An op-ed essay that I wrote arguing against a planned parade and 10-day happening for gays in Jerusalem this summer was printed this week in the Jerusalem Post opinion section. Side-by-side with my piece was an essay titled “Holiness and World Pride” advocating exhibition and parading of this lifestyle.

In my essay I utilized 3 approaches, and I feel I could learn from others a better way to deal with genuine questions such as “Why should the government interfere in consensual relationships between adults” and the issue of free speech (parades being a sub-category of freedom). I am wondering which approach when dealing with this sensitive subject is effective.

My first approach was to present two midrashim which express the concept that even more severe than the Biblical prohibition against mishkav zakhar (sodomy) was the legalizing of such behavior. One is a midrash related to the era of Noah:

In response to Toby Katz’s entry about Terri Schiavo’s death, “Michael” made the following comment:

If you starve an animal to death, you will be put in jail. Why is Terri worse than an animal?

Actually, that’s not hard to answer. Princeton Professor Peter Singer wrote many years ago that “The life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee.” In the Schiavo case, this bit of theoretical reasoning has been applied in reality, but to the end of life rather than its beginning.

Several months ago, the Princeton Alumni Weekly provided a feature article on Peter Singer, discussing how controversial he was before he arrived — and how accepted is his presence as a Professor of Ethics six years later. A student named Evan Baehr, “a self-described Christian conservative,” said that he came to Singer’s class “ready to go to war,” and discovered that Singer was “not nearly as controversial as I thought he was going to be.”

If only I’d heeded wise King Shlomo’s advice to eschew gifts.

But, alas, as I stepped off the Penn Station elevator and out onto Seventh Avenue one day last week, I was offered a copy of the previous day’s New York Times and reflexively accepted the freebie. Later, during a lull in the boring seminar I attended that morning, I glanced at the front page and was quickly reminded why I don’t read the paper regularly.

A large picture of a cute nine-year-old and his eight grandparents stared back at me. Eight grandparents? I read on. The photo accompanied an article describing how “for the first time, the impact of higher divorce rates is playing out across three generations.” Ever since 1980, half of all new marriages end in divorce, and the children of those who have divorced over these last 25 years are having children of their own — hence, more and more kids have more and more sets of grandparents.

The writer next calls upon an expert to deduce the implications of this trend for those of us unable to do so on our own. “The upside of all this is that children can have more grandparents who love them,” opines a Johns Hopkins sociologist specializing in divorce. “What message it will give them about marriage, I’m not quite sure.”

I understand why many, perhaps most, Orthodox Jews have come to reject liberal positions on a number of public issues. In some instances, such as abortion, there is conflict between what halacha requires and what is essentially being embraced by people of a liberal orientation. More generally, there is disagreement over the role of religion in society, particularly in what is referred to as the public square. Finally, there is that nebulous term called “values” which was a feature of the recent presidential election and subsequent political analysis.

But if Orthodox Jews reject liberalism, does this mean that we need to or should reject liberal policies on a number of public and social issues where there are no clear halachic requirements? As an illustration, are we to reject what liberals advocate regarding a minimum wage? I don’t know a single Orthodox Jew who can make do on what is now the minimum wage. What about racism? Or the environment which encompasses a number of increasingly frightening concerns? I could readily give other examples.

And even if we are not comfortable with anything espoused by liberals, shouldn’t it be sufficient – and probably religiously correct – to eschew all ideologies? Yet, it is evident that a great number of Orthodox Jews are comfortable with the right-wing. They agree with the right-wing on gun control. What is emerging is an increasingly expanding comfort zone between Orthodox Jews and right-wingers. Are we forgetful of history? Do we delude ourselves and forget that those on the right include far too many who have articulated anti-Semitic views? Are we forgetful of what Jews experienced for centuries at the hands of devout Christians?

I am not advocating that we come out against the right or become liberals. I am advocating that we be true to Judaism and recognize that halacha is our guide, not any political ideology.

My earlier posting regarding the Terri Schiavo case produced some blogging at its best: much intelligent back-and-forth between readers, several of whom clearly knew much more about the case than I did. My thanks in particular to Sholom Simon, who took me to task for faulting the judges rather than the legislators. He also led me to a wonderful source of primary source material regarding the case. Here I was able to read many of the court decisions in the original. Having now waded through both the law and how it was handled by the judges (Judge Greer in particular) I am even more convinced that there are both theoretical and practical areas in which Torah Jews should take umbrage with the approach of the judges — not just the legislators.

The best vehicle to convey some thoughts to our readers may be through the following message I received as a cc from Prof. Michael Broyde, with whom I have enjoyed a long friendship that endures despite (or perhaps because of) oftentimes sharp differences in hashkafic orientation. Rabbi Broyde should be known to most of our readers as a prolific writer on Jewish Law and professor of the same at Emory Law School. This is what he wrote an interlocutor of his:

For all the talk of “triumphalist” Orthodoxy, the Agudah (and everyone else) has been remarkably muted about what transpired across America a few weeks ago. The Siyum HaShas was greeted with enthusiasm, to be certain, but we have not heard it trumpeted as an unparalleled achievement in American Jewish life — though it surely was.

For the past fifteen years or so, the Jewish community has been studying and writing about a phenomenon called the “Continuity Crisis.” Because Jewish affiliation is down and intermarriage is up, the overall Jewish population of the United States is in rapid decline. Between 1990 and 2000, the Jewish population declined from 5.5 to 5.2 million, despite an influx of several hundred thousand immigrants from the countries of the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. In just one decade, over half a million Jews went missing. Unless this trend is reversed, the implications for the Jewish future are both obvious and bleak.

Along comes the Siyum HaShas (Completion Celebration) of Daf Yomi, the program of daily study of a single folio of Talmud. In 1990, there were about 35,000 attendees at Madison Square Garden. In 1997, there were 50,000 across the country (and via satellite from as far away as Melbourne). In 2005, the number approached at least 100,000, possibly as many as 120,000.

Well, time for something a little lighter than my usual fare. Let’s read the New York Times this morning for our amusement and enlightenment.

Remember how the feminists crowed when they won — in Roe vs Wade — the right to kill unwanted babies? Little did they suspect that the same logic would produce a right to kill unwanted wives!

If you want to see the utter moral bankruptcy of the feminist movement — and of the larger “liberal” enterprise — just look at who is lining up on which side in the Terry Schiavo case. Who sides with a husband hell-bent on killing his wife? And I do mean hell-bent! And who is trying to protect the unwanted wife, and moving heaven and earth to save her life?

The genuine liberals, the classical 19th century liberals, are all in the Republican Party now.

While public opinion shapes law, it is also the case that law shapes public opinion. In 1973, all fifty state legislatures had laws against abortion –laws which reflected the popular will at that time. Unable to win what they wanted in the state legislatures, the liberals turned to the Supreme Court to make an end-run around the democratic process. I use the word “liberal” in its modern sense, of course, to mean “illiberal.”

Why aren’t people taking to the streets in support of Terri Schiavo? This case will prove to be the Roe v. Wade of the disabled and terminally ill. Tens of thousands of lives in the future hang in the balance, not just that of one tragic woman whose parents are not willing to relinquish her life to the capriciousness of activist judges. This case will effectively not extend a “right to die,” but firm up the right for people other than the patient to decide when a life is worthwhile preserving or not.

Terry Schiavo left no written instructions regarding treatment in extremis. While Western systems of law generally provide layers of protection before taking a life (think of the mandatory appeals in capital punishment cases), Schiavo’s right to life is forfeited to the judgment call of individual judges, who have decided what she would have really wanted. They have ruled in favor of a husband who stands to gain financially by her death, and who admits he wishes to be free to remarry. (Or as Mark Steyn put it, wants to be rid of her because she is no longer convenient.) All this despite opposing claims by a loving family, and a tradition of religious belief she herself subscribed to which would mandate continuing to give her food and water. (Schiavo, it should be remembered, breathes on her own, without the aid of a respirator.) Can the competing narrative of Terri’s parents be summarily dismissed? Shouldn’t a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard prevail, similar to the one we use before we convict an accused party?

It is not hard to figure out what the judges are thinking. Terri has no “quality of life.” She will never regain higher cortical function. Her life, therefore, has already been extinguished and has no real legal gravitas.

Every religious community that sees life as G-d given should be up in arms. The Christian Right in particular should be rallying the troops. The media is putting all the blame upon them for Congressional interference; they should at least take the moral credit for taking a strong stand. They should be organizing shows of support for Schaivo’s parents in every major city, with traditional Jews, Catholics, and Moslems at their side. The evangelicals I know are deeply principled, and have extraordinary sensitivity to the inherent, G-d given sanctity of human life. For the most part, their leadership has not called for the troops to rally around the flag of preserving the specialness of human life. (I personally reached out to evangelical leadership, and have received no response as of this writing.) Moreover, 46% of evangelicals in a recent poll sided with the judges! This could only happen if their churches did not think enough of the issue to educate their own laity. To me, this is mind-boggling. (Agudah called it correctly, and issued a public appeal to Michael Schaivo to spare his wife’s life. For this, they have been accused of distorting “traditional Jewish teaching” by the world’s foremost authority on Jewish Law — the Jerusalem Post.)

The following confidential memorandum was found by the night janitor in the men’s room at a prominent Manhattan public relations firm. We are indebted to him for bringing it to our attention.

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Rabbi Saul Berman
From: Howard Rubenstone
Subject: Take a cue from Bush — hush Francine Klagsbrun
Cc: Ismar Schorsch; David Teutsch; Eric Yoffie

In recent days, the Bush administration has been nudging Israel in the ribs, so to speak, to tone down its anti-Syria rhetoric, lest the Arab world come to see America’s still-precarious Mideast democratization initiative as just another Zionist-inspired plot. More locally, another major peace, love and unity effort is being undermined by a similarly foolhardy lack of subtlety, and it needs to be addressed posthaste.

I speak here of Francine Klagsbrun’s latest Jewish Week offering, in which she presses “The Gates” (we’re talking Christo and Jeanne-Claude, not Bill and Melinda) into metaphoric service to muse on the most recent biennial Edah gathering at Temple Emanuel’s Skirball Center, which, we are told, largely “revolved around themes of unity.” In what appears to be something of a springtime ritual for her, Ms. Klagsbrun giddily invokes the conference as proof positive that “the Modern Orthodox are opening gates toward the broader community as never before.” She also shares her personal favorites from among the scores of sessions: one blaming Reform’s patrilineal policy on Orthodox rejection of dialogue, another focusing on the propensity of “some Orthodox” for using “Amalek” as an all-purpose term of opprobrium for all manner of disfavored Jews, not unlike what Kleenex is to facial tissues.

INTERCEPTED LETTER #2
DATE: Purim, 5765
TO: Members of SHICR (Society for Halakhic Innovation and Renewal)

In our last memorandum, we shared with you the groundbeaking decisions of our innovative SHICR halakhic experts. You may recall that, based on previously overlooked Biblical concerns about guarding one’s health, we were able to free many 21st century individuals from the intolerable burdens of the 15th century Shulchan Arukh. Thus, we made it halakhically possible for a woman to attend mikveh in her own bathtub should the weather be inclement; for a man to go to his business on Shabbat if absenting himself might result in economic difficulties; for Yom Kippur fasting to be limited to skipping morning coffee to prevent the possible discomforts of a full day fast. The response to these courageous decisions has encouraged us to continue our trail-blazing work.

I am today proud to announce to you that SHICR has made another exciting halakhic breakthrough, an historic decision that promises to change the course of Jewish life in America. This breakthrough is nothing less than an unprecedented assault on the soaring intermarriage rate.

So far, the various establishment attempts to address this issue - adult education, better schools,trips to Israel, Holocaust awareness - have all failed to stem the tide.

The local version of Murphy is that “no good deed in Hollywood goes unpunished.” A variation for writers in the public eye might be “no published idea goes understood.”

I experienced this twice today, and apologize for any confusion regarding one of the two incidents. (The second concerns the interview with the New York Times. I hope to write about that separately. Suffice it for the moment that many colleagues agree that it is always best to have an “insider” speak about a potentially damning issue, because unfriendly “outsiders” will certainly do far more damage. Those of us – and there were more who did not appear in the article – who spoke to the Times all agreed that our goal would be to try to minimize the chilul Hashem. It doesn’t take too much imagination to figure out how much more damaging the piece could have been had the interviewees not tried as hard as I can testify they did to defend the other side as vigorously as they did, while not selling short emes as they and their rabbeim see it.)

The one I will apologize for is my review column in Jewish Action [Spring 2005; not available online]. Even good friends and supporters got it wrong, which means that I must have missed the mark of effective communication. (The only blog I read with regularity is Hirhurim, and even Gil misunderstood my intentions.)

No, this leopard has not changed his spots. I find Frumteens’ hashkafic pronouncements odious and repugnant. When I interviewed the mysterious Moderator, I told him that I would have to point out in print that our readers – myself included – reject his views. I made good on that promise.

On March 1, tens of thousands of Jews joined together to celebrate an event called the Siyum HaShas at numerous locations across the country, including New York’s Madison Square Garden and the New Jersey Meadowlands’ Continental Airlines Arena. This celebration marked the completion of the entire Babylonian Talmud, a culmination of seven-and-one-half years of study at an inexorable page-a-day pace, known in Hebrew as Daf Yomi.

One might well expect those learning of the Siyum for the first time to regard it as a largely internal Orthodox affair, with little relevance to those in the broader Jewish world. But that would be unfortunate, because the Siyum and its accompanying celebratory goings-on ought to be viewed by thoughtful Jews of every stripe as a deeply meaningful source of Jewish pride.

The gatherings at the Garden and the Meadowlands were unique, not only in relation to the raucous, beer-drenched and, at times, violent fare that normally draws patrons to these locales, but in the context of more staid and cerebral events as well. Consider: Tens of thousands of men, women and children, from grade schoolers to senior citizens, converged on these venues to celebrate… the study of a book. Actually, scores of very large books, with very small print (and virtually no pictures, either). If ever there was an event that honors those quintessentially Jewish values of study, intellectual inquiry and the free marketplace of ideas, that exalts the life of the mind as pre-eminent, it was this Siyum.

On March 4, 2005 Agudath Israel sent a letter to Dr. Tom Frieden, New York City’s Health Commissioner, estimating that in the yeshiva world half of the brisim have been conducted with matzitza b’peh, while the other half have utilized a tube. In Modern Orthodox and even Centrist Orthodox circles, overwhelmingly the brisim have been with a tube.

The statistics cast a certain light on the issue that is now raging in certain Orthodox circles. I am not concerned here at all with what a particular Rabbi or Mohel may have done or said. What I am concerned about are the statements signed by dozens of Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbonim and published in Yated Ne’eman and on public posters denouncing the failure to do matzitza b’peh. The language is nearly violent.

Are we being told that half the brisim in the yeshiva world were not properly conducted? Are the signers of these statements unaware of the fact that, for example, the Breuer’s community does not sanction matzitza b’peh? Isn’t it likely that virtually all the signers have been at brisim where a tube is used? Isn’t it likely that some of the signers served as the sandek or some other important function at brisim where tubes were used?

The issue of safeguards against the transmission of disease is not a trivial matter. Of course, I feel strongly that those who prefer matzitza b’peh should be allowed to go forward without government interference. But we must be cognizant of the reality that there are now powerful viruses that are transmitted through what seems to be quite innocuous contact. When we go into food establishments, we see workers wearing latex gloves. Are they wearing them because they want to help the latex glove industry? In hospitals and medical offices, there is scarcely a procedure anymore without such gloves being worn. Obviously, there are legitimate concerns that have generated changing practices. At the least, we need to be cognizant that those who prefer to use a tube in a bris have good grounds for this preference.

My friendship with, and admiration of, David Klinghoffer will survive his latest book. I hope that the good feeling is reciprocal, because I am going to have to respectfully disagree with his thesis. This snippet from the AP story on it will explain why.

During the Lenten season of 2004 there was considerable fury over Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion” and its depiction of Jewish leaders conspiring to hand Jesus over to the Romans for crucifixion.

A year later, just in time for Good Friday of 2005, a book by Jewish writer David Klinghoffer says of course that’s what the Jewish authorities did: “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History” (Doubleday).

He bases that not only on the New Testament - whose history he distrusts to a fair extent - but on the Talmud, Judaism’s authoritative compilation of Bible commentary and rabbinic law, and later Jewish sages such as Maimonides.

When controversy erupts in the Torah world, should we refrain from discussing it or should we engage in respectful but frank debate? I was ambivalent about which way to go with respect to the recent brouhaha involving Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. I discussed the two options with rabbinic authorities familiar with media issues, and they indicated that both options were good choices in this instance. I opted for the public discussion approach. I wonder now whether the benefit/cost ratio (a technique we honed during my engineering school days) might be higher with the “be silent and let the controversy die down of its own accord” approach.

My op-ed article on the issue appeared in the Jerusalem Post Tuesday, 4 bAdar II (March 15) “Translating Rabbi Ovadia Yosef” . In the essay I tried to discuss the controversy from the viewpoint of a translator, although some readers saw the essay as engaging in apologetics (a respected branch of rhetoric that defends and justifies theological positions).

In the essay I analyzed the furor caused by a statement of former Chief Rabbi Yosef that the press interpreted as wishing ill to Prime Minister Sharon. Those who were in Israel last week were treated to hourly news bulletins on the subject during a 48-hour media feeding frenzy, until a clarification by Rabbi Yosef was broadcast wishing Sharon a long life and the wisdom to recant the unilateral disengagement.

I pointed out that

Most of us also communicate in different registers, according to the circumstances. Rav Ovadia’s constituents admire the often blunt, no-holds-barred straight talk that the Rabbi uses in public sermons. M.I.T.-trained Dr. Moshe Leibler points out that Rav Ovadia’s spoken language is both popular and populist. Scholars and academics admire the sophisticated and nuanced literary level of the Rabbi’s written oeuvre and his stunning output in breadth and depth in dozens of carefully argued volumes of halakhic writings. One is reminded of Mozart who composed divine music, while his correspondence often contained scatological expressions.

She was very casual about it, as if it were common knowledge. At a meeting of Jews and Christian evangelicals working in support of Israel, I found myself speaking to a woman who was clearly proud of how much love her church offered the Jewish people.

“We have an entire network of safe-houses for you,” she offered. I didn’t quite get it. “You know – the next time they come for the Jews, we are going to be ready. We’ve put together lists of people who will open their homes and hide you, if necessary. All over the country.”

Despite my deep appreciation, I was more disquieted by this revelation than relieved. Somehow, my sense of security was not particularly enhanced by the knowledge that an entire denomination out there was taking the contingency of an American Holocaust quite seriously.

I was more discomfited by the question that had occurred to me so often before. What would I do if the tables were turned, and it was a different group that faced imminent death, unless I reached out to them?

I am acceding to the request that I post this week’s column which deals with the claim by Jack Ukeles that 75% of Orthodox households are Modern Orthodox. If there are comments, they should be emailed to me at mschick@mindspring.com.

More Fiction Posing as Fact

When novelists create stereotypical figures that distort Orthodox life, they claim that, after all, they’re novelists who can write as they please. Academics and others who purport to describe the real religious Jewish world do not have this fig leaf to shield them when they are criticized because what they write is off the mark. It is hard to imagine any greater distortion of Orthodox reality than the pseudo-scholarship palmed off by Jacob Ukeles at the annual gathering of Edah, the ultra-Modern Orthodox fringe group.

Jewish survey research is in a sorry state. We have been presented dubious findings regarding Jews in the Former Soviet Union, American Jewish poverty and the impact of Israel experiences on Jewish identity. A top Jewish demographer told me that he once distorted data in order to achieve a desired result. We are increasingly subjected to numbers games impelled by ideology or some other pre-selected goal, in much the same way that pharmaceutical companies advertise that so many doctors prefer their product.

I imagine many men (and women) want to know what it was like in the women’s section of the Jerusalem (English) Siyum of the Daf Yomi Wednesday night. My husband and I drove back to Netanya, along with his Daf Yomi maggid shiur (teacher), and we were spiritually“high” from the gathering of 5000 men & boys, and 2000 ladies & girls (I intentionally use the non-PC term ‘ladies’, because that is our honorific of choice). I will describe the entire event elsewhere.

The essence of the siyum is the hadran (lit. “we will return”, a special prayer upon completing a segment of study). Modern Hebrew adopted this ancient term to describe an encore after a concert – and I have heard many a concert hadran in the Binyaney HaUma, International Conference Center in Jerusalem. However, this cavernous hall reverberated with a traditional, authentic hadran this week at the completion of the entire Talmud. One hadran section says “We arise early, and they arise early…we toil and they toil.” It is helpful to understand how one group differs from another by contrasting it with the focus of another group. The point is not to put another group down but to see how focus on a priority A leads to consequences a,b,c in contrast to a focus on priority B which leads to consequences d,e,f. Therefore, I will contrast what I call the “Daf Yomi sector” with two other Orthodox sectors. (1) The Daf Yomi and Orthodox women; (2) The Daf Yomi and national religious sector.

Lay leadership or askanos is a term that can be translated as the nearly all-consuming commitment to communal activity. An askan is someone whose primary life mission is service to the klal. In my youth, these terms - askanos and askan - were part of the ordinary religious Jewish lexicon. But no more. What has changed is more than usage, but the role of lay people in communal affairs.

Nowadays, we glorify check-writers and, at times, persons who devote themselves occasionally to good causes. We do not celebrate askanim because the breed is nearly extinct. There is, of course, merit to giving tzedakah or to spending a bit of time here and there on community needs. Unfortunately, our institutions and especially yeshivas and day schools require more. They need the involvement of lay people who eat, drink and sleep the needs of the community, people for whom other work is secondary.

The nature of communal activity has changed because our community has changed. Most of us are always busy. Family size has grown significantly and this inevitably brings additional responsibilities and time pressure. There are too many events to go to and too many tasks to get to. Nearly every day is a balancing act, a challenge to squeeze in more activity than we have time for. Mothers, so many of whom work, must find the time and energy to devote to their children and fathers want to find time for Torah study. Were it not for Shabbos, we would all be lost.

There is yet another factor. We do not value askanos, certainly not like we once did and certainly not to the extent that we value check-writing. What isn’t highly valued does not attract. Apart from the good reasons why our schools (and other causes) put so much effort into fundraising and the wooing of check-writers, there is an attitude that the notion of lay leadership is something like an alien belief. For things large and small, including matters that are not halachic or hashkafic, the attitude is that Torah leaders alone can decide and the rest of us should be followers and workers, but not leaders.

A translation: Siyum HaShas means Completion of the Talmud. People make a small celebration to mark the Siyum, completion, of a single tractate of Talmud or one of the six orders of the Mishnah. To complete the entire Talmud (Shas is an acronym for Six Orders, and is used colloquially to refer to the Babylonian Talmud) is no mean feat and cause for a larger celebration — all the more so when tens of thousands are completing it together.

Last night’s celebration was by and for all of those who have learned the Daf Yomi, the “Daily Page” of Talmud, following a cycle shared around the world — and completed eleven times since Rabbi Meir Shapiro, zt”l, Rabbi of Lublin, Poland and founder of Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin, started the program in 1927. It takes nearly seven and one-half years to proceed through the 2,711 complex folios (both sides of each page comprise a “Daf”) of the Babylonian Talmud.

When the speakers last night spoke of the importance of Torah learning, they were not speaking about its importance to elite scholars, but to everyone — including those not able to complete the Talmud (yet). Rabbi Ephraim Wachsman set the tone by quoting from the Tomer Devorah, which says that every Jew has a portion of the soul of every other Jew. We are all interconnected, so when a person learns Torah, he uplifts everyone — “even those who don’t know the Shas belongs to them too.”

So much of my time in the last few days had been spent in praise of the intellectual, that I was not fully prepared for the effect that the Siyum HaShas had on my heart, instead.

Here in Los Angeles, the Siyum was sandwiched in between two local cultural mileposts: the Oscars, and the running of the Marathon. Loosely, they share much in common. They celebrate achievement, albeit of very different goals. They bring accolades from an adoring public, whether to entertainment icons, or to ordinary folk who have the gumption to work hard at a plan, and see it through to completion.

Both provided, lehavdil, a convenient subliminal context with which to lure the press to cover LA’s commemoration of the completion of the eleventh cycle of Daf Yomi. (For readers outside the Orthodox community, Daf Yomi refers to a program of study of one folio page of the Talmud a day, leading to its completion every seven and a half years. Communities around the world marked the end of a cycle on March 1st.)

The World’s Longest Marathon, we called it. Indeed it is. We got most mileage, though, by contrasting the trophy at the finish line: seven years of mastering difficult material, of sharpening mind and wit, of spending quality time with G-d’s own wisdom.