Ayn Rand and R' Shimon Shkop

One of the more interesting commandments is the one of "veholahta b'drochuv- you shall go in his ways". Essentially it is the commandment to be like G-d. Just like he is just, you should be just. Just like he is merciful, you should be merciful.

The Medrash in Parshas Kedoshim says on the verse "Kedoshim ti'hiyu ki kadosh ani hashem elokeichem- you shall be holy, because i am holy, hashem your G-d"
Yochol Ke'moni- Maybe you should be like me?
Ani Hashem- I am G-d.

R' Shimon Shkop explains in his introduction to Shaar Yosher, that Hashem doesn't need anything in this world. His essence is giving to us. All day, everyday. Nothing he does is for himself. So what the medrash is telling us, that I may think I should be like G-d utterly and completely, doing only for others and never for myself, thats why it says "ani hashem" only I, G-d, can be completely giving. A person's role in this world is to be a giving person, helping others in need, but not at the expense of himself.

In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand portrays a very cynical view of those who try to help others. She describes Ellsworth Toohey as a man who tries to exhort the public to be giving, generous, and charitable, while really he implants in their minds seeds of guilt at their success, and they should strive to give of their worth to others. In contrast, she describes Wynand as the man who gives everything of himself completely for the sake of others until he goes against the will, or rather the guilt of the people when he is then ostracized. In Toohey she describes a man who exhorts people to better themselves, and therein anyone who may try to rally the public to be sentimental as being selfish in their quest for power. This is once again, cynical. While in her fictional novel she portrays a man like Toohey of having completely selfish motives, and in the words of Roark "Anyone who says you should try to be the happiest you can be, has your best intentions in mind. Anybody who asks you to give up, does not" (Paraphrased). It is not so. Just because a person suggests, or pushes you to become better, does not mean they have ulterior control motives. A person who tells the public to look at their actions after a disaster does not mean that they are looking for control. It means that they are following the dictum that from Chazal all the way down to the Chofetz Chaim have always told us; that bad things happen in the world because we as Jews have not been good. That Hashem is showing us his awesome power and ability to punish in this world and we should take note (See Ramban in Parshas Bo on the Maakos, and the lesson to the Jews).

But I digress (this post was meant as a critique of Rand). Wynand was someone who tried to give the public everything they wanted. He says so and does so, until he meets Dominique. And I think it is behavior such as his that the medrash is telling us about One must be able to balance working for the community, helping the community, without hurting himself and his family. He should not lose a sense of self, and sense of wanting to accomplish his own aspirations, of being industrious. Being selfless is not to the exclusion of wanting to be selfish. And like everything else, its about balance.

Get Those Creative Juices Flowing

I love that feeling of a rush. Like when I'm trying to write a paper, and the words nor the content seem to be able to form. No matter what I write it doesn't quite seem good enough. And suddenly, the dam breaks open. I can write and create and put things down on paper for hours on end. Its kind of exhilarating experience when you know you got exactly what you need only your mind is racing too fast for the words to form.

As suddenly as it began, it ends.

Only now you have half written projects which have deadlines, papers which will need to be graded, and a sinking feeling of frustration at not being able to write faster. If only you wouldn't have stretched your hand cramp in middle, if only you wouldn't have checked that email which is unread in your inbox, the creative flow would never have ceased. Now I'm not the creative type. I have a knack though of synthesizing ideas, knowledge, and different ways of thinking, but as for being creative myself, I don't consider myself one. No one has ever seen me as an artist, writer, or creator, but rather a manager, a worker, and measured. I feel being creative needs a certain spontaneity which I do not have and a certain sense of the abstract which I lack. My taste in music is more measured, mathematical, and that which fits a theme (hence my dislike of Mi'mikomcha by Shwekey). Neat, clean, and thought out are words that I would describe my tastes. Messy, without meaning, and pointless are ugly to me. Someone (and by that I mean a young lady I dated) once said to me that art has to make you think. If the piece doesn't do that to you, then its likely a bad piece. Is that why in museums there are many people who sit there pondering the piece, trying to figure out what it was exactly that made the artist think this trite was worth something? My taste in art is usually symmetric and clean cut. Maybe that's why I don't consider myself creative.

So do creative people suffer from creative blocks less frequently? Is it that they will create often without impunity many works, until one day they hit a wall, or one day produce something so magnificent and beautiful?

There Will Be No More Lonely People

Every once in a while you hear about ordinary people doing extraordinary things. When you witness it first hand how they did something small which made a big difference in the lives of others, it makes you step back and realize its something you want to strive for as well. Not just to strive for it, but you want to build a relationship with them, not in a narcissist way, using them for the kindness they may imbue you with, but rather in a way that people feel that some of their specialness will impact you and make you want to grow with them. I am currently in the middle of contemplating a community change, moving to another town which will provide me with educational and career opportunities which may be more difficult to attain where I am now. But after seeing with my own eyes kindness of a community towards an individual, I am rethinking this change.

In many communities there are people who were never blessed with the opportunity to create a family of their own. They have long moved beyond their twenties, thirties, and fifties, living their lives in singular loneliness. They may have their own careers and lives, but they never had a spouse to share everything with. So when a young community, old enough to be his children, and even grand-children take it upon themselves to be kind to him, to invite them into their homes, and to treat him like a friend on their own level, you make the guys life. They could have been content to live within their own cohort, even helping each other out with each others simchas, whether its cooking meals for a new mother, shalom zachars, or regular hachnosas orchim of friends and family. But they didn't. This man never expected a bunch of 20-somethings to throw him a birthday party. I would be willing to put down money that he hasn't had a birthday party in decades. The smile that played across that old man's face the entire time, him surveying all the well-wishers who came with their children who could have been the age of his great-grandchildren, the families who's table he had graced many times, was an awesome sight. The joy was apparent, and maybe with more parties like this one, he can look forward to many parties, one year at a time, for many long and healthy years to come.

Parshas Bo

The first mitzvah given to Bnei Yisrael is to Kiddush Hachodesh. The Torah devotes one whole pasuk to it, and then moves onto Korban Pesach. The question is A. Why was it the first mitzvah? B. The Korban Pesach is more closely related to Yitzi'as Mitzrayim, so it should have preceded it?

The explanation offered by the Chikrei Lev (R' Aryeh leib Heiman, of Bayit Vegan) is that Kiddush Hachodesh was Hashem giving us the ability to take control over time, to decide when the Holidays will come out. The Ramban explains in Bereishis, that the sun rules  (moeshel) over the day, it gives heat and it causes to grow, and the moon rules over the night, over the tides and oceans. Meaning before Yitzias Mitzrayim Hashem established the Holidays, and afterwards it was given to Bnei Yisrael to 'rule over' their days. The gemara in Rosh Hashana says (8B) that the heavenly courts only sit in judgment once Bnei Yisrael are makdish the month (of Tishrei).

The question is what is so special about Kiddush Hachodesh, that we were given it at that time?
The Bnei Yisrael had  been enslaved for many years. At the time of Yitzias Mitzrayim, they were a dejected, downtrodden people, slaves to a nation for hundreds of years. The Ebin Ezra writes "there is nothing harder in the world, than to be enslaved to another human being" It is for this reason that Hashem gave Bnei Yisrael the ability to control their destiny; they needed it at that time in order to hold themselves high again.
(Editorial Note: The Brisker Rav is quoted as saying about the founding of the State of Israel that is was "A shmeichel fun himmel" or a smile from heaven. This could be a reference to the same idea. That after the Holocaust, Hashem in order for a Jew to hold his back straight again, to have a bit of self-worth, needed a country to call their own in order to survive psychologically.)

Recovery

I love despair(dot)com.

At times they seem to know how I'm feeling, and at times they seem to think what I'm thinking.

Now all I need in the Points of View Glass and I'm all set for life.

Priorities

Ask most people what is the one thing that they cannot imagine having a marriage without, and they will answer you Shalom Bayis, peace. Assuming for you that this is true, when looking into a prospective match, this should be the primary consideration, and anything that can take away from the result of a peaceful home, should be carefully weighed against the loss of it.

I will use a mashal of comparing a prospective mate to a car, although they are by no means a purchase, nor object which is a one-way investment.

So what are those things that will take away from Shalom Bayis? Most would understand this to mean having or not having certain character traits. Let's call this part the engine of the car, the part that moves us, that pushed us along, and brings us to the place that we strive to be. What 'parts' you want in that engine are for you to decide, but ultimately these are the important, integral parts to a marriage. Personally, being kind and understanding is high on my list, but others may hone in on other traits.

The issue, (and this is where the mashal becomes important in delineating a point) is that people assume that every car in the lot has a working,  clean engine, so they can focus on secondary needs. Does the car have power windows, dual climate control, or leather seats. Since people assume that most people are not evil, and probably kind, why not focus on these other things. In fact look! They worked for a summer with sick children, they help their family, they were a Bnos leader many years ago, so let me focus on secondary things. Not that some of these things are not important in a marriage to have, but as they are not the primary concern you shouldn't be too worried about them. Again, for every individual it may be different, and what one weighs as important another will not (Ex. attractiveness), but the key is to be more flexible in this area. When you have this in mind, when you have someone in the car who is cold and you are hot, it won't bother you that you missed out, because you focused on the engine.

Then there are the tertiary needs, or as I will call them the stupidities. Does it really matter, does it really impact whatsoever if the person stacks and/or scrapes? Or if the guy has a good singing voice, or plays an instrument? What do these things have to do with having a good marriage? In what way will they impact how the couple will live, raise a home, and serve G-d together? If it really bothers you that a person stacks, I mean really bothers you (and not your mother), then it may go into the Shalom Bayis realm. However, I highly doubt it actually will effect it in a real way.

Quirkiness

"Swell to see you" I said. I meant it, too. "How are ya, anyway?"
"Absolutely marvelous. Am I late?"
I told her no, but she was around ten minutes late, as a matter of fact. I didn't [care] though. All that [garbage] they have in the cartoons in the Saturday Evening Post and all, showing guys on street corners looking sore [..] because their dates are late- that's bunk. If a girl looks swell when she meets you, who [cares] if she's late? Nobody.
-The Catcher in the Rye; JD Salinger

The funny thing about a person's quirks and idiosyncrasies, is that when there is a commitment on the others part to you, you don't really care about the small things. They are immaterial in the big scheme of things, and you can forgive them. However, when the seeds of doubt about the others intents and commitment are planted in your mind, you aren't as forgiving.

Holland Tunnel

Why are New Yorkers so depressed?
Because the light at the end of the tunnel is New Jersey

Doesn't Anybody Blush Anymore?

Would you withhold something from your potential or  current spouse? If yes, how would you decide what to withhold and what to share? Some say that common sense is the barometer, if its relevant to the marriage you tell them. Some say that if you can't share it will the potential partner, then they aren't for you.

Being intimate with the other person, in my opinion is about sharing your life, your goals, dreams, failures, etc. But at what point is it too much information, too much intimacy? There are definitely people who feel that there is no such thing as too much intimacy, sharing minute details about their life, their insecurities, and other details that would make their partner scream with frustration and want to run to the hills.
Ex.- many girls rightfully believe that smoking is terrible and guys who smoke are terrible. Now if you told her that you tried a cigarette in high school, she would have trouble understanding it, and trouble accepting it. So do you tell them?

To withhold the information until its too late (i.e after marriage, where the only recourse is to divorce or live with it) seems to me as being wrong. A recent book brought up this topic, where the character of the story had information that should have been shared, but at the urging/advice of their Rav, did not. In this instance it was wrong because the information is very hurtful for the other person, and needed to be shared in a way that they could make the decision in a rational fashion. To disclose itwhen it is too late is hurtful and they have a right to be angry. And to hide it until the other finds out shows that you don't really trust the other person. So while whatever it is may cause you to lose the potential spouse, you have to live the realities in your life, and the realities of who you are in the person you wish to share your life with.

Someone once asked me, that if you wouldn't  want to do  something to hurt your spouse, and let's say theoretically you were unfaithful. To tell them will be very hurtful, but to keep it from them, while not hurtful, is also wrong. My answer was that you tell them, and live with the consequences. One of the issues that a lot of people have is that they fail to recognize that doing thing, in fact living, may have some negative effects, and that you have to deal with them. For instance, blogging. For some it provides a catharsis, a platform to air their views, or just a way to tell people about what they had for dinner (or who they had for dinner). Others though, may view it negatively, and not understand the need, or the attraction for those that blog to do so, and reject them for it. The thing is, that while it may hurt, the disconnect in the relationship was there, and someone who is meant for you, would understand. Its all about living with consequences, bad or good.

Many years ago I picked up the book Doesn't Anybody Blush Anymore by Manis Freidman. I didn't finish it then, and didn't even make much headway into it at the time (I recently picked it up again, and it is amazing!). But one of the lessons he said in the book is that a couple should recognize the others need for privacy, even from their spouse. Not everything that a spouse wants to know, should they demand answered. Of course a couple should have a sense of trust in the other person, and of course they should feel that they could trust the other with what they are feeling and going through their head. But part of tznius, part of building a healthy relationship is recognizing where you are with the other, and that they will disclose their hopes and dreams, along with their dissapointments and failures to the other in due time. Or in his words by peering into a place we aren't wanted "we destrop boundaries and dissipate the intimacy", and needing to know may just be the feeling of wanting control over the other person. Recognizing boundaries is as important as wanting intimacy, and one should not be conquering boundaries as a means to gain power over the other person.

But then again, sometimes when you leave yourself open, when you share of yourself, when you give of yourself, you open yourself up to be conquered, to be changed, and to forget who you are and what you stand for. So like everything in life, its a balance between need-to-know and have-to-tell. You don't have to tell everything about your life that is not integral to a marriage. Weigh whats important, ask about whats relevant, and decide if sharing or keeping that piece of information will impact the marriage, and whether its important enough to impact it.

Parshas Vayechi

וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ, שְׁכֶם אַחַד--עַל-אַחֶיךָ:  אֲשֶׁר לָקַחְתִּי מִיַּד הָאֱמֹרִי, בְּחַרְבִּי וּבְקַשְׁתִּי
-Behold I am giving to you Shechem, one more than your brothers. Which I took from the hands of the Emori, with my sword and with my bow
Rashi and Onkoles both explain sword and bow to mean a figurative sword and bow, that it was Prayer and Supplication with which he took the city of Shechem.

However in Tehillim 44:7 the posuk says כִּי לֹא בְקַשְׁתִּי אֶבְטָח   וְחַרְבִּי, לֹא תוֹשִׁיעֵנִי
I do not place faith in my sword, nor will my bow save me"
Over here it can't be that we do not have faith in our prayers, nor do any of the meforshim explain it to mean anything other than literal.
So I was bothered why in one place we translate, or better yet explain it to be literal, and in other places it is explained figuratively?

If we look at the Ramban, he explains that Yaakov told Yosef, that while he conquered Shechem at the time with might, but he was really laying the groundwork for Bnai Yisrael in the future to conquer the land in the future. The Ramban quotes a posuk earlier in that perek of Tehillim which says
כִּי לֹא בְחַרְבָּם, יָרְשׁוּ אָרֶץ,    וּזְרוֹעָם, לֹא הוֹשִׁיעָה לָּמוֹ:
כִּי-יְמִינְךָ וּזְרוֹעֲךָ, וְאוֹר פָּנֶיך כִּי רְצִיתָם
Not through the sword will you inhabit the land...
[but rather] your right, and your arm, and the shine of your face."
The Ramban explains that Yemincha is Avrohom, Zeroacha is Yitzchak, and Ohr Ponecha is Yaakov.

With this in mind I believe one can answer why one is figurative and one literal. Really they are both figurative. However in Tehillim, the lack of faith in prayer, is the prayer of Bnai Yisrael. That only through the merit of our Forefathers did we get the land, and only through their groundwork.