Areivim -- My Opinion on the Matter (and some numbers)

A number of years ago, a concept known as Areivim came into being.

All too often, we've all gotten mailings or seen advertisements about families that have fallen into destitution because of the death of the breadwinner of the family. Often these tragic circumstances will leave a widow with multiple children and little means to provide for them. The concept of Areivim was born out of that situation.

The concept behind Areivim is fairly simple. A group of 16,500 people each agree that if one of them dies, the others will pay a small fee for each unmarried child left by the deceased. The collected money (about $100,000) would then be made available to the widow/children to pay for wedding expenses when the children are ready to marry. In the meantime, the money would be invested and the dividends used to defray the costs of raising the children.

Over time, a number of organizations (two or three -- it's hard to tell) have sprung up, all with the same name and the same mission. The exact numbers change (size of the group, amount paid per orphan) change slightly, but all follow the same basic idea.

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz recently contacted a representative of one of these groups and asked him some questions about the organization. The questions related to a number of different aspects of the program, including how the program is administered, grievance procedures, the actual feasibility of the program given the numbers provided and oversight and rabbinic approbation of the program. You can see Rabbi Horowitz's original questions and answer here, and the answers to follow-up questions here.

Having read the responses, I, like many others, am deeply troubled by this project. While I have no objection to helping widows and orphans (does anyone really have an objection to that?), I feel that there are serious problems with the program as it is laid out. My objections lay in three general areas: the feasibility of the project, the lack of transparency, the "flexibility" of the program and, lastly, some of the general attitudes that the program conveys.

Let's start with the feasibility of the program. I will admit up front that I am not an actuary. For all I know, I might be completely wrong in this area. If there are any actuaries out there who are willing to actually crunch the numbers for me, I'd be more than appreciative.

Let's start with the numbers given. The program is based on the following:

• A group consists of 16,500 members.
• If any of those sixteen thousand die, the rest of the group will pay $6 for each unmarried child left behind.
• No member will pay more than $28 a month (i.e. the amount for four orphans).
• No member will pay more than $288 (the amount for 48 orphans).
• If there are more than four new in month, the amount will be rolled over into the next month. So, if a parent with seven children dies, the group members will pay for four orphans the first month and then the remaining three the second month.

Payments are made only if there are unmarried children left behind. If the decedent has no unmarried children (or if said unmarried children are over 35), then no payment is to be made.

The "magic number" that I want you to keep in mind is 48. The program, as it's designed, can pay for up to 48 orphans per year -- no more. If members cannot pay more than $288 a year and orphans are to receive $100,000* each, then the maximum number of payouts per year is 48. (16,500 * $288 divided by $99,000 [the amount given to each orphan] = 48.)

The program, as I understand it, is meant to appeal to those in the 25-60 age range. People over 60 will probably not have kids of marriageable age anymore while those under 25 are probably either don't have kids or are not insurance-minded yet.

I made a spreadsheet where I broken down the possibilities for this program. I made three different scenarios --

1. The population is evenly spread among the age groups
2. The population is skewed toward the young end of the spectrum
3. The population is distributed in a bell curve

The age groups are in column A. The mortality rate for the age group (based on the CDC -- warning PDF) is in column B.

I made (what I believe to be very modest) assumptions regarding how many unmarried kids a typical man in the yeshivish community of that age would have. It starts at one, goes up to five and then begins dropping at age 44 as the kids begin marrying out of the program. That figure is in column C. Personally, I think the numbers should be a bit higher, but let's work with these numbers.

Columns D-G are the first scenario, where the population is evenly distributed among the age groups. The number of members in each age group is about 471. By multiplying the number of members by the mortality rate (and rounding to the nearest whole number), I get the expected number of deaths. That's column F. The number of unmarried kids left behind is simply column F multiplied by column C. The totals are on the bottom.

The end result -- the group can expect 51 deaths and 122 orphans. Not good for a program that can only handle 48.

OK, what about scenario two -- where the population is skewed young (columns H-K). Let's say that the older crowd tends to opt out, so that the average age is in the middle but with twice the weight in the younger segments. Based on those figures, you can expect 32 deaths and 96 orphans. That's still twice as many as the program can handle.

What about if it's a bell curve distribution? That's columns L-O. The result? 42 deaths and 133 orphans.

The bottom line is that, no matter how you slice it, the program will not have the funds to pay out as promised. It won't even come close.

And, this is assuming the program only pays out on the death of the breadwinner. If the mother is included (as is the case in some of the programs) the situation only becomes much worse.

In addition, this ignores the fact that the program probably suffers from adverse selection. In short, those who can get insurance from a reputable company probably will (and, once they read the Terms & Conditions of the program -- see below) will probably opt out. Those that remain will be those who cannot afford or cannot get standard term life insurance -- and those are the ones who are at a greater risk of dying.

Lastly, the financial model is assuming that there is no overhead, no credit card collection fees, no delinquencies in payment, etc. None of those assumptions, of course, are reasonable.

Next, let's look at the transparency of the program (or the lack thereof).

While the program is said to have the backing of the "Va'ad Harabbonim," we are not told who is on the Va'ad. Repeated requests by Rabbi Horowitz to find out who the founder of the program is have gone unanswered. Personally, if an organization is unwilling to say who founded it and who is behind it, then you should be VERY wary of said organization. The fact that the organization is not willing to put forward the name of a single attorney or actuary who worked on this program (on a pro-bono basis) is also very troubling.

Then there's the "flexibility" of the program. What do I mean by "flexibility?" Specifically, the program is very flexible in terms of who will be paid in the event of a death. There are enough loopholes in the terms and agreements that you can drive a Mack truck through them. Take a look at the Terms and Conditions of the program (is there a reason the T&C are written in a hard-to-read coloring?). Let's start at the top:

The first paragraph makes it clear that the program is only for "Torah observant" homes. What does "Torah Observant" mean? What is the definition? If someone drinks Cholov Stam, are they still "Torah Observant?" What if they use the Flatbush eruv? Or the wife's snood doesn't cover all of her hair? What if the man doesn't have a regular learning schedule? What if he davens without a hat and jacket? What if they (God forbid, of course) are Zionists?

None of this is spelled out, of course. The determination of what, exactly, is a "Torah observant" home is very broad and ambiguous. Some would say that Zionists are idolaters (yes, some make that claim). Some would say that people who use the Flatbush eruv are Shabbos-desecrators. Are such people "Torah observant" according to the committee who will make the final payout determination? I don't know. Do you? I know that I'd hate to find out *after* the fact.

The T&C later reiterates and says:

The program is designated only for orphans who are Torah-observant!

My reading of this is that the payout is based not only on the parents being Torah observant, but the kids as well. Well, we all know that all kids rebel to one degree or another. They may go through a phase where they are lax in a particular mitzvah or set of mitzvos. Perhaps davening or learning will slide for a boy. Perhaps a girl might decide to rebel and wear a pair of jeans outside once or twice. This happens with teens and "normal" families and can especially happen in a stressful situation where a parent is lost. Who determines what is "Torah observant" for the kids. If they go through a rebellious phase, do they lose out on the monies put aside for them? Who determines just how much "rebelliousness' is permitted in terms of the program? Or is it one misstep and they're out?

Then there's this clause (bolding mine):

The program is a tzedaka fund that operates according to Halachah only, and is not an insurance plan. Therefore, the registration and acceptance to the program has a stipulation that in the event of a high number of unnatural deaths, Heaven forbid (such as war and/or earthquake etc.), and/or a situation arises which according to Vaad Harabanim’s determination does not permit charges to be made to the members (for instance an unusually high number of orphans and/or economic inflation and/or some other economic condition etc), the rabbis of Vaad Harabanim will decide whether to establish a fund and what its sum will be. All the obligations will be determined by Vaad Harabanim, and their decision will be final, without any option of placing a claim - in any place or legal framework - for indemnity and/or compensation and/or grievance of any kind.

In short, if there is an economic problem that causes the program to be unable to pay, the Va'ad gets to decide who gets what -- and there is no recourse or redress. Now go back and look at the numbers I projected earlier. Do you see this clause kicking in fairly often?

Lastly, I have some general problems with the program as it is set up.

I have a problem with the fact that the program FAQ states that people with life insurance are welcome to participate, but does not state that such people are not eligible to collect.**

I have a problem with the way the program is marketed. The program makes the point that it is not an insurance program. The reason for this is probably legal -- insurance programs in the United States are heavily regulated. The program states that it's a charity organization. But, in my opinion, it fails the duck test. The old rule of "if it walks like a duck, and smells like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck" still applies. The fact that members (potentially) pay money in in order to receive benefits makes it too much like an insurance program to me. A true charity organization would, IMHO, try to take care of orphans and/or widows whether they were members of a paying program or not. Think of organizations like Tomchei Shabbos, for example. Are you asked to pay in so that if you fall on hard times they will pay out for you? No -- they help anyone who needs a handout whether you've donated to them in the past or not.

I'm also troubled that the program will cause people to forgo proper insurance. Ideally, people should have life insurance. Rabbi Horowitz's contact even admitted as such in his correspondence. However, I believe that most people will, once they sign up, decide they don't need insurance, since they have Areivim. Of course, they probably aren't aware of the numbers in the program and how unstable it is. They are far better off going with a reputable insurance company.

Lastly, I believe the program is being self-contradictory when it states that it's goal is to preserve the dignity of widows and orphans, but then turns around and states that the deceased's rabbi will have the final say on where the money is spent. What if the parent wants to send their kids to a co-ed school (like Yeshiva of Flatbush, for example). Does the family rabbi have the right to withhold funds because he doesn't like the school or disapproves of it's policies and hashkafos? What if he doesn't approve of the potential marriage partner of the orphan and he's convinced that the potential marriage partner will lead the orphan down the path to Modern Orthodoxy? Can he refuse to pay for the wedding from the funds on that basis? In short, by putting the funds in the rabbi's hands, you are potentially giving the family rabbi veto decisions over matters for which they have no business having a veto power. That doesn't preserve dignity of the widows and orphans -- on the contrary -- it robs them of it.

There is a very real need to help support widows and orphans -- but I don't believe this program is the answer. I believe that, while it may be well-meaning, it has far too many flaws in the economics of the program as well as the mechanisms to ever be truly viable.

The Wolf


* $6 per orphan for each of the 16500 members is actually $99,000, not $100,000. And, of course, the decedant isn't going to pay either. But I'll overlook those facts for now.

** To be fair, it does state that in the T&C, but that's in very small type and in a hard to read color.

An Important Message From R. Yaakov Horowitz and R. Benzion Twerski About Suicide

By now I'm sure you've all heard about the tragic death of Motti Borger and the factors that presumably led up to what happened to him. Since this is a fairly high profile event in our community, Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz and Rabbi Benzion Twerski fear that there may be copycat suicide attempts. As a result, Rabbi Horowitz asked that the following be published:

This essay will appear in next week’s Jewish Press. Generally, as per my arrangement with The Jewish Press, I do not post columns until the issue is on the newsstand. However, due to the nature and timeliness of this subject, The Jewish Press is permitting its release prior to publication as a public service.

Abuse Survivors; Please Do Not Suffer Alone

By: Dr. Benzion Twerski and Rabbi Yakov Horowitz

In recent days, reports have circulated in the media and on the Internet about the tragic early passing of yet another young man in our community. Those reports indicate that the trauma of childhood abuse followed him and complicated his adult life to the point that it impinged on the quality of his personal relationships.

It is not the intent of these lines to substantiate these reports nor is it to dismiss them. Rather, we wish to use the opportunity presented by this horrible calamity and the dialogue it has created on the internet and in the street to once again loudly and forcefully reiterate the message we have been projecting for many years to victims of abuse – “Please reach out for help and do not suffer alone.”

For even in the event that the facts as reported in this particular tragedy are not accurate, they are most certainly consistent with the pattern we have unfortunately seen over and over again, where victims of childhood abuse go through unspeakable agony as they attempt to singlehandedly deal with the toxic aftereffects of the trauma they suffered in their formative years. We have each encountered numerous instances where untreated childhood abuse follows victims into adulthood, shredding their marriages and rendering them often incapable of entering into a loving and intimate relationship with their spouses until a trained mental health professional helps them sort things out. We have each been involved with more than a few childhood abuse victims who became addicted to heroin and/or cocaine, in an unsuccessful attempt to wash away the searing pain of their trauma. We have each paid more than a few shiva calls to families of abuse victims, who years and even decades later took their own lives.

There are a number of reasons why abuse victims would not avail themselves of intervention and assistance. Some are understandably reluctant or frightened to share the facts of their abuse with others. Others, who did have the courage to confide in adults in their lives were encouraged or intimidated into remaining silent – especially if the perpetrator is a respected individual or a close family member. This sends a horrible message to the victim – that he or she has done something that cannot see the light of day. The result is a that a never-ending video loop now plays in the mind of the victim, as societal pressure abuses them again and again, by forcing them to remain silent and unsupported.

There are many events that simultaneously involve more than one “system.” For example, when one gets arrested for driving under the influence which caused injuries or death, there are criminal penalties for drunk driving and financial reparations due for the damages caused. However, neither of these tracks deals with the fact that the perpetrator has a drinking problem. Courts realize they cannot treat alcoholism, as revoking licenses, impounding cars, and even jail terms will not prevent recidivism – especially if treatment is warranted but not followed.

Various efforts have been undertaken in recent years – all of which are necessary – in the arenas of prevention, education, training, and the need for reporting. And we both have proudly participated in many of them. However, despite the fact that these initiatives and the awareness they generate are often soothing to past abuse victims, none of these help them regain their footing. Only therapy by a licensed and trained professional can accomplish that.

We are therefore reaching out to anyone who was ever abused or molested in their childhood years and begging you to please do yourself the ultimate favor and get help.

Therapy may not solve all issues in your life, but it will do much to make your future brighter and filled with greater promise. In fact, many survivors thrive and build beautiful lives for themselves and their families following successful treatment.

It may be true that some people are resilient and survive with little apparent damage (apparent is the operative word). However, this is not the norm, and with the dangers involved, we would not recommend that you even risk this small chance. So; for your sake, and for the sake of your spouse and children, please, please get help.

This may mean several things:

1. Contact a mental health professional who is experienced in counseling trauma victims. (I strongly feel that well-intentioned individuals like me, who do not have professional training in abuse treatment, are not equipped to deal with these issues and should limit our involvement to supporting the efforts of the professionals, and steering those who seek our guidance in these matters directly to them. Y.H.)

2. Get information about trauma and its effects.

3. Connect with other victims/survivors. The camaraderie and support are invaluable.

We strongly suggest that you ignore those who inform you, that getting married and starting a family will help you, “Get over it.” Experience has taught us that it will often complicate things rather than heal them.

Please, please do not suffer alone. Reach out for help today.

In closing, we offer you our sincere and heartfelt bracha that Hashem grant you menuchas hanefesh and simchas hachayim (tranquility and joy) in your lives.

© 2009 Dr. Benzion Twerski and Rabbi Yakov Horowitz, all rights reserved

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz is a regular columnist in The Jewish Press. Dr. Benzion Twerski is a renowned and much sought-after mental health professional who holds a Ph.D. in psychology from University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Twerski has been one of the leading voices in our community on the issue of child abuse for more than a decade. He lives and practices in Brooklyn, N.Y. and can be reached at btwerski@gmail.com

The Wolf

Abuse and Going Off The Derech... What's the Relation?

I've been having a discussion (see the comments there) with an anonymous poster over at Yudel Shain about the phenomenon of kids being abused and kids going off the derech.

The anonymous poster made the claim that over 50% of the kids who go off the derech are abused.

I responded by stating that I found that figure to be a bit high. There are quite a few reasons why a kid (or anyone else) might go off the derech -- and certainly abuse is a potential reason to do so -- but to say that over half the OTD people are abused sounded just too far fetched to me. I thought that perhaps my disputant was simply phrasing his words incorrectly.

I asked if perhaps he meant that over 50% of abused kids go off the derech -- which is not quite the same as saying that 50% of OTD kids are abused. While I believe the former is in the realm of possibility, I'm far less certain that the latter is true.

Anonymous reaffirmed his original statement and, as a citation, brought an article by Rabbi Horowitz. In the article, Rabbi Horowitz quoted a person who operates a run-away shelter:

A close friend of mine runs a shelter/group home for charedi runaway kids. I recently ran into him at a wedding and asked him what his thoughts were on the correlation between abuse and the off-the-derech phenomenon. His immediate response was, “Yankie, all I deal with is abuse [victims],” meaning that virtually all the teens in his program were molested.

That's a pretty powerful quote. However, I began to think about it in the context of our discussion. It's possible, I thought, that perhaps this shelter operator is not seeing a representative sample of OTD kids. After all, he's not running a home for OTD kids, he's running a home for run-away kids. Many OTD kids don't run away from home -- heck, I know quite a few people who went OTD as teens who did not have the need to run away from home. On the other hand, kids that are abused (sexually and otherwise) frequently *do* have the need to run away from home. The shelter operator, in answering the question about the linkage between abuse and OTD kids, may be looking predominantly (or perhaps exclusively as per his claim) at abused kids. He never sees the kids who go OTD for other reasons.*

Furthermore, I went back and decided to read the entire article. As it turns out, the third paragraph in the article seems to say the exact opposite of what my correspondent was saying:

This is not to say that a majority of kids who are ‘off the derech’ were abused. But of all the complex and varied educational, social and familial factors that endanger to our children, the most damaging by far, in my opinion, is abuse. The very real threat posed by the external influences from which we all strive (in various degrees) to protect our children – such as media, Internet, and ‘bad friends’ – are all firecrackers compared to the atom bomb of sexual abuse.

Now, I absoltutely agree with Rabbi Horowitz (and my anonymous disputant) that sexual abuse is probably one of the strongest things that can cause a kid to go OTD. It's far more likely that a kid will go OTD from being sexually abused than from watching television, reading books about evolution or surfing the Internet. But all that means is that a kid who is sexually abused has a very good chance of going OTD. It still does not mean that the majority of people who go OTD are sexually abused.

So, what's the story? Am I reading this wrong? Is it really possible that half of the kids who go OTD are sexually abused? Or is my disputant just flat out wrong.

The Wolf


* Intellectual reasons, emotional reasons, or perhaps simply because they find the lifestyle too confining.

The Time Has Come To Speak Up

Rabbi Horowitz has written a column about the recent conviction of Elhanan Buzaglo. Buzaglo, who was working one of the "modesty patrols" in Israel, was paid $2,000 to beat up a 31-year old divorcee who, it was felt by some members of the community, did not live up to their ideals of tznius. After agreeing to a plea bargain, Buzaglo will be in jail for four years.

In his column, Rabbi Horowitz suggests that we have reached the point where we can no longer be silent. If we are going to address the problem of abuse and violence in our community, we have to first confront it, stand up in public and denounce it, and demand of our leaders (both religious and secular) that it has to end.

As he writes:

The time has come for us to speak out, telling our children and students in unequivocal terms, “These people are criminals and sinners – and do not represent us!” Our publications should begin reporting these incidents in the news sections of our papers, condemn them in our editorials, and call upon the police to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law.

We should stop using politically correct terms like “misguided youths” to describe cowards who beat women for sitting in the “wrong” sections of buses and physically assault peaceful citizens who do not dress according to their standards – observant or otherwise. “Misguided youth” implies that they engaged in a prank, like a water fight, or that they went overboard in pursuit on a noble goal. There is nothing noble about these acts – or the terrorist mentality that glorifies them.

and

We must clearly and unequivocally condemn the violence each time it happens in the strongest language. Halachic (Judaic law) rulings ought to be issued, that those who commit violence against innocent people are rodfim (individuals who present a real and present danger to others) and one is obligated by our Torah to defend the victim and report the criminals to the police.

I am posting this column on my website (www.rabbihorowitz.com ) and I respectfully call upon charedim worldwide to post a comment at the bottom of the column with your name and email address and the city where you live supporting the sentiments expressed here.

I *strongly* urge you to go to Rabbi Horowitz's site and sign - preferably with your real name and city, but if not, at least go and lend your support in the thread. As Rabbi Horowitz concluded:

If enough Torah-observant individuals stand up, distance ourselves from these criminals, and demand action from our elected officials, we might affect changes which will restore honor to G-d’s name and end these acts of terror that plague us.

Amen, V'Ken Y'hi Ratzon...

The Wolf

Teens, Boundaries and Trust

Rabbi Horowitz's column in this week's Jewish Press* addresses a problem that many parents of teens have -- balancing the want (and need) of kids to "do something" on a long winter Saturday night against the need of the parents to make sure that their kids are in a wholesome environment.

He makes one recommendation that parents take the proactive step of organizing an activity for their kids, such as an organized athletic league. Depending on where you live, you may find such programs already exist. There may be basketball leagues for the athletically inclined as well as learning groups for those who want to devote some extra time to learning.

However, not everyone has access to these, or has kids that want to participate in an organized activity. Sometimes, kids just want to "hang out" with friends, go to the local pizza place, or engage in some other "disorganized" activity. I remember when I was a kid, I spent many a Saturday night out with friends of mine. Sometimes it was bowling, sometimes to a movie, or to some other place. And, yes, before anyone asks, it often was mixed (boys and girls). My friends' sisters and their friends were often along for the ride. But we'll get back to that later.

In his article, Rabbi Horowitz makes an important point about establishing a trusting relationship with teenagers while remembering to allow them the freedom that they need. Teens are not five and ten year olds... in many respects, they are young adults, looking to find their own identities. If they are to do this, they have to be allowed a certain amount of freedom to explore. That's not to say that you have to allow everything, of course, but, as a parent, you have to be somewhat flexible. Sure, you might not like to have your son spend his Saturday night at a bowling alley, but you have to may need to compromise to show your teen that you trust him or her.

When I was a kid, my mother trusted me to make certain decisions for myself with regard to which friends to hang out with or where I wanted to go on a Saturday night. Of course, she was always ready to listen to me if I needed advice, but, for the most part, I was allowed to make my own decisions. The reason is that I had her trust - she knew that I was (for the most part) a good kid and hung around with kids who were (again, for the most part) good kids. Yeah, maybe she wasn't so thrilled that I was spending time in mixed company, but I demonstrated to her early on two important traits, which I believe most teens can be taught: (1) that I could develop good judgement and be responsible and (2) that I could learn from mistakes that I make.

My mother had a few rules for when Skipper** and/or I went out. The first was that she had to know where we were going. The second was that if we were going to be late, we had to call. She didn't mind if I stayed out until midnight or one (provided, of course, I made it to the yeshiva's minyan the next day on time) as long as I called her and let her know I was okay (and remember, this was before cell phones).

That's not to say that I was a perfect teen. But I knew enough to know when to "say when." I knew, from the lessons that my mother gave me, what was right and what was wrong (and how far I could venture into the gray area in between). And, most importantly, I had her trust.

I suppose, in many ways, Rabbi Horowitz was writing about my teen years. He stresses the importance of cutting teens slack, and my mother did. He also stresses the importance of maintaining some rules (curfew, checking in if you're going to be late, etc.), which my mother did. And he mentions the importance of, while maintaining a veto power over your teens' choice of destination, using it sparingly -- even if it means going to an activity that you might otherwise disapprove of -- and my mother did that as well.

Walter is now in his mid-teens. George has just entered them and Wilma is not far behind. They are no longer little kids, and Eeees and I can no longer supervise every moment that they spend out of the house with friends. The way I see it, we have a few options: (1) We can just let them go out and, as long we don't get a call from the cops, all is okay. (2) We can forbid them to go anywhere unless the activity and the people are completely pre-approved by us. (3) We can give them some freedom (as is age approriate, of course) and work to instill in them a sense of right and wrong, and give them the mental and emotional tools to allow them to make decisions on their own.

The proper path, I think, is obvious. The first one is the easiest for Eeees and I to follow. However, the risk of things going wrong is just too high that something can go wrong. Kids (yes, even teens) need boundaries and "don't get arrested" is just not enough of a boundary, IMHO. The second path is also a pretty bad one. Yes, the kids won't get in trouble if you supervise and monitor everything they do as teens (assuming you physically can do that). But what happens once they are no longer under your control. However, the day will come (whether it's when they actually become adults, or move out of the house, or when they simply get tired of what they perceive to be excessive parental influence in their lives and rebel) when you simply cannot be on top of them all of the time. If you haven't given them a chance to practice making decisions, then how are they to know how to act once they are out on their own?

Sadly, I think too many parents in our community take the first option out of sheer laziness or the second option out of genuine concern, while not realizing that they are robbing their children of the learning experiences that will serve them well in later life. The last approach is the one taken by my mother and the one that I think is the best to take with kids. Is it possible that the kid will make a bad decision? Yes, it certainly is possible. But you are also giving them the chance to learn from their mistakes, to grow and mature, and, most importantly, to acquire the necessary experience to enable to make responsible life choices in the future.

And isn't that our ultimate job as parents anyway?

The Wolf

P.S. Oh, yeah, I said I'd get back to the mixed company I kept as a teen. Here's the short story: yes, we went out as a group -- my friends, their sisters, some of their female friends. Number of girls I kissed, held hands with or had serious physical activity with at (or as a result of) those meetings: none. Number of girls who became pregnant at any of those meetings: none. Number of "serious relationships" that developed from those meetings: none. Number of times I or one of my friends ended up drunk or high: none. Number of times that we were arrested: none.

Related Post:
Our Kids... Do We Want To Force Them To Keep The Mitzvos?


* This post in no way means to imply that R. Horowitz would have approved of my actions as a teen (described later in the post).

** It should be noted that very often Skipped did *not* go out with my friends and I -- but the rules applied to her as well, whomever she was out with.

Yeshivos Have A Duty To Teach Secular Studies To Our Kids

Rabbi Horowitz has a new article in Mishpacha Magazine touting the value of secular education in our community. While most yeshivos in the United States offer a program of secular studies, the attitude in many of them is that secular studies are a waste of time and not important. The kids pick up on this idea to the extent that when the school administration pays lip service to the importance of secular studies, the kids know it's a joke and, for the most part, learn next to nothing over the course of twelve years. In many schools, I'm positive that yeshivos would completely abandon secular studies in a heartbeat if they could get away with it.

Of course, if secular studies were something that could be easily dispensed with in today's society, then it might not be such a tragedy.* However, in today's society, in order to make yourself attractive to employers, you simply have to have certain skills, chief among them being a decent command of the English language, mathematics and basic computer skills. If you do not have those basic skills, you are going to find your options on the job market are very limited. Limited job options lead to limited pay and a greater likelihood that even when you are fully employed, you may still find yourself near or below the poverty line. And while being near or below the poverty line is bad for anyone, for an Orthodox Jews, it's far worse -- just imagine trying to pay yeshiva tuition for multiple kids on a salary of under $30,000.**

A significant part of the problem, in my estimation, comes from the fact that work, itself, is discouraged and looked down upon. Who cares if basic skills are needed for the job market if you never intend on looking for a job to begin with? I've commented in the past on how the very idea of working for a living is denigrated in our yeshivos (sometimes to the point where working fathers are denigrated in front of their children). So, since working for a living is deemed "unworthy" for a ben torah and life skills such as English, math, etc. are needed only for that purpose, the kids very quickly get the idea that the English classes are unimportant.

On top of this, you have to add the fact that computer skills are needed in today's environment as well. However, the hysteria over the (very real) dangers of the internet have caused some schools to shy away from computer studies at all -- even in an off-line environment. I don't have any definite examples, but it would not surprise me to find schools that restrict comptuer use, even off-line, in people's homes. As a result, some kids may try to enter the workforce without the slightest idea of what a word processor or a spreadsheet is. In fact, Rabbi Horowitz makes that point in this article:

A close friend of mine owns a business in an area with a large charedi population and is always looking to provide avrechim with jobs. His ‘entrance exam’ is rather simple. He gives prospective applicants a pad and paper and asks them to write two paragraphs in English expressing the reasons they would like to land a job in his company, and then to turn on a computer and type those lines. His thinking is that if an applicant cannot perform those two tasks, they are useless to him in his business.

That's it. Turn on the computer and write two paragraphs in English about why you want the job. Lest you think that this is not a difficult task, Rabbi Horowitz tells us about the results:

Suffice it to say that this would probably be my last column in Mishpacha if I shared with you the percentage of applicants he turns away because they cannot do that.

Unfortunately, the "learning only" model of the Jewish community is on the verge of bursting. Thousands upon thousands of people are learning and not working, and the signs have been apparent for a while now that this is a situation that cannot be sustained indefinitely. At some point, many of those people currently sitting in kollel are going to have to go to work. The real tragedy isn't the fact that they have to go to work (although, from a religious point of view, that is bad). The real tragedy is that many people are being thrown into the job market with few or no marketable skills. They've been told by their yeshivos (either explicitly or implictly) that obtaining job skills is a waste of time, and now they are paying the price for listening to authority figures they trusted.

People need to understand that yeshivos today are not the same as they were back in the shtetl. Yeshivos today need to serve a dual purpose. The first and foremost purpose is to teach Torah and instill Torah values in our children.*** But the second purpose is to provide a basic secular education for our children, to enable them to be able to enter the job market or puruse higher education when and if they choose (or are forced) to do so. If a yeshiva does not provide this basic education (and make sure that the students are sufficiently motivated to acquire these skills) then they are condemning the vast majority of them to a lifetime of poverty and struggle. And that, in my estimation, is probably a greater spiritual danger to them than anything they might encounter in a book, magazine, blog or college course.

The Wolf


* I, personally, believe that secular knowledge does has value in and of itself, but that can certainly be put up for debate.

** Poverty level for a family of 6 in 2008 is $28,400 in the contiguous 48 states.

*** When we went looking for an elementary school for Walter many years ago, there was one school that seemed good and seemed to fit us in a number of areas. However, for the younger grades, they had secular studies in the morning and Judaic studies in the afternoon. It was purely a scheduling matter, not a statement on the relative importance of the subjects. Nonetheless, we felt that it was important that Walter understand that Judaic studies were more important, and so we did not send him to that school for fear that the schedule would inadvertently send him the wrong message.

Disappointed At The Jewish Press

As you are all aware, a number of J-bloggers called upon the Jewish Press last week to condemn the way that Rabbi Dr. Twerski was blackmailed into resigning from Dov Hikind's task force. Well, they did condemn it... sort on. Here's the response:

The Jewish Press joins our columnist Rabbi Yakov Horowitz and others in condemning the shabby treatment Rabbi Dr. Benzion Twerski received from some self-appointed guardians of the faith over his participation in an anti-abuse task force geared toward the Orthodox community.

Dr. Twerski is a serious, thoughtful and highly talented individual and has much to offer in the way of dealing with child abuse in our community. Those truly committed to the interests of our community should be thinking of ways to get him to spend more time on our problems rather than less.

Although there is no way to guarantee that the sort of thing to which Dr. Twerski was subjected will not recur, we do believe it is as important for Assemblyman Dov Hikind and the others involved in the new task force to spend time reaching out to the community for support and cooperation as it is to highlight the nature of the problem.

There must be clarification of the centrality of halacha to the project, the primacy of due process protections, the involvement of a broad spectrum of people to evaluate complaints and, overall, the momentous contributions a project like this can make to the well-being of our community.

Shabby treatment??! Shabby treatment is what happens when someone snubs you and doesn't say Good Shabbos. Shabby treatment is when your neighbor chooses to ignore your simcha which you invited him to and he doesn't even say Mazel Tov. This wasn't shabby treatment -- it was blackmail. It was a threat to the social (and possibly physical) well being of his family. That's well beyond "shabby treatment." Calling that "shabby treatment" is like calling a gunshot wound a "boo boo."

The response as a whole is tepid at best. Where is the outrage that there are people who actively looking out for the child molesters' best interests? Where is the condemnation of the very fact that there are those who think it's fine and dandy to threaten someone's family because they don't agree with you on a social issue?

I am truly disappointed in the Editorial Board of the Jewish Press. I expected a much stronger response. I'll give them credit for running Rabbi Horowitz's articles on the subject, but I expected that they themselves would see clear to the issue of protecting children from monsters in our midst.

The Wolf

Average Kids

Rabbi Horowitz had an article last week (OK, so I'm somewhat slow...) about kids who are average learners (even if they are excellent in middos and yiddishkeit) finding it more and more difficult to get into mainstream yeshivos. More and more often, these kids are being pushed into "alternative" yeshivos where they are often grouped together with "at risk" kids when, in reality, they don't suffer from the same problems that many at-risk kids suffer from.

As the parent of an eighth grader who is less than stellar in Gemorah, his article certainly struck a chord within me. Eeees and I were dreading the high-school application process because we knew that our son was average at best in Gemorah.

Maybe it's because we didn't apply to schools like Mirrer, Chaim Berlin, Torah V'Da'as, etc., but it seems that B"H, we were matzliach. He applied to four schools of a more "modern" bent (how I hate that word in that context) and he was accepted into three of them.

Sadly, the way Rabbi Horowitz reports it, it's a vicious cycle -- parents demand more excellence, so more "average" kids get left out. As the schools are increasingly populated only with excellent students, the average is pulled ever higher.

Truth to tell, I think that it is the responsibility of parents to try to find the best school that their son will fit in, and not necessarily the best school. We certainly could have applied to a school such as the type I listed above, and who knows, maybe he would have gotten into one -- but he certainly wouldn't be happy there. He needs a school that will work with him on his level of learning, challenge him to grow in learning to the best of his abilities and provide direction for post-graduate learning -- in limudei kodesh AND limudei chol. Simply going for the "best" school because of fear of losing social standing or future shidduch issues is incredibly counter-productive and the harm that you can cause a child far outweighs the benefits. Engaging in such behavior does far more to put a kid "at risk" then sending him to a yeshiva that accepts "average" students.

The Wolf