The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work by John Gottman

     A book recommended to my Pastoral Psychology class in RIETS, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work is a marriage book unlike many others. Gottman bases his claims of specific indicators of marital success with decades of research that led him to his claims. Gottman discusses many issues, like couples arguing with harsh start-ups (very bad) and having numerous small attempts at reconciliation (very good). One focused value is an intricate knowledge of each others likes and dislikes, and of what has and is now going on in their lives. After reading, I realized a pattern came out of the book. It may have seven important applications, but I believe that the argument made in the book can really be one principle: You should treat your spouse like they are your best friend. Richard Joel likes to talk about this idea a lot, that he married his best friend. While I really do think I am about to do that, I don't think this research makes this mandatory. Your spouse doesn't need to be your best friend, but you should treat your spouse as if they were. 

       A couple of months ago, my fiance tried to subtly approach the idea of signing a Halakhik Prenup. I tried to stop her and say that it wasn't a question. The only question was when we could get together with two witnesses and do it. So a couple of weeks ago we did. I know some people think it's not romantic, talking about what will happen if you get divorced before your married. Non withstanding the fact that a Ketuba is also a document about divorce and we buy fancy ones and put them on our home's walls, I don't buy that argument for a second. What the Prenup is, and what the ketubah has been for centuries, is a precaution taken now that insures that the wife is safe even if things tragically do not work out. Now, if you had the chance right now to sign something that would make sure your best friend was safe even if your friendship withered, wouldn't you sign it unquestionably? ORA's tagline (which tbh is probably too long to go viral) is "friends don't let friends get married without a prenup". How about we start simpler. "Don't let your best friend get married without a prenup". 

        In my mind, it is this exact issue that is so upsetting about all these agunot cases that have been in the news recently. What really saddens me to think how far these relationships have gone. From best friend to enemy, all in the process of a couple years. Unquestionably, I believe that the answer to the question I posed earlier about making sure now that your friend would be safe would be in the affirmative. If something does go wrong and you do need a divorce, it will be a tangible reminder of the close friendship you and your wife had and were supposed to have, and who would let their best friend (even if it isn't that way any more) go through more pain then they have to?

The Laws and Concepts of Niddah by Rabbi Sobolofsky

I'm getting married so I wanted to do a good review in the laws of Niddah. Separate from my Rabbinic training, I felt it was important for me to review the laws I am soon going to live by, just as my future wife is. A quick note about the book itself. Rabbi Sobolofsky does a great job in going through the halachos and the ideas behind them. Many times, halakha books, and the Artscroll halakha books are notorious for this, stray away from paskining in the books. Not willing to paskin even in places where it is clear, creates a perception that all the sources quoted are taken equally. What that does is give a machmir tone (perhaps they are trying to do this). Rabbi Sobolofsky does not fall into this trap. He tells it as he sees it, and when there is disagreement, he lets you know, but he says it as it is, whether it means being lenient or strict at that time. I have seen more and more Rabeim that are scared to do this even in conversations with prospective Rabbis. Whether it be a humble attitude, a deference to Rabbis that are more knowledgeable, or a fearful Rabbinate, the honesty in this book was refreshing.  We need a Rabbinate that is able to actively engage the issues of our time. It is therefore important to acknowledge it when I see it. Although the depth of quotations leaves some to be desired, but a consequence of that is that it becomes an easier read. If you're looking to get a better view of the technicalities of Hilchot Niddah, this is a very good read. 

Animal Farm by George Orwell

Looking for a "classic" novel to read, i decided to read Animal Farm with a friend to be talked about afterwards. After we read the book though, we then had a problem. The book is kind of obvious. (For a summary of the book and the allegory it is supposed to make see the wiki). While its direct correlation to historical figures may not be obvious, the more general ideas were.  So much so, that throughout the book I was able to guess the next part of the plot. While reading I understood why Animal Farm is used so frequently in younger grades. It is an easy  target for understanding allegory in books and sets up an understanding at how to do this in general. What I didn't understand at first was why this was then considered such a "classic" book. 

About a week ago, I decided to learn how to make my Bubbe's (grandmother's) chocolate chip cookies. They had always been mine and my sister's favorite, and so she made them every time we came over, and we couldn't have been more excited. When I tried to do it though, I saw how absurdly simple the "recipe"(as recipe like that grandmothers actually use) was. It had merely simple ingredients, and there was nothing particularly special in the cookies at all. What I learned though is that the beauty in the cookies were their simplicity. Always the same, always with five chocolate chips on each cookie. They were simple, good and standard, and that made them great. Leo Tolstoy once said: “There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth”. My Bubbe's cookies were great because they were simple and good, and they tried to be nothing more. Perhaps this is what is so great in Animal Farm. Orwell tries to do no more than he needs to. He does not make it complicated, but merely tries to get over his point in a truthful, good and simple way.

Things are getting more and more complicated in a world that continues to move forward, but it is the building blocks of society that are good, and simple, like family and community that are truly the important things.

The Last Lecture by Randy Pausch

The Last Lecture is based on a famous inspirational lecture by Randy Pausch. (If you have never seen it, watch it here. Its somewhat long, but very worth it.) In the lecture, Pausch, who had just been diagnosed with terminal cancer, goes through how he achieved his childhood dreams and lived his life. The clip went viral and the book became a #1 national best seller. The reason I read The Last Lecture this week was in preparation for my sermon for the shul I am interning with over the summer. Parshat Devarim begins Moshe's last lecture. The leader that had taken them out of Egypt and led them through the desert for forty year, only to bring them to the Promised Land but not enter himself, is to speak for the last time. I imagine this was an inspirational moment for both Moshe and the people to hear their leader and his dying words. When he starts, the beginning is completely underwhelming. He begins by speaking about how he asked Israel to appoint judges. Ummm what? Moshe's last speech and he's talking about judges? Pausch on the other hand begins about how he fulfilled his dreams! what is going on here?

While thinking about this, I was reminded of a speech Yehuda Rothner (director of Camp Stone) once gave to the staff. He held a tissue box over his head and proclaimed that tissues were the most important thing in the Beit Knesset. He explained that you may want to get the kids to pray, but you have no chance if the room isn't set up correctly. Without tissues, it is unreasonable to assume that the kids will stay inside. For things to work a system needs to be set up. They don't just happen. Perhaps, this is what Moshe was trying to get across. The Jewish people's goal is to create a just society in Israel, but that can't happen until it is set up to be one. Judges create a framework where this can happen. This may explain why Moshe changes the story. In Yitro, it is Yitro who comes to Moshe about Judges and Moshe who finds them. Here Moshe says that he told Bnei Yisrael to find judges and they did. So why the change? Soon Moshe won't be around to set things up to work for the people, they are soon going to have to find judges and create a just society on their own. (Pausch actually does speak about this same idea but I will let you watch him say it.)

In this same story in Dvarim, there is one pasuk sung to the tune of Aicha which we read on Tisha Be'av. The connection may be just this same point. Its hard to mourn for something that happened such a long time ago. Its even unreasonable for someone to just feel bad for the burning of the Temple in the way someone is upset about a death. Therefore, we have created ways to set ourselves up to be sad on Tisha Be'av. We don't eat, drink, bathe, or wear leather shoes. This all enables us to get into the spirit where we can mourn the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. 

Over the past three weeks I have gotten many questions in the form of "Can i do ___ or is ___ allowed". These are valid questions as they try and understand what the Halacha (or minhag) is. To some extent, though they miss the point. There are ways you can get around just about all of the minhagim. Have a siyum every night, and you can eat meat. listen to acapella or even say recorded music is fine. These all might be legitimate in their own right, but they are so not. Are we trying to just "follow" Halacha, or are we trying to accomplish its goals in feeling a sense of loss? When we fast tomorrow we have two choices (and the grey area in between of course). We could spend our day sleeping and watching TV, and if we did you would be following the letter of the law, or we could spend our day getting into the mourner's mindset. We may not be able to bring the Beit Hamikdash to us by doing this, but we surely can bring us closer to te Beit Hamikdash. 

(adapted from my Sermon at Shaare Tefillah in Teaneck)

The Cost Disease by William Baumol

   Why do certain things like computers get cheaper, while others like education continue to get more expensive? In The Cost Disease, William Baumol explains why this happens and what it means for society. He is clearly one of the leaders of thought in this topic as the disease is named after him. In essence, Baumol discovered that fields in which there can be little labor productivity growth, due to the fact that they are services that require personal attention, prices will continually rise higher than the rate of inflation. Conversely, computers, for which production can continuously be more and more automated, will continue to get cheaper. In short summary, lets say inflation, which by definition means that the purchasing power of money declines, makes prices rise by 5%. Since some sectors are having prices rising significantly under 5%, other sectors will have prices rise to be above that line. The reason this happens to sectors that are in the service business, is because they cannot make their production cheaper, but must still give wages to be competitive for workers. 

     While this was an interesting point in economics, Baumol's "solution" to the problem is enlightening. Since many sectors, such as food and technology have become cheaper they enable us to spend a greater percentage of our wealth on services, like health care. Therefore, even if health prices continue to rise, we, as a society, can continue to pay for it and still have our lives be better off in the long run. The question for the Orthodox Jewish community would be, does this rosy future apply to us as well? For years the Orthodox Jewish community has spoken about a "tuition crisis" (I put it in quotation marks because we need to stop calling everything a crisis, even if it is something that must be dealt with as soon as we find a viable solution. Calling everything a crisis makes problems seem like they are ephemeral concepts). Since, at least in general, we send our children to Jewish private schools starting in 1st grade, the continuous increase in prices has continued to create a strain on the community (they have risen to about 20K a year per child). However, perhaps, as the book would argue would be true in general, we will continually be better off despite the fact that education is taking up a greater and greater percentage of our livelihoods. If our community was like all others I would have to assume that it would be true, and perhaps it is. However, I think there are two reasons why we are not in the position to sit on our laurels and assume that the "tuition crisis" is truly a problem despite it looking like "the cost disease". Firstly, we are paying for education both for ourselves that is ever increasing, while also separately paying ever increasing costs for public education, which many of us do not directly use. Secondly, many of the sectors that in general are part of the progressive sector, fall into the service sector in our community. The most glaring one is meat. The slaughtering of meat needs to be done in a personal way by a qualified individual, and it is therefore now unsurprising to me, based on your thesis, that the price of Kosher meat continues to rise. Rather than pretending I can answer if we are truly in a predicament or it just seems like a problem like the cost disease does, I decided to ask Dr. Baumol himself. He answered: 

"Dear Mr. Reinstein, Thank you very much for your illuminating message.  Since I too am Jewish (though not orthodox), I am particularly concerned about the issue you raise.  And, indeed, though my analysis does, I believe, apply to the community as a whole, it unfortunately does not imply that all groups of society will have their legitimate interests protected. These are certainly matters that will require careful analysis and the design of appropriate remedial measures.  I will certainly seek to think further about the problem you raise.  

With best wishes,

Will Baumol"

First of all, it is awesome that he is Jewish, considering the impact he has had in recent economics. Also he answered remarkably quickly, which I was not expecting, but was extremely nice. In any event I hope he does continue to think about the problem because, after reading his book, would be very confident in possibilities he may bring up.  If it is a problem, I hope we, as a community, can solve it, or at least mitigate it soon. 

The Plot Against America by Philip Roth

While it can certainly be argued that he did not do enough, such as bomb railroad tracks and/or enter WWII earlier, FDR is generally considered a hero in European Jewish households. This is unsurprising, considering his involvement in ending WWII, and thereby insuring that the Jewish people would not be utterly destroyed. In The Plot Against America, Philip Roth imagines a different outcome. Rather than FDR winning the 1936 election, a President who is thoroughly against joining into the war and seemingly somewhat anti-Semitic is elected as president. The Holocaust continues to move forward as America continues to stay out of the war, even seemingly staying on Germany and Hitler’s side in the conversations. Roth follows a regular non-religious Jewish family in Newark, NJ, who is forced to confront the reality that their president, and eventually the overall government, is not there to help them. Eventually, riots and pogroms begin to overcome different American cities and anti-Semitism becomes more accepted. An American Holocaust still does not happen, but Roth’s conception certainly allows for an alternative ending.

What was perhaps so chilling about The Plot Against America was how feasible it all seemed. I left the book somewhat scared at the prospects of this possibility. If something like that really could happen here, even in America, what are we doing here, in a place that could turn on us so quickly? Some might  question why we are in America even if we don’t have the fear of future anti-Semitism.While I certainly hear this claim, the events of the past two weeks have made me question if the reality Roth writes about is actually possible anymore.

In a move that  got much less attention than it probably deserves, the US Senate had a resolution to back Israel if they were to attack Iran (you can read about that here). I don’t want to get into the merits of such an attack in this forum, but the trust that the American government has in the Israeli Parliament is inspiring. For those that were afraid of a Rothian outcome with the current government, it has certainly not been the case. In this environment Jews as a whole are being protected perhaps more so than ever. The aftermath of the craziness in Boston has also been heartening. The almost ubiquitous outcry against violence, the overwhelming support that the city of Boston, and other US cities have provided for those affected by the tragedy far surpasses the danger imposed. Although he attacks were  certainly on a severely smaller scale than September 11^th they were not treated as such. Everyone wanted to help and show his or her support. Even the Yankees had their hearts in Boston (don’t wait for that to happen again). The outpour was inspiring to say the least, with even comedians such as Colbert, acknowledging that the bombings showed the strength of the city rather than its deficiencies.  Even Muslim leaders have not taken to the fallen bomber, because “a person who is devoted does not kill innocent people.” 

Eli Wiesel once said: “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor never the tormented.” In both cases of the Senate and the Boston Marathon, I see this view in the American people. Perhaps, in the aftermath of the Holocaust or more recently September 11^th itself, America has increasingly accepted the Biblical worldview of not standing idly by while their brothers blood is spilled.

Granted this does not mean that there is no anti-Semitism going on in America. Yesterday, while walking in the street a man said, “go back to your own country” while passing me. A couple things stuck out at me. First, I completely did not think he was talking to me. I have never been confronted with that type of speech in New York. When I realized he was in fact talking to me, I was first thankful that he thought I did have my own country (apparently anti-Semites are still think Israel is a Jewish country). This type of encounter was so out of the norm that it did not faze me that much. Some people still hate, but that is not the norm we live in.

These last two weeks have furthered my gratitude towards the US as a haven for the Jews in the Diaspora. It may be too good to us, making many Jews comfortable leaving their heritage and joining American culture completely, but I am happy that I can live in a country in which can feel comfortable in. At the same time, I can only hope that one day it will become the country that I left with ultimate appreciation towards what it has done for me and the Jewish people as a whole. 

Jacob: The Unexpected Patriarch by Yair Zakovitch

A version of this post will be found in the upcoming edition of the Commentator. 

As the forbearer of the ten tribes, Jacob has had a profound impact on the history of the Jewish people. However, a rudimentary glossing of the Jacobean stories leads the reader in a very different direction. Jacob is the figure who sells soup to his brother for an exorbitant fee and then fools his father into giving him the birthright. While the Rabbis certainly see Jacob in an unequivocally positive light, the reader of the Scripture itself is in some ways left wondering why Jacob merited to be chosen by God. Yair Zakovitch investigates into each of the stories of Jacob’s life by means of literary archeology. As a method, literary archeology examines other literary expressions of the stories in question to gain a greater understanding of the actual happenings of the stories. Zakovitch looks at statements within the traditional Jewish corpus, such as Isaiah and Midrash Rabbah, and analyzes the wording of various passages. While his method was somewhat familiar, as it follows in the footsteps of commentators like Ibn Ezra, it also relies upon certain assumptions that are fairly troubling to the orthodox reader. One of his main beliefs is that the story portrayed in Genesis, is a story that has itself been modified to portray Jacob in an amenable light. One short example of this can be seen from Zakovitch’s analysis of Jacob’s name. When dealing with Jacob’s given name, Zakovitch quotes from Hosea where Hosea rebukes the Jewish people for acting deceitfully (aqov ya’aqov). At the same time the biblical narrative of Jacob’s birth discusses his being named for holding on to his brother’s heel (aqev). Zakovitch sees inconsistencies in this story and others and posits that there were multiple traditions of the Jacob narratives some of which were more favorable than others. The writers of Genesis put together a series of tales that portrayed Jacob in the best light possible, but other traditions still existed, one of which found its way into Hosea. In general, I don’t see a problem with reading and learning from biblical critics who do not share the belief that the Bible is a divinely received singular work. Many times these commentaries analyze brilliantly, displaying new patterns and ideas. Specifically, Zakovitch’s explanation of the Bilhah and Reuven story as a punishment for selling Esau the birthright at an inflated price is extremely compelling. However, at other times his ideas are based on assumptions that those that are more conservative do not hold. In the aforementioned examination of Jacob’s name, Zakovitch assumes that the statement in Hosea is on equal footing with Genesis itself, and without it the question never leaves the ground. The orthodox reader sees the statement in Hosea and sees a prophet using play on words to express his ideas in a poetic fashion. To Zakovitch, Genesis, just like Hosea, was written by a man, or men, who by definition has an agenda that compelled him to write. To the traditional reader, the Pentateuch is unabashedly true. The Rabbis may have their agenda when they are casting Jacob in a positive light, but the Bible itself cannot.

                  In my five years here at Yeshiva University, I have experienced a place that is willing to engage ideas that it does not believe in, but still learn from them in a meaningful way. Apropos to the topic of this article, the Bible department is a perfect example of this confrontation. Professors like Rabbi Koller, Rabbi Bernstein, Rabbi Carmy and others, bring in exegetes, archeological findings, and manuscripts that do not necessarily jive with traditional thought. In these classes we strive to understand the Biblical text in a meaningful fashion, while still holding to the idea of the divinely inspired word. The question for each person becomes to how far are you willing to go?