Moving Up, Out of the Basement

Rabbi Moshe Weinberger, of the Aish Kodesh shul in Woodmere, gave a different sort of Shabbos shuva drasha this year.  Actually, he gave it on motzoei Shabbos, and you can watch it here .

I am more accustomed to hearing a speaker or writer say to undertake something small and doable for the new year.  R' Moshe Weinberger, acknowledged the importance of positive changes, but urged people to go beyond that.  To go, as he put it, from the basement to a higher floor.  You can fix up a basement and live nicely there, but how much better to move up in the world.  By this he means, moving to a different level of living where previous shtusim (nonsense) are seen for what they are.

Modeh Ani is First!

 

Several times recently, I've read or heard people referring to negel vasser followed by Modeh Ani.  I don't get it.  We learned when we were little that you say Modeh Ani first thing in the morning!

 

Modeh Ani does not have any names of Hashem, so we can say it even before washing our hands. 

 

Back to basics - Modeh Ani first.  Then negel vasser.

 

Disturbing Ad

I saw an ad in the new Health Section of Mishpacha with R' Michel Twerski's picture in which he promotes [I was going to say the name of the System, but decided not to advertise it] for mental well being.  I wrote a letter to the magazine saying this is disturbing when LP, wife and business partner of GP, who teach and promote the System says, “No thoughts are true, no experiences are true, the principles [of their System] are the only things that are true.”

I asked, if that isn't kefira, what is?

This is the basis for the System which is sourced in Buddhist philosophy. The frum proponents of this System, like R' Michel Twersky etc. try to avoid the kefira aspect, but it's there.

The Mind-Body Connection

Ten months ago, I wrote about Dr Sarno here, about physical pain being a smokescreen that masks emotional issues; confront the emotional issue and the physical pain vanishes.

 

I have two recent examples of this.  I attended an exercise class and the instructor wasn't the usual one.  I didn't like the class and left shortly after it began.  Later that day I felt pain in my side and thought it might be from the unpleasant exercises the instructor had led.  I felt the pain for a week or two.  At some point I looked up sciatica online and thought that what I felt might be sciatica.  It did not stop me from doing my usual activities but I felt it.  When I mentioned sciatica to someone, he said, oh you know what Dr. Sarno thinks about that ... That set me thinking.

 

A week ago, I woke up Shabbos morning feeling dizzy, and that was before I even got out of bed.  No fever, just a disturbing feeling of dizziness.  Not a the room is spinning kind of feeling; I'm not sure how to describe it.  Anyway, I stayed home all day.  The next day I still felt it somewhat but decided to go about my day as usual, despite it.  By Monday it was mostly gone.

 

It occurred to me that in both cases there was something emotionally perturbing to me that I could link to the onset of the symptom.  I have no way of proving whether the symptoms would have gone away regardless, but I can't help but wonder whether consciously confronting the emotional disturbance is what made the physical symptoms go away.

Mistakes Abound

One of my Yemos Ha'Moshiach fantasies is that all incorrect information will disappear out of books.  All the stories told about various tzaddikim and gedolim will have only the correct names and the details will be accurate.  I assume there will be large swathes of empty white space in many books.

I am reminded of this because of a story I read in Torah Tavlin, a very nice series of books with divrei Torah and stories.  The story is one I knew previously and I know it as it is told accurately.  In this book however, the author has one main character dying instead of being away on a trip, and another character being the grandson when he was actually the son.  This is in addition to embellishing the story with a description that is probably not true and which is certainly not part of the original story.  The core point of the story remains though.

It sure does make me wonder about the other stories in the book! It's like when I read descriptions about Jewish life written by non-Jews or Jews who are not knowledgeable and I see inaccuracies and outright errors.  I would think they would have fact checkers who would verify things like Jewish law.  Makes me wonder about the accuracy of information I read on subjects that I'm not that familiar with.  It does not inspire confidence!

Everything is Up for Discussion

There was an interesting article by R' Dovid Hofstedter in Mishpacha magazine in which he questions whether the overabundance of negative information we are bombarded with is good for us. 

He brings Torah examples that demonstrate that exposure to negative things has an effect on us, even when those things are mitzvah related (like destroying an ir nidachas or seeing a sota in her disgrace). 

Furthermore, R' Hofstedter says, we become connected to what we see and if we are connected to it, we are disconnected from Hashem.  "Every connection to something extraneous from Torah and mitzvos, even something that is not prohibited, detaches us and disconnects us from Torah and mitzvos, our ultimate connection to Hashem."

It is interesting that Mishpacha printed his article which says "All kinds of topics that in the not-too-distant past were never found in our publications, now not only appear in print but also become conversation points at the Shabbos table and therefore, part of our lives.  They thus attain a measure of de facto acceptability." 

Not only that, but people say how "brave" the publication is for writing about what was formerly taboo! They think that somehow, magically, just by discussing it, we have accomplished something, even if all it amounts to is someone feeling better for having read it.  But what about the negative fallout for bringing it out into the open?
 

Related posts are here and here.
 

Disengagement Not Possible

In this week's parsha, Ki Seitzei 22:15, on the words, "the father of the girl and her mother," Rashi says that the ones who raised bad offspring should be put to shame because of her.

There are those who like to attempt disconnecting from their children.  Their line is, their children have bechira and it's their lives.  They don't take the blame if the children don't turn out well, and presumably, if they're consistent, they don't take any credit if the children turn out well.

The problem with this is, we can never disconnect from our children as our children are part of us in every way.  Children are a reflection of their parents, for better and for worse.  We have nachas and deserve credit when they turn out well, and as Rashi says, if G-d forbid they don't turn out well, it's to the parents' shame.

Who Says Children Need Parents Anyway ...

continued from previous post

This rosh yeshiva made it into my "bad book" when I read an interview with a woman who turned to him for advice.  The woman said with pride about her daycare center, “We introduced the option of starting earlier and ending later …” and this is for babies and toddlers! She did this after consulting with the rosh yeshiva who gave her his approval.  The longer hours make it unnecessary for the babies' fathers (the mothers are out working) to pick up the children.  Why should the parents take care of their own children when they have more important things to do?

The woman went on to describe a program she was excited about, which she wanted to study, but she was reluctant (surprisingly) to travel and leave her young children without her.  The same rosh yeshiva told her to go ahead, to do it while she was excited about it.

So with the latest thing I heard from this rosh yeshiva, that's three strikes.  He's out.

Rosh Yeshiva's Misguided Approach

I was listening to a shiur given by a talmid of a certain American rosh yeshiva and once again, I was peeved to hear a foolish idea from this rosh yeshiva. 

This time, it was about what to teach an 8-9 year old child from an irreligious home who attends a religious program.  Why teach him about kashrus and Shabbos, this rosh yeshiva asks.  Do you think he will be able to eat kosher on his own? Keep Shabbos on his own? Instead, teach him about tzedaka, chesed, Ahavas Hashem, Yiras Hashem, things the child can do on his own.

I have read numerous stories about young children being taught about kashrus and Shabbos who were the catalysts for their entire families becoming frum.  I read one just yesterday, a first person account in which her six year old, who attended a religious program, asked that the family keep kosher which he had learned about.  The mother refused but subsequently decided to do it, along with other mitzvos.

I remember a story of a little girl who learned about Shabbos and lighting Shabbos candles.  She asked her mother to buy candles and her mother refused.  So the little girl went to the store on her own and asked for candles and the person gave her yartzeit candles, thinking that was probably what her mother wanted.  The little girl lit two yartzeit candles in her room and when her mother discovered this and asked what was going on, she innocently replied that one candle was for her mother and one for her father.  That changed things in a hurry!

Numerous stories can be told by those who work in Talmud Torahs, Sunday schools, programs like Shuvu in Eretz Yisrael for Russian children, etc. about children who, in their sincerity, have followed through on their seemingly impossible commitments, and sometimes changed their entire families along the way.

Rabbi Glatstein's lectures

 

Rabbi Daniel Glatstein is a wonderful rabbi and teacher whose lectures constantly get posted on torahanytime.com.  There are over 1400 lectures here  You can get on his email list for source sheets.

 

He has a pleasant manner, he researches interesting topics, and he teaches clearly and enthusiastically.  I particularly admire his unassuming manner.  No ego comes across.  He does not talk about himself.

Full Time Working Foster Parents

There was an article about a frum couple whose children were grown, who decided to become foster parents.  Both husband and wife work full time.  That made me pause.

If they went on to foster school aged children, okay.  But their first fostering experience was a two year old.  What is the point in having a two year old placed in daycare all day in a fostering situation? Is it because there are not enough frum foster parents that this was done?

All two year olds need mothers to care for them and not work full time.  All the more so does this child, who was pulled from his home for reasons of neglect or abuse, need extra care! All day daycare is detrimental for two years olds from normal homes; for a foster child, who needs extra nurturing, it's even worse.

But since it's taboo to say that all daycare is bad, that is what the foster child will get.  Because that's what many (most?) two year olds are getting.

Pills are Easier

A letter writer once irately wrote to a frum magazine, saying that of course, no parents want their children on ADD/ADHD medication unless it's absolutely warranted and all other options are explored.  She was quite adamant about that, though one could wonder how she knows that and whether she might just have projected her feelings onto others.

Mrs. B Grama writes a column for Hamodia's Inyan magazine.  She repudiated this view.  She writes:

"It has become quite common nowadays for us to open our weekly community magazines and find as many as a dozen ads for different therapy centers for children and adults, each one with a full staff of therapists ... Should we ooh and aah about it, or should we wonder why we are raising (or have ourselves become) a helpless, crippled generation that cannot seem to 'swim' on our own? Never before has there been such vast numbers of children who need outside help just to grow up (and vast numbers of parents who need assistance to raise them)."

She goes on to describe a woman who was diagnosed as suffering from "social anxiety" and thinks the woman is simply shy by nature.  Then she wrote about a man who was diagnosed with depression following his father's illness and watching his father suffer and fade away.  She wonders, isn't it normal to feel dejected under those circumstances? He needed support and encouragement from family and friends, not a medical diagnosis.

Worst example of all is about "Shaya's" mother who had a baby and whose father got a promotion so he came home later at night.  Shaya greatly missed all the times he used to speak to his parents after school every day.  "He became restless and unfocused in class and his behavior became problematic.  A psychologist was consulted and Shaya was put on medication to help improve his concentration and behavior."

When Mrs. Grama was consulted she asked the mother, "Wouldn't it be much simpler if you'd just make talking to and spending time with Shaya for about a half an hour at night your first priority?" To her shock, the mother said, "I know, but it's too hard; pills are easier."

So much for parents medicating their kids only as a last resort.

Relative Sorrows

Writer Leah Gebber puts it this way:

 

"I have a moral objection to the game of one-upmanship some play when faced with difficulty.  I once covered a story about a woman who had three children and was unable to have more.  Her sorrow touched upon more than her dreams of having a large family; she questioned her role in life, the core of her femininity.  Some of the letters we received astounded me.  One such missive, I have no children - how can she complain when she has three? What gives her the right?

 

"I mentally played with many responses to this question.  That no one has a patent on suffering.  That sorrow, no matter the root, is sorrow ..."

 

Really?

 

So it's all the same - a teenager agonizing about a pimple and a teenager hearing bad news from her oncologist? I have a moral objection to that!

 

It's one of the many lessons children need to be taught that problems and suffering need to be viewed within a context, with a sense of proportion.  Breaking a toy and breaking's one back are not equal, no matter how beloved the toy was.   

 

It seems that just as the trend for some time now has been to futilely try to eradicate differences among children, telling them they are all winners when they are not, so too, even some adults refuse to acknowledge that there are matters of lesser and greater importance.  The old gauge, what is it on a scale of 1-10 is very helpful.  See here

Back to the example that Leah Gebber gives.  The woman with three children can be asked to contemplate where on the scale she is.  If she says she is a 10 in sorrow, she can be asked to think about where then, a woman with no children, would fit on the scale.  Her response might be, the woman with no children is a 10 of sorrow on her scale, and I'm a 10 on my scale.  Hmmm.  And would she say the same when asked, where would the Israeli, Mr Hatuel, whose pregnant wife and all four daughters were murdered in one day be on the scale? Then we, society, have a problem.

It's not to say that the feelings of the woman with three children who can't have more should be dismissed.  They can be acknowledged.  A child who is sad about his drawing that was ripped by the baby should also have his feelings validated.  Maturity is needed to regard the disappointments in life with the proper perspective.

Same Old

In the mid 1960's:
Race riots in Cleveland
The Vietnam conflict intensified
The president of Argentina deposed by a coup
The prime minister of South Africa assassinated
A sniper shooting at the University of Texas that killed 13 people and left 31 wounded
In Chicago a mass murderer killed eight student nurses
In an upscale Chicago suburb the daughter of a US senate candidate was murdered in her bedroom

When people say, look at the world around us, it's gone crazy. We haven't seen anything like this before, I say - really? Isn't that what is said every decade?

How Independent are You?

Someone in a shiur referred to a social experiment that sounded very interesting.  I looked it up and it is here.

 

After watching it, the question for you is, what would you have done?

 

I think I would have asked what they are doing, or gone over to the receptionist to ask.

 

The Rambam talks about the positive aspects of peer pressure and urges us to live among good people. 

 

There are many ways in which peer pressure is used in a good way in our frum society. 

 

Responses to appeals in shul are announced so that other people will be encouraged to make donations too.

 

When shemiras ha'lashon has become something we are all aware of, it is less likely that someone will feel comfortable sharing derogatory gossip.  In communities that dress a certain, tzniusdik way, it is less likely that people will go against the community norms.

 

Of course, we have our frum social pressures that are not that wonderful too.

 

I think this video should be seen by high school aged students, maybe even younger.  It provides a great introduction to a discussion about what we do because other people around us are doing it, for good and bad.