Saturday, August 31, 2019

New Zman - Part 2

The number of people learning Torah is simply astounding. Considering that only a fraction of that number was learning in pre-war Europe and then the Holocaust almost decimated our people. That number [160k] doesn't include the countless thousands in the US and elsewhere who are starting the new Zman today - such as BMG Lakewood with it's 6000 plus talmidim.

No less important [or maybe more] is the number [hundreds of thousands?] of girls learning in Torah institutions. Without girls - we have no families. Strong Jewish families are the basic building blocks of Klal Yisrael. 

AM YISRAEL CHAI!!!!!!馃槉


New Zman

160,000 boys and men will start again in Yeshivos and Kollelim - 讻谉 讬专讘讜!!!! See here. Note also the letter to the students of Yeshivas Ateres Yisrael that forbids kosher cell phones and any boy found with a smartphone is out on the spot [this is standard procedure in every "black hat" yeshiva].  

My wish is that the modern "gap year" [don't like that term AT ALL - the IKKER of life is the year in Israel. The rest of one's life is comparatively the "gap"] programs would be similarly strict with smartphones so that boys wouldn't be watching movies in the  dorms - among other things. But alas, it hasn't happened yet and I don't know if it ever will. If a program ever becomes so brave, they will experience a surprising development - a lot more boys will be focused on learning and their minds will be cleansed of the poisons ... 

I am thankful that in my yeshiva days there was no Internet or cell phones. Seeing how little so many of us learned without those distractions, it is frightening to think how much less we would have learned with them. 

Friday, August 30, 2019

Hasmada

El-Al has a "Matmid" program. I'm totally down with that. I just don't want to be a frequent flyer. I want to be a frequent learner. How do I get there?

ELLLUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Thursday, August 29, 2019

When Things Don't Go Your Way

This is a story that happened to an Avreich I know - we'll call him R' Meir - and I don't know what to make of it. 

R' Meir had a wayward son who dropped out of Yeshiva. He was contacted and told that a certain Avreich - we'll call him R' Yaakov - would attempt to convince his son to go to Yeshiva, for a thousand dollars [!!]. Nu - what a father won't do for his son. He pays the thousand dollars and lo and behold, he was successful. The boy went to a Yeshiva. 

Not a happy ending - yet. The boy dropped out of this Yeshiva too and veered very far off the path [drugs, alcohol etc. etc.].

R' Yaakov's BROTHER - we'll call him R' Aharon - needed a loan so he asked ... R' Meir, for a loan of a thousand dollars. R' Meir gave him the loan. When pay up time came, no money was in sight. A year and a half after the loan was due, R' Meir asked R' Aharon to repay the loan. R' Aharon said that he can't, nor did he offer to pay little by little [and he doesn't know that his brother R' Yaakov might have an extra thousand to help him out :-)].

That's it. 

R' Meir is out of two thousand dollars and his son is on drugs. 

Moral of the story: I don't know.... [Other than "讛讻诇 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐"]. 

I am curious what people think.     

It's Your Choice


By Rabbi Joshua (responsibly known as The Hoffer) Hoffman z"l 


Parshas Re'eh begins with a general statement by Moshe to the people that they are confronted with the choice between blessing and curse, depending on whether or not they observe God's commandments. He then tells them that when they enter the land, they will perform a ceremony in which the blessing will be declared from Mt. Gerzim, and the curse will be declared from Mt. Eival. Why was there a need to mention this to the people now, since the ceremony would not be performed until after they entered the land? Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor, a 12th century Talmudic authority, writes, in his commentary to this parsha, that this declaration served as an introduction to the second part of Moshe's farewell address to the nation. Until now, Moshe had been reviewing the nation's past, pointing out the mistakes that the previous generation had made, and advising the new generation not to repeat those mistakes. Now, Moshe was preparing to mention specific commandments that they had to observe. First, however, he had to tell them that they had the ability to keep these commands, and, so, he explained the principle of free choice to them. 

It is interesting to note that parshas Re'eh is read every year either on the Shabbos preceding the beginning of the month of Ellul or the Shabbos following it. This month is one of introspection leading up to the days of repentance beginning with Rosh Hashanah and ending with Yom Kippur. Rabbi Nachman Cohen, in his work A Time for All Things, points out that the mitzvos in this week's parsha have special relevance to the month of Ellul and the theme of repentance. We may add that, in light of Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor's comments, Moshe's opening declaration to the people also has relevance to this time of year. The Rambam, in his Laws of Repentance, chapter five, delivers a lengthy discourse on the principle of free choice. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, z"l, in his classical work, On Repentance, delineates two types of repentance. One type of repentance, he says, is rooted in external forces, or even in an emotional crisis within man, but does not emerge from the person's core belief system. The other type of repentance, however, emerges from an intellectual, existential crisis within the person, and prompts a reassessment of his life, in general. This second type of repentance, says Rav Soloveitchik, is rooted in man's freedom of choice, and this is why the Rambam explicates this principle in his Laws of Repentance. Thus, Moshe's declaration to the people that they have freedom of choice and therefore have the ability to keep all of God's commandments has special relevance to the month of Ellul, just as the rest of the parsha does, as demonstrated by Rabbi Cohen. 

Ramban, in his introduction to the book of Devorim, writes that the mitzvos that are mentioned in this book are specifically related to the life of the nation in Eretz Yisroel. Although the format of Netvort does not permit us to discuss how each of the mitzvos in parshas Re'eh fits into this pattern, I believe it can be demonstrated that most of them readily do. However, there is one mitzvoh in particular that would, at first blush, seem to be unrelated to the land. That mitzvoh is the mitzvah of tzedokoh, of providing poor people with their needs. This is, obviously, a mitzvoh that is incumbent upon the body of a person, and would seem to apply wherever a person happens to be, as long as there is someone else around who needs to be helped. However, the Torah specifically connects this mitzvoh to the presence of the nation in Eretz Yisroel, as we read: "If there will be a destitute person among you, of one of your brothers in any of your cities which the Lord, your God, gives you, you shall not harden your heart nor shall you close your hand against your destitute brother. Rather, opening, you shall open your hand to him, you shall grant him enough for his lack which is lacking for him" (Devorim 15:7-8). Why is this mitzvoh stated in connection with the land? Doesn't it have application everywhere in the world? 

Rabbeinu Bachya, in his commentary to this verse, writes that tzedokoh does have special relevance to Eretz Yisroel, just as all mitzvos do .To prove this, he cites the Sifrei, which teaches us that all the mitzvos were meant to be kept in Eretz Yisroel, and we are commanded to observe them outside the land, as well, so that, when we return, they will not seem new to us. Regardless of how we understand the deeper meaning of this Sifrei, however, we still need to explain why it is specifically in regard to the mitzvah of tzedokoh that the connection of mitzvos to Eretz Yisroel is highlighted in the Torah. Moreover, from this week's haftarah reading, it seems that it is through the mitzvoh of tzedokoh that the nation will return to the land after being exiled from it, as we read, " Establish yourself through tzedokoh" (Yeshayah 54:14). More explicitly, the haftarah to the Shabbos before Tisha B'Av, known as Shabbos Chazon, ends with the statement, " Tzion shall be redeemed with justice, and her returnees through tzedokoh" (Yeshaya 1:27)." Apparently, the exile occurred because people did not perform the mitzvoh of tzedokoh. What, then, is the connection between tzedokoh and the existence of the nation in Eretz Yisroel? 

The Talmud, at the end of tractate Sotah, tells us that after the destruction of the Temple, there were no longer any people of faith to be found. Rashi there explains that the Talmud is referring to people who have trust in God and rely on him to do good, without worrying that they will lack anything. Rav Avrohom Pam, in his Atarah LeMelech (pages 152-154) cites this explanation of Rashi, and demonstrates that a person who truly trusts in God and believes that all he has comes through God for a purpose, will not refrain from providing poor people with their needs. Rabbi Matisyohu Solomon, in his Matnas Yad (pages 239 ff.), also develops this theme, based on different sources. Moshe, in the first part of his farewell address to the nation, as presented in the first three parshas of the book of Devorim, continually tells the people that their success in the land will depend on their fealty to God and His mitzvos, and warns them not to become arrogant and believe that the bounty they enjoy in the land is a result of their own efforts, and not a result of God's special providence in the land. The mitzvah of tzedokoh, as explained by Rav Pam, is a primary test of this kind of faith, and perhaps it is for this reason that the Torah connects it specifically to the Holy Land. Following our earlier remarks, we can add that this mitzvah has special relevance for the month of Ellul, as well. In order to realize the level of teshuvoh that touches the core of our existence, as explained by Rabbi Soloveitchik, we need to strengthen our faith and trust in God. Perhaps this is why tzedokoh is recommended as a primary way of doing teshuvoh at this time of year. Rav Soloveitchik actually refers to the type of teshuvoh rooted in one's free will as redemptive repentance, and perhaps this is why, on a wider scale, it is through tzedokoh that Tzion will be redeemed and the exile will end. May we all, individually and collectively, return to God in a complete way, be inscribed for a wonderful new year, and experience the final redemption of the Jewish nation.

Vacations And Technology

When I was a child, I had a GREAT deal. I would get these ALL EXPENSES paid vacations to cool places! All I had to do to go was be my parent's child - and I did it.

Now, if I want to go away on vacation to a nice hotel like the old days - it is on me. So since I married, I have taken my family on vacation exactly zero times. It is not only because of the money. It is because of a variety of reasons I won't get into here. I am not missing out. It is quite good for me where I am. Plus, I live in Israel which is a vacation spot for so many, so in a way I am on vacation all year long. [We have a pool minutes away - religious people call it a "mikva". 24 hour tea room. Jewish music - I turn on Shwekey or whomever I want whenever I want. Entertainment - I do stand up comedy numerous times a day. A game room for children (the living room). Gourmet meals - when my wife feels like cooking them. Fully stocked Beis Medrash - hebrewbooks.org. And LOTS LOTS MORE!!].   

Recently, I got into my head [or maybe the yetzer hara stuck in my head - unclear] that I want to go to a certain place on vacation. I was considering going and then the following thought occurred to me: When I went there in my youth, much of the fun was the social interactions that I enjoyed.  There wasn't much else to do other than eat, daven and interact [sometimes all at once馃槉馃槉]. It never ONCE happened that someone interrupted a conversation to answer the phone or even LOOKED at their phone or walked around oblivious to their surroundings - staring at their smartphone. Nobody was busy with their computer answering emails, checking their bank accounts or stocks or just surfing the net [although there was a lot of "surfing" in the original sense of the word].

Why not??

BECAUSE THERE WERE NO SMARTPHONES, INTERNET, EMAIL or most of what keeps most people busy most of the day. So we were forced to connect to human beings and not machines. These were the glorious 1970's and 1980's. 

Am I suggesting we turn back the clock? No. We need and use technology for many important things. [May I recommend 4 recent DELICIOUS shiurim on Bari Vi-shema in Ksubos 12b in Tosfos. PILEI PILEI PLAOS!! BS"D].  But I do miss when people were emotionally and cognitively present in the room when they were physically present in the room. The Baal Shem Tov famously taught that a person is where his thoughts are. Today, you can have 100 people in a room and nobody is really there. Even when conversing with someone, their mind is partially with the phone. If it isn't, then a call or email will interrupt and then attention will be diverted and conversation over. The days of full presence are OVER. 

Sadly.

So I imagine in my minds eye, walking around the lobby of a hotel in the place where I want to go and seeing people texting away, busy in their own virtual world. My fear of disappointment mitigates my desire to go. 

Sweet friends! May we be zoche to open our hearts to others and to be fully present, in the moment and focused on the tasks at hand without being swept away by technology. There are many people in Silicon Valley who are busy RIGHT NOW trying to figure out how to get us further addicted to our machines. 

Steve Jobs doesn't rest in peace..... How can he, knowing what he has wrought?!   



The Meaning Behind The Words

Trump said: "Jews are disloyal if they vote Democrat".

Trump meant: "I want to be great again!! PLEAAASEEEE vote for me!"

Lesson: Don't listen only to the words people say but to the INTENT behind their words.

Trump isn't an Anti-Semite. He is a "PhiloTrump". He loves himself and everything related to that love. Don't take anything he says personally. It is all about him and not about anyone else. 

In general, people are not AGAINST you - they are in FAVOR of themselves... So is human nature.    

Gazebo

Camp season is over so it will be 10 more months until anyone says the word "Gazebo" again. 

Ruach Hakodesh - Businessman?

I want to get a bracha from Linkedin because it has Ruach Hakodesh. 

It asks me "Do you know so and so" and I'm like "HOW DO YOU KNOW!!!?!!"

And people ask me to join their Linkedin network. Do they think that I will do business with them? I am less likely to be a businessman than the Pope is to be a 12th grade Rebbi in Yeshivas Torah Vo-da'as.  

Original Solution To the Shidduch Crisis

To celebrate 36 years "without marrying anyone," a single woman in West Sussex, England, elected to throw a wedding-themed birthday party where she cheekily "married" herself. 


"A single mom rang in her 36th birthday in an unusual fashion – by wearing a wedding dress and tiara and celebrating making it 'all this way without marrying anyone,'" reports Fox News.


She further said that she has no intention of getting married. Every study on this topic that has been conducted, confirms the fact that this woman will never be truly happy. For happiness a person needs deep intimate relationships, a stable happy family, togetherness etc. And she is celebrating....   

Former Chicago Bears quarterback Jim McMahon discussed his struggles wit...

Grab On To The Daf

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Everything ..... And Humble Too

I recently heard someone boasting about his achievements. Just in case his listeners weren't clear about the magnitude of his greatness, he added that he is incredibly humble. 

WOW!! So great and HUMBLE too. Just ask him....

The wisest of all men said "讬讛诇诇讱 讝专 讜诇讗 驻讬讱". Let others praise you. Hearing it from your mouth isn't so geshmak....

Fundamental Law

“To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. For the first side of this equation, I need no sources. As a conservative, I can confidently attest that whatever else my colleagues might disagree about—Bosnia, John McCain, precisely how many orphans we’re prepared to throw into the snow so the rich can have their tax cuts—we all agree that liberals are stupid. We mean this, of course, in the nicest way. Liberals tend to be nice, and they believe—here is where they go stupid—that most everybody else is nice too. Deep down, that is. Sure, you’ve got your multiple felon and your occasional war criminal, but they’re undoubtedly depraved ’cause they’re deprived. If only we could get social conditions right—eliminate poverty, teach anger management, restore the ozone, arrest John Ashcroft—everyone would be holding hands smiley-faced, rocking back and forth to “We Shall Overcome.” Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything.” 

― Charles Krauthammer, Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes, and Politics

Advanced Culture - Bad Politics

“You can have the most advanced and efflorescent cultures. Get your politics wrong, however, and everything stands to be swept away. This is not ancient history. This is Germany 1933.”

Everyone

"A law to live by: Everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise. I’ve had a fairly good run with this one.”

Invasive

It is very invasive the way they go through your stuff again and again at the airport. Why is this necessary? Because there are certain people who are liable to blow up or hijack airplanes.

Who is NOT a candidate to do that? 

A frum family flying with their seven kids.

A Rosh Yeshiva/Kollel on a fund raising mission.

A Seminary girl on her way to BJJ in Elul.

A geeky Professor of Computer Science at the University Of Nerds.

A yeshivish looking heart surgeon who is the head of his department at Long Island Jewish Hospital.

An avel going to bury a family member.  

My parents.

Your parents.

Me.

You.

And many others. 

Who IS a candidate? We all know. The same type of people who have tried to blow up things in the past. So why aren't they alone checked and everybody else gets their property, privacy and time respected?? Maybe .... political correctness. People would be insulted if we checked them and not others. So this INCREDIBLE "balagan" in every airport in the world is because of political correctness. Maybe. Insane. In our society "racial profiling" is considered a greater sin than "诇讗 转谞讗祝" and "诇讗 转讙谞讜讘" combined. 

And if we are REALLY suspicious that every person is a mass murderer - then why do we let people freely roam the streets? Why do we only take measures to protect airplanes but not busy streets with thousands of pedestrians, schools, malls etc. etc.? 

Not complaining - just asking.    

Believing Everything

“The trouble when people stop believing in G-d is not that they thereafter believe in nothing; it is that they thereafter believe in anything. In this century, 'anything' has included Hitler, Stalin and Mao, authors of the great genocidal madnesses of our time.” 

Why Is There No Torah Like that Of Eretz Yisrael?

讻砖讛讛转讙诇讜转 砖诇 讛注讜诇诐 讛诪驻讜专讚 诪转讙讘专转 注诇 讛讛转讙诇讜转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 砖诇 讛注讜诇诐 讛诪讗讜讞讚, 讛讞讜诪专讬讜转 诪转讙讘专转 注诇 讛专讜讞谞讬讜转, 讜讛转讗讜讜转 讛讙讜驻谞讬讜转 注讜诪讚讜转 讛谉 讗讝 讘砖讜专讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 砖诇 转讻谞讬转 讛讞讬讬诐, 讜讗驻诇转 讛注讜诇诐 专讘讛 讛讬讗 讜讻砖讛讛砖拽驻讛 砖诇 讛注讜诇诐 讛讗讞讚讜转讬 诪转讙讘专转, 讗讝 讛转砖讜拽讜转 讛专讜讞谞讬讜转 讜讻诇 讛砖讗讬驻讜转 讛注讚讬谞讜转 诪转讙讘专讜转, 讜讛注讜诇诐 讛讜诇讱 讛诇讜讱 讜讗讜专. 

讗讜讬专讗 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讛诪讞讻讬诐, 讛谞讜转谉 讛讗专讛 讘谞砖诪讛 诇讛砖讻讬诇 讗转 讛讬住讜讚 砖诇 讛注讜诇诐 讛诪讗讜讞讚. 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讬讜谞拽讬诐 诪讗讜专 讛讞讻诪讛 讛讬砖专讗诇讬转, 诪诪讛讜转 讛讞讬讬诐 讛专讜讞谞讬讬诐 讛诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 诇讬砖专讗诇, 诪讛砖拽驻转 讛注讜诇诐 讜讛讞讬讬诐 讛讬砖专讗诇讬讬诐, 砖讛讬讗 讘讬住讜讚讛 讛讛转讙讘专讜转 砖诇 讛注讜诇诐 讛诪讗讜讞讚 注诇 讛注讜诇诐 讛诪驻讜专讚. 讜讝讛讜 讛讬住讜讚 砖诇 讘讬讟讜诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬驻讜转讬讛 讜住注讬驻讬讛. 讘讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讛讟诪讗讛 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛砖拽驻转 讛注讜诇诐 讛诪讗讜讞讚 诇讛讙诇讜转, 讜讛注讜诇诐 讛诪驻讜专讚 砖讜诇讟. 讘讞讝拽讛, 讜讛砖拽驻转讜 讛驻专讟讬转 讜讛诪驻讜专讚讛, 讛诪讞讜诇拽讛 讜诪谞讜讻专讛, 讛讬讗 讛专讜讚讛 讘讻诇 诪注专讻讬 讛讞讬讬诐, 讜注诐 讻诇 讛讛转讗诪爪讜转 诇谞砖讜诐 谞砖讬诪讛 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讜诇讛砖讻讬诇 讗诇 讛住讜讚 砖诇 讛注讜诇诐 讛讗讞讚讜转讬, 讗讜讬专 讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 诪注讻讘. 注诇 讻谉 诪诇讗讛 讛讬讗 讛讗讚诪讛 讛讟诪讗讛 砖讘讞讜抓 诇讗专抓 诪住专讞讜谉 注讘讜讚转 讝专讛, 讜讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讞讜抓 诇讗专抓 注讜讘讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讟讛专讛 讛诐. 讜讗讬谉 讚专讱 诇讛谞爪诇 诪讞专驻转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讬 讗诐 讘讻讬谞讜住谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇, 诇转转 诇讻诐 讗转 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 诇讛讬讜转 诇讻诐 诇讗诇讛讬诐. 诪住讜讙诇转 讛讬讗 讗专注讗 讚讞砖讜讻讗 诇驻诇驻讜诇 讛驻专讟讬诐, 讛讘讗 诪转讜讱 讛驻专讜讚, 讗讘诇 讞讻诪转 讛讗讜专讛 专拽 讘讗专抓 讛讗讜专 谞诪爪讗转, 讗讬谉 转讜专讛 讻转讜专转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇.

WOWWW!!!!

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Lucky Guy

Fatherly magazine

Long-time Indianapolis Colts quarterback Andrew Luck announced his retirement from football on Saturday, just two weeks before the start of the season. The star NFL QB said that he felt trapped by a constant cycle of injury and rehab and explained that the process of pain, recovery, and injury had “taken the joy out of this game.” In order to escape the cycle, he explained tearfully, it was time to leave. And while Luck likely wasn’t thinking about all the sports-dads watching his emotional press conference, he has none-the-less given us a lesson we should take to heart. When kids stop finding joy in the game, it’s time to let them walk away.

Sure, kids in youth sports aren’t dealing with the same kind of grown-up issues that trouble pro-football players. After all, Luck’s tough decision was based on constant pain that derailed his life. But that doesn’t mean that losing joy in a sport you once thought was fun isn’t just as difficult for a kid to deal with. And, for kids and pros both, that difficulty is compounded when you have someone pressuring to keep playing.

For Luck, that pressure came from fans and Colts staff and management. For kids, that pressure comes from parents who are fans and management rolled up in one. It’s hard to imagine what’s worse, really — the weight of a nation of fans or the weight of the person who says they love you most in all the world? 

Despite what anyone says about the man, Luck is doing something profoundly important in focusing on his own health and well being. His life will probably improve significantly. His team will move on. The fans will move on. All in spite of how high the stakes are. 

And here’s the thing sports dads should consider. How much smaller are the stakes when it comes to a kid bowing out of little-league or hanging up their football jersey? It makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things. But for some fathers, hearing their kid wants to quit the game can cause immeasurable angst. And for what reason? There are no million-dollar salaries at stake. There are no Super Bowl rings or merchandising contracts on the line. A kid who quits, even at the highest levels of youth sports, doesn’t leave that big of a hole. 

Luck knows that his lack of joy doesn’t do anything for his team. And a kid who has lost joy in the game is no different when it comes to their team. Nobody wants to play with the kid who isn’t having fun. Nobody wants to play with the kid who only hustles because they’re worried about getting screamed at by their father's. And the worse part is that being reprimanded for lack of hustle just makes the whole thing that much joyless.

Of course, there needs to be a balance between resilience and reason. A kid will have bad, sometimes teary games; they may struggle through a practice or two. And after those bad games or practices, they should be encouraged to try again. Failing, making mistakes and learning from them is an important part of any endeavor. And parents are right to try and motivate their kid through tough spots. That said when the bad game becomes a bad season, and when a kid stops hitting the field with a smile on their face, then it’s time to let them make a choice.

Kids should be encouraged to recognize that youth sports are about the joy of performance and about having fun. When the joy and fun have dried up, then it’s time to move on — with a parent’s blessing. 

And who knows, maybe if more parents get in the habit, there will be fewer pros who will suffer through joyless competition and fewer fans who will boo them when they decide it’s time to retire.

谞讬住讬诐 讘谉 诇讬讚讬讗 - Save A Life

Please daven for Nissim ben Lidya who has a cancerous blood disorder. 

If you want to have a hand in saving his life in addition to your tfillos - please go here.


 

"Fantastic" Segulah!

Our bodies are filled with diseases. The reason we feel healthy [I hope] is because our immune systems are constantly fighting the diseases [THANK YOU HASHEM!!]. If the immune system doesn't work properly then - BAD NEWS. 

Stress breaks down the immune system.

Segulah to get sick - stress! Don't test it out... 

Safek Tzdaka

Someone gets an aliyah to the Torah and promises "chai" to tzdaka. He just doesn't remember if he said "one time chai", "two times chai" "three times" etc. The greatest possibility is 18 times "chai". How much does he have to give?? 

Apparently, he must give 18 times chai. The Rambam [Matnos Aniim 8-3] and Shulchan Aruch [Yo"d 258-3] say that when one is unsure how much he vowed, he must give the largest amount that he is in doubt about.

We can explain this din based on the 诪讞诇讜拽转 of the 专诪讘"谉 and 专砖讘"讗 [cited in the 专"谉 谞讚专讬诐 讝,讗 讚"讛 讜诇注谞讬谉 讛诇讻讛] who hold 住驻拽 诪诪讜谉 注谞讬讬诐 诇讞讜诪专讗 - if one is unsure whether one money is coming to the poor, he must be stringent and give it to them, while the Ran holds that if one is not sure if money belongs to the poor he may keep it and not give it to them - 住驻拽 诪诪讜谉 注谞讬讬诐 诇拽讜诇讗.   

So the Rambam seems to be learning like the 专砖讘"讗 that 住驻拽 诪诪讜谉 注谞讬讬诐 诇讞讜诪专讗 so he has to give the maximum while according to the Ran one would in our case give the least possible amount that he is obligated.

If the gabbai remembers then apparently we can trust him because 注讚 讗讞讚 谞讗诪谉 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉.  Now even though we pasken that 诪住驻拽 he must be 诪讞诪讬专, we can't FORCE him to be 诪讞诪讬专 [Chasam Sofer and Noda Bi-yehuda]. We must then ask if due to the testimony of the gabbai, we have the right to force him.  

[诪讗讜爪专讜转 讛讙专"讗 讙谞讞讜讘住拽讬 讝爪"诇] 


Tzdaka And A Lost Object

诇讝讻讜转 讗讘讬 诪讜专讬 讜讗诪讬 诪讜专转讬 砖讬讞讬讜

The Halacha is that if one finds a lost object and is busy with it, he need not give tzdaka at that time. The question is if an 注谞讬 is coming and he finds a lost object. Is it permitted for him to go take care of the object even though he knows that it will prevent him from giving the tzdaka? 

Also, is it permitted to take care of an object before 讝诪谉 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 and 转驻讬诇讛, if as a result, he will miss them?

The Ritva asks why we need a pasuk to prove that 注讜住拽 讘诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪爪讜讛? OF COURSE you need not stop mitzva "a" to perform mitzva "b"?! 

He answers that the pasuk tells us that not only is one not OBLIGATED to stop doing the present mitzva but one is actually FORBIDDEN from stopping and performing the second mitzva.

He offers another answer: The pasuk is teaching us that that even though there is a set mitzva at a set time that is about to present itself, nevertheless, he may start the mitzva regardless of the consequences of missing the set mitzva. 

From this second answer we see that even if he knows that the 注谞讬 is about to come, he should still take care of the lost object.     

However, we can prove the other way: If one is busy with taking out a 诪转 he is 驻讟讜专 from 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注, because 注讜住拽 讘诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪爪讜讛. 

The Shulchan Aruch [72-2] says that if the time for 砖诪注 hasn't yet arrived, then one may not take out the 诪转 for burial until he has read 砖诪注 [however, if he already started he need not stop]. 

We see that one may not start a mitzva [if he can do it afterward], when he knows that he will become 驻讟讜专 from another 诪爪讜讛 as a result because of the rule 注讜住拽 讘诪爪讜讛 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪爪讜讛. 

[诪讗讜爪专讜转 讛讙专"讗 讙谞讞讜讘住拽讬 讝爪"诇]  

Tzaddik Katamar by Shim Craimer featuring Shim Ben and Eli Craimer

Sherwood Goffin z"l

The Death Of Darwin




Professor David Gelernter
Claremont Review Of Books 


Darwinian evolution is a brilliant and beautiful scientific theory. Once it was a daring guess. Today it is basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth—no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration—certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life. But what if Darwin was wrong?

Like so many others, I grew up with Darwin’s theory, and had always believed it was true. I had heard doubts over the years from well-informed, sometimes brilliant people, but I had my hands full cultivating my garden, and it was easier to let biology take care of itself. But in recent years, reading and discussion have shut that road down for good.

This is sad. It is no victory of any sort for religion. It is a defeat for human ingenuity. It means one less beautiful idea in our world, and one more hugely difficult and important problem back on mankind’s to-do list. But we each need to make our peace with the facts, and not try to make life on earth simpler than it really is.

Charles Darwin explained monumental change by making one basic assumption—all life-forms descend from a common ancestor—and adding two simple processes anyone can understand: random, heritable variation and natural selection. Out of these simple ingredients, conceived to be operating blindly over hundreds of millions of years, he conjured up change that seems like the deliberate unfolding of a grand plan, designed and carried out with superhuman genius. Could nature really have pulled out of its hat the invention of life, of increasingly sophisticated life-forms and, ultimately, the unique-in-the-cosmos (so far as we know) human mind—given no strategy but trial and error? The mindless accumulation of small changes? It is an astounding idea. Yet Darwin’s brilliant and lovely theory explains how it could have happened.

Its beauty is important. Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.

Demolishing a Worldview

There’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.

Stephen Meyer’s thoughtful and meticulous Darwin’s Doubt (2013) convinced me that Darwin has failed. He cannot answer the big question. Two other books are also essential: The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays (2009), by David Berlinski, and Debating Darwin’s Doubt (2015), an anthology edited by David Klinghoffer, which collects some of the arguments Meyer’s book stirred up. These three form a fateful battle group that most people would rather ignore. Bringing to bear the work of many dozen scientists over many decades, Meyer, who after a stint as a geophysicist in Dallas earned a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge and now directs the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, disassembles the theory of evolution piece by piece. Darwin’s Doubtis one of the most important books in a generation. Few open-minded people will finish it with their faith in Darwin intact.

Meyer doesn’t only demolish Darwin; he defends a replacement theory, intelligent design (I.D.). Although I can’t accept intelligent design as Meyer presents it, he does show that it is a plain case of the emperor’s new clothes: it says aloud what anyone who ponders biology must think, at some point, while sifting possible answers to hard questions. Intelligent design as Meyer explains it never uses religious arguments, draws religious conclusions, or refers to religion in any way. It does underline an obvious but important truth: Darwin’s mission was exactly to explain the flagrant appearance of design in nature.

The religion is all on the other side. Meyer and other proponents of I.D. are the dispassionate intellectuals making orderly scientific arguments. Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.

As for Biblical religion, it forces its way into the discussion although Meyer didn’t invite it, and neither did Darwin. Some have always been bothered by the harm Darwin is said to have done religion. His theory has been thought by some na茂fs (fundamentalists as well as intellectuals) to have shown or alleged that the Bible is wrong, and Judeo-Christian religion bunk. But this view assumes a childishly primitive reading of Scripture. Anyone can see that there are two different creation stories in Genesis, one based on seven days, the other on the Garden of Eden..... The facts on which they agree are the ones that matter: God created the universe, and put man there for a reason. Darwin has nothing to say on these or any other key religious issues.

Fundamentalists and intellectuals might go on arguing these things forever. But normal people will want to come to grips with Meyer and the downfall of a beautiful idea. I will mention several of his arguments, one of them in (just a bit of) detail. This is one of the most important intellectual issues of modern times, and every thinking person has the right and duty to judge for himself.

Looking for Evidence

Darwin himself had reservations about his theory, shared by some of the most important biologists of his time. And the problems that worried him have only grown more substantial over the decades. In the famous “Cambrian explosion” of around half a billion years ago, a striking variety of new organisms—including the first-ever animals—pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a mere 70-odd million years. This great outburst followed many hundreds of millions of years of slow growth and scanty fossils, mainly of single-celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and half billion years ago.

Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk.

But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing. Darwin himself was disturbed by their absence from the fossil record. He believed they would turn up eventually. Some of his contemporaries (such as the eminent Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz) held that the fossil record was clear enough already, and showed that Darwin’s theory was wrong. Perhaps only a few sites had been searched for fossils, but they had been searched straight down. The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting—and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted.

The trunk was supposed to branch into many different species, each species giving rise to many genera, and towards the top of the tree you would find so much diversity that you could distinguish separate phyla—the large divisions (sponges, mosses, mollusks, chordates, and so on) that comprise the kingdoms of animals, plants, and several others—take your pick. But, as Berlinski points out, the fossil record shows the opposite: “representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification on those basic themes.” In general, “most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged.” The incremental development of new species is largely not there. Those missing pre-Cambrian organisms have still not turned up. (Although fossils are subject to interpretation, and some biologists place pre-Cambrian life-forms closer than others to the new-fangled Cambrian creatures.)

Some researchers have guessed that those missing Precambrian precursors were too small or too soft-bodied to have made good fossils. Meyer notes that fossil traces of ancient bacteria and single-celled algae have been discovered: smallness per se doesn’t mean that an organism can’t leave fossil traces—although the existence of fossils depends on the surroundings in which the organism lived, and the history of the relevant rock during the ages since it died. The story is similar for soft-bodied organisms. Hard-bodied forms are more likely to be fossilized than soft-bodied ones, but many fossils of soft-bodied organisms and body parts do exist. Precambrian fossil deposits have been discovered in which tiny, soft-bodied embryo sponges are preserved—but no predecessors to the celebrity organisms of the Cambrian explosion.

This sort of negative evidence can’t ever be conclusive. But the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified—according to many reputable paleontologists, anyway. When does the clock run out on those predictions? Never. But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion.

The Advent of Molecular Biology

Darwin’s main problem, however, is molecular biology. There was no such thing in his own time. We now see from inside what he could only see from outside, as if he had developed a theory of mobile phone evolution without knowing that there were computers and software inside or what the digital revolution was all about. Under the circumstances, he did brilliantly.

Biology in his time was for naturalists, not laboratory scientists. Doctor Dolittle was a naturalist. (He is the hero of the wonderful children’s books by Hugh Lofting, now unfortunately nearing extinction.) The doctor loved animals and understood them, and had a sharp eye for all of nature not too different from Wordsworth’s or Goethe’s. But the character of the field has changed, and it’s not surprising that old theories don’t necessarily still work.

Darwin’s theory is simple to grasp; its simplicity is the heart of its brilliance and power. We all know that variation occurs naturally among individuals of the same type—white or black sheep, dove-gray versus off-white or pale beige pigeons, boring and sullen undergraduates versus charming, lissome ones. We all know that many variations have no effect on a creature’s prospects, but some do. A sheep born with extra-warm wool will presumably do better at surviving a rough Scottish winter than his normal-wooled friends. Such a sheep would be more likely than normal sheep to live long enough to mate, and pass on its superior trait to the next generation. Over millions of years, small good-for-survival variations accumulate, and eventually (says Darwin) you have a brand new species. The same mechanism naturally favors genes that are right for the local environment—warm wool in Scotland, light and comfortable wool for the tropics, other varieties for mountains and deserts. Thus one species (your standard sheep) might eventually become four specialized ones. And thus new species should develop from old in the upward-branching tree pattern Darwin described.

The advent of molecular biology made it possible to transform Darwinism into Neo-Darwinism. The new version explains (it doesn’t merely cite) natural variation, as the consequence of random change or mutation to the genetic information within cells that deal with reproduction. Those cells can pass genetic change onward to the next generation, thus changing—potentially—the future of the species and not just one individual’s career.

The engine that powers Neo-Darwinian evolution is pure chance and lots of time. By filling in the details of cellular life, molecular biology makes it possible to estimate the power of that simple mechanism. But what does generating new forms of life entail? Many biologists agree that generating a new shape of protein is the essence of it. Only if Neo-Darwinian evolution is creative enough to do that is it capable of creating new life-forms and pushing evolution forward.

Proteins are the special ops forces (or maybe the Marines) of living cells, except that they are common instead of rare; they do all the heavy lifting, all the tricky and critical assignments, in a dazzling range of roles. Proteins called enzymes catalyze all sorts of reactions and drive cellular metabolism. Other proteins (such as collagen) give cells shape and structure, like tent poles but in far more shapes. Nerve function, muscle function, and photosynthesis are all driven by proteins. And in doing these jobs and many others, the actual, 3-D shape of the protein molecule is important.

So, is the simple neo-Darwinian mechanism up to this task? Are random mutation plus natural selection sufficient to create new protein shapes?

Mutations

How to make proteins is our first question. Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next. A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a “modest-sized” chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen, ordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids. A chain of amino acids is a polypeptide—“peptide” being the type of chemical bond that joins one amino acid to the next. But this chain is only the starting point: chemical forces among the links make parts of the chain twist themselves into helices; others straighten out, and then, sometimes, jackknife repeatedly, like a carpenter’s rule, into flat sheets. Then the whole assemblage folds itself up like a complex sheet of origami paper. And the actual 3-D shape of the resulting molecule is (as I have said) important.

Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of 150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work. Only certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped proteins.

So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped protein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get something good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care? It happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.

Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene. (Enter, finally, genes, DNA etc., with suitable fanfare.) Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule. DNA, of course, is the famous double helix or spiral staircase, where each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid. Each three-nucleotide group is a codon, and the correspondence between codons and amino acids is the genetic code. (The four nucleotides in DNA are abbreviated T, A, C and G, and you can look up the code in a high school textbook: TTA and TTC stand for phenylalanine, TCT for serine, and so on.)

Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish. You have a choice because DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense. Most biologists think that the nonsense sequences are the main source of new genes. If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism—long before you start making it better. The gibberish sequences, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines without making proteins, and you can mutate them, so far as we know, without endangering anything. The mutated sequence can then be passed on to the next generation, where it can be mutated again. Thus mutations can accumulate on the sidelines without affecting the organism. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution.

Mutations themselves enter the picture when DNA splits in half down the center of the staircase, thereby allowing the enclosing cell to split in half, and the encompassing organism to grow. Each half-staircase summons a matching set of nucleotides from the surrounding chemical soup; two complete new DNA molecules emerge. A mistake in this elegant replication process—the wrong nucleotide answering the call, a nucleotide typo—yields a mutation, either to a valid blueprint or a stretch of gibberish.

Building a Better Protein

Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a test drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?

It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20150. In other words, many. 20150 roughly equals 10195, and there are only 1080 atoms in the universe.

What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.

In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.

A Bad Bet

But neo-Darwinianism understands that mutations are rare, and successful ones even scarcer. To balance that out, there are many organisms and a staggering immensity of time. Your chances of winning might be infinitesimal. But if you play the game often enough, you win in the end, right? After all, it works for Powerball!

Do the numbers balance out? Is Neo-Darwinian evolution plausible after all? Axe reasoned as follows. Consider the whole history of living things—the entire group of every living organism ever. It is dominated numerically by bacteria. All other organisms, from tangerine trees to coral polyps, are only a footnote. Suppose, then, that every bacterium that has ever lived contributes one mutation before its demise to the history of life. This is a generous assumption; most bacteria pass on their genetic information unchanged, unmutated. Mutations are the exception. In any case, there have evidently been, in the whole history of life, around 1040 bacteria—yielding around 1040 mutations under Axe’s assumptions. That is a very large number of chances at any game. But given that the odds each time are 1 to 1077 against, it is not large enough. The odds against blind Darwinian chance having turned up even one mutation with the potential to push evolution forward are 1040x(1/1077)—1040 tries, where your odds of success each time are 1 in 1077—which equals 1 in 1037. In practical terms, those odds are still zero. Zero odds of producing a single promising mutation in the whole history of life. Darwin loses.

His idea is still perfectly reasonable in the abstract. But concretely, he is overwhelmed by numbers he couldn’t possibly have foreseen: the ridiculously large number of amino-acid chains relative to number of useful proteins. Those numbers transcend the details of any particular set of estimates. The obvious fact is that genes, in storing blueprints for the proteins that form the basis of cellular life, encode an awe-inspiring amount of information. You don’t turn up a useful protein merely by doodling on the back of an envelope, any more than you write a Mozart aria by assembling three sheets of staff paper and scattering notes around. Profound biochemical knowledge is somehow, in some sense, captured in every description of a working protein. Where on earth did it all come from?

Neo-Darwinianism says that nature simply rolls the dice, and if something useful emerges, great. Otherwise, try again. But useful sequences are so gigantically rare that this answer simply won’t work. Studies of the sort Meyer discusses show that Neo-Darwinism is the quintessence of a bad bet.

The Great Darwinian Paradox

There are many other problems besides proteins. One of the most basic, and the last I’ll mention here, calls into question the whole idea of gene mutations driving macro-evolution—the emergence of new forms of organism, versus mere variation on existing forms.

To help create a brand new form of organism, a mutation must affect a gene that does its job early and controls the expression of other genes that come into play later on as the organism grows. But mutations to these early-acting “strategic” genes, which create the big body-plan changes required by macro-evolution, seem to be invariably fatal. They kill off the organism long before it can reproduce. This is common sense. Severely deformed creatures don’t ever seem fated to lead the way to glorious new forms of life. Instead, they die young.

Evidently there are a total of no examples in the literature of mutations that affect early development and the body plan as a whole and are not fatal. The German geneticists Christiane N眉sslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus won the Nobel Prize in 1995 for the “Heidelberg screen,” an exhaustive investigation of every observable or inducible mutation of Drosophila melanogaster (the same patient, long-suffering fruit fly I meddled with relentlessly in an undergraduate genetics lab in the 1970s). “[W]e think we’ve hit all the genes required to specify the body plan of Drosophila,” said Wieschaus in answering a question after a talk. Not one, he continued, is “promising as raw materials for macroevolution”—because mutations in them all killed off the fly long before it could mate. If an exhaustive search rules out every last plausible gene as a candidate for large-scale Drosophila evolution, where does that leave Darwin? Wieschaus continues: “What are—or what would be—the right mutations for major evolutionary change? And we don’t know the answer to that.”

There is a general principle here, similar to the earlier principle that the number of useless polypeptides crushes the number of useful ones. The Georgia Tech geneticist John F. McDonald calls this one a “great Darwinian paradox.” Meyer explains: “genes that are obviously variable within natural populations seem to affect only minor aspects of form and function—while those genes that govern major changes, the very stuff of macroevolution, apparently do not vary or vary only to the detriment of the organism.” The philosopher of biology Paul Nelson summarizes the body-plan problem:


Research on animal development and macroevolution over the last thirty years—research done from within the neo-Darwinian framework—has shown that the neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of new body plans is overwhelmingly likely to be false—and for reasons that Darwin himself would have understood.

Darwin would easily have understood that minor mutations are common but can’t create significant evolutionary change; major mutations are rare and fatal.

It can hardly be surprising that the revolution in biological knowledge over the last half-century should call for a new understanding of the origin of species.

Darwin’s Limits

Intelligent Design, as Meyer describes it, is a simple and direct response to a specific event, the Cambrian explosion. The theory suggests that an intelligent cause intervened to create this extraordinary outburst. By “intelligent” Meyer understands “conscious”; the theory suggests nothing more about the designer. But where is the evidence? To Meyer and other proponents, that is like asking—after you have come across a tree that is split vertically down the center and half burnt up—“but where is the evidence of a lightning strike?” The exceptional intricacy of living things, and their elaborate mechanisms for fitting precisely into their natural surroundings, seemed to cry out for an intelligent designer long before molecular biology and biochemistry. Darwin’s theory, after all, is an attempt to explain “design without a designer,” according to evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala. An intelligent designer might seem more necessary than ever now that we understand so much cellular biology, and the impossibly long odds facing any attempt to design proteins by chance, or assemble the regulatory mechanisms that control the life cycle of a cell.

Meyer doesn’t reject Darwinian evolution. He only rejects it as a sufficient theory of life as we know it. He’s made a painstaking investigation of Darwin’s theory and has rejected it for many good reasons that he has carefully explained. He didn’t rush to embrace intelligent design. Just the opposite. But the explosion of detailed, precise information that was necessary to build the brand-new Cambrian organisms, and the fact that the information was encoded, represented symbolically, in DNA nucleotides, suggests to Meyer that an intelligent designer must have been responsible. “Our uniform experience of cause and effect shows that intelligent design is the only known cause of the origin of large amounts of functionally specified digital information,” he writes. (“Digital” is confusing here; it only means information represented by a sequence of symbols.)

Was the Cambrian Explosion unique in some absolute sense, or was it the extreme endpoint of a spectrum? After all, there were infusions of new genetic information before and after. Meyer himself writes that “the sudden appearance of the Cambrian animals was merely the most outstanding instance of a pattern of discontinuity that extends throughout the geologic column.”

It’s not easy to decide whether something stands alone or at the far end of some spectrum. Consider Meyer’s “functionally specified digital information.” Information intended for one specific purpose and spelled out in a sequence of symbols is a rare bird in nature. It’s an outlier in the world of intelligence, too. We nearly always communicate in symbols that are used for many purposes; it’s hard for us to confine any symbol system to a single purpose. Even digits are used to represent numbers of many kinds, to express order as well as magnitude, as names (2001: A Space Odyssey) or parts of English phrases (“second rate”). A line of music can be heard in the head, hummed or sung, played on a zither or performed by a large orchestra. Or it can serve as a single graphic symbol meaning “music.” But the genetic code is used to specify the structure of certain molecules only(albeit in a series of separate steps and information-transfers within the cell). Nature, for its part, encodes information in many ways: airborne scents are important to bees, butterflies, elephants seeking to mate, birds avoiding trouble, and untold other creatures. The scent is a symbol; it’s not the scent that threatens the bird. Channels in sand dunes encode information about the passing breezes—and so on. There are endless examples—none approaching the sophistication and complexity of DNA coding.

If Meyer were invoking a single intervention by an intelligent designer at the invention of life, or of consciousness, or rationality, or self-aware consciousness, the idea might seem more natural. But then we still haven’t explained the Cambrian explosion. An intelligent designer who interferes repeatedly, on the other hand, poses an even harder problem of explaining why he chose to act when he did. Such a cause would necessarily have some sense of the big picture of life on earth. What was his strategy? How did he manage to back himself into so many corners, wasting energy on so many doomed organisms? Granted, they might each have contributed genes to our common stockpile—but could hardly have done so in the most efficient way. What was his purpose? And why did he do such an awfully slipshod job? Why are we so disease prone, heartbreak prone, and so on? An intelligent designer makes perfect sense in the abstract. The real challenge is how to fit this designer into life as we know it. Intelligent design might well be the ultimate answer. But as a theory, it would seem to have a long way to go.

A Final Challenge

I might, myself, expect to find the answer in a phenomenon that acts as if it were a new and (thus far) unknown force or field associated with consciousness. I’d expect complex biochemistry to be consistently biased in the direction that leads closer to consciousness, as gravitation biases motion towards massive objects. I have no evidence for this idea. It’s just the way biology seems to work.

Although Stephen Meyer’s book is a landmark in the intellectual history of Darwinism, the theory will be with us for a long time, exerting enormous cultural force. Darwin is no Newton. Newton’s physics survived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that dominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very smallest and largest scales. It’s just these most important cases, the ones we see all around us, that Darwin cannot explain. Yet his theory does explain cases of real significance. And Darwin’s intellectual daring will always be inspiring. The man will always be admired.

He now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.

The Math And Science Of Our Minds

Some scientists claim that our SUBconscious mind processes 40 million bits of information a second and works over 95 percent of the time. Our conscious mind processes 40 bits of information and works less than 5 percent of the time. 

Most of what we are doing, saying, thinking, feeling is rooted in the subconscious. To change oneself is to change the subconscious. The reason that the vassssst majority of people never really change is because they are unaware of their subconscious. 

Big topic. 讬砖诪注 讞讻诐 讜讬住祝 诇拽讞.   

Monday, August 26, 2019

please daven

Esther bas Chana Fruma

81 year old woman with stage 4 cancer.

Rav Kook On Loving Sinners

One pulpit rabbi who likes to publicize his thoughts, recently wrote that we must live according to Rav Kook's credo that since the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because of 砖谞讗转 讞讬谞诐, it will also be built because of 讗讛讘转 讞讬谞诐. In that spirit he is conducting joint programming with a local Reform "temple". 

Hmmmmm - Rav Kook. Let us see what he writes about people who wantonly transgress Torah: 

"注诇讬谞讜 诇讻专讜讱 讗讛讘转 讗诪讜谞转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讛讘转 注诐 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬讞讚. 讜讛讗讛讘讛 讛讝讗转, 砖讛讬讗 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗讞转, 讞讬讬讘转 砖转讛讬讛 讗讛讘讛 诪注砖讬转. 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 谞砖转讚诇 诇讛讬讜转 砖讜讬诐 讻诇 讘谞讬 注诪谞讜 讘诪注砖讛 拽讬讜诐 讛转讜专讛 讜讛诪爪讜转 砖讻诇诐 讬讻讜诇讬诐 诇诪爪讗 讘讛谉 讗转 转注讜讚转诐 讜诇驻讞讜转 讙诐 讘转讜专 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪讞讝讬拽讬诐 讜诪注诪讬讚讬诐 讗转 讻讞谞讜 讛诇讗讜诪讬 讗״讗 讻诇诇 砖讬讞讚讜专 讘谞讜 讛专讜讞 讛诇讗讜诪讬 讗诇 谞讻讜谉. 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛注讜诪讚讬诐 讘专讗砖 讛爪讬讜谞讜转 讗讬谞诐 诪转拽专讘讬诐 讘诪注砖讬讛诐 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讛转讜专讛 讜讛诪爪讜讜转 讜诇讛专讗讜转 讙诇讜讬 诇讻诇 砖讛专讜讞 讛诇讗讜诪讬 砖讛讘讬讗诐 注讚 讻讛 诇讛转讬诪专 讘讻讘讜讚 注诪诐 讜诇讘拽砖 转拽谞转讜 诪诇讘 讚讙砖, 讛讜讗 砖诪讘讬讗诐 讙״讻 诇砖讜讘 诇诪注砖讛 讛诪爪讜讜转 讜砖诪讬专转 讚转 讬讛讜讚讬转 讘驻讜注诇 诇讛转驻讗专 讘讗诪讜谞转 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讛转讬讞住 诇砖诐 讚׳ 讗诇拽讬 讬砖专讗诇 - 讛转谞讜注讛 讛讝讗转 讙讜专诪转 专注讜转 诪讜住专讬讜转 专讘讜转 讗诇讗 砖讗谞讜 诪爪驻讬诐 砖讬砖讜讘讜 讛讚讘专讬诐 诇讬讚讬 转讬拽讜谉. 讗讘诇 讗诇 诇谞讜 诇砖讻讜讞 讻讬 专讜讞 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞谞讜 诪转注讜专专 讻诇诇 诇诪注砖讛 讜讛讜讗 谞专讚诐 诪转讜谉 讘砖驻诇. 讛讻诇 讬讜讚注讬诐 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬诐 转讬拽讜谉 讗讘诇 讻砖诪转注讜专专 专讜讞 讛注诐 诇转讞讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讝讻专 诇砖讜讘 诇砖诪讜专 讗转 讛转讜专讛 讜诇讛讜拽讬专 讗转 讛讗诪讜谞讛 讛专讬 讻讗谉 诪讞讗讛 讙诇讜讬讛 砖讗讬谉 专讜讞 讬砖专讗诇 谞讝拽拽 讻诇诇 诇转讜专讛 讜讗诪讜谞讛. 讜讚讘专 讝讛 讬讜讻诇 讞诇讬诇讛 诇讙专讜诐 谞驻讬诇讛 谞讜专讗讛 诇专讜讞 讛讗诪讜谞讛 讜讛专讙砖 讛讚转讬. 讜讘讝讛 讛诇讗 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗谞讜 砖讗讝 诪诪诇讗 讬驻讜诇 讞诇讬诇讛 专讜讞 讛注诐 注讚 注驻专 讜诇讗 讬砖讗专 讘讛诪砖讱 讛讝诪谉 砖讜诐 诪注诪讚 诇专讜讞 讛诇讗讜诪讬 注诇 诪讛 诇讞讜诇...诇讝讗转, 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讛讬转讚 砖讛讻诇 转诇讜讬 讘讜. 诇讛讻谞讬住 讗转 讛讗讛讘讛 讛诇讗讜诪讬转 讘讗讛讘转 讛转讜专讛 讜讛诪爪讜转 讻诪讜 砖讛诐 讘讗诪转 讚讘专 讗讞讚. 专讜讞 讛讗讛讘讛 诇讗诪讜谞转 讬砖专讗诇 讜转讜专转讜 讜砖诐 讗诇讛讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讘讗 讘诇讘 讛讻诇诇, 讻״讗 注״讬 砖诪讬专转 讛诪爪讜讜转 讛诪注砖讬讜转 讜讛讛诇讬讻讛 讘讚专讻讬 讛转讜专讛.



讗讬谉 讗谞讜 讬讻讜诇讬诐 讘砖讜诐 讗讜驻谉 诇讗讛讜讘 讗讬砖 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖注讜讘专 讘砖讗讟 谞驻砖 注诇 讞讜拽讬 转讜专转谞讜 讛拽讚讜砖讛, 砖讛讬讗 讞讜转诐 诇讘讘谞讜 讜讗砖专 专拽 讘讛 诪讻讬专讬诐 讗谞讞谞讜 讗转 讻诇 诪讘讜注讬 讛讞讬讬诐 砖诇 诇讗讜诪讬讜转谞讜. 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗谞讜 讬讜讚注讬诐, 砖驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讗讞讬谞讜 讜讘谉 讘转转谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗转 砖讛讜讗 驻讙讜诇 诇谞讜, 讗讜 诪讞诇诇 砖讘转讜转 讚׳ 讜诪讜注讚讬讜; 讗砖专 讻诇 讗诇讛 讙讜专诪讬诐 注驻״讬 讛专讙砖 讛讚转讬 砖诇讗 谞讜讻诇 诇讛讬讜转 讻专讗讜讬 诇讗讞讬诐 讘谞讬 注诐 讗讞讚, 诇讛砖转转祝 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘砖转讬讛 讜讘讻诇 讚专讻讬 讛讛转讞讘专讜转 讛诇讗讜诪讬转 砖诪讜住讬驻讬诐 讗讛讘讛 讜讗讞讜讛 - 讛诪讞抓 讙讚讜诇 注讚 诪讗讚, 谞讜讙注 注讚 讛谞驻砖 讜诇讗 诪讻诇 诇讛专驻讗讜 . . .
讗诪谞诐 讗讞讬诐 讬拽专讬诐, 谞诪爪讗讜 讗讞讚讬诐 讙诐 诪讙讚讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬专讗讬诐 讜讞专讚讬诐 注诇 讚讘专 讚', 砖讘拽讜砖讬 讛转讬专讜 诇注爪诪诐 诪讚转 讛住讘诇谞讜转, 诇讛讬讜转 谞讜讞讬诐 讜注诇讜讘讬诐 讜诪专讜爪讬诐 讙诐 诇讗讜转诐 砖驻专拽讜 诪注诇讬讛诐 注讜诇 讛转讜专讛. 讗讘诇 讚注讜 谞讗, 讗讞讬, 讛讗诪转 讛诪专讛 讻讬 诇讗 诪诇讘诐 讛讬讛 讛讚讘专 讛讝讛; 讛诐 讛注诪讬讚讜 驻谞讬诐 爪讛讜讘讜转 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐. 拽讬讜讜, 讗讜诇讬 讘讝讛 诇讛诪砖讬讱 讛诇讘讘讜转 诪注讟 诪注讟 诇讚专讱 讛转讜专讛 讜讛诪爪讜讛, 讗讘诇 诇讘诐 讛讬讛 诪诇讗 诪转专讜讜讞 讜砖谞讗讛 驻谞讬诪讬转 注讝讛 讜注爪讜诪讛 讛讬转讛 注爪讜专讛 讘注爪诪讜转诐 诇讗诇讛 砖讞诇诇讜 讘讝讚讜谉 讚转 拽讚砖谞讜 讜讬专诪住讜 讘专讙诇 讚讙诇 注诪谞讜, 砖诇诪注谞讜 讘讗谞讜 讘讗砖 讜讘诪讬诐 讜砖驻讻谞讜 讚诪谞讜 讻诪讬诐! 讜讗祝 讙诐 讝讗转 讻讬 专拽 讬讞讬讚讬诐, 砖讞讜谞谞讜 讘住讘诇谞讜转 讬转专讛, 讬讻诇讜 注讻"驻 诇讛诪砖讬讱 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛谞注讬诪讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬, 砖讗讞专讬诐 讛讞讝讬拽讜讛讜 讙"讻 诇专讜砖诐 砖诇 诪注讬谉 讞谞讜驻讛; 讗讘诇 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬谞诐 讬讻讜诇讬诐 讘砖讜诐 讗讜驻谉 诇讛讘诇讬讙 注诇 讙讜注诇 谞驻砖诐, 讜注讜讚 讻诪讜转 讗讬讘转 注讜诇诐 讛砖诪讜专讛 诇讻诇 注讘专讬谉 讜诪讞诇诇 拽讚砖 讘讬讚 专诪讛. 讻讬 讛讛讻专讛 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讗讚 讘拽专讘 注诪谞讜 讘讻诇诇, 砖讛讛注讘专讛 注诇 讛转讜专讛 讜诪爪讜讜转讬讛, 讛讜讗 讛讙讜专诐 讛讙讚讜诇 诇讬讬讘砖 讗转 诇砖讚 转讞谞讜 讛诇讗讜诪讬, 讗砖专 诪诪谞讜 诇讞讬讬谞讜 讛驻专讟讬讬诐 讜讛讻诇诇讬讬诐 转讜爪讗讜转.
讗驻住, 讻诇 讝讛, 讻诇 讛讟专讙讚讬讛 讛诪注爪讬讘讛 讛讝讗转, 讗讬谞谞讜 谞诪爪讗转, 讻讬 讗诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗转诐 诪驻砖讬讟讬诐 讗转 诇讗讜诪讬讜转谞讜 讗转 讛讜讚讛, 讝讬讜讛 讜讛讚专讛. 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讙讝讬专讛 讛拽讜谞讙专住讬转 "砖讛讚转 讗讬谉 诇讛 讚讘专 注诐 讛爪讬讜谞讜转" 讛拽砖讛 讬讜转专 诪讙讝讬专讜转讬讛诐 砖诇 驻专注讛 讜砖诇 讛诪谉 - 驻讜专砖转 讗转 讻谞驻讬 讛诪讜转 讛砖讞讜专讜转 讜讛讗讬讜诪讜转 砖诇讛 注诇 讛专讙砖 讛诇讗讜诪讬 讛讬讜谞拽 讛专讱 讜讛谞讞诪讚 砖诇谞讜, 讘讛驻专讬讚讻诐 讗讜转讜 诪诪拽讜专 讞讬讬讜 讜讗讜专 转驻讗专转讜, 讛讬讗 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 砖讘讛 讗谞讜 诪爪讜讬讬谞讬诐. 讜砖注诇 讝讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讜讛谞谞讜 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 "注诇讬讜谉 注诇 讻诇 讙讜讬讬 讛讗专抓"


One can argue that the average Reform Jew is guiltless because he doesn't know any better and is thus in the category of a 转讬谞讜拽 砖谞砖讘讛. I HOPE that this is true although in our day and age where in seconds, one can access authentic, Torah true Judaism, I am not sure that we can so easily categorize people as "babies taken captive by Gentiles". [The Chazon Ish however famously said that in our day and age, the hand of Hashem is very hidden and we should bring people back with "bonds of love" because they can't know any better without our help]. 

If one cares both about the souls of wayward Jews AND about the integrity of the Torah [as one should], then he should invite them to our territory. A Shabbos meal, an event entitled  "Pizza and the meaning of existence with Rabbi ----  ----", and many other ideas. Why is it necessary to partner up with a Reform place? Look at Chabad. They do their own thing and spend day and night for their whole adult lives trying to being Jews closer without joining up with other "streams of Judaism" [as non-Jewish as so many of their behaviors may be].  

And if one wants to work on 讗讛讘转 讞讬谞诐, why not start with religious Jews? Like people to the RIGHT of us and not to the left. People who so many despise because they dress differently and live lives very different than the rest of society. It is debatable if there is a mitzva to love non-observant Jews, but there is no debate that one must love Jews who are MORE observant. Start there. 

That being said, we must daven that all Jews return to their roots and do what we can to make that happen. 讘讗讛讘讛. 

A Bracha

One of the great brachos that goes unappreciated: We don't know what other people think of us and they don't know what we think of them - and in general that we can't read other people's minds. If everybody knew what everybody else was thinking it would be an ABSOLUTE DISASTER!!馃槩馃槹 [Nervous-cold-sweat-emoji]. 

Choices

Every choice we make in life has upsides and downsides. No exceptions. There are upsides to being married [LOTS!!] and there are downsides [e.g. it is really expensive, takes away freedom etc. etc.]. There are upsides to being single and downsides. There are upsides to being employed and downsides. Upsides to being unemployed and downsides.Any place you choose to live, whether in Israel of in Chutz La-aretz, is going to have upsides and downsides. There is no perfect place or community. So with everything we do and every decision we make. 

Think about that. 

So when me make responsible decisions we have to weigh ALL OF THE FACTORS and then make our decisions. This is a big topic I just covered very generally in a scant few lines.

If one lives in Israel they must decide how to raise their children - Charedi or non-Charedi [labels are for cans but I have to use these labels for lack of better description]. Each decisions will have pluses and minuses. No community is without its flaws. Most people don't actively make the decision and just continue on whatever path they were raised. But we are all free people and should critically assess as adults what the best way for us personally to serve Hashem is. 

The Charedi community has an unspoken rule - Single girls stay home with their parents until married, usually by the time they are 20. Regardless of how long it takes to find a spouse, moving out is frowned upon and almost never done [to the best of my knowledge]. 

In the non-Charedi community it is not like this. After high school there are two paths for girls: 1] The army. 2] Sheirut Leumi - national service. 

The problem with the army is that just about every Rav of every group since the birth of the State has ruled that it is forbidden for religious girls to enter the army. Many girls go anyway as they feel [or are taught] that this is part of their obligation to the Jewish people. Putting an 18-20 year old girl alone on an army base with many boys her age many of whom are not religious, is - to make an understatement - extremely dangerous. Even if nothing happens, she is still not following the psak of which is an independent aveirah. [Yichud is assur regardless of whether anything happens]. 

Sheirut Leumi has been the preferred path for most frum [Religious Zionist] girls for the last 70 or so years. Many of the Gedolim waged a fierce war against Sheirut Leumi [such as the Chazon Ish, the Steipler, the Brisker Rov], going as far as saying that it is 讬讛专讙 讜讗诇 讬注讘讜专. There have been Rabbonim who approved of national service for girls. Such is the official position of the Chief Rabbinate.

The problem with Sheirut Leumi is similar to the problems with the army. Girls move out of their homes for the year with very minimal supervision [unlike seminary girls who are watched like hawks - a boy in the dorm and everybody involved is kicked out] and move into apartments with other girls ["讚讬专讜转 砖讬专讜转"]. My wife, due to the education she received, did 2 years of Sheirut Leumi. But she is super frum [much more than me] and not everyone is like that. 

Does bad stuff happen? Of course it does. 

So what are concerned parents to do? 

THAT is a dilemma that has no solution. All of the girls friends are doing one or the other and she won't agree to be different.   

The Charedim don't have this problem as Sheirut Leumi is not even considered an option for them. 

Does this mean that Charedim are perfect or that one must be Charedi? No. It just means that they are spared this dilemma... The rewards of insularity. One can be more secure that at one's child's wedding that the Ksuba can accurately say "讛讚讗 讘转讜诇转讗".  

Charedi girls don't have boyfriends. Unheard of [unless they are rebellious - that has happened a few times in history]. Non-Charedi girls often do because they attend mixed youth groups. How can parents be secure knowing that their daughter is spending time alone with a boy she is in love with/infatuated with/has a heavy crush on? Especially in our day and age. They can't. That is the downside. The upside is that youth groups are very educational and perform a lot of chesed. But there is a serious price to pay.   

In Chutz La-aretz many children go to mixed summer camps. Now many great things happen at these camps. But I remember how terrible it was spiritually 30 and 40 years ago [pre-Internet] when I was a kid [e.g. the profanity, terrible breaches of tzniyus, kids eating unkosher etc. etc.] and I would bet that things have only gotten worse. I wonder if parents know what goes on in these places that they spend so much money on. It is hard to believe that they don't, being that they themselves often attended these same camps back in the day. The counselors are 17-18 year old kids who themselves need counselors. I am surprised that this isn't a conversation in the Modern Orthodox world. Or maybe it is. Or maybe things are better today and everyone behaves like a Tzadik. 

If you are a parent - think many times before you choose a school and camp for your child. Don't just send because it is geographically close or for other such reasons.  

An Upside Down World

As we discussed in a recent post, the human eye sees everything UPSIDE DOWN and the brain then adjusts the perspective to be right side up. Why did Hashem create us this way? Why can't the eye perceive things as they are??  

May I suggest that this is a simile to the spiritual world. Everything we see down here is upside down and the job of our brain is to turn things right side up. Says the Gemara [Bava Bara 10b]: 

讻讬 讛讗 讚讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专' 讬讛讜砖注 讞诇砖 讗讬谞讙讬讚 讗"诇 讗讘讜讛 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇诐 讛驻讜讱 专讗讬转讬 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讜转讞转讜谞讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇诐 讘专讜专 专讗讬转 讜讗谞谉 讛讬讻讬 讞讝讬转讬谞谉 [讗"诇] 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讞砖讘讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讞砖讘讬谞谉 讛转诐

This is like the incident involving Yosef, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, who became ill and fainted. When he returned to good health, his father said to him: What did you see when you were not conscious? Yosef said to him: I saw an inverted world. Those above, i.e., those who are considered important in this world, were below, insignificant, while those below, i.e., those who are insignificant in this world, were above. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You have seen a clear world. The world you have seen is the true world, one in which one’s spiritual and moral standing determines his true importance. Rabbi Yehoshua further asked him: And how did you see us, the Torah scholars, there? Yosef said to him: Just as we are important here, we are important there.

This world is an inverted world - 注讜诇诐 讛驻讜讱!! So we must readjust our sights and view things as they are in the true world. Up there, Facebook friends, twitter and instagram followers, and all the trappings of Modern Sheker have zero significance. All we have up there is the quality of our connection to Hashem that we forged in this world. 

This week I had my 25th wedding anniversary. So, coincidentally did my wife. I  pondered this event. I look at the lives of the rich and famous and they look much more exciting than mine. They have tons and tons of money, multiple beautiful, luxurious homes, gorgeous wives, active social lives, and endless possibilities for fun and adventure. No worries. They flash their big smiles and get their picture in the papers.    

Me - a simple man. 

I can tell myself that in the NEXT WORLD I will be rewarded and they will not so I shouldn't be jealous. But it is not true. It is not only in the NEXT WORLD that I have it better but in THIS WORLD. 

Who REALLY has it better in THIS WORLD? Let's see. Go to the wiki page of any rich and famous personality and you will see that they are divorced almost 100 percent of the time. Almost 100 percent infidelity. They always have a small number of children and if they have a larger number it is always with multiple women - often while married to one woman they will have a child with someone else as well [诪拽驻讬讚 on 驻专讜 讜专讘讜?]. They are hit with paternity lawsuits left and right. Every month they are writing laaaarge checks to support children they don't know and women they despise [i.e. their ex-wives]. They are often miserable, in therapy, on medication for emotional issues, consumed by jealousy, self-esteem issues, anxiety and many other mental and physical maladies. There is often drugs and or alcohol. Behind their golden smiles and the beautiful women posing with them in the pictures are very sad, unfortunate people. This is not a mussar shmooze [well not ONLY a mussar shmooze] but absolute reality. Has there ever been written a biography about a rich and famous personality who had a normal, stable, happy life? Never. 

We religious people are lucky. From a young age we learn right from wrong and SELF CONTROL. Drugs, alcohol, infidelity, domestic violence and many of the other addictions and plagues of the rich and famous are foreign to [most of] us. We get up, go to minyan, hear a shiur on the daf-yomi, work out a little bit, work 10 hour days, stop for mincha and maariv, eat some dinner, put the kids to sleep with shma and kisses and go to sleep ourselves. We have no time or energy for parties where people are less celebrating and much more drowning out their sorrows with alcohol and loud music. We don't get divorced because we fell out of love with our spouses and found someone more attractive. There are ALWAYS going to be women who will seem more attractive than our spouses. But we believe in stability and building large, solid families where the goal is not pleasure but a higher and more meaningful purpose of preserving our tradition and perpetuating the Torah. Ultimately, sticking it out even when things aren't so exciting brings us MUCH MORE joy! We never allow ourselves to forget the Holocaust and other events in our history because they remind us what life is all about and what really matters. 

We are constantly enriched by Shabbos and Yom Tov, weddings, Bar Mitzva's and Brissim. We might not know all the famous people but give any two religious Jews five minutes together and they will discover with a quick game of Jewish geography that they are connected in 17 different ways and often are even related through marriage. [Just tonight I was talking to my son and said "Hey, I went to school with your father!!"]. 

Life might not always be "fun" or "exciting" but it is firm, stable and filled with meaning and purpose. What looks shiny and exciting in the outside world is all a big facade. Everybody knows that or should know that.

Rich and famous people don't have the exquisite pleasure of learning a Minchas Chinuch or a Sfas Emes. They are SO-TOTALLY missing out on the SWEETEST delights of the mind and soul. They don't have the INCREDIBLE FULFILLMENT of overcoming their bodily desires as we do when we have fast days and keep Taharas Hamishpacha. They stuff food and drink into their systems without thinking. We have the JOY of making brachos and expressing deep gratitude. [They never experience the excitement of someone klopping on the Bimah after Chazaras Ha-shatz to cancel 转讞谞讜谉. Or saying only some of the kinnos on Tisha B'av.... 馃槉馃榾 ].   

So remember!! This is an 注讜诇诐 讛驻讜讱!!! People who LOOK really happy are usually the MOST MISERABLE. Robin Williams, to take one of a million examples, looked AWFULLY happy. In the end - we find out how awful it was indeed. Instead of being jealous of others we should FEEL BADLY for them. So sad. All that money, all that fame, all that potential - and sooooo empty. 

讘专讜讱 讗-诇讛讬谞讜 砖讘专讗谞讜 诇讻讘讜讚讜 讜讛讘讚讬诇谞讜 诪谉 讛转讜注讬诐 讜谞转谉 诇谞讜 转讜专转 讗诪转 讜讞讬讬 注讜诇诐 谞讟注 讘转讜讻谞讜!!!