Bad Hebrew Tattoos.

I spent a fair portion of Thursday at the AdTech trade show. While I was there, I saw a person with Hebrew lettering tattooed on his forearm. The tattoo consisted of three words, and while the lettering was clearly Hebrew, I couldn't make out the words.

Then I realized what I was seeing -- the tattoo was backwards!

Once I realized that, I was able to read the first two words -- Elo-(h)-im Shel -- but I still couldn't make out the third word.

You might think that bad Hebrew tattooing doesn't happen very often -- but you'd be wrong. There is, in fact, a blog dedicated to bad Hebrew tattoos -- which includes misspellings, horrible transliterations, backwards words, incorrect (or nonsense) words being used, and all other sorts of possible errors. You'd think that if you were going to go to the trouble of having a foreign word permanently tattooed on your skin -- and (because more often than not when Hebrew is used it has a religious theme) it has some deeper meaning for you, you would double and triple check to make sure that everything is correct.

I considered telling the guy at the show about the tattoo, but then decided against it. I figured that one of the following were probably true:

1. He already knew about it.
2. He didn't know about it, but neither did anyone he hung out with.
3. He didn't know, but since it was done already, there was no point in making him feel bad about the mistake.

The Wolf

UPDATE: A little research has turned up what has to be the worst Hebrew lettered tattoo of all time -- the one belonging to Danielle Lloyd.

Give A Pint... Have Some Dinner... See The Wolf - TONIGHT

I had a nice time by the Tweet-Up last night. I got to meet Shlomo, Heshy, Moshe and Jacob Da Jew for the first time. Nice job putting it together Heshy!

Tonight, a friend of mine is hosting his fourth annual birthday blood drive... and I'll be there dropping off a pint and I hope lots of you come too. Donating blood is a great thing to do. If that's not enough to get you there, how about free food?

So come on by, donate a pint, have some food and say hi to me. I'll be the one with fur and a snout.

The blood drive is at:
Congregation Mayan Yisroel
3307 Avenue N (between East 33 and East 34)
Brooklyn, NY.
5:00 - 9:00 (although I won't be there before 7:00 at the earliest.)

The Wolf

Wolf Sightings

I'm going to be out and about this week -- so if you want to come meet me,* feel free.

The first event will be on Wednesday, Nov 4. Since I work in the neighborhood, I'll probably stop by at the Jewish Tweetup (they say bloggers are welcome too) at the 92Y Tribeca at 200 Hudson Street. The event is called for 5:30-7:30. I can't be there at the start, but at some point I'll probably swing by and say hello to people.

The second event will be the next day -- Thursday Nov 5. A fellow that I know arranges a blood drive every year for his birthday. I've given a pint for the last few years and I'll be dropping off a pint of W+ (W for Wolf, of course) blood. The event will be at:

Cong. Mayan Yisroel
3307 Avenue N
Thursday, Nov 5
5:00 - 9:00

Come on down and give a pint. I'll be there (although not before 7:00 at the earliest). And if that doesn't get you to come, how about the idea of FREE FOOD! In past years he's had deli sandwiches... and I have no reason to believe that this year will be any different.

The Wolf

* Provided you can identify me, of course.

THE NUMBER and My Irrational (or is it?) Fear...

Eeees and I are now in the process of looking for high schools for our two children (a boy and a girl) who are graduating elementary school this year. That means that next year we will have three high-schoolers at once (including Walter, who is already in high school).

Part of the process that we are going through is attending the open houses that various schools have. We've already pretty much narrowed the prospects down to about two or three schools for each kid. However, as we attend the various open houses and get the information for each school, the thing that strikes the greatest fear into our hearts is the number. You know which number I mean -- THE NUMBER -- the one with a dollar sign in front of it, followed by five digits and then the decimal point. Usually, the first digit is a 1, but sometimes, after transportation and all the other "miscellaneous" extras are added in, that first digit could easily blossom into a 2.

I did a rough, off-the-cuff calculation and figured that, at full tuition, we're looking at about $55-60 thousand dollars next year in tuition. I don't mind telling you that this is *significantly* higher than what we are paying now and there is simply not the room in the budget for it. Short of us winning the lottery, it ain't happening - at least not if we want to keep eating. Perhaps in about two years, after Eeees and I both graduate from grad school such a sum might be possible, but for now? No - it's just too large a sum to include into our budget along with the other required expenses. That being said, we'll be applying for tuition breaks from all three schools (yes, it'll be three different schools).

Have you ever had a fear that was completely irrational -- and yet, you were still afraid? For example, when I was a younger pup, I had a horrible fear of vampires. Eeees and several freinds can vouch for the fact that I didn't do very well when we watched The Lost Boys together many years ago. The fear was completely irrational -- there was a 0% chance of my actually being attacked at any time by a vampire -- but nonetheless, I was terrified.

Well, I have a tuituion fear that is probably irrational, but certainly has a greater chance of happening than being attacked by a vampire. What is that fear? Very simply, the fear is that when we apply for tuition breaks from the schools, they will simply tell us no -- that we should get the other two schools to give us breaks. "Why should we subsidize your sending your other son/daughter to a different school?" is what I'm afraid I'm going to hear. School A will tell me to get a break from B and C -- B will say to ask A and C and C will tell me to go to A & B. In the end, no one reduces their tuition and that's that.

Yeah, I know... in reality they will (hopefully?) take other tuitions into account. But this irrational fear actually sometimes keeps me up at night. Anyone else have any experience in this area? Is my fear truly irrational? Or am I headed for a big heap of financial trouble next year?

The Wolf

I Don't Know What's Sadder...

So, here's the scene...

-- A sizable portion of the male chareidi population in Israel learns all day and does not work.
-- Charieidi families, like all other families, need to purchase food, clothing, etc.
-- Due to various factors (education, the economy in general, etc.), it is difficult even for chareidi women to find employment.
-- Chareidim (like all other communities) want to boost employment in their community.

With me so far? Good, because here's where it starts to get tricky.

-- The chairman of the Shas party arranges for a government call center to open near where chareidim live and employ chariedi women in Northern Israel.
-- Said government call center handles various different services, including health care organizations and pharmacies.

So, the calls start coming in. The women answer them, direct them to where they are supposed to go, whatever. Services are being provided and the women bring home a check, and all is right with the world.

Of course, I wouldn't be bringing this up if the story ended there. As you might expect, there is a fly in the ointment. As it turns out, some of the women have been getting calls regarding "virility pills." Older men are calling in asking questions about Viagara, Cialis or some of the other erectile dysfunction medications that are available. This has caused some problems for the women who view the calls as indecent and obscene. While I suppose it is possible that some of the calls could be what you or I would truly call obscene, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority (if not all) of them were actual honest calls for information about treatment for a medical condition. Since the call center handles calls for medical organizations and pharmacies, such calls are probably to be expected. Rav Asher Idan describes just such a call:

“She answered a call that was supposed to go to a pharmacy,” recalls Rav Idan. “On the other end of the line was a man of about 60, who wanted advice on pills designed to increase virility. He asked her what it does. Because she was unfamiliar with the product he had to explain it to her and then proceeded to ask detailed questions. Only when she realized what he was referring to did she hang up on him.”

Rav Idan then proceeded to state that answering such calls when not in her husband's presence* is a violation of the prohibition of giluy arayos (sexual immorality).

I think it's quite sad that people who are calling a health center about a legitimate health concern are considered "obscene" and "indecent."

I think it's also quite sad that these women are so sheltered that they had no idea that erectile dysfunction exists.

I think it's also quite sad that discussing health matters in a professional setting is considered as violating the boundaries of sexual immorality.

The bottom line is that people should not work in fields where they are unsuited to work. For example, I know that despite the fact that I like to cook, I can never work as a chef in a fancy restaurant. Why? Because of the prohibition of cooking meat and milk together. It would be disingenous of me to look for employment in that field and then say "oh, I can't cook this dish" and "oh, I can't cook that dish." Employers should make reasonable accomodations for employees, but if a bona fide criterion for the job is going to interefere with your religion, then you simply cannot take the job. If these women feel that they cannot truly work in a health center because answering bona fide questions regarding male health issues is obscene/indecent, then they should not work there.

Or, perhaps better, they should learn that not everything relating to male sexuality is obscene -- and learn to handle such calls professionally.

That being said, I'd like to end the post on a lighter note. Here's what one "leading askan" said about the incident:

“Employing charedi women should not be taken for granted,” a leading askan in the North told Hebrew website NRG. “Because of modesty issues rabbonim do not recommend women work outside of the home – only in cases where the financial situation is pressing and the woman needs to go out and get a job. Such cases require halachic clarification and a she’elas rov.”

Isn't that priceless? They set up a system where men don't work, forcing the women to work. Now this guy wants to say that women should not work either -- unless they get a hetter (permission) from a rav. And all this in a call center that was set up specifically to emply chareidi women. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

The Wolf

* I'm not sure why it would be any better (or worse) if she answered such calls if her husband was there.

** Would they say it's obscene or indecent for one of them to call their male OB/GYNs with a gynecological question?

What Do You Do When There Is An Incentive To Be Irresponsible?

I have a friend (I'll call him Steve) who manages an IT group at a Midtown company. I don't know Steve's salary, but I have to imagine that he makes a decent salary -- certainly above the median for New York.

Steve also has three kids, the oldest of which is three years old. The kids are, obviously, not yet enrolled in a yeshiva, but at some point in the not too distant future they will be. I don't know where Steve would want to send his kids, but from what I know of him hashkafically and the location of his house (not in Brooklyn), I'm fairly certain that he'll be facing steep annual tuition bills. Assuming he has to pay his mortgage and other bills, it may well be beyond his ability to pay despite his above average salary.

For the moment, however, Steve's kids aren't yet in school. Steve is a pretty astute guy when it comes to finances. He's not a CPA, a financial planner or anything like that, but he has enough common sense and brains to be able to analyze a situation and a see what lies ahead in the future.

Let's assume (since I don't know this for sure) that Steve has the ability to put away some money from his job each month for savings. Simple logic would tell you that a person facing a long road of expenses in the future but with a current surplus would be wise to start putting away some money for that future expense. That's the entire basis of some of the various savings plans (IRA, 401(k), 529, etc.) that are out there - you put away now when you have excess to pay for a later expense (be it retirement, college education, etc.). So, if Steve can sock away a few hundred each month now to pay for yeshiva education for his kids later, he should do it. That would be the responsible thing to do.

The problem is that unless Steve's salary is very, very high, he actually has a disincentive to save.

If Steve's salary is very, very high, and he's able to carry the three tuitions in full (plus the tuitions of any other kids he may have in the future) in addition to his other expenses then he might have an incentive to save. But, in all probability, Steve does not have a salary quite that high. Three tuitions can easily add up to $25,000 a year or more -- quite a big hole in just about anyone's budget. So, in all probability, Steve (along with lots of other people) will be asking the yeshiva for a discount.

When Steve sees the financial aid application, there will probably be a question on there about how much he has stocked away in a savings account. Assuming that Steve has been responsible, he'll probably have been saving up and have a few thousand stashed away by the time his oldest hits first grade. The administrators will probably take this into account when they evaluate Steve's application for a reduction in tutition.

Now, Steve is an honorable, stand-up kind of guy. He's the type of guy who, if he could pay full tuition, would. He's not out to deliberately "cheat" the schools out of money that they owe. He's also not going to use the money that he would have otherwise put into the savings account to go on an expensive vacation, buy a big screen television, or go on a gambling trip to Atlantic City. He would put the money to use in ways that most of us would consider responsible -- he might pay off a high-interest credit card, or make an extra payment on his mortgage. But he probably can't help but notice the difference between himself and his less responsible neighbor - let's call him Mike.

Steve and Mike earn the same amount. Their houses are roughly the same price and they pay similar amounts in mortgages, bills, etc. Both have young children coming into the yeshiva in the next few years. Steve, being responsible, knows that he should begin saving now for the big upcoming expense. Mike, however, doesn't have a long-range vision. He knows that he's going to have to start paying tuition in a few years, but for now, it's not "on the books yet." He can take his discretionary income and spend it on whatever he needs or wants. So, Mike's family goes on a vacation this year -- because he knows that in a few years he won't be able to. He may purchase large-ticket discretionary items now. Heck, he may even be responsible and take the money and pay off his credit card bills. But whatever he uses it for, it's not going to be there when he enrolls his oldest in the local yeshiva.

Steve looks at Mike and his purchases and wonders to himself how he can buy these things. Doesn't he know that his kids have to go to yeshiva in a few years? He's just about positive that Mike doesn't have some outside source of income. He figures (correctly) that Mike isn't saving any money to pay for yeshiva in a few years. A casual conversation with Mike about the subject a few days later confirms his suspicions -- unless Mike hits the lottery in the next few years, he's planning on asking the tuition committee for a break on his kids' tuition when it's time to enroll.

Steve has to wonder to himself. He has the ability to make sacrifices to his lifestyle and to scrimp and save perhaps $30,000 over the next three years to pay tuitions. Of course, as the younger ones start enrolling and the savings account begins to deplete, he'll eventually have to ask for a tuition break himself - but for the first few years, if he really watches the pennies, he can probably pay the full tuition for his oldest. And that would be the honorable thing to do. But then he looks at Mike and thinks to himself -- "why should I save all that money when Mike will probably get a discount because he has no money in the bank? Why should I be "punished" financially for being responsible and being a roeh as haNolad*?" And so, Steve not only has no incentive to save -- he actually has a disincentive to save -- because if he does save, he'll either have to pay the entire tuition out of pocket or else the administrators will see the savings account on Steve's financial aid application and reduce his tuition based on the fact that he can draw on those savings.


In short, we've created a system where people are often rewarded for not being responsible and people end up worse off, financially, for doing the honorable thing and being responsible. And, perhaps, that's part of the problem that we have with the "tuition crisis" today.

The Wolf


* Literally "one who sees that which will be born." Figuratively -- somone with a longer-range vision than next week.

Furthermore, if what Steve hears about tuition committes are true, then he might be in even bigger trouble once the savings account is depleted and he has to start asking for a discount. Most committees are loathe, from what he hears, to give up their "full payers."

The Princess and the Prostitute

Eeees and I were walking back from shul one Yom Tov morning when we passed by another shul in the neighborhood which we do not attend. As we passed by, she told me that the rebbetzin of the shul gave a speech to the women in the shul about their manner of dress in shul. Apparently, the key note of the speech was this: do you want to look like a princess or a prostitute?

Now, I know that some people might have a problem with the way some of the women dress in my neighborhood. Some of them might wear clothing that some would consider too tight. And, as the rebbetzin in the shul, I suppose she sincerely thought that she had some say in the matter, especially when it came to how they came dressed to shul.

Let's even say, for the sake of argument, that she was right -- the women dress in clothing that is too tight, perhaps the skirt is slightly above the knee (which, knowing the shul, I doubt), or the sheitel is too attractive. Nonetheless, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the women in my neighborhood do not, in fact, dress like prostitutes. There are many degrees of dress between princess (which, from the context, I'm assuming is code for tznius*) and prostitute.

In fact, I think that by framing the question this way, the rebbetzin probably lost most of her audience. Had she framed it in terms of a laxity in the spirit of tznius, her audience might have been able to internalize the message, seen how it applied to them and made the adjustments the rebbetzin was aiming for. But by framing it as "dressing like a prostitute," she probably lost them completely. The ladies attending the speech probably said to themselves "Well, that doesn't apply to me. I don't dress like a hooker!" and then proceeded to dismiss the rest of what she said.

The Wolf

* Although most of the formal gowns worn by European princesses certainly wouldn't qualify as tznius...

Just Spreading The Word

According to YWN, the wedding of Chani Kops & Shmuli Tevovitz tonight has suddenly been moved from Ateres Shlomo Hall to Ateres Chaya Hall (located at 1415 54th St) in Boro Park.

Just posting on the one in a million chance that a wedding goer reads my blog.

In case you know anyone going to the wedding, please pass along the info.

The Wolf

Podcast: When Is Passover this Year

My friend Zach Kessin (together with Rabbi Hillel Maizels) put together a podcast for 365 Days of Astronomy about the Jewish calendar titled "When Is Passover this Year Anyway?."

Enjoy!!

The Wolf

Do Risque Fashions Save Tznius?

The laws of tznius, as they are applied to clothing and commonly understood by many in the "frummer" parts of the community, seem to be composed of two related rules:

1. A strict definition on what parts of the female body have to be covered. Collarbones, knees, elbows, etc.
2. An ideal that a woman should not draw attention to herself. The skintight evening gown that may cover her collarbones, elbows, knees, et al, is still no good if it leaves little of her figure to the imagination. The garment may be "kosher" from a covering point of view, but it still attracts attention to the wearer and is therefore forbidden.

However, it should be noted that whether or not an outfit is risque (and attractive) often depends on the surrounding culture. What was considered scandalous a hundred years ago might not even be shocking by today's standards. I don't think you would have seen anyone in Victorian England wearing a bikini at the beach -- and yet, today, it's considered normal beach attire* and is not shocking at all to most people.

I think that if you took all the fashions in contemporary America and graded them in terms of how much they reveal and how likely they are to find acceptence as "normal" within society, you'd find that they probably fall into a bell curve. The most attractive (and/or revealing) outfits would be at the right end of the scale. You'd probably find burquas at the left end. The curve would be the percentage of the population who felt that the particular outfit was in good taste. As you got closer to the average, the percentage of approvers would continue to rise. As you went further out to the sides, the number of approvers would fall.

Tznius, would, in essence, say that only outfits that fall within a certain middle region of the curve would qualify as tznius. Too far to the left and you're attacting attention for being too dowdy (think about the comments that the Beit Shemesh burqua lady was getting -- even before the more serious allegations came to light) and too far to the right and, well... you're just not tznius anymore. In the middle of all this is the average -- the golden mean which would be the norm. So, if you took all clothing in a given society and rated them on a scale of 1 to 100 for attractiveness (with 50 as the average -- the height of the curve), you'd find some outfits (like a burqua) rated at 1 or 2 and some (like a very revealing bikini) to be a 95 or 100. A reasonable rule might be that in order for an outfit to be considered compliant with the rules of tznius, it must fall into a certain range -- say 30 to 70. Anything over 70 is too attractive while anything under 30 is just so ugly/unusual that it draws attention.

Now, let's pretend, for a moment, that Orthodox Jews are the only people who exist on the planet -- or, barring that, that Orthodox Jews live in completely enclosed environments where they will never see a non-Orthodox Jew.

Since Orthodox Jews are the only ones in this society, the (assuming that no one will willfully violate tznius standards) only clothing that will exist is that which falls within that portion of the curve which is acceptable. In theory, the average (the top of the bell curve) will remain the same -- the only thing that will change is that the extreme portions of the curve (to the left and right) will disappear -- as those fashions will be outlawed. So, in our Torah compliant society, only outfits rated 30 to 70 would exist.

The problem here, however, is that attractiveness (as opposed to objective rules about body parts that must be covered) is relative to the society. Therefore, in a society where only clothing 30 to 70 exists (and you'd better believe that the "70" outfits will be more popular than the "30" outfits), the outfit rated 70 now becomes too attractive. Men will start to stare at the outfits rated 60 to 70 (human nature being what it is) and soon those outfits will come under fire as well as being too attractive. Eventually, those outfits, too, are banned -- pushing more and more people to some center where everyone dresses virtually alike.

However, we don't live in such a world. We live in a world where there are people who are not commanded to keep the mitzvah of tznius. We live in a world where bikinis, strapless gowns, showing cleavage, etc. are not uncommon. In other words, having such fashions in our society prevents the mitzvah of tznius from regressing into some nightmare where everyone has to dress identically all the time -- a condition that is so restrictive that, in a free society such as ours, would probably lead to more women dropping out of observance of the mitzvah than keeping it.

In short, I think you can make the case and say that risque fashions save tznius from falling into obsolescence.

The Wolf


* And it works the other way too. In ancient Greece, athletes used to compete in the nude. I think most people, even today, woudl find that shocking.