I think I put my finger on why my generation is disappointed with its Gedolim.

[I’m not sure how to put this, but I have a feeling people will agree with me. This is partly in response to this.]

Jewish life is not easy, b’gashmius. It never was. In the past, though, the feeling was that the Rabbanim were in place to alleviate the difficulty. The function of the Rav or Gadol was to use his expertise in hallakha to be able to find leniencies and allowances for people who had every intention of being shomer Torah and mitzvos but also needed to live. For example, if a woman dropped a slab of cheese into a vat of meat stew, the biggest Posek Hador would stop everything to find a permissible way for the women to save her family’s dinner. Likewise, if a man was required to do questionable things for his parnassah (i.e. remove his head covering), a Rav would try his hardest to give the man a way to both keep his job and also fulfill the requirements of hallakha. These examples seem petty, but in a way the mundane things are what make up every-day Jewish life. And the large part of any big Rav’s day was spent dealing with precisely these mundane and common things that the every-Jew has to deal with.

The feeling I get from reading about past generations was that despite their difficulties and poverty, they were willing to sacrifice whatever it took to do the will of Hashem. Their rabbanim, it seems, did not take advantage of that desire. On the contrary, they enabled the Jews to serve Hashem within their limited means.

Today the situation has flipped on its head. The desire to serve Hashem and do what is right is still alive and well. Consider the men who learn in beis medrash all their lives, or the women who agree to support their families so that the husbands can learn, and whether or not you agree with the kollel-life arrangement, it’s clear that these are people dedicated to the service of Hashem. But the leaders of the community not only give the impression that they fail to appreciate the great financial disadvantage that their followers willingly take on, but actually do things that make it even more difficult.

This explains a lot of the frustration people feel with the gedolim. Nobody is challenging their knowledge of shas or their right to make decisions for the public; people are wondering how it’s possible that their leaders are so out of touch. And by out of touch, I don't mean that they don't know what the internet is or how a credit card works or even how a basic psychology course works... I mean insensitive to the fact that what they require of their followers results in their followers being destitute. Do you think it breaks their hearts that a there are kollel families in Israel that struggle just to serve their children dinner?! It should. And they should be using all their power as Gedolim, both the influence they have and the immense Torah knowledge, to find a way to make things better, not worse.

CoD: "It seems bizarre that ultra-Orthodox rabbis would buy into the feminist mantra that women can and should do it all. "

Fern left this comment (CoD= comment of the day) on my post about the Women's education crisis in Israel.

I just don't understand how intelligent people can set up a social system that is so obviously unsustainable. If men are to study full time, and women are to have many, many children, then who is going to raise the children and provide for the household needs? It seems bizarre that ultra-Orthodox rabbis would buy into the feminist mantra that women can and should do it all. I thought the last 30 years had proven what a bunch of hooey all that stuff was. Maybe the news is just a little late getting to the ghetto?

Indeed, in all the dogmatism and total disregard for practicality, Kollel wives have turned into extreme feminists! They juggle everything--home, family and work.

I was educated in a kollel-lifestyle-geared school where we were taught that the ultimate zechus a woman can have in this world is by creating an environment for her husband that is conducive to learning, i.e. fully funded, fully functional home. The entire concept was difficult for me to stomach.

On the one hand, the kollel wives I knew, my teachers, were not overworked, baby-poppers who only had the capacity to think about diapers and recipes. On the contrary, these women were dynamic and brilliant and always impeccably organized and presented. Yes, they had a child about every year, and yes, their entire career consisted of teaching, but their level of Torah knowledge was enormous (they could have easily gone up against their kollel husbands), their homes were spotless and running like clockwork, their children were well adjusted and well mannered, they spoke and wrote English beautifully, etc... It was mind-boggling and inspirational to watch these women run their lives.

On the other hand, they do all of this with one totally selfless goal in mind--to serve their husbands (and to get the zechus in olam haba'ah, but I still consider it selfless). These women are not allowed to shine as individuals. Don't the men ever get the feeling that their brilliant and talented wives are being wasted in their service? For example, teaching is a most noble profession, and someone who is good at it can make a world of a difference in the lives of the future generation. But some women could be more effective and influential in other areas. Some women might do very well for this world learning, believe it or not. Just the fact that most kollel women don't have the option of being stay-at-home mothers is terribly unfair.

In my limited view of the world, a women's goal should be to serve G-d and to raise children. A husband is a partner to help in the completion of the above. Making a goal out of serving the husband is, in my opinion, a complete perversity.

Chareidi Women: the Stupider, the Merrier.

This latest development, reported in Haaretz (link), infuriates me. Here are a few choice quotes:

A committee of rabbis formulating the education policy in the ultra-Orthodox community has prohibited women's continuing education programs and severely restricted other study courses, thus blocking the advancement and development of haredi women's careers.

In recent years, the reforms in the continuing education programs have not pleased the rabbis, who object to women's "academic" studies. The conservatives warned of women's "career ambitions," fearing they would now be able to break out of the "teaching ghetto" and find other jobs than teaching. Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv was quoted in Yated Neeman objecting to teachers' enrolling in "all kinds of other education programs without any supervision of rabbis on every detail".

He warned that without close supervision and determining the content, "all manner of heresy can creep into those programs."

The absence of ultra-Orthodox lecturers with academic degrees in diagnostics and consulting required bringing in lecturers from "outside" the community. Yated Neeman's women's supplement, Bayit Neeman, blasted the trend of bringing in lecturers from the "Sephardi faction" and even "completely secular" ones, warning of the women students' defilement.

Orthomom points out the cruelty and hipocricy in requiring women to support their families, but taking away almost all means of making a decent living. Dovbear points out that this ruling harms other charities who's donors will now be funneling their money to support the kollel families. I'm sure everyone is wondering why the sephardi faction is deemed a source of "defilement"?

I pose a different question: why do these chareidi rabbanim distrust women so much that they need to control ever aspect of their lives? Read the words carefully: "...the rabbis, who object to women's "academic" studies. The conservatives warned of women's "career ambitions," fearing they would now be able to break out of the "teaching ghetto" and find other jobs than teaching... R.Eliyashav... objecting to teachers' enrolling in 'all kinds of other education programs without any supervision of rabbis on every detail'... warning of the women students' defilement." I'm not out to bash the chareidi establishment, but these words make it very clear that many the rabbanim think women should be afforded the independence level of a child, who must be supervised in all respects.

I don't believe in gender equality, especially when it comes to religious practice. Men and women have distinct roles, that are for the most determined by tradition, and the existence of this notion does not confirm that orthodox Judaism is sexist or demeaning to women. However, this latest edict has to be one of the most sexist actions I've ever seen taken in the name of orthodoxy. The bias against women's intellectual capabilities to discern right from wrong, proper from improper and professional from personal is so offensive and demeaning. How is it that women can't be trusted to engage in a professional pursuit--mind you, via chareidi schools for females only with mostly religious faculty?

And if women are to be so distrusted, how is a man expected to trust his wife for his most fundamental religious needs: kosher food, taharas hamishpacha and chinuch habanim?

True Story: When I was in grade school, my 'science' teacher (a post seminary girl) concocted a ridiculous story about gravity making machines that keep the astronaut-mobiles grounded on the moon. My parents, sticklers that they are for truth, complained to the hanhalah that the young lady is unfit to be teaching if she couldn't even be bothered to read a 5th grade text book, which would have told there is in fact gravity on the moon, etc... The administrator took my parents aside and told them very seriously, "We don't think you should be so concerned with your daughter's education, because it'll only cause problems later in life when it's time for her to run her own home... Our policy with girls is THE STUPIDER, THE MERRIER. Ha, ha ha ha ha..." His attempt at sarcasm didn't work that well. Needless to say I switched schools the following year.

I honestly think that even with all the respect people have for daas Torah and emunas chachamin, there will come a tipping point where these sorts of outrageous, unfair and halakhically unjustified demands will be exposed for what they are, a means to control the population. For what end, I don't know, but the means will certainly backfire! Women are not nearly as stupid or docile as you'd like to think.

***

Update 1/3/07: I decided to cross out all the angry stuff. This ruling doesn't affect me. I can't relate to it. I went to a secular college despite being told in non-negotiable terms that it's wrong and against what Chabad believes. I don't consider it a sin to judge for oneself the salience of a particular custom (with the individual advice of someone more knowledgeable and less defiant). But I shouldn't be blowing lid off about it. Trying to stay positive... it isn't easy.

"Mezuza-gate" and all its implications.

This story is so bizarre. The NY Times reports:

Judith Regan was investigated in the spring of 2003 after an editor complained that she had boasted of removing the scrolls from her neighbors'’ mezuzas and replacing them with torn pieces from dollar bills.

A mezuza is a small slender case containing a scroll inscribed with a prayer that many Jewish families place beside their front doors...

...In that incident, an editor at ReganBooks, an imprint of HarperCollins, said that in early May 2003 she was in Ms. Regan'’s office when the publisher made the remark that "“she and her former husband would go around their apartment building, changing mezuzas with bits of dollar bills,"” according to an individual involved in the investigation, whose account was confirmed by the two executives.

In my humble opinion, it's pretty unlikely that ridiculous prank ever happened, because had Judith Ragen opened the mezuzah cases in her building, chances are that many of them would haven been empty. Do you know how many Jews think a mezuza is a decorative Judaica item with a Hebrew letter that gets hung on a door? Next time you notice a mezuzah on an unlikely door (i.e. someone who is completely unaffiliated and most likely hung the mezuza up for nostalgic reasons, to attract Jewish customers, or because they got it as a gift), try and get a peak inside and notice if the case is empty.

In non-heimish establishments, mezuza cases are sold empty-- there's no way the average Jew would know better. But how about the observant people who spend outrageous amounts of money on mezuza cases that are original, handmade, one of a kind pieces of art, and then proceed to fill it with the least expensive, standard, least mehudar scroll? This would be an example par excellence of missing the tochen (essence) for the klippa (literally, encasing). What's making me think of all this is Judith Ragen's supposed dollar-stuffing stunt. People are upset that she would even joke about being so crass, but all I can think about is how many Jews voluntarily do the same thing (hanging bills on the wall) to themselves (amount varies per community).

****************

In the time of the Spanish Inquisition, the Marranos came up with many innovative ways of hiding their practice. But unlike prayer, shabbos or other private mitzvoth which could be observed undercover and in secret, mezuzah was by its very nature a public mitzvah that, if hung on any home's entrance, would immediately spell the family's demise! The Marannos ingenuously devised a most unlikely mezuza case that solved the problem-- a statuette of the Virgin Mary, which had a hollowed out foot with a mezuza scroll hidden inside. The statuette was hung by the front door of their house, so that when they kissed the Madonna upon entering and exiting their homes, they would actually be kissing the mezuza.

Because I'm in the mood, let's play a little reductio ad absurdam... We're told materialism is the idol, so to speak, of the current age. In that sense, kissing the virgin Mary and kissing a flashy mezuza that screams $$$ is spiritually equivalent. In fact, kissing the virgin Mary may be less morally questionable because it's clear that the Marronos did not genuinely worship her. Money and materialism, on the other hand, are real objects of devotion.

****************

I vaguely remember my great-grandmother, who passed away when I was 5 or 6, hanging all sorts of strange things above the doorpost to "compliment" the mezuza. I distinctly recall a matzah hanging in a ziploc from pesach to pesach above the door; then there was also the ritual of smearing honey in the doorpost around the new year. My husband's grandmother, may she live long, is also unusually focused on the mezuzah, kissing it many times a day while mumbling her personal requests to G-d.

****************

Mezuza means many different things to different people. It's unfortunate that to Judith Regan it was a bowl of soup to spit in, on the way to the mouthes of the people she hated. On the other hand, because of her sophomoric act, the NY Times had the opportunity to educate its readers about exactly what a mezuza really is, "a small slender case containing a scroll inscribed with a prayer that many Jewish families place beside their front doors." Not bad at all.

funny video + joke

The young Hilly Gross being "honest" about how FFB's feel about BT's. This has been going around the email circuit, so some of you may have seen it-- for those who haven't, it's worth every hilarious second (beginning at 1:09).



Sorry, JOKE DELETED.

Too bad.

An uber-meta look at frum female blogging

The following is the abstract of a paper to be discussed at the "Works in Progress Group in Modern Jewish Studies" at the AJS conference this weekend. The title: "Domesticity and the Home Page: Blogging and the Blurring of Public/Private Space for Orthodox Jewish Women"

Abstract

What if Glückel of Hameln, the seventeenth-century memoirist who wrote her life experiences as a legacy for her twelve children, had blogged instead? The emergence of the “blogosphere” as a new medium for self-expression raises critical questions about the way the public and private realms are positioned in cyberspace. While conventional memoirs and diaries represent private life writing that, like Glückel’s, might become public through publication, blogs are journals that at once combine the intimacy of personal reflection in the diary format with the globally accessible (and commercialized) public arena of the World Wide Web. In this paper, I will examine the phenomenon of Jewish women bloggers in the American Orthodox community, looking specifically at the ways in which this particular medium has provided women with a public voice to discuss matters that, traditionally, belong to the private sphere, thus subverting the public/private dichotomy that is at the heart of traditional Jewish culture. My work will be contextualized in a discussion of the use of blogging by women more broadly as a means of politicizing conventionally “private’ issues. In addition, I will consider the value and significance of reading blogs for those who are not active writers in the genre, again comparing this phenomenon to the case of Glückel, whose widely read memoir is a staple of courses on Jewish women’s history. (link to pdf) (via Hirhurim)

I had some thoughts on this topic when I started blogging almost a year ago. In fact, it was my very first real post (read The Unwanted Veil). I can't wait to hear the Jewish Studies spin on this topic. I suspect it won't be earth shattering, to say the least, as these academic 'state the obvious' papers tend to be.

The phenomenon of orthodox female blogging isn't so much an issue of public vs. private domain anymore. What's interesting to me is that the blogsphere may the only venue for intimate but appropriate mingling, so to speak, between very religious men and women.

The separation between genders is very pronounced in ultra-orthodox circles. I once visited the Vizhnitzer Rebbe's home and was surprised to see two separate dining rooms, one for men and one for women. I asked the rebetzin why this was necessary between family members and she said that it was because of the children-in-law. In chabad the boundaries are obviously a lot less extreme, but there is still the understanding that married men and women do not form friendships. People are of course friendly, cordial, even talkative at times, but the discussion never goes past the surface, lest anything becomes personal or emotional and then develops into a connection. I suppose that in more modern circles this separation exists much less, but I don't know the dynamics of those relationships. In my little world, women socialize and exchange ideas exclusively with women or in the context of their families (for example, at a shabbos table with the husband present). For very religious women, the internet is possibly the only opportunity to get a non-relative male perspective on issues. Even for the non-religious woman, it may be the only way to peer into the frum guys' world and get a glimpse of the famed yeshivish debating. Either way, one must appreciate the novelty of this form of communication in that it allows for so much more freedom and democratization without compromising modesty or fidelity.

The opposite must be true for men as well. Reading frum women's blogs opens up a new world and allows for a sort of interaction that is unlikely in person. Now that's a topic I would like to hear about.

Critical is not the same as heretical! Oh, and neither is curious!

I received the following email last night:

"I just read your latest post, and I am somewhat aquainted with the issue (I read the article, heard some shiurim, etc.) and I just want to know why you always take (on all the issues you blog about) the most liberal and cynical approach. I want to please understand that....

...It's not about believing things simply because you're told to. It's about not mingling in areas in which you are completely ignorant. When you are talking about nidah, which is accepted as is in its current form by every branch of Judaism, its not enough to be sceptical; you need to be knowledgeable. You know, a rabbi... Are you a rabbi?

Also, you're wrong about nidah being the only "hachlata" by jewish women (I can't believe you even doubt that as that's the way its presented EVERYWHERE!). Think shabbos candles, which the women voluntarily accepted upon themselves, and the rules of tznius, in which they set the standards, by which those who deviate are judged...

Not to mention your calling a minhag yisrael (which is torah!) a "damage" to femininity..."

I personally think the writer is off base because my post did not imply that I doubt that women created the practice--in fact, my whole point was that I don't understand why they did. I am sufficiently knowledgable about the subject to know the technical reasons for added stringency (zava vs. niddah, etc) but it isn't my place to comment on halakha. I comment on the human aspect, trying to bring out the humor if possible. But the fact is, people are clearly bothered by cynicism or commentary that regards anything in Judaism as human. Why?

Is my emuna lacking if I consider "the daughers of Israel" actual women with real motives? Is it disrespectful to talk about Chava as a human being and not a metaphor? Of course I know that a lot of what went on and why it had to be that way is beyond my comprehension, but it's my obligation to make my religion apply to my life, as a human, as a woman, etc... I don't imply that the chachamim intended to pull the wool over my eyes by saying 'the women decided', when really they were fully responsible but couldn't sell the idea alone. I am saying that in the mesora, there are many elements that were omitted because they were not necessary for the transmission of practice (or belief). I am allowed to be curious about the subtext, just as I am curious about all the human drama that was left out of Tanakh.

To my knowledge, my actions are in no way affected by my questions; I really think that should be the litmus test for believers--do you put your faith first or your doubts? The email calls me liberal and cynical. I'm fine with those labels so long as they apply to my thoughts and not my practice. In fact, I think everyone should keep their thinking liberal and their skepticism handy. (Unless you're a fan of fundmentalism...)

II: Things I do not know about sheva nekiim and femininity

'The daughters of Israel have undertaken to be so strict with themselves that if they see a drop of blood no bigger than a mustard seed they wait seven [clean] days after it' (Ber. 31a). [hattip MOB]

There practice of counting an additional 7 clean days before mikvah is without a doubt inconvenient and unpleasant for all. It turns out that the righteous daughters of Israel chose to be extremely stringent in this area in order to avoid coming close to any sin. I fully understand the concept of building a ‘fence’ around a prohibition, but I have a hard time accepting that the women of yore voluntarily turned the most uncomfortable, inconvenient chumra into halakha and enforced it on all following generations. Jewish women are usually so practical; the chumra of sheva nekiim is not.

It’s been said (somewhere in the blogsphere, but can’t remember where—links appreciated here) that giving credit to the women for establishing the practice was done as a rhetorical device. I doubt that because it’s rare to see and therefore begs an explanation. The feminine voice was so rarely heard in halakhic ruling; why did they choose to speak up specifically here?

I’ve also heard it said that perhaps the sheva nikiim were designed as an indirect, acceptable form of practicing birth control. But apparently this is would be a cruel and also unreliable method as it only affects about 1/3^rd of women who practice family purity. Also, the majority of orthodox women want to have many babies—so again the logic fails.

What then could possibly motivate the righteous women to accept and enforce this tedious practice? Did Chava not do enough damage to femininity through similar overextension of a chumra into absolute issur?

See part I: Things you may not knkow about sheva nekiim and infertility.

I: Things you may not know about sheva nekiim and infertility

The topic of sheva nekiim is up for discussion, following an an orthodox obstetrician's suggestion to abolish the practice of counting 7 clean days before mikvah, since it is largely responsible for many cases of infertility and is founded on a chumra rather than halakha. I suspect that because the topic is treated with such modesty and privacy, there is a lot of confusion and ignorance. I would like to clarify a few things. [My opinion is based on experience as a married woman in the medical sciences. I cannot comment on the halakhic aspect of the issue.] But first, read the Haaretz article that sums up the original debate, and My Obiter Dicta’s review and excellent commentary (via Mentalblog).

First of all, missing ovulation because of niddah is more common than expected. So common , in fact, that most NY ob-gyns are familiar with niddah laws (as I imagine all physicians who treat orthodox women are) and refer to this particular situation as Orthodox Infertility. They say it laugh though, because technically this does not constitute medical infertility and is easily fixed for most couples. The typical medical treatment involves lengthening the women’s menstrual cycle via hormone therapy so that she ovulates later in the month, namely after mikvah.

There are many couples who elect not to see a physician but rather a Rabbi for their taharas hamishpacha issues. I am aware that Rabbanim deal with each question on an individual basis, but this common issue is usually treated by shortening the women’s period via herbal treatment, so that she can immerse in the mikvah before ovulation.

For most couples, one or the other treatments works. Very few couples remain unable to become pregnant because of bad timing alone. Treatments are relatively simple and mostly painless. I choose my words carefully because on one side there are people saying that hormone treatments are life threatening while the other party insists that they are no trouble at all. In this case, I feel both sides are being dishonest. Here is a more practical overview of treatment effects.

A typical rabbinic endorsed herbal cocktail includes high doses of herbs that are known to stop bleeding and cause uterine contractions, i.e. nettle, thistle, cohosh, roots of certain teas, etc… They may also recommend a Bioflavonoid to maintain small blood vessels in tissue lining (which may be the cause of excessive bleeding) and bathing in chamomile (I don’t know what this can do but it sounds relaxing).

Many people are under the misconception that because herbs are natural, they are completely safe. In fact, herbs are very potent and can have powerful effect on the body. (Many prescription medications are made from herbs or their derivatives.) In short, taking herbs for medical purposes without medical supervision seems to me like a dangerous practice. The same holds true for those ‘magic pills’ that kallah instructors give out so the bride’s will be guaranteed not to menstruate around the time of the wedding. These birth-control type pills are secretly imported because they are not FDA approved, and not surprisingly many brides have problems after taking these pills, such as sudden bleeding before the wedding or not menstruating for many months after the wedding. Also, because herbs are readily available, people who don’t know better will rely on unprofessional advice and possibly hurt themselves. I once heard a newlywed complaining about spotting during pregnancy; her also newlywed friend recommended several herbs that her Rav had given her to end her spotting. Anyone who takes unknown substances while pregnant is incredibly irresponsible and stupid. Case in point—one of these particular herbs had been used for generations by Native Americans to induce abortion! Had the pregnant woman taken the herb that “the Rav recommends for spotting”, she could have caused a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). I am not suggesting in any way that Rabbanim are harming people by disseminating dangerous herbs, but the risks are apparent and people should use their heads.

The risks involved in hormone treatment, i.e. cancer or stroke, are much more frightening but are also much less likely (by a great magnitude) to occur. Oral estrogen is associated with certain female cancers, but so is chlorine bleach and possibly trans fat. The risks may be there, but they are not substantial or direct enough to render a short treatment plan unsafe. The immediate side effects that result from taking hormones include weight gain, nausea, possible migraines, trouble sleeping, mood swings etc. I would label these side effects relatively mild, compared with other infertility treatments that are far more invasive, expensive, and painful.

The problem of missing ovulation due to niddah is not entirely solved. While the medical cause can be easily repaired (to read research articles, type in "orthodox infertility" into search bar), there are many people who don’t know the cause of their infertility and for one reason or another do not seek medical or rabbinic help. The woman in the Haaretz article who thought she was infertile until her late 40’s, only to find out she had always been missing her ovulation, is cited as a victim of sheva nekiim. She should sooner be cited as a victim of her own ignorance and neglect! Why hadn’t she seen a doctor or discussed her condition with anyone who could direct her to help? Blaming the practice for her condition is unjustified, but claiming that the condition is independent of the practice is also untrue.

Inspiring story about the Satmar Rov -- nothing you've heard before, trust me.

The previous Satmar Rov, R'Yoel Teitelbaum, was being treated by a pious Jewish doctor in Europe before WWII. The Satmar Rov told the doctor, "I'll give you my entire chelek olam haba (portion in the world to come) if you convert to Christianity".

**pause to breath**

I heard this story from a very chashuv (intentionally unnamed) rabbi who's intention was to inspire, as in, 'Would you believe that the Rebbe would have given up everything important to him just so his chassidim wouldn't have to witness the dichotomy between religious observance and secular knowledge?'

If you're not depressed yet, you obviously did not understand the story.

Orthodox Single is another way of saying Forever Infertile... and that's unfair.

I recently shared a shabbos lunch with three single women. They were around 50 years old. One was divorced with a teenage child; the other two had never been married. These women were accomplished professionals—funny, intelligent and all around good company. I wouldn’t presume to guess why they never married, but I caught myself wondering if they still considered themselves on the make. Did they still think that their life was incomplete without a spouse? Were they deeply unsatisfied or had they come to terms with living a single, but vibrant and meaningful life?

It then occurred to me that their marital status was really not the issue at all. What intrigued me was that two of these women never had their own children and most likely never will. Sometime during the meal we were discussing property taxes and estate planning and the topic of children who fight over their parents’ estate came up. One woman leaned over to the other and mumbled, “I’m lucky I’ll never have that problem.” She laughed at the irony, but I saw it as nothing less than tragic.

I suppose that by today’s progressive standard a woman can be complete without having experienced childbirth or motherhood, but I feel that would only hold true when considered in the context of choice. A woman who does not wish to be a mother is better off staying single and/or childless. But these women at my table, who are orthodox and theoretically family oriented, are forced into childlessness not by choice, but by circumstance.

Outside of the orthodox world, it’s becoming the norm for single women to be having children. Even in the most liberal crowd, there’s a stigma that goes with artificial insemination, but I think this last resort for a single woman running out of time is considered more or less reasonable. The Jewish Week ran an article some time ago about women who became pregnant without a partner and concluded that they are higher up on the ladder of acceptability than unmarried women who are naturally impregnated, by accident or not. Mind you, these considerations are not based on religious or halakhic standards. Now consider the orthodox woman who is in a totally different playing field, where the standards of acceptability are the most stringent. With so many who remain unmarried these days, so much so that the term ‘old maid’ has become quaint and irrelevant, their issues must be addressed. I don’t care to judge them or call them picky or too ambitious and career driven; the reality is that they are put in a terrible bind by virtue of their being orthodox.

So how do we treat single middle aged women: as lepers who should be punished for their inability to settle down, as unstable and incompetent people who can’t be trusted with parenting and should therefore not be allowed any viable alternative? Or how about treating them simply as infertile? Many women are infertile because of biological reasons; let these women be considered infertile based on sociological reasons.

Infertile couples have many options and untraditional ways to become parents, from adoption to in-vitro fertilization to surrogate pregnancy. Sperm donation is the most restrictive and complicated option, (if the child later marries a relative of the sperm donor, it would be incest/ if the donor is a cohen, his sons are cohanim and are restricted in who they may marry, etc…) but there have been ways to circumvent the problems, e.g. using non-anonymous donors. Despite the countless ethical and halakhic issues involved in each of these choices, the rabbanim have been making huge and commendable efforts to enable orthodox couples to use the latest technology and to adopt what’s available to halkaha (see infertility resources). The question is, who should qualify as infertile so that they can benefit from all these options.

Until now the window of opportunity has been tightly guarded by the powers that be, lest the argument be made that gays should also be given the opportunity to procreate using whatever means available. But while homosexuality is a halakhic issue, single motherhood is not. I’m not convinced that giving women who don't have the opportunity to have children in a traditional way a chance to do so outside of marriage would destroy the sanctity of the family.

As radical as my opinion sounds, I predict that should this become a reality, the first people to jump on it would be the frummest. Most older singles I know are modern orthodox. In many ways it’s easiest to be single in the modern world, because there’s more opportunity outside of family life for fulfillment (communal, professional, and in some circles even physical). But a highly observant single who passes a certain age without marrying is virtually doomed to remain lonely, separate and completely uninvolved in community life, because nobody can accommodate them. It’s the same reason infertile religious couples have such a hard time finding acceptance and support—because everyone married has children and there is simply no room for any deviation from that lifestyle. But why should being single be considered deviance?

I state my case especially for women, because a man never quite runs out of time (until he’s dead) or capacity for having children, whereas a woman has that ominous biological clock hanging over her head. This is very much my gut feeling and not an informed opinion—I know very little about the halakhic implications of fatherless conception—but even if it were unsolvable, the possibility of adoption remains. Everybody knows a frum single woman who would die to adopt children and raise them in the proper way, but doesn’t only because it’s just not done. Well, I don’t think ‘it’s just not done’ is a good enough reason to stop people from doing positive things that could be accommodated for in halakha.

It’s obvious that what used to work no longer does. Insisting on sanctimonious values and relative definitions of Jewish family hurts the growing number of people who don’t fall into traditional categories. (This isn’t even tradition so much as a recent and local definition because, for instance, before the cheirim d’Rabeinu Gershom one man could have been the father/husband to many families and his presence was unnecessary. When arranged within the bounds of halakha, a woman can raise her children alone and be recognized as a family unit.) If this puts me on the fringe, then so be it, but I feel that it’s only a matter of time before these supposedly scandalous alternatives will be uncovered as the reasonable and permissible options that I think they are.

Why do Baalei Teshuva always get hit the hardest?

BeyondBT, a blog that is designed to give support and connection to baalei teshuva, ran a post yesterday from Mrs. Kressel Housman who disabled her internet browser and gave up all online access at home in reaction to the 'historic Monsey internet aseifa' (gathering). The article is sadly titled "Cutting Connections" and is terribly troubling. Here are a few direct quotes:

At this point, I should describe my Internet use. In the late 90's, my husband created a kiruv website, beingjewish.com, and in 1998, I joined in with "“Kressel's Korner,"” which has gradually grown to include 14 of my original articles, most of which are about Jewish women's issues. I've met quite a few interesting people over the years as a result of the site, and I'’ve received many more complimentary letters. Each one of them was a thrill. For an unknown writer like myself, the instant audience available on the Internet is a dream come true.

In 2005, I discovered blogging, which far surpasses the website in dearness to my heart. My personal blog has 74 subscribing readers, most of whom are Jewish women of varying levels of observance. We read about each other'’s lives, celebrate each other'’s simchas, and support each other through the tough times. Baby pictures, daily gripes, Shabbos menus, divrei Torah - we talk about it all. I think of it as my “virtual veiber shul.” I love my Internet friends. And now I was being asked to give them up.

[...]

HaRav Solomon [a speaker at the aseifa]... quoted a man he'’d met whose son had gone off the derech.

"“I lost my father to Stalin, my brother to Hitler, and my son to the Internet,” said the man. “And the bitterest loss is that of my son because I know that after 120, I will see my father and brother in Olam Habo, but my son, I fear I will never see again."

As a sigh of pain passed through the audience, Rav Solomon thundered, "Who told that man he would merit Olam Habah? He allowed the Internet into his home! If he saw it was adversely affecting his son and did not stop it, he deserves at least as harsh a punishment, if not a worse one!"

[...]

After the asifa, I called my Rav to help me finalize my decision. Even with Rav Solomon'’s words ringing in my ears, the matter was not so clear-cut. I use the Internet to do mitzvos, so it seemed like a case of 'calculating the cost of a mitzvah against its reward, and the reward of a sin against its cost.'

My Rov is an absolute tzaddik. He gave me at least an hour of his time, probably more. It was in the course of that conversation that the tears began to flow. All the while, he gave me brachos that I should be rewarded for making this great personal sacrifice. He said it was mutar (permitted) for me to keep my email, use the Web in the public library, and compose one final post from my house that night so I could explain my choice to my friends.

What bothers me at the moment has nothing to do with the internet ban itself. What bothers me is that rabbanim take such advantage of baaley teshuva (BT) who rely on them completely for guidance in many lifestyle decisions.

Speaking from personal family experience I can tell you that the teshuva process puts the BT in a position where they cannot trust their own logic or common sense, because so many things that Judaism requires are not logical. Couple that with the enormous feelings of guilt for having done the wrong thing for so many years, and you get a person who is desperate to learn the right way and do the right thing but doesn't trust themselves to determine how to do that. This is a gross generalization and I'm sure many people have different experiences, but the large majority of BT's go through the process completely reliant on a mentor, a rav or shliach, who guides them step by step, like a child learning to walk, through the basic maneuvers of religion.

At some point though, every BT has to decide that they are done 'baal teshuving'. Some people have a hard time breaking away because they still don't trust themselves to figure out the gray areas in Judaism and are afraid to deal with the consequences of being unprepared. Others feel ready to make their own decisions regarding which chumras to take on, where to send their kids to school, which branch of Judaism is most comfortable for them, etc, but their mentors don't trust them enough to let go and insist on keeping a stronghold on the BT family and their decisions. And some just don't want to leave the comfort zone of being a BT, where they're treated with infinite patience and warmth to ensure that they view the teshuva process as a positive one. Whatever the reason, so many BTs are encouraged to leave all their big decisions to their mentor.

Everyone reverts to this kind of behavior at some time. When I come to a decision that is confusing or too difficult to make, I ask my husband, whom I trust completely, to decide and let me know. But there's good reason for my complete trust in him--it's in his best interest for me to be happy and fulfilled. That's why the only answer I ever got from him was, "only you can decide". Give me one good reason why a BT shouldn't get the same type of treatment. Once they've been in the system long enough, they are as equiped as any life-long observer to make personal decisions regarding their own Judiasm. Doing what the rav feels is right and being told to follow blindly might lead to a high level of observance, but it might also be very wrong for that individual. Of course one should strive to constantly grow and improve, but many areas are not clear cut good or bad, but rather issues that work in one situation and don't in another. With regard to halakha there is little room for personal interpretation, but with everything else, one must decide for themselves what will work.

All I know of Mrs. Housman is straight from her article, but she seems like a totally committed and educated frum woman. She lives in Monsey and attends aseifas, for crying out loud! At the same time, she may have needs that other frum women in Monsey don't, such as a venue for expression of her talent in writing, a network with other frum women for support and companionship, a way to contribute to the kiruv effort where she started, etc... Those were the things that she got from the internet. It is very clear to me that the aseifa was not targeted toward a woman like her, but rather to other parents who don't even know what the internet is and what their kids are up to! BT parents in general are much better equipped to deal with the supposed instant 'frei-out' that comes with a bit of exposure, so I highly doubt that anyone in her home is up to no good.

But because she has so much emunas chachamim and so much guilt and concern about doing the right thing, she took the message of the aseifa literally, as a psak din that must be immediately obeyed, rather than a project of awareness and education. That's understandable and, in fact, admirable. What's inexcusable though is that when she approached her rav for guidance, he only added to her state of panic. Forgive me for being so judgmental, but I'm sickened by that last paragraph. Why did this rov not suggest alternative ways to protect the children from the bad that's available while allowing the woman to continue her positive online activities? Why did the rov prey on her eagerness to do what's right by turning a hashkafa issue into an issur (prohibition)? Why would he treat her so condescendingly by blessing her for making the sacrifice and then telling her it's mutar to compose a goodbye note?!?

She says, "It was in the course of that conversation that the tears began to flow." Is it just me or does this situation resemble a tearful child being refused by a parent who pats them on the head and says, it's all for your own good. Treating people like children unable to make decisions for themselves is not for their own good. Denying people the right to a healthy dose of cynicism is not for their own good.

It's wrong of me to pick on Mrs. Housman--she seems to have thought long and hard about her decision. But her post managed to put into words what bothers so many people about the way BTs are treated. The mentor/rav/shliach essentially tells them, "you are not to be trusted, even by yourself," and leaves them in the most vulnerable position, plagued by self-doubt. What good could possibly come of that?

"Lo I'm Haaretz Chassid" Part II

A comment on my last post:

I realize this post came out terribly unclear! I meant to write about how women can be very uninvolved in Torah but at the same time spiritually dedicated, and nothing more is asked from them. I know I'm not making this situation up--it's everywhere. Think about the fact that there is no s'char limud Torah for women. It's encouraged only for commandments that apply. In other words, "lo am haaretz chassid", a man who is an ignoramus cannot be a chassid (righteous)--there is no way he can fulfill his purpose as a good Jew without learning and knowing. A woman, on the other hand, can be the exemplary Rebbetzin with only second hand knowledge from men on only applicable issues, i.e. kashrus, taharas hamishpacha, tznius, etc.

That's the issue I wanted to bring up and discuss, using myself and my husband only as an example. Instead I got so carried away expounding on my husband's virtues that I left the main point for the last paragraph! I guess that makes me a good wife, but a terrible writer! :) In any event, I hope this comment clears things up and you don't view the post a biographical piece with a little philosophy at the end. View it as social commentary with a little biographical information thrown in to serve as example.

Waiting to hear from you...

Comment here.

"Lo I'm Haaretz Chassid"

I'd like to introduce my dear husband, Talmid Chacham GED. As you may have surmised from his pseudonym, he is my perfect compliment. Between my am haratzus, his scholarship in Torah, his detachment from the shtusim of the world and my extpertise therewith, we make a very well rounded and happy couple, b"H.

I met my dear husband (DH) shortly after my 20th birthday and agreed to marry him within a week and a half of our first date. This surprised me as much as anyone else, especially since I'd never considered myself the marrying-young type. I had only recently gotten back from seminary, had just begun college, and was full of many grand plans which included marriage, but only as a by the way. (Side point: many frum girls would rather not get married as young as they do, but do so only because they're afraid they'll miss the boat if they wait.) This changed as soon as I met DH and suddenly my close to half a year engagement seemed like an eternity.

My friends, who were all single, treated me as the go-to-girl for dating and marriage advice, as I seemed to have gone through the process so effortlessly. The thing that amazed them the most was that I had no qualms about marrying a guy who was so much more religious than me. Indeed, I married DH knowing full well that he is light years ahead of me in both observance and Torah knowledge. I didn't know much, but I knew that these were things to value and respect (and I also hoped to pick something up by osmosis).

The truth is that on a superficial level, we're both fully observant chabadniks who went through yeshiva and live the same lifestyle, etc... But in fact, it's quite possible to be very different while sharing the same labels. I went through high school going to movies, listening to Pearl Jam, reading Cosmo and just generally goofing off. Seminary was my first exposure to learning chassidus, where I did get involved, but since I felt it was an externally induced situation, it didn't turn my life around . Don't get me wrong, I was a thoughtful, well behaved teen; but looking back I realize that I did not internalize Judaism beyond the mandatory good behavior.

My husband, on the other hand, spent his days learning Torah. This would be a good time to explain the GED addendum to DH's name. Unlike my PhD, which is just a gimmick, DH's GED is real. Although he attended an excellent yeshiva high school that offered both Jewish and secular studies, my DH considered it bittul Torah to attend any afternoon classes, so he sat them out in the bies medrash and learned. Surprisingly his rebbi's did not discourage it, so it was only in his 20's when it was time to think about earning a livelihood that DH got a diploma equivalence. Till this day, though he works full time, DH spends every free minute with a sefer (or chazarra mp3). [correction: I'm afraid this was unclear-- DH got a GED, semicha and then went on to finish grad school, so he's a professional, not a kollel guy.]

When I was still a newlywed, my father told me something that made me bitter at the time but was otherwise good advice. He said, if you want to have something to talk about with your husband besides what's for dinner and the weather, you'd better start learning. I think he meant it both as a compliment to DH for being so engrossed in Torah and point out that I should take a more active role in being Jewish. Don't worry, it's been years and though I'm still an am haaretz, DH and I still have plenty to talk about. But my father had a point and I'm not proud of the fact. I actually intend to change it now that I finally graduated from college and have some more time and mental space open to learn Torah. The amazing thing is that I never really thought it was a problem.

I often wonder how it is that women have completely different obligations, not only in action but in attitude, towards Judaism. Besides for the time-sensitive commandments from which we're exempt, there is an unwritten rule that says that as long as a woman does nothing prohibited, she is considered an observant Jew, whereas a man must actually do positive in order to be considered religious. Of course women have plenty of mitzvahs, but practically speaking a frum woman who does not daven, learn, or engage in Torah in any way is not rare. (Things that must be done in order to avoid a prohibition can't be neglected though.) A guy would never get away with it; he simply would not be considered frum!

I'm sure some men resent that women get away so easy with religious obligation, but at the same time many women resent that they are not invited into the boy's club of everyday Torah, despite their willingness to participate. This inconsistency plays itself out regularly in my domestic life. My husband is a holy Jew who spends his days doing mitzvahs and learning Torah, while I spend my days doing my own thing, plus some mitzvahs and a little Torah. To an outsider, we're both frum, but that's not the whole truth. He's the frum one and I'm mostly riding on his merits.

[ DH is no less fun or cool or open-minded or attractive because of his religiosity, so don't even go there!]

Sex-Ed for frum kids

I don't usually recycle comments, but I think this one bears repeating. From RebReb's thread:

Where are all the parents who should be educating their children about the dangers of sexual predators? I blame all the same people you do, but at the same time, I also it's every parent's responsibility (not the schools' or community leaders') to make sure it never happens to their child-- so that if it does, the child knows how to respond.

It's time to let go of old notions of chilhood innocence, where we don't expose our kids to anything sex-related until it's applicable. First of all they find out by themselves much earlier than we'd like anyway through friends and pop culture, so may as well do it in an appropriate way, via parent-to-child talk. Second of all, it's worth "corrupting" a kid at a younger age with this unpleasant knowledge, if only to avoid the one in a million chance that the child will be Gd forbid exposed to abuse and not know what it is or that they should run and tell an adult.

Update: SephardiLady says it better.

Where Halakha and Morality collide

Consider the following:

Had Yehuda Kolko been seen playing with a 10 year old girl's hair, or had a 12 year old girl told school administration that Kolko had asked her to sit beside him and hold his hand--I have no doubt that he would be promptly dismissed from any respectable position. All physical contact, even a-sexual, between men and girls older than 9 is prohibited, so there's no doubt that this behavior would be considered scandalous and unfitting for a yeshiva rebbi. Yet Kolko was repeatedly accused of molesting young boys, and the charges were dismissed by both school administration and the halakhic authority involved. Only recently has Kolko been asked to take forced leave; but remember that the leave is paid and temporary, so he hasn't yet been categorically rejected.

Is it because technically speaking there is no issur in a man fondling a boy (like negiah)? I suppose that is why the issue of mesira keeps surfacing. Since a beis din only has the capacity to enforce halakhic matters, and same-sex molestation that does not include assault is only a criminal violation, it is therefore outside the domain of the beis din and must be handed over to the secular courts.

I wonder if this twisted logic has crossed people's minds--that a mere hashkafa matter is not grave enough to allow mesira. Forgive my making these terrible presumptions, but I'm desperately trying to come to terms with the possibility that upstanding people, good Jews, parents and teachers could possibly allow for such a crime to go not only unpunished but unstopped. Again I ask, where are the leaders? Why hasn't there been an asiefa or edict issued by big rabbanim stating in non-negotiable terms that the orthodox community has zero tolerance for both the behavior and any cover-up thereof? ZERO- TOLERANCE! The least we can do is demand answers, not excuses but answers, from those in charge.

Churban al Yisrael- no other words will do

New York Magazine has an article on sex abuse of children in yeshivos (link). It's heart-wrenching, just tragic and will hopefully lead to positive change and reparations. I'm with the people who would rather not discuss this issue, but only because it's unpleasant and painful, not because I believe it should be ignored. The discussions at DovBear and Canonist I & II are better places to deal with the details of the case and the legitimacy of anonymous allegations, but I thought of an angle which hasn't yet been mentioned and is consequential.

I truly think that a big reason for what the article calls ‘orthodoxy’s institutional cover-up of sexual abuse’ comes from the frum velt's lack of respect for science and its subset- medicine. The ultra-Orthodox are as concerned for their children’s safety as anyone else, if not more; the reason for this horrible mess is that the concern does not translate into an up-to-date understanding of what in fact constitutes a threat.

Pedophilia is not a yetzer hora, it's a psychiatric condition. Accusing a rabbi of sexual abuse of this kind is beyond the realm of lashon hora or defamation—it’s stating the fact that they are mentally ill and hence a threat to society. Pedophilia is such that no matter what the person's level of piety or observance, he will feel the urges (if he’s a tzaddik, he won't act on them or only in private without involving real children). Making ignorant statements like, 'he's a rebbi/ talmid chacham/ respectable Jew, so he can't possible have this problem' ignores mountains of evidence that proves that even the nicest people can be afflicted with the sickest disease, and being otherwise good doesn't make them any less liable or less dangerous.

Every community has sick individuals and that in no way reflects on the values of the community. Dismissing these allegations because they’re a “shanda” on the community is not only horribly insensitive to the victims, it is hurting the entire community by turning a psychiatric condition and criminal activity into an issue of religiosity. Judaism should stand irrespective of the people who practice it. Defending criminals who are mentally ill based on their religion is a perverted misuse of righteousness and does nothing but tarnish all that's good and true in Torah.

Pedophiles don't reflect badly on our community; it's the leader's refusal to acknowledge or deal with the problem that does! Isn't that obvious?

It also wouldn't be contrary to any Torah way of thinking to turn to the experts regarding these issues--as in, secular experts on abuse and psychopathology. A little research will tell you that pedophiles are typically drawn into jobs that involve constant contact with children. Considering that, would it be 'hepech daas Torah' to take the secular route and require psychological evaluation of all teacher and counselor applicants? If the Rebbi is a yisras shamayim in public areas of his life, that doesn’t guarantee that he does not pose a threat in private areas. Obviously the incidence is rare, but rare is still a formidable problem. We aren't scientologists who believe on principle that our religion overrides medicine, psychology and outside wisdom; so let’s incorporate the secular approach, which takes into account all these unpleasant but proven factors, into our educational model. We also should not be so wary of secular authorities getting involved in prosecuting the abusers. Clearly, a beis din does not have the capacity to pursue criminal charges. I can somewhat empathize with the difficulty involved in turning against colleagues and friends with such terrible charges, but that's not excuse for allowing the behavior to continue. Simply hand over the responsibility to secular authorities and let them conduct the investigation so that communal relations can remain intact while criminals are apprehended.

Ezzie also makes a great point:

These cover-ups do damage to innocents completely unrelated to the matter at hand: Every accusation of a cover-up is automatically believed, simply because they are so widely practiced. This results in innocent people being accused and having their lives destroyed by those with agendas against them or their families.

It's during times like these that strong leadership in the Jewish community is most sorely missed. If only there was a person of stature who could stand up and offer guidance, condolence, something that would reflect a true Torah opinion.

If you are from Monsey or Lakewood... click here

(Click on image to see bigger)

Life without the internet is possible, though a little less tolerable! It looks from the accounts of last night's Monsey gathering (up at S.) that the internet ban is gaining momentum and support in the chasidish and yeshivish communities. As easy as it is to dismiss the ban as yet another example extremist nonsense, consider this:

25 years ago, every Jewish family (except chassidim) had a television. Even though TV content was far less objectionable then than it is now, community leaders took it in their hands to issue a ban against TV ownership. At first it was considered a ridiculous fad, but soon schools would not accept children TVs at home, shidduchim would be rejected because the young adult in question grew up watching TV, etc., until the point where now TV ownership is universally unacceptable outside of Modern Orthodox, and anyone who dares to 'violate' the convention is forced to hide it and lie about it--hence the true, but rare, rumors of TVs hidden away in chasidic closets.

It goes without saying that the internet is a far more useful tool and more conducive to positive than TV, but TV isn't all bad either--with educational programming and business tools like the news or market analysis, the same pros and cons can be said about both. Just the same, both venues are full of shmutz and should be monitored for children and self-censored for adults.

I wonder... if TV went from marginally harmless, to should be used with discretion, to morally dangerous, to unacceptable to anyone within the community--in less than a generation, how long will it take for the internet to become equally prohibited? I predict this ban will become mainstream far faster, because it is based on real dangers that exist, i.e. porn or leitzanus. But is it fair that within a few years having the internet at home will be the moral equivalant of having a TV with full cable and adult channel access installed in your child's bedroom? I think not.

There has to be a more pragmatic approach than a full out ban. We have too much to lose, too much pressure to keep up with the information age, too much value placed on open discussion and accountability to shut the doors to everything the internet has to offer.

Label of Love

This comes straight from Hirhurhim's comments:

• learn kiruv from lubavitch
• learn derech eretz from YU/RYDS
• learn ahavas yisroel from Maran RAYK
• learn to serve Hashem with joy from the chasidim
• learn to learn torah from the litvish
• learn to love eretz yisroel from the religous zionists
• learn how to conduct yourself among the goyim from the modern orthodox
• learn tenacity in serving Hashem in the face of all odds from the misnachalim
• learn tznius from UO
• learn bikur cholim from satmar
• learn how to publish a dignified religous periodical from mishpacha magazine and jewish action
• learn torah im derech eretz from the modern orthodox and from the breurs community
• learn jewish history from Rabbi Berel Wein

Eizehoo Chacham Halomeid mikol adam
Avigdor

Where does this obsession with compartmentalizing Judaism come from? I think part of it is a will to separate yourself from those you disagree with, since general labels are almost always less flattering, i.e. "I can't just say I'm chassidic because someone might Gd forbid mistake me for a Belzer". Also, since disassociation implies disapproval, other group monikers have become code names from insults, i.e. it's so much easier to dismiss somebody's comment by saying, "well, he's a snag," than actually providing an arguement.

Along comes Avigdor who, for a change, has something positive to say about everyone. I don't care how corny it sounds--I think it's worth repeating (and adding to, if you dare).

Holy Foliage... there's a bug in my lettuce!

Bugs in lettuce are nothing new. One of the pillars of orthodox Jewish belief is that bugs are everywhere---in food, in water, in sheitels*. Since I was a little girl, I've spent hours of my life inspecting vegetables and sifting through grains to find those insidious little creatures. I don't ever buy raspberries, and I only buy triple washed frozen broccoli with a hechsher. I even bought a water filter when the copipods in tap water were a question. But just like I almost never find blood spots in raw eggs, bug sightings are rare and far in between, despite all my vigilance.

This weekend everything changed--I hit gold. It began this Friday night during my typical salad routine, which involves first rinsing the lettuce leaves, scrubbing the stems under water, and putting them aside to dry... then cutting all the veggies into the bowl-- tomatoes, cucumbers, radishes, peppers, avocados, you name it-- and finally holding each lettuce leaf up to the light and checking it on both sides for bugs. I'll often find a few unidentifiable black spots which I rub out with my fingers, but the leaf usually passes my scrutiny and gets cut or torn into the salad. End of story. But this week my efforts were finally rewarded. My two heads of lettuce were infested with microscopic black dots, many of which had legs. For a minute I considered trashing the whole bowl to avoid the unsavory job of nit picking the greens, but I was expecting a full table of hungry guests, so I had no choice but to persevere. It's then that I discovered that these tiny little things do not wash off under a normal stream of water--their legs are clawed into the flesh of the leaf. In other words, the only way to take off the bug would be to cut it out with the surrounding leaf--something which can't be done on shabbos. Luckily I had a few endives in the fridge, so I pulled a quick substitute. But the saga was not yet over.

Today my daughter decided to be extra difficult and refuse any offer of dinner that wasn't chocolate. She rejected everything and anything I put in front of her and insisted I give her chocolate, not for desert but for dinner. I bribed, I cajoled, and I finally gave in, because I couldn't send her to bed hungry. In my infinite wisdom as a mother, I set out to prepare a semi-healthy bowl of oat bran with a few chocolate sprinkles to make it attractive. I opened a brand new box of HO steel cut oat-bran only to find a box of HO steel cut oat-bran with bugs. What first looked like extra toasted pieces of grain were crawling, that's right crawling, around my daughter's polka-dotted cereal bowl. Again using my infinite wisdom as a mother, I jumped back and shouted "Oh crap! Bugs!" at the top of my lungs in front of my very alert, apt to repeat, sponge of a toddler. Oh great!

I bit my tongue and braved the pantry again, choosing a sealed box of snowy white farina (which I put through a sieve just to be sure). After preparing it, I sprinkled the obligatory chocolate sprinkles on top so that my daughter would consider eating it. When I finally sat her down in front of what would be any kid's ideal dinner, she took one look at the brown sprinkles floating in her farina and hollered, "Oh Crap! Bugs!"