“It’s up to us to stop enabling our kids to make stupid choices because we want to be the cool parents, or have the fun house, or the rocking simchah”

We Stand Accused [Inbox / Issue 1089]

Last week Wednesday, Mordy Berkowitz was sentenced to six years in jail for manslaughter while driving under the influence of alcohol. Mordy used the worst of situations to reach out to his contemporaries and educate them about the dangers of drinking and driving.

I believe that Mordy is paying a heavy price for an awful choice. But I don’t think he was the only one on trial last week. We haven’t heard from the family who hosted the toameha in Lakewood that awful Erev Shabbos. I’m quite certain those adults take responsibility for what occurred after Mordy left their home, and I’m sure they will live with that guilt for the rest of their lives. But the blame doesn’t stop there.

If you are an adult whose child has seen you drunk, you’re also accountable. If you’re a gabbai who has ordered enough liquor for your shul to allow anyone in the kehillah to get drunk, you’re accountable. If you’ve gone to Eretz Yisrael and hosted bochurim at a large meal and served more than enough booze to get someone else’s child drunk, you’re accountable. We’re the official adults in the room. It’s up to us to stop enabling our kids to make stupid choices because we want to be the cool parents, or have the fun house, or the rocking simchah. The buck stops with us.

My husband and I will be celebrating a family simchah in a few short weeks. We will serve toameha. We will host bochurim. Please join us in serving less alcohol. Join us in teaching our kids that one shot or one glass of wine is fine, that there is a middle ground here. I’m not saying we won’t serve liquor at all. I’m saying that it shouldn’t be enough to allow any one person to leave your simchah or home drunk. It’s time for us to parent and take responsibility for our collective children.

A.L.

Brooklyn, NY

Dangerous Prose [People Like Us / Issue 1089]

I’m really enjoying Dov Haller’s serial People Like Us. As usual, Mr. Haller has his finger on the pulse and I look forward to reading it weekly. This week, however, was a disappointment. The story describes how Avi and his parents go to dinner in a restaurant, where Avi orders a mojito and his father settles on a glass of red wine.

A few months ago, Mishpacha printed the tragic story of Mordy Berkowitz. We all davened for a lighter sentence for Mordy, a good kid who made a grave mistake. We all made pledges and donated money. And just like that, the story depicts Avi, who drove to dinner with his own car, ordering a drink.

This is not the 1920s. We cannot abolish alcohol. But we can certainly be more responsible! If you are the one driving home, don’t order a glass of red wine or a mojito like Avi and his dad. L’maan Hashem, order a seltzer instead.

Miriam Schiff

Schools Also Have a Role to Play [Perspectives – Issue 1089]

Many thanks to Rabbi Heber for the excellent article on teaching our children what “rich” really means. As parents challenged with raising children in America, we live in a society that has morphed into one that emphasizes materialism, which our grandparents would never recognize.

It seems that from reading Jewish media, this materialism lies at the core of many of the issues our community struggles with. However, to be effective, it is not enough for parents to provide subtle messages about finances at home; it also needs to be taught in schools. Of course, the primary obligation of chinuch is on parents to teach their children, but children spend many more hours with their teachers than at home. There is no question that, in terms of practicality, a class on financial responsibility has a thousand times more to offer than the majority of secular subjects our children learn. Would you rather your child learn (or attempt to be taught) trigonometry, or how to handle a credit card? The problem is that parents feel they do not always have a voice in the curriculum that schools choose. But in truth, if enough parents request it, we can turn the tide.

Not only will it make better adults, as Rabbi Heber pointed out, but it is also a much more engaging subject with multiple opportunities for fascinating class discussions. Boys’ mesivtas are no different in this regard from girls’, and should consider how their students will gain both the values and practical tools needed for life without a formal program.

And, as I felt Rabbi Heber was hinting, it is likely that if we do not have these lessons on values and valuables before our children grow into adults, it will be too late.

Hillel Adler

The Only Way [Perspective / Issue 1088]

Thank you for Rabbi Aryeh Kerzner’s powerful article — as usual. When I first saw the title “From Defense to Offense,” I’ll admit I worried he might be encouraging protest, confrontation, or public aggression. Baruch Hashem, he wrote the opposite. His “offense” is the proactive work of kiddush Hashem: living proudly, positively, and visibly as a people meant to illuminate the world.

I truly hope many askanim take this message to heart. In recent years, some well-meaning voices representing us have assumed that the way to combat anti-Semitism is through aggressive calling-out, public battles, and fighting for our rights with forceful rhetoric and action. But Rabbi Kerzner is right — that approach is not only ineffective, it is unsustainable. We are too small a minority to win a fight defined by anger and confrontation.

Our only successful long-term strategy has always been what he rightfully described: to strengthen our case by strengthening our light. To live in a way that inspires respect rather than provokes resistance. To represent Torah and Klal Yisrael with dignity, kindness, integrity, and confidence.

It’s worth reading this article again and again. Because the more we internalize its message, the more we can succeed in galus.

Avromi Hirth

Cracks in a Unified Front [Kingmaker from Williamsburg / Issue 1088]

Thank you to Mishpacha for addressing the controversial backing of the Satmar community of the mayoral-elect Mamdani in New York. Rabbi Indig did a great job of explaining the background of his involvement and the position he took on behalf of his constituents.

Having said that, it seems there are discrepancies within the explanations that still beg for explanation.

Rabbi Indig shared that when he asked Mr. Mamdani if he is an anti-Semite, his reply was, “No, I’m not an anti-Semite. I just don’t like what Israel is doing in Gaza.”

To set the record straight, the Gaza situation has only been going on for the last two years, since October 7, 2023. Mr. Mamdani is merely 34 years old and has been an assemblyman for around five years. During that time, he has made his stance and positions very clear. Mr. Mandani’s social media posts and alliances with far-left anti-Semitic groups preceded his umbrage with the Israeli government’s approach to the situation in Gaza. Those far-left groups with whom he aligns aren’t hating Israel because they read the Divrei Yoel and are otherwise ohavei Yisrael; rather it’s because they now have a platform they feel is legitimate to expose their anti-Semitism and blame the Israel response for their position.

Admittedly, New Yorkers did not have any solid choices for whom to vote for in this election. Rabbi Indig correctly pointed out Mr. Cuomo’s unpopularity, stemming from his approach to our community during the Covid era. However, even if you want to put Mr. Mamdani’s positions on Judaism aside, his political stance as a far-left socialist is antithetical to the entire fabric of the United States of America, and his stated policy initiatives would cause quite an unrest, at the very least. The fact that he has practically no record of managing a business, a budget, or a big city just adds large amounts of skepticism that he cannot run a diverse city of eight- million-plus New Yorkers.

Lastly, I think we missed the most important point. This election was not about the perfect candidate to support, because there were none. It was about achdus in our community. Aside from Satmar, every other rav and community leader were unified that Mr. Mamdani should not receive the Jewish vote.

Even if we were to ignore his Israel stance or his lack of experience, his basic moral policies are a real threat to any vestige of kedushah we try to maintain in the galus communities we live, with New York being the largest Jewish community outside of Eretz Yisrael. The rabbanim and lay leaders were unified that even with the record against us presented by Mr. Cuomo, he was still a better choice than to vote for someone who was vocally anti-Israel and one who would bring the morality level in New York to a low not previously seen in our area.

Rabbi Indig could have used the same approach he proudly employed in the case of Emily Gallagher as referenced in the article, in which he could court Mr. Mamdani after the election and shown that the entire Orthodox Jewish community voted in a bloc and would garner support after the election. By splintering the vote, it showcased the lack of unity we are all seeking and yearning for.

How ironic to see the contrasting position of legendary askan and Agudah leader, Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zweibel, in the very same issue. The Agudah took the mainstream position of achdus and unified the vote of the rest of the New York Orthodox community, upon the eitzah of the Motezes Gedolei HaTorah. The position of achdus is what we yearn for and need.

Yehoshua Michaeli

Lakewood, New Jersey

A former resident of New York and seeker of unity in Klal Yisrael

Mayor or Poritz? [Kingmaker from Williamsburg / Issue 1088]

I found Rabbi Indig’s attitude and derech very disconcerting. It makes one feel as if we’re still living in 18^th-century Poland, and if we don’t slavishly kowtow to the poritz, he will throw us out of our hovel in the middle of the winter or throw us into the dungeon.

Chazal tell us that Yaakov Avinu was punished for showing too much deference and bowing too many times to Eisav. While we’re still in galus and need to do hishtadlus, we are getting much closer to the Geulah and its spirit is already in the air. Bowing down to anti-Semites who claim they’re only anti-Zionist is not something we should be doing in ikvesa d’Meshicha. Our dignity is more important than whatever favors the new NYC poritz can bestow upon us.

Shimon Saltz,

Far Rockaway, NY

Mayoral Musings [Kingmaker from Williamsburg / Issue 1088]

I would like to commend Mishpacha for its excellent, balanced and informative articles on the New York mayoral dilemma from Satmar askan Moshe Indig, Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel from the Agudah, and Gedalia Guttentag.

Mr. Indig’s argument for befriending Mamdani because he was inevitably going to win makes a lot of sense, and saying and posting nasty, disrespectful things is not going to make him go away or make him any more inclined to deal with our community. Satmar’s lack of appreciation for the State of Israel may have helped them see that possibility more clearly without bias.

However, there are two glaring flaws with Indig’s logic:

1) Even if the purported difference between Mamdani and the average American non-Jew is true, and his anti-Israel positions don’t equal him being an anti-Semite, his rhetoric is still normalizing and emboldens not just anti-Israel but anti-Semitic rhetoric of liberal American youth, whose protests Indig agrees are fueled by anti-Semitism. When this point was raised by the interviewer, Indig did not supply a satisfactory response. Maybe Mr. Indig should inform Mamdani of this fact, and hopefully, he’ll agree to tone it down.

2) It’s one thing to butter up Mamdani who was winning anyway, but to brag about getting Bill de Blasio over the top and elected (according to Wikipedia he won by a hundred thousand votes in any case) doesn’t make sense even according to Mr. Indig’s own argument. And supporting Hochul in a race against Stefanik, in which she comes within striking distance, just allows for the Democrats to continue the financial and moral decline of NY they have brought about. (Even Indig only said he would support Hochul because of what he claimed is an 80-year-old precedent to always support an incumbent.)

One issue also completely left out of the interview was that Satmar takes a tremendous amount of government welfare, which Democrats are happy to supply, and whether that influences the chassidus’s endorsement.

Y. Levy

Harsh Labeling [Kingmaker from Williamsburg / Issue 1088]

Yitzchok Landa’s interview of Satmar askan Moishe Indig contained a sidebar stating, as fact, that the late former Supervisor of the Town of Thompson, Tony Cellini, was an unabashed, raging anti-Semite. I cannot understand why such a mischaracterization would be stated as a fact instead of one man’s opinion. Particularly when the man in question is no longer alive to defend himself.

In my own extensive experience of working with Supervisor Cellini during the years when I worked for Governor Pataki and afterward, I found him to be a colorful politician who was well aware of the economic benefits that the summer influx of the Orthodox and chassidic populations brought to the area. He always boasted about bringing Walmart to town and how they catered to the needs of the frum consumer and made that store one of the most successful in the country.

Cellini’s opposition to certain requests from the frum community generally centered on the needs of the local government, not religious animus. He initially opposed the frum community removing their summer residences from the property tax rolls, by claiming that they were all religious housing, because it would deprive the town of needed tax revenue and shift the burden onto others. I believe that was where his dispute with Moishe Indig began. It was resolved when Monticello was selected for a casino license, a cause that Supervisor Cellini championed for years.

I cannot speak to the experience of others when it comes to Tony Cellini but “unabashed, raging anti-Semite” is language that I would strongly discourage.

Michael Fragin

See the Big Picture [Double Take — What It’s Worth / Issue 1088]

Sara, who runs a very successful children’s program on Sundays, has hired high school girls as assistants. When one of them asks for a raise, she refuses and blames the girl’s mother for putting her daughter up to it.

Sara is wrong to refuse  the girl the raise. Her reasons are that she would then have to give all the girls a raise and that would leave her with no profit. However, Chaya who does baking activities and was the one to ask for the raise, and Faigy who does arts and crafts, are the only ones who stay at least an extra hour to clean up.

They aren’t paid for that extra hour; Sara could have given them more money without having to give to the other assistants.

Sara’s problem is that she is a victim of her own success. Her sessions are so full that she is running from one track to the other and her assistants have to pick up the slack. That isn’t fair to them. She’s also started tracks where she’s paying top dollar for adult instructors which further eats into her profits. That’s still no reason to take advantage of her teenage workers.

She also hasn’t considered what effect this dissatisfaction will have on next year’s hiring.

Name Withheld

Listen to Your Employees [Double Take — What It’s Worth / Issue 1088]

Sara, the owner of the Sunday clubs, could benefit from learning how to truly listen to her employees. When Chaya shared that she was working much harder than expected, it might have been an opportunity for Sara to consider practical supports, such as hiring someone to handle the cleaning, so the workload didn’t fall entirely on one person.

Name Withheld

Are Teens Underpaid? [Double Take — What It’s Worth / Issue 1088]

I was very disturbed by the Double Take last week depicting the side of a woman who opened a Sunday-club business while employing high school girls.

The woman is very proud of the professional program she has created on the backs of young high school girls. Instead of acknowledging the responsibility she has imposed on them, (which sound way beyond what any of them were expecting), she pays them peanuts, works them to the ground, and wonders why they resent her.

This phenomenon isn’t new. I distinctly remember being a teenaged counselor in a bungalow colony and being run to the ground each and every day by the demands of both the head counselor and the parents, and making practically nothing to show for two months of slave labor. I was paid well below minimum wage for difficult, often stressful work (let’s be real, 15-year-olds dealing with hyper children is not a walk in the park). I was resentful of the fact that I walked away with nothing to show for it (and of parents who consistently took advantage of us staff who were on premises all the time).

You could argue the position that “they were told at the beginning what they would be paid.” But again, we’re talking about young teens with little or no experience in the real world who don’t understand what (for example) $7/hour means. To many, any amount of money coming their way sounds exciting. And you also don’t know what you’re getting yourself into until you actually start. Hearing “You’ll be helping in the baking club” does not translate to “You’ll be running the baking club, and I’ll pop in to shake a sprinkle or two.”

All this woman (and all those who treat teenagers as expendable workers) is doing is teaching these young girls that their hard work is worth nothing. When they try to fight for themselves (and good for them for doing so!) and you knock them down, you teach them that they themselves are worth nothing.

Good for the mother for getting involved and coaching her daughter to stand up for herself and demand her worth. She is teaching her a valuable life lesson: that she is worth something.

Name Withheld

Boss in the Wrong [Double Take — What It’s Worth / Issue 1088]

It’s not often that I fully side with one character in the Double Take stories, but last week was one of those times. While the mother could work on her parenting approach and maybe she was egging her daughter on a little too much, the onus for the problem here falls completely on Sara.

How could Sara take on extra responsibilities in her business without considering how it would divide her time even further — putting more pressure on her employees? She also had no right to take advantage of those high school girls, paying them so little for being leaders, not assistants. But most importantly, when one of her workers came to her with an issue and presented a solution, it was her job to come up with alternatives, not to just brush off the complaint.

Sara considers herself a businesswoman, but she is a very poor one at that. A good boss takes into account not just their customers’ satisfaction, but their employees’ as well. In any institution or company I have worked for, it was clear which ones placed an emphasis on a positive workplace environment and respect for staff — that’s a place where people want to work and stay. If everyone else started quitting on Sara, it was probably because she set up an unviable situation. She’s the only one to blame for her failure.

Mindel Kassorla

Please Exercise Sensitivity [The Kichels / Issue 1088]

I’ve been an avid fan of Mishpacha magazine for over 15 years and appreciate it very much as a weekly read, with all of its varied content. Of particular enjoyment is the Kichels column, which is usually so on the mark and relevant to the average frum family’s life. However, this past week’s comic, depicting a men’s trip to Europe to visit “the place where they killed our grandparents,” lacked sensitivity and appropriateness.

I am saying this not as a child or grandchild of Holocaust survivors, but as a second-generation American Jew whose grandparents came to the US over 100 years ago and baruch Hashem did not experience the trauma of those who were direct descendants of the kedoshim of that era. Still, there is no humor in visiting kivrei avos anywhere, how much more so in the concentration camps. The songs that are sung there by visitors are meant to arouse feelings of emunah and hisorerus, confirming our steadfast faith in our mesorah and our Jewish identity and our longing for the Geulah sheleimah.

Moving forward, I suggest that any future satire regarding this topic should be dealt with more tactfulness.

E. Silverman

Far Rockaway, NY

Dignity in the Trash Can [Still Open / Issue 1087]

Reading the article about Amnon’s Pizza reminded me of a story that happened about 30 years ago that I’ll never forget. I was a teenager enjoying lunch at Amnon’s pizza with a friend, when the strangest thing happened. Mr. Amnon, who was slicing pies, took a fresh slice of pizza, put it on a plate, and threw it frisbee-style into the garbage can! We were astounded.

It all became clear a moment later when a clearly homeless man came straight to the garbage, removed the pizza, and sat down to eat it.

What an amazing act of chesed. Clearly this man would not accept tzedakah and probably would rummage through the garbage for scraps of leftover food. Amnon must’ve been aware of this, and wanting to give in a way this man would accept, came up with a genius plan to give him fresh food while taking no credit. It looked as though this was a daily affair.

I learned a valuable lesson that has stood with me since. What a way to do a chesed; quietly, without fanfare, and in a way that saves grace for the recipient. I’m pretty sure nobody knows about this noble act, and I’m sure he does many more just like it. Kol hakovod to Amnon. You are a true inspiration.

Baila T.

Kiddush Hashem on the Plane [Outlook – Issue 1085]

I’ve been following with interest the letters in response to Reb Yonosan Rosenblum’s article Fanning the Flames in the November 5^th issue.  I wanted to add one point to the conversation that hasn’t yet been raised.

Although I strongly agree with the writer’s sentiment about making a kiddush Hashem wherever we are, and particularly when we travel on public transport, I think his example of airplane conduct is off the mark.  Many airlines are positively hostile to religious Jews and their families because they travel with many young children.  There is no way to strap a young child to a chair for ten hours and tell them to sit silently.  It’s only natural that they will disrupt and make a mess.  This is unavoidable, and one cannot put the ‘chillul Hashem’ burden on the parents, in addition to the overall hassle of travel.

Secondly, if one politely requests to change seats, so as to not be seated next to someone of the opposite gender, this is a basic halachic requirement and not a chillul Hashem.  As the chairs get smaller and legroom shrinks in proportion, the stranger next to you is in very close proximity for the duration of the flight.  A frum man cannot possibly sit next to an inappropriately dressed young woman for any amount of time.  And a frum woman will hardly be able to avoid coming into contact with the man next to her.

I am a frum sheitel-wearing middle aged woman and I was extremely uncomfortable when a local rav stayed in his seat next to me on a long plane journey because he was too busy making a kiddush Hashem by not requesting to move.  It was awful. Seating can often be rearranged without bothering the attendants, and is not a chillul Hashem - far from it.

Okay, Jews of every stripe are not good at obeying instructions.  We like to use our seichel instead of following like sheep.  This middah has led to many good decisions but is not appreciated on an airplane.  I get it.  In our defense, airlines today do not schedule enough time to embark and disembark.  Planes arrive at the terminal just in time to refuel, unload cargo and reload passengers’ luggage.  Passengers are left waiting at the gate for ages to embark, while the crew cleans up from the last flight.  The onus for late take-off is then put on passengers who take a few extra moments to take off their hat.  Nope, I don’t buy it.

Since 2020, ElAl has greatly improved in terms of the open disdain for frum people.  I guess erev Shabbos stress was the culprit in the incident shared by Rabbi Rosenblum.

S. T.

UK

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1090)