Tvilas Ezra For A Baal Keri

Here is a shiur that discusses towards the end [among other things] Tvilas Ezra. After asking mechila from the distinguished lecturerer [and the father of my shadchanit], I feel compelled to comment as follows:

According to many early sources [Rav Hai Gaon, R' Chananel, Rabbeinu Yona, Rosh and many, many, many others] the takana of Ezra was only cancelled for Torah but not for tfilla. [There is also an opinion that it was cancelled for tfilla and not Torah]. According to these authorities, one is obligated to immerse in mikva before davening [if one is a baal keri]. The Rambam famously writes in a letter that he NEVER MISSED A TVILAS EZRA in his life. So it eludes me how "Briskers" can flippantly dismiss the idea of following Takanas Ezra. Of course the Shulchan Aruch rules that one may be lenient but that doesn't negate the opinion of so many rishonim.

And the logic that if people go for tvilas ezra they will feel compelled to go every day so that people don't know that they are Baalei Keri is odd. I don't know where it says this and the fact is that plenty of people are careful about this tvila and don't feel compelled to go every day. Women go to mikva even though people in the mikva know what that means – men should be no different. 

And here is a chiddush that most people don't know that I add as a treat: The Kesef Mishna writes [Tefilla 4/4] that Takanas Ezra was never abolished! Since it didn't spread it became non-obligatory but there is still a kiyum every time one keeps it. Ayain shom!!

That is from a strictly halachic perspective. From the perspective of Avodas Hashem, the holy Maor Va-shemesh [Emor] writes:

שא"א לו לאדם שישיג תכלית יראת ה' אלא אם נזהר בטבילת עזרא והי' העולם שמם עד שבאו שני המאורות הגדולים לעולם הבעש"ט הק' ואדמו"ר הרב ר' אלימלך נבג"מ והם פתחו שער לד' צדיקים יבואו בו שלא יהרהר אדם שום הרהור תורה עד שיטביל עצמו לקריו.

It is impossible to achieve Yiras Hashem if one is not careful about Tvilas Ezra.

The Holy Rebbe R' Schneur Zalman of Liadi writes [Likkutei Torah Ki Savo] about tevilah before tfilla [even when one is not a baal keri]

וקודם התפלה צריך כובד ראש, שהוא המרירות על שאין בחי' ישראל לי ראש, וזהו בחי' כובד ראש והיינו שיבא לידי הכנעה והשפלות ופחיתות עצמו במוח בידיעה היטב. וג' דברים הם להסיר כל המונעים בתפלה א' מקוה וכמו שמצינו במשנה פ"ח דיומא מה מקוה מטהר הב' צדקה והג' הוא עסק ולימוד דברי מוסר ובפרט דברי מוסר הנמצאים בזהר מלשון הארה.

 

He says that before davening one should engage in 3 behaviors in order to achieve the requisite כובד ראש  ["heavy head"] that is mandated by the mishna. Mikva, tzdaka and learning pnimiyus hatorah. [See חסידות מבוארת  on tfilla for an explanation of this passage]. There are many sources extolling the virtues of the added purity afforded by going to the mikva daily [or at least often]. We live in a very impure world, we are surrounded by immodesty wherever we turn. Anything that adds purity is the call of the day.

 

 

 

     

Of Umbrellas and Eruvs

 

Rabbi Yirmiyahu Kaganoff

Question #1: Umbrellas and Eruvs

“Why can’t I use an umbrella on Yom Tov or on Shabbos within an eruv? Is it a mitzvah to get wet?”

Question #2: My Shabbos Nap

“May I shade an area for my Shabbos nap by throwing a blanket on top of some lawn chairs?”

Question #3: Cocktail Torah

“May I place a cocktail umbrella on top of a drink on Shabbos?”

Answer: The original sunscreen

The umbrella, or parasol, was invented in the eighteenth century and came into use very quickly as a simple and practical way to be protected from the rain and the harshest rays of the sun. Shortly after its invention, we already find discussion among great halachic authorities whether this “new apparatus” could be used on Yom Tov or Shabbos in a location where carrying is permitted. Before analyzing their positions, we need to discuss the laws regarding the construction of an ohel on Shabbos and Yom Tov.

Building and roofing

One of the 39 melachos, categories of work that the Torah forbids on Shabbos, is boneh, constructing (Mishnah Shabbos 73a). A subheading, or toldah, of boneh is making an ohel kavua, which translates literally as creating a permanent roof or shelter (Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 10:13). Constructing an ohel arai, a “temporary” roof, on Shabbos or Yom Tov, was not forbidden by the Torah, but was prohibited by Chazal, our early Sages. Now we need to define:

1. What is considered a permanent ohel that is prohibited min hatorah?
2. How do we define a temporary ohel, so that we know what is prohibited because of a rabbinic injunction?
3. What type of covering, if any, is permitted?

What is an ohel kavua?

Based on how the Rif (Shabbos, beginning of Chapter 20), the earliest of the great halachic codifiers, presented the topic, most respected authorities understand him to rule in the following way: Virtually anything that covers an empty area at least a tefach (about three to four inches) long, a tefach wide and a tefach high is halachically considered a permanent ohel. This “roof” does not need to be connected to the ground in any way. According to this approach, assembling such a covering is a violation of Torah law, even if the ohel is intended to exist for only a short period of time. The defining line between a permanent ohel and a “temporary” one (ohel arai), which was not prohibited by the Torah but only by the Sages, is that an ohel kavua has a “roof” that is one tefach squared, whereas an ohel arai’s “roof” is narrower than a tefach.

If the ohel is not flat on top, but peaked, yet it widens to a tefach squared within three tefachim of its peak, it is also an ohel kavua that is prohibited, min hatorah, to assemble on Shabbos. Only if it is very narrow on top and does not widen at all, or only widens at a lower point, does it qualify as an ohel arai, whose construction is prohibited only because of rabbinic injunction.

Thus, according to this opinion, throwing a blanket over a few lawn chairs so that you can crawl underneath to play or relax violates a Torah prohibition. Even those who hold that this does not violate a Torah law agree that it is prohibited because of a rabbinic injunction.

We can already answer one of the questions asked above: “May I shade an area for my Shabbos nap by throwing a blanket on top of some lawn chairs?”

According to all opinions, this is prohibited. Some opinions hold that this is prohibited min hatorah.

What is permitted?

When is it permitted to make a temporary ohel?

According to this opinion, there are two situations in which a temporary cover, roof or tent may be assembled on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

1. When the area being covered is less than a tefach in height (see Shu’t Noda Biyehudah. Orach Chayim 2:30, s.v. Vehinei; Nimla Tal, Boneh, 15). Covering an area this low is not considered creating a “roof.”
2. When the ohel is very narrow — less than a tefach wide — and it is attached to something to make it easier to open and close (see Shabbos 138a). Since the area being covered is less than a tefach wide, it is not considered an ohel area min hatorah. We mentioned above that covering such an area is usually still prohibited, because of a rabbinic injunction. However, when there is some form of hinge to make its opening and closing easier, or any other indication that the ohel is meant to be opened and closed frequently, Chazal permitted its use on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

In addition, if a temporary ohel exists from before Shabbos or Yom Tov, it is permitted to open and close it. It is also permitted to make the ohel wider (Eruvin 102a).

A differing approach

Not all authorities accept this approach that assembly of any “roof” over an area of a tefach squared is an ohel kavua prohibited min hatorah. Others rule that anything temporary is prohibited only because of a rabbinic injunction (Mishnah Berurah 315:34). This latter approach contends that any temporary ohel that is hinged, or has some other indication that it is meant to be opened and closed regularly, may be opened and closed on Shabbos, even when it covers an area a tefach squared. Thus, some authorities rule that one may open and close the hood of a baby carriage on Shabbos, since it is clearly meant to be closed temporarily, and it is hinged to facilitate its opening and closing (Chazon Ish, Orach Chayim 52:6). Other authorities are less lenient, requiring that opening the hood on Shabbos is permitted only when it was open the width of a tefach before Shabbos (Magen Avraham 315:4; Shu’t Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim 4:105:3; Ketzos Hashulchan 120:4).

London, 1782

One of the first internationally distinguished authorities to discuss whether one may use an umbrella on Yom Tov or Shabbos is the Noda Biyehudah, Rav Yechezkel Landau, renowned posek hador and Chief Rabbi of Prague (Shu’t Orach Chayim, 2:30). Sometime in late 1782, as the American Revolution was beginning to wind to a close, Rav Leib Hakohen, a talmid chacham in London, sent a missive to the Noda Biyehudah. Their correspondence was not about how the redcoats and their Hessian mercenaries were getting by in the western hemisphere, but about important halachic matters. Rav Hakohen wrote that he felt that one may not use an umbrella on Shabbos, but that he had sent the question to a different, unnamed posek who permitted it. Rav Hakohen was still not comfortable with the lenient approach and, therefore, wrote to the Noda Biyehudah, presenting the two reasons why the first rav had ruled leniently. (Based on his level of scholarship, we may assume that the first rav was not from the American colonies.)

The first reason to permit use of umbrellas on Shabbos and Yom Tov was this posek’s opinion that an ohel must cover a specific, defined area, and an item which is constantly being moved from place to place, such as an umbrella, does not qualify as an ohel. The permitting rabbi substantiated this position on the basis of his understanding of Rashi (Shabbos 138b s.v. ela) that an item meant only to cover a person does not qualify as an ohel for the purposes of the laws of Shabbos. This is based on the following:

The Gemara rules that a type of felt hat called a siyana may not be worn on Shabbos if its brim is a tefach wide. Rashi explains that the Gemara’s conclusion that a wide-brimmed siyana may not be worn on Shabbos is because of concern that it will be blown off, and when the wearer retrieves it he may come to carry it in a public area, thus desecrating Shabbos.

The posek questioned why Rashi did not prohibit wearing a siyana on Shabbos because of making an ohel arai on Shabbos, since the brim is a tefach wide. The posek answered that since a hat is meant only to shelter a person who moves, this does not qualify as an ohel, which he defines as something that shelters a location. He rallied further evidence substantiating the truth of this principle by noting that, regarding the laws of tumas ohel, the Mishnah mentions several items, a bird in flight, fluttering cloth, or a ship that is sailing, that are not considered an ohel because they are in motion (Ohalos 8:4).

The second reason to permit the umbrella was based on the fact that it is hinged, to ease opening and closing. The permitting rabbi held that any temporary covering cannot possibly involve a Torah prohibition — the issue with an umbrella is only whether opening and carrying it violates the rabbinic injunction of an ohel arai. Since an umbrella is hinged, he felt that there are two valid reasons to permit using an umbrella on Yom Tov and on Shabbos within an eruv, although he admitted that some of the evidence for his position might be refutable.

However, Rav Hakohen felt that the reasons to be lenient were not sufficient and therefore referred the question to the Noda Biyehudah.

First response: Prague, 1783

On the eighteenth of Shevat, 5543 (1783), the Noda Biyehudah responded to Rav Hakohen, disputing both reasons of the permitting rabbi. He pointed out that careful analysis of the sources would reach the opposite conclusion. The Noda Biyehudah explained that there are many other ways to understand what Rashi wrote, such that they do not prove that something covering only a person is not an ohel. Furthermore, most authorities disagree with Rashi and, indeed, understand that wearing a siyana is prohibited on Shabbos because of the laws of ohel.

The Noda Biyehudah reports that several years previously, when the umbrella was first introduced to Prague, he taught publicly that it is strictly forbidden to use it on Shabbos, and that the prohibition might be min hatorah. He bases his approach on the Rif’s opinion that it is forbidden, min hatorah, to create any ohel that covers an area that is a tefach squared, which will certainly forbid the use of an umbrella. The Noda Biyehudah mentions that the majority of the people of Prague do not use umbrellas on Shabbos, in accordance with his ruling. He contends that, notwithstanding the fact that other rishonim (Rosh, Shabbos 20:2) clearly dispute the Rif’s definition of ohel, the Rif’s opinion should not be disregarded. Furthermore, in this instance, the Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 22:29) may agree with him. Thus, we have two of the three great halachic codifiers (the Rosh being the third) ruling that a roof or awning constructed for very short term use may be prohibited min hatorah, if it is more than a tefach squared. This description seems to fit an umbrella very accurately. The Noda Biyehudah concludes that, indeed, the Rosh may be the only early authority that disputes this conclusion of the Rif, and that even the Rosh would prohibit use of an umbrella on Shabbos, albeit only because of the rabbinic injunction on an ohel arai. Many other authorities accept the Noda Biyehudah’s analysis of the topic (Aruch Hashulchan, Orach Chayim 301:113; 315:12; Shu’t Sho’el Umeishiv 3:2:42).

Nineteenth century Bratislava

On the other hand, the Chasam Sofer (Shu’t Orach Chayim #72) saw the responsum of the Noda Biyehudah and took issue with his analysis of the topic. In an undated halachic essay, the Chasam Sofer, posek hador of his generation and rav of Pressburg, concludes that although he does not recommend using an umbrella on Shabbos, he is not convinced that it is prohibited, and feels that if it is, it should be only because of rabbinic injunction, and not because it violates Torah law.

The Chasam Sofer first contends that no authorities hold that any type of temporary construction is prohibited min hatorah. Thus, he disputes those who interpret that the Rif and the Rambam hold that a temporary cover may be prohibited min hatorah. Second, the Chasam Sofer contends that something movable cannot be prohibited because of boneh, since all construction in the mishkan, which is the source of the melachos of Shabbos, was not movable. Third, there is no Torah concept of ohel unless the covering has walls that reach the ground. To sustain the last position, he notes that the Rif, himself, implies that this is a defining factor of an ohel kavua.

The Chasam Sofer contends that once he has established that an umbrella cannot possibly be an ohel according to Torah law, opening or carrying it on Shabbos is not even prohibited because of rabbinic injunction, because of its hinges, which are meant to facilitate its use. The Chasam Sofer thus concludes that although he does not advise using an umbrella on Shabbos, there is no technical violation in using it. He permits asking a gentile to open an umbrella on Shabbos for one to use, implying that he sees no problem at all with carrying it afterwards (obviously within the confines of an eruv). Several prominent halachic authorities follow this approach and permit use of an umbrella on Shabbos (Beis Meir, Orach Chayim 315; Daas Torah 301:40).

A lawn umbrella

We should note that the arguments raised by the Chasam Sofer as to why an umbrella is not an ohel may not apply to a lawn umbrella. This apparatus is meant for use in a backyard or garden, to provide shade against the sun. It is often left in its open position for months on end, or even indefinitely. Several prominent authorities contend that any ohel meant to remain open for more than a week is considered permanent, which would make it a Torah prohibition to open it (Pri Megadim, Mishbetzos Zahav 315:8; Eishel Avraham 315:1; Tiferes Yisroel, Kilkeles Shabbos 34:2).
In addition, since a lawn umbrella is not moved from one location to another, another of the Chasam Sofer’s reasons to permit a regular umbrella does not apply. Although one of the Chasam Sofer’s reasons, that an ohel is prohibited only when its “walls” reach the ground, applies to a lawn umbrella, it is difficult to rely only on this justification to permit opening a lawn umbrella on Shabbos. Therefore, there is strong reason to prohibit opening a lawn umbrella, even by a gentile, even according to the Chasam Sofer.

The position of the Chazon Ish

A third approach to the question of whether an umbrella may be used on Shabbos and Yom Tov is presented by the Chazon Ish (Orach Chayim 52:6). Although he concludes that it is prohibited to use an umbrella on Shabbos, his ruling is based on completely different considerations. He rejects the Noda Biyehudah’s position, contending that since umbrellas are meant for temporary use and are hinged for this purpose, opening them on Shabbos is not considered creating an ohel, just as opening and closing a door on Shabbos is not prohibited as an act of construction, since both are meant to be opened and closed frequently. The Chazon Ish rejects the position that any rishonim disagree with this definition of ohel. As I mentioned above, upon this basis, the Chazon Ish permits opening and closing the hood of a baby carriage on Shabbos. However, as I noted above, most authorities do not understand the Rif’s position as the Chazon Ish does, and consequently rule that one should leave the hood open at least a tefach before Shabbos.

Notwithstanding that the Chazon Ish rejects the Noda Biyehudah’s approach to the topic, he prohibits using an umbrella on Shabbos for two other, completely different reasons. First, he suggests that opening an umbrella might be prohibited because of tikun maneh, a general prohibition of completing items, which is a subcategory of the melachah of makeh bepatish. He then rules that opening an umbrella is forbidden as a takanas chachamim established by the Torah leadership of the recent generations to reinforce the sanctity of Shabbos.

Umbrellic conclusion

As I noted above, most authorities contend that there are rishonim who prohibit min hatorah creating a temporary ohel on Shabbos, if it is a tefach wide. It is indeed widespread custom to prohibit carrying an umbrella on Yom Tov or Shabbos, either because we are concerned about the prohibition of ohel, or, perhaps, because of the reasons advocated by the Chazon Ish.

A cocktail umbrella

At this point, I would like to discuss the last of our opening questions: “May I place a cocktail umbrella on a drink on Shabbos?”

A cocktail umbrella is a tiny umbrella used to decorate a glass. Since it does not resemble an ohel in any way, opening it on Shabbos is permitted.

Conclusion

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (Shemos 20:10) notes that people mistakenly think that work is prohibited on Shabbos in order to provide a day of rest. This is incorrect, he points out, because the Torah does not prohibit doing avodah, which connotes hard work, but melachah, which implies purpose and accomplishment. On Shabbos, we refrain from constructing and altering the world for our own purposes. The goal of Shabbos is to emphasize Hashem’s dominion as the focus of creation by refraining from our own creative acts (Shemos 20:11). By refraining from building for one day a week, we acknowledge the true Builder of the world and all that it contains.

O.C.D. - The Great Rav Asher's Psak - זנ"ל

We live in the generation of O.C.D., A.D.D., A.D.H.D., O.D.D. [oppositional defiant disorder - kids who don't listen and are beyond a nightmare] and every other "roshei teivos" that spells bad news. The DSM [book of mental disorders] gets thicker and thicker and psychiatrists and other mental health professionals get busier and busier.

Where does the halacha stand on these issues? I once came across a booklet written on this topic based on the rulings of gedolei yisrael [such as Rav Shach] and they said that one must make sure that he is emotionally healthy FIRST and only then must he be careful in his shmiras hamitzvos [mitzvos aseh].

HaGaon Rav Asher Weiss who is [rightfully] about the most popular maggid shiur alive, wrote a teshuva in the Minchas Asher [2/134] where he echoes this approach. He was asked about a talmid chachom who endlessly repeated the words of tfilla until he got it right. The doctor said that in order to heal he must say the word once and once only - even if he got it wrong.

Rav Asher Shlita supports the doctors approach from a halachic standpoint and says that just as one need not keep a mitzva if it means that he will become physically ill, he may also refrain from doing a mitzva properly if it will cause the perpetuation of a mental illness.

Here is the original.

Lesson: Make sure you are emotionally healthy before worrying about whether you are a good enough Jew. We need tzadikim - but normal tzadikim. Mori Vi-rabi Shlita calls Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach "זנ"ל" zecher normali livracha, because he was such a normal person.

לזכות הכותב שיזכה לפרנסה בשפע ובנקל

זכרנו לחיים מלך חפץ בחיים

לע"נ אלישע חנינא בן ידיד נפשי הרב אהרן אברהם שליט"א

 

 

Can we have life without Hashem "desiring" our life. The answer, surprisingly, is yes. How does this work?

When we are clinging to Hashem, our life force comes from the source of life. ואתם הדבקים בה' אל-היכם חיים כולכם היום –  you who cling to Hashem, live today. Torah is the essence of life. When one nullifies himself to the light of Torah in all of his actions and thoughts, with every fiber of his being, he then clings to the source of life and is filled with a love of life and a desire of true life [from Above], and naturally his middos are pure and he is not liable to stumble with faulty character traits.

 

But when a person is not completely bound to the light of Torah, life no longer flows from the source of life, there is no longer a desire for his life [from Above] and this brings in its wake a slew of faulty character traits which are rooted in a disgust for true life.

When we ask זכרנו לחיים מלך חפץ בחיים -  remember us for life, the king who desires life, we don’t want to be like dogs who scream "give give" [the Zohar uses this analogy: כלבים דצווחין הב הב] rather we ask for life that is engraved on the essence of our souls with true love from the source of life in order that this love and desire should not be absent from our lives even for one second and thus we won't have create opening for the appearance of bad middos.

Through our connection to to the source of life we will be controlled and guided by positive character traits that generate an enhanced fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos with the exalted strength of their powerful wonder.  

We get to choose – is it going to be a life fueled by divine favor, a life a dveykus; or a life of emptiness where the power of evil rears its ugly head.

May our lives always be rooted in a holy חפץ בחיים.

Amennn!!!!:-)

[עפ"י מי מרום י"ג עמ' רנ"ו]

ויחד לבבנו לאהבה וליראה את שמך

We ask for love and fear together – ויחד לבבנו לאהבה וליראה את שמך. How is it possible to love and fear at the same time? Love is engendered by a feeling of closeness. Fear is engendered by a feeling of distance.

The explanation is that one feels love when he feels that Hashem is with him wherever he goes. אנא אלך מרוחך - where can I go away from your spirit? [Tehillim 139/7]. Hashem is my "best friend", my father and my mother. He is there to help me and lead me through all of life's circumstances. This feeling arouses tremendous love.

This closeness is NOT a contradiction to fear [as we thought] because true fear is not that Hashem is far away but that He is RIGHT HERE which causes a יראה גדולה  -  great fear, יראת הדר עליון   - the fear of his elevated glory, known in the sfarim as יראת הרוממות   - a fear of his exalted presence.    

This dual feeling of love and fear can only come when he understands the merging of love and fear – ויחד לבבנו לאהבה וליראה את שמך.

 [מי מרום חי"ג]

לזכות ר' יהודה יעקב בן דינה חאשע לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיו

It All Must Be Rooted In Fear

It is critical to understand that everything depends on the level of fear of Hashem that one feels. Not just fear that He is going to punish you [that is a low level fear] but fear of His exaltedness.  One can only acquire the true Torah if he has the requisite fear. והאלקים עשה שיראו מלפניו  [Koheles 3/14]. Hashem created the whole world for the sake of this middah of Yirah. People only started forgetting Torah when there was a diminishing of fear [see Temurah 16a כי אפליג בה בסוף שניה דבצר לביה].

The entire Maamad Har Sinai took place in order to inspire fear – למען תהיו יראתי על פניכם לבלתי תחטאו.

When one is afraid of anything, the fear will not be greater than what one is fearing. A rational person will not fear death with such force than it is more than the actual pain of death itself. The fear of not having fear of Hashem, however, far exceeds anything imaginable. It is the fear of the endless of abyss of nothingness. Without fear, there is no Torah and no life. That is why the fear relates to the heart. The mind, the intellect, cannot relate to something so lofty that far exceeds the narrow confines of this world. Only the heart can contain such a massive concept.

 

Every day we say in the bracha asking for Torah ויחד לבבנו לאהבה וליראה את שמך –  - unify our heart to love and fear your name [see the next post].  This fear must be in the heart because that is where fear is and that is the basis for the Torah.

 

Any Torah without Yiras Shomayim is not Torah. It might look good and sound good but it is not Toras Emes.

I recently saw on the website of a certain yeshiva that they feature the shiurim of a rabbi who was found guilty by a court of law and also a panel of rabbonim of inappropriate behavior with his [male] students.

 Why would they want to spread his Torah? What message are they sending to their students? That as long as the Torah sounds good it doesn't matter who is saying it? I believe that this is a very dangerous message.

 

Torah must be accompanied with exemplary behavior and yiras shomayim. אם הרב דומה למלאך השם צב-אות יבקשו תורה מפיהו.      

[עי' במי מרום חי"ג עמ' פ"ה דברים נשגבים ועליהם התבססתי]

 

לזכות גילה שושנה בת נעכא גיטל לברכה והצלחה בכל

Listening

"Listening is a magnetic and strange thing, a creative force...When we are listened to, it creates us, makes us unfold and expand. Ideas actually begin to grow within us and come to life...When we listen to people there is an alternating current, and this recharges us so that we never get tired of each other...and it is this little creative fountain inside us that begins to spring and cast up new thoughts and unexpected laughter and wisdom. ...Well, it is when people really listen to us, with quiet fascinated attention, that the little fountain begins to work again, to accelerate in the most surprising way."

How many people know how to listen?

I know many many many people.

I ask again:

How many people know how to listen?

Let's just say that it is a rare quality.

I often think - if we listen to each other then we can rightfully expect Hashem to listen to us. ומכלל הן אתה נשמע לאו.

Part of the problem is the machinery that consumes us. But the root of the problem is not the toys but the self-absorption that afflicts almost everyone.

Is there hope? If there wasn't - I wouldn't waste my time writing about it.