feeling. I think everyone knows it, but most people won't admit to feeling that pang of jealousy.

There's always that guy in the neighborhood, the one who seems to have everything going for him. His Dad is a richie with a Lexus and a mansion, he has lots of friends, good health, a great spouse, and happy, healthy children. And so often, we think, "why can't I have it easy like Mr. Goldberg over there? He's got nothing to worry about."

I heard Paysach Krohn speak last year, and he said "nobody has it easy!" And R' Ezriel Tauber in one of his books says that "you will not find a Jewish family today which is not somehow, somewhere suffering."

I'm not sure if I agree with the above statements. After all, the gemara in Avodah Zara states that God does not give people a nisayon they can't handle. So any challenge that we receive is tailor-made for us. God gave us the special abilities needed to deal with the unique challenges facing us.

So perhaps the people with the easy lives can't sweat the big challenges. Maybe their biggest challenge is not going shopping every day. Also, it could be that just having a content life can be a big challenge in and of itself. Many people need a rough situation as a kick in the butt in order to improve their davening and avodas Hashem.

Also, many rishonim discuss the question of "tzaddik v'ra lo, rasha v'tov lo." Conversely, there's also the concept of "pairosaihem b'olam hazeh," getting reward in this world. Thus, there can also be a "tzaddik v'tov lo."

So if some people out there are getting the "tov lo" treatment, I find it hard to believe that "nobody has it easy." And again, their nisayon might be to find God and a meaningful life even in a state of prosperity.

So does anyone have it easy? It's impossible to know. We can't find out the details of everyone's personal lives, including the tzaros that may be well-hidden from the public. But to say that NOBODY has it easy -- where's the evidence?

That's An Old Story

2006-05-25T19:23:00.000-04:00

Great post by R' Harry Maryles on the yeshivas' focus on churning out gedolim, and saying to hell with everyone else.

I just wanted to add that, in this case, Shlomo HaMelech's credo of "ain kol chadash tachas hashamesh" rings true once again. In my first go-round on the blogosphere, I wrote a piece on how the yeshivos glorify the frumkeit in Europe as if it were Bnei Brak. People were moser nefesh, and they had no TV's, internet, newspapers, etc. so they much shtarker than we could ever be. I said that what they don't tell you in yeshiva is that in Europe, the majority of Jews went off the derech. Maybe they mention the famous Meshech Chochma from last week's parsha about the people who treated Berlin like Jerusalem, but it gets merely a cursory mention.

And perhaps Rav Dessler's description of the yeshivos' "mission statement" was true long before his time. In fact,as I said in my post from '04, my Uncle Harvey said something similar (in the name of someone else, whose name slips my mind.) In Europe too, the goal of the yeshivos was to produce gedolim. And that's why they were super-intense there, because many of the medicore kids couldn't hack it. And once the haskalah came to town, many of their religious lives were toast.

- I once asked a mashgiach, "I don't understand. When you talk one-on-one to a bochur, you'll tell some guys to go to college. But when you give a shmuz, you say that everyone has to sit and learn. What's the deal?"

The mashgiach responded with a statement similar to Rav Dessler. Basically, he said that on a public level, the bar has to be set very high so that the future gedolim don't underacheive. If they hear that college is okay, they might want to go there rather than learn their whole lives. So because the goal of a yeshiva is to produce gedolim, on a public level the bar has to be set so high that they'll be inspired to learn for life.

But the problem with that is, the mediocre guys listening to the shmuz don't know this! So they'll hear about how they have to learn all day, will try it, get burnt out, and lose interest. Or, like me, they'll have a guilty conscience for life: why are you not in yeshiva? And of course, you have many people who will simply go off the derech. To me, it also seems like there's a strong element of sheker involved here (if not everyone is supposed to learn super-intensely, why are you saying just that), which is very troubling.

And as R' Harry said, if we're not producing any gedolim this way, then maybe it's time to change the system.

On Thinking and Not Thinking

2006-05-24T22:31:00.000-04:00

One thing that's bothered me for years is how differently some yeshiva guys approach gemara and hashkafa.

If a yeshiva guy stumbles upon a gemara that they don't understand, they'll spend many hours trying to understand it. Some people I know would get visibly frustrated if they couldn't get pshat. The attitude of "it's okay, I have emunah that this is right" is ultimately behind all the frustration. But that attitude isn't so strong to the point where people won't try to understand the gemara because of their emunas chachamim.

When it comes to hashkafos, though, a lot of guys just sip the kool-aid. I don't think they think objectively about hashkafos.

Why is that? I think it comes from how each issue is presented. Gemara is learned in a "fair and balanced" manner. There's no agenda in trying to understand a gemara one way as opposed to another. So most yeshiva guys look at a gemara with a clean slate.

But when I would attend vaadim about hashkafa, there was clearly an agenda there. You knew what the mashgiach was going to say. Sometimes he would discuss the other side, but usually it didn't get much treatment.

Also, you hear a lot more about emunas chachamim when it comes to hashkafos than when it comes to gemara. Questions are not encouraged in this setting. Why?

Faith Be Damned? Part I: Gadol Bashing

2006-05-21T17:25:00.000-04:00

The Kolko situation has been on my mind over the past few days, and it's been troubling me like more than any other fiasco that we've dealt with in recent vintage. The fiasco called the wedding takanos ticked me off to no end. For the disclaimers included in the kol korei ("extraordinary circumstances"), I still think that there was some sheker involved there. Their destruction of Reinman, R' Nosson Kaminetzky, and Slifkin was also very disturbing. I didn't think I would ever have as many doubts in my emunas chachamim. But the defeaning silence of the gedolim surrounding the Kolko situation trumps them all.

Here we are, worrying about whether there are microscopic bugs in our water, wondering whether hagbah is a 360 to the right, holding parlor meetings for a million schools for Russians, and fighting incessantly over the Flatbush eruv, when cases of abuse are happening under our eyes. What's being done to combat the abuse? Anything? Are we just supposed to pretend that it never happened and never will again?

As a result, for the next few days, I'm going to be a one-trick pony and give my thoughts on gedolim, emunas chachamim, and daas torah.

- In a general discussion about gedolim, Harry Maryles discussed gadol-bashing.

I think this phenomenon comes from the blind faith that many chareidim have in gedolim. They talk about them as if they're infallible; if they weren't Jewish, you'd probably think they're talking about Jesus or Mohammed. It's possible that this attitude comes from the chassidim, with their extreme reverence of Rebbes.

I don't know what the source is for an attitude of infallibility. The Torah and Gemara talk about mistakes that were made by many great people. And the Rambam, the one revered by every chareidi yeshiva guy, gets heavily critcized by the Vilna Gaon in his commentary on Yoreh Deah.

When people expect perfection from gedolim and then see things they really can't understand, they start bashing the gedolim. They figure that they can't be gedolim, because gedolim are perfect. So instead, they're just a bunch of clowns. If they can't bat 1.000, then I guess they're no better than we are.

To me, the attitude that makes the most sense is that the gedolim are certainly much greater than we are. They know much more Torah, and have spent a lifetime refining their characters. Despite all that, however, they are fallible and will make mistakes. They're human, and can fold to the pressure of the richies.

With expectations like these, the occasional mistakes by gedolim are more palatable. They're to be expected, to some extent.

And such an attitude allows us to ask questions. Not just "what," but "why?" And perhaps to be aggressive in asking why, especially regarding hashkafa questions. And with the expectations of possible mistakes, perhaps we can have respectful discussions, rather than gadol-bashing.

Life After R' Moshe

2006-05-18T21:08:00.000-04:00

I've often heard that part of the reason that MO isn't what is used to be was that after the Rav ZTL passed away in 1993, nobody replaced him. And in fact, nobody could replace him. Don't get me wrong - there are many huge talmidei chachamim who are roshei yeshiva in YU - but the Rav was on such a high level and had such a presence that nobody has been able to fill his shoes.

I was speculating that perhaps one can say the same in terms of psak with regard to R' Moshe. Although there were other great poskim in New York during his lifetime, such as R' Moshe Bick and R' Tuvia Goldstein, R' Moshe was world-renowned and considered the premier posek for Jews in the United States (I can't stand how so many rabbeim just call it "America," but that's for another time). While we don't follow all of his shitos (e.g., recorded music and summer school), and while the Satmars weren't a big fan of his, he was certainly a leader for much of Orthodox Jewry.

What got me thinking about this was the article about Kolko in New York magazine, which quoted R' Pinchas Scheinberg. The whole thing bothered me. Why ask him? What about all the gedolim in America?

Another thing that got me thinking was a comment on another blog, which basically said that it's amazing how everyone followed R' Elyashiv's psak when it came to Indian wigs, but nobody listens to him when it comes to shaving. If we did, every man in Brooklyn would have a scraggly beard. And college would be as assur as chazer.

Face it. There's no preeminent posek in the US anymore. You have some big talmidei chachamim out there like R' Belsky and R' Dovid Cohen, but they don't have nearly as big a following as R' Moshe did.

And the fact that we've gone to Eretz Yisrael for piskei halacha - what's up with that? Many of those gedolim aren't familiar with our culture, which can play a role in many piskei halacha. (Of course, it's likely not a big deal to follow R' Shlomo Zalman's piskei halacha about davening. But other major issues?) Part of it is likely due to the fact that there's no universally respected posek here anymore. The closest you'll get to that is R' Elyashiv. And the rightward shift in Orthodox Judaism - probably the biggest factor here.

Chazoras HaShatz Charades

2006-05-16T11:32:00.000-04:00

I don’t like when people talk during chazoras hashatz. To me, that is. If they want to talk amongst themselves, whatever. I know the shulchan aruch says that one who talks during chazoras hashatz has “a sin too great to bear,” as Cain said after slaying Abel. Why do some people talk? Maybe they don’t care. Maybe they have a hetter somehow. A different minhag? Who knows? Whatever it is, I’ve been freaked out by the words of the Shulchan Aruch. So I do my best to keep my mouth shut during chazoras hashatz.

What I can’t stand is when people start talking to me during chazoras hashatz, see that I’m not answering, but keep yapping away. Hey, I choose not to talk during chazoras hashatz, is that okay with you?

And then, of course, I feel bad blowing the guy off, so that’s when the chazoras hashatz charades begin. I have to try to take part in the conversation without saying anything. And I have to do so in a way that’s somewhat comprehensible to the other guy. And that, of course, never works.

Far too often, I’ll mouth my answer. Maybe I’ll accompany that with some sort of hand motion, in an effort to make things clearer. To which the guy will say, “what?” So I try to enunciate my motions some more, in the hope that he’ll get what I’m trying to say. And of course the guy still doesn’t get it. So then I go all out in trying to motion what I have to say. At this point, of course, half the shul is staring at me trying to figure out what the hell I’m doing. So I simply give a wave as if to say “later,” and slink away, blushing.

(When I was very young, the chazoras hashatz charades would bring to mind those old Sergio Aragones cartoons in Mad magazine. You know, the ones where the characters never say anything? I always felt like the guys in those comics, struggling to express themselves without saying anything. In his later years, Aragones would sometimes have a character with a “thought bubble” on top. That’s when I knew the guy was losing it.)

Heck, only in Brooklyn do you lose more potential shidduchim by NOT talking during chazoras hashatz than you would by talking.

Thoughts on Kolko

2006-05-15T19:01:00.000-04:00

Those of you who have been following UOJ's blog know all about the ongoing allegations against Kolko. And those of you who don't can simply click the link and find out all the gory details.

- Do I think Kolko is guilty? Not yet. I would have to see what comes out from the pending lawsuit. If the victims win, or we see a Michael Jackson-like settlement, then I'll believe the guy is guilty. As of right now, I've gotta go with the old cliche of "innocent until proven guilty."

When the case first came up on UOJ's blog, I thought that Kolko was probably guilty. After all, let's say I had a bad rebbi. Years later, I might badmouth the guy, but would set out to destroy his life and reputation just because he was a jerk? No way. So I figured, if these guys are willing to accuse Kolko, chances are there's something to it.

But recently, I haven't been as sure. After all, many of the victims are finally piping up after decades of silence. Where were they till now?

Besides, according to numerous poskim, one can call the cops on someone who's a child abuser. (In fact, someone once followed this psak in a different situation, which caused a major controversy.) So why didn't any of these kids simply call 911 and put Kolko in an orange jumpsuit?

The answer might be, of course, that they got so freaked out by the threats of Kolko and Margolis that they've kept their mouths shut until now. Which leads me to my next point...

- If Kolko is guilty, then to me the real "rasha" in this case would have to be Margolis. If Kolko is guilty, the guy's a sick man. As much as his actions would anger me, part of me would have sympathy for a guy like him, who must have severe psychological issues to do what he did. But for Margolis to sit tight for 30 years without any effort to rectify the situation would simply be horrible. That would really make my emunas chachamim go down the tubes.

It brings to mind Watergate, where the issue wasn't so much the crimes that were committed, but mostly the cover-up. Same thing here.

- If Kolko's guilty, how much would that change the way things work in the Flatbush community? Not nearly enough, unfortunately. Temimah might have to close down, and I'm sure many yeshivos will do thorough background checking of prospective rabbeim. But otherwise, the system will run as always. The chareidim will still drink their kool-aid. The "frum apathetic" will continue not giving a damn and won't try to revolutionize the system. The UOJ-types are a rarity in Brooklyn. So, most likely the balance of power will still be what it is right now.

Now, what might happen is that the Kolko allegations spur off a domino effect of similar accusations. Or perhaps the blogosphere may be used to expose other latent crimes and illicit acts in the community. If this were to happen, it would be fascinating to see the effects on the Flatbush community. Or scary.

UPDATE: Turns out my good buddy Harry Maryles also discussed the issue. There's also a very disturbing New York magazine article about Kolko. After reading that article, it's harder to say Kolko is innocent. More to come on the whole matter.

Boys Following Sports

2006-05-14T11:11:00.000-04:00

Very interesting discussion over on Joseph Schick's blog about the pros and cons of Yeshiva guys following sports. He quotes Rabbi Yosef Bechhofer of Chicago as being anti-sports because of kids idolizing the athletes rather than the gedolim.

I've heard other reasons for being anti-sports. My 8th grade rebbi used to call it "avoda zara." I think it was because of how obsessed some kids got in following sports, watching every game, listening to WFAN all day, memorizing all the stats, etc. His other beef was how silly it was to care so much. Does it really affect my life whether the five guys on the Heat put the ball in the basket more times than the guys on the Nets? Or whether the Yankees or the Red Sox end up in first place? Does it make the world a better place?

I think all of the above points have some validity, but nonetheless I'm very pro-following sports.

The way I see it, some kids will be motivated to learn Torah and enjoy it. Perhaps they'll enjoy it to the point where they'll talk about it outside of class and even be willing to learn about gedolim, collect gedolim pictures, and eventually be like the gedolim.

But most kids, especially the 10-11 year olds, don't have the zitzfleish to sit and learn. Unless they have a dynamic rebbi, chances are that it's not something they'll enjoy and look forward to doing on a daily basis. So like most kids their age, they'll be looking for diversions and distractions outside of class.

And compared to the other distractions out there, sports is the most tame. These days, kids who aren't into sports will gravitate towards TV, movies, and music. And 90% of that stuff is pure filth. Some kids, especially the nerds, might get into books. But even those are often filled with questionable material. And video games are an option, too, but these days, some games have gotten a lot more filthy and violent since the days of Mario and Pac-Man.

So sports is the cleanest option out there. Maybe there's a little pritzus (some NFL games show cheerleaders for about 30 seconds, the occasional racy issue of SI), but it's nothing compared to the average reality show on TV. It's still good, clean, family fun.

And as for kids getting obsessed with sports and idolizing athletes, that's not an argument. If a kid's not into learning, there are plently of other things that he'll get obsessed with. And many of those things are far worse than sports.

For example, while most of my buddies were into sports at ages 6-7, I didn't get into it until I was 9. Was I a future gadol till then, only to be tainted by the lure of the Yankees and Mets? C'mon! Before baseball, I was obsessed with Nintendo. I would play video games every night for hours.

A buddy of mine was a rebbi for a bunch of Persian eighth-graders. Because of their cultural background, they had no interest in sports. Instead they were obsessed with all sorts of female celebrities like Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Hilary Duff, etc. Halevai that those kids would be obsessed with sports!

So basically, if my kid isn't that motivated to learn about gemara and the gedolim, I'd rather have him be obsessed with A-Rod than with Lindsay Lohan.

Higher Standards?

2006-05-12T10:05:00.000-04:00

Back when I was in high school, I would go to a newsstand in my neighborhood and pick up a USA Today Baseball Weekly every now and then. This was before I realized that it, like the USA Today, was written on a third-grade reading level. Anyway, one Friday I went there, and the guy behind the counter asked to go to the back of the store and get some kid out of there. Seemed a little strange, but I figured I'd do the guy a favor. I saw a heimishe-looking kid with peyos behind the ears reading a magazine. Suffice it to say, it wasn't quite Mishpacha Magazine.

I was shocked and outraged. How could a yeshivish kid with peyos behind the ears read porn!? What a faker!

A few years later, my Hasidic aunt saw a movie in a theater. And one of my cousins had a similar reaction of outrage. "She's makpid on cholov yisroel, but will go to a theater!?"

But as the years have passed, I've realized that such outrage is silly. 3000 years ago, we all stood by Har Sinai. The modern, the chareidim, the chassidim, the sfardim, etc.. When it comes down to it, we all have the same mitzvos. And a kid in a srugie looking at a porn is just as bad as a yeshivish kid.

After all, it's not like everyone makes a conscious choice, "oh, I'll be a chosid" or "I'll be chareidi. Therefore, I'm accepting a higher standard upon myself." Get real, folks. The chassidim are all born into their system. And many of them have yetzer haros too, as the world found out a month ago. So it's not like someone is subscribing to a higher standard just because they happen to be born to chassidish parents. What do you expect the guy to do? Cut off his peyos and desert hs family and friends, simply because he has a yetzer hora?

To me, the outrage in these situations has to go their leaders and, in general, to the system in question. Like with that incident in BP: the rebbes have to condemn it and do everything in their power to make sure something like that never happens again. And rabbeim in chareidi yeshivos have to deal with the porn issue, rather than sweep it under the rug as if it doesn't exist. The leaders have to do their best to rein in the yetzer horas of their constituents.

Many people in different sects of Judaism have a "holier than thou" attitude, thinking that their brand of Judaism is far superior than others out there. Many chareidim will rip YU and the MOs. But when their kids are looking at porn, I feel like telling them, "clean up the mess in your backyard before ripping everyone else." It reminds me of Lipschitz's piece in Yated about how wearing a black hat is a response to "mi l'Hashem ailai," in the same week that Jack Abramoff was on the cover of every paper in the country with his Borsalino. Get off your high horse, Lipschitz.

So yeah, if the kid in the above incident thinks he's better than me simply because he has hooks behind his ears, he's got something else coming.

There are bad chassidim out there, bad chareidim, and bad MO people. Part of what separates the better groups from the worse, in my opinion, is how they deal with them. But to hold chareidim or chassidim to a higher standard simply because they were born into that system? Gimme a break.

"Can't Complain"

2006-05-11T19:05:00.000-04:00

You know what I can't stand? When you ask someone how they're doing, and they say, "can't complain."

Come on people, everyone can complain. There's always something to vent about. The humid weather, your mother-in-law, the newest chumra of the week, the shleppy baal tefilah. If you choose not to complain, then, as my Dad would say, kol hakavod to you. But don't lie and tell me you can't complain!

But of course, a more accurate answer like "won't complain" would be way too vague. If I ask how you are, I want to hear "good," "bad" or whatever. I have no interest in your choice not to complain. And once you're avoiding the question anyway, why not just say "Baruch Hashem" like many others out there?

I guess everyone is sick of the age-old question "how are you?" and are too busy trying to get clever. But when you see your buddy you haven't spoken to in months, what the heck else are you supposed to start the conversation with? Current events? "What did you think about David Blaine?" And if the guy isn't following, you have to explain the whole thing to him and get a look like you've lost your mind. Talk about the weather? To me, that's just a nice way of saying "I have nothing to say to you."

For better or worse, there's no decent alternative to "how are you?" So just suck it up and answer the question! If I want you to be funny, I'll attempt to start a real conversation with you, thank you very much.

Shteebles

2006-05-10T11:22:00.000-04:00

Here in my hometown of Brooklyn, there are shteebles all over the place. If you live anywhere in Midwood or Boro Park, there's gotta be one right around the corner.

But while it's nice to have so many shuls all over the place, I've found the concept of a shteeble to be troubling. We've always been taught that a shul is supposed to be a miniature Bais HaMikdash, a "mikdash me'at." When you go through the parshiyos of Terumah and Vayakhel, the Torah spends considerable length going through the details of the beauty of the mishkon. Even though the main point of avodas Hashem is supposed to come from our inside, from our hearts, yet the Torah clearly recognizes the importance of our physical senses seeing and feeling the physical beauty of the mishkon.

And that's why I find the concept of the shteeble so troubling. The mishkon wasn't just a cramped first floor of someone's house. Aharon HaKohen and his family did not have a house upstairs. I've never done much research on this issue, but I get the feeling that the shteeble is a relatively new idea in Judaism. When you look at many of the historic shuls in this country (next time you're bored as hell, get one of those Oscar Israelowitz books with the pictures), they're all large buildings with sophisticated architecture.

Many people get all upset about the lack of decorum in shuls. And I have a feeling that the shteeble hasn't helped the cause much. When you daven in a claustrophobic environment sitting on top of everyone else, all the while hearing the rebbe's kids horsing around upstairs, it's hard to take davening seriously. Being in a large, airy, beautiful building gives off more of an aura of kedushas bais haknesses.

Now I know some of you might say, there are plenty of people who go to these big, beautiful shuls and talk anyway! But I'm not saying that destroying the shteebles would make everyone quiet. My point is just that they might be a contributing factor.

- An encouraging incident happened in my shul a few years back. One of the "richies" (as my Hasidic cousins would say) wanted to put up a hook in the shul so he could hang his hat in there. The gabbaim said "no way. This is a shul, not a coatroom." The richie got pissed off and left the place. I've gotta give the gabbaim credit for taking the dignity of the shul seriously, especially where a richie was involved.

New Template!

2006-05-08T15:10:00.000-04:00

A new beginning calls for a new template. This template is a tribute to some of my favorite Jewish blogs out there, like HaEmtza (or is it Emes VaEmunah?), UOJ, and Semgirl. And please, folks, I was only joking on the last one. I can't afford to lose any credibility yet.

Has The Agudah Jumped the Shark?

2006-05-08T13:32:00.000-04:00

For years, I've had mixed emotions about the Agudah. But it always seemed as though their critics were always those on the left. But now, they're getting ripped a new one from the Right. What's going on?

To me, Agudah always represented the charedi baal habatim. They were never too far to the right, and they've always seemed to strike a balance between being chareidi and yet worldly and intellectual. When you go through the Jewish Observer, for example, you get the impression that they're trying to appeal to the intellectual baal habatim out there. They have the cool covers, the Jonathan Rosenblum articles on Israeli politics, a few book "reviews," (I take the CD reviews in Country Yossi more seriously, but anyway), and a poem written by someone with nothing better to do. While I think they fail miserably in trying to be intellectually stimulating, their style is a stark contrast to that of Lipschitz in the Yated, who will just use his editorial page to bash YU. Lipschitz is blunt and direct; he doesn't even attempt to cloud his thoughts with an aura of intellectualism.

And with the article on metzitza, it was more of the same. They tried making it look like a balanced, intelligent discussion ("Public Health and Masores HaAvos"), and that's a big part of why they're getting ripped. Plus, some of the gedolim didn't agree with what Zweibel had to say, so that's also a big part of the issue.

The general public's shift to the right is what will doom Agudah. It is no longer fashionable to be charedi and intellectual. Now, only the former will do. Anything that even has slight implications that would be anti-daas torah is to be vilified. And as it is, there's been a split in daas torah over the past few years between the more "moderate" gedolim and the ones who are more to the "right." And people who are machmir very often have no tolerance for dissenting views. And in light of all the book bans and the general move to the right, the credo of "eilu v'eilu" doesn't quite ring true in many circles. Harry Maryles had a great piece on this idea, which I currently cannot find. But while you're looking for it, read through his archives. Great stuff.

The Agudah has represented the shtark baal habatim, the ones who went to yeshiva and went to college. But these are the last of a dying breed. These days, everyone is either learning for life, off the derech, or "frum apathetic." Very few worldly yeshiva types are being produced. So Agudah's clientelle is dwindling.

You also get the feeling that R' Moshe Sherer ZTL was irreplaceable. Nobody else in the Agudah has been able to fill his shoes. Then again, who knows if R' Sherer even would've been accepted by the chareidim if he were around in 2006?

- My prediction: over the next few years, the Agudah will either shift to the far right (no more JO's about secular studies) or simply cease to exist.

I'm Coming Back

2006-05-04T20:10:00.000-04:00

Tell your friends, folks. Tell everyone you know. Announce it loud. And clear.

Face it people. Since Isaac Kaplan left the blogosphere back in August 2004, the Frum blogosphere has jumped the shark and then some. Every Joe Schmo has some blog. You have chareidim posting their kool-aid, atheists spewing their kefirah, and horny frum guys discussing their fantasies, and even posting them, too.

I'm not gonna be modest this time. Yes, I'm out to change the world. I'm out to give my take on what's out there. I'll go back to the usual mix. Judaism, some baseball, some classic rock, and whatever is happening in my life. And all the while, I'll be teaching some of the punks out there how to blog.

LINE OF THE WEEK: Silly Torre Praise #374

2004-09-14T13:36:00.001-04:00

" That is Torre's genius, he believes in his players, no matter what."

-Kevin Kernan, in today's New York Post

Yeah. Francona, LaRussa, and Scoscia have all given up on their guys.

LINE OF THE WEEK: Silly Torre Praise #374

2004-09-14T13:36:00.000-04:00

" That is Torre's genius, he believes in his players, no matter what."

-Kevin Kernan, in today's New York Post

Yeah. Francona, LaRussa, and Scoscia have all given up on their guys.

BASEBALL NATION: Who's the Next Mets Manager?

2004-09-06T16:05:00.002-04:00

With a team in the tank and a manager as exciting as the History channel, the Mets know it's time for change. If the Mets want to have any shot of being in the same league as the Yankees in this town (albeit on a far lower talent level), they've gotta fire Howe. If they don't, maybe the Cyclones will have better attendance numbers next year. If I were a Met fan and Howe was back next spring, I'd be as mad as a Red Sox fan seeing Grady Little in the dugout.

So, who's next?

DON BAYLOR, bench coach. Baylor has a reputation as being a tough guy, which is exactly what the Mets want. He's good for PR because he's black; I think he'd be the Mets' first black manager ever. Maybe it'll get Al Sharpton to come to the games. And as an ex-Yankee, maybe he'll draw some mid-80's fan who curse the day that Cecilio Guante was released. Baylor's track record? Not great. He led the Rockies to the wild card in strike-shortened '95, but didn't do a whole lot in his stint with the Cubs. But remember: the Mets always get the second-best guy out there, never the best (the Mike Piazza trade being the major exception). So if you think Piniella is sick of Tampa Bay or Showalter will come, you can have a smoke and step back into fantasy-land.

LARRY BOWA, Phillies. I thought the Phillies would go all the way this year, but they've been a disaster. And Bowa's time there has clearly run its course. He's already got the "Bowa's currently the manager" spin, so you know he'll be outta there. And as a passionate and loud guy, i guess you can say he's the poor man's Lou Piniella. And the Mets are dying for a loud, Dallas Green-type guy. The Yankees can fire Joe Torre tomorrow, and I don't think he'll be loud and tough enough for the Mets' brass. Although the humongo-PR points would be too tempting. As for Bowa, he's done nothing but underacheive so far in Philly. I guess that makes him a good fit for the Mets.

JIMY WILLIAMS- I can see this one happening. He's a bit unconventional, always kinda reminded me of Bobby Valentine. They hated him in Boston for changing the lineup every day, and Houston basically quit on him. He's got decent W-L numbers, but he's managed for teams with a lot of talent on them. Maybe the Mets will go for him because he spells his name with one "m" and they think it's cool. If it's good PR, the Mets just might go for it.

BOB BRENLY- I can see the Mets doing it just because he won a World Series, so of course he's gotta be good. But unless Rick Peterson can turn Glavine and Leiter into Johnson and Schilling, I don't think this one's gonna work.

WALLY BACKMAN, MOOKIE WILSON, KEITH HERNANDEZ, HOWARD JOHNSON, JOHN FRANCO?-- I can definitely see the Mets pull off a move similar to the Tigers and Alan Trammell and try to bring back a popular name from the good times. The Tigers are still a young, developing team, so it's hard for me to assess Trammell's performance. But in terms of the Schmets: with a half-veteran, half-prospect, half-injured, half I-don't-give-a-**** team, you have to wonder if this is the situation for a manager with no prior major league experience. I think not. But will the PR factor prove to be too tempting? Just maybe....

And will John Franco get an "M" on his jersey instead of the "C"? That "C"'s gotta go. It belongs in the NHL, where the ten Canadians who watch the stuff might appreciate it. George's appointment of Derek Jeter as Yankee captain last season (in the midst of a Yankee mini-crisis) might've been pathetic and laughable, but at least the Yankees have enough class not to pull off any "C" shtick.

RNC Thoughts, Pt. 2

2004-09-05T23:42:00.000-04:00

a) An Update, sorta: Arnold's speech ended up really growing on me. Hearing his story, the fear he had in communist Austria, hearing how he longed to be in America, it really touched me. And then, "if you believe government should be held accountable to the people, and not the other way around, then you are a Republican!" etc. was just great.

b) Many people complained that guys like Arnold were moderates and don't represent the true conservative agenda. That's wrong. First, Arnold volunteered to speak by the RNC, he wasn't even asked to. If Bush's take on abortion really ticked him off, you think he would've asked? Besides, guys like Arnold and McCain have half a brain and realize that there's more to an election than gay rights and abortion. Bush's successful positions in both national security and the economy, two issues far more important, are why these guys support Bush. At least unlike the Kerry supporters, there's actually something about Bush that they agree with and believe in. Conservatives don't have to agree on everything. On the other hand, with John Kerry and all his flip-flops, it's impossible not to agree with him.

c) Zell Miller? Best speech of the convention. I think only a Democrat can make such a speech. A Republican would've gotten ripped to shreds for attacking Kerry the way Zell did. Then again, the media was really harsh on Zell. Chris Matthews, a week after throwing Michelle Malikn off his show, gave Zell a really rough time. This guy does not deserve to be on TV. Talk about redefining "unprofessional." Then again, if you have a show on MSNBC and no one's watching, are you considered to be "on TV"?

d) Bush's speech- he got criticism for the State of the Union-esque beginning part. But I liked it. It had one thing separating him from Kerry- content. A domestic agenda. And the war stuff I've heard a million times before. Felt like that stuff went on forever. But I guess the non-existent swing voters who've been living under a rock never heard it.

e) Kerry's midnight rally. Funny how he was ranting about his 'nam service again. I guess he figured with the RNC taking away attention from the Swifties, it was safe to talk war again. But didn't Kerry say last week that he wanted to focus on the issues? Eh, add it to the list.

RNC Thoughts, Pt. 1

2004-08-31T23:11:00.000-04:00

With all the RNC stuff going on, I guess I just couldn't help it.

1) For the most part, I enjoy following politics. I like seeing both sides, I like seeing them argue issues and everything. But after a while, it gets kinda drab. It's the Repubs reminding you again of the importance of fighting in Iraq. Okay, I agree. And again, the economy doing well. Hey, socialism's a failure, and capitalism is the way to go. But I knew that already. Besides, I can do without my tax dollars going to support "Gay Lollapalooza" or some other extremely worthy cause.

So, watching the RNC, part of me was excited, seeing my team kicking butt (I've always felt like following politics is kinda like following sports, with one major exception. If the Red Sox lose, okay, it stinks, but life goes on. Unless you bet a ton of money on the game, it doesn't affect your life. But if Kerry wins, you're screwed, man!).

But part of me was like, "okay, I've heard it all before." Bush is tougher on national security, no two ways about it. (You think he'll get up there Thursday night and say, "If we're attacked, I'll do everything to defeat the culprits" bit that Kerry gave us?) And following the dot-com bubble burst and 9-11, the economy is doing pretty darn well. And one thing Bush has going for him that Kerry doesn't -- shittos. Positions. Opinions. But I knew that already. So I guess the RNC is for the swing voters, maybe.

2) I think the only thrill I get from watching this stuff is the occasional one-liner and low-blow line at the Dems. Take McCain's speech last night, for example. His charisma level reminded me of another John-- Kerry, to be exact. Yawn. But for that line when he dug Michael Moore, he had the place rocking.

3) Schwarzenegger talking about how great America is- nice, but no effect. Good message. Optimism. Again, I guess it's good for the swing voters (whoever they are), though it doesn't do much for me.

4) I'm not even sure the swing voters exist. Proof is the fact that Bush's poll numbers haven't wavered despite the struggles in Iraq, Abu-Ghriab, and Bush-bashing books all over your local Barnes & Noble. (Something Rush Limbaugh and others constantly get excited about.) I don't think it's testament to Bush's greatness or Kerry's weakness. I think it's because the electorate is as divided as ever. Conservatives are voting for Bush, no matter what happens the next few months. And it doesn't matter if 2 million Swift Boat Veterans come out or if Kerry flip-flops every other minute: the anti-Bush crowd is still voting for Kerry. Sorry, Ralph Nader.

5) And at the end of the day, the few swing voters, whoever they are, are gonna vote for Bush. Any sane person realizes the most important thing here is national security, commonly known as staying alive. Which candidate is tougher on the war on terror? Don't think too hard.

6) Laura Bush was okay, I guess. Not as multilingual as Teresa, and Thank God for that. I'd rather listen to The Chevra than hear Teresa again. Booorrriinggg!

7) So far, Giuliani was the home run, in my book. I love the guy; he's my favorite politician. But that's a blog in and of itself. Stay tuned.

Isaac Kaplan Gets a Life!

2004-08-18T21:24:00.000-04:00

What can I say? My law school career is underway. I had Orientation the last two days, and tomorrow is the first class. All the fun is on its way. And with apologies to Fred Hickman, I look forward to sinking my teeth into the material. So far, it actually isn't dreadfully boring. Wait. Give me a couple of weeks.

What does it mean for this blog? It means don't expect a new piece every day. I don't know how crazy my schedule will be. It's possible that this blog will be over, if I'm too busy. I guess that's one of the hard parts about having a life. I also hope to occasionally "muse" about Jewish issues with my compadre Barry Katz. Check out his site for more of my materials.

ANECDOTE OF THE WEEK: You Get What You Kay For

2004-08-15T15:00:00.000-04:00

You get what you Kay for

Baseball analysts are suppose to express an opinion, right?
Well, if you are one of the voices on YES and the opinion has anything to do with George Steinbrenner, the answer to the above question is no . . . no . . . no . . . no.
Proof of this was offered Tuesday night (Yankees-Rangers, Ch. 2) when Michael Kay brought up The Boss ripping Joe Torre's decision to play Kenny Lofton in right field Monday against Toronto.
"A lot of people took what George Steinbrenner said as a slight to Joe Torre," Kay said. Kay then reported Torre's response ("He's George. He's going to say things") and praised the manager for the way he handled the controversy.
"So, a situation which could've been volatile with a different manager was diffused instantly by Joe Torre," Kay said.
Fine. But what did Ken Singleton think about all this?
What did he think of Steinbrenner's critique?
Does he think Lofton should play right?
In a true Al-Yankzeera moment, Singleton did not deliver the word on Steinbrenner's rant.
Even Kay, who has been known to spew on his ESPN-1050 radio show, didn't give his take on Steinbrenner. This was predictable. On the radio Tuesday, Kay was content to offer a soliloquy condeming writers for staking out Steinbrenner.
Blame the messenger. Yep, that should score Kay major points in Al-Yank Land.

-Bob Raissman, New York Daily News

A couple of my own points:

Notice Kay's words: "A LOT OF PEOPLE took George's words as a slight." But of course, you don't think so. Right, Michael? I guess as a YES employee, you're certainly not one of the "lot of people."It's not a slight. Just George's way of giving a compliment.

And then there's the Torre praise. Enough already. When you're getting shmeared by George the way he is, of course you won't get mad. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, especially if the hand feeds you the millions of King George

BASEBALL NATION: Rating the Baseball Tonight Analysts

2004-08-15T12:11:00.000-04:00

My favorite TV show of all-time? You got it. Baseball Tonight. The scores, updates, highlights, analysis, webgems, I love the show. And they've got different guys on different nights. I really like the fact that they mix it up like that. Sure, they've added features that bug me like "Triple play," but it's still an awesome watch. And I believe that any genuine baseball fan is incomplete without watching this show at least a few times a week.

On to the analysts. I'd like to split them up into three groups: the nerds, the cool ex-players, and everyone else. And by the way, I'll be rating them report-card style.

The nerds:

Peter Gammons: Yeah, c'mon, he knows too much. That's why I call him a nerd. Whether he's telling over some exclusive news he heard from one GM or going through all the "ifs" that need to happen for the Padres to make the playoffs, he knows his stuff better than anyone else out there. Without a question, the best of the bunch.
GRADE: A

Tim Kurkjian: This guy's a nerd through and through. From the nasal, shrill-esque voice down to the totally useless info ("That's the first Giant pitcher to get a triple since Brian Hickerson in '95"). But he's a great analyst. Always got something intelligent to say.
GRADE: A-

The cool ex-players:

John Kruk: It took him till May to realize he was no longer on "The Best Damn Sports Show Period," but he still hasn't improved much. He isn't that funny. And he doesn't really add anything to the show. I could make the same points he makes ("that was a long home run!"). Maybe they've got him just to take up space, in which case he's doing an excellent job.
GRADE: C+

Rob Dibble: He's got the goatee. He had the tinted glasses. He's the coolest, toughest guy ("If I were Estes, I would've nailed Rocket in the head!") on BBT. But unlike Kruk, he makes a substantial contribution to the show. Does a good job keeping the analysis clear and simple, unlike the nerds. But as a cool guy, can occasionaly get a little too shticky for my tastes.
GRADE: B

Everyone else:

Jeff Brantley:
When he first got on, I hated the guy. He was sorta mumbling; sounded like he was eating pretzels while he was talking. But after getting used to it, I realized that he had plenty of smart things to play. Probably the most intelligent ex-player of the bunch.
GRADE: B+

Harold Reynolds:
Tries to be everything: analytical and super-funny. Personally, I don't think he's that humorous, and his analysis doesn't do much for me. On a 3-game Monday night, you can see him demonstrating how to do a feet-first slide, just in case you were dying to know. I like it better when he's doing the Little League World Series.
GRADE: B-

As for the lead guys, Karl Ravech is far and away the best. Unlike Brian Kenny, he does the highlights without any annoying shtick. And he knows his baseball better than the other guys. Some of the others have no right putting in their two cents when it comes to the discussions. But I don't mind Ravech at all. Rece Davis, Steve Berthiaume, and Trey Wingo are nice but no effect.

But overall, a great watch. Like I said, a must-watch for anybody who considers themselves a genuine baseball fan.

The Gut Shabbos Nod

2004-08-15T09:38:00.000-04:00

So many people out there complain that, in Brooklyn, no one says "Gut Shabbos." There have been letters about this in Jewish Press for the longest times. And the ridiculous cop-out teirutzim get worse and worse each time (e.g. the dread of Shabbos, we don't want the cholent to get cold, etc.).

My proposal to help solve the problem: have people give each other gut shabbos nods instead of saying it.

Whatever the reason is for not saying it, there's less of an excuse now. If someone's insecure and shy, the nod will suit them a lot better. If it's too much of a pain and takes to long to actually say "gut shabbos," the half-second gained by just nodding will prove to be indispensable, especially in keeping the cholent warm. And all those snobs out there will have to make sure to keep their heads firm and not budge, to keep the condescension at its fullest.

Also, you can adjust the nod depending upon how friendly you are with the guy you're greeting. If you don't know him at all, you just give a slight movement. But if it's your good buddy from high school that you haven't seen in years, you can give him quite a nice, energetic headshake (aka the ol' BS nod)!

Also, I was walking to shul this week and noticed that many of the non-greeters pass me by, look me over, then walk away. I'm not sure why they look me over. Do they think they know me from somewhere? Are they waiting for me to tell them "gut shabbos"? Maybe they don't like my tie?

As per the second possibility ("are they waiting for me tell them gut shabbos?"), again, the cleverness of the shabbos nod is in all its glory. In Brooklyn, I'm never sure if someone's minhag is to say gut shabbos or not. So I'll often wait for them to say it. After all, if someone can't stand saying gut shabbos to someone, why should I ruin their day with my greeting? At least if the other person says "gut shabbos," I know they're cool with it.

But with the gut shabbos nod, why stare if you can just nod?