Conversions in Controversy: The Orthodox Patrilineal Descent
June 28, 2009 at 9:51 pm | In beliefs, dating and marriage, halacha, jewish denominations, orthodox | 6 CommentsBy now you’ve all heard about Hareidi Rabbi Avraham Sherman, who heads Israel’s High Rabbinical court, and his ongoing retroactive nullifications of conversions to Judaism. This story has been building for some time, as the Hareidi establishment in Israel, which has long controlled the rabbinic arm of the government, has sought to monopolize power over the definition of who is a Jew.
There are excellent political and religious reasons for them to do so, of course. The question of who is a Jew defines who may claim the right to citizenship in Israel through the Law of Return, and with that citizenship, the basket of Aliyah benefits. From the Hareidi perspective, limiting aliyah only to Hareidi Jews, or at least Orthodox Jews, means that all the money flows to them, and that no money is spent on Russian immigrants, South American converts, or people converted by non-Orthodox clergy.
Many are rightfully tearing their hair out over the potential confusion that retroactive nullification of conversion creates. The Wolf, for example, wonders if uncertainty over conversions will lead to converts being unreliable for any kind of religious obligation, from testimony to minyan. He further speculates in a later post:
And how about things that have long-reaching consequences? What if you use a convert as a witness to your wedding? Or even worse, what if a convert serves on a bais din (or is a witness) to a divorce? Can you imagine the halachic nightmare that would result from a witness (or judge) on a divorce case (or multiple cases) being found to be not Jewish retroactively, throwing all those divorcees, their new spouses and children (and grandchildren) into some halachic purgatory from which they and their descendants may never escape? What about a convert who sits on a bais din for other conversions — you could have multiple “generations” of invalidated conversions, each wreaking havoc on countless individuals and society as a whole. And, don’t forget, this doesn’t go just for the convert, but for any descendant of a female convert as well!
I believe that this path leads to both a cleavage between Hareidi Judaism and the rest of us, but also to the complete abandonment of Judaism as a hereditary status. By performing these retroactive nullifications, Hareidi Judaism is casting into doubt conversions done by otherwise-respected institutions of MOdern Orthodoxy, like the RCA. As such, the RCA will eventually be forced to reject Hareidi hegemony over them, and will have to work against Hareidi authority over the Israeli Rabbinate. They already are in alliance with the Religious Zionists on this issue, but they will need to work with the Masroti movement and even the Reform movement to rewrite the rules. For all that, they may not even be successful.
What will be true is that between intermarriage, patrilineal descent, and Hareidi conversion nullification, the question of who is a Jew and who is not will have many answers and no clarity of any kind. For many, the only pragmatic way of dealing with this reality is to rely on people and their self-identifications. Sure, when it comes to weddings some people might ask for a bit more background on a person’s Jewish provenance, but for the gabbai at a shul, the question of Kohen, Levi, or Yisrael will remain the standard by which Judaism is defined in the day-to-day. Whether this is good for Judaism or not I don’t know, but it does represent another stage in our evolution away from a tribal religion and towards something much greater, but also more diffuse.
Looking for the Middle
June 28, 2009 at 10:37 am | In beliefs, jewish denominations, orthodox | Leave a CommentI recently saw a post from YD about the search for a middle path between Yeshivish Orthodoxy and Modern Orthodoxy. It was actually the second post in a series, and the first post goes into even greater depth about his feeling that YU is too far over to the right:
Which brings me to YU. I found there to be very little guidance from the Rebbeim in Yeshiva University. Many of them only come in for a few hours, just to give shiur, and leave. Very little is heard from the Rebbeim besides the Torah they teach [...] every once in a while there was a speech about a meaningful topic like dating or something, but this was never followed by a “meet with the rebbe and discuss your issues personally” session. In short, one could easily get the impression there that Talmud Torah is the only important value.
What’s funny about the whole thing is that YCT, which presents itself as left of YU, is seen as too far left. But in the left wing of the MO world, YCT is not left enough, particularly on gender issues. In the meantime, those same folks see Hadar, the right wing of the Conservative world, as too far left.
It appears to me that what we’re actually seeing across the denominations and beyond them, is a supreme dissatisfaction with the status quo. When the people of the United States elected Barack Obama, analysts explained that this was a a ‘change’ election. They were right, but they didn’t say enough. I believe we’re in a moment of tremendous change. I think that in the last few years we have seen the beginning of tremendous challenges to the status quo, and that we will continue to see challenge and change in more and more areas of of our lives.
Nearly all of our institutions are at all-time lows when it comes to approval ratings. This is true of political, religious, business, and even civic institutions. We appear to have reached a tipping point that is birthing new institutions and placing terrific pressure on our existing ones to reform. And at the heart of all this cry for change is a desire for greater openness and unity, a focus on pragmatism over ideology, and an unwillingness to fight the same fights over and over again.
These principles inform the broad river that is coursing through our institutions, and we don’t know how it will turn out. The entrenched forces seeking to maintain the status quo are powerful, well-organized, and willing to go far for their beliefs. We have already seen what this conflict looks like when that river threatens to overflow the levees. We’ve seen brutality and murder of peaceful protesters in Iran, we’ve seen violently rioting Hareidim clashing with police in Jerusalem, and we’ve seen the giants of the automotive industry totter and topple into a feeding frenzy of special interests. We don’t know yet how it’s all going to turn out, but make no mistake, change is coming, change is here, and we are responsibly, both individually and collectively to harness its force for the better by being more open to one another, more focused on what’s real, and less willing to be derailed by the issues that have divided us in the past.
#tuitioncrisis : A Non-Fake Solution
June 21, 2009 at 8:15 pm | In economics, education | Leave a CommentThe Fake Solutions series (part 1, 2) is going twitter-style, at least for naming purposes. If your’e nto already following me on Twitter (rejewvenator) then you’re missing our on infrequent but always on-topic updates and links. I know, how did you manage this long without it?
Anyway, a great conversation on Lookjed, the Jewish educataors’ forum, about the “no-frills” day-school model was inspiring. It perfectly illustrated the problem and the solution to our tuition crisis.
First, the solution! Many of the professional educators on Lookjed have pointed out that 80-85% of a school’s operating budget is consumed by salaries. Rabbi Eliyahu Teitz, head of the JEC in Elizabeth, NJ, shared that his 900-student preK-12 school has an annual budget of $12 million, of which $10 million (about 83%) goes to salaries. I’d like to publicly thank Rabbi Teitz for his transparancy!
Let’s do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. Right now, schools are working with a student-to-teacher ratio of about 15-18. Let’s assume that they’re at 18 right now. Pushing them up to 27 would mean we would save 33% on teacher salaries. I’m not sure what slice of the $10 million for salaries at the JEC go to classroom teachers, but I suspect it’s pretty high, and that slashing those costs by a third may help cut the overall budget by 15-20%. That’s a real savings. It would also likely mean that schools like the JEC, that have something like 14 grades and an average grade size of 60-70 will need to shift their models to become larger. School consolidation will lead to overhead savings too.
Some may rightly point out that there are lots of positions, even beyond the administrative ones, that are not classroom positions. You can have 27 kids in a class, but that decrease the demands on your resource room, for example. To me, this is symptomatic of the problem. Reading through the Lookjed conversation, I see more and more that mission creep is a significant factor in rising school costs.
Put aside extracurrciulars, which are cheap and a net positive for schools since parents view their existence as a significant value-add. Focus in on those things which require hiring additional staff. Here are a couple of quotes that caught my eye:
“I found the … suggestion about a “no-frills” day school fascinating, even attractive. But as someone who was a day school administrator for a number of years, I am curious as to the viability of such an initiative.
Aside from larger class sizes (which exist in many schools already) what, exactly, would those schools eliminate? Psychological services? Academic support services? Technology? Co-curricular activities?
Many parents would end up then paying for many of these same services privately, perhaps even at a greater cost than the day school can provide. There would be out-of-school sports teams and clubs, counseling and tutoring, all at considerable expense. The net result would be that the financially disadvantaged would be shut out of those very services and activities that they currently receive in schools.”
– Zvi Grumet, The Lookstein Center
Cutting programs is enticing, as it can be lead to cutting staff
positions. But as others have mentioned, do we cut our social worker
or learning lab staff? The reality is that school staffs are
significantly larger than they were even a decade or two ago. We hope
that the additional staff improves our product. I would not risk
cutting the programs to find out.
– The aforementioned R. Teitz
The first quote suggests that we have socialized many non-essential costs into the cost of schooling. While some children undoubtedly require psychological attention, why is the cost for this bundled into tuition? If there is no marginal cost for accessing expensive services, you can guarantee that they will be overutilized. I agree that we need to help provide essential services to families that can’t afford paying full freight, why is providing this service part of the mission of the school? Why does it pay for these services by building their cost into tuition? I suspect that social-service agencies are more capable of both providing the services at lower cost and fundraising (either directly, or through federations) on the basis of the services they do provide. The same can be said for tutoring (which is routinely handled by other schools through volunteer tutors), speech therapy, and so forth.
The second quote captures the problem exactly. Many people are quite dissatisfied with both the product of day school education and the price. Tani Foger makes the point eloquently, calling out schools for failing to teach Hebrew, Jewish values, and even religious observance to the level that might be expected. The trend of the last few decades towards more programs, more ‘intervention’, more resource rooms, and so on has led to an unwiedly school system that has an uncertain mission, no vision for how to achieve its mission given limited resources, and a constituent base that is clamoring for drastic change.
One point, at least, is clear. We have to spend less on teachers. That means that we either pay teachers (even) less, or we teach fewer things, or we hire fewer teachers and have them teach more kids. On balance, the latter two seem like better answers than the former, but let’s not kid ourselves. Those are the choices.
Fake Solutions To Our Tuition Crisis (pt 2)
June 15, 2009 at 7:34 am | In economics, education | 1 CommentThe Jewish Week reports that the UJA-Federation of NY is launching a $300 million endowment “superfund” to support Jewish day schools. The idea is that each school would raise up to $6 million for the fund, and the Feds would match with up to $3 million, or a 1:2 match. The entire sum would be held in trust by the Feds, and each school would be able to draw 5% of the maximum of $9 million, for a total of $450,000 per year.
I was truly astonished when I started putting the numbers together. According to the article, total day school costs in New York are are $1.5 billion, annually. If the most that can be drawn from the endowment fund is 5%, and the whole fund is $300 million, that means that only $15 million will be available from the fund annually, or just 1% of total costs.
Another puzzle is how these numbers all fit. If the target size of the fund is $300 million, at $9 million per school, that means we’re looking at 33-34 schools participating. How many Jewish day schools exist in NY? My guess is that it’s mroe than that, but I’m not really sure. If there are more, on what basis are certain schools being left behind? Also in question is why should schools turn over their endowment to the Feds for management? It suggests that they will cede significant control, including the right to draw more than 5% from the fund, should the need arise.
In the end, I agree with Gil Graff, the executive director of the BJE in LA, where a similar fund has been established. The amount is not sufficient to make any real dent, but an endowment project is a long-term solution that will take years to build to, and “it’s the kind of thing where if you don’t start, you never start.”
Land, People, and God (pt 1)
June 8, 2009 at 9:57 am | In beliefs, culture, israel, jewish denominations, politics | Leave a CommentWhat is Judaism It’s not a race, nor is it just a religion. Ethnicity doesn’t capture the religious elements, nor does nation. The Mordechai Kaplan idea that Judaism is a civilization is sufficiently expansive, but not really specific enough.
The best paradigm for defining Judaism to date is the three-pronged approach. Judaism is a civilization that expresses commitments to the land of Israel, the Jewish people and their culture, and the God of Israel as worshipped through Jewish religion.
Speaking broadly, we can say that throughout history, strong expression of any two of these three prongs has been sufficient to create a Jewish society. Expressing all three, however, requires an intetgrative vision that has proven elusive.
We can divide Judaism, with exceptions, into three time periods. Ancient Judaism, from the Exodus through the destruction of the Second Temple, can largely be seen as Judaism built on Land and God, but not on the people of Israel. The people lived in the Land of Israel and defined themselves around that reality. They also worshipped the Jewish God. What they lacked was a sense of cohesive identity. Tribal identities, local loyalties, and ethnic differences all stood in the way of a sense of united peoplehood.
Over many hundreds of years, Jewish identity emerged, but it took the volution of many new institutions and new ideas. The move from tribal judges to a monarchy, and from decentralized worship to Temple worship were important steps, but progress did not happen in a straight line. The split of the monarchy into Judah and Israel, the establishment of alternate sites of worship , and the evolution of separate holy texts rmained significant obstacles to unity.
The Babylonian exlie and the reforms of Ezra helped create a single sacred text and a shared sense of identity, but Jewish sectarianism of a non-tribal nature replaced the previous tribal splits. Hellenists, Essenes, Baithusians, Samaraitans, Sadduccess, Pharisees, and Christians were only some of the sects that divided Judaism and defeated any sense of common purpose or identity.
The destruction of the Second Temple and the seconf Exile posed an enormous challenge to Judaism, forcing it to reorganize. The Land of Israel was gone, and Judaism reformed around Nation and God. Over the next few hundred years, Judaism would shed most of its sects, divorce decisively from Christianity, abandon Jewish Europe and its Greek coonnections, and recenter itself around a new set of leaders whose authority flowed from their mastery of religious matters. The central institutions of synagogue and study hall brought regular religious practice into a communal space; so different from the Temple in Jerusalem. The cohesiveness of these new communities was such that the lack of a land or polity could be overcome through a strong sense of peoplehood.
This strong sense of peoplehood was reinforced throughout the Middle Ages by the outside. It was very difficult for a Jew to be anything other than a Jew. Full conversion to Christianity was possible, but it carried with it the cost of leaving your entire old life behind. Similarly, there was little social or economic mobility for most of the period.
The Enlightenment changed all that. Among its revolutionary ideas was the notion of history as a tale of human progress. Economic and social mobility, along with a borad redefinition of human rights and a rejection of class and caste systems, birthed the possibility of a person selecting an idenitity rather than being born into one. Religious ideas like predestination were rejected, religious institutions were subject to withering attacks, and the concept of national identity was forwarded to replace religion as a means of uniting people and creating common cause.
Zionism was born in this era. It represents a Judaism of People and Land, wiith no God. The Zionist concept was the Jews were a people like any other, and needed to redeem themselves, retake their land, and live their national destiny on the soil of their ancestors. Religious opposition to Zionism as a forbidden hastening of the Messianic era was deemed archaic – an expression of a Jew so imprinted by the ghetto that he no longer wanted to be free.
Conceptually, Zionism was very attractive,and following the Holocaust, it was seen as proven correct and desparately necessary. So long as the Jewish people felt an existential crisis, Zionism represented an ideology of survival that encompassed and sheltered all that was destroyed in Europe, from the cosmopolitan Jewery of Berlin to the Jews of the shtetls.
Each of the above representations of Judaism is missing something, and is therefor uniquely vulnerable. Thought the State of Israel has been through trying times, by 1973 it was clear that Israel did not face an existential threat to its existence from its Arab neighbors, and its nuclear deterrent capabilities drew the period of widescale, open conflict in Israel to a close.
With survival no longer the only issue, but with Israelis continuing to pay a high cost to live in Israel, it was inevitable that the question would arise – why? Why live in Israel? America had a thriving, secure, robust Diaspora community. Life was easy, there was no army service, or violent neighbors, or random acts of terror. Zionism had not really considered any ongoing role of Diaspora Jewish communities, even as it depended on their ongoing financial and political support. Suddenly though, many young Israelis began to abandon the Zionist dream in favor of personal salvation from the burdens of being an Israeli, and of living in Israel. Theodore Herzl said ‘Im Tirtzu, Ein zo Agadah’ – if you will it/desire it, it is not a dream. Modern Israeli graffiti today attributes a different statement to Herzl – ‘Lo Rotztim? Lo Tazrich!’ – You don’t want it? Fine, we don’t need to have it.’
Some might say that this view is short-sighted, and that the American Jewish experience is unique in history, or unlikely to last. One day, America will become hostile to Jews, and Israel will be needed as a refuge. While this analysis may prove true, its power as an ideology is waning. Israel cannot just be a place to run to, not for those who live there and often feel they’d raather run somewhere else, or those who live elsewhere and will not excuse Israel’s conduct in exchange for a promise of haven that they will likely never need.
And that leaves us where we are today. We need a new vision for Judaism, that can integrate, to some extent, our land, our people and our faith. It must give purpose to our presence in Israel as well as in the Diaspora. It must cast a broad net over all of us, a Sukkah under which we can all shelter, that gives us a sense of commonality and peoplehood. And it must mediate our varied relationships to God and faith. We can’t pick two out of three – we have to integrate all three.
In the next post, I’ll look at the rise of denominationalism as a response to Enlightenment, and the ways in which denominations responded to the Zionist rejection of God by attempting to articulate Godly philosophies of Zionism.
Fake Solutions to our Tuition Crisis (pt 1)
May 10, 2009 at 12:50 am | In education, orthodox | 2 CommentsThe OU has put out a self-serving bit of hogwash trumpeting its vaporous initiative to fix the tuition crisis plaguing the Orthodox community.
In brief, th OU presents a two-prong approach. The first is a cost-cutting and revenue-enhancing strategy for the near term. The cost-cutting elements are saving money by joining together with schools and other groups to obtain insurance as part of a large pool and taking advantage of energy efficient technologies to save more money. The revenue-enhancement comes through hiring grant-writers, encouraging people to use the OU internet toolbar, and setting up ‘Kehilla Funds’ whereby all members of the community donate money towards supporting the schools, even those members who don’t have children.
Let’s look at each aspect of this laughable proposal. Let’s say that the insurance savings are $100k per school, and the energy savings are another $100k – both well above estimate. The cost-cutting measures, estimated high, in a school of 500 students, lead to a savings of $400 per student, assuming all the savings go directly to lowering tuition, and average tuition, per the post, is $15k, you’ve now lowered tuition by a whopping 2.67%. Wow, that’s totally a “radical impact in terms of savings.” What nonsense.
As for the revenue-enhancing meaures, grant-writing is great, but if Jewish philanthropy in general is suffering, I don’t see how it helps that much. It’s just more organizations competing for a shrinking pool of money. To put things in perspective, every $500,000 raised can reduce tuition no more than $1,000, assuming 500 students per school. Even if every school raised another $500k through grants, we’d still have an enormous problem, and there’s no reason to believe that there’s $500k per school available to be raised, no matter how many grant-writers you hire.
As to the OU toolbar, that’s the biggest scam of all. Yes, a small handful of very broad-based organizations have used them successfully. Our community isn’t going to benefit that much, since we’re just not big enough. Moreover, it seems like the OU will suddenly become a grant-making org, channeling whatever money is raised to whichever school it likes. No details are provided about how the OU intends to make those decisions. And anyone who believes that you can make those kinds of funding decisions without spending quite a bit of money to create and support that decision-making apparatus doesn’t know anything about economics, or about philanthropy. This is nothing other than a thinly-disguised effort by the OU to squat on a source of revenue.
The last idea, of Kehilla Funds, doesn’t hold up either. In the Jewish world, the number of families with kids in school easily dwarfs those without. Those with kids are already paying, so know we’re dealing with just those without kids. Let’s say that out of 1000 Jewish families in a neighborhood there are 250 with no kids in school. Let’s say they all give the $360/year that the OU proposes = $90,000. Let’s say that the remaining 750 families average three kids in school at $15k/child. That’s a total tuition cost of over $33 million! The $90k we just raised into the ‘Kehilla’ fund doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.
Tomorrow we’ll look at part 2, in which the OU tries to take credit for a grassroots community initiative. Stay tuned.
Harrisburg Synagogue Burns
May 5, 2009 at 9:43 pm | In Uncategorized | Leave a CommentI learned today of some very sad news. Chisuk Emuna, one of the last traditional (non-egalitarian) Conservative synagogues in the country, experienced a terrible fire that destroyed their sanctuary, burned many of their siddurim and otehr seforim, and damaged their eleven Torahs, some very badly, perhaps even beyond repair. Total damages were estimated at $1 million, but thankfully, nobody was hurt in the blaze.
The matter strikes at the heart for me, because I was a community educator at Chisuk Emuna for two years. My wife and I would drive down to Harrisburg, where I would read Torah, lead davening, and teach classes. Each Shabbat, another warmhearted family would open their home and heart to us, and we would magically become a part of the fabric of this unique community. To Rabbi Muroff and all the lovely people we met, our hearts go out to you. To all my friends and family reading this, please join me in supporting the rebuilding campaign. You can learn more at http://chisukemuna.blogspot.com/, and watch the video slideshow below.
Changes Coming in Orthodox Education Options?
May 2, 2009 at 9:02 pm | In economics, education, israel, orthodox | Leave a CommentAn interesting article in the Jewish Standard suggests that parents are ready to explore new options for what a Modern Orthodox school could look like. As the tuition crisis overshadows the shidduch crisis, I’m finding myself more and more irritated by the total lack of vision and perspective displayed by both parents and leadership.
I attended Netiv Meir, a premiere yeshiva high school in Jerusalem, where most students dormed. The school was widely acknowledged as perhaps the best religious high schools, and one of the best high schools, period, in Israel.
Let me tell you a bit about my school. Our day began with davening at 7 am, and we finished our last class at about 6pm. Following davening and dinner we had night seder and study hall. We didn’t free up until 9pm Sunday through Thursday. Fridays were a half-day, and we stayed in every other Shabbat too. The school had about 500 students in four grades, and served three meals a day and maintained four dormitory buildings.
The key difference between this excellent school and American MO schools was the student-to-teacher ratio, and the approach to extracurriculars. In Netiv Meir, there were forty students to a class. That’s right, forty. In the article above, they talk about going from an 18:1 ratio at the expensive schools to a 25:1 ratio at a proposed cheaper school. Yet my school achieved academic excellence with a 40:1 ratio.
As for extracurriculars, there basically weren’t any. There were no athletic teams or choirs or anything of the sort. Anyway, who had the time? We spent as many as six hours a day learning Torah. Night seder was the extracurricular activity! Physical education was not neglected by any means – this school was training future soldiers in the IDF, and our gym classes involved reaching certain requirements for distance running, pushups, situps, and pullups.
We played sports in our free time, but not in organized leagues. There were no debate teams, but we did study three languages (Hebrew, English and Arabic – and Aramaic, I suppose), and everyone learned biology, chemisty, physics, algebra, geomety, trigonometry and calculus. We learned computer programming (on old computers perhaps, but we gained real knowledge), history, Tanach, literature and so on.
No class had a teacher’s aid. Most classes didn’t use fancy textbooks. Yet the graduates of this school knew more math, science, and Torah in 10th grade than any graduate of the MO instutions in New York like HAFTR, DRS, Flatbush, Ramaz, TABC, Frisch, and SAR.
We need to recalibrate our expectations and our sense of what is possible if we are going to create an exceptional and sustainable edcuational model for our communities. We need to questions orthodoxies like the idea that student-to-teacher ratios are critical, or that extracurriculars are required if our children arte going to get into good colleges, or that it’s ok for our kids to graduate high school without being fluent in Hebrew, and without being capable of learning a daf of Gemara on their own. We might also do well to acknowledge that day care, school, and summer camp are all related to the same need to educate our kids, socialize them, and free Mom and Dad to earn a living and maintain a household.
I’ve written a bit about possible alternative models for Jewish education on this blog. I fear I might not have been bold enough myself in proposing solutions but perhaps I was succesful in laying out some tradeoffs. What other fresh ideas are out there?
Online Jewish Educators
April 13, 2009 at 5:08 pm | In education | 1 CommentI don’t normally post these kinds of notices, but this one looks really interesting, so here goes:
The Lookstein Center is inviting nominations for the first cohort of Fellows for the Jim Joseph Foundation Fellowships-Leading Educators Online program.
This two year professional development experience will provide 14 select participants with leadership development, enriched Jewish learning, and in-depth training in how to build online communities of practice.
The anticipated outcomes of the program include (1) enhanced skills and capabilities of accomplished leaders in the field of Jewish education and (2) unprecedented new opportunities for communication and collaboration for hundreds of Jewish educators who will be invited to participate in new
online communities of practice.
Participating Fellows will receive an annual stipend of $10,000 for each of the two years of the program, in addition to travel, room and board at the seminars and retreats. They will be currently employed in the U.S. in the field of informal and/or formal Jewish Education; have professional supervisory responsibilities; have demonstrated leadership in Jewish education and the vision the to stimulate, inspire and impact on others; have strong interpersonal skills that will enable him/her to collaborate (online) with others; be part of an organization that understands that importance in online networking and collaborative work; be comfortable working in a web 2.0 environment
Direct applications are not accepted; Fellows must be nominated. For more information and to nominate a candidate go to
http://www.lookstein.org/jjff.htm (or write the program directors, Esther Feldman or Shalom Berger at jjff@lookstein.org.)
Sefirat Ha-Omer
April 6, 2009 at 7:51 pm | In Shavuot, halacha | Leave a CommentWith all the Peasch craziness, I just want to remind everyone that the Omer is coming up too. You can sign up to get text message remidners at my partner site, CountTheOmer.com. I’ve been running this for a few years now, and nearly everyone who signs up counts every day with a bracha (blessing). A portion of the proceeds go to tzedaka too, so everyone wins.
Ok, back to work. I’ve still got a stovetop to blowtorch!
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.


