60

The picture in my mind of my family always includes my grandparents. They were always there and I guess I think they always will be. Sort of the same way that picture never includes my other grandfather who passed away before I was born.

I don’t speak to my grandparents nearly as much as I should. The real shame of that is that my grandfather is someone with whom I can discuss almost any intellectual topic, be it any part of Torah or lihavdil, science, literature, philosophy or just life. When we are together for Shabbos or at a Simcha I usually spend a decent amount of time talking to them but I don’t pick up the phone to talk to them as often as I should.

There are just some of my thoughts as my grandparents prepare to celebrate their sixtieth wedding anniversary this Sunday, Iy”h.

May we all be zocheh to celebrate the seventieth.

There's no difference

So they murdered him.

Bastards.

Who knows what the next few days or hours will bring.
It really makes the normal Jblog-type kvetching seem so trivial.

I had a few hours worth of work to do last night. I went to the office about 10:00 pm, sat down at my desk, turned on the screen and I saw the news about Eliyahu Asheri, HY"D. I couldn't work, I'll have to do it later today sometime. I was just too upset. This entire kidnapping saga, not just his, but all of them touched me very deeply. I can't imagine what his final hours must have been like. I don't want to.

Then I saw the news report that "militants" (how I hate that term) claim to have fired a chemical tipped rocket into Israel. I wanted to immediately board a plane and enlist in the IDF, if they'd have me.

Driving home from the office I was reflecting on why I felt such a strong urge to go there and join up. They certainly don't need me. I'd probably do more harm than good. I decided that my feelings were more selfish than anything else. I want to feel good that I'm doing my part to help, even if I'm not actually helping.

That leaves me with what my first thought should've been upon hearing the news. Prayer. It'll certainly do much more good than anything else I can do. Let's not stop saying Tehillim for him, let's pray for his family to have the strength to withstand this tragedy, let's pray for OUR family. We are one and the same. It doesn't matter what we call our Kippa, Yarmulka or koppel. It doesn't even matter of you don't call it anything at all. Let's pull together, let's pray together.

May he be a Meilitz Yosher for all of Klal Yisroel.

May he be a Meilitz Yosher for his family.

There's no difference.

T.N.TZ.B.H.

Pray

Just want to remind everyone to take a few minutes out of your busy schedule to say some Tehillim for Gilad ben Aviva (Gilad Shalit, the kidnapped soldier), and for Eliyahu ben Miriam Asheri. Try to imagine them as your brothers, then stop imagining. They are your brothers. They need our prayers.

At Ma'ariv last night, as they were saying Aleinu, I asked a fellow near me if he thought they would say Tehillim afterward. He shrugged and walked up to the Ba'al Tefillah and asked him if they would say some Tehillim. A small tumult ensued, some people said that you don't say Tehillim at night. I responded that if you really thought it was your brother, you'd be saying Tehillim regardless. But what was most shocking to me is that some of them had not even heard the story! They had no idea anything was going on!

Would you have heard about your brother's abduction?

Why didn't you?

Is it not important enough because it's happening a few thousand miles away?

I realize I can't fault someone for not hearing about something. Most people here don't own televisions and who has time to listen to the radio? The internet? I won't even go there. But I know this much; if it was your brother, you would know about it somehow.

And you would say Tehillim.

Even at night.

And while you're at it, add some tefillos for the rest of your extended family heading in to harm's way in Gaza. They can use them as well.

B'suros Tovos.

On terror & terrorists

The following is an AIM conversation between myself and LkwdGuy.
(Jameel, please don't kill me)

Shtender: You there?
LkwdGuy: Yeah, what's up?
Shtender: I'm considering posting something very controversial regarding the terrible story of the the attack on the army base in Israel.
LkwdGuy: What do you want to say?
Shtender: I'm thinking of writing that the attackers cannot be called terrorists, because they attacked an army base, not civilians, and that's called war. Sure, they are the enemy, but not terrorists. Terrorists attack civilians.
LkwdGuy: If they kidnapped and God forbid, if they kill him, they are terrorists. That's not part of war.
Shtender: Kidnapping is another word for a POW. If they harm him they may be breaking the Geneva Convention, but terrorist is still the wrong word.
LkwdGuy: No it's not. The point is to create terror through murder.
Shtender: A terrorist is someone who attacks civilians to create terror in the population so as to achieve a political objective.
LkwdGuy: Where did you get that definition? If they capture a soldier and then dismember him limb from limb on video, they are terrorists.
Shtender: By your logic the IDF are terrorists.
LkwdGuy: How does that follow?
Shtender: The IDF scares the population. They break the sound barrier over civilian areas and scare everyone to achieve an objective.
LkwdGuy: They don't kill people to instill fear.
Shtender: Who said they have to kill? Fear is fear. Terror is terror.
LkwdGuy: That's fine, I would have no issues with Hamas making loud noises.
Shtender: The point is not what you have issues with, but how you define a terrorist. What's the difference between a terrorist and a soldier? In my view, a terrorist is someone who attacks civilians to achieve a political goal.
LkwdGuy: Is making loud noises considered an attack?
Shtender: No, but you defined terror as instilling fear in a population, not an attack. The IDF scares people.
LkwdGuy: So do teachers.
Shtender: Hey, it's on you to draw the line in your definition, not me.
LkwdGuy: If they break the conventions of warfare with the intent of achieving political goals, they are terrorists. And don't tell me that Israel also does, because while I might agree that they sometimes do, they are doing it for security, not political reasons.
Shtender: Were the Vietnamese terrorists? How about the Japanese in WWII? No, they were just plain lowlife soldiers.
LkwdGuy: It's silly to argue about what label to give them. The word has no technical meaning. It can be loosely or strictly applied and it makes no difference.
Shtender: Aha! It's a buzzword, and it has alot of purpose. It's meant to rile up people and to delegitimize the attackers, which is fine, but in this case I think it's wrongly applied. As I said, it would be a very controversial post.
LkwdGuy: The attackers are not legitimate because they are part of a terrorist organ. If you want to argue that these members (by their own admission) of a terrorist group are not, in this specific instance, acting as terrorists and the only reason everyone is calling them that is to delegitimize them, be my guest, But I don't think that's a very compelling argument. Your point here is a very technical nitpick on word usage. It's not a correct commentary about what is actually going on there. And I would argue that the only reason people make your argument is to delegitimize what happens there daily.
Shtender: Now you're making a different argument. Either way, word usage is what's in question here. This kind of word usage has a very specific purpose, and calling them terrorists minimizes the effect when you actually have real terrorist attacks.
LkwdGuy: No it doesn't. This was a terrorist attack in my opinion.
Shtender: Yes it does! This was a military operation. They attacked soldiers. And how does this delegitimize what happens there daily? These kinds of attacks are not the norm. If you would just say that you call them terrorists because they belong to a terrorist organization, and stop there you might have an argument.
LkwdGuy: If you believe in moral equivalence between the two sides, then you are right. But no sensible person believes that. We understand that one side is a ruthless murderous group of people that make no differentiation between soldiers and women and children. If in this specific case they targeted soldiers, that does not make them any more legitimate. You are making a differentiation that they themselves would disagree with.
Shtender: Okay, I can buy that. Like I said, they are part of a terrorist organization. Fine. But your definition of terrorist is still wrong.
LkwdGuy: The definition is irrelevant.
Shtender: That's where you're wrong, it is not irrelevant at all. Throwing the terrorist word around lessens the effect necessary when there actually is a terrorist attack.
LkwdGuy: The only reason to make that argument is to give legitimacy to murderers. Once we establish that they don't care about killing babies for their cause, they are 100% terrorists. To point out that on a very technical level, the current attack is not terror only serves to legitimize what they did, when you and I both agree that this attack, viewed through the lens of the history of this group, is not part of war, but part of terror.
Shtender: They have a political objective. They do not have a problem using terror, and they usually do, and yes, they're scumbags. However, this attack was not a terrorist attack and I think if you call it that, you show that anytime you are attacked you run to use the terrorist buzzword to rile everyone up against the attackers, and that lessens the effect when there is an actual terrorist attack. Does this legitimize the attack? Perhaps. But maybe it IS a legitimate military attack. Were the Haganah terrorists? I don't think so, they attacked military objectives. LkwdGuy: You are arguing that this attack should be looked at by itself and that based on looking at it that way, it doesn't fit the definition of terror. I would respond that it makes no sense to judge them based on one case. If you look at the stated objectives of Hamas, and the means that they consistently employ to achieve those objectives you would understand beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are terrorists, regardless of whether or not the current attack fits a technical definition. To call them terrorists does not cheapen the word, because they are terrorists even if this attack does not fit the definition. They don't claim to exclusively target military objectives (as the Haganah did).
Shtender: Okay, fine. But now you are making an entirely different argument. I think I'll post this whole AIM conversation on Hayom.

Bear In [his] Mind

I am in the midst of planning a camping trip to the High Peaks Region of Adirondack State Park. For those who have never been there, it is a gorgeous part of New York State. I have camped in that area five times already and I would keep going back. The trip will consists of around two miles of backpacking, setting up camp in the vicinity of Marcy Dam, and day trips from there to some of the most stunning views available in this part of the country.

My partner in crime here at Hayom, Shtender, has joined us in the past for all of these trips. Our last trip was seven summers ago and that’s where the trouble started. After backpacking in and setting up camp and properly hanging our food, we turned in for the night. Sometime in middle of the night we had visitors. Now, I’m a pretty deep sleeper (or at least I was back then) and I heard nothing. But Shtender in the next tent claims they came so close to our tents that he was able to hear them breathing. The next morning we found that all the time spent securing our food was in vain. The bears had devoured most of our food. Whatever remained had bite marks and claw marks all over and was of no use to us. We had to hike out and restock.

Here is where I need to tap in to the persuasive powers of all [twenty] of our readers. Shtender claims that he is too traumatized from that experience (seven years ago) and he is refusing to join us this year. Personally, I think he is more traumatized by the thought of backpacking a few miles. If anyone can convince him to change his mind, I will forever be indebted to you.

A lesson from an Iranian

Ynet has a strongly biased article on Rabbi Lau's candidacy for President of Israel. That's to be expected from Ynet, but some of the hateful rhetoric went a little overboard. Some choice excerpts:

The presidency is not just a job. As someone who reached the pinnacle of his public service career as chief rabbi, Yisrael Meir Lau should have retired from public service and started volunteering. But he chose the material world over the spiritual and was appointed chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, a full time job.

That comment is obviously coming from someone who views being a rabbi as "just a job". Being a Rabbi is not just about a career, it's about helping those who need you. If there is a need for him in Tel Aviv, there is absolutely nothing wrong with him being Rabbi there. They're really reaching, I mean, if this is the best they got he should be a shoo-in.

The next two paragraphs include these 2 gems:

Israel's president must reflect the image of the Jewish people and must represent the entirety of it. Even if we speak the same language, Rabbi Lau doesn't even come close to representing me. Not because he's religious, but rather because during all his years of public service, he may have thrown a few sweet words towards the secular community, but he took no brave public steps to resolve the religious-secular conflict or the crisis over Jewish identity.

Immediately followed by:

Rabbi Lau showed no leadership, and never dared clash on a practical level with the sickos in the religious world.

Ahh, okay. Nothing against the religious. The hate is just bleeding through. Keep in mind, he started the article stating that:

Not that I have anything against religious people, quite the opposite.

Yeah.

Some more:

Rabbi Lau is not corrupt, but he has taken (apparently not insignificant) payment for officiating at weddings. This makes me, and many others, sick. As part of some research I conducted for the Tzohar organization (a group of
rabbis that conduct weddings free of charge) I found that most people feel rabbis should not charge for performing weddings because it is a mitzvah to do so.

As a comment on the site pointed out, that's a fine example of talking out of both sides of the mouth. The writer knew he could not get away with calling him corrupt, yet tries to do it anyway.

But here's what really got me. The following comment is from someone from Iran:

I don't understand why my country hates Israel since to me after reading this article on Rabbi Lau it seems that Israelis hate jews just like we do!

That pretty much says it all.

The Other Side

Every account that I have ever read of Israel's 1981 bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor, depicts the Israeli's as heros, and rightfully so.

If you ever wondered, as I did, what the Arab version of story looks like, here it is.

"Feeling" Kedusha

I think we can all agree that the Kosel is a holy place, or at least very close to a holy place. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say that the first time they were there or every time they go there they just "felt" the Kedusha.

Sure, there's a strong emotional feeling and I felt it the first time I was there too, a feeling of awe, a sense of the history that happened in that very spot, but is that "feeling" kedusha?

I don't think so.

Of the people that believe they felt the kedusha at the Kosel or in Yerushalaim, I wonder, do they feel the kedusha of a Beis HaMedrash? When they go to shul every day or on Shabbos, do they feel the kedusha of the shul, a Mikdash Me'aat? I'd be happy to admit being wrong, but I doubt it.

What they (or we) are feeling is strong emotion, not a feeling of Kedusha in my opinion.

Why Remember?

David of Lakewood, a very talented and entertaining writer, writes:

This Friday is the 20th of Sivan. Please spare one moment to remember Tach vTat.
Our grandparents and their tragedy.

Let'’s hope in 200 years from now (if G-d forbid Moshicach hasn't come) our great-grandchildren won'’t be here pleading to spare a moment to remember the Holocaust.

(Read the entire post. It's great writing.)

My thoughts:

I'm just thinking out loud, so please nobody shoot me.

What is the point of "remembering"? Of course, this is part of our history, but is there something more to "remembering"? If we "remember", does it somehow make their deaths more meaningful?

We have a mitzvah to rememberer the sheebud in mitzrayim, not merely for the sake of remembering but because only through understanding the slavery can we truly appreciate the miracle of the freedom.

We have a mitzvah of remembering the acts of Amalek, in order to fulfill the commandment of timcheh es zaicher amalek.

But what cause is served by "remembering" just for the sake of remembering? Is "remembering" a goal in and of itself?

As I said, I'm just thinking out loud, not expressing any opinions, so be kind to me.

Not so bad

I met someone from the blogvelt for the first time. He doesn't have his own blog, but comments extensively on assorted jblogs. Wasn't as traumatic as I expected.

Sedrah Psychology

ד וְהָאסַפְסֻף אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבּוֹ, הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה; וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיִּבְכּוּ, גַּם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, מִי יַאֲכִלֵנוּ בָּשָׂר. ה זָכַרְנוּ, אֶת-הַדָּגָה, אֲשֶׁר-נֹאכַל בְּמִצְרַיִם, חִנָּם; אֵת הַקִּשֻּׁאִים, וְאֵת הָאֲבַטִּחִים, וְאֶת-הֶחָצִיר וְאֶת-הַבְּצָלִים, וְאֶת-הַשּׁוּמִים. ו וְעַתָּה נַפְשֵׁנוּ יְבֵשָׁה, אֵין כֹּל--בִּלְתִּי, אֶל-הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ. ... י וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם, בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו--אִישׁ, לְפֶתַח אָהֳלוֹ; וַיִּחַר-אַף יְהוָה מְאֹד, וּבְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה רָע.

4 And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting; and the children of Israel also wept on their part, and said: 'Would that we were given flesh to eat! 5 We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have nought save this manna to look to.'-- .... 10 Moses heard the people weeping with their families, each one at the entrance to his tent, The Lord became very angry, and Moses considered it evil.


Rashi (11:10, bocheh) comment:

weeping with their families - Families gathered in groups weeping so as to publicize their grievance.

Then Rashi quotes another explanation from the medrash:

weeping with their families - Our Sages say that the meaning is: “concerning family matters,” that is, because intermarriage among family members was forbidden to them. [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:10, Yoma 75a]

The problem is quite obvious. The posuk related, not five verses earlier, exactly what the cause of their distress was. (Pasuk 5-6) We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have nought save this manna to look to. They were unhappy about the man. They didn't mention a word about arayos. What causes Chazal to put words and ideas into the mouth's of bnei yisroel that bears no resemblance to their explicitly stated complaints?

The answer, says R. Yaakov Kaminetsky, is based on a keen understanding of human nature. Often, a person may be down about something without consciously realizing what it is that's bothering him. He may lash out at those around him with very little provocation and for irrational reasons. The cause of his ire is not really the actions of those around him, that is just the trigger. The real cause is something much deeper that is irking him.

That, explains R. Yaakov, is what Chazal understood from these pesukim. It is inconceivable that a people that were being sustained directly from Hashem, that were eating a most perfect food, would be gathering their families together to cry about fish and cucumbers. There had to be a much deeper reason for their distress. That, say Chazal, was the recently received laws of forbidden relationships.

What I find fascinating about this pshat is that a simple reading of Rashi would lead one to believe that there is no possible way that the two pshatim quoted by Rashi could coexist. The midrashic interpretationtion seems to be so far fetched. R. Yaakov shows us how they both are true on two different levels.

Aylu v'aylu divrai elokim chayim.

Graphic details

I'm a graphic designer by trade. I've worked everywhere from web development firms to publishing powerhouses. I've been in this field for a while, but there is something I can't wrap my mind around.

Why do frum people and organizations accept horrible design as nice or even passable, when any other company or organization would see it for what it really is, namely garbage?

Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood is making their annual appeal for the kollel (the appeal targets thousands of the very same people who they are raising money for, but that's another discussion). I don't know who makes the decisions there about who to use for design, but the flyer that was plastered around the town was so badly done, I felt like I was physically slapped in the face every time I saw it. Like most frum design jobs, every single photoshop layer effect was used on practically every selection, drop shadows galore, typography that should get you arrested, clashing colors, and the large BMG logo on the bottom had perhaps the worst selection in the history of mankind, plus a drop shadow of course. (Pssst, a blast from the magic wand is not always the best way to make a selection!)

The non-frum world would never accept this fly-by-night design done by people who just discovered Photoshop and filters, yet in the frum world this is not only accepted, but considered nice! Overdone is nice to frum people. I can't figure out why.

People have no idea where to draw the line (pun intended).

The right equipment and a complete knowledge of the programs do not necessarily make a nice product. There is talent and skill involved as well as an eye for design. I mean, learn the color wheel for heaven's sake before you try to do a real design job. I see people all the time who've taken graphic design courses (the 3-6 month type of course). Most of the time the work they do is terrible. Sure, they know the programs well, they know the tools, but they lack an eye for it, they lack talent.

I get asked all the time to do jobs for frum companies and organizations. It's very hard. The client has no idea what nice design is, they just need everything to be as flashy as possible even if the design makes no sense at all.

True story: I was asked to do an album cover for a frum cd. I designed something which I felt was real classy; minimalistic and subtle. They nixed it because, in their words "it won't jump off the shelves". And they're right. The frum costumer in general is looking for the same thing the frum client is - overdone garbage.

Why are frum people different in this way? I don't get it.

Ruth Readings

This past shabbos we read how Naomi tried to discourage her daughter-in-law Ruth from converting. Naomi tells her:

טו וַתֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה שָׁבָה יְבִמְתֵּךְ, אֶל-עַמָּהּ, וְאֶל-אֱלֹהֶיהָ; שׁוּבִי, אַחֲרֵי יְבִמְתֵּךְ.

And she said: 'Behold, thy sister-in-law is gone back unto her people, and unto her god; return thou after thy sister-in-law.

Now there is a well known halacha that we must discourage converts and only after much persistence on their part may we accept them. But Naomi seems to take this much further than one would expect. She seems to be advising her daughter-in-law to return to her avodah zara. How could she do that? A Jew cannot encourage a non Jew to worship avoda zara.

Any ideas?

Keith Olbermann takes O'Reilly to task

Not exactly shocking that Bill O'Reilly doesn't really have a clue about many of the things he pretends to. I may have conservative viewpoints on many issues, but this man does not speak for me. Neither does Sean Hannity for that matter.