“Why not glorify our real heroes, the wonderful frum young men in the IDF? Why glorify secular atheists?”

Ahavas Yisrael Trumps Trump [Perspective / Issue 1026]

Yasher koyach to my good friends Rabbi Moshe Hauer and Rabbi A. D. Motzen on so successfully walking on eggshells explaining the need to remind both parties’ leaders “of the growth of the Orthodox Jewish community and its increasing electoral strength.”

Why “eggshells”? Not for the goyim but for unzere. The overwhelming sentiment in the heimish community is pro-Trump. There are reasons for this, and at present, the Republicans are more outspoken in supporting Israel’s position. President Biden’s ahavas Yisrael is not fully appreciated by many. He is, however, a relic of a prior generation.

Perhaps many of you do not understand the venomous diatribes I and many others receive. A guest at our Yom Tov table said that any Jew who votes Democratic is a rodef. A friend of my wife’s wrote on a group chat that anyone supporting Kamala is a rodef. They did not invent this curse; they are repeating what many say.

I have not declared for whom I will vote for president. It is not in our interests to all be in one of the two major parties. To those who tell me that daas Torah demands allegiance to Trump, I recall that Agudah members of the Polish Sejm aligned with whichever party at that moment would be beneficial, or at least less injurious, to Jewish interests.

Stop the worship of any political party. Stop open vindictive hatred of Jews who don’t believe the conspiracy theories you do. Live and let live.

Ahavas Yisrael trumps ahavas Donald Trump.

Rabbi Elchonon Oberstein

Baltimore

Be More Flexible [Opposing Camps / Double Take — Issue 1026]

In the story about the principal who insists on her staff attending an in-service the week before school starts and the teacher who can’t make it because she’ll still be away at her summer job, both the principal and the teacher have valid points, but the issue could be worked out with improved communication and a little flexibility.

If a teacher has been working in a school for many years and the in-service days requirement was never enforced before, then it is unfair to change the policy in the middle of the summer. The principal knows that her school year does not align with camp and that some of her teachers work in faraway camps until the beginning of school. Either she needs to inform her teachers early in the year, before they make their summer plans, or she needs to find flexible solutions.

One possible solution would be to have only one day of meetings before school starts, just to get everyone into school mode. The launching of new programs can be done on a Sunday after Succos or on a legal holiday. Alternatively, the meetings can be done over Zoom, maybe with cameras on so the principal can be assured that the teachers are attending.

The principal has to realize that requiring teachers to leave camp a week early just so they can come to these meetings might cause them to not be hired for these summer jobs at all. Unless she can compensate the teachers significantly, this is a sacrifice that the teachers may not be able to handle.

Name Withheld

Figure Out Plan B [Opposing Camps / Double Take — Issue 1026]

Kudos to Rochel Samet, writer par excellence, for once again doing an excellent job portraying the two sides of a quotidian issue.

As a teacher myself, there are several points I’d like to make.

First, schools pay for ten months of work. They do not pay for July and August. As such, Mrs. Flam is perfectly entitled to take another job during those two months.

Second of all, if the school paid her a living wage, she’d probably be thrilled to give up her summer job, but that’s a whole other Pandora’s box. Suffice it to say that when the assistant principal says, “This is a job, not a volunteer program. They’re paid to teach,” she’s somewhat right and somewhat wrong. It would behoove schools to realize that their teachers are barely making money from their jobs. So while it’s not a volunteer program… it kind of is. Don’t take advantage of it. For most teachers, that’s the sign for the exit called “burnout.”

But here’s the most important thing. Mrs. Blumenthal finds herself up against a wall of teachers who legitimately cannot make the dates work (and those newbie teachers aren’t even on the payroll yet). Why does she keep fighting the teachers instead of figuring out Plan B?

Who says in-service training has to happen the week before school begins?

Mrs. Flam, please do not move to New York because of this problem, since here’s what we’re experiencing: in-service days the week school starts. Which is the week all of us are either home with all of our kids climbing the walls or are home with all of our kids climbing the walls after getting back from our jobs in the Catskills the night before. Pulling us in for a full day of training in the midst of all that chaos is so counterproductive as to be nearly ridiculous. Who can focus when they’ve had to divvy up six kids to six different houses (please, please, please, I’ll pay you!) before showing up at the meeting at the right time, or else.

Some principals have started to wise up and do a two-hour evening training the week before school begins and then follow up with another evening or two after school starts.

Mrs. Blumenthal can do an evening devoted to mental health one week into the new year. She can even take it a step further and do it over Zoom (cameras on and mandatory questionnaires to fill out). Threatening her teachers with fewer personal days (um, which school even gives those? None that I know of) just builds a bigger divide between them and sends a message to the teachers that their needs are most certainly not a part of the equation.

The result? A contribution to the shortage of teachers. Because the teachers who are in the trenches leave a lot faster when they sense a certain entitlement and inflexibility from the higher-ups.

E.R.

Brooklyn

Respect Teachers’ Time [Opposing Camps / Double Take — Issue 1026]

I greatly connected with this Double Take, and I wanted to add a few points. During the school year, a principal has minimal ability to affect what happens in the classroom, as it is now mostly in the hands of the teacher. The only chance for the school administration to have an effect on what happens in the classroom is during the teachers’ meetings. It is a hard thing for a principal to let go of, as they can feel more connected due to the teachers’ meetings.

However, the limited time and resources of a teacher should be respected. My experience (in more than one school) has been that much of what happens during the teachers’ meetings can be consolidated into a half-hour speech and an information packet. If information can be written out and read by the teacher at his or her leisure, please do so. It will help us be more productive and accomplish more for our students. If the paper is already typed out, please do not hand it to us and then keep us there while you read it out loud.

After the week of meetings, I am often left wondering if the teachers’ meetings are only in place for the emotional benefit of the principal. There is one valuable lesson that I come away with each year. I am reminded of how hard it is for students to sit through lectures and speeches about procedures.

A Busy Teacher

Shocked and Appalled [School of Hard Knocks / Issue 1025]

I was shocked and appalled to find the face of an avowed atheist, Shai Davidai, gracing the cover of Mishpacha magazine. The other gedolim or social warriors who do tremendous chesed for Klal Yisrael, who usually grace the cover, are the heroes of our people. And in the same magazine, a long article about Jewish Olympians! Is it just me or has Mishpacha lost its direction?

Granted, both articles are well written and researched, but both are way off mark in terms of sound hashkafah.

The universities of America are rife with intermarriage. The academic environment is characterized by secular fundamentalism and perpetual hedonism. They uphold a belief that truth is only accessible through science, and religion is seen as subjective at best.

Maybe, just maybe, HaKadosh Baruch Hu is allowing us to see the true colors of staff and students there as part of the promise in the Torah: If you forget who you are, I will make sure the non-Jews remind you. Perhaps the right response is not to stand and fight like Davidai, but to get our Yiddishe neshamos off campus and into YU or apprenticeships?

Davidai writes, “Hate is natural. But we have to fight without hate.” Surely the efficacy of fighting hate with love was debunked on October 7? And is hate really so natural? Hashem promises us in this week’s sedrah that if we stay true to the Torah there will be admiration, not hate.

Furthermore, Davidai is invoking achdus, but if you read what he is saying, he is pushing for pluralism, the secular counterfeit for achdus, a hashkafah that will lead his wonderful children away from commitment.

I understand the human interest of writing an article about historic anti-Semitism in the Olympics at a time when Israeli athletes need a motorcade of security at the Paris Olympics. Still, I hurt for the chillul Hashem that the secular Israeli government feels the need to compete in the Eurovision or the Olympics. We are a nation that shines like stars but what we excel at is morality and truth, not in fencing. We are a Light unto the Nations, only when we remember what we’re supposed to be doing.

If Mishpacha wants to glorify Jews who give up all because of anti-Semitism, who make sacrifices, why not glorify our real heroes, the wonderful frum young men in the IDF? Why glorify secular atheists? I understand the sensibilities, but the question hurts so much.

S.T.

London

Jewish Women Athletes [Bitter Blade / Issue 1025]

I greatly appreciated the fascinating article about the Jewish Hungarian Olympic athletes. My grandfather was taken to the munkatabor from Debrecen like Károly Kárpáti, and I can’t help but wonder if their paths had crossed.

There were also Jewish women Olympic athletes, most notably Ágnes Keleti. She survived the war with false papers, while her mother and sister were saved by Raoul Wallenberg. However, her father and the rest of her family were killed. In 1952 and 1956, at ages 31 and 35, she won ten medals for Hungary, including gold. To date, she is the most successful Jewish woman Olympian. She left Hungary when the Communist revolution threatened the following year, and eventually ended up in Israel, where she became a coach. Amazingly, she is 103 years old, breaking yet another record for longest-living Olympian.

Lea Pavel

Marriage Is a Private Place [Inbox / Issue 1025]

I’ve been following with interest the inbox discussion that the serial Picture This prompted. I have yet to see anyone bring up the concern that has been bothering me, so I thought I’d be the one to voice it.

Excuse my naivete as I am young, but I thought someone’s marriage was not an appropriate setting for a story. I understand this story is riding the shanah-rishonah-is-not-a-picnic trend, and I hear how awareness is important. Life is challenging and it is good not to carry societally imposed fantasies that suggest otherwise.

But I also thought there was a sensitivity we had among ourselves as frum Jews that the institution of marriage is sacred and not fodder for some juicy story. I am a writer as well, and when I first saw this serial, whose plot revolved around a young couple and their adjustment to marriage and each other, I was surprised, and upon reading it, a bit uncomfortable.

Yes, marriage is part and parcel of our Jewish life and beautiful at that. Obviously, in fiction, the theme of marriage is deeply ingrained in many if not most plots, but there always is a time when the protagonist couple shuts the door to their home, when their cutesy interactions or petty fights are not relevant or appropriate to the story. To have a story that explores these interactions — the small stuff, the petty stuff, the banter — felt like I was overstepping. If their marriage was a side plot, maybe I could stomach it better, but to have a story whose plot is marriage itself feels wrong.

Obviously, with our frum sensitivities, we are hardly giving an all-encompassing view of the adjustment to marriage, but even the part that remains I can only describe as inappropriate. I spoke this over with others and they expressed the same sentiment. There is nothing objectively wrong with the story. In fact, our frum sensitivities seem almost laughable in the face of the blatant disregard for privacy altogether in secular fiction.

If there is a word I could put to it, I’d say it feels cheap. It feels cheap to avidly listen in on a young couple’s marriage. Again, I know this is a heightened frum sensitivity, but I think it is these sensitivities which keep us kadosh.

C. L.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1027)