text:
On the Offensive in the Knesset Against Reform
Tzvi Yaakovson
It was 3:00 on Wednesday afternoon in the Knesset plenum. In Yerushalayim, Purim was still over a day away, but many of the members of the Knesset, along with many of their staff members and hundreds of Knesset employees, live outside Yerushalayim. Not all of them were concerned about hearing the Megillah, but there were many who were, and they were beginning to shift uncomfortably in their seats in the Knesset plenum as the time for Minchah drew near. As long as the Knesset was in session, no one could leave. With the coalition as narrow as it is, that would be taking too great a risk. In the current government, every vote counts. In fact, the events that were about to unfold would make it very clear that this is so.
Earlier that week, the Knesset presidium, which consists of Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein and his ten deputies, had decided that the Knesset plenum would end its sitting on Wednesday no later than 4:00 in the afternoon. Over the course of the day, the speakers were urged to keep their remarks brief.
By 2:00 in the afternoon, the Knesset had begun dealing with the final bill on the day's agenda. It seemed that the goal had been achieved; the Knesset was about to conclude its business for the day. Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu was in his seat at the government table, the center table in the Knesset plenum. The session was chaired by MK Tali Ploskov of the Kulanu party, and the bill under discussion was the umpteenth legislative proposal of Michal Biran of the Zionist Camp, dealing with the limitations on the fees collected by companies managing pension funds. The vote was held and the coalition was shocked by the results. The screen on the ceiling of the plenum showed that 42 votes had been submitted in favor of transferring the bill to a committee for further discussion, while only 39 votes were cast for it to be removed from the Knesset agenda. Ploskov announced the results and there was an uproar in the plenum.
The prime minister indicated that his vote hadn't been recorded by the system and Ploskov replied, "Mr. Prime Minister, I am adding the prime minister, MK Binyomin Netanyahu, to the protocols as another vote in opposition to the proposed bill." As the babble of voices in the plenum rose in volume, she called out, "One moment. I can't hear, and I want to understand what he is saying. Please calm down, ladies and gentlemen. I want to hear the prime minister."
"The display didn't light up," Netanyahu said. "I couldn't vote because it wasn't working."
"Okay," Ploskov said. "I am adding one more vote in opposition. But we still have 40 opposed and 42 in favor. Therefore, this bill has passed its initial reading and is being transferred to the Finance Committee."
The eyes of the coalition leaders blazed with anger. The issue wasn't a particularly critical one, but the sense of defeat was unpleasant, especially since it was the last subject to be addressed before the sitting would be closed. On one side of the room, I saw David Bittan and Tzachi Hanegbi standing with a group of Likud party workers; both were clearly enraged. They asked to be shown a list of the Knesset members who had voted, so that they could determine which parliamentarians had shirked their voting duties. Just two days earlier, at a Likud party meeting, the prime minister had rebuked the Knesset members who exhibited such behavior, reminding them that the previous government had fallen because of the same conduct. He never would have imagined that the same thing would happen in the Knesset later that same week.
It was soon revealed that three members of the Knesset had simply disappeared, without receiving permission to leave and without making certain that there would be corresponding absences among the opposition. From the left side of the plenum, where the opposition sits, applause was heard. The opposition members shouted in joy and embraced each other. Meanwhile, as the members of the Knesset prepared to leave for the day, it was revealed that there was one more subject on the agenda – not a bill, but a motion for the agenda. And the topic caused the Knesset members to rub their eyes in disbelief.
"Ladies and gentlemen," Tali Ploskov announced, "I understand that the legislative work of the day is over. We now have one motion for the agenda: 'The struggle is not against the Reform Jew, but against the Reform cult or religion, which dares to claim that the Torah is not relevant.' This is motion 3476, submitted by MK Yigal Guetta. MK Guetta, we are waiting for you to speak."
At the sound of voices raised in protest throughout the plenum, Ploskov announced, "Ladies and gentlemen, I ask all of you to please calm down. I ask all of the aides and parliamentary advisors to please leave. Everyone who is speaking, please leave. We are continuing the discussions in the plenum."
Yigal Guetta, a Knesset member from the Shas party, then approached the podium, and we discovered that he had prepared a sharp, forceful address whose purpose was to explain the reason for our opposition to the Reform movement. The chilonim, after all, also desecrate the Shabbos, even occasionally driving to shul on the day, yet we are tolerant of them, while we have declared war on the Reform. Guetta's objective was to explain why this is so.
Simple Extortion
"Madame Chairman, honored Prime Minister, and my friend, the Minister of Religious Affairs," Guetta began. "I would like to begin with a comment about this period of the year. As you know, today is Taanis Esther, and tonight we will be celebrating Purim. In the Megillah, we will read Haman's words to King Achashveirosh, which were spoken 1,660 years ago: 'There is one nation that is scattered and dispersed among the nations in all the states of your kingdom. Their laws are different from those of every nation, and they do not keep the laws of the king, and it is not worthwhile for the king to leave them unharmed.' Haman thought that he could obliterate the Jewish people for one reason: The Jews were scattered among the nations of the kingdom. Our strength lies in our unity. When we are not united, the result is tragedy. Even the wicked Haman, the mortal enemy of the Jews, understood that.
"Since that time, 1,660 years have passed, and the Jewish nation is now living through another attempt to create a rift among us. To our great chagrin, this time it comes from within. The attempt is cloaked in the guise of liberalism and democracy. It is called 'progressive Judaism.' It is an attempt at modernization that is liable to lead to physical and spiritual disaster. The Reform movement in Israel – or, as they call themselves, the movement of 'progressive Judaism' – is…. Madame Chairman," Guetta interrupted himself as the clamor of raised voices in the plenum rose sharply, "can you protect me from this noise?"
"I will try," Ploskov agreed. "Please just give me a few moments. Members of the opposition," she announced, "I would like to ask anyone who wishes to continue speaking to step outside. MK Svetlova, I am asking you to leave. Thank you."
Yigal Guetta continued, "The Reform movement in Israel – or, as they call themselves, the movement of 'progressive Judaism' – is seeking to undermine everything good in the Jewish people and in Eretz Yisroel, and the result is a rift between various parts of our people. This rift is being created by the Reform cult or religion; I do not know which is the more appropriate term. They are the primary cause of assimilation, and they are eradicating the Jewish people. The next generation of Reform Jews in America, by and large, knows nothing about Judaism, and presumably nothing about the State of Israel. The recognition that the Reform Jews receive from the State of Israel is primarily because of their political and financial support, especially the financial part of it. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there is a connection here between money and power, but it is a connection that will bring destruction in its wake.
"Several days ago, at the AIPAC convention, in an interview with Channel 10, Rabbi Rick Jacobs delivered a blatant threat to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He declared that the continued support of the Reform movement for the prime minister would be contingent on the arrangement regarding their prayer area at the Kosel. If this isn't an act of the underworld, then what is? This is a blatant bid to buy recognition with money. The Reform Jews know that money can buy them anything, even a decision that a non-Jew is Jewish."
What happened at that point was exactly what I foresaw: The members of the Meretz party, enraged by Guetta's words, began to scream in protest. Michal Rozin shouted, "The underworld?"
"Absolutely," Guetta responded. "If the decisions of the government of Israel are driven by money, then it is most definitely the underworld."
"MK Michal Rozin, please calm down," Tali Ploskov said, but Rozin continued screaming.
"Do you know what?" Yigal Guetta said. "It is more than that. It is simple extortion. Not only is it the work of the underworld, and not only is it power acquired through money, it is extortion. Because of their influence in the American government and the money they give us, they expect to dictate to us how to run our state."
"This is unbelievable!" Michal Rozin exclaimed. "Maybe you should recognize the fact that it is important to preserve Judaism."
"I ask you," Guetta said, "what is the next thing that they are going to want? They are going to demand a Reform chief rabbi."
"Why not?" Rozin demanded. "Why not? What's wrong with that? Enough with the Orthodox monopoly. Enough!"
"Then let's give everyone the same thing," Guetta said. "There are other religions here as well."
"There has been a monopoly here for 67 years," Rozin continued to rant. "Enough!"
"The Reform movement is a religion of irreligiousness. It is not a religion at all," Guetta said.
"It isn't a religion in your eyes!" Rozin shot back. "Who are you to decide? Who are you at all?"
"Michal Rozin," Tali Ploskov interrupted, "I am calling you to order for the first time."
"Do you think you can decide what is a religion and what isn't, and what Judaism is?" Rozin continued. In response, Tali Ploskov called her to order again.
"No," said Guetta. "Their objective is to completely dismantle the Jewish religion. They want to demolish Judaism."
"You have no monopoly on Judaism!" Rozin exclaimed. "What you want is a monopoly!"
"They wear tefillin only when Channel 2 comes to the Kosel," Guetta went on. "If they don't receive a chief rabbi, then they will simply donate a little more money, or they will threaten us again, or they will stop donating altogether, and then everything will be done as they wish."
This time, Mickey Levi of Yesh Atid called out, "But they are Jews, Rabbi Guetta. They are good Jews!"
Guetta's response was soon to come. Meanwhile, Michal Rozin was removed from the plenum by the female ushers. Guetta continued speaking with great sincerity. Ploskov said to him, "MK Guetta, please continue your own address and do not respond to the members of the Knesset who are heckling you."
A Chiloni Doesn't Deny the Torah
Guetta continued, "Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the 'high priest' of the Israeli left, said the following about the Reform movement: 'If religion becomes a device for satisfying a person's desires, if it must be tailored to his personal ambitions, then what is the difference between a shul and a movie theater?' He also understood this point. Madame Chairman, I am saying these things with great pain, but these are things that must be said. The agenda of the Reform movement is to take all the things about Judaism that are most precious and to cheapen them, to turn them into nothing more than an empty pastime. This represents an existential danger to the Jewish people no less significant than the physical dangers that are facing us. It is a spiritual danger, rather than a physical one. There is one thing I do not understand: If Orthodox Judaism is old-fashioned and out of date, then why do the Reform Jews insist on having a place for themselves next to a stone wall that was built 2,000 years ago, whose significance is based entirely on Judaism and its 'old-fashioned' Torah? Why does it interest you? Go find a wall in Herzliya and do as you please!"
The members of the Knesset listened in silence, and Guetta continued reading aloud from a prepared script. It was clear that he had worked hard on this speech. "I am speaking from the heart, ladies and gentlemen," he asserted. "I feel that many people do not understand our struggle against the Reform movement. There is a certain blurring of the issues, a certain lack of clarity. People think that the chareidim are fighting against the Jews of the Diaspora, but that is absolutely untrue. It is a lie.
"The Reform Jews prefer to present the situation this way in order to gain popularity," Guetta went on. "We are not at war with the secular Jewish public. The Torah itself teaches us that there is bechirah. If you want to keep the Torah, keep it. If you don't want to, don't keep it. But there is also reward and punishment. We will reach out to the chilonim and attempt to draw them closer. A chiloni Jew is not a person who denies the Torah. He simply admits that he is incapable of keeping it, that it is difficult for him to be observant. Today, for instance, it is Taanis Esther, but many Jews are not fasting. Would we consider ourselves at war with someone who says that he is naturally too weak to fast? Not at all. Unlike the Reform Jews, he doesn't mock or deride the Torah. He doesn't say, 'Who needs this fast?' He doesn't declare that today, in the age of hi-tech, the mitzvos are no longer necessary. He simply says, 'It's true that my father fasted and my mother fasted, but I am less observant than they were, because it's too hard for me.' We are not at war with a person like that. It is a mitzvah to be mekarev even an anti-religious Jew, and it is a sin to drive him away. We believe that every Jew has the potential to be brought closer to his Father in Heaven."
With that, Guetta came to the main point of his speech. "However, ladies and gentlemen, we are at war with the Reform Jews – and it is quite a war. The Reform Jews have an approach that belittles the Torah and denies its authenticity. They are seeking to create a new religion, one that will be built on the ruins of real Judaism."
"Call it a struggle, not a war," Mickey Levi called out.
Guetta continued, "The Reform movement is a religion whose essence is defiance of the Creator of the Universe and His Torah."
"A struggle, not a war!" Levi repeated.
"A struggle," Guetta acknowledged and continued his speech. "What does a Reform Jew say? 'Matzah? Who needs matzah? Today, in the modern age, there is no reason not to eat chometz.' Have you ever seen a Reform Jew taking a lulav and esrog on Sukkos? I have never seen that. And do you know why? The Reform Jews do not even know that those mitzvos exist, and if they are aware of them, they reject them, just as they reject all the mitzvos of the Torah. This is precisely the problem. These women put on tefillin at the Kosel only when the reporters from Channel 2 are there to document it. That should help you understand their true connection to tefillin. The Torah, in their eyes, is irrelevant. They know nothing and have learned nothing, yet they want to change the Torah and make 'improvements.' Let them not dare say such things! They have even made changes in the siddur and thereby ruined it."
Merav Michaeli of the Zionist Camp interjected, "Insanity! This is insanity!" It was a reference, of course, to Guetta himself, not to the Reform Jews who were the targets of his address.
"Do you know that there was a time, decades ago, when the Reform movement erased every mention of Tzion and Yerushalayim from its siddur?" Guetta asked. "Do you know why? You don't know? Then let me explain it to you. In Germany, the Reform Jews and the Maskilim erased these words because they were too much in the style of the 'Diaspora' for their tastes. The Reform Jews do not have a Shabbos day or even a day of rest. The day that we call Shabbos Kodesh is nothing but 'Saturday' to them. They have no shul; they merely have a temple, with an organ and with a 'rabbi' who looks like a priest. Sometimes they even have an actual priest. After all, it is a 'temple'; that is what they call their houses of worship. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a joke, but it is also very sad. As the old story goes, a father once saw his son engaging in all sorts of mischief and laughing uproariously at his shenanigans, and the father said, 'I would laugh too – if he wasn't my own child.'"
In an effort to make himself understood, Guetta reiterated his point. "I emphasize again that we are not involved in a struggle against a chiloni in Netanya or Tel Aviv who is mechallel Shabbos or who eats treif. We are pained by this, but these people are not our enemies. On the contrary, they are our brothers, and we must embrace them and reach out to them. But we are involved in a struggle against those who claim that it is permissible to violate the Shabbos or to eat treif. Our war is a war against the new religion that claims to permit all of the things that the Torah forbids, based on the horrific argument that the Torah is irrelevant, chas veshalom. That is the reason for our struggle – that, and our objective of preventing the Reform Jews from deceiving all of you."
A Quote from Rav Nebenzahl
Guetta went on to quote something that I myself cited in the Yated two weeks ago: Rav Moshe Feinstein's stance on the subject. "Madame Chairman," he said, "thirty years ago, Rav Moshe Feinstein passed away. He was known as the posek hador and was the supreme halachic authority in the United States. In 1972, a rov in Boston asked him…" As the noise level in the plenum rose again, Guetta said, "Can there be silence in the gallery, please? MK Bittan, seriously, it is very disruptive."
Ploskov interjected, "Chairmen of the parties, please. It is very difficult for anyone to speak when others are talking somewhere else. Please be silent."
Guetta resumed his speech. "Allow me to quote from the halachic responsa of Rav Moshe Feinstein, and let us show respect for him. He wrote, and I quote, 'First, it must be known that one of the foundations of our pure faith is that the entire Torah, both the written component and the oral component, was given by Hashem Himself at Har Sinai through Moshe Rabbeinu, and it is impossible to alter even the smallest detail, whether to be more lenient or to be more stringent.' With regard to the women who were the subject of the question, he ruled that even though they truly desired to fulfill a mitzvah, since they were motivated by the principle of equality and by resentment of the holy Torah, they had the status of heretics. 'This is not an act of a mitzvah at all,' he said. 'On the contrary, it is a forbidden act.' If that is what he said about a group of women who wished to perform a mitzvah, you can certainly imagine what his position would have been regarding those who seek to uproot mitzvos from the Torah."
Next, he quoted Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl, who is one of the leaders of the struggle against the Reform efforts to claim part of the Kosel as their own. "In conclusion, I would like to quote another distinguished rov. In the Jewish Quarter of Yerushalayim, there is a rov who is one of the gedolei Yisroel, a very modest Torah scholar who scrupulously avoids public attention. He is also the rov of the Jewish Quarter. He grew up in an Israeli Zionist home. His father was Dr. Yitzchok Nebenzahl, a man who came to Israel before the founding of the state and who served as the state ombudsman. His sister, Pliah Albek, was a remarkable woman, a great baalas chesed and a senior official in the attorney general's office. This man is Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl.
"Several years ago, Rav Nebenzahl wrote an affidavit to the Supreme Court, as the court was about to discuss an appeal from the Reform movement regarding the Kosel. He wrote, 'When Moshe Rabbeinu, the humblest of all men, first heard the Word of Hashem, he asked, "Who am I?" This was in contrast to the wicked Paroh, whose first reaction to hearing the Divine Word was to ask, "Who is Hashem?" The Jewish sages throughout the generations have always followed the example of Moshe Rabbeinu and have subjugated themselves to the Word of Hashem to the point of mesirus nefesh. Those who have rebelled against the path of the Torah in every generation, meanwhile, have made the Word of Hashem subject to their own desires. When the Greeks were in power, they became Hellenists, and when the Jews overcame the Greeks in the days of the Chashmonaim, they became Tzedukim. When the Romans took over Eretz Yisroel, they connected to the Romans. The Reform Jews have also followed this pattern. They thought that they would be secure in Germany, so they removed Lashon Hakodesh from their prayers and they erased every mention of Yerushalayim and the Bais Hamikdosh, considering Berlin to be their holy land and viewing themselves as Germans. During the Holocaust, the Reform rov of Sweden, Rabbi Ehrenpreis, tried to dissuade the Swedish government from taking in Jewish refugees. One of the leaders of the Reform movement in America, Stephen Wise, tried to block an appeal to President Roosevelt to save the Jews who were being taken to the gas chambers.' This was the text of his statement to the Supreme Court."
Guetta concluded, "On Chanukah and on Purim, ladies and gentlemen, attempts were made to destroy the Jewish people, and these two holidays will never be abolished. On Purim, the non-Jews attempted to destroy the Jewish nation physically, and on Chanukah they tried to destroy our spirituality, our figurative flask of pure oil. Chazal teach us that the attempts to destroy us spiritually were worse than the efforts to destroy us physically – and that is exactly what the Reform movement is attempting to do!"
Merav Michaeli spoke up again. "How is it that you haven't used up your allotted time with all these slanderous words?"
"It is because of you," Guetta replied. "Since you keep interrupting me, I keep getting more time to speak."
"It's slander!" Michaeli repeated.
"And you haven't even heard me," Guetta said.
"I have stood here and heard everything," she replied.
"You listened to me for half a second and then you left, so how can you be calling this slander?" Guetta demanded.
"No," Michaeli insisted. "I have been standing here since the beginning of your speech and it is completely slanderous."
"MK Guetta," Ploskov interrupted, "your time is up."
"Listen carefully," Guetta said. "They are tearing out pieces of the Torah and of Judaism. Members of the Knesset, this is how we can understand the fact that Rav Ovadiah Yosef, who was a paragon of love for other human beings, came out so strongly against the Reform Jews, and the fact that Rav Shalom Cohen, the rosh yeshiva of Porat Yosef, has instructed his representatives not to give in on this subject. It is because we are at war with them – not with the individual Reform Jew from Baltimore or Chicago, for those people are considered personally in the category of 'tinok shenishbah…'"
"Thank you," said Tali Ploskov.
"I am finishing," Guetta said. "I am referring instead to the leaders of the Reform movement. It is against them that we are waging this struggle, and we cannot and will not give in. The Torah is eternal, and no mortal being can change even a single letter of the Torah – even if he donates money to the State of Israel, and even if Netanyahu is afraid of him. The most important thing is for us to have no fear. Thank you very much."
"We Will Stand Strong"
MK Dovid Azulai, the Minister of Religious Affairs, was chosen to deliver the government's response to Guetta's motion, even though Azulai himself is known for his rigid stance against the Reform movement. About half a year ago, Azulai declared in an interview that he does not view the Reform Jews as Jewish. The uproar over that comment was so great that the prime minister released a statement of support for the Reform Jews and announced that he had reprimanded Azulai. Now, too, Azulai unleashed a fierce attack on the Reform movement, although he was careful not to repeat the sentiment that they are not Jewish.
"Madame Chairman and members of the Knesset," he began. "My good friend, MK Yigal Guetta, I congratulate you on your heartfelt and penetrating words. Throughout the generations, Jews of faith throughout the world have had to contend with Jews of a weaker character, who sought to diminish the faith of the general Jewish public and weaken its commitment to Hashem's Torah and mitzvos. This happened in Mitzrayim, when Doson and Avirom sought to erode Jewish society from within, and it happened in the days of the Hellenists and all the other apostates throughout our generations of exile, as well as the Maskilim in the period preceding the Holocaust. This has happened throughout Jewish history: People from within our nation, Jews who were born to Jewish mothers and who were full-fledged halachic Jews, have risen up with all sorts of ideas and proposals about the need to make innovations and institute reforms. They have agitated for Judaism to be tailored to the times and have claimed that there is a need to eliminate the old mitzvos, chas vechalilah, and to update our religion for the modern era. They have called to make it possible for Jewish men and women to marry non-Jews, to abrogate the mitzvos that are difficult to fulfill, and to make it easier for those who are not like us, who are not part of our nation, to convert or be considered observant."
With that introduction, Azulai went on the offensive. "It must be made clear: Judaism is not a program that can be adjusted as one pleases. We do not have the ability to change even a single word that is written in the Torah. This can be compared to a person who wishes to send an email to his friend, but who leaves out just a single period or letter in the email address. Would any of us be surprised at the fact that the email will never reach its recipient? We would simply tell the person that it is impossible to send an email in that way. He must check the address and follow the rules. And the same is true of Judaism. There are people who call for the Torah to be changed, who are agitating day and night for changes to be made to the Torah that was given to us at Har Sinai and has been passed down from father to son in every Jewish community, from Yemen to Poland and from Ethiopia to Aleppo. These are people who will stop at nothing to ensnare the innocent and to achieve their goals through any means necessary. These people are investing a fortune in their efforts. MK Yigal Guetta, you spoke about the money that is used to influence the government, and I agree with you. All of this is being done in order to destroy Hashem's Torah. Our response to them is that this will never happen. We will not allow it. Just as our forefathers stood strong throughout the generations against all those who rose up against us, just as they kept the flame burning, we will also stand strong. All of those who love the Torah and are loyal to our tradition will continue to oppose them."
A United Stand
The Knesset plenum emptied. It was almost 3:00 in the afternoon. Yigal Guetta needed to return to Bnei Brak, which is only an hour away by car, but Azulai still needed to make it to his home in Acco, a trip that would take him over two hours. He made an effort to conclude his remarks on a conciliatory note. "Anyone who wishes to observe the Torah as it is written," he said, "will receive our blessings. We will support them anywhere in the world. A Jew who wishes to keep the laws of kashrus, taharah, minyan, and all the other mitzvos that Hashem has given us can do so in any Jewish community in the world. Even in the remote places where there are no Jewish communities, a person who wishes to observe the Torah properly will have our support. I promise you that the proper observance of the mitzvos, which is our joint responsibility as Jews, will never end, for those mitzvos are the eternal testament to our right to exist anywhere and everywhere in the world."
Like Guetta in his own remarks, Azulai contrasted the story of Purim with the salvation from spiritual danger commemorated by Chanukah. "We cannot allow such a thing to happen in our generation," he asserted. "As my friend, Yigal Guetta, said, we love every member of the Jewish people. I do not love those who deliberately mislead other Jews, who drive innocent Jews astray when they wish to keep the Torah and its commandments. Look at what is happening to us in the United States, with the level of assimilation that is rampant there. Chas vechalilah that this phenomenon should reach Eretz Yisroel. We will do everything to prevent that and to stand strong against it. We are united on this point, like one man with one heart. We will not allow it! And in these days, as we celebrate Purim, we wish the entire Jewish people a time of light and joy. Thank you very much."
Azulai suggested to Guetta not to pursue the subject any further, and Guetta agreed. He had no interest in referring the subject to one of the Knesset committees and giving the Reform Jews an opportunity to use the Knesset podium for their own propaganda. His objective was solely to make his statement and to have his words recorded in the Knesset protocols, to let the subject of the battle be known. The point was for the chilonim in Eretz Yisroel to understand that they are not the targets, and that the battle is directed solely against those who deny the Torah's eternity.
With that, Tali Ploskov made her closing statement. "Thank you very much to the Minister of Religious Affairs. Okay, so we are not voting. We will suffice with the minister's response. Okay, members of the Knesset, our schedule for the day has ended. I wish everyone a happy Purim. The next sitting will be held on Monday, the 18th of Adar Sheini, 5776 / March 28, 2016, at 4:00 in the afternoon. This sitting is closed."
PrevPreviousHome
NextInside Out- A Collection of Correspondence With Shalom Mordechai RubashkinNext


thin gold thread working the crown of Christ.
white-vaned, white-feathered like Oriental smocking.
so recently kissed by the prince.
or the comfort of his human arms.
foam like white lace tracing her wake.
the color of old, used wax.
floating memory on the churning water.
had not remembrance of sky sustained her.
the only thing she had really missed as a swan.
Copyright © 1995 by Jane Yolen. This poem first appeared in Xandu II, published by Tor Books. It may may not be reproduced in any form without the author's express written permission.


Great! Conkle Dining Table by Wrought Studio. Conkle Dining Table very well made, smooth and simple. Complete your living room furniture with a modern Conkle Dining Table . Its quite sturdy, attractivce and it appears expensive and a cost effective for the money. Conkle Dining Table is one of the very most cofy, warm, beautiful look and incredible Conkle Dining Table especially for the purchase price and made of superior products. Great quality, easy to put together, delivery on time and in best condition. Conkle Dining Table by Wrought Studio is good products at reasonable prices and amazing free shipping. Guarantee damaged lay claim by offering to send parts or to keep the item at a low price. Great buy would definitely recommend. Shop with our low-price guarantee and find money saving deals on Conkle Dining Table and more!. Reading the reviews helped you get.
About Wrought Studio Having furniture staples and accents with a give attention to function, Wrought Studio pieces the foundation for any cozy home. More CONCERNING THIS Product When you get a Wrought Studio Conkle Dining Table online from Wayfair, we make it as easy as possible for you to find out whenever your product will be delivered. Read customer reviews and common Questions and Answers for Wrought Studio Part #: on this page. When you have any questions about your purchase or any other product on the market, our customer support representatives are available to help. Whether you want to buy a Wrought Studio Conkle Dining Table or look for your complete home, Wayfair has a zillion things home.
Ordered dining room arranged (Demi Weathered Grey) plus 2 bar stools. Delivery came equally as was guaranteed. Delivery people very nice, helped bring items inside. Asked where you can established them. I am very pleased with my purchase. Love the colour equally as pictured. Perfect size for my townhouse. I'll definitely obtain Wayfair in the years ahead. That is my second and third time purchasing and also have not been disappointed. Good quality and great prices.
Not long ago i ordered two General Chaise Wall Hugger Recliners for the house and I must say I got totally impressed. The chairs themselves were of good quality, well made and just as described on their website. The delivery and installation of the chairs was truly stellar. We payed for white glove service and we received it, both chairs unloaded, opened up, set up and all the trash and boxes applied for with the delivery men in under twenty minutes.
From oak and marble to chrome and glass, our dining tables are designed to make every meal memorable. The classic features of the Adirondack chair and the other pieces of furniture crafted in the same style are: a high, angled back that is perfect for relaxing; a sloping seat; and wide armrests that are perfect for placing beverages upon.
You can choose from chairs, living room sets, dining room sets, bedroom sets, a great variety of tables, lamps, pictures and other artwork ~ anything you would find in a hotel room is there. Shop Dining Room Furniture by Category.
Incandescent track lights are another option; they can be a striking addition when used to highlight a table centerpiece or to light artwork, hutches or serving tables along the walls. Enjoy more friend and family time with Conversation sets or a lounge set Zen out, grab a good book or just kick back and relax on your picture-perfect patio.
If you've played it safe with solid color upholstery, pillows and curtains choose a rug that makes a bold statement, such as an oriental, Kilim, tapestry or hooked floral. Since 1988, we've been helping our clients find quality outdoor furniture at great every day prices.
I have also used place mats for covering a wood chair seat. Dining room must not be in isolation to the rest of the house.
I was recently asked about Patio Furniture. Put on safety glasses and disposable gloves and pour 3 to 4 tablespoons of mineral spirits on a rag.
You can even get a bar and high chairs: with a few matching accessories and outdoor lighting from the same range you can create your own little corner of paradise. Outdoor furniture tends to be fairly conservative in its frills so it's hard wearing and easy to clean, but you do sacrifice for it a little.
This gave rise to huge demand for modern contemporary patio furniture. Building an outdoor kitchen requires minimal fuss, especially when what you have in mind has the simplest of set-ups.
Jesse Akre, owner of numerous outdoor furniture, patio furniture, and home decor websites, makes it easy to find quality painted - and Patio Furniture Learn how to decorate your outdoor patio and garden in style - Click to satisfy your garden furniture needs: With plenty of tables, chairs and storage to choose from, our dining room furniture is designed to help you get more out of your space.
But the wide range of available outdoor furniture and accessories at local home and garden stores made it easy for me to prepare my backyard for a party in just a few days. Like, you can get one that is crafted from wood and has a very sleek look with an espresso finish or you can get one that is made out of a combination of metal and glass with a metal base filled with elegant scrollwork finished in a bold patina powder coating that supports a glass table top.
The classic features of the Adirondack chair and the other pieces of furniture crafted in the same style are: a high, angled back that is perfect for relaxing; a sloping seat; and wide armrests that are perfect for placing beverages upon. Depending on the hue of the timber oil selected, ranging from natural to honey to dark, as well as the porosity and natural color variations of the Jarrah wood itself, the final appearance will vary.
Enjoy more friend and family time with Conversation sets or a lounge set Zen out, grab a good book or just kick back and relax on your picture-perfect patio. People in the mountains still love the pine furniture.
Since 1988, we've been helping our clients find quality outdoor furniture at great every day prices. Many people fell out of love with pine furniture because of its colour.
Dining room must not be in isolation to the rest of the house. Looking after your new set of teak patio furniture could not be much easier.
Put on safety glasses and disposable gloves and pour 3 to 4 tablespoons of mineral spirits on a rag. Transforming eight chairs was more of an undertaking than I expected, but I am so glad I did it. This was my first reupholstery project, and I am so pleased with the results.
Outdoor furniture tends to be fairly conservative in its frills so it's hard wearing and easy to clean, but you do sacrifice for it a little. Paint a large space on your wall with a combination of magnetic and chalkboard paint.
Building an outdoor kitchen requires minimal fuss, especially when what you have in mind has the simplest of set-ups. Garden-lovers can turn their patios into a field of greens.
With plenty of tables, chairs and storage to choose from, our dining room furniture is designed to help you get more out of your space. It is better to find a classic style of furniture that will not look out of place a few years down the road.
Like, you can get one that is crafted from wood and has a very sleek look with an espresso finish or you can get one that is made out of a combination of metal and glass with a metal base filled with elegant scrollwork finished in a bold patina powder coating that supports a glass table top. Indoor Furniture Chalet Ski & Patio has an indoor furniture department called Modern Habitat.
Depending on the hue of the timber oil selected, ranging from natural to honey to dark, as well as the porosity and natural color variations of the Jarrah wood itself, the final appearance will vary. Canadel Furniture and Bermex are two competing dining furniture lines.


Pens ranging from ultra-fine to medium tipped for multi-purpose writing. Use the ultra-fine pens for detailed writing and when you need precise lines. The medium tipped pens are perfect for quick notes. These pens write smooth on all types of paper, even textured card stock.
No need to worry about the pigmented ink smudging, these pens dry quick. These pens are acid-free, fade proof, waterproof, and non-bleeding. The variety pack makes them great for all sorts of craft projects, journaling, and greeting cards.
That's right--this pen is a customer recommendation! We asked for your favorite pens and this one made the list. Customers say this pen is great if you like a stronger line, but still writes smoothly with light pressure and doesn't bleed when it gets wet.
.01mm, .03mm (2), .05mm, .08mm tipped pens for multi-purpose writing and crafting.
Pens that smudge have no place in our book.
Great ink makes for great writing.


Open or closed top, this cage comes complete with 3 stainless steel feeding bowls and 3 perches.
Recommended and endorsed by the World Parrot Trust, the Liberta 2nd Edition Voyager Cage.
Open or closed top, this cage comes complete with 3 stainless steel feeding bowls and 3 perches. It has parrot safe door openings and swing out feeders. The cage is made from wrought iron so is very durable and is oven baked powder coated in nontoxic paint.


Actuarial Science majors Caroline Toner '20, Kelsey Mashinski '21, Di Zhu '21, and Alyssa Grandmont '20 attended a Philadelphia Actuaries Club meeting on Nov. 8 with Assistant Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics Irina Pogrebivsky.
Students attended a panel session on non-traditional actuarial careers and roles. Tom Terry, founder and CEO of The Terry Group and former president of the American Academy of Actuaries and International Actuarial Association, discussed the importance of actuarial standards.
Attendees were also able to network with presenters for information and advice on actuarial careers.


While the blogsphere mob keeps rolling over the Three Cups of Tea controversy, most are commenting based on a very brief and incomplete insight into the issue (the CBS Report) and on revelations by another mountaineer about whether Mortenson has been to one or another village that cashes in but generously promises to pass on money to another we-save-girls-charity (Jon Krakauer's Byliner). To return from K2 Base Camp "Concordia" to the next village is a week's hike over one of the biggest glaciers on the planet. An improbable trek to stumble alone, but whether it's made up or not is really of no avail to the intents and impacts of Mortenson's work. Discuss that in a mountaineer's forum, fine – haluzination stories in high altitude climbing are not rare and has been centre of a debate when last year an Austrian high altitude climber (dubbed as the Sky Runner) had to admit that he had visualized the ascent of K2 and had never really been on top as he tried to make believe for weeks with fake summit photographs.
That he portrays his hosts as kidnappers is grave, and should be dealt with, but apparently Mahsud has already attempted that. The wasteful spending of his organisation may be harsh for those who contributed hard earned money, but is unfortunately a problem haunting many other ventures of that scale as well.
Also smart observers to debates, like zunguzungu, seem to be most and foremost focused on how everyone seems to have known from the start and now the practice of CAI is proven wrong by speculations of people who made no comment before the CBS show. Until now, I have not found commentary from someone who really knows CAI's work on the ground.
The problem lies in an (adapted) observation by Alanna Shaikh, in an otherwise horrific piece of commentary, has made about why Mortenson became popular. "We let the debate spin us because we want to be spun." We are not after answers to general misconceptions, we want to shred him and his work to pieces to start afresh with no progress made in basic – complex, they go further than "School building good or bad?" – debates.
The few sane voices are hardly making it to the centre of the debate (and I am not giving endorsements to writers who need it, apart from that two of those I often disagree with, one I hardly know).
While these are critical concerns that demand further inquiry, the real scandal is far more insidious and goes beyond Mortenson. Three Cups of Tea is not merely about Mortenson's humanitarianism. It is the quintessential text through which Americans are seeing one of the longest wars in US history. […] The saviour rhetoric of humanitarianism constitutes a powerful force that often claims unquestionable moral certainty and superiority, and therein lies its danger. […] Perhaps the lesson to draw is not about sharing tea; it's about sincerity. It's also about self-interrogation of American interventions abroad, humanitarian or otherwise.
Her finger pointing straight at the Americans (and additionally, the urban Pakistanis) makes her probably not too popular – but she manages to phrase the criticism into well argued statements and from how I see the situation points to the core of the Mortenson-problem. Attacking the unquestionable moral certainty and superiority of humanitarian work is the second aspect, one which I reiterate again and when talking about the work I do in Pakistan. It's a hindrance really to explain here (in Europe) what there (in Pakistan) looks like. People want to understand the work I do (which is in the Aid field among others) as basically great, even with all the word of caution and self reflecting criticism I fodder them with – hence the situation on the ground must basically be fucked. A difficult start to portray the country realistically.
Still, by any stretch of the imagination, the idea that anyone can save a country or the world is an emotional appeal, not a reasonable or rational one. There is nothing, of course, inherently wrong with tugging at people's heart strings while relating serious problems and the possible solutions that brave innovators are coming up with to solve them. But just because there's nothing morally or ethically wrong with this kind of narrative doesn't mean it is the right way to deal with complex and multilayered problems like HIV/AIDS in South Africa, malaria in Tanzania, female infanticide in India, or education in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But maybe that's not the point. Just because you can't help everyone doesn't mean you should help no one. Sadly, Mortenson's good work is going to be overshadowed — possibly destroyed — by this scandal (albeit one that looks like it was largely of his own making). And the losers, besides wide-eyed Americans who've lost an unassailable hero, will ultimately be the people his schools were helping.
All three focus not on the problematic approach Mortenson has taken and why he crashed, but what are concepts behind our conceptions that make such approaches possible and popular even though they come out as a complete failure in the end. Not surprisingly they are written by people who don't only know how to be smart when it comes to bringing their ideas into concise posts, but also have experience in the geographic and thematic area and manage to span a bridge between the three worlds that are otherwise also quite distinct in the blogosphere – the aid experts, the policy/politics experts and the local experts (be that locals, or scholars who deal with the area/culture that poses as the recipient of aid/policy).
… from the Policy side R. Winthrop at Brookings: What Ali has tried to make clear and warned of – that Mortenson played his humanitarian card along the national security line – she is underlining from the researcher level.
She did not really get it, did she?
… from the Aid side A. Shaikh in Foreign Policy: Not only is she taking the (US) blogosphere's uproar as the measure for such debates – in Europe, still, this issue isn't dealt with at all – when she starts "The world was shocked by a report …". She also manages to conclude, after two paragraphs and watching the CBS show that "The whole CAI model was wrong. But here's the truly awful thing: Looking back, it's clear that everyone knew that CAI's approach didn't work." Her observation that it's teachers and curriculum that matter, is definitely true and important. Unfortunately many NGOs in Pakistan who are involved in school construction in Pakistan pay little heed to that fact and are satisfied with their work once the metal plaque with their website is placed on the building. But that does not equate to school construction being useless. We don't really know how CAI worked, some of their work may be flawed – but to trash it, and leave it all to the USAID "experts" (whose work in school realted matters especially in this area is catastrophic from what I have seen during the last 5 years) is hardly the only solution.
The Aid Blogosphere has been quite active in similar discussions, and while I agree that aid blogs matter, I think they would do more so if they looked at the issues they deal with more often through eyes of receptors of their solutions. Smart Aid Curriculums make sense after you had the History, Language and Culture Curriculums for the area the smart aid is intended for. Aid and development University Courses in Austria are hugely popular, with little basics in history, anthropology or literature. Many of the Aid workers, be it from UN or private ventures like Mortenson's, in Pakistan and Central Asia (and I can only tell from this area, but assume it to be similar elsewhere), have little sensibility for that place being an independent self with a history that reaches from early civilizations to Wi-Fi. They rather see themselves working in a medical operating theatre that needs instant solutions with no time to ask for the patients' record. Mortenson is a stark example.
… from the local side the bad example is, that local voices are giving a number of shout-outs to ventures they think are great, but it hardly becomes clear how they are so greatly different. And hence simplistic orientalist narratives, which Mortenson most probably did not come up with for deliberate malignant imperialistic intents but because he really saw it that way, are not challenged. But it's the opportunities that I hope to find here. Umair Javed has pointed this direction along a project that Ahmed brought up earlier, but so far this has also rather 'only' been endorsement, no critical approach. It's really in a very different area geographically and in terms of aid approach (flood relief vs. educational measures in a non-catastrophe-area) and one really has to bring up the larger scheme to make a point. But this larger scheme, exemplified on a number of projects could help to bring some understanding to the clash between Aid, Narrative and Culture. Endorsement is fine, projects need such support. But it would help the aid discussion, if some projects would be less viewed through the glasses of aid-from-outside-with-a-backlash-intention but with Ali's warning in mind (do question moral certainty and superiority!) and from a local standpoint.


On this day in 1923, a pioneer was born. Mr Lee Kuan Yew would grow to become a fervent advocate of racial equality, meritocracy, and the unifying power of civic nationalism.
Exactly forty years later, under the guidance of this pioneer, a new political creature would be formed (purportedly) on the basis of these values. Malaysia officially came into existence on 16 September 1963 – a federation of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.
From this day onward, Singapore was no longer under British colonial rule. The residents of Singapore were told that they were now Malaysians, that they shared a common identity and destiny with their fellow citizens from Perlis to Johor, and that they were co-builders and co-owners of this brand new nation. The PAP and their partners in the Malaysian Solidarity Convention issued the clarion call to build a "Malaysian Malaysia", in opposition to special privileges and quotas for Malays.
Alas, the political experiment faced a road bump in 1965 when Singapore was ejected from the Federation. The residents of this island once again experienced an identity change – they were now told that they were Singaporeans, not Malaysians or Malayans. The spirit of "Malaysian Malaysia" lived on in the new Singaporean identity, exemplified in the words famously penned by Mr S Rajaratnam: "regardless of race, language, or religion".
A half-century later, I believe that our leaders and the vast majority of our population are still strongly devoted to the ideal of racial equality. Undoubtedly, there are worrying aberrations. Off the top of my head, I am concerned about socioeconomic inequality along racial lines, discriminatory deployment of National Servicemen, extremist views, suggestions that Singaporeans vote along racial lines, the unrepresentative nature of the upper echelons of the civil service, and homogeneity in elite/SAP schools. The idea of a Reserved Presidential Election has also been roundly criticised as an unmeritocratic form of affirmative action (let alone the fact that there was no election at all).
But I also realise that these concerns pale in comparison to the problem of emboldened white supremacists in America and the massacre of Rohingyas in Myanmar. This fact should not encourage an attitude of complacency with regard to strengthening our social solidarity. Instead, it should remind us that our society could easily slip into chaos and disarray if we do not constantly watch our words, review the intentions and content of our social policies, and weave new threads in our social fabric through interacting with people who are different from us.


text:
5 Keys For Cavs To Win Game 3 Of NBA Finals
By Aseem Aggarwal · 6 min read
Pool Bob Donnan | Getty Images
The Cleveland Cavaliers took Game 2 at Oracle Arena to tie the series up at 1-1 going into Cleveland. Game 3 is tonight at the Q, where Cavs fans have been anxiously awaiting their Cavaliers return home. With Stephen Curry having probably the worst game of his life, a lot of people are already predicting the Cavs to lose Game 3. Here are five keys to Game 3 for the Cavs:
5) Attack The Bucket
With Bogut protecting the paint for the golden state warriors, Cavaliers should constantly look to attack the bucket. With Thompson and Mozgov, Cavs have a clear advantage in the post. Mozgov averaged 16.5 points in the first 2 games, most of which came inside the paint. Mozgov needs to keep this going and put pressure on the Golden State defense. On the other hand, Thompson has scored a total of 4 points in the first two games and needs to pick up on his scoring. If both of them can get going along with Lebron who is attacking the paint constantly, it puts a lot of pressure on golden state and they look to double team which leaves the shooters open for the shots. Although JR Smith seems to struggle right now, with game 3 at the Q, he could come up big if he finds the open looks. So, Cavaliers need to attack the bucket early in the game and create opportunities for JR, Shumpert, James Jones, and maybe even Miller who got a few minutes in Game 2.
The number four thing the Cavs need to do to win Game 3 is on the next page!
Ezra Shaw | Getty Images
4) Lebron To Keep Distributing
Throughout the season, both Cavaliers and Lebron have been at their best when Lebron scores while putting up a passing display. In game 1, Cavs came up short when Lebron accounted for 6 assists and only 6 players scoring, Smith being the only one off the bench. However, when Lebron puts on a passing show like one in game 2 where he got 11 dimes, everyone was involved and the offense was flowing even though the Cavs shot 32.2% from the field. When he is passing the ball, it creates tremendous pressure on golden state as they not only have to stop Lebron from scoring but have to guard the perimeter shooters. Lebron is exceptional at finding the open man at the perimeter and if he does that like he did in Game 2, the offense will be flowing and Golden State defense will look lost out there in the Q.
The number three thing the Cavs need to do to win Game 3 is on the next page!
3) Keep Rebounding Work
Cavaliers are undefeated (12-0) in the playoffs when they have out-rebounded the opponent. In game 1 Cavs came up short on the rebound battle, and lost the game. However, they out-rebounded the Golden State Warriors in Game 2, 55-45 with Lebron leading the Cavs with 16 rebounds followed by Mozgov and Thompson who combined for 25 rebounds. Thompson is doing an excellent job rebounding and averaged 6.5 offensive rebounds in the first 2 games of the Finals, giving Cavs a lot of second chance points. When Cavs rebound, they get a lot more possessions and create pressure which troubles the game of warriors. Game 1 and 2 have both been close and went into overtime, and how often do we see in close matchups that the team who wins the rebound battle wins the game and that's exactly the case here. With a possibility of a close game 3, Cavaliers should definitely look to win the rebound battle in order to gain the upper hand in this intense Finals series.
The number two thing the Cavs need to do to win Game 3 is on the next page!
2) Keep Delly on Curry
In game 1, Shumpert and Irving were guarding Curry who dropped 26 points while shooting 50% from the field. Game 2 however was drastically different. Curry accounted for 19 points while shooting only at 22% from the field. He went on to missing 12 3-pointers which is the most in a finals game. Some say, it was just an off night however, Dellavedova has to get a lot of credit for his defense as he stayed close on Curry, put his hand up and contested. His defensive presence could be felt all throughout the game. In game 3, Curry will definitely look to get going after a bad shooting performance in game 2 and keeping Delly on Curry for the most part would be the best choice for Cavs. While Shumpert does pose a lot of difficulties with his good defense, Delly simply does a much better job guarding Curry and should be looking to step up his game offensively while being a force defensively again in Game 3. If Curry can again be shut down to a certain extent, Cavs could be getting their first finals home victory in NBA history.
The number one thing the Cavs need to do to win Game 3 is on the next page!
1) Be More Efficient In Crunch Time
Everyone following NBA is anticipating another close game in the Finals with both Game 1 and Game 2 already going into overtime. Cavs missed the game winner in Game 1 and hardly scored while giving up a lot of points in overtime. In game 2 they missed the game winner again, however they turned it around in overtime and got away with a 2 point win while JR Smith picking up bad fouls and some bad calls from the refs. Cavs simply need to be much more efficient in crunch time. First, they need to play smart and not pick up fouls in the 4th quarter. In Game 2, golden state got a lot of bonus points as Cavaliers were fouling and cut down Cavs lead to even the scores. Cavs need to pump up their game defensively in 4th quarter while looking to not foul, esp. in the closing minutes. Secondly, they need to move the ball. Towards the end of game 1, their ball movement was bad and ended up constantly missing shots. In Game 2, they did improve but they need to do an even better job if they want to get a lead in this series. Lastly, they should shoot a better percentage. Game 1 was lost because of poor scoring in crunch time and Game 2 witnessed a low shooting percentage by Cavs even though they managed to pull out the victory. In order to win Game 3, Cavs need to be much more efficient in crunch time, both defensively and offensively and hopefully they will get their 2nd Finals victory in 40 years.
Tags: Cleveland Cavaliers, Golden State Warriors

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl