I Blinked

 

I learned today that Weight Watchers^® spokeswoman Jessica Simpson will be taking a break from the company's commercials during her second pregnancy.

The announcement said she was expecting her second child with fiance Eric Johnson. She and Johnson have been engaged, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Simpson), since November 2010. Their first daughter was born May 1, 2012.

Back in the day - my day, that is - a reputable company such as Weight Watchers never would engage the services of an unwed mother (or father) as its spokesperson. Marriage, back when it was between a man and a woman, was the norm for people who intended to raise a family.

A "single mother" meant a divorcee'; an unwed mother meant a woman with a child born out of wedlock, one who is "illegitimate." (This definition of "illegitimate" remains the first, i.e., most common, use of the word: not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically: born of parents not married to each other .)

Yet Hollywood, "Hollyweird" to some, seems to accept - perhaps even celebrate - unwed parents. Perhaps this is logical since Hollywood marriages, when there were marriages, often lasted less than the two-plus years (and two pregnancies) of Miss Simpson and her beau, Mr. Johnson. Perhaps the stigma of illegitimacy current in "my" day and in my part of the country no longer exists anywhere in the country; if it did, would a nationally advertised organization such as Weight Watchers have a Ms. Simpson as its spokesperson.

Unmarried couples have been "making babies" since men and women first discovered "there is a difference." Unmarried women have been "going it alone" with only a little help from a sperm bank and their favorite doctor for decades.

Judaism, unlike other beliefs, until "modern times" never considered the off-spring of an unwed woman illegitimate, primarily because a man having intercourse with an unwed woman was a form of marriage, one of three acceptable to the religious authorities. A "bastard" - in Hebrew ממזר - was the child of a forbidden liaison. I suppose that were Ms. Simpson and Mr. Johnson Jewish they would be considered married, although I am certain today's rabbis and religious leaders would balk at that status.

Still, the idea of entering into a progenitorial relationship before marriage is as foreign to me as "marriage" between two people of the same sex. (I'll accept a sanctioned relationship on an equal footing with traditional marriage, but don't call it "marriage." )

While there have been "unwed" mothers (and fathers) since the invention of state sanctioned unions, until the 1960's "free love" decade, flaunting such relationships and the off-spring of non-sanctioned unions were "discouraged."

I am a "geezer" - it beats the alternative - and the idea of an unwed mother, soon the unwed mother of two, as a spokesperson for a national company leaves me shaking my head.

Welcome to 2012

 

I recently read, but now cannot recall the source, that an observant (a/k/a "Orthodox") Jew may eat at a less observant (a/k/a non-"Orthodox"> Jew's table. This decision came from an "Orthodox" rabbi.

An aside. Sefardi and Mizrachi Jews don't divide Jews into European-defined camps of "Orthodox," "Conservative/Traditional," and "Reform/Liberal" or any other segregationist grouping (Reconstructionist, Humanistic, etc. and et al). To a Sefardi, all Jews are Jews - some simply are more observant and others less observant.

While I was pleased to know I could eat at the table of someone who normally ignores kashrut - assuming the host/hostess presented me with kosher food (catered by a kosher caterer or cooked in/with new single-use utensils and served on single-use plates, etc.) - I also realized that this revelation coming in 2012 was, in fact, nothing new.

Hakham Yosef Messas long-ago (c 1924) ruled this way.

From Ideals, Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals (http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/rabbi-joseph-messas)

An example of this is seen in (Hakham Yosef) Messas' experience in Tlemcen. He arrived in the city in 1924 and found that although there was proper shehitah, the kosher butcher shops were all open on the Sabbath. At this time, there wasn't yet a system of mashgihim who would testify to the kashrut of an establishment. Instead, all of Morocco followed the old approach of relying on the personal religious observance of the butchers. This practice was based on the assumption that if you could eat in someone's house without questioning if the food was kosher, you could also purchase from his shop. Yet this principle only applies to observant Jews, and in this case the butchers were all public Sabbath violators. According to Jewish law, these people simply did not have the religious credibility that observant Jews need from their butchers.

At first glance, there appears to be no avoiding the conclusion that since the butchers were not religiously reliable, observant Jews were obligated to give up meat. (As Messas explains, it proved impossible to open a shomer Shabbat store to sell the meat.) Yet was this the only possible conclusion? Messas recognized the many problems that would arise if he declared the butchers not kosher, not least of which would be that many people would simply ignore his declaration, thus destroying any communal standards of kashrut observance. He was also concerned for the honor of his community, which was, as he tells us, being portrayed as a place where everyone ate non-kosher. He therefore offered a radical halakhic justification for the status quo. He argued that since, according to one approach in the medieval authorities, the butchers were not violating any biblical commands which in Temple days would be regarded as a capital offense, they could still be regarded as trustworthy with regard to the meat they prepared and sold. He also offered other reasons why the local butchers, despite being Sabbath violators, could be believed in matters of kashrut. Messas surely knew that he was going out on a limb with this ruling, but under the circumstances he believed that it was the only proper halakhic answer, one that dealt with the reality he was confronted with (Mayim Hayyim 1:143).

While in earlier times it was obvious that one must avoid patronizing non-shomer Shabbat butchers, Messas felt that in his era, when so many were not observant, it was important to find a leniency. This is just one of many examples where Messas shows how dynamic halakhic decision-making can be, and how it can lead to some surprising conclusions. In this particular case it was very hard for those outside of his community to agree with his conclusions. Yet as R. Nathan Neta Leiter wrote to Messas, after expressing his disagreement: "I can find one justification for you, and that is what our Sages said, ‘Don't judge your fellow until you are in his place,' and I do not know the nature of your country" (Tziyun le-Nefesh Hayah, no. 29).

This trend of Messas is seen in other responsa as well. His most famous halakhic ruling is that in an era when women generally go about with uncovered hair, it is no longer regarded as nakedness. As such, it is entirely permissible today for married women not to cover their hair (Otzar ha-Mikhtavim, vol. 3, no. 1884, Mayim Hayyim, vol. 2, Orah Hayyim no. 110). He defended this opinion at length, and a well-known Moroccan halakhist from the subsequent generation, R. Moshe Malka, later chief rabbi of Petah Tikvah, expressed complete agreement with Messas' view (Ve-Heshiv Moshe, nos. 33-34).

The approach of limud zekhut, that is, of finding justification for the practices of the masses, has a long history in Judaism. It is this approach that Messas adopts in his responsa on women uncovering their hair. Since, as he tells us, the wives of pious people do this, there was a great motivation to find it halakhically permissible.

As Shlomo allegedly said אין שם חדש תחת השמש

Ahh, Europe

Could it happen here?

 

An op-ed piece titled No-go Areas for Jews in Europe at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12605, lead off with

"Surprised that Israelis entering Jordan are required to deposit religious Jewish items, like skullcaps and tefillin, for "security reasons?

"It's happening in many European countries as well, where Jews are once again in grave danger and Judeophobia has become the common currency of politics."

The article goes on to cite anti-Jewish/anti-Israel attacks in

* Denmark

* Finland

* France

* Germany

* Holland (The Netherlands)

* Italy

* Norway

* Sweden

* UK

We are told not to appear Jewish - no kippot (yarmulkas/skull caps), no "Jewish" jewelry such as a mogan David; in fact, don't even carry a book by a Jewish author!

A few weeks ago a Jewish man was attacked and rendered unconscious in a Paris metro. How did the anti-Semitic mob recognize that he was Jewish? Because of a philosophy book by the chief rabbi of Paris that he was reading in the metro when he was attacked.

Granted, the North American (Canadian and U.S.) mentality is far removed from the mentalities of Europe and its off-shore islands, but as the U.S. and Canada continue to welcome people with anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hatreds, Jews must wonder: "Can it happen here?"

There are only a few places in the world in which a Jew - particularly an observant Jew - can live without constant fear of being attacked.

Even in Israel, it seems, Arabs have greater protection than Jews. In the U.S., liberal Jews lead the way in demonizing Israel and observant Jews and their practices (e.g., circumcision and ritual slaughter).

I'm not writing about הרידים (haridim) or "hasid"im who tuck their trouser legs into their stockings; I'm referring to ordinary Jews who have the nerve to display their Jewishness, perhaps their religiosity.

The only way to prevent violent anti-Jewish and anti-Israel attacks, be they verbal or physical, is to meet the enemy - and be assured, the provocateurs are very much enemies of Jews and Israel - on the enemy's terms.

If verbally attacked, file a complaint with the police, and then file a civil action against the offender.

If physically attacked, fight back if possible; otherwise, involve the police and then bring a civil action.

For (almost) every criminal violation, there is a civil action that can be brought. A civil action is easier to win - and often has a bigger impact on the offender. Don't ignore the civil option.

I grew up in Miami (not the Beach) at a time when anything anti-Jewish was rare. It happened, but in my personal experience, a strong response usually caused the perpetrator to "rethink" his words or actions.

The "American" way, the Jewish Defense League (ADL) - vs. the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) - way is "If you push me, I will push you back . . . harder." Bullies, and that is what most anti-Semites are at heart; never anticipate a strong response.

That is not to suggest anyone should go looking for trouble or travel alone in an unsafe (for any reason) area; it is to suggest that we must not be like the Europeans who cower at shadows, who let bullies rule their lives.

Maybe martial arts ought to be part of every Jews' education. It's good for both physical and mental health.

As Theo. Roosevelt is credited with saying: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Let the "big stick" be a willingness to fight back; to defend ourselves from bullies in every way we can.

AJC's chutzpah

 

According to a June 27, 2012 article in HaAretz headlined Will Israel's chief rabbi eventually end up like the Archbishop of Canterbury?, the American Jewish Congress (AJC) is calling "to overturn decision to recognize Reform and Conservative rabbis, the American Jewish Committee is proposing to strip the Chief Rabbinate of its power so it will only hold a ceremonial role. "

The article is at http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/will-israel-s-chief-rabbi-eventually-end-up-like-the-archbishop-of-canterbury.premium-1.444455

The AMERICAN Jewish Congress.

America, where assimilation is more and more speedily taking its toll on Judaism.

America, where inter-marriage between non-observant Jews and non-Jews is more common than not.

Wherer does the AJC "get off" trying to revamp Israel's politics.

If Conservative and Reform Jews want change in Israel, let them close their wallets until the changes they want are implemented. Better, these Conservative and Reform Jews ought to move to Israel so they can have legitimate political clout.

For the Sefardim, the whole issue of paying Conservative and Reform religious leaders a salary is nonsense. Most Sefardim either are (a) observant or (b) heloni (non-observant). Even the heloni pay to support the synagogues and religious establishment without a great deal of complaint.

Granted, there ARE things in the "religious establishment" that need to be reviewed with an intent to bring about change; to make the rabbinute more "humane" and in tune with the 21st century. The in-fighting, such as the recent wars on conversions, is an embarrassment to the Chief Rabbinate, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi.

International airports?

 

I've had the pleasure of cooling my heels in a number of "international" airports.

Since flights into and out of the host country were to other countries, and since, in the U.S., the presence of U.S. Customs (and Border Patrol) automatically designates an airport as "international" I can say I've been in a few such fields.

But I have been in only one truly international airport and that one is in Detroit Michigan.

The last time I flew out of Lod, Israel's international air gateway, I listened as flights were called in Hebrew and English.

My gate was previously used by Alitalia, an Italian carrier. I asked the girls at the check-in counter if any of them spoke Italian. Answer: No. English and Hebrew.

As I waited for my flight, I listened to calls to board a LOT flight to Poland. All announcements were made in Hebrew and English, not Polish.

But Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport- that's another matter.

Detroit is a major hub - or was a major hub - of the airline once known as Northwest. (It has since become part of Delta.)

As I waited for my flight I heard announcements in several languages of the Far East. Announcements also may have been - they didn't catch my attention - in Spanish as well. English is a "given."

At Miami International and Hollywood-Fort Lauderdale International (which actually is located in Dania Beach), I hear announcements made only in English and Spanish.

Since most travelers passing through Miami and Hollywood-Fort Lauderdale airports are coming from or going to Spanish-speaking countries, there is not much call for other languages. But, there are enough people from Europe, Israel, and now the Far east to warrant announcements in other languages, at least when calling flights for those countries' national carriers and code shares.

For my money, of all the "international" airports I have visited, and there have been a few, only Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport deserves the title "international" airport.

Learn the language

 

I live in south Florida. The area has a large number of Spanish-speakers, primarily from Cuba. There also is a large Hatian population. We also have immigrants from Latin/South America.

Most of the Cubans have been here for many years; many since the 1960s.

The other day a charter bus slammed into an overpass at Miami International airport, killing two passengers and injuring at least 11 others.

The accident should not have happened.

According to the accidenrt report, the bus driver got lost on his way from Sweetwater, an independent political unit surrounded by Miami, to West Palm Beach. A map shows that the route between the two communities was an almost direct path - Tamiami Trail (FL 836) to I-95 North to West Palm. FL 836 skirts Miami International's southern limits.

Somehow the driver managed to turn into Miami International and then, ignoring signs, drove the bus under an overpass marked by multiple signs stating that high vehicles, such as the bus, must avoid trying to pass under the bridge.

About the only way a sober driver could have ignored the signs - and there is no indication the driver was less than sober and awake - is if the driver, like his passengers, failed to comprehend the language of the country, English.

So far, according to local police, no charges have been filed against the driver.

If my assumption is correct that the driver's command of English was severely limited, it is the driver's employer that should be charged. The employer failed to assure the driver was able to read, comprehend, and obey road signs.

(Florida does not require a knowledge of English to pass either the written test - available in Spanish and Creole - or the driving test, yet 99% of all road signs in south Florida are in English; many are graphics or a combination of text and graphics.)

I understand that learning a "new" language can be difficult for older people. My mother-in-law speaks very little Hebrew even though she has lived in Israel since the 1960s. But she, unlike immigrants to America, lacked any opportunities to learn the language. Later immigrants to Israel, including this scrivener, had the "ulpan advantage."

In the U.S., English as a Second Language courses have been offered for 100 years or more, either free or at low cost, during the daytime or in evenings to accommodate almost everyone.

Like my mother-in-law, many of the non-English speakers cluster into "first language" communities, meaning that their social, and to some extent business, lives are carried on in their native language. This reduces any impetus to learn a new language, to integrate into the larger community.

(When I was a youngster growing up in Miami, signs in store windows proclaimed two things: "Conditioned Air" (air conditioning) and "Si Habla Espanol" (Yes, Spanish spoken). Then, in the 60s, the signs started to change to "We speak English" and by the 80s, if you didn't speak Spanish in Miami, you didn't do business in Miami.)

I lived in Israel from 1975 to 1979. I went to learn to learn Hebrew. Following my 6 month stint in an ulpan (intensive language course, an American innovation, by the way) I could have gone to an English-speaking community such as Netanya or an American-populated kibbutz and survived nicely on my English knowledge.

Instead I moved away from English-speaking communities to one where few spoke the language. To deal with my grocer, who spoke 7 languages, none of which was English, I had to speak Hebrew. Fortunately I had a good dictionary. Later I worked as a technical writer - in English - but the engineers with whom I worked insisted on adding to my Hebrew vocabulary and grammar, and my "Russian" co-workers could converse with me only in our common Hebrew.

The bottom line: I was in Israel. The two national languages are Arabic and Hebrew. If I wanted to survive in Israel I had to know Hebrew, the dominate language where I lived and worked. I could have survived with English as long as I didn't venture out of my own group, but then I would not be living in Israel.

Trust me, I was past my 20s when I got on my first flight to Lod. Learning Hebrew - not only a different language but a different alphabet - was a challenge, but to live in Israel, learning at least a survival-level Hebrew was a must. (I'm still no Ben Yehuda, but I "get by.")

As an English-speaker in the U.S. who has struggled to learn another language, I have a problem with non-English speakers who come to "my" country" and (apparently) cannot make an effort to learn English, the national, albeit unofficial, language. Certainly a person working here ought to have some command of the language, more so if the person holds the lives of others in his or her hands (as did the bus driver).

Again, IF the driver lacked sufficient English skills to read and comprehend road signs, the fault lies with the driver's employer and, to be fair, the State of Florida for licensing the driver in the first place.

The bottom line: As far as we know at this point, there is no excuse for the accident that claimed two lives and caused injuries to at least 11 others.

Praise where it is due

 

I just had a 6-day stay at Hollywood Memorial Regional Hospital in Hollywood Fl. I was in to fix a "Triple A", a/k/a "abdominal aortic aneurysm.

If you want to see what happened to me, go to (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksjhfw_Pcx8&feature=player_detailpage) or, for the squeamish, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KCzCeK1kbTE). Wonderful thing, the Internet.

Several weeks ago, during a routine visit with my Primary Care Physician (PCP) - he's an Internal Medicine specialist, but I'm old enough to still call him a "GP" (General Practitioner).

I told my PCP, Eduardo Perez-Stable, in casual conversation that I often had a strong pulse in my abdomen. He checked and con firmed and, leaving me on the examining table left to arrange an ultra-sound for the next morning.

These are the things that set Perez-Stable apart from far too many other doctors: he listens and he acts. Of course, like most physicians, he's always running behind schedule.

When my PCP got the ultra-sound results the next day he arranged an appointment with a cutter (surgeon) on my insurance company's list.

A few days later I met Jeffery Hertz . Hertz and his partner, Author Palamara specialize in vascular surgery. Hertz sent me off for a Computed Tomography (CAT) scan. The scan, which wasn't too bad even for this claustrapobe, turned up a 7.5 cm aneurysm - and a smaller one "off to the side."

I have a serious anxiety about intubation - sticking a tube down the patient's throat to both monitor heart and lung activity and to pass O2. I met with the resident anesthesiologist emeritus who after collecting answers to numerous questions told me to tilt my head back and open my mouth. His opinion: "You've got a big mouth, you'll be OK." I felt like Joe E. Brown. This gentlemen was not to be my gas passer (anesthesiologist).

The hospital activated a new computer system the day before I checked in and with it all the related confusion. Originally scheduled to report for pre-op at 7 a.m. for a 9 a.m. grand opening, I was told to show up at 5:30 a.m. By the time I got to the OR, it was nearly 10 a.m.

In the OR I met "my" gas passer,Lauren Kimmel, who also assured me that sticking tubes down my throat was not a problem. Nor was it a problem to stick catheters in my neck and hand, or even to install a nasal feeding tube (the latter after I was "napping").

At 10:15, Hertz said, essentially, "to hell with the computers, my patient comes first; we're going to start." About 90 minutes later I was in post-op, later transferred to a general surgery ICU. After 2 days in the ICU I was transferred, thanks to the cutters' "proteczia," to the cardiac wing.

Good, bad, and ugly

The nurses and assistants - no LPNs at Hollywood Memorial - were almost without exception Tony-the-Tiger great. There was one young woman ("young" being relative) who drew blood three nights in a row - if she didn't have to wake me to do the job I would have slept through the venipuncture, she was that good.

During my stay I had at least 3 AvMed contact internists visit, usually only for a minute or two. The cutter turned over most post-op medical concerns to them. What concerns? For one thing, a major operation drives the liver nuts and its insulin production goes up and down like a yo-yo. Add to my already "high" sugar levels and you can understand why my fingers looked like pin cushions at the end of my 6-day stay.

The only really nasty part of my stay at Hollywood Memorial was the food. But, to be fair, Memorial was only partially to blame.

One of the conditions for my release was to prove my digestive system was fully functional. (I'm being delicate here.) Keep in mind that I had only ice chips and water since Sunday prior to the operation - 4 plus days with an empty "system." So what was my first meal? Rice and a slice of salmon. Rice, alas, is contra-indicated for my condition. The remaining meals were tilapia under a sauce that tasted like kosher salt in tomato paste, absolutely disaster for my blood pressure which, like the sugar, went nuts from the surgery. Inedible. Fortunately, the hospital allows food to be brought in by relatives and friends, so between my wife and a couple of friends, I did manage to eat something. My capacity for food had, by this time, greatly diminished - as had my weight; from 182 to 171. (Having major surgery is NOT a recommended weight loss option.)

I'm told the hospitals regular food is no better than the imported-from-Miami kosher meals; small consolation. What I fail to understand is why the hospital's dieticians don't give directions to the caterer regarding what is suitable - and not - for specific patients.

Jump to November 28 - 13 "post-op" days - and I'm 90% back to (my) normal.

I now can make the 0.7 mile walk to Nahar Shalom which makes everyone happy - even the surgeon who insists that I do some form of exercise. The rabbi is happy since there's one more in the minyan-plus, and of course this scrivener is happy to be able to make the trek.

It took about three weeks before I had any real hunger pangs.

The interesting thing, and even the surgeon has a hard time believing it, is that I NEVER had any post-op pain; not in the hospital and not at home. Some discomfort as my shirt rubbed first against the 23 staples that held me together and later the skin shaved hairless with a dull razor before the surgery. But no pain.

Would I go the "open repair" again. G-d willing I won't have to, but given the size of the aneurysm, it is a definite "probably."

Between the surgical and medical staffs and all the prayers and תהלים said for me by friends and people I don't even know, I am - baruk haShem - in great shape for the shape I'm in.

A Geezer's Trials & Tribulations

Medicare "Pick-a-Plan" time again

It's a frustrating time of year for geezers - that's anyone of Medicare age.

It's the annual time to "Pick A Plan."

I have a pretty good plan. I like my Primary Care Physician (PCP), a fellow by the name of Eduardo Perez-Stable. He's a Family Practitioner which, as a geezer, I translate to be "general practitioner" or "GP." I've got a lot of respect for GPs and this one in particular.

(When I was in the Air Force, back when Orville and Wilber were testing the winds at Kitty Hawk, NC, a surgeon told me that if I ever went into medicine - I was a corpsman then - I should specialize because, he said, you work half as hard and make twice the money. The guy was a gas passer and cutter and only slightly crazy, but that's why most GPs became Family Practitioners or Internal Medicine specialists.)

Anyway, I had my PCP before I had my Medicare Advantage program. When I joined The Plan, he wasn't a provider and I was forced to find a new PCP. Shortly thereafter I discovered that he had signed on with my Advantage plan and I immediately went back to his office.

Now, when it comes time to renew with The Plan I make certain that Eduardo Perez-Stable still is on the PCP list; if he's not, I'll go elsewhere.

The first year I was with this plan I had a really good ophthalmologist.

But he got dropped.

However he had a partner who the plan deemed acceptable.

Effective January 1, the partner no longer will be a plan provider, so I have to find a new ophthalmologist. Since I have borderline diabetes and since I am developing cataracts, it's in my best interest to keep the same physician over the long term.

But apparently that is not a concern of the Medicare Advantage provider.

I also am dealing with a cutter and that is "double jeopardy."

The cutter (surgeon) was on the provider list, but he and his partner changed practice affiliations, basically from one hospital to another. My plan has him on its provider list through the end of the year - but after that? When I called the plan's Help line I was told the cutter was terminating his relationship with the plan. The cutter's office manager denies this.

With Medicare Advantage, anything costing more than $9.95 (I'm being facetious) requires pre-approval, "authorization." It took about 3 weeks to get a CAT scan authorized. Question is, was the delay due to the plan or was it due to the cutter's office manager dragging her heels. She told me last Friday she would start the pre-surgery authorization process that afternoon; now, Tuesday, it still hasn't gone to the insurance company, I'm beginning to suspect the problem is with the cutter's office staff.

Less-than-efficient medical office staffs seem a constant in south Florida.

Approvals or not, the surgery - which is not an option - will result in a long-term relationship with the cutter; not just a few weeks or months, but annual checks. I would hope he and the Medicare Advantage provider can put the patient first - that's me, by the way - and engage in their own long-term relationship.

Of course there are other cutters who can read my records. I've moved around the country and transferred medical records from one doctor to another, but now I'm "situated" and have no plans to relocate.

I've got a good PCP - he actually listens (which is why he's always running late) - and I will sign up for any plan that includes him.

But I don't like hunting up new specialists every year.

To be fair, I don't know if my second local ophthalmologist quit the plan or the plan quit him.

The plan I'm on is pretty good - I compare plans annually - but I really would like a continuing relationship with my specialists. Apparently that is not a luxury I will enjoy.

The rabbi said

In the morning blessings (ברכות השחר) of traditional congregations, men read "שלא עשני גוי."

According to the rabbi, in some non-traditional congregations, men read "שעשני ישראל."

According to the rabbi, the second version is not an option; it is not "acceptable." I'm not sure of the rabbi's source; perhaps Ben Ish Hai.

It seems to me that the latter - the non-traditional version - is the better of the two.

Why?

First, some words about the word "goy."

Goy means nation and many times in the Torah - the Final Authority - we, Jews, are referred to as "goy." To cite just two well-known instances:

G-d promises Abraham to make his progeny a "goy gadol" (לך לך, בראשית י''ב ב')

G-d tells us we are a "goy kadosh," a holy nation. (יתרו, שמות י''ט ו')

According to a Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goy), the word "goy and its variants" appear more than 550 times in the Torah.

It wasn't until the luminaries of the Talmuds that "goy" begin referring to non-Jews.

The word nokre (נוכרי) is the word for a non-Jew, literally a "foreigner."

It's interesting to note that at one time אם הארץ meant community leaders, not as it does now, simpletons and uneducated people.

Second, what about converts, גרי צדק ? While a convert who leads a service is to read "שלא עשני גוי," a convert hardly can recite those words privately since HaShem did make the convert a נוכר. It might be argued that HaShem moved the person's heart to convert, but in the context of the whole, that doesn't work.

ברכות השחר are not inviolable. Neither is the amedah; proof is comparing the Sefardi/Mizrachi version with the standard Ashkenazi version. Where we have two distinct paragraphs dealing with weather - ברכנו" בקיץ ו"ברך עלינו" בחרף - the Ashkenazi has one paragraph with a few words swapped out depending upon the season. For the record, if an Ashkenazi is heading services for an Sefardi/Mizrachi minyan, he reads the Sefardi/Mizrachi version (just as an Ashkenazi cohen is obliged to bless the congregation during morning services). Equally, a Sefardi/Mizrachi leading services for an Ashkenazi congregation reads the Ashkenazi version of the amedah.

The "bottom line" for me is that it matters less WHAT is said than that the prayers are said.

גשם, גשם, מתי הגשם?

Praying for rain

The other day on שמיני חג עצרת we did תרקון הגשם which, for Sefardim and Mizrachim at least means a change in the introduction of the amedah from מוריד התל to משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם.

As it happened, that morning we were blessed with a deluge - it came before the "official" appeal for rain, but in Florida, summer is the rainy season.

But there are, again, "for Sefardim and Mizrachim at least," there is another rain change in the amedah.

The problem, if it is a problem, is that the second change doesn't happen in concert with the first change.

The second change, when we go from ברכנו ד' ...בכל-מעשי ידינו to ברך עלינו ד' ... את השנה הזות happens on the 7th of MarHasvan (מרחשון), two weeks after שמיני חג עצרת.

Why?

The rabbis were being considerate. Really.

We have three "pilgrimage" holidays each year, holidays when we would go up to Jerusalem with our offerings.

Since "back in the day" travel was a bit slower - although with all the airline snafus maybe not much slower - time was allowed following a Sukot for people to make it home before we seriously prayed - asked for - rain.

On the flip side. we start to ask for תל (dew) from the end of the first Passover seder - people still had time to bring their Pesach sacrifices without fearing a rain storm on the way. Unlike תרקון הגשם, תרקון התל changes in both places in the amedah on the same day.

Sources:

וזרח השמש של נרה''ג שלום משאש

מחזור לשלש רגלים

While we start to dry out in Florida, the rains have begun in Israel

Why 30 minutes?

Israel's "defense minister," who often seems less than pro-Israel, praised the IDF for downing a drone - UPV or UnPiloted Vehicle - after it had been in Israeli airspace for only 30 minutes.

The IDF contends that the drone "probably" was performing electronic surveillance.

Near Dimona.

The IDF reports that it thinks the drone came from someplace other than Aza (Gaza).

That does not rule out the Sinai nor does it eliminate the possibility of a ship-launched attack.

Even though the drone apparently did no damage to anything, the drone's presence was very much an attack on Israel.

Granted, low-flying drones are difficult to detect, but given the payloads they can carry - everything from intelligence-gathering equipment to explosives - it seems that the IDF needs to do better than to allow a half-hour fly over by an drone from an unknown source.

Consider how much territory a high-flying drone can photograph within a half-hour.

Even a propeller-driven drone can send back thousands of images; images that can be programmed into long-range missiles.

Contrary to the defense minister's noise, the IDF was 35 minutes too late in responding to the drone attack. It should - it must - identify and destroy invading aircraft before they cross into Israeli airspaces. (A high-flying reconnaissance aircraft can photograph objects at sufficient angles that the vehicle need not cross over into enemy territory.)

Most people reading this are too young to remember the damage caused by V-series rocket bombs the nazis sent over England during World War Two. The drones, albeit with different engines, can cause the dame damage to Israel if they are loaded with explosives rather than cameras.

The IDF does NOT deserve commendation for downing the drone after "only" 30 minutes in Israeli airspace and the defense minister needs to make that clear to the IDF's commanders. He must stop praising the IDF for failures.

AARP

NOT for me

I am AARP-eligible. Have been for years.

I even joined one year for the "discounts."

I quit AARP when I discovered the discounts were of no value to me.

But now, there is "no way" I'd ever buy AARP membership or any product associated with the AARP.

It is endorsing candidates.

AARP OUGHT to be politically neutral.

AARP currently is propagating the Obama lies - how healthcare will be lost to seniors, how our taxes will soar if Romney is elected.

That's pure and simple bovine excrement.

I'm not suggesting that some things coming out of the Romney camp don't smell like nature's own fertilizer - I've lived on horse and cattle ranches and I've moved an outhouse or two so I of what I "smell."

Probably the thing I find most egregious about AARP's claiming into bed with the incumbent is that fact that AARP members - certainly not all of whom are enamored by the president with a questionable past - are paying to place advertisements for Obama.

If Romney wins in November, and frankly I hope he does, the AARP organization stands to lose some clout in the District. It's paid management just shot itself in the foot.

No longer representing ALL seniors, AARP now represents only liberal seniors, seniors who will swallow the president's malarkey. Maybe seniors who want to hobnob with Hollywood's rich and - at least in their own minds - famous.

While I cannot - while I will not - object to individual AARP members following Obama's yellow brick road - and we now know, after nearly 4 years of Obama's care that "this isn't Kansas anymore, Toto" - I object to an organization that claims to represent me based solely on my "advanced years". AARP does NOT represent me.

I did not fall for the Democrats "creative bookkeeping."

I know my sons will not have Medicare as I know it.

They know they won't have Medicare as I know it today.

Social Security, once a "voluntary tax" by the way, also will be "modified" over the coming decades, sooner if Obama and his cronies stay in office and raid the once sacrosanct Social Security fund.

Change is inevitable.

In order to keep Medicare and Social Security well into the future, someone has to pay the piper.

The United States has one of the lowest tax rates - even for the middle class - of any country in the world. It also has one of the least funded social networks. A typical Norwegian pays a roughly 43% tax rate.

An Israeli earning more than US$125,000 can expect to pay a whopping 48% tax rate.

But Norway and Israel both offer many more social services, including subsidized health care.

Americans so far are unwilling to pay for Norway-type social services.

Whether or not the social services are "worth" it is in the eye of the beholder. I lived in Israel and know that health care, especially for the elderly, is not all that great; on the other hand, my daughter and grand-daughter do well by the system, a system into which they contribute.

I suppose I would not object quite so strongly to AARP's political stance if it was based on facts, on reality.

Only a Democrat with blinders can believe the numbers the AARP is pandering to the people.

And as for Sesame Street and PBS - I, too, like Oscar the Grouch and the Cookie Monster, but given some of the federally funded programming I think a small stipend from the Federal pocket is sufficient. There are plenty of organizations around that will sponsor PBS' liberal viewpoints; besides, unless you are living in Never-Never Land, PBS already has a abundance of commercials - out and out advertising.

(I'm waiting for Cookie Monster to have a Betty Crocker logo on his furry blue chest or Oscar the Grouch to sport a Waste Management baseball cap.)

Sukot traditions - מנהגי סוכות

Question: Is it a mitzvah to build a sukah?

The mitzvah is "לישב בסוכה" (to sit in the sukah).

In theory, if a person builds a sukah but fails to sit in the sukah, the person missed the mitzvah.

Unless . . .

Unless the builder lets someone else sit in the sukah.

By providing an opportunity for another to perform a mitzvah, the "provider" also gets a share of the mitzvah.

This "sharing a mitzvah" is why, the rabbis tell us, when a person buys a kavod (honor) for another - e.g., a wife for her husband, a father for a son, a friend for a friend - both the buyer and the "do'er" get credit for the mitzvah. (Thanks to my wife, Sara, I was a cohen (first aliyah) on the first day of Rosh HaShana (ו'' פקד את שרה); our resident cohen was AWOL. She may have regretted her choice; the second aliyah included ...כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקלה).

The following are North African - ממרוקו עד לוב - traditions מנהגים. Check with your rabbi for the traditions of your community.

 

Sit or stand?

According to Hakham Shalom Messas in ילקות שמ''ש the blessing לישב בסוכה (to sit in the sukah) normally is said sitting. The exceptions are erev Yom Tov and erev Shabat when the blessing is part of the kidush (קידוש), then לישב בסוכה is said standing. (Many Sefardim sit for the kidush following musaf.) R. Messas notes that אין צריך להקפיד לאומרה בעמידה in both cases. He adds that it is not required to sit in the sukah before the kidush.

On the first night, the kidush (קידוש) and שהחיינו are said standing, after which we sit. Hakham Yosef Messas in הוד יוסף חי, opines if שהחיינו was said by the men before the kidush - e.g., when the sukah is completed - שהחיינו after the kidush is omitted. (A woman says שהחיינו when she lights the Yom Tov candle{s}.)

On hol hamoed, when there is no kidush, לישב בסוכה is said immediately after המוציא (blessing on the bread/hallah).

From R. Yosef Messas in הוד יוסף חי: לישב בסוכה is said only if the meal includes המוציא (bread/hallah) and ends with ברכת המזון; if a meal includes only rice or couscous and not bread, לישב בסוכה is omitted.

 

Waving the lulav

According to Hakham Shalom Messas in ילקות שמ''ש, the lulav is waved as set forth by HaAri z"l:

Turn the body to the south, extend the lulav three times, bringing it back to the body each time.

Turn the body to the north and repeat the waving/shaking as before.

Turn the body to the east and repeat the waving/shaking as before.

Still facing east, extend the lulav upward three times, bringing it back to the body each time.

Still facing east, extend the lulav downward three times, bringing it back to the body each time.

Turn the body to the west, extend the lulav three times, bringing it back to the body each time.

According to the Shulhan Aruk (Yosef Messas in הוד יוסף חי the order is:

East

North

West

South

Also from הוד יוסף חי. the green stem of the lulav should be facing the person holding the lulav. As for the etrog, it should be free of defects, but the person buying the etrog need not examine the etrog "with a magnifying glass" else there would be no end to the inspection. The etrog shape should NOT be "round as a ball."

From דברי שלום ואמת: The lulav may be decorated by wrapping a colorful string or ribbon a la a barber pole or candy cane; many put a ribbon or string crown (bow) at the top.

(Assembling the lulav for both Sefardim and Ashkenazim is given on the Midrash Ben Ish Hai Web site at http://www.midrash.org/halakha/tielulab.html. Unfortunately if fails to show a Sefardi-decorated lulav.)

 

Going around the bema (haskafot)

According to Hakham Shalom Messas in ילקות שמ''ש, every day of Sukot except Shabat, after musaf, a Torah is taken from the ark to the bemah and the worshippers go around the bemah one time. On Hoshana Rabah the worshippers make seven trips around the bemah. (On Shabat the haskafot are recited, but there are neither lulav and etrog nor processional.)

There is a tradition among some that on Hoshana Rabah even worshippers lacking lulav and etrog also join the procession around the bemah.

 

Hoshana Rabah

According to Shalom Messas in ילקות שמ''ש on Hoshana Rabah the worshippers make seven trips around the bemah.

There is a tradition among some that on Hoshana Rabah even worshippers lacking lulav and etrog also join the procession around the bemah.

During the morning service:

מלך " and " הוא האלוים are recited two times each, just as is done from Rosh HaShana to Yom Kippor

נשמת כל חי follows שירת הים

שיר המעלות ממעמקים follows ישתבח as is done between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippor.

There are some traditions (e.g. Bet El) that recite נשמת כל חי after עלינו.

 

 

A Yom Tov aside. In Morocco, according to ילקות שמ''ש, lighting a match was permitted on Yom Tov. When the Moroccans moved to Israel - which most, but not all, did - the younger olim began to follow the majority and gave up lighting matches; only the senior olim (such as my חותן) kept the old tradition.

 

הג סוכות שמח!

Amusing but not funny

Pollard or "Blind Sheikh": Who goes free first?

While President Barak Obama keeps Jonathon Pollard in a cell he apparently is willing to release the mastermind of the 1993 Twin Towers bombing and primary plotter to destroy tunnels and bridges into New York City. Even allowing Pollard to attend his father's burial - escorted under armed guards - was too much for Obama. See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145073

An article in the Jewish Press of 20 September 2012 titled Holder and Clinton Considering Release of ‘Blind Sheikh’, reports that eight members of congress sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging them to keep the "blind sheikh," Omar Abdel-Rahman , in prison.

Obama wants Abdel-Rahman sent to Egypt on "humanitarian" grounds.

Pollard stole secrets for an ally (Israel); all Abdel-Rahman did was

attempt to bring down the Twin Towers,

destroy access to New York City, and

authorize Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden's jihad against America.

Of course Obama bowed to Saudi princes, traveled to Egypt, and supports the "Arab Spring" that toppled friendly governments that generally protected American interests.

The letter to Clinton and Holder was signed by the following U.S. Representatives:

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA)

House Appropriations Subcommittee on State of Foreign Operations Chairwoman Kay Granger (R-TX)

House Committee on Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY)

House Committee on Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA)

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX)

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI)

House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Pete King (R-NY)

The letter, for which the Representatives are still awaiting a response, follows:

September 19, 2012

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary
U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Attorney General Holder and Secretary Clinton,

We are concerned about recent reports that the Obama administration is considering the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, better known as the “blind sheikh,” to the custody of Egypt for humanitarian and health reasons. If these reports are true, such considerations would be extremely disconcerting as release of this convicted terrorist should not happen for any reason.

The blind sheikh inspired the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, ordered the 1997 massacre of Western tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and issued the Islamic religious ruling that Osama bin Laden relied upon to justify the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. He is serving a life sentence at a federal penitentiary, for seditious conspiracy to wage war upon the United States, based on his role in a 1993 plot to conduct assassinations and destroy bridges, tunnels and other landmarks in New York City. The blind sheikh was the first person convicted under this statute since the Civil War. Nonetheless, the newly-elected government in Egypt has indicated that his release is amongst its top foreign policy priorities.

While considerations regarding the blind sheikh’s release would be disturbing in any context, they are particularly alarming given recent events. The 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks was marked by the assassination of America’s ambassador to Libya and an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. The violence in Egypt has been attributed, in part, to that government’s demands for the blind sheikh’s release.

Succumbing to the demands of a country whose citizens threaten our embassy and the Americans serving in it would send a clear message that acts of violence will be responded to with appeasement rather than strength. The blind sheikh should remain in federal prison.

The release of Abdel-Rahman or any terrorist who plots to kill innocent Americans would be seen for what it is — a sign of weakness and lack of resolve by the United States and its President.

We request a briefing this week by representatives from each of your Departments on the accuracy of recent reports and the status of any negotiations with Egypt. We look forward to your immediate response.

Political lies

Lies and half-truths are making up many - of not most - political advertisements in this campaign season.

If you have eyes to see and ears to hear, there is no escaping from the advertisements.

One example that effects all legal Americans is Medicare.

Pretty much everyone - from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to the man and woman in the street - knows that Medicare as we know it is doomed. It will run out of funds. How soon is anyone's guess - some say within a few years, others within a decade.

There's no argument that Medicare's future is limited; it's demise is imminent.

President Barak Obama's campaign tells us Mitt Romney is going to end Medicare.

Period.

Seniors will be left on the medical garbage heap.

Trouble is, that's both a half-truth and lie.

Romney and his figure-crunching VP candidate, Paul Ryan , DO intend to try to change Medicare - this cannot be done by White House fiat - BUT, anyone 55 years old or older is "grandfathered". When a 55-year-old "youngster" hits Medicare age, that person will be covered by Medicare as we know it today.

People currently less than 55-years-old - like my sons and daughter, will have a different program, BUT they will have a program.

Let me put this into very simple English.

Medicare as we know it will be around for all those currently 55-years-old and older.

Medicare as we know it will be going away for those currently less than 55 years old. There will be a "safety net," but it will be structured differently.

What about Social Security?

It, too, is in jeopardy. Not from the Republicans but from the simple facts that

(a) politicians - Mr. Obama among them - have been stealing from Social Security to pay for other government programs; never mind that Social Security was supposed to be sacred, untouchable, and

(b) population - the working world is getting smaller, partly due to the economic disaster with which we still are struggling, and partly because of demographics.

Someone looked at the federal budget and determined that entitlement programs - Social Security, Medicare, etc. - take up the entire Federal budget income. Everything else - the military, the sundry Federal departments - are paid for by selling America to, at the moment, primarily the Chinese (who, in addition to sending shoddy and dangerous goods to these shores and stealing our technology, buy our IOUs at a favorable - to whom? - interest rate).

The person who claimed entitlement programs ate up all of the Federal government's income (taxes and fees) noted that in order to pay our bills - that is, stop borrowing - taxes would need to be much higher.

If anyone looks at countries with cradle-to-grave entitlement programs, they will see tax rates well above 50% of a person's or organization's income.

During World War 2, the Feds put a 10 percent excise tax on certain products - primarily jewelry. That "war time tax" lasted will into my lifetime. Perhaps it's time for another "temporary" tax.

There is advertising talk about a "flat tax" which, Obama's supporters allege, would increase the tax on the "average middle class person" by several thousands of dollars.

That simply does not compute.

A flat tax would set the same tax rate for earned income (compensation for work performed) and for dividends. Currently the super rich and the less rich, including Romney, make their pocket change from dividends and pay a lower tax rate - according to Obama's ad folks, Romney paid taxes at a 14 percent rate -than the working stiffs who pay 28 percent (twice Romney's rate) or more.

If Romney, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and others on the Fortune 400 list of richest Americans (see http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/) paid their "fair share" of taxes, in theory, the overall tax rate should go down or, the increased Federal income might be used to pay down our debt (that is, buy back America from the Chinese).

At the same time, does America REALLY need to be the world's policeman? Do we REALLY need to have troops stationed in, for example, England; is the air base in Thule Greenland REALLY necessary in this age of in-air refueling and intercontinental ballistic missiles? (It was necessary in the 1940s and maybe into the 1950s, but today ??)

Does the U.S. REALLY need to send troops into harm's way during a foreign civil disturbance.

(I have no problem with humanitarian aid if we are not expected to carry the full load.)

Do we REALLY need to give billions of foreign aid to countries that prove, again and again, that we cannot "buy" friends - or even reliable allies.

At the risk of offending someone, political advertising is following the Josef Goebbels' philosophy: "the principle and which is quite true in itself and that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily" (see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels).

All Muslims jihadists?

The advertisement:

"In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel/Defeat Jihad,"
(See http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5835 )

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Metropolitan Transportation Authority banned the advertisement by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, claiming the ad violated the Authority's policy against "demeaning language."

In July, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that the ad was protected speech. While agreeing with the MTA that the ad was "demeaning a group of people based on religion," Engelmayer ruled that the ad promoter was entitled to the "highest level of protection under the First Amendment."

According to Council on American-Islamic Relations spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, "It's like the anti-Islam film that is creating controversy. It is designed to offend, designed to provoke."

QUESTION: How is equating savagery with jihad anti-Muslim?

Are all Muslims jihadists?

That has to be a reasonable person's assumption based on the CAIR spokesperson's statement.

What is "demeaning" about the advertisement to Muslims?

Again, if the ad is "demeaning" to Muslims, the obvious suggestion is that all Muslims are savage jihadists.

By their acts we have proof that the jihadists are savages: the recent attacks on embassies and (in Israel) consulates - since the U.S. presidents have so far ignored Congress' instruction to relocate the embassy from Tel Av iv to Jerusalem - and the resent attack on a kosher market in France (why a kosher market - an Egyptian Coptic made the film the Muslims don't like and the magazine the Muslims dislike is not a Jewish publication). Never mind the rocket attacks on Israel, the suicide murders in Israel and elsewhere, and the bombings and attempted bombings of aircraft. Ignore, too, September 11, 2001.

Granted, "savages" is a relative word.

By Western standards, the jihadists' acts are savagery. But by Muslim standards, ahh, here we have the issue.

Different mentalities.

Worse, Western politicians bow to the alter of "Political Correctness," never calling a spade a spade - or a jihadists a savage.

I have railed in the past about the silence of the "good" Muslims; the ones who after each atrocity remain silent, not condemning the act but, by their silence, condoning it.

Now, thanks to the CAIR spokesperson, I know that all Muslims must by definition be jihadists, else why would CAIR object to equating "jihadists" - not "Muslims," but only "jihadists" - as "savages.

Tarred and feathered by their own words.

If I was a Jew in Bloomberg's New York I think I would be extra cautious and demand a police escort when I went to services on Shabat and Yom Kippor (since in Bloomberg's New York only criminals - including jihadists - are allowed to have guns).

Thoughts for Shabbat Teshuvah and Yom Kippur

 

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel
Used with permission

Although we popularly refer to the upcoming fast day as Yom Kippur, the Torah calls it Yom haKippurim—the day of atonements (in the plural). The plural form reminds us that there are many roads to atonement. Each person is different and is on a unique spiritual level; each comes with different insights, experiences, memories. The roads to atonement are plural, because no two of us have identical needs.

This season of Teshuvah and Kapparah—repentance and atonement—provides us with a special challenge and opportunity. We are granted a yearly period of time for intense evaluation of our lives. This period should serve as a springboard to deeper understanding and personal growth.

The first step in the process of spiritual renewal is to become humbly aware of our frailties. No matter how successful we think we are, we are mortal! We have limited physical capacities and a limited time of life on this earth. Aside from our physical limitations, we have moral and religious shortcomings that must be confronted. The Spanish thinker, Ortega y Gasset, suggested that a person grows only after confronting deep existential crisis. “These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked. All the rest is rhetoric, posturing, farce. He who does not really feel himself lost, is without remission; that is to say, he never finds himself, never comes up against his own reality.” The first goal of this season is to feel “shipwrecked.”

But when we do “come up against our own reality” we often reach a point of perplexity. How are we to make ultimate sense of our lives? How are we to understand the vagaries of human existence—disease, wars, injustice? How are we to deal with all the social and professional pressures? How can we cope with problems in our families and communities? How can we advance beyond the quagmire of fear and self-doubt?

The famous Hassidic Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk once asked: Where is God? And he answered: Where ever a human being lets Him in! If we want to feel the presence of God, we need to open ourselves to that experience. The season of Teshuvah and Yom haKippurim is a time to restore our relationship with the Almighty, to express our perplexities. This genuine experience of relationship with God gives us the inner strength to cope with our problems and perplexities.

A further step in the process of Teshuvah and Kapparah is balancing the feelings of alienation and belonging. We say to the Almighty: “ki ger anokhi imakh; toshav kekhol avotai,” (כ גר אנוכי, תושב ככל אבותי)
I am a stranger with You, a sojourner as were all of my ancestors>. What does this mean?

I feel as though I am a stranger, alienated from God; there are barriers between me and You. But I want to be a sojourner, a permanent resident in Your presence, not a stranger or a passing visitor. I want to come home to the teachings and traditions of my ancestors who have maintained faith and courage for the past 3500 years.

A parable: A person tries to cut down a tree with a dull edged saw. He works very hard but makes little progress. A passerby sees this and asks: why don’t you sharpen the saw? The person responds: I don’t have time, I can’t stop working, I need to cut down this tree. The passerby says: But if you would stop working for a few minutes to sharpen the saw, you would actually save time and effort, and you would better be able to accomplish your goal! The person replies: No, I don’t have time to stop working, I must keep sawing.
Without the proper tools, we exert great energy but achieve inadequate results.

In spiritual life, too, we need proper tools. If we work with old habits, with stubborn attachment to stale and futile patterns, we will not grow. We need to think more clearly about our goals and how we can best attain them. Yom haKippurim provides a day when we take off from our usual routine. It is an entirely different kind of day from any other day of the year. It is a time to sharpen ourselves spiritually; to humbly face our limitations; to cope with our perplexities; to seek atonement and purification, to return to our spiritual core.

The season of Teshuvah and Kapparah provides us with a unique spiritual opportunity. Happy are they who can experience this season with an acute mind and alert spirit.

The Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals
8 West 70th Street
New York, NY 10023

Starch

 

I'm of an age during which most men did time in one of Uncle Sugar's armed forces.

I did my time with the Air Force; all of it on the ground.

Before the Air Force I was a Civil Air Patrol (CAP) cadet (Miami Composite Squadron 2, if you please).

As a cadet and later as an E-grade airman I was expected to have sharply creased shirts and trousers - "pants" in my time meant underwear, "skivvies." Back in the day when "gay" meant "happy." Times and language move on.

Anyway, "back in the day," my CAP khaki (summer) uniforms were batch starched.

My trousers were then hung out to dry on "pant" stretchers - that's what they are called today.

Skip ahead several decades.

Now, if you want starched clothing, you have two choices:

    Choice 1: Take the clothing to a laundry and insist on starch.

    Choice 2: Wash your own clothing and then spray on starch from a spray can.

Choice 1 is, for me at least, foolishly expensive.

Choice 2 is, for me at least, both expensive and environmentally contra-indicated; the aerosol in the can and the fact the can can't (isn't supposed to be) tossed into the trash (since any residual aerosol could cause the can to explode). Besides, I'm never satisfied with the stiffness of the garment.

I remember from my youth - Civil Air Patrol days - that we used to buy starch. Just add water and voila! - starch-stiffened clothes with sharp creases.

I even remembered a product name: Argo.

Since I do my own ironing - and sometimes my wife's, too - I decided to try an find out how to make my own starch. It turns out that it's pretty easy, and there are a number of "recipes" on line.

All said to use ordinary ol' corn starch. The best, I learned from the WWW, is "organic" corn starch.

While I do the ironing - I want things "just so" - the Spouse does the shopping, so I challenged her to find "starch."

While she was out shopping, I was ironing. Today's batch included two pairs of trousers. Aligning the seams, and keeping them aligned while the trouser legs are pressed, can sometimes be difficult. If only I had the stretchers.

Since I already was poking around the Internet, I decided I'd look for pant stretchers. That wasn't my first search string, but it was my last.

Back in the days when I was in Civil Air Patrol, I lived in a house a short bike ride from Miami's airport; it had clothes lines in the back yard. Under Florida's summer sun, 30 minutes on the line and everything is dry.

Today I live in a short bike ride from Hollywood's airport, but the local homeowners' association won't permit clothes lines - at least not ones that can be seen from the street. I have a portable, single-rod "thing" in the garage on which I can hang hangers. Being portable, it might temporarily be relocated out of sight in the back yard - "just for 30 minutes."

While neither Publix not Winn-Dixie advertised starch on their Web sites, the Spouse did find several corn starch options at Publix.

Since corn starch is used in sauces and other edibles, she bought one with a kosher label. Cost: $1.25 (no tax).

I intend to commander the garage sink to mix the starch and water; the sink's next to the water heater so I get almost instant scalding water. It's a nice, deep sink so I can easily immerse my shirts and trousers, and it's a short "across-the-garage" walk to hang them on the "thing's" rod.

One thing I learned using shirt laundries - starch builds up.

I told the intake clerk that I wanted heavy starch. When I collected by clean shirts they were wimpy. I complained, I was told that each time the shirts were washed and starched, the starch would get stiffer. Washing does not remove all the starch.

My #1 son, a policeman, uses spray starch on his dark blue uniforms. His only concern, and it is a justifiable concern, is that corn starch might leave a residue - white "specks" that will stand out on the blue uniform. According to one source, organic starch is less likely to leave behind evidence of its use. (I told him I would try it on my dark trousers first.)

Assuming - always a dangerous thing - that my kosher corn starch will do the job on my shirts and washable trousers, I will be a happy camper.

Meanwhile, the easiest recipe for laundry starch I found is:

Requirement

    *   Corn starch

    *   Measuring cup

    *   Bucket or deep sink

Process

  -   Into bucket or sink

    -  1/2 cup corn starch

    -  1 cup of cold water

    -  Boiling water to strength

      *  6 quarts for light starch

      *  4 quarts for medium starch

      *  2 quarts for heavy starch

  *  Immerse clothes so all surfaces are covered in the starch solution.

  *  Hang clothes to dry

      *  If you use "pant" stretchers, insert them into the trouser legs before hanging the garment to dry.

Iron with a steam iron or sprinkle the clothing before pressing.

Excess solution can be saved, but be sure to shake it vigorously and thoroughly before using.

We don't need

צה''ל  or Yeshiva students

when we have

MILLIONAIRE RABBIS

Rabbi Marc Angel, in his
Thoughts About Thinking: Thoughts on Parashat Nitzavim for September 15, 2012, writes that

"Some months ago, Forbes Magazine published a list of the 10 richest rabbis in Israel (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQM0zpTOP7Y&feature=player_detailpage). The rabbis’ net worths ranged from 9 million dollars to 335 million dollars! It appears that all (or nearly all) of these rabbis have reputations as wonder workers, Sephardic kabbalists, Hassidic Rebbes of huge dynasties. These rabbis have amassed huge fortunes because the public is willing to pay them for their blessings, amulets, holy water etc. It seems that a considerable segment of the public does not believe in its own ability to pray to God, but wants the intercession of holy men who supposedly have an inside track with God. Many people aren’t interested in a “spirit of inquiry”—they want “truth” as promised to them by wonder working rabbis.

"If these wonder working rabbis indeed have such magical powers and can control God, then why don’t they use these powers to disarm Israel’s enemies; to uproot anti-Semitism; to punish the wicked; to provide for all the sick, poor and hungry of the world?"

The rabbi's point is not to disband צה''ל, the Israeli armed forces, and not to close the yeshivot.

His point is that we - Jews - seem to increasingly depend on "wonderworking rabbis" and other holy men and women to intercede with HaShem for us. This, R. Angel contends, is not the Torah way.

The American rabbi is, in my opinion, correct in that Jews have, and should use, our "direct line" to HaShem, I have to wonder:

What if all the millionaire rabbis were to get together (that in itself might be a miracle) and together appeal to HaShem to convince our enemies - the Iranians, our Moslem neighbors near and far, the anti-Semite and anti-Israel people among the non-Jews and, perhaps more importantly, among ourselves, the anti-everything Jewish Jew.

Now is perhaps the most propitious time: יומי נוראים, the so called "High Holy Days," are nearly upon us. Days when, we are told, HaShem is particularly open to our prayers.

I don't think I'd depend solely (no pun intended) on the millionaire rabbis to seek HaShem's protection, but it would be interesting to see what influence these gadolim would have if they, together - putting aside their differences in approach to Judaism - appealed to HaShem to erase hatred from the world.

TO BE FAIR the rabbis' millions are not necessarily personal wealth; the millions include their charities and institutions.

Meanwhile, as it is written in my וזרח נשמש sedur for the daily amedah(עמידה):

" ומלכות הרשעה מהרה תעקר יתשבר יתכלם ותכניעם ותשמידם"

G-d, Jerusalem, and the DNC

 

According to Agence France Presse (AFP), "President Barack Obama was the one who on Wednesday ordered his Democratic party to reinsert references to G-d and Jerusalem in their party platform, AFP reported.

"The report hinted that the move was not too pleasing to party members.

"A campaign official told AFP that the president, who has been hammered by Republicans who see him as too tough on Israel, personally intervened to have language on Jerusalem, a feature of past party platforms, restored. "

The AFP article also noted that when the delegates were asked to vote to include G-d and Jerusalem, the "nays" (against inclusion) appeared to match the "ayes."

See the CNN video at http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/09/05/delegates-oppose-adding-god-jerusalem-platform/; there is a 30-second commercial to ignore before the vote video commences.

Now comes the interesting part.

Who is in chair of the DNC?

A person who claims, on her government Web site biography, to be the "The first Jewish Congresswoman ever elected from Florida," Representative Debbie Wassermann-Schultz.

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz' claim to Jewish fame is that she "introduced a resolution, which passed the House of Representatives and called on the President to declare an annual Jewish American Heritage Month."

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz seems - based on her response to constituents' appeals for assistance regarding Israel issues - to limit herself to introducing non-essential resolutions in Congress. When asked to help a local family cut bureaucratic red tape to allow the family's son-in-law to join his American bride, she ignored the appeal.

Congressman Allen West, the Republican in the adjacent congressional district, did manage to cut through the State Department's continuing anti-Jewish and anti-Israel delaying tactics.

Given her apparent unwillingness to touch anything "Israel" and the absence of both G-d and Jerusalem in the DNC platform, it's no surprise that Obama had to insist on inserting the changes.

But one has to suspect that Obama only is giving lip service to the Jerusalem plank since on July 26, 2012, White House press secretary Jay Carney repeatedly refused to answer journalists' demands to know if Obama felt Jerusalem should be recognized by the US as Israel's capital. (See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/26/whs_carney_refuses_to_name_the_capital_of_israel.html.)

According to Democratic National Convention Chairman and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the measure to add G-d and Jerusalem as Israel's capital to the party platform requires a two-third affirmative vote.

Villaraigosa called for a voice vote not once, not twice, but three times and each time it seemed that the delegates were equally split. Villaraigosa, declared the motion passed anyway. (See the CNN video, link in fifth paragraph, above.)

From a Jewish perspective, from an Israeli perspective, the initial lack of inclusion of G-d and Jerusalem-as-Israel's-capital, coupled with the Obama spokesman's refusal to answer journalists' questions regarding Jerusalem as Israel's capital would indicate that, if Obama is re-elected, he will continue to distance himself from Israel while continuing to cozy up to Israel's sworn enemies. Another four years of Obama does not bode well for Israel or for Jews, at least observant Jews.

Admittedly, we should not be "one-issue" voters and social concerns need to be considered.

The Democrats contend that if Romney moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Medicare will go away and women's rights will be violated.

Unless something is done soon, Medicare WILL go away; what the GOP is proposing is a change in Medicare that will impact people LESS THAN 55 years old. They won't loose Medicare, it just will be a different approach.

As for cancelling Roe vs. Wade, that is not an executive branch option; that is a matter for Congress and the Supremes. Indeed, domestically, there is not much the executive branch CAN do.

As far as Jerusalem-as-Israel's-capital goes, the best thing ANY president can do is to follow the 1995 Congressional mandate to MOVE THE EMBASSY TO JERUSALEM.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act:

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. It was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than May 31, 1999, and attempted to withhold 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the State Department specifically for ‘‘Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad’’ as allocated in fiscal year 1999 until the United States Embassy in Jerusalem had officially opened

Selling honors

 

I used to go to a synagogue that, it seemed to me, made selling honors a higher priority than prayers.

Case in point: For several years, a Board member auctioned off honors for Yom Kippor well into nightfall, pushing Kol Nidre into the dark.

All "orthodox" authorities that I know about insist that Kol Nidre be said BEFORE nightfall.

Literally hours were spent on bidding for honors.

I go to another synagogue now where things are run "by the clock," at least in following halakah.

It takes a little effort to make a "HaNetz" minyan - just exactly when do we start korbanote and, later, hodu? Juggling the time to arrive at the amedah at its earliest time can be challenging.

This congregation sells honors, but unlike the other congregation, it makes sure the prayers - after all, that's why we supposedly are present - are said at the proper time.

Admittedly, my previous synagogue has lots of overhead - more during the High Holy Days - and the new one is less burdened with debt.

The thing is, the old congregation could have sold honors AND started Kol Nidre before nightfall.

How?

Glad you asked.

PRE-SELL THE HONORS.

You know what honors are available.

List them and send the list to all members (even, or most especially, the 3-day variety).

List, if you wish, "suggested" starting bids and last year's winning bid. This sets the floor for this year's bidding without actually stating "Bids start at ..."

Give all congregants - and any bidders from previous years - a chance to bid on each honor. Allow two weeks to collect responses. (This also can be done via emailed response.)

The highest bid for this year becomes the BASE or FLOOR bid.

Before evening prayers, (about 90 minutes before Kol Nidre on erev Yom Kippor) sell the honors for the next day by announcing the base/floor bid and asking if anyone wants to top it.

This process eliminates the most of the small number bidding wars and greatly speeds up the sale of honors, letting us get to the prayers on time.

Another thought: You might ask for the bids to be accompanied by a check for the full amount. If the bid is topped by another bid, the checks can be returned. If not, the congregation has the check so there's no chasing after a promised donation.

First day Jews

 

It's a funny thing about us.

We have a one, maybe two, day participation span.

Sefardim started s'lihot on the 2nd of Elul.

The place was almost Standing Room Only, a precursor to Rosh HaShana.

The second day of s'lihot there were fewer people.

Lately we've had to "skip around" certain prayers - those in Aramaic and all the occurrences of ויעבור and all times when the sofar is blown.

Translation: Even though the start time is later - it's now close to 5:45 from the first day's 5:35 start time - we don't have a minyan until we are well into the s'lihot.

We recite what we can, and when we finally get a minyan we have to go back and recite the skipped prayers.

It used to be that the joke was about "three-day Jews," those folks who show up in a synagogue on the two days of Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippor. Now for many - and I'm referring to "observant," sometimes known as "orthodox," congregations - it's two and a half days . . . maybe. The difference in attendance - never mind participation - between Rosh HaShana's first day and the second is sad.

Even Yom Kippor suffers. Pretty good turnout for Kol Nidre (when it's done at the proper time), but the "crowd" for korbanote the next morning is often "disappointing."

Maybe it's the interminable bidding; selling honors, especially to people rarely seen in the synagogue, is an unfortunate, albeit necessary, evil that helps empty out a building.

This is nothing new.

Years ago a Chabad rabbi in Sarasota arranged with the City to place a hanukiah on City land - it shared space with a decorated tree.

On the first night of Hanukah we had a good turnout.

The second night, there were maybe 4 or 5 present.

The third night, only one person showed, and that person was not the rabbi.

In truth, the small turnout may partly be attributed to the non-"orthodox" community which criticized, in the general media, the idea that some Jews had the NERVE to put up a hanukiah on City property. Never mind that the property was shared with a decorated tree and that these same Jews were paying the City to put up, maintain, take down, and store "seasonal" decorations; THAT was OK.

The same holds true for Pesach and Sukot; Shavuot, being only one day, is not a problem.

Pesach's first night usually is "thin." People are home with family and friends at the seder. The first morning the turnout is pretty good, but after that it's all down hill.

Sukot - likewise.

Everyone is willing to attempt to sit in the sukah the first night; fewer the second night, and during the intermediate days, חול המועד, the sukah often in occupied only by the ushpizin and bugs.

Getting up for s'lihot appeals to some folks, but for this scrivener, I'd rather sleep in (until 5 or 5:30).

But there's a minyan to be made and I consider it part of my "dues" to be a member.

Leaning toward Shamai

 

There's no question that I generally prefer Bet Shamai over Bet Hillel, halak over glat, and the JDL over the ADL.

Knowing that, it should come as no surprise that I am "suspicious" of kashrut agencies that tell me this or that product is kosher when I have reason to believe otherwise.

Something recently caused me to revisit liquor lists, in particular scotches, blended and straight.

Several of the kashrut agencies state that (while perhaps not recommended) all scotches, except those that clearly state on the label that they are aged in a former wine barrel, are "kosher."

Among the scotches that lack a statement about wine casks are Chivas and Johnnie Walker.

So, these are then "acceptably kosher" products?

I know some "orthodox" rabbis who drink both Chivas and Johnnie Walker.

If you lean toward Bet Shamai, neither scotch is acceptable.

But they don't state on the label.

Who am I, neither a rabbi or food chemist, to claim Chivas and Johnnie Walker are not suitable?

I am the guy who contacted the distilleries and got the information from the "horses mouth."

There was no problem. Everything was via email.

Chivas is a blend of scotches aged in wine and Bourbon barrels. How much of this and how much of that is a tightly guarded secret, so the Chivas people told me.

Johnnie Walker's people simply told me their product is not kosher.

My point is that if I can find out about a product with minimal effort, why can't kashrut agencies do the same.

The flip side of that point is, if they don't do it for scotch, what other products do they simply accept as "kosher" without bothering to actually check? Can we trust the kashrut agencies?

Several years ago, before Pesach, I asked a major certifying agency why some products, kosher for most of the year, suddenly were not K4P. There was no suggestion of kitniyot.

The answer was that "we're not sure" about some of the processes a thrice-removed ingredient went through. Translation for someone who "leans toward Bet Shamai" is that the kashrut agency really didn't know how the thrice-removed ingredient was prepared before being added to another ingredient.

Maybe the thrice-removed ingredient was cut with grain alcohol and that would make it unacceptable. But the kashrut agency was unable to tell me what made the final product unacceptable for Pesach.

I understand that to be in the kashrut business a person needs to be a food chemist. I understand why a person in the kashrut business must work with rabbinical authorities who both know, and care about, the Law with a capital "L."

I also understand that, apparently, some kashrut agencies are taking the easy way out. "If it doesn't say (something) on the label, then it's considered kosher."

In truth, the kashrut agencies should be warning "If it doesn't have a kosher label, assume it is not (kosher)." I know there are places where a kosher label is not "politically correct," but there are ways to advertise a product's kashrut status sans a kosher label on the product container.

In this day and age of emails and instant messaging, it behooves those of us to "lean toward Bet Shamai" to do our own research, at least for the major ingredients.

As the song asks: Who you gonna trust ? (http://www.lyricsmania.com/who_you_gonna_trust_lyrics_magnum.html)