EZ Reads 3/2/11 (Batch two)

I want to write up a few posts, so rather than save these for tomorrow I'll put them up this evening and post more tomorrow.

• Chana asks if camp should be considered a luxury item, as discussed on the Bergen Cty. Tuition blog. My vote: Yes. No matter how great camp is, it's not a necessity.
• Muqata reports that R' Nosson Tzvi Finkel sent everyone out of shiur to report to government inspectors as mandated, noting that the State is the yeshiva's biggest supporter.
• A Soldier's Mother hopes that air raid sirens will always be viewed as not normal, and hopes for a day without them. She also shows a beautiful video on Israel - well worth the five minutes.
• The WSJ questions why we would rush into ObamaCare before seeing how Massachusetts' currently struggling mini-version fixes itself - or collapses.
• Via Josh (who has a great comic), The Rebbetzin's Husband has two really sharp posts - one on Modern Orthodoxy and Tznius, the other on Modern Orthodoxy being hazy on its self-definition causing a poor perception of it among the rest of Orthodoxy.
• Mishpacha this week is dedicated to honoring R' Moshe Feinstein and R' Yaakov Kamenetsky, 25 years after their passing. Dr. Moshe Levin has an interesting discussion of how R' Moshe delved into the medical field:

  Someone asked him: "Why does the Rosh Yeshivah allow himself to get involved in such cases?" Replied Reb Moshe, "Had you seen the tears of the person who brought the problem before me, you would not have asked such a question" (Rabbi Shimon Finkelman, Reb Moshe, Mesorah Publication, 1986, p.106-107).
  
  Indeed, some perceived Reb Moshe's uniqueness as lying in his compassion. Rav Michel Berenbaum expressed it in this way: "Reb Moshe was the man of halachah, but from seeing his teshuvos, one can see the chesed [kindness] and concern he felt for others." Reb Moshe himself, however, did not see it that way at all. To him compassion and truth were synonymous. Someone close to Reb Moshe was once sent to ask him a halachic question with an unusual request -- to tell the Rosh Yeshivah that the person wants a decision that is strict halachah without any leniencies. "I do not rule with lenience," replied Reb Moshe. "I rule according to the law."

  To read the rest, subscribe to Mishpacha here.
  

Girls Not To Date Until 21-22?

Rumor has it that a large Orthodox Jewish community in the yeshivish world will be coming out with an announcement this week, instructing its girls not to date until the ages of 21-22 for three primary reasons:

• To quell some of the shidduch "crisis", by evening out the number of available men and women and by reducing the average age gap, and also to reduce the pressure on girls
  
• To help the women be established with college degrees to better be able to support their families (particularly husbands who are in klei kodesh fields or in kollel).
• To reduce what seems to be a major factor in the high, growing divorce rate in the Orthodox Jewish community.
  

If this is true, it is a) fascinating b) surprising and c) a huge step in the right direction, even if it's a strange one with a couple its own, possibly flawed assumptions.

Kollel & "God Haters"

I was completely disgusted by this article on Cross-Currents by R' Doron Beckerman of my alma mater OJ, and I suggest reading it through in context before reading my commentary, to which I'm adding a little bit at the end from the Jewish Economics presentation.

Is the motive of those who currently oppose Kollel, utilizing the Rambam as their model, that they just can’t bear that people are taking money for its study? Such an attitude can, virtually by definition, only come from someone who is exceedingly meticulous not to waste a spare moment available for Torah study. I think it safe to surmise that the percentage of people in this category, who did not spend at least a portion of their married life learning in Kollel, is infinitesimal.

?! More likely, those who oppose Kollel oppose it on the grounds that many of the people who are taking the money are NOT reluctant to "take the money". Moreover, they likely oppose Kollel on the grounds that it IS an imposition on the public.

To create a false choice of "opposition must come from someone meticulous not to waste a spare moment" to learn and then make another gross assumption that such people are few and far between is disgusting.

The undercurrent of the ideological gripe against Kollel is invariably the placing of the burden on the community to support it - and yet the Rambam writes that if the multitudes were asked at the time of the Tannaim to support Torah they would have gladly showered the Talmidei Chachamim with the greatest wealth!

This is also a horrible argument. There's a far cry from a poor man clearly dedicated to his learning not asking for anything, who, if he did ask, people would have no qualms giving versus a lifestyle which asks for the money upfront to live a rather comfortable lifestyle. Moreover, those same people back then - despite their complete trust that the poor man was in fact learning seriously - did NOT give the money anyway!

Based on the Rambam himself, in light of the consensus among the Halachic decisors from the time of Rambam and on, one would expect that there would be a communal sigh of relief, that we are able to fulfill our most fervent wish which is to increase Torah study and need not be concerned about the problem of the Kollel learners accepting funds, since Kollel has become universally accepted as legitimate.

This is just silly.

Has any one of those saying it is a burden recommended pro bono investment on behalf of the learners (they do often have wedding money!), which the Rambam (Avos ibid.) considers meritorious? Have they agreed to pay taxes on their behalf, which is obligatory for people engaged in full time Torah study?

Why don't they use that wedding money to cover their bills? Wedding money is not worth risking on short-term investments usually. What taxes, exactly?

It is meant to underscore the idea that we must sometimes examine what lies at the root of opposition to a particular system of widespread Torah study, and be certain that it does not stem from begrudging accomplishments of others.

...and we must be extremely careful when doing so to not only understand that not only does it serve nobody to make up or focus on negative arguments which serve no purpose, but to address the primary issues which are legitimate reasons to oppose. Nowhere does R' Beckerman address any of the legitimate reasons people are opposed to kollel, merely dismissing it as something people can place in the comments. He only not-so-subtly hints that those who are against kollel are "begrudging accomplishments", should "breathe a communal sigh of relief" that nobody looks twice at people taking money for being in Kollel, or should be coming up with more ways of handling their financial responsibilities.

Perhaps it is not "begrudging accomplishments" which upsets those who are against kollel, but the actual facts on the ground. What does not help, however, is the seeming attitude of those who are for kollel that implies that not only is what exists now wonderful - while ignoring and dismissing its drawbacks - but that everyone else should be doing even more to make it easier on them.

Let me add to that something I touched on during my presentation: The problem is not kollel. My brother is 34 years old and still learning - married, 4th kid on the way iyH. He also has zero dollars in debt, and doesn't take any tzedakah. One of the most interesting comments both people I spoke to from Mesila said was that as they discussed opening up in Lakewood, someone argued that they can't come into Lakewood and tell guys who are making $30k between their wives' jobs and their kollel checks that they aren't making enough to support their lifestyles: You'd be basically telling them to leave kollel and get a job, and that simply wouldn't fly there. They responded simply that those people are missing the point: The problem isn't learning, it's people who earn $30,000 spending $70,000 - and it's the exact same problem as someone who makes $150,000 and spends $300,000. If you show people that they simply need to understand their finances and live within their means, those who truly wish to learn will find a way to do so on less money - much like my brother has done. Those who are there merely to live an easy life will likely leave and start working, which is better for everyone.

One of the primary arguments against kollel is the financial burden it creates on the community at large. R' Beckerman does absolutely nothing to lessen that argument, instead choosing to imply that those who are against kollel must be jealous God-haters. He is in essence fostering the hate he's claiming to wish to diffuse. A better approach to the subject would be helping to determine what can be done to alleviate the burden perceived by those who are not in or who are against kollel, by minimizing waste within the kollel community and by ensuring that those who are there wish to be there and are willing to sacrifice to do so. By doing this, it would remove the primary qualms people have with kollel and will both reduce the amount needed while increasing the likelihood that people can - and are willing to - support it.

Why Work, When You Can Learn?

In the previous post that touches on this subject, we questioned:

Imagine paying $40,000 in post-tax money in tuition for four kids a year, while discovering that another family with four kids is paying $16,000? That's the equivalent of earning $40,000+ more a year (pre-tax), for the same utility.

When one considers this, it is easy to understand how schools - consciously or not - would be resistent to transparency. Not only would there be a lot of animosity created or suspicions confirmed, but it would reinforce that the educational system's subtle push for kollel in many places is creating a huge drain on the community as a whole.

While that estimate was imaginary, it's apparently quite accurate. On Orthonomics:

I was called to my son’s cheder to talk about tuition. I was directed to the administrator, who informed me that he would be raising my tuition since, in his words, “You are working in Manhattan and making a nice salary.” (I’m already paying more than most people, as they won’t give me breaks because I’m not learning.)

... We started discussing the matter and he told me that his salary is $25,000, and that the yeshiva works out his payments so that he is still eligible for government funding. I then explained to him that he makes a lot more than I do.

Read it all there. Note that with all these calculations factored in, the principal has the higher salary - and then the working man pays (taxes and?) tuition. And this is a principal; a kollel man comes out rather close:

This particular individual is an administrator, but in the event that he was learning full-time and only receiving a kollel check ($4,160) and a night kollel check ($3,000), he would still be making more than $38,000, which is not much less than my $41,200.

Transparency and Punishing Success

Even though they're on completely different subjects, somehow Orthonomics' latest posts made me think of this.

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. ~ President Barack Obama, Inaugural Speech

...if only there were those in the Jewish community who would say the same. From charities to schools, the Orthodox Jewish world spends much of its time hiding its books. The need for this to change is paramount, and it is difficult to ascertain why there is such a reluctance on the part of Jewish institutions to show transparency in their revenues and expenses.

It seems worthwhile to take a few educated guesses as to why this might be, and feel free to add to or argue against any of these; many will be applicable in rare situations, more would be true in most situations. After this quick list, it is worth elaborating on another possibility which will make some people uncomfortable. For simplicity's sake, we will use schools as an example:

• Illegal actions - A reason to avoid transparency is if the school is doing something wrong. Hopefully rare or non-existent, but possible.
• Salaries - A school might not wish to disclose how much it's paying teachers and administrators, whether due to privacy or serious overpayment, particularly of teachers who have stayed a long time. Understandable to an extent, but one of the most likely places for wasting funds.
• Inefficiencies - The main reason to open up the books is the main reason schools might not want to: They're horribly inefficient in their use of assets. They waste money all over, they tend to create numerous unnecessary positions then hire managers to oversee them. In all, a lot of people are being paid to do very little.
• Misuse of funds - Similar but different to the first two. If schools are run by tight-knit groups, as is often the case, there is a tendency to favor people from that group and there might be a large portion of funds siphoned off to that group. Transparency would cause an uproar.
  

But a more troubling explanation, while probably secondary to the others, is that of disparity.

It's worth first using a quick example from today's United States. One of the largest problems the government is now facing due to its ill-advised attempts at bailing out the troubled firms of Wall Street is the view that safe, successful, and smart companies are being unfairly punished for being: Safe, successful, and smart. Bank of America, which by all accounts did the country a tremendous favor in offering to take on both Countrywide and Merrill Lynch and their toxic assets before they failed, wanted to lower the price being paid for Merrill to avoid hurting its own shareholders. Instead, it is essentially being forced by the government to pay the higher amount, give up a stake of BoA to the government, and all while reducing their own dividends to shareholders. In exchange, they get protection on bad assets that were almost all Merrill's to begin with. It's the equivalent of a neighborhood asking for a volunteer to care for an important neighborhood pet, then telling the volunteer when they ask for extra leashes that they'll have to pay extra for them, they're not allowed to spend money on their own family, and the neighborhood will cover the pet's damages.

It would be interesting if a similar skewering of the successful happens in the frum community. In schools, tuition costs make up a certain percentage of the revenues of a school. Rather than charge what it actually costs per student in tuition, and then make up the difference for those who cannot pay in full, schools often charge higher amounts knowing that the more successful parents will still pay in full, and they'll get whatever they can from the others. If schools were more transparent, the disparity would be out in the open - and there would be a tremendous backlash, particularly against those who choose not to work. Imagine paying $40,000 in post-tax money in tuition for four kids a year, while discovering that another family with four kids is paying $16,000? That's the equivalent of earning $40,000+ more a year (pre-tax), for the same utility.

When one considers this, it is easy to understand how schools - consciously or not - would be resistent to transparency. Not only would there be a lot of animosity created or suspicions confirmed, but it would reinforce that the educational system's subtle push for kollel in many places is creating a huge drain on the community as a whole. Moreover, those who are covering the costs of everyone else will quickly tire of it, especially those who are working but not wealthy. Knowing that they can barely make ends meet while working hard, but do not qualify for tuition breaks, while others are able to lead seemingly much easier lives while getting those breaks, these working class families will ultimately feel compelled to create their own schools which require lower - but full - tuition payments.

Lack of transparency and punishing success are two major problems facing the Jewish community economically. What's worse is when one is helping to hide the other.

Support Yourself

Josh sent me this quote yesterday (from a Chofetz Chaim Chevra mailing list), but the person who quoted it wasn't sure who said it, thinking it was perhaps the Radak. Fortuitously, however, LoZ and Gil have posted it today and it's certainly interesting to note. It is a line from the Sforno explaining why Yaakov determined to work for Rachel for seven years:

Commenting on אעבדך שבע שנים ברחל (Gen. 29:18): אין ספק שלא היה הצדיק נושא אשה ומעמיד בנים אם לא היה בידו לפרנסם בפרט בשאר וכסות

[Gil:] Let me translate into English: There is no doubt that this righteous man (Ya'akov) would not marry and have children if he did not have a way to support them, particularly with food and clothes.

I'd agree with Gil that having a reasonable plan is probably enough, though it seems Yaakov didn't necessarily agree; otherwise he could have married her first and then worked for Lavan (unless Lavan would not have agreed to such a deal, which is certainly possible).

Update: I should add that it's particularly worthwhile to note this when one considers the trouble at Beis Faiga (and other schools). Greg notes on Baltimore Jewish that it seems Beis Faiga was more prone to taking (exclusively?) students from families where the father learned rather than worked. [If someone can verify this it would be appreciated.] Certainly it is likely that many families were in such situations. If the school could not pay teachers because they had trouble raising and collecting tuition, that means the problems are directly stemming from clear issues with how the community works.

I was speaking to a Mashgiach earlier this week and was pleasantly surprised to see not only his sharp understanding of the financial mess, but what he had to say about schools. Noting a school that was heavily reliant on donations that is now facing massive cuts if not closure, he said that the school should have - while times were good - learned how to make themselves financially viable from within and not reliant on external revenue sources. The same applies to the entire Jewish community, whether on the individual, familial, or communal level. The more each person takes responsibility to doing so the more 'cushion' we create to help those who truly need it when problems arise, and to support those projects which we deem worthwhile to use our extra money on.

Relying on Charity

A year or so ago, someone we're close with and I had an interesting conversation. He is married with three kids, learning for semicha, has no debt, a little bit of money put away in investments that he doesn't even look at, and all in all lives extremely modestly in a very inexpensive basement apartment. Being that it is a basement apartment, many people think it's really not a great place for them to be living with three kids and that they should move to a larger apartment or rent a house for a few years while he gets his semicha. Of course, they can't afford such an apartment on her salary alone... so someone made them an intriguing offer.

One of the sets of grandparents had a conversation with them, offering them the difference in rent over what they could afford and what the rent would cost as a gift. The couple would pay whatever they currently were paying (perhaps a little more) each month, and the grandparents would pay the difference, whatever that would be. After a couple weeks of deliberating and perhaps even some asking around as to what apartments which make sense for them were going for, they turned down the offer. The rationale they gave was that if something happened and the grandparents were no longer able to support them, there was no way they would be able to pay for the apartment. They didn't want to chance being stuck in a situation where they would be living well beyond their means and stuck in a situation they would not be able to get out of.

Unfortunately, this attitude is shared by almost nobody within the frum community. It seems as if huge chunks of the community are completely reliant on other people's money - charity, not loans - to get through stages of life, if not large chunks of it. This article on Yeshiva World underscores how much of a problem this has become, noting all the kollelim which are being forced to close or come up with umbrella funds and beg rich supporters in America - who are undoubtedly having extremely rough patches of their own right now - to make up the difference. The same concept applies to young people, especially couples, in college or graduate school. More and more people spend not just one year but two in expensive schools in Israel, a lot of which might not count toward college, and then attend college and grad school for 3 to 7 or more years. Particularly if they get married in this period of time, and often even if they do not, they are simply unable to afford to live even if they are taking out full loans for their education. They are reliant on help from parents or others - and when that money suddenly becomes unavailable, there's no real way out.

One of the silver linings in this current financial crisis is that it is a real opportunity for the Jewish community as a whole to see just how unstable it is economically. Perhaps this will allow people to realize that if we are always reliant on each other's money to simply get by, any little problem blows up the entire system. We can't continue to live well beyond our own means. This does not just mean that our spending is out of hand and we need to cut back - though that is true. It does not just mean that we can't rely on charity - though that is true. It does not just mean that we have to create self-sufficient institutions - though that is true. It means all those and far more. The attitude that things are coming to us must change. The attitude that we don't need to be completely self-sufficient must change. The "God will provide" attitude must change. The idea that it's okay to have no savings must change. The idea that it's okay to live paycheck to paycheck (or parent check to parent check) must change, and not only because "just in case it disappears". It is only after people are self-sufficient that we can look toward helping one another and our communities to support larger projects, to have extra luxuries for the community, to help people.

We have been given an opportunity to examine ourselves, and we really need to take it.

Hey! Let's Argue!!!...

...ready...set...GO!

Cross-Currents -- Talking Seriously About Chareidi Poverty

Hirhurim -- Relying on Heaven for Life's Needs

The Wolf -- Perhaps a Job Would Help

One Above/Seven Below -- Your Answer Is Not an Answer

Jump on in...the water's warm, fully chummed and already teeming with sharks of every variety. Don't Miss Out!

Some more straight talk...MOchassid

Learning With The Rich

(Hat tip: Eliezer StrongBad)

This is a fascinating article in the New York Times discussing Aish rabbis who visit wealthy Jewish individuals (mostly non-religious) at their home or office to learn with them. Obviously, the concept itself is an interesting one; as the article puts it, these people will shell out large amounts of money for personal trainers and the like, why not do the same for another aspect of life they find important and/or worthwhile.

It was also very interesting to note the particular conversations the Times excerpted. These are no wealthy slouches who are just looking to feel good about themselves - they are challenging and questioning the concepts and ideas that these Rabbonim are bringing forth. One challenges the idea that God will provide sustenance simply if one learns:

“That’s a tough statement,” he said when the rabbi finished. He did not seem to buy the notion of holy unemployment.

"In fact, it’s a very complicated concept,’" said Rabbi Jacobs, launching an explication of "the famous dialogue between two rebbes" of ancient times who took opposite views on whether and how much one could mix work with a life of Torah study.

Another challenges the fairness of certain laws. At the same time, it's also interesting to see that the Rabbonim don't seem to be simply trying to kiss up to these moneymen:

“I had some, uh, mixed feelings, Seth, about your missing our last appointment,” said Rabbi Stuart Shiff...

Like many such sessions, this one began with an apology: Mr. Horowitz explained that he had been at the 15-inning All-Star Game with clients until 2:30 the morning of the last session, and on top of that his infant son had hurt himself — not seriously, but still. ...

The rabbi thumbed the pages of the Torah on the table. “I hurried back from a weekend trip with my family to be with you,” he said.

It's a good read, and certainly an interesting and seemingly wise service to provide on the part of Aish. Check it out.

Poor Daughters of Mine

...after all, I [gasp] work.

Via Wolf, who has a good post on the subject, I read these letters to Rebbetzin Jungreis by two girls whose parents work - and how this has been a dark mark on them from schooling to shidduchim. They're almost too unreal:

In the Bais Yaakov high school I attended, extensive time was devoted to praising the merits of the kollel lifestyle. Numerous hashkafah/machshavah classes were dedicated to this cause. I can say without any exaggerations that not once during my entire high school career did any teacher say that a working lifestyle was also acceptable. In fact, teachers were exceedingly negative toward the possibility of living a life where work and Torah were combined. I always felt that a working lifestyle would best suit me, but early on, I learned that sharing my personal feelings would only place me in the bad graces of my teachers and principals.

Once, my principal accused me of doing some inappropriate things that I would never dream of doing. When I told her that I was raised differently and that my Yiddishkeit meant too much to me to ever participate in the activities she accused me of, she said that she would expect such behavior from me because I was "not a good girl" as I unfortunately "come from a working family." Even more hurtful was when I was told to "not lower myself to my father's level" by marrying a working guy even if he would devote time to Torah. This general theme unfortunately continued throughout seminary and into shidduchim. Once, when my mother spoke to one shadchan about me, he asked her, "What kind of a girl is your daughter that she does not want to marry a learning boy?"

~~~~~

As much as I had heard about these interviews, I was not prepared for the hurt that was inflicted upon me. The person who interviewed me questioned me about my parents' professions and their heavy work schedules, and then went on to make some very unkind, critical remarks which I prefer not to repeat because, a) it's too hurtful and b) it would be disrespectful to my parents. I left the interview shattered and broke down in tears. I later found out that I was not the only one who had been reduced to tears – other girls were equally mistreated and put to shame.

These stories aren't just talking about single instances. The first one is detailing an entire culture, the second the entrance exam to an apparently popular seminary. Between this pressure from one side, and the worry of being considered "subpar" on the other, it is no wonder that so many young men and women feel pressured into a specific lifestyle at the degradation of any other.

The second letter writer also makes a side point that is important:

There can be no justification for the "ona’as devarim - hurtful words" that were hurled at me. This is not the way to interview girls for a year of study in Yerushalayim. I also find it curious that those same people, who are so quick to criticize, have no problem approaching working parents for fund-raising purposes.

When G posted "YoU Are Subpar II...", we received a lot of criticism questioning our decision to publish it. A lot of it was very reasonable; a lot of it was absolutely off the wall. As noted then, one of the reasons it was felt it was important to post was that

I think it is important for people to see the opinions that those who have an influence on their children have. I don't think most people are aware of the type of thinking that is given over in places in EY, and just how pressured it is. ...

A few people have noted that it's one thing for anyone to choose on an individual level how they want to live, who they want to follow. But when it becomes a large group, it becomes a cause for serious concern.

The truth is it is not just in Israel that this happens; it starts earlier on, from hints during elementary school to strong pushes if not outright statements during high school, as noted by the first letter writer. It is important that parents be more aware of the education that their children are getting, and the messages they're being taught - and it is important that people who are giving money know where that money is going, and what messages it is being used for. If donors knew that the school they were giving money to would then turn around and criticize their lifestyle, they might be a little more hesitant in how they give out their tzedaka.

Over Shavuos, Pobody's Nerfect and I attended a community panel discussion on The High Cost of Jewish Education. The discussion was very good, and one of the suggestions included a central communal fund that would then disperse funds to individual schools. While this idea is basically a good one, one drawback that could exist in theory is a lack of direct accountability: When a school does things that are "beyond the pale" to their donors, their donors simply don't support the school anymore. An umbrella fund would allow schools to receive money even if donors would rather not be supporting that specific school. Direct donations allow a much greater give-and-take between parents and donors and the schools they are supporting and sending their children to.

One of the issues that they did not cover in the panel was why there are so many people in need of tuition breaks and the like. While they touched on the legitimate needs of many (single-parent homes, parent who lost a job, etc.), they didn't discuss either the poor management of money by so many due to lack of knowledge or caring, nor the incredible drain the increasingly large kollel world has had on the Orthodox world economically. As this cycle continues - increased shunning of the working world leading to an economic drain that is no longer able to sustain schooling - it is important that the money that is there be given to schools that will help build for the future of the Jewish community, not those that drain our resources.