Finger Pointing in the Wrong Direction

A rabbi is quoted as saying, "Cell phones have wrought devastation in people's lives.  Before the advent of cell phones, we would never have believed that people could stoop to such levels of rudeness and worse." 

He doesn't think people necessarily have to get rid of their phones (that would be a futile goal) but says, "If a person feels that his cell phone is beneficial or indispensable, he does not have to discard it, but he cannot become a slave to it.  A cell phone does not have to be attached to him at all times.  Nothing will happen if he leaves it at home when it is not absolutely necessary."

Seems to me that the problem is not the cell phone at all.  For just as knives and fire and numerous other even more innocuous items can be used for the most beneficial purposes or in harmful ways, cell phones are no different.

The issue is one of discipline with which we, as a generation, are struggling.  Lack of discipline is adversely affecting us in numerous areas of our lives and cell phone usage is yet another way we demonstrate our lack of control.  So it's not the poor phone that should be vilified for wreaking destruction but we ourselves.  It's not helpful to shift the blame.  Let's confront ourselves and see where in our lives we need to "tighten up" the discipline and take responsibility for our actions.

Say "May I"

 

Two reasons for Restricted Refrigerator Access:

1) As related by Shaya Ostrov: A rosh yeshiva wanted to help his children understand that we don't "just exist."  Everything in life is a gift.  He told R' Ostrov that when his children were young, they were taught not to go to the refrigerator and take any food without first asking permission.  "We never refused them.  They just needed to remember to ask."  His reason was that a child needs to learn that nothing in life is a given.  Everything we have is a precious gift for which we need to experience gratitude.

R' Ostrov goes on to say: When a child is hungry, he says to himself, "I am hungry and therefore I will eat."  This translates into, "I am hungry and therefore entitled to eat -es kumt mir."  Of course, children need to feel secure in knowing that they will always be cared for, loved and fed.  However this rosh yeshiva did not want his children to confuse their need with the feeling of entitlement that leads to taking.  The rosh yeshiva was teaching his children that the gift of food can never be taken for granted, "I'm hungry, so I'm just eating what is rightfully mine."  The attitute of the child who believes that the food he is holding is his because, "I was hungry and I took it," is very different from that of the child who believes that the food was given as a gift from his parents because, "I was hungry and my parents understood this and they love and care for me."

2) As related by Rabbi MM Gluckowsky: "I remember when I was a child, we were not only not encouraged to be independent, we weren't allowed to be independent. We could not open the fridge without permission! We weren't considered mature enough to make decisions about what and when to eat without parental involvement, and we weren't! There were strongly enforced rules ...Somebody older and wiser was making decisions for us and we had to abide."

The emphasis here was on teaching obedience, rather than the currently very popular goal of encouraging independence.

****
It is likely that the parents in both these examples would be condemned by many as control freaks.  Perhaps we as a society wouldn't be suffering from obesity-compulsive eating and many other problems due to feelings of entitlement and/or lack of discipline if we were raised with some more control!

Clashing Beliefs

If you took a poll among frum people and asked them whether they believe Murphy's Law ("Anything that can go wrong will go wrong") to be true, what do you think they would say?

I've heard people refer to to Murphy's Law and although it might be done jokingly, I think they believe it to be true to some extent.  How does this fit with what we believe? Does it take into account R' Bachya ibn Pekuda's Chovos Ha'Levavos, Shaar ha'Bitachon? He writes:

If we knew we had a friend who:

1) never ceases worrying about us

2) is able to fulfill our wishes

3) knows our exact needs and what is good for us

4) controls all the people and powers in the world and does not allow any of them to harm or benefit us without his consent

5) is overflowing with kindness and compassion even if we are undeserving

we would completely relax and stop worrying about ANYTHING.

Hashem is merciful and gracious; He neither slumbers nor sleeps, He is your Father, He made you, Hashem is good to all and His mercy is on all His creations etc.

Can you refer to Murphy's Law and simultaneously take "gam zu l'tova" seriously?

Reframing Getting Out of Hand

Her child dismantles the bathroom sink yet again.  Following her teacher's instruction she chooses to view this positively as in, "How very industrious and creative of him!"

It's all about how you look at things. "You don't mean lazy," the parenting teacher said. "You mean laid back," and so on.

Yes, if you live in small quarters and cannot move, it is beneficial to view your home as cozy rather than crowded.  It's called having an ayin tova, viewing things positively.  Likewise, reframing one's life circumstances so one isn't bitter is a positive application of the concept.  I've read people's life stories which were quite tragic and yet some of the people involved were upbeat about life.  "Holy Woman" - Rebbetzin Sarah Kramer is a good example of someone who lived through a nightmare and yet faced life with joy and counted her blessings.

But something seems quite amiss when, in educating children, we opt to view all their foibles, bad traits and actions in a rosy light.  Mishlei describes the lazy man in very unflattering terms.  Shlomo Ha'Melech doesn't "reframe" the lazy man's approach to life as one in which he "looks before he leaps."  He says the man is lazy!

If you don't identify negative traits for what they really are, how will you modify them? If a child is being destructive and you call it creative, who are you kidding? It's true that a parent will look benevolently upon a child if what they do is reframed in positive terms and it is a good thing for parents to look benevolently at their children, but isn't there too much of a good thing? Middos can be used for good and bad and have to be identified and scrutinized. If the child is being bossy, that's not being a leader, it's being bossy! Can the child be guided into becoming a leader? Yes, but calling bossiness - leadership is not true and not helpful.

In our society today we have trouble calling evil, evil; and terrorists, terrorists.  In our Western world that champions moral relativism we say, what's evil to me might not be evil to someone else; my terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter.  This sort of reframing is evil!

Koheles 3:4 "There is a time to cry and a time to laugh; a time to eulogize and a time to dance," etc. Likewise, there is a time to reframe and a time to confront the truth.

Wanted: Mothers!

I read of a study in which researchers attached electrodes to the heads of 16 sleeping newborns within the first 24 hours after birth.  They found that when other women (doctors, nurses) spoke, the section of the brain that controls voice recognition fired up.  It took the sound of the mother's voice to trigger neurons in the part of the brain responsible for learning language.

I thought - since so many mothers have relinquished caring for their own children and give them to babysitters and daycare centers from infancy, maybe this study explains the explosion in keria and reading problems I've been reading about.

Then I read a letter to the editor of a frum publication which gives professional backing to my thesis.  A woman wrote in response to a chinuch article and said that the author of the article suggests that a mother help her child overcome "auditory processing deficit" by keeping a running conversation with him as they shop together (naming fruits, vegetables, and groceries) and as they walk along the street (naming stores and what they sell).

The letter writer says:

"Sounds wonderful but most young children today are not being raised by their mothers.  Many mothers are working or are otherwise busy, and many young children are in a play group from a very young age.  When do they have time simply to walk along the streets with their children and name trees, stores, and car colors?

"A renowned special-ed professional once told me that the number of children with these deficits mushroomed when mothers were forced to go to work, whether to support Torah learning, pay tuition, or make mortgage payments, and that if mothers returned to their primary task of raising children, most special-education teachers would eventually be unemployed.

"The 'quality time' theory doesn't take into account the fact that the woman a mother hires to watch her young child for most of his or her waking hours will not spend time engaged in meaningful conversation with the child.  The current situation, in which most of our young children do not benefit from their mothers helping them acquire language-processing skills, is a hidden crisis that might also be a significant factor in the burgeoning kids-at-risk phenomenon.

"Rabbanim, Roshei Yeshiva, Rebbes: Please unite and help rectify this 'gezeira'!"

I rest my case.

Diagnosis: Toddleritis

Over Pesach I read a horror story in one of the frum publications about a family whose Yom Tov was ruined by the behavior of their 14 year old son. The article was presented "so that others can glimpse the challenges of raising a mentally ill child" and the "diagnosis" is stated as "ADHD and ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder)." I was annoyed to see yet another article promoting non-illnesses as illnesses in the frum media.

Dr. John Rosemond is a psychologist who directed mental health programs for children, had a full-time practice as a family psychologist for a decade, has written numerous popular parenting books, and is a busy popular speaker and writer.  I don't agree with everything he writes but overall, he is quite sensible and calls for a return to the normal parenting of several decades ago in which parents were firm and expected obedience and decent behavior and there were negative consequences with those who did not toe the line.

His perspective on ADHD is, "The diagnostic behaviors quite simply describe a toddler. The reason that we are dealing with so many children school-age who are exhibiting these behaviors is because we are no longer in America curing toddlerhood. So we have children who are not maturing emotionally and intellectually because we are not disciplining their feelings state. Toddlers have bi-polar disorder. Toddlers have oppositional defiance disorder. Toddlers have attention-deficit disorder. Those three, I quote, 'disorders,' are normal to toddlers. My first grade class had 50 kids and was taught by one teacher. None of those 50 kids came to school with ADD, ODD or bipolar disorder. Because back then, toddlerhood was cured by the time a child was three."

I'd like to see less discussion of "medicalizing" and "diagnosing" of pseudo illnesses in our frum publications. I don't think this approach is helping anyone; on the contary, I think that it's very harmful. At the very least, we should be given different points of view with at least some articles opposing the medical-disease model!

Would you believe, in this sad article, the out-of-control 14 year old behaved beautifully, when he chose to, in front of others, so that friends enjoyed him as their guest while he created chaos at home! Does that sound like a real illness to you? Real illnesses are not put on and taken off at will! Come on, frum parents! Stop buying into this nonsense!

Blinded or Seeing What You Want to See

I read an article by Rabbi Leiby Burnham in which he waxed poetic about toddlers.  He writes, "Their life view, while limited, is not tainted.  They feel 'in power' all the time because they don't understand the concept of limitations.  They don't fear because they haven't yet been taught the concept of fear.  They truly feel that they can accomplish anything they set out to do, and will stop at nothing from achieving their desires."

As I read this, my immediate thought was - he is directly contradicting Rabbi Twerski! I remember being outraged when long ago, I read an article by R' Twerski on his favorite topic, self-esteem, in which he said that little children have less than zero self-esteem! His "proof" was, how would you feel if you had to live in a world in which nothing is your size and you had to climb up on to a chair and about the general impotence of children.

I was incredulous.  Surely, after raising his own family and seeing his numerous grandchildren, he didn't think that toddlers looked as though they were suffering from less than zero self-esteem! He knows the adage from R' Zushe of Anipoli about the three things we can learn from children: that when their needs are met they are happy, that they cry out when they need something, and are always busy.  Normal little children don't mope about their powerlessness!

This illustrates the idea that an optician notices everybody's glasses and someone who sells shoes notices what people are wearing on their feet.  R' Twerski's occupation is focused on self-esteem, primarily the lack thereof, and he sees it everywhere, even when it doesn't exist.

Pushing Ourselves

In one of the many articles written in response to "Tiger Mom," it said that the mother failed to define the goal.  The high grades on tests lead to what? If they lead to better jobs (= higher pay) what is the goal in that? He asked, "Is she suggesting that the goal in life is to be strong academically, perform in musical concerts, or make a lot of money? Is that the goal?"

I found it interesting that Tiger Mom's 18 year old daughter, who was just accepted to Harvard and Yale, explains the goal in a completely different way.  She said,“To me, it’s (life) not about achievement or self-gratification.

“It’s about knowing that you’ve pushed yourself, body and mind, to the limits of your own potential.

“If I died tomorrow, I would die feeling I’ve lived my whole life at 110 percent. And for that, Tiger Mom, thank you.”

How often do we see ads for yeshivos that claim to enable their students to "reach their potential?" Do they really achieve that? There is talk of "shleimus" (perfection) but do we know of any schools or parents whose goal is for their students/children to truly push themselves to the limits of their potential?

How many of us can say that we have lived our entire life thus far at 110%? I can't.

Although I imagine that growing up as Tiger Mom's child was difficult and stressful, those of us raised in a culture of "do what makes you happy" and "try it, you can always quit," who rarely pushed to achieve what we thought was beyond us, have not experienced the tremendous satisfaction that this 18 year old girl feels.

Protect Their Privacy

The publicizing of pictures of bereaved relatives at funerals (such as those following terrorist attacks) has perturbed me for some time now.  How many frum publications publicized photos of the grieving father and brothers of Ruth Fogel? Avla number one is that some ghoul had the chutzpa to photograph the bereaved at the funeral. Avla number two is when editors choose to share the photo with their readership.

Where is the sense of shame that characterizes the Jewish people that should have ensured that their privacy was not violated by picture taking at that time? Where is the sense of propriety at frum publications that should have ensured that personal moments of bereavement, even in public venues, are not for us to gawk at?

On a very different but related note, I have given thought lately to how people gather round to watch as the chassan approaches the kalla to cover her face.  People glance from the chasan to the kalla to see the expressions on their faces.  Do they look happy to see one another or nervous? How are the parents reacting in this emotional moment? This also seems to be an invasion of privacy.  Members of the wedding party should be able to be in the moment and not have to be concerned about how they appear to others.  And yet, unlike the bereaved, they hired a photographer and want pictures to be taken of the badeken and under the chuppa so I conclude that this gives the guests "permission" to watch the proceedings.

The Invisible Wall

 

I just finished reading The Invisible Wall by Harry Bernstein.  It was an excellent read albeit so sad.  The writing is beautiful.  The author does an amazing job of painting word pictures so you can visualize the scenes and people described, Jewish life in a small English mill town before and after World War I.  It's a heart-breaker though in its description of Jewish life, the poverty, the anti-Semitism, and the problems his family suffers. 

The "Wall" refers to the separation between Jews and Christians on his street and the book shows the tragic consequences of a lack of a Jewish education.  It doesn't have a happy ending but I loved it anyway.  And I see that he wrote a sequel and then a third book which I look forward to reading.

Putting your foot down

A woman wrote a question to a frum publication for their advice column about her husband who wakes up late in the mornings and even if she wakes him at 10:30 it still takes a while till he gets up.  He is supposed to be learning in the morning in kollel.  Once he's up, the rest of his day is productive.  He is a night owl and doesn't go to sleep early and she doesn't know how to handle it.

I would like to comment on one of the responses she got from a respected rabbi who said he presented the question to his wife and one of his daughters-in-law.  He wrote, "My wife was adamant that the wife's role is to set her husband on the right path and put her foot down as far as his fulfilling his responsibilities."

I'll just briefly question whether her assessment of the wife's role is correct or not as many have said the ruchnius of the home is the husband's responsibility and the wife's role is not that of mashgiach, and would like to focus on the "putting her foot down" part.

I am curious as to how she thinks any spouse, wife or husband, can "put their foot down" about anything and expect compliance.  What is her method to ensure obedience? Does she offer prizes? Punishments? Both? Would she suggest the wife not make his supper if he doesn't get up earlier? Not do his laundry? Divorce?

A person (spouse, parent, anyone) can say something forcefully; can provide rational reasons; can speak from the heart, but ----- ultimately, the person on the receiving end has the choice of listening or not.

Power of Words, part 2

Shortly after writing the previous post, I read that Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetzky understood the words of the mishna in Pirkei Avos, "Lo matzasi la'guf tov ele shtika" (I didn't find good for the body except for silence) as follows:

Speaking is hagshama - it makes something megusham-tangible, it invests physical dimensions to a thought.  A thought is not yet in the realm of the physical.  Allow the thought to remain in its sublime spiritual state.

I thought this was an interesting understanding of these words, a more mystical one than I would have expected from him.  It fits nicely with the points in the previous posts.

Words Create a Reality

Point #1
On the day that Rabbi Yehuda Ha'Nasi was dying, his devoted students and colleagues decreed a public fast and prayed for him. Furthermore, they announced that whoever said that Rabbi Judah was dead would be stabbed with a sword.  Why? Because once the news spread, it would take an open miracle to bring him back to life (says the Shitah Mekubetzes).  As long as the news wasn't announced, he could be brought back to life through tefilla! Amazing!

Point #2
We've been learning about the Metzora lately.  The halacha is that the person, garment or house is not tamei until the kohen declares it tamei.  Even if a talmid chacham who is an expert in the laws of tzoraas knows it is tzoraas, it only becomes tamei on the kohen's say-so.

Point #3
Many people don't go to a cemetery or drink wine for 30 days, so what makes a nazir a nazir and a kadosh? R' Tzadok explains that the nazir utters the words, “hareini nazir” (I am a nazir) and this creates the kedusha.

What makes one cow different than another? If a Jew said, “harei zu ola” (this animal is designated as an Olah sacrifice), now you have to be careful with this cow for there are special laws that pertain to it.

How do fruits become teruma and fit only for a kohen? By our setting it aside and designating it as teruma.

Point #4
In the book "Aleinu L'Shabeiach" Shemos p. 375-376 there is a story of someone very ill and a family member consulted with a rav who told them all would be fine.  The man recovered and when the rav was later asked how he knew all would be well, he said: I have a tradition from my teachers that as long as the information is not conclusive and the doctors have not determined the diagnosis 100%, that means that in Heaven the outcome has not been determined with finality.  The words a person uses have great power to determine what will happen.  After a diagnosis, prayer can help but you need an open miracle.  Fascinating!

Reaction to Letter of Protest

I was recently told about a "Dear G-d" letter written by Rabbi Cardozo and I looked it up and found it here:

http://www.cardozoschool.org/show_article.asp?cat_id=1&cat_name=Jewish Thought and Philosophy&subcat_name=Man, God and the Torah&subcat_id=44&article_id=704&parent_id=1  

Rabbi Cardozo, as the website states, is a prominent lecturer and author .. a native of the Spanish-Portuguese Jewish community of Holland who holds a doctorate in philosophy.  He received semicha from from the yeshiva in Gateshead Talmudic College and studied in Israel at the Institute for Higher Rabbinical Studies of Chief Rabbi Unterman and at the Mir Yeshiva.

In his letter of protest, he expresses his anguish over the massacre of the Fogel family "and the death of at least ten thousand human beings due to a huge earthquake and tsunami that YOU, and nobody else, caused."  Why didn't G-d prevent the terrorists from perpetrating their heinous deed, he wants to know, and why did G-d allow the Japanese to suffer such devastation?

He wondered why nobody else seemed to be agonizing as he was, over these tremendous losses, and was amazed that people still showed up at shul to talk to G-d.  He could not understand how people were not preoccupied with this religious crisis and wonders whether something is lacking in them or perhaps in himself.

Rabbi Cardozo continues to believe in G-d even as he ponders these questions.

I am impressed if this letter truly reflects his emotions.  However, I find two things disturbing.  One, he does not differentiate with a "l'havdil" or otherwise, between the murders of the Fogels, our brothers and sisters, and the loss of life and chaos in Japan.  When I raised this point in discussion, someone vehemently disagreed with me and asked why the rabbis did not declare a day of fasting for the Japanese.  I was taken aback by this sentiment and asked whether, in our history, in our Torah, there is such a precedent.  This point was not well taken.  Although Hashem's mercy is al kol maasav, and so should ours be, our natural Jewish reaction should be different for our fellow Jews than for other human beings. 

Second, Rabbi Cardozo's reaction is based on the assumption that the Japanese were entirely innocent victims of an explicable massive tragedy.  Although he concedes that we cannot understand G-d, he is still torn between his intellectual understanding that G-d has His reasons and his emotional reaction to human suffering.  My reaction, by way of contrast, was to wonder why Japan? Why, of all countries which are idol worshipping and transgress other of the Seven Noahide Laws, did G-d pick Japan for this utter ruination?

Doing the Best They Can - Really?

I have read and heard many times that we should feel compassion for the people in our lives who are "doing the best they can."  Today, I was listening to a talk in which the speaker said he believes that parents, our parents, did and do the best they can with the tools they had or have.  If they didn't do something for you, it was because they couldn't.

It sounds nice.  It sounds understanding.  But I don't believe it.  Why? Because it's not true for me and I don't believe it's true for most people.  I know that I can't say about myself that in all that I've done, in all of my interactions, I did the best I could.  I could have done better! Couldn't we have said it more gently, reacted more calmly, been more patient? I know I could have.