“Now, let me ask you: Who deserves acceptance to the ‘top’ seminary?”

Reality on the Ground [Inbox / 1100]

I’d like to respond to M.K.’s letter in last week’s Inbox questioning the point of critiques of demonstrations such as the one offered in Yonoson Rosenblum’s column. I believe that meaningful criticism of life in Israel requires living here and experiencing its daily realities firsthand. Those who reside abroad may not fully appreciate the complexities and tensions that shape Israeli society. In that regard, commentators such as Yonoson Rosenblum, who live here and engage daily with the public mood, are often better positioned to reflect the pulse of the country than those observing from afar.

Many of us who live here have personally experienced the frustration and helplessness of being stranded for hours due to demonstrations that obstruct roads and disrupt ordinary life. While grievances may exist, do they justify infringing on others’ basic right to travel freely and conduct their lives without undeserving and undue interference?

You describe the chareidi community as angry, demonized, and slandered. I struggle with the notion that anger can serve as a license for disruptive or harmful behavior. Our mesorah consistently discourages anger as an appropriate response. Foundational Torah sources — including the Rambam, Rabbeinu Yonah, Mesillas Yesharim, and Chovos Halevavos — emphasize self-control, derech eretz, and personal refinement rather than public hostility.

When bnei Torah conduct themselves with dignity, refinement, and respect, they are admired across the spectrum of Israeli society. Conversely, behavior that includes taunting police or soldiers, obstructing civilians, or engaging in inflammatory rhetoric inevitably creates a chillul Hashem that damages and undermine the very values we seek to uphold.

These concerns are not theoretical. They raise practical and moral questions that many Israelis — chareidi, dati-leumi, and chiloni alike — publicly ask:

• Why should public demonstrations impede innocent citizens?
• How does inflammatory language or public disorder reflect Torah values?

To be clear, I am not debating the halachic or hashkafic position regarding military service. That discussion belongs to gedolei Torah and is beyond my purview. My concern is solely with how these positions are expressed publicly and the impact they have on the broader society. Does the current conduct reflect a kiddush Hashem or chas v’shalom the opposite?

It is worth recalling the approach of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who opposed confrontational demonstrations and instead advocated respectful, peaceful, and courteous engagement, even when expressing firm convictions. That model reflects the kavod habriyos and kiddush Hashem to which all bnei and lomdei Torah should aspire.

Living harmoniously here in Katamon, among neighbors of every background, has only strengthened my belief that we share a common destiny and responsibility. Experiencing Israel firsthand — its challenges, diversity, and daily realities — often changes one’s perspective. As El Al famously says, there is no place more truly “home” for the Jewish people than Israel. I would encourage you to spend meaningful time here and see these realities for yourself.

You might then join us in permanently living here.

Allan Levy

Katamon, Jerusalem

The Answers Are In [Open Mic / Issue 1100]

The answers are in. Many 12th graders can now breathe a sigh of relief, while others are in a race with time, trying push themselves into any appropriate seminary, all while keeping their heads held high and smiling. “It’s not you!” they hear again and again. “It’s just the space limitations, the demand is greater than the number of available slots, etc.”

It’s all true. No one is arguing with that reality. What I’d like to take issue with is not the amount of spots available but who those spots go to.

Picture two fabulous Bais Yaakov girls. Both are erlich, tzniyus, fun, wholesome, responsible, reliable and hardworking. They differ in one area only — their report cards. One has straight A’s and the other works hard for her B’s.

Anyone who has ever gone through the process of seminary applications knows quite well which of the two girls will be accepted — the straight A student. But why? Is she greater? More deserving? A “better” girl? More responsible? More reliable? Finer? More tzanua? I don’t understand. Yes, she was given more brains by HaKadosh Baruch Hu, but she didn’t work hard for that — it was given to her. Schoolwork, learning, and tests all came easily to her.

Now, the other girl struggled to listen and understand in class, wrote notes to the best of her ability, did her homework nightly, studied, even went to tutors when necessary… and worked really, really hard. Despite the fact that schoolwork was a struggle, she stayed a true bas Yisrael and role model. Now, let me ask you: Who deserves acceptance to the “top” seminary?

I’d appreciate if anyone with insight into the matter can enlighten me, as I’m pained, confused, and trying to understand.

Name Withheld

A Fine Record [The Current / Issue 1100]

I’m a longtime reader and a member of the West Rogers Park Jewish community and after reading your article about the Illinois 9th Congressional District primary I felt should reach out. While it was informative, I do think the section about State Senator Laura Fine left out important context about her record with the Jewish community and on Israel.

Fine has passed $40 million in funding for shuls, day schools, and community centers. She’s worked to bring funding to JCFS, Chabad, JUF, and other similar organizations.

While the article mentions her general support for Israel, it doesn’t show how strongly she has stood on that issue, even when it cost her politically. In Springfield, she has totally stood apart from colleagues on Israel-related matters, and that has not gone unnoticed.

The article suggests that Orthodox voters are left without a strong option. A letter has been signed by rabbanim in Chicago who took the time to meet with her directly and have chosen to endorse her after serious conversations about issues that matter to us, including school-tax credits, combating antisemitism, and security funding.

I also think it’s important to note that she only entered public service later in life after her husband nearly died in a car crash and their family was left high and dry by their insurance company.

I hope that future coverage would reflect the full picture of Senator Fine’s record and her relationship with the Jewish community.

Meir Cohen

Crowdfunding Isn’t Working [Double Take – For a Good Cause / Issue 1100]

I’d like to respond to the Double Take about the crowdfunding campaign. These campaigns have become such a big issue for so many families I know. They are pressured to take on a goal, and then then need to pressure everyone they know to donate money they don’t have. The phenomenon is completely out of control and takes a terrible toll on both the askers and the givers.

This winter three different very worthy organizations asked me to take on a goal for exaggerated amounts in the same two weeks. And I still got calls from other people who also took goals for two of the three, asking if I could help them meet their goals. In what universe does this make sense?

If I would give donations to every person who calls me, I would very quickly be in the red. Often, three people call for the same campaign, all of whom I would equally love to help, but three others already called my husband and he already gave more than we can afford!

I’ve considered just giving a five dollar donation to each caller, but I don’t know how much of the money would reach the organization and how much would go toward the overhead costs of running the campaign.

I think it’s time to come up with new fundraising methods.

 A Broke Reader

Letter from a Landsman [Heart of Love, Spine of Steel / Issue 1099]

Thank you to the staff at Mishpacha for the weekly enjoyment and inspiration. I enjoyed the recent articles on my landsman, Hagaon Rav Elyakim Shlesinger ztz”l, and while I understand that the articles were written on very short notice, I feel it necessary to point out a couple of inaccuracies.

The article asserted that Yeshivas Harama, the yeshivah Rav Elyakim opened when he arrived in London in the 1950s, was a pioneering yeshivah. Actually, Rav Moshe Schneider and Rav Zeidel Siemiatycki had already established a yeshivah as early as 1938. In fact, when Rav Elyakim established Yeshivas Harama, he called upon Rav Moshe Schloss ztz”l, a Schneider’s talmid, to serve as maggid shiur. Similarly, the Getter’s cheder was up and running, with virtually no limudei chol; the Schneider’s talmidim and various chassidim sent their children there. Contrary to what was written in the article, by the mid 1950s it was standard for frum boys to go to yeshivah, at least for a year or so.

An additional point that I felt was somewhat misrepresented was Rav Elyakim’s approach to Zionism, which was often misunderstood. Rav Elyakim did not disagree that the Chazon Ish had a pragmatic approach to the secular state. Unlike others, however, he felt that the Chazon Ish did not encourage voting, and rather that he encouraged Rabbi Shlomo Lorincz to run as an MK so that those who were voting anyway would vote for him. In later years Rav Shach would announce this opinion even more sharply, saying that the Chazon Ish held it was actually forbidden to participate in elections, unless one was voting for the frum parties.

Many in England were acutely aware of British antisemitism, both in Eretz Yisrael and at home. They knew about the Allies’ passivity that kept them from saving millions of Yidden from annihilation during the war and the British refusal to allow refugees to enter Eretz Yisrael afterward. Accordingly, their sympathies lay with the new state, although most of them had never even visited it. Rav Elyakim, on the other hand, arrived in London after having lived in Eretz Yisrael, where he was active in the Pe’ilim movement. He knew about the plight of the Yaldei Teheran and the Yemenite immigrants, which lent him a different take on the nascent state.

His approach to the death of his father-in-law was presented in the article as somewhat of a conspiracy theory, with the official story presented first and then his opinion. I believe it would be unfair to share the story without mentioning the tragic story of the kadosh Dr. Yisrael De Han Hashem yikom damo, who was asked by Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld to explain to the British the chareidi view on the establishment of a Zionist secular state, and was undeniably murdered.

Similarly, Rav Meir Karelitz and Rav Moshe Blau zichronam livrachah were asked by the Maharitz Dushinsky to travel to England and explain their viewpoint to the British, and Rav Moshe Blau mysteriously perished on the way. At his levayah, the Maharitz Dushinsky shed copious tears and asked the niftar for mechilah for having sent him.

I also felt that the article made little reference to the true uniqueness of this unusual person. Rav Elyakim never shed his delight in learning, his simchas hachaim, and his unbelievable enthusiasm for Hashem, His Torah, His mitzvos, His people, and His land.

Y.M. Goldstein

London/Eretz Yisrael 

Prioritize Your Own Regulation [Double Take – Sink or Swim / Issue 1097]

Rochel Samet is amazing. Each week, she creates scenarios that feel more realistic than the nonfiction stories!

There were some important parallels and lessons in the two recent Double Takes, “Sink or Swim” and “For a Good Cause.” Here I will focus on just one side of each.

The mother in “Sink or Swim” assumed the school was intentionally leaving her daughter out. How could they forget about her daughter’s traumatic experience from the previous summer?

In “For a Good Cause,” the brother could not believe that his sister was asking him for a donation to the school that rejected his daughter.

In both stories, the hurt parents reacted from their gut. It’s understandable. We may feel our children’s pain even more than they do! However, I believe this was a lost opportunity for both hurt parents. Calming down and communicating with the other side would have helped in both situations. We should never assume people know what we know.

It’s so important to work on our own emotional regulation as parents. By doing so, we’re modeling a crucial life skill for our children, one that will help them more than anything we can say to them.

Parents, please put your own emotional oxygen mask on first!

Alisa Minkin, MD

No One Is Indispensable [Double Take – Offline / Issue 1094]

Thank you for publishing the Double Take about the employee who was unreachable during her vacation. As I read it, I found myself thinking, This is my life. I shared it with a coworker, who joked, “How do they know what’s going on in our office?!” The piece struck a real chord.

I was actually surprised there wasn’t more feedback from employees in similar situations, so I felt compelled to write my first letter to the editor to say that the scenario was incredibly accurate and reflective of what many of us experience.

When I accepted my current position over a decade ago, I made it clear during negotiations that I would need to be out of the office during “yeshivah week,” and my employer agreed without hesitation. Over time, my responsibilities have grown significantly, and my role now extends well beyond standard business hours at certain points during the year. I am committed to my work and care deeply about the organization’s success, which is why I am willing to put in extra time when needed. At the same time, I recognize that for my own well-being and my family’s, there are periods when I truly need to disconnect.

This year, I made the intentional decision not to check emails during yeshivah week. Ironically, the Double Take was published right around then (coincidence?). Three days into my vacation, I received a text from my employer about an “emergency” that only I could handle. I was away without access to my computer and responded that I was unavailable. As it turned out, the matter was resolved without me. The world did not collapse.

The reality is that many of us insist on fully unplugging precisely because we know that “emergencies” will arise that aren’t truly urgent. We are dedicated and loyal employees — that is why we hold the roles we do. However, when employers rely too heavily on the assumption that technology makes us perpetually accessible, it leaves us no choice but to establish firm boundaries. In truth, it’s also in an employer’s best interest to encourage employees to take real breaks to recharge. Sustainable productivity depends on it.

Please don’t publish my name — I need to keep my job!

Due to Shushan Purim, next week’s issue will be distributed on Thursday, 16 Adar (March 5).
Please note that our office will be closed on Wednesday and will resume regular hours on Thursday.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1101)