Vote CHAIA to be TAC Vice President!

My sister is sweet and hilarious and has decided to campaign for the title of TAC (Torah Activities Council) Vice President on the streets of Chicago....vote for her!

Response To The FlyerTalk Forum

I thought that no one in FlyerTalk was interested in doing anything except scolding me until I read the post written by MrAndy1369 who said exactly what I was trying to convey- that both I and AA were in the wrong. That having been said, I thought I would address some of the questions people had/ points people made, as maybe they were being sincere.

1. We could not fly Thursday night. It was not possible due to my husband's schedule. If we could have flown on Thursday, we would have and we would then have avoided the debacle of flying on Friday.

2. $324 for a round-trip ticket, while not necessarily expensive from the point of view of someone who is a businessman, is expensive on a teacher's salary.

3. We are aware (which is why we said so in the blogpost) that it is OUR FAULT that we were late to the airport. We take full responsibility for that. Regarding check-in of baggage, in other airports we've flown in (such as LGA and ORD), you can check baggage on the same floor as the security check-in and gatepoint is at. We weren't familiar with this airport and thus didn't know we would have to go to the third floor to check in baggage.

4. The section where I describe the situation that occurred regarding check-in, the patdown and so forth was not intended to blame AA. It was just intended to show that things kept going from bad to worse and that we were becoming more frustrated due to what was happening.

5. We had not known that airlines reserve the right to allow their planes to leave 15 minutes early. This is why we were surprised (and upset) to discover the plane left at 8:10am rather than 8:20am, when it was scheduled to leave.

6. We were not told the airport was doing us a special favor by putting us on standby. This was treated as being the routine procedure/ next step. This is why we did not know being put on standby was a privilege. It is also why we felt 'entitled' (to use your term) to fly.

7. We did try to pay more money to book tickets on a different AA flight rather than just staying on standby. No flights were available.

8. We did not, contrary to your impression, yell at people in the airport, swear at them or otherwise insult them. We just explained to them what had happened and what our needs were in order to be able to fly that day (leaving on the 3:40 pm flight at the latest). And then I got emotional (started crying) when I saw that there didn't seem a way for this to happen. That's it.

9. When it comes to the part most of you are vehemently upset about, namely that I would like AA to perhaps take into account the customer's religion- as I said, they don't have to do that. I'm aware of that. I just think it would have been nice as a gesture of goodwill to do that. I think it would have made a great story that I would have been happy to share about how kind, caring and accommodating and easy-to-work-with they were. I was also frustrated because with the exception of one woman, the people at the gates did not say, "I am sorry to hear your story although I cannot help you" but instead just said tersely "It's your fault you missed your flight." Just hearing that someone cared about our situation, even if they couldn't help us, would have made us a lot happier. It's about customer service and what could have been- but wasn't.

10. The rest of this has to do with mistakes AA made. The woman named Pamela said we could still fly the second round of our flight, we did not receive any email, call or text saying it was cancelled, did not know it was cancelled and indeed received an email saying our flight was available for check-in. All of this was extremely misleading. This is why AA sent us vouchers.

11. Finally, I am extremely appreciative to AA for the vouchers and would like to post the email they sent us to show an example of kind and respectful customer service. This is why I emailed them to thank them and ask whether it would be okay to post their email, since it says the information in it is confidential. I have not received a response from them yet.

The reason I didn't really respond to you before this was because so many of you were so busy attacking me and just making me out to be a 'kettle' and 'do you know who I am' foaming-at-the-mouth person (which I'm not) that it didn't seem to be worth it. But since MrAndy1369 was kind, I'm taking the time to respond.

The Lightning Strike

I discovered a new song by "Snow Patrol." It's called 'The Lightning Strike' and has three parts. Part 1 is called 'What If This Storm Ends?' Part 2 is called 'The Sunlight Through the Flags.' Part 3 is called 'Daybreak.'

Of course, of the three I only like Part 1. I like the chaos and darkness and the illumination of the savior figure. I don't generally like the calm after the storm. The storm itself is more exciting. That's the trouble with people who love literature, generally. We love all the roiling and darkness and tumult. Resolutions can bore and generally signify the end of a book. (Unless, of course, the resolution has a twist, or is bittersweet. Then I like it.)

Of course, one must take care to ensure that one's actual life is not merely a quest to create trouble in order to have the experience of living through it. This is more difficult than one would think. If you feel most alive in the midst of a storm, you would want to go storm-hunting. To sit back and say 'Let me refrain from that' is difficult.

This is nothing new, of course. In Judaism, self control is seen as the greatest indication that one is strong. 'Who is strong? One who conquers his inclination.' Especially in our modern-day society, this is not easy.

I love these lyrics:

Painted in flames
All peeling thunder
Be the lightning in me
That strikes relentless

What that comes back to is the need to be awoken. Most of us crave awakening. We need to be awakened from the dullness of our lives, which is why we look to literature, films or music to shock our systems. I sometimes think of it as similar to the way that you have to shock the heart, when it is failing, back into its rhythm. The difficulty is that we always crave more sensation, more stimulation. It's like drugs- you start off with a bit, and then you become addicted.

We joke sometimes about being addicted to drama, but I think that the reason some of us accept the flashiness and explosions of media is because we sense a lacking deep within ourselves. We are looking for something to awaken us and we haven't found it yet. In the meantime, to quell that sense, we watch things blow up and hope that will suffice.

It won't.

The Real Story About Round-Trip Airline Tickets

UPDATE on April 10: American Airlines responded to our complaint and gave us vouchers. I emailed to ask whether I can post the full content of their email. I was very happy to finally get to have someone listen to us.

I've written a response to the FlyerTalk forum addressing your points here.

~

My husband and I are in the midst of having an extremely unpleasant experience with American Airlines during this Passover break. My husband is a law student and I am a teacher. We are not the wealthiest of consumers. However, we were excited and looking forward to our Passover vacation, which is why we booked expensive round-trip tickets at $324 per person out of DC heading to Chicago on Friday, April 9 at 8:20am.

We decided to save some money by taking the bus to the metro to the airport. This was a big mistake as we ended up in the airport at 7:50am. (Yes, we freely admit it was our fault that we were late to the airport). Nevertheless, since our flight was at 8:20am, we figured we'd still make it. After all, we were there a half an hour in advance. We tried to get in line to check in but then were told that the place to check baggage was upstairs. We went upstairs and were told it was too late to check our baggage. We headed back downstairs with the baggage, which we were now told they would accommodate by allowing us to take as a carry-on. An airline lady was trying to assist us and she went on ahead to try to get to our flight while we went through the security checkpoint. During the checkpoint, they discovered liquid in our baggage-turned-carry on and decided to look through the entire suitcase. The TSA also asked me to remove my hat. When I explained that I was a religious Jew, they took me aside and had a female pat down my hat to make sure I wasn't carrying anything problematic within it. We wasted about 10-20 minutes during this time.

When we finally got to the gate, it was 8:10am. The person manning the gate informed us our flight had left without us, despite the fact that it had been scheduled to depart at 8:20am. I had not known that planes reserve the ability to depart 15 minutes before departure time (as we later found out when my husband spoke to the manager). The gentleman manning the gate told the woman who had tried to help us that she ought to have called ahead and he would have held the plane for us. I got extremely upset and started crying. The man told me that it wasn't a problem; he would just roll us on over to Standby.

We then endured waiting for the following American Airlines standby flights: 10:00am flight, 12:00pm flight, 2:10pm flight and finally the 3:40pm flight. (Yes, we were in the airport shuffling around for over 7 and 1/2 hours). Due to the fact that this was Easter, Good Friday and Passover all rolled into one, American Airlines had overbooked and oversold all their planes. What this meant is that we were consistently bumped to being #6, 7, 8 or 9 in the standby line because passengers with actual tickets were the first five people on the list.

My husband talked to the manager about our situation. She said that they could issue us a refund for our tickets and we could reschedule them for a different day, but that was it. This wasn't exactly an option due to the fact that Passover and Yom Tov was happening that evening.

So instead, we waited as time and time again we were not called as standby passengers. I became very emotional and told the lady manning the booth that if we did not get on the 3:40pm flight, we would end up stranded in DC because we were observant Jews. As observant Jews, we cannot fly after sundown, and the 3:40pm flight was the last flight that would enable us to get into Chicago with enough time for us to get home before sundown. The lady said she would try to get us out of there but guess what...once again, we weren't called.

At around 3pm, I decided we needed to find a different way to get out of there- since American Airlines wasn't allowing us to rebook our tickets or fly standby. We booked one-way tickets on a 3:35pm United Airlines flight. It cost us $600 total. We got to Chicago in time to celebrate the Passover holiday.

Meanwhile, my father called American Airlines and spoke with a woman named Pamela. He explained that we had missed the first leg of our round-trip flight and he wanted to know whether the returning leg of the trip still stood. She told him that yes, that would be fine, and we were good to go with no additional fees or changes. Reassured, my father went into Yom Tov with good and happy spirits.

Last night (April 8) after Yom Tov had concluded, my husband received an email saying 'Your Trip is Now Eligible for Check-In.' When we attempted to check in, we received a red warning saying that this ticket could not be processed online and that my husband would have to see a ticket agent. I was worried about this and decided to call the airlines to figure out what was going on. I was then informed that in fact, if you miss the first leg of your round trip ticket the entire ticket is void and gone. The only way to proceed is to pay the difference between the amount you paid for your round-trip ticket and what is now a one-way ticket, plus a $150 change fee.

We protested that a) my husband had been told by the American Airlines manager in DC that he could get a refund for the ticket b) my father had been told by Pamela that we could still take the second leg of the trip and c) we had at no time been notified of this policy. In fact, we had received the very misleading automated email that said 'Your Trip is Now Eligible For Check-In' which in no way informed us that in fact, our trip had been cancelled and was now gone and my husband's seat had likely been sold to someone else. (You can read more about this unpleasant and irrational phenomenon here and here). When speaking to two extremely unhelpful supervisors (especially the female one), we were informed that this information regarding the round trip policy had been in the fine print of the agreement we made with the airport when we purchased our tickets. Furthermore, she claimed that our first ticket had not been a standby ticket and that the airport had been doing us a favor when they tried to have us fly standby in the first place because they were under no obligation to do so.

Here are my questions on this matter:

1. Why is it that no one in DC, including the man who rolled us over to standby from our first missed flight, told us that they were doing us a favor and that this was not standard policy? We were told that this was standard.

2. Why is it that even though we explained to every single person that would listen that we were observant Jews and thus had a certain time past which we could not fly, that was not taken into consideration when it came to the order of passengers on the Standby list? There were other passengers who could easily have taken 5pm flights; we, on the other hand, could not.

3. Why did the American Airlines manager in DC claim that we could receive a refund on our ticket?

4. Why did Pamela tell my father that we could still fly the second leg of our trip even if we had missed the first leg of it?

I feel very frustrated by the lack of transparency and the unwillingness to work with the customer in this situation. When it comes to your driver's license, you amass points; it doesn't necessarily automatically get taken away the first time you are caught speeding. Yet even though this was the first time that I or my husband had ever missed a flight (and we've taken many flights on American Airlines), we were treated like we had deliberately attempted to defraud them.

Furthermore, while I am aware that it is not necessarily the airline's responsibility to accommodate the religious beliefs of its customers, surely if it had been explained to the people who were first in line on the standby list that there were two people who would literally be stranded without food they could eat for the Passover holiday unless they got on a flight by a certain time, they would have been willing to allow us to take their places. It would certainly have been nice of the airline to at least consider the religious customs of its consumers.

Third, while it may be true that the fine print that you click when you buy a ticket online tells you this information about your not being able to take the second leg of your flight if you miss the first leg of your flight, I would wager that the majority of consumers do not know this unless they are frequent flyers. Thus, there ought to be an automated system that sends an immediate email notification to a customer who has missed their round-trip flight that says 'You have missed the first leg of your flight. Your round trip is now void. Please take the following steps to reschedule.' Had we received such a clear, transparent email about American Airline policies, we would then have been able to take the steps that would have prevented me from being in a situation where, since I reached out to them tonight, I was informed I would have to pay $400 on top of the $324 we had already paid in order to take a 6:40am flight tomorrow morning from Chicago to DC.

And fourth, there was no consistency when it came to the message we were given. The manager in DC claimed we could get a refund. Pamela said we could take the second leg of our flight and all would be well. The supervisors I talked to tonight told me that if you miss the first leg of your flight, you are screwed. Why is there not one clear, easy-to-read policy that every employee is aware of so that they can all give the same, non-contradictory answer?

What this comes down to is that my husband and I have now spent over $2000 to fly from Chicago to DC and back for this Passover holiday. We might as well have booked an international trip. And all of this because we missed....one flight.

The moral of the story? Never be late to the airport. But more importantly, never fly American Airlines.

Bully

Dear God,

So I sit here on my sofa starting at an empty room and I think to myself: I should be grading papers. But really what I focus on is that I wish "Smash" would hurry up and start playing because then I could focus on the glitz and the glamour and the story of the young ingenue-in-training, all of which would be a perfect escape from what I'm currently thinking. I like escapes, because they are another way of working on avoiding, and avoidance is important.

So I'm listening to "Breathless" by Dan Wilson and figuring I should say hi.

There's a new film coming out. It's called "Bully." It's a really important movie. And just watching the trailer brings back a lot of memories.

A lot of memories.

We never really outrun or outgrow our pasts, now do we? Instead we carry them with us, as the turtle carries his shell.

I will always be that sensitive kid. It was my weakness and now it's my strength. It's what makes television and movies and books a totally different experience for me than it is for most people. It's what makes me see through to issues and morals that others don't carry with them. It's what makes my life more difficult and more complicated. It's also what makes me hate confrontation and feel like my only option is to shut down when it comes to that. I don't cry anymore, but I laugh...nervously. Nervous laughter is my weapon of choice because I still don't have the tools for more sophisticated ones.

I find it ironic that I teach 7th grade. That was the worst grade of my existence, the loneliest grade of my existence, the year of my life I would never repeat over, not for all the money in the world. It's like in this, too, God takes my hand and shapes my life and says that out of ashes there will come the phoenix, and all things build on one another.

Because in my life, they always do. Don't they, God. Everything is just another step to take me to the next level in the drama in which I star.

Some days I see that fully, understand it, respect it, work with it. Other days I struggle.

There are the days where I feel like crying, but instead I laugh. In the face of an absurd and difficult existence, I laugh. I feel like Gandalf at the maw of the bridge. "You shall not pass," I declare to my Balrog. "I shall conquer you." I wander through catacombs and mazes in search of the path that will finally lead me out of here and into somewhere brighter. I will get there through sheer effort of will and of course, with Your help.

I have my "The Show Must Go On" days where I wonder, "Empty spaces- what are we living for?" But in the end, as always, I concede to the song and determine that indeed, the show must go on, the curtain must rise, and it's time to dance my way across the stage again. (To be sure, I sometimes invoke a bit of the Black Swan when I do so. No one ever pegged me for a cooperative mortal.)

Let there be meaning! is my warcry. For in the absence of any, I find that I fade.

Thanks for the lessons,
Chana

The Hunger Games Is Morally Bereft

I went to see "The Hunger Games." I found it sickening. This was surprising, given that I had read the book and found it to be moving, important and value-driven.

I'm trying to pin down what I found so horrifying about the movie adaptation. As I was considering, I remembered learning 2 Samuel 2:14 in 6th grade.

Here, too, murder is considered a game. Here, too, there are 24 people who must fight to the death. The difference is that they are grown men and 12 are on Avner's side representing Ishboshes and 12 are on Yoav's side representing David.

I remember that when we learned about the bloodbath that ensued, the teacher pounded it into our heads that this was a horrific tragedy and that both Yoav and Avner die horrible deaths in part because of the fact that they were too lenient with the lives of these men. Even if their intentions were only to have the men duel with one another, the fact that it turned into mass murder was considered their fault.

The difference between "The Hunger Games" movie adaptation and this section of Tanakh is that in the movie adaptation, Peeta and Katniss survive and seemingly, move on. We don't see their remorse. We don't see the nightmares that keep them awake at night. We don't see their grief and horror. We just see them smiling sweetly at Caesar on a talk show and then heading back to their district. We have to imagine their inner torment.

And that's where I think the movie gets it wrong. If your point is to show how violence is wrong and how children should not be in a position where they are killing other children, you can't leave the inner torment to the imagination. You have to demonstrate it. Show it. Let us see the toll it takes to be the survivor, even though the game is not of your making. Let us understand how horrible this is. Don't let our last image be of a triumphant Peeta and Katniss in a big poofy gown and a nice suit, heading home.

Kafka said that "a book should be the axe for the frozen sea inside us." But in order for a book- or a movie- to accomplish this, it needs to really be that axe. "The Hunger Games'" moral should be about the toll and horror that these games take on everyone, even and especially the survivors. Otherwise, what is the point? To have us root for District 12's potential love story? Is everything okay- all the macabre violence I just witnessed acceptable- so long as these two make it out alive?

I find that idea extremely troubling, and I think it is absolutely the wrong message to send to young kids. Perhaps I feel this more personally as someone who has read and learned so much about survivor's guilt due to its prevalence in Holocaust literature. But I think it's wrong to end such a disturbing movie on this seemingly happy note. If you're going to talk about horror, take the horror all the way through. Make it matter. Don't try to feed us the message that everything was bad, and kids killing kids was bad, but it's okay because these two nice-looking kids survived so it's all hunky-dory.

Granted, adults who understand subtleties and nuances will be able to fill in these gaps, but I'm willing to bet that most children won't. And that most kids will just leave talking about the Gale-Peeta-Katniss love triangle, untouched by the carnage that took place before their eyes. Which to me is simply a new means of teaching indifference of the highest degree- ironically, the exact antithesis of the presumed goals of these books and this movie.

Slaves and the Megillah

I was learning alongside a student of mine, who for purposes of this post will be called Yankel, when I realized the following thing.

It had always bothered me that Esther made the following statement:

ג וַתַּעַן אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה, וַתֹּאמַר--אִם-מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְאִם-עַל-הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב: תִּנָּתֶן-לִי נַפְשִׁי בִּשְׁאֵלָתִי, וְעַמִּי בְּבַקָּשָׁתִי. 3 Then Esther the queen answered and said: 'If I have found favour in thy sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request;
ד כִּי נִמְכַּרְנוּ אֲנִי וְעַמִּי, לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרוֹג וּלְאַבֵּד; וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ, הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי--כִּי אֵין הַצָּר שֹׁוֶה, בְּנֵזֶק הַמֶּלֶךְ. {ס} 4 for we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, I had held my peace, for the adversary is not worthy that the king be endamaged.' (Esther 7:3-4)

Why would Esther have been okay with having the Jews sold as slaves? It's obvious why she's not happy about their extermination, but why is slaving okay?

The answer to this question occurred to me due to my student reminding me of the following tale regarding Mordechai and Haman based on Megillah 15a: "There was a tradition that Mordecai once went with a deputation to the king of Persia to ask permission for the Jews to rebuild the Temple, v. Jast. [Rashi: One (Mordecai) came as a rich man, the other (Haman) as a debtor. Haman according to the legend had sold himself during one of the wars as a slave to Mordecai for a loaf of bread.]"

Per the more elaborate rendering of this legend in Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg, Mordechai used to show his shoe and/or his kneecap, where the contract had been written regarding Haman selling himself as a slave to Mordechai, which provoked him.

What is clear to me now is that Esther is saying the following: "I understand that Haman was incensed by Mordechai's constantly reminding him that he once sold himself as a slave to Mordechai. Therefore, it would have been understandable if Haman in return decided to enslave Mordechai and all the Jews. However, Haman has gone even farther than that and has decided to exterminate the Jews. At this point, I must step in."

Unorthodox

Disclaimer: I received a free review copy of 'Unorthodox.'

Deborah Feldman's memoir, Unorthodox, is a delicately painted portrait of her world, her questions and her struggle. Contrary to what others have said, the writing is even-handed and her portrayal of the Hasidic world is fair and accurate. Interestingly, her articles, interviews and comments online have come across as far more bitter than the actual memoir is. Her memoir paints a portrait while those articles express feelings; I believe this is what accounts for the difference.

This memoir is highly evocative and extremely well-written. Deborah's portraits of her Zeidy, Bubby, Aunt Chaya and friend Mindy are painted particularly well. It is easy to imagine the wealthy patriarch who refuses to spend money, the hard-working woman who finds solace and pleasure in her cooking and feeding of others, the cold, aloof, emotionally frigid woman who rules Deborah's life and the girl who was her confidante and fellow rebel but who ended up fitting into the system in the end. The cast of characters is not composed of stereotypes or archetypes but real people, with strengths and weaknesses that express themselves over the course of the story.

Deborah has a way of turning a phrase or giving salient details that paint an immediate picture in the reader's mind. This paragraph, for example, stood out to me:

Perhaps in an adult, eccentricity is more easily forgiven. But who can explain an adult who hoards cake for months, until the smell of mold is unbearable? Who can explain the row of bottles in the refrigerator, each containing the pink liquid antibiotics that children take, that my father insists on imbibing every day for some invisible illness that no doctor can detect? (Feldman 10)

Deborah's book tackles incredibly tough issues, ranging from the status of women within the Hasidic world to mental health, mental illness, abuse of power (in the specific case mentioned, by a mikvah lady who enjoys embarrassing young kallot), molestation and attempted rape, sexual dysfunction and the search for selfhood. Much of her narrative focuses on her wanting to feel control over her own destiny and ownership of herself. When she begins to wear clothing like jeans or smokes her first cigarette, this is a way for her to reclaim her ability to make decisions for herself- and to feel like she owns her body.

Deborah's mother was one of the women who participated in the film 'Trembling Before God.' She either left or was deliberately made to leave the community for being a lesbian. However, Deborah was never told this- she was only told that her mother had left, and when pressed, that she had had a nervous breakdown. In another section, Deborah addresses mental illness in the following way:

My father wasn't the first misfortune to befall our family, and he wasn't the last. Only recently my uncle Shulem's son went insane at the age of seventeen. Baruch's nervous collapse hit Zeidy especially hard. He had been the prodigy of his family; his rabbis and teachers praised him for his outstanding Talmudic genius. By the time Baruch was diagnosed with acute paranoid schizophrenia, he had lost the ability to form coherent sentences, speaking in a strange language no one could comprehend. Zeidy kept him locked up in a room in his office for months, slipping trays of food that Bubby had prepared through a little slot in the door. He didn't want to release him, fearing the damage that could be done to our family if we had another raving lunatic roaming around Williamsburg. One night Baruch got out somehow, smashing through the door with his fists, emerging with bloody gashes on his arms. His screams were guttural; they burst endlessly out of his throat like those of a wild animal in pain. He destroyed everything he could get his hands on. They had to wrestle him down in the hallway, the paramedics, and sedate him. I watched from the upstairs landing, tears streaming down my face.

Later, when Bubby finished cleaning up the mess he had left, she sat white-faced at the kitchen table. I heard her whispering into the phone as I folded dish towels. He had defecated everywhere, leaving neat piles of stool on the carpet. My heart hurt for Bubby, who had never thought it was a good idea to keep Baruch locked up downstairs but had acquiesced like she did every time Zeidy made a unilateral decision.

Still, I understood why Zeidy had acted the way he did; in our community it was unheard of to place a mentally ill person in an institution. How could we trust an asylum run by gentiles to care for a Hasidic Jew and meet his needs? Even the insane are not exempt from the laws and customs of Judaism. In a way, Zeidy was brave to undertake the care of Baruch's soul, even though he was ill equipped to deal with the effects of his psychosis. (Feldman 41-42)

Something I found odd but interesting was that despite her claim to want individuality, at the end of the day, what Deborah really wanted was to conform to something else. She wasn't very good at conforming to the world she was born into, but she expresses deep relief and happiness at being able to conform to secular America.

When a literary agent informs Deborah that she is nothing like she expected, Deborah is "secretly overjoyed to hear her confirmation, to know that I blend in here, that I look just like everyone else. To think, on the Upper East Side, I finally know what it feels like to not stand out in the way I always have" (Feldman 240).

Later, Deborah writes:

I'm wearing jeans and a V-neck, and my hair is long and straight and snakes around my shoulder to dangle like a thick, dark ribbon down my side. I must look just like everyone else here. Finally, the blessed feeling of anonymity, of belonging; are they not the same? Can anyone see past my nonchalant poise to the nervous joy underneath? (Feldman 241)

To me, this desire to conform is sad. Despite everything she writes about being an individualist, in the end of the day, all that Deborah wants is a society to which she feels she can conform, unlike the society in which she was raised.

While Deborah realizes by the end of her work that she can keep aspects of her past with her, and even be proud of them, I think this deep-rooted wish to conform and not to stand out is one of the lingering negative aspects of her upbringing. It seems to me that Deborah still has more steps to take and strides to make in reclaiming her individuality - so that she can be different from her society but not totally in step with American secular society, either.

Cult of Personality & Female Abusers

As the issue of emotional abuse by a particular rabbi has been tackled by The Jewish Week, different thoughts have been running through my mind. The two most frequent: 1) We have created a cult of personality that leads to people in positions of power taking advantage of our children. 2) Every article or book currently out in the Orthodox world addresses the issue of male (usually rabbinic) abuse. Why have the female abusers not been mentioned?

With regard to the cult of personality, I think this is part and parcel with the points made in Dr. Hayyim Soloveichik's 'Rupture and Reconstruction.' He talks about our preference for texts and textual sources post-Holocaust. Well, post-Holocaust our veneration for those who are intimately versed in those texts has also grown. In order to rejuvenate Jewry, different strategies came into place. One of these was the creation of informal education youth groups such as NCSY and the other was the creation of the post-high school gap year at a yeshiva or seminary in Israel.

Everyone knows about the potential for the power wielded by the charismatic kiruv rebbe to be abused (see Baruch Lanner). But though we joke about the seminary/ yeshiva flip out reactions, until this article in The Jewish Week, I don't think people viewed the fact that we relinquish our students into the care of people we don't know in Israel as problematic. I have personally always felt distaste for this system and the amount of (disturbing) power wielded by these seminary rabbis and morahs. I have seen students at Stern who would call these people to discuss relationships, engagements and dates and who had these people veto or advocate for prospective suitors. I think the fact that students have created a culture of giving their brain over to these morahs/ rabbis is really disturbing. There are some decisions you really ought to have autonomy over and your seminary rabbi who you had a crush on has no business interfering.

Books that have explored the year in Israel phenomenon say that often the students grow because they feel like they are finally experiencing authentic Judaism. They meet people who can serve as their role models. And yet these same role models sometimes advocate for the children to stay a second year in Israel against their parents' wishes, give up their college aspirations, go to kollel rather than work a job etc. I do not think disturbing peace between family members and students should be the role of a rabbi. A rabbi and a guide needs to be a responsible person. You need to use texts responsibly, teach responsibly and meddle in family politics (if you feel it's your place to meddle) responsibly. Fervent zealotry has its place, but that place is not working with impressionable teenagers.

Aside from the issue of the cult of personality that we have fostered within Judaism, there is the issue of who exactly we are reaming out as abusers. I am glad that we are speaking openly about the flaws within the system, but not once (not once!) have I read an article talking about a woman who is abusive. Now, it's possible that most women within our community aren't slapping the teenage girls under their care, but they come up with more insidious ways to abuse them. The worst is what I call religious abuse. They use religion as an abuse textbook. They say things like, "Sweetie, I'm just worried about your neshama. You used to be so tznius. What happened? Is it those friends of yours? I just feel like you're slipping. I'm always available to help, you know, if you want to talk to me." The school that I went to included a teacher who was totally unsuitable. She was verbally abusive to me and others. Why is it that she and people like her get a free pass? Why are we focusing specifically on the men? There are women who have ruined the lives of many Bais Yaakov girls. When will we comment on the impact that they are having, the fact that they rip their students' self-esteem to shreds and pit them against each other for their approval?

Aquifers

Heshy: Do you know what aquifers are? I'm learning the laws of aquifers.

Chana: Yes.

Heshy: If the surface tract is on their land, they can use the water.

Chana: My heart goes out to all men obsessed with aquifers.

Heshy: It should. They lead miserable lives.

~

(Chana takes pizza out of oven)

Heshy: Oh, baby.

Chana: You make strange noises.

Heshy: (smiles) Is this a general rule?

Love

Love is an emotion that suffuses me; it washes over me like the cleansing rain. I am filled with it, replete with it; it is an airy substance that is insubstantial and yet integral. Love comes upon me in waves, like an ocean. It rises and subsides. I feel love for my children.

I find that I feel love for what I admire. I admire my children because I think the way that they try so hard is amazing. I am impressed by their effort and by the amazing results they produce. I find their insights and their questions to be fascinating. I am thrilled and touched by how their minds work. I love these questions that are so simple and yet to which I often have no answer. Oftentimes I simply haven't thought of them before.

I also find that I feel love for something beautifully executed. When I see a sport played to perfection, when I see a play performed with joy and integrity, when I see somebody transformed by who they become when they are lost within the passion and the joy of an experience, I feel a surge of love towards them, sometimes even a oneness with them.

In these moments, all I want to do is find a way to pass on this feeling of gladness and joy to the children who create the feeling in me. I want them to see how much I value them and their achievements and accomplishments. I want them to realize that I love that they climbed the mountain and that I think the sight of them standing on the tip is breathtaking. I want them to see how incredible I think they are. In these moments, what I want to do most of all is share.

I admire my children. I admire the effort they put into their work, their questions, their intelligence, their passions and the things which they do well. I find them to be made in the image of God and I find that this shines through whether they wish it to or not. I am gladdened by them and I find my days to be less weary because of them.

They also make me laugh. They entertain me and their antics in class amuse me. We have the "Sassy Much?" slogan in one class and various other catchphrases in other classes. I'm still working on learning how to be better at classroom discipline and firmness, but I know I've got the love part down. And I know that this is what drives me when I feel sad.

Who knew that love for a child could be such an uplifting force? It's not even a child's love for me. I'm not in their hearts and I don't know what they feel. But I know what I feel towards them and even that is enough to make the difference. They are treasures- sometimes frustrating, disrespectful, authority-challenging, difficult people- but treasures nonetheless. And I feel like God has Chosen me to work with them and I struggle to try to ensure that I am worthy of His Choice.

Love floats banners and carries ships; it buoys me up and sinks my discomfort. It is the magical antidote to misery, and for me there is something specific to the love of children that makes it matter more.

Things that Move Me

-Watching my blondish brown haired boy with a basketball in his hand, performing the most graceful, elegant dance possible as he speeds down the court, performs multiple passes and then swishes the ball through the net. This dance is gorgeous and I feel like I'm watching a thing of beauty when I see it.

-Reading projects that my children turn in to me and realizing that they are full of incredible insight and depth. I feel like I am standing in the presence of greatness and this in turn makes me feel indebted to them. My children spill over with spiritual potential and insight, and I love that I get to witness this and am a party to that sparkle of God that rests within them.

The love that I feel towards my children is more consuming than almost any other feeling I have and it is one that fills me with joy. I feel uplifted and excited upon witnessing their accomplishments and I am thrilled by everything that they do well in. I am glad to be a part of their lives and I feel like the edges of our pictures meet, so that my Polaroid corner blurs a bit into theirs. And for this I am grateful.

Sleep No More: My 23rd Birthday Masquerade

Married for a year and having thrown my own gala party (albeit a Chanukah celebration for my beloved students), it's now my pleasure to invite you all to my yearly birthday masquerade. The song this time is "Masquerade" by Ashley Tisdale (lyrics here). Enjoy.

This year I turn...23.



Here's my formal invitation
You and me go masquerading
Lose ourselves in this charade and
Is this love we're imitating?
Do we want what we've got?
If not I say so what
Here's my formal invitation
Let's go, let's go masquerading

Last year's entertainment can be found here.

The rules, as always, require you to devise an anonymous handle for yourself (comment under an assumed name, not your real one and not that of your blog), create a costume and offer me a gift. The gift does not have to be tangible. Your costumes and gifts should be creative and expressive of various aspects of your personality. You are welcomed, of course, to my party. In the style of "Sleep No More," scenes are being acted out all around you - whether of a guilt-wracked Macbeth, a mad Lady Macbeth or a ghostly Banquo is up to you. As you wander through my many rooms, your faces concealed, what madness or pleasure do you find? As always, the choice is yours.

Sinat Chinam

אבל מקדש שני שהיו עוסקין בתורה ובמצות וגמילות חסדים מפני מה חרב מפני שהיתה בו שנאת חנם ללמדך ששקולה שנאת חנם כנגד שלש עבירות ע"ז גלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים רשעים היו אלא שתלו בטחונם בהקב"ה אתאן למקדש ראשון דכתיב (מיכה ג) ראשיה בשוחד ישפוטו וכהניה במחיר יורו ונביאיה בכסף יקסומו ועל ה' ישענו לאמר הלא ה' בקרבנו לא תבוא עלינו רעה לפיכך הביא עליהן הקב"ה ג' גזרות כנגד ג' עבירות שבידם שנאמר (מיכה ג) לכן בגללכם ציון שדה תחרש וירושלים עיין תהיה והר הבית לבמות יער ובמקדש ראשון לא הוה ביה שנאת חנם

Why was the First Temple destroyed? Because of three evils in it: idolatry, sexual immorality and bloodshed . . . But why was the Second Temple destroyed, seeing that during the time it stood people occupied themselves with Torah, with observance of precepts, and with the practice of charity? Because during the time it stood, hatred without rightful cause prevailed. This is to teach you that hatred without rightful cause is deemed as grave as all the three sins of idolatry, sexual immorality and bloodshed together.

~Yoma 9b

~

I watched this clip of what is going on in Beit Shemesh. It made me cry.

I thought: Is it not obvious that this is Sinat Chinam in action? And then I thought: Of course not. Everyone thinks they have a reason for why they can and should hate others. They think their reason is the Torah. Imagine! According to them, the Torah says they should spit on seven-year-old girls, and that this is not Sinat Chinam. In fact, according to one person in the video, they are the victims- they are the ones who others hate baselessly.

Sinat Chinam destroyed our second Temple.

Who is to say whether it will destroy our State? If you truly believe the State of Israel is Reishit Tzmichat Geulateinu, then you know that it is God-given. What God gives, He can take away. He enabled the Babylonians to destroy our Beit HaMikdash and he can enable others to do away with the State.

And so it makes me sad when someone in that video calls out that no rules apply to them, only Torah and mitzvot. It's when people forget that Torah calls upon them to fulfill the Mitzvot Ben Adam L'Chaveiro that Sinat Chinam is able to insidiously enter our lives.

Differing Declarations On The Orthodox Response to Homosexuality

Last year in July, many rabbis (the majority of them Modern Orthodox) banded together to publish the Statement of Principles regarding homosexuality within the Orthodox community. You can read that statement here.

An alternative statement referred to as The Torah Declaration (otherwise known as the Declaration on the Torah Approach to Homosexuality) has been created. This declaration is signed by those who are more to the right in the Orthodox world (it does include prominent YU rabbis such as R' Herschel Schacter and R' Moshe Tendler).

There are several differences between the two statements. The major difference is that in The Torah Declaration, the rabbanim declare that same-sex attractions can be modified and healed through reparative therapy. In contrast, the Statement of Principles signed by those who are Modern Orthodox asserts:

Whatever the origin or cause of homosexual orientation, many individuals believe that for most people this orientation cannot be changed. Others believe that for most people it is a matter of free will. Similarly, while some mental health professionals and rabbis in the community strongly believe in the efficacy of “change therapies”, most of the mental health community, many rabbis, and most people with a homosexual orientation feel that some of these therapies are either ineffective or potentially damaging psychologically for many patients.

We affirm the religious right of those with a homosexual orientation to reject
therapeutic approaches they reasonably see as useless or dangerous.

I am not sure which statement I am most in accord with. The empathic, humanistic side of me thinks the Statement of Principles is more correct. On the other hand, I think that those who put their names to The Torah Declaration are willing to flaunt society and stand up for what they believe is true and right, including their belief that God would not create someone who has no chance for marital happiness in this world. I applaud the people who wrote and signed The Torah Declaration and yet don't feel that I (not that I am in their league) could sign on to it.

I guess the question is whether God could create someone who has gay feelings but is mandated by the law not to act on those feelings or whether he would simply not have created someone who is only attracted to/ has feelings for the same sex in the first place. The Torah Declaration says God would not create someone who could never act upon his feelings. My philosophy of Judaism is one that includes pain, suffering and striving as valid paths for finding God, so I'm not sure that I see that as so definitive. I can imagine a God who creates someone who is attracted to the same sex but is charged not to act on those feelings. Why is that not a challenge like any other challenge?

The Drill Burrowing Into My Ceiling

It is impossible to sleep or live in my apartment. The drilling here is INSANE.

It's my vacation, people! Have mercy.

Off to go do other stuff....since sleep is clearly not an option.

YU Beacon= Trash

It shouldn't bother me that the YU Beacon publishes trash, but it does.

It bothers me that this editor claims she isn't publishing controversy for the sake of controversy, when there's clearly no other reason to publish this piece of crap.

Crap where some idiot says that rabbis permit condoms but not birth control pills and also posits that birth control pills can abort babies. (This woman has no grip on reality- or science for that matter.)

If you want to talk about this issue, note that it already has been talked about. (Again, the Beacon does absolutely no research.) Read "The Halakhic Parameters of Delaying Procreation" by Rabbi Moshe Kahn. Then, if you have something to add, or a play to write- do so.

Birth Control

My Feelings Take Precedence Over Your Jewish Values

"And actually I think that is the important role that atheists play in the contemporary world. They refuse to let religious organizations or leaders get away with sloppy thinking or acceptance of something as the Will of God when clearly God wants us to change that thing and transform the world. They challenge religion whenever it is a source of intolerance or hate and in that respect, I like atheists and I feel enlarged by them. But as for the angry atheists- the figures that we all know of- I call them our contemporary intellectual equivalent of 'road rage'- those guys I think are not the kind of atheists that I respect because what they write about is a caricature of religion, not the real thing."

~Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on Dialogue with Atheists

***

It's just an article, so why does it bother me so much?

I think it bothers me because it is representative of a trend in Modern Orthodoxy on a whole. It is a trend I find disquieting and upsetting, one that troubles me in the extreme. That trend is that whatever I feel or find to be difficult must be spoken about publicly, dealt with publicly and anyone who dares to not accept me or to differ from me must be whipped into line. And I think that this idea is representative of sloppy thinking in our student body, thinking that originates in the heart rather than one's brain.

The thinking is as follows: I am experiencing an issue; therefore others around me must also be experiencing that issue. If we are experiencing that issue together, the best way for us to deal with it is by stating our opinions loudly and publicly. Anyone who doesn't agree with our opinions must be shamed for failing to be sufficiently liberal, modern, tolerant or open-minded. Even those who might agree that the discussion ought to be held but disagree with the format must be accused of being close-minded.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like much of a discussion to me.

When the YU Beacon was first founded, I expressed tentative support for it. My concern was that they seemed to be pushing the envelope without actually stating that this was their agenda. In fact, the comment thread included comments from the editors that said that is exactly what they were not doing. One editor stated "We are not trying to create controversy or push the limits with every article (hence the tame Maccabeats one, and many others which are neutral). We would like the paper simply to be a regular student paper which won't cover up anything but will also include more "mundane" articles."

Whether the editors intended it or not, the YU Beacon seems to be read mainly as a scandal sheet, a kind of tabloid rag. A quick look at their Weekly Hits shows you that their most-read articles are the one posted up about premarital sex, an opinions piece about how sex shouldn't be openly discussed which includes the disclaimer that the author is not so close-minded as to tell others how to live their lives or not to discuss it (ironic), a piece about feminism in religion, a piece about how shomer negiah is no longer possible and therefore the lack thereof in committed relationships needs to be discussed lest people feel guilty (the horror, the horror) and a rant against the Hasidic community (among others).

So let me see. The go-to topics for the readers of this paper are: sex, more sex, feminism, shomer negiah (which is just disguised almost-sex) and community-bashing.

I think that a commitment to thoughtfully discussing issues of concern to students of Yeshiva University is really important. That's the reason that I had entire features spreads devoted to sexuality, mental health and sexual abuse. These articles featured student responses but they also included interviews with professionals and rabbis. I wanted a well-rounded perspective on everything that I published. I also wanted to make sure I was clear that I was discussing issues of concern to affiliates of Modern Orthodoxy as a whole rather than the segment comprised by the university.

A discussion about premarital sex is important. There are so many issues to explore: should the mikvah be open to women who are not married? What causes women or men to have premarital sex? What percentage of the student body is engaging in this? Do most people feel guilty about it or are they totally okay with it? But especially when you are a representative of a community, as each member of YU is, you have to think about what the best format to engage in this discussion is.

If the YU Beacon wanted to open up a discussion about premarital sex, then yes, they could have and should have included personal viewpoints. But they should also have included other material focusing on the plethora of issues that are part of this subject. I think it would have been interesting to read an account of a student who had premarital sex and felt guilty alongside an account of one who had sex and didn't. I think it would have been intriguing to see what percentage of the student body admitted to engaging in premarital sex and what percentage didn't. I would have been interested in seeing how prominent scholars or religious figures addressed the issue, assuming that they were willing to discuss it with the paper. Responsible reporting argues for a complete picture, not a skewed one.

By choosing to publish one piece on a Stern girl's one-night stand, the YU Beacon also chose to open up a Pandora's box. And sometimes that would be okay, but this time it was irresponsible. If you are going to make the editorial decision to inflame most of the student body- who choose to attend this university because of the fact that it's Yeshiva University and there are theoretically certain standards that accompany that name- then you better make sure it's worth it. Was this really worth it? Was this one essay about a girl sleeping with a guy and then feeling bad about it so important? Did it really help anyone who was in this position? And if so, what exactly did it help them with? What was the message behind this story?

Was the message that other people sin too, so I'm not alone in sinning?

Was the message that premarital sex leads to guilt?

Was the message that Stern girls are just like other girls on secular campuses, and that they too have sex?

Was the message that because of their guilt-complexes, Stern girls can only sin after they've quashed their conscious by deciding to get drunk?

In short, what was the point of the article? Why was it so incredibly important to publish it? What was it that we as a student body were supposed to learn from it, take away from it or otherwise gain from it?

This wasn't a discussion that actually helped someone deal with an issue. If I was a girl who had sex before marriage and I read this article, the only thing I would have learned is that someone else out there had done the same thing as me. I assume this is something I would have known before reading this article as well.

To me, therefore, this suggests that the only point behind this article was to say, hey, we at YU aren't so different from people at other college campuses. We're also a university; we also have rights. We have freedom of the press and we want to show it. So let's publish an article about a girl's one-night stand and let's claim we're doing it in the name of our ideals, in the name of talking about important issues because people need to talk about the things they are doing behind closed doors. Surely if they don't, they'll explode. And a public forum such as a newspaper is certainly the best place to do it, rather than a blog or a Facebook.

A friend of mine said that he had read an article which stated that "colleges are where students have their own mini-state." Thus, they think they are citizens exercising their right to free speech, consequences be damned. And if you look at the majority of comments on the article, people were outraged and upset that there might even be a request to pull the piece. They immediately deemed this censorship and got on their high horses.

What we think, what we say and what we write is a reflection of who we are and what our values are. It doesn't surprise me that many at YU were uninterested in being represented by one girl's one-night stand. The word 'Stern' was even tagged in the article.

If the point of the article was to say hey, we at YU aren't so different from people at other college campuses, boy, do I have some news for you. We are different. We are religious Jews. As a nation, we have been chosen by God to represent Him and to act as His ambassadors on this earth. Our view of sexuality is one that consists of giving, of true intimacy, of devotion, of sharing. As the Rav writes in Family Redeemed, it is a view that focuses upon the I-Thou relationship, not the I-It.

So when a student writes about how she acted exactly like a typical college student, having a one-night stand in a hotel after getting drunk, feeling love for her boyfriend who doesn't seem to be emotionally reciprocating in any way...yeah, that shocks us. It should shock us. Because there's a student who has allowed herself to be objectified, to believe the myth that putting out is what keeps her together with her boyfriend, and who is in a position which truthfully comes across as extremely sad.

And once shocked, a lot of students responded by saying, in effect: This is not what we choose to represent us. This is not what we want people to think when they hear the words Yeshiva University. This is not what we want people to think when they hear the words observant Jew. This is not what or who defines us and we don't want it up there for people to think this is what defines us.

But the editors of the paper said: Your opinions be damned and your reactions be damned. We don't care what should represent religious Jews; we only care about what some religious Jews actually are doing. We have free speech and we're not afraid to use it. And we don't care if this becomes a huge Chilul Hashem and a scandal dragged across the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and so on; we don't care if we make Yeshiva University out to be some sort of evil overarching censorship committee. We only care about ourselves and the fact that we should have the right so say what we want.

And you have to wonder: Is that a Machloket L'Sheim Shamayim or a Machloket She'Lo L'Sheim Shamayim? Are these students selflessly defending the tenets of Judaism or are they selfishly determining that once they've made a decision, their decisions ought not be questioned?

I agree that premarital sex is an important issue to address within the Modox community.

What I question is the forum, the format, the lack of responsibility and the focus on one's rights rather than one's obligations that took place here. In a world where editors say we are accountable to no one, not even God, what Judaism is being defended, exactly?

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks says he doesn't respect 'road rage' atheists, the ones who write about caricatures of religion rather than the real deal. I feel like the same applies to editors of a paper who chose to grant interviews to major media outlets and drag YU through the mud rather than admit to the possibility that maybe their decision was wrong. Not the decision to talk about premarital sex in the first place! But the way they chose to introduce it as a subject- not as a question but as definitive, not under analysis but as narrative.

The YU Beacon Piece on Sexuality

This article has come out stating:"YU Student Paper in Danger After Acknowledging Existence of Sex."

Oh, please. I wrote an entire series on sexuality in "The Observer."

• This Too is Torah and I Must Learn
• The Jewish Perspective on Sexuality
• Interview on Sexuality in the Modern-Orthodox Community
  
• Jews and Sexuality in the Modern-Day World
• Jewish Sexual Education and the Lack Thereof
• Tzelem: Life Values & Intimacy Education

The difference between my articles and the piece in the YU Beacon is that my articles had educational and journalistic merit, were carefully researched and actually dealt with the issues. I also discussed premarital sex. You can read "Jews and Sexuality in the Modern-Day World" to see that. In contrast, the YU Beacon's article was only intended to be controversial and tick people off. (Why else publish something so poorly written?) In both these goals, they've succeeded admirably.

But don't tell me that YU is pulling its funding from a student newspaper just because someone dared to mention the word 'sex.' They're pulling funding because the Beacon published a piece without any redeeming qualities that creates a certain negative perception about YU, and YU'll be damned if they pay money to have their own dependents working against them.

Lightman & The Tent-Peg Wielder

When I first came to Stern, I was really lonely. I was scared, nervous, a real freshman straight out of North Shore Country Day. I hardly knew anybody.

Aside from being lonely, I was proud. I wasn't going to ask to be invited over to people's houses. Instead, I figured I would just hang out in the Stern Caf over Shabbat. Luckily for me, I met an amazing trio my second Shabbat at Stern. The trio asked me whether I wanted to get pizza that Saturday night. I agreed. They were my first real friends in New York.

I've been helped, cared for and had fun with all of them. But the friend to whom I've remained closest of that original group is Lightman.

Lightman is a brilliant violinist. He plays with all his heart and soul. He is also a linguist, a health nut and a master of biblical Hebrew. Lightman taught me Hebrew throughout my time in Stern. I owe him for ensuring that I didn't fail out of Dr. Steiner's class. But to me, he's more than his accomplishments. His talents are amazing and he ought to be lauded for them, but when I think of him, it's his soul that moves me. I love Lightman because he has a depth of spirit that is almost unsurpassed. Beauty touches him. Whether it's the thin sound of an operatic wail or the clash of cymbals as an orchestra reaches its crescendo, Lightman understands. He is there with you in the pit of the valley, in the horrors and the torture chambers that few visit, let alone comprehend. When I needed a light in the darkness, I found him, and what is more, he found me.

Lightman was the one who made me a surprise birthday party. I had never had one before. Lightman is also the one who videoed a different party of mine, one where I was extremely touched and moved to see what everyone present had to say about me. (It was a little like the Living Funeral described in Tuesdays with Morrie and I still count it as one of the most heartmelting moments of my life). Lightman is the one who would cheer me up when I was at my darkest, raising me up from the depths. Lightman would make sure that I would attend Broadway shows and operas and that my artistic side was always validated. He offered me strength and compassion and there are many times I would have fallen but for him.

When Lightman first discovered the Tent-Peg Wielder, I didn't react at my best. I was a bit like a displaced sibling in a family structure, one who didn't understand that transition and how to make it. But over time, I grew to know her and to trust her. I grew to see her as one of the best, kindest and most loving people I have ever met. She is so spirited, spunky, idealistic and scholarly that it blows me away. She is inspired, inspiring and glorious. She has dealt with so much and has managed to come out on top despite it all. She has dealt with all scenarios, even those that were not ideal, with aplomb. She is a fearless editor and is extremely loyal. She is incredibly creative. She is brave. Her courage is of the masked kind, the sort that doesn't reveal itself openly. She doesn't plunge into people's houses to rescue their dying children; no, her courage is of the internal sort. She takes her stands and she makes them heroically.

Her thoughts on Jewish History opened my eyes to an entirely new way of seeing Judaism. For me, Judaism is an incredibly personal religion. How I relate to God, how Judaism offers me a sense of structure that helps me to be at my most healthy - this is what is most important when it comes to my connection to the religion. But TPW is less selfish. For her, Judaism is about Jewish History, the incredible marvels, scandals and horrors that our people have survived. History to her is part of our heritage, something to learn about and to wear as a badge of honor. Our history defines and enlightens us.

She is also an amazing teacher. As a Hebrew School instructor, she married her creative talent to her love for Jewish texts in order to create innovative and engaging lessons. Her children wrote her kind and colorful missives expressing their love for her. And her creativity doesn't stop there. I had the honor of spending one very memorable Rosh Hashana with her- one where those in attendance ate a real lamb's head rather than a fish's head. She was the one who had the patience, initiative and sheer mischievous desire to track down a sheep's head, season it, cook it and finally, serve it.

I am amazed by TPW's diligence and precision. When she decided she was interested in learning a new language, she put all her effort, talent and mental agility into mastering it. When she prepares for classes at her graduate program, she makes sure to do all the readings in advance. She really commits herself to whatever is important to her. Her acuity and analysis, while impressive, are not all she has to offer. She is also incredibly artistic. I own pieces of artwork that she has made (whether in the form of greeting cards or snowglobes) and they are exquisite. I hope she fulfills her dream of reproducing her artwork commercially and selling it online.

I am extremely happy to share with you that tonight marks the engagement of Lightman to the Tent-Peg Wielder. It's been a long journey and they've come a long way. I am looking forward to seeing them join with one another in a shared dance of art, music, Tanakh, Hebrew, Jewish History and beyond. I hope that they are blessed.

Mazel Tov!