Wednesday, December 17, 2008

The romantic reporter

This afternoon I went over to Rabbi Schapiro and told him that I felt bad and regretted his newfound inability to say interesting things in front of me. He said, and I paraphrase, "Really? You mean, you regret that you'll have nothing good to write anymore, but you don't feel bad about it." Once again I was forced to agree with his wise words. A little while later he said to me, "My father told me that there's only two peoples you should be afraid of: the Rebbe's secretaries, and the press. You know, back in Russia, there was only two people that were given kovod in town, the Rav and the moser (government informant)." I said, delighted, "Are you calling me a moser?!" He said, "No, of course not!" I got the last laugh though, "Ahh, but in six hours the whole world will think you did."
Yes my friends, the pen is truly mightier than whatever it is heads of smicha programs fight with.

Moving right along, it has come to my attention that there's a serious overusage of the word "that" on this here website. I will therefore endeavor to write the Rosh's favorite story now without using such a hideous word. Will I succeed? Who knows? Who cares? On with the story! Oh yeah, as astute readers will remember, I've written this story at least twice before. Still, if the Rosh can say it thrice a year, so can I.

Many many years ago there was a guy named Elazar Ben Dodarya. He wasn't the holiest guy in the universe; in fact, he visited every single prostitute in the entire universe. So there he was, living happily in wherever it was he called home, and he hears that there's an incredible new woman of pleasure who charges something like four hundred golden coins, which in today's money would be something like AIG, CitiBank, Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, and the United States Treasury put together. Suffice it to say, Elazar was there in a flash. As he was talking to her at she let out a bit of rearward wind, and said, "Just as the wind I released will never return to its source, so too will Elazar never return to his." For the first time ever, Elazer stopped what he was doing and thought about his situation in life. And he realized, "Hey, she's right, I'm lost!" In a flash he was sitting in a valley, his head between his knees, repenting like no man had repented before. He cried out to the mountains, representing his parents and upbringing, saying, "My sinful life is your fault!" They answered him, "No, each man, no matter how he was raised, is responsible for his actions." Next he turned to the sun, moon, and stars, representing random chance and luck, and blamed them for his evil. They too responded, "No, each man, no matter what cards chance may have dealt him, is responsible for his own destiny." At this Elazar realized that he truly was responsible for what he had done, and then he repented like a man possessed. In fact, his repentance was so great and so awesome that he died. Immediately after a voice from heaven came down and proclaimed, "Reb Elazar Ben Dodarya, you have a place in the world to come." Or something like that. I don't remember the exact details so well. I haven't heard the Rosh say this story in a long time, which kind of stinks. Point is, his repentance was so great that he was called by a title normally reserved for Tannaim, meaning that he was on their spiritual level. Yeah, he was truly the cat's pajamas.
When Reb Yehuda HaNassi, redactor of the Mishna, saver of mice, and post-death Kiddush sayer, heard this story, he started to cry. His students asked him, "Oh great Rabbi, why the tears? Isn't this an incredible story? We see the incredible power of Teshuva, raising a man from the lowest of lows to the highest of spiritual highs." Reb Yehuda said, "That's exactly why I'm crying. Just imagine if he had used this incredible spiritual power he possessed in his life! How much greater would he have been!"

Before I do a post-mortem on this story, and my performance vis-a-vis the evil word, I think I'll transmit another story which this first one has reminded me of.

There was once a guy, many many moons ago in the times of the Talmudic sages, who heard about an incredible, you guessed it, woman for hire. This one too was incredibly expensive, and there's some detail about seven beds which I don't remember, go look it up in the Meam Loaz if you're really desperate. Anyway, this here guy isn't able to conquer his natural desires, and off he flies to the loosely-moralled lady. As they're about to consummate their sin he takes off his clothes, comes to his Tzitzis, and realizes what they represent. He can't bring himself to take them off, nor to sin. The prostitute is so impressed that she converts to Judaism and marries him. I'm not making this up. Point is, it's a good thing to wear Tzitzis.

So here we are, a couple of prurient stories behind us, inspired by their lessons, and realizing several things: 1. Yes, every Jew will ultimately repent, whether he likes it or not (Ha!), but way wait? 2. It's a good thing to wear Tzitzis at all times and places, even when it's inconvenient. 3. Sometimes the word "that" can come in handy.

111 comments:

The Real Shliach said...

Hey, there is more than you can possibly imagine under the sun.

Nemo said...

You would thing that R' EbD would get a little respect for his hefty outlay. For that price he should be entitled to sweet nothings, not ridicule. At the very minimum, the whore should have acted with some minimal decency, decorum and customer service by keeping her flatulation under control.

e said...

I think the Gemara says that the tzitzis hit him. Perhaps my memory fails me.

s(b.) said...

Speaking of whores (not at all, actually), I wanted to point out a possible missed kiruv opportunity.

I have a friend whose son attends JEP in Rockland, NY (yes, I mean Monsey, but it's called JEP of Rockland; go figure). We were chatting at an office party the other night. After watching the telethon the other night, I asked her if she thought JEP was a positive in her kids' lives (I'm guessing her older daughter stopped going** and her younger daughter is still too young to go).

**I don't know why she's not going, anymore. Maybe because boys get to do what seems like everything ritual-based, if the mom is not doing anything like lighting candles on Friday night at home? JEP is for unaffiliated families. If girls aren't given a candle and make a candle holder for an art project, and that's not emphasized weekly, all they see is boys get to do everything. (Women teach at this JEP, not men, so it's not men making yiddishkeit not appealing to girls, here.)

-----anyway--------her son is in, um, I don't know, third or fourth grade, maybe? She said he loves it, and he's very spiritual (neither of his parents have any Jewish education, they're learning from their son). Son has suggested having a festive Shabbat meal on Friday night. Mom is open to that idea, but wouldn't know where to start. I have no idea if she owns candlesticks.

At some point, someone should ask the boys (and girls) if their moms light shabbat candles friday night/if they would like to help teach their parents to do that (maybe, if you think it's a good idea). This kid's mom doesn't know how to light shabbat candles, but she would make a nice family meal for shabbat because her son would like that.

Are there parent educational handouts that go home with the kids that explain what the kids are learning? There's a guy named Joel Grishaver (who is not Lubavitch) who makes some cool educational stuff (I realize Chabad has people who do this sort of thing, too). He's on facebook. If you want me to send a link to his site, I'll dig it up.

Anyway, (I use the word anyway too much, lately) mothers of boys who don't know jack about shabbat should be offered candles with transliteration and instructions (mom's model shabbat meal day? I don't know).

I was a member of the candle-lighters club. I know the Rebbe gave big ups to lighting candles. But it's not just for mothers and daughters. It's for mothers and sons, too. Sons say amein.

And, growing up, my dad was single, and he was the parent whom I saw light candles on Friday nights (until he got married, when I was 13), so lighting candles is for fathers and daughters, too.

(thanks for letting me get that off my chest.) Outreach isn't easy, and I realize it costs money, too. I take care of my local Chabad house. Get something going with candles available to all the kids and the next time my pushke's full, it'll go to you guys.

Elisheva said...

TRS - I understand your frustration with my incessant commenting. Especially considering the fact I don't comment with anything of purpose, but if you're trying to tell me to go away, there are nicer ways than insinuating I am a whore.

Sincerely,
Elisheva

Cheerio said...

whoa, elisheva, were you the one deleting all your comments, making reading this conversation very frustrating to read?

The Real Shliach said...

Yeah, elisheva, it's really not nice to delete all those comments. It makes the blog messy.
And of course your welcome to leave as many comments as your little heart desires. Don't be ridiculous, the more conversation here the better.

Nemo: perhaps her services had been rendered already, and she was no longer under contract.

s(b.): I'm not quite sure what inspired your lengthy comment, and perhaps I'll deal with it at length in a future post. However, you are correct, the Rebbe encouraged very strongly all Jewish girls from the age of three to light their own Shabbos candles.
Chabad of California started a program called Friday Night Lights which is doing wonderful things in this direction, and the many girls who go on mivtzoyim also focus on this uniquely-feminine mitzva.

Nemo said...

Something I missed?

Elisheva said...

I would restore them if I knew how. They were deleted in a flurry of teenage angst.

Nemo said...

The way my imaginative mind sees this story happening, the two were in the middle of the deed.

I don't know what was promised, expected or standard industry practice, but it sounds like R' Dordarya's estate should be able to collect contractual damages for breach of contract. The estate might also be able to make a wrongful death claim against the harlot if she intentionally inflicted Dordarya with emotional distress, knowing of his particular frailties.

The Real Shliach said...

Elisheva: zul zein a kaporoh.

Nemo: what breach of contract? She did her job, he's the one that bolted. As for this charge of emotional distress: nonsense, if a couple can't make small talk, then what is this world coming to? How was she supposed to know he'd take it all so seriously?

e said...

S(b):

send your friend to chabad.org/shabbat

She'll find everything she needs and more

Elisheva said...

I never understood this. How is lighting Shabbos candles a uniquely feminine mitzvah?

Don't single men who don't live at home have to light Shabbos candles? Aren't there customary times when the husband lights them instead? (I think the Shabbos after a woman gives birth. Correct me if I'm wrong).

Or challah? Men have to take challah if they're baking a large enough quantity too.

Crawling Axe said...

Men do it bedieved. It’s a female mitzva, because it welcomes Shabbos, which is “female”.

Nemo said...

TRS: it's hard to know exactly what the contract was without a little more research, but I would think that such an expensive hooker would come with some sort of promise to treat you nice. Unless he was paying to have a rough time ...

As for the emotional distress, try to follow this logic:

1. She was aware of his extensive sinning

2. She must know that for a Jew there is nothing worse than sinning

3. If she learned any chassidus, she would know that it's because it severs the Jew from G-d, his source.

4. A Jew, by his very nature cannot stand to be separate from his source.

5. Being separated from the source evinces intense pangs from the Jew.

6. These pangs can cause the onset of death, "b'sho achas."

7. Because of Dordarya's extensive sins, his potential despair upon becoming aware of his lowly state was extensively greater than other Jews.

8. The prostitute was aware of his sensitivities.

9. The prostitute, nonetheless, intentionally brought his lowly state to his attention.

10. The prostitute reasonably should have known that this would provoke his teshuva.

11. The prostitute intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Durdarya.

12. The prostitutes intentionally inflicting emotional distress was extreme and outrageous; beyond the bounds that men should be expected to endure from society.

12. The cause of action does not depend on intending to cause death, only on the intention to inflict emotional distress.

13. In an intentional cause of action, the actor, in this case the prostitute, is civilly liable for any resulting outcome of their action, regardless of whether it was foreseeable or not.

14. The prostitute is liable for the wrongful death of Durdarya.

Nemo said...

Crawling Axe: again, not to impugn on the arena of rabbinical discourse, but the holy Shulchan Oruch states the obligation to light candles on Friday evening is the head of the household's. A woman lighting candles in his home is therefore a "shliach" of the head of the household.

Nemo said...

The only mitzva that is "female" is the mitzva lo s'aseh of niddah because it cannot be performed by a man.

Elisheva said...

What about kisui rosh?

See I knew they were full of it.

nemo said...

That's not a d'oraisa.

I suppose you can also throw the commandment about having children into the "female" mitzva category - depending on which opinion you chose to follow.

Elisheva said...

Ah okay.

Thank you.

Eli Federman said...

Nemo, In terms of U.S. law both legal claims would obviously fail.
1) You cannot collect contractual obligations for meretricious relationships as it is illegal and would violate public policy! Even if it were possible to enforce a meretricious contract it would still fail as the harlot did not breach the underlying obligation. She was willing to perform her contractual duties. Elazar decided not to go forward.
2) The wrongful death claim would obviously fail as any death was not proximately caused by the whores actions. The whores statement and the subsequent death are too far attenuated for causation to be met. Moreover, the elements for an IIED (Intentional Inflection of Emotional Distress) claim are not satisfied as the statement was not egregiousness enough (or extreme and outrageous) to cause distress and there was no pattern of behavior that could reasonable cause such severe emotional distress.

nemo said...

1) I knew that - but it's fun to toy around.

(However, I don't remember where the story happened (I think it was somewhere in Europe), so it is possible that those raunchy Europeans had not yet made prostitution illegal.)

Another thing troubling about my analysis is that it's very hard to valuate the damages caused by a fart, so even if Dordarya could've won a suit for breach of contract, he couldn't be awarded damages

2) Proximate causation is only relevant in negligent negligence torts. Our friend Cardozo might decide to sever liability in this case as a negligence cause of action.

However, this is an intentional tort, and therefore the death being too attenuated is inconsequential.

Although the infliction may not have been extreme in the abstract, the whore was aware of his sensitivity (see supra).

(Yes, I know, this too is questionable, because by sinning, Durdarya displayed his insensitivity to his spiritual plight, but whatever - I'm conflating law and chassidus here ... anything is possible)

Eli Federman said...

Good one. This would make a good hypo.

Your right in conceding that your analysis is troubling (I would argue troubling al pe chasidus and al pe U.S. jurisprudence).

1) You are right that there is no way to calculate the damages from a fart. The harm could not be redressed.

2) Proximate cause IS relevant in intentional torts. FYI The key difference between intentional torts and negligent torts is that the plaintiff must prove the additional element that the defendant acted with the specific mens rea or mental state of intentionally performing the act which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Causation is required - both actual and proximate cause.

Good point on the assumption of the risk.

If you really want to get creative (don't try this on a law school exam!), don't forget that the implications of the First Amendment. In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) the court held that statements published about Falwell was protected by the First Amendment. The Harlot's statements is probably protected under free speech as well.

The Real Shliach said...

The Rebbe spoke many times about the significance of the three womanly mivtzos: Neshek, hafrashas challah, and taharas hamishpacha. You want info, look in the sichos.

Eli+Nemo: hey Eli, I don't think I've seen you since camp in, what was it, '95? I'll reserve my opinion on this matter until the law professor gets to it, which should happen any minute, or so I've been told.

Leo de Toot said...

Dear Mr. R.S.:
Very interesting discussion (in fact one of the more lively in your blog proving the old advertising adage, i.e. sex sells). Anyway, I believe Mr. Federman is correct in his assertions. I doubt there could be a breach of contract claim as the "seller" was prepared to perform (legal term) on the contract and presumably payment had already been made (I rely for my knowledge of these transactions on the activities of our former governor). So, therefore, if the buyer refused the product that he had already paid for (that the seller was prepared to provide) there is no breach. I'm also not sure that this qualifies as an "intentional tort" - as the seller's motivation remains unclear, I prefer the negligence analysis i.e. she breached the duty of quiet compliance so perhaps the proximate cause analysis is not unreasonable. Anyway this scenario is unlikely to show up on a law school exam, so don't worry about it.
Chasing paper as always,
L D toot.

Elisheva said...

I guess I haven't seen anything yet that addresses my specific question but I'll keep looking.

The Real Shliach said...

The Rebbe spoke many times about the significance of the three womanly mivtzos: Neshek, hafrashas challah, and taharas hamishpacha. You want info, look in the sichos.

Eli+Nemo: hey Eli, I don't think I've seen you since camp in, what was it, '95? I'll reserve my opinion on this matter until the law professor gets to it, which should happen any minute, or so I've been told.

Eli Federman said...

TRS If I haven's successfully repressed those great camp memories I believe it was 96'... years later I came back as the survival director.

Leo very well stated.

nemo said...

So much to say, but I have an exam in the morning which I'm really not going to do very well on at this point ...

Nemo said...

"Causation is required - both actual and proximate cause."

What I meant was that the defendant takes the victim as they find them and there is no superseding cause (incidentally, my professor taught it as there being no proximate causation, but I see that Barbri comports with your vision). Proximate causation in intentional torts, as it were, works on a direct-causation theory. See e.g., Vosburg v. Putney (defendant-child liable for battery when he kicked plaintiff in shin, eventuating in the leg becoming infected as a result of some nascent condition and requiring amputation).

We actually only studied Hustler Magazine as an IIED case - that public figures must have tougher skin for criticism. However, even taking into account that Dordarya was notorious for his iniquity and that he should put up with this sort of treatment, this the case is distinguishable from Hustler. There the berating was public and therefore protected by the First Amendment, whereas here, the whore inflicted the emotional distress on him directly. Just because he is a public figure does not mean he loses his rights to respect from those immediately around him ...

More later ...

Nemo said...

To clarify: in Vosburg the defendant-child was responsible for the loss of the leg, not just for dignitary damages for the battery.

Eli Federman said...

Good distinction.

I too have a final tomorrow so time will only permit a pithy response.

I was taught torts consistent with the Barbri approach in terms of causation.

Also, I think you are referring to the "eggshell plaintiff" doctrine that holds an individual liable for all consequences resulting from his or her activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition - or due to Rabbi Dordarya's high sensitivity to the sinning issue).

Under this doctrine you still need to satisfy actual cause but the proximate cause analysis is rarely implicated as you correctly point out since attenuation won't break the chain of causation.

fabulous... said...

BS"D
Quite impressive post.
I don't exactly understand how this is "romantic"...

The Real Shliach said...

Fabulous gal: what's not romantic about a guy doing teshuva and getting hitched to the call girl that started it all?

Elishevers: isn't this the sort of question you're supposed to ask in tzfas?

Eli: '96, huh? That was a long time ago.

Fabulous... said...

BS"D
When, if that's all you feel your post is, if that's the message you were in fact trying to bring out then yes, it is romantic.

It kind of reminds me of he story with R' Akiva (was it someone else?) and the prostitute that attempted to seduce him.
I believe he turned his head, spit, cried, and laughed.

She asked him why he did so, and he said that he had turned his head because she was not tznius, spit because her actions were revolting (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and cried because such a beautiful woman had degrated herself so horribly.
Why then did he laugh?
He refused to tell her.
She left, did massive Teshuva, and when she eventualy married R' Akiva she found out that this very fact is why he had laughed.

s(b.) said...

trs, I just needed to vent, and people who care about this stuff may read your blog, so I figured it would be a good place to discuss it.

thanks, e. thanks, trs. hopefully the girls go on mitzvoyim, in the future, can make sure to visit the homes of JEP kids who only have boys, as well as those of JEP girls. I would think JEP kids' homes would be on the top of their lists, anyway. :)

Elisheva said...

TRS - That was a side question I didn't get around to. I was too busy getting into yelling matches about college with the teachers in class. Like I always say, I had much bigger fish to fry.

The Real Shliach said...

Fab Girl: Or it reminds you of the story of R' Akiva who, when like 100 or something, said that his yetzer hora was dead. Satan came, dressed as the most beautiful woman in the world, and R' Akiva started chasing after her. She ran up a tree and he followed, and just as he was about to catch her she was revealed as Satan. R' Akiva then realized that you can't trust yourself until the day you die, as it says in Pirkei Avos.

s(B.): You could always do a guest post or something.

Elisheva: 1. It's annoying, now that there's two Elis, I have to differentiate. 2. Wasn't that a bit of a waste of time?

e said...

fab girl, where did you hear that story? If it happened, I doubt the protagonist was r' Akiva. His love for Rachel is so well known that I'd probably have heard if he ever married another wife.

Other sage' love lives are not as well known. Take Abaye, for example, how many of you know that he married a woman of peccable repute? (Yevamos 64b, kesubos 65a) And Rav's marital habits were beyond nuts. He used to marry women for a day, and then divorce them I kid you not.

The Real Shliach said...

Who's the Tanna/Amora it mentions in Kiddushin who had a wife in every town?

Fabulous said...

BS"D
E- It is indeed a story of Rabbi Akiva, and as much as he loved Rochel, how do you know that she didn't pass away and he remarried? Also, Yaakov loved Rochel, with a love soooo deep, and yet he married bilah and zilpah? The circumstance etc. all play major roles, but bottom line, despite his deep love for Rochel (14 years of labor) he still took another 2 wives! That's not even including Leah, which is a whole story in of it itself!

Speaking of interesting marriages, let's not forget Yehoshuah Ben Nun's wife, Rachov Ha'z... Now she is a "wow" teshuva lady!

Nemo said...

Who's the Tanna/Amora it mentions in Kiddushin who had a wife in every town?

Is that like hoes in different area codes?

The Real Shliach said...

Rachmana Litzlan! We're talking about a holy guy here!

Elisheva said...

TRS - 1) Just to note I never let anyone call me Eli anyways. It is Elisheva. Although a few people call me Shevers. (One used to call me Shmonah). So there.
2) Yeah, but I was fighting a holy battle. Freeing young girls' minds.

Nemo - That killed me. Brings back memories of elementary school. I think I was in elementary when that song about area codes came out.

The Real Shliach said...

Eli: 1. Think different is my motto.
2. I thought most of the people by Chitrik wanted to be brain-washed?

Elisheva said...

1) Would you like it if people called you Chanie? I'm guessing not.
2) I wasn't in Chitrik. You would be surprised for what reasons people were there.

The Real Shliach said...

1. Good point Elisheva.
2. You weren't? Anyway, expound!

Elisheva said...

1. How about Chanukah? Ever gotten that?
2. No. Chitrik is for life-long frummies. Actually it's not that interesting.

The Real Shliach said...

1. No, people usually just stick to "canaan", for which they get a biff uf the hooter.

2. I never knew.
Typical huh, you get me all excited and then...

Elisheva said...

2. So the year I was in Tzfat over 50% of all the girls in the different seminaries were named some variant of Chaya Mushka.

You would think that wouldn't include a seminary for BT girls. Wrong. Again. About half Chaya Mushka. Need I elaborate further?

The Real Shliach said...

Of course you need to elaborate further. I never seem to get these sorts of implications.

Elisheva said...

Half of the girls in this seminary for BT girls were not BT girls. IN other words they weren't too keen on being there in the first place. Let alone being brain-washed.

The Real Shliach said...

So why are they there if they don't want to be there?

Elisheva said...

Parents. Anyways many came around towards the end of the year. I shouldn't make such public generalizations.

The Real Shliach said...

Sure, anytime you're about to leave somewhere you realize that it's not too bad. I'm not even talking about Gan Israels, where they start singing "alma maters" from day one.

Elisheva said...

Got to love the sheer amount of counselor love songs.

The Real Shliach said...

Despite my hatred of overnight camp, I loved my two counselors. Still do.

Elisheva said...

Did you write them a letter after camp ended?

The Real Shliach said...

Was I supposed to?

Elisheva said...

Well that is what all the kids do these days...

The Real Shliach said...

Ahh, we're discussing a decade ago, when times were tough and stamps scarce.

Elisheva said...

Stamps were scarce because you weren't old enough to have a job.

The Real Shliach said...

Still am.

s(b.) said...

thanks. I'm going to swish the topic around my mind's mouth and gargle with it over the weekend, see if I can't come up with some more coherent words.

Cheerio said...

rachel did die, r' akiva did marry the former roman NOBLEWOMAN.
the reason why kids keep in touch with counselors is thanks to the internet. they're still too young for jobs, only now they don't have to pay for stamps.
trs - why did you think shevers went to chitrik?

The Real Shliach said...

I thought Chitrik was the BT place. Because of my many sins, I'm not exactly baki in the names of the seminarys in Israel.

e said...

Cheerio says rabbi akiva married a noblewoman. elisheva says he married a prostitute. Can you folks provide a source?

TRS, some phrases just don't lend themselves to translation.

For those who don't know, "due to my many sins" is rabbi-speak for "unfortunately."

The Real Shliach said...

I do actually recall that Rabbi Akiva married after Rachel passed on, though this information comes from the book "And Rachel was his wife", so I'm not sure how true that info is. But who knows.

Which phrase was I troubled by?

Cheerio said...

shoot, i was going to use that book as MY reference! now i have to scrounge up a real source...
as for mixing up the sems... dude, Chitrik vs Machon Alte - which one SOUNDS bt?

Elisheva said...

Wait Cheerio, what is that supposed to mean?

The Real Shliach said...

Chitrik. Definitely. What does Alte mean anyway?

Elisheva said...

Machon Alte is named after a woman named Alte who died. I don't know the story. I know she was friends with my landlady... that is about it.

The Real Shliach said...

Now that I know that, what do I do?

Elisheva said...

I'm expecting Cheerio to come through with the answer to that very profound question any moment now.

The Real Shliach said...

Still waiting.

fab said...

BS"D
Btw, Alte means old... As it Alter Rebbe. Furthermore, her name was Alte Shula and she was somehow related to Rishe Deitch editor of N'shei Chabad newsletter...
Most Bt sems have names. Most ffb sems are called by the principal vs. the name, unless they are in a specific location... Like "lod". Or "old Yeru".

The Real Shliach said...

How many BT sems are there anyway? Two?

Elisheva said...

Chabad? Three. Non-Chabad? A bunch...

fab said...

BS"D
I know of a few...
Machon Alte
Machon Chana
Malchus (in Yerushalayim)
One that I forogot its name in Tel Aviv (is it Ateret?)
And Mayanot Women's Division
Of course these are just the Lubavitch ones. There's always Neve Yerushalayim and it's many branchings if you wish to explore further.

The Real Shliach said...

Three? You got Tzfas, you got Machon Chana, you got...what's the third?

Elisheva said...

Of I forgot about Malchus and Tel Aviv. Okay five. Plus all of the other non-Lubav ones (neve, midreshet rachel...)

The Real Shliach said...

Now I know.

Cheerio said...

it meant exactly what fab girl said... with an added dollop of dissing ffbs. only ffbs would be so insular as to use the last name of the founder/dean whatever to refer to a school, automatically assuming you'd know who it was.
and trs, now that you know - you know. and you shall never err again, and one day, when you finally overcome your aversion to the institution of marriage, you shall impress some bright eyed young maid with your knowledge, and she will agree to become your devoted bride, and you will have many sons and daughters, and when your daughters are in a tizzy about getting into seminary, you, their dear father, will actually know what they are talking about, and you will get the father of the year award (i.e. cup).
happy?

The Real Shliach said...

Is that the new game, dissing FFBs? How fun!

And yeah, I don't have an aversion to marriage, I'm simply not interested at the current time. If conditions changed, then so would I.

Cheerio said...

actually, i can appreciate your perspective on marriage, and - gasp - even share it, albeit for very different reasons.
and heck yeah - when was the game ever not dissing - ffbs, bts, catholics, muslims, whites, blacks, girls, boys, dogs...?

The Real Shliach said...

Which we won't go into now, will we?

But I thought we were Lubavitch, all about love of our fellow Jews?

Cheerio said...

will we?

and since when did dissing not accompany love? or vice versa?

The Real Shliach said...

I thought we said we won't? Unless you want to, of course, in which case I'm game.

By a Farbrengen, maybe, but stam?

Cheerio said...

we did? say we won't? when? what? where am i?

stam - isn't this whole blog stam? and there's plenty of dissing - of lubies and snags, republicans and democrats - its an equal oppurtunity dissing enviroment. it don't get more loving than that!

The Real Shliach said...

Nu, start it off.

Yeah, I suppose it is kind of. Still, I like to think that, at least in the posts, I'm doing something worthwhile.

Elisheva said...

The actual posting part is good stuff yah.

The Real Shliach said...

Awe, you're too sweet.

Cheerio said...

the posts are good.
and frankly, i enjoy the comments as well. they're not just stam - although even if they are, that's good, too. we all need to let off steam, goof around, exercise our quipping abilities...

Cheerio said...

so you don't want to get married cuz you're in semicha.

The Real Shliach said...

That is correct. However, if Miss Perfect waltzes into the picture, who am I to throw her out?

Cheerio said...

so you don't want to get married because you don't have anyone to get married to.

The Real Shliach said...

Not quite. See, I'm not actively looking, whereas when I finish smicha I will be.

Cheerio said...

guys get all this extra time. i mean, how old are you? 21, 22, right? if you say you're not looking, no one's gonna bug you. whereas i've decided not to neccessarily tell people that i'm not looking, because then they'll bug me about why not. i'm only 20! what, they're so afraid of me wasting my child bearing years?

Elisheva said...

Cheerio: It is ridiculous. The last few weeks I've looked up and caught certain women looking at me in a very "hmm I wonder who I have for her" way. Terrifying. Lay off people.

Cheerio said...

yeah, i was gonna ask if you get that! do you think there's more pressure on you because you're a bt? less? the same?

Elisheva said...

You would think there would be less... but it seems that everyone here has to be constantly reminded that I'm a 20(almost) year old BT and not some 27 year old lifer...

Cheerio said...

interesting... ay, we'll all get married in the right time, whether Miss Perfect waltzes into TRS's life now or later, whether one of the old ladies who looks you up and down in shul is the one who sets you up or your best friend from seminary.
shidduchim don't make any sense. they are beyond illogical.

Elisheva said...

It will be the end of an era.

Cheerio said...

tru dat ;)
in the meantime, let's make our single era freakin' awesome. an era to be remembered.

Elisheva said...

This is a strange conversation.

Hey I'm living it up.

Cheerio said...

why? (is the conversation strange, not why are you living it up. that would be a bit ridiculous for me to ask, considering i just encouraged you to do exactly that!)

Elisheva said...

Because we scared TRS out of it thats what.

Cheerio said...

we did, didn't we! i guess we got too mushy for him? too serious? what would you say it was? we should remember how to scare him off in case we ever need to.

Elisheva said...

Maybe he just has standards for what he will engage in conversation? OR he fell asleep on his keyboard. Classic.

Cheerio said...

it IS 4 30 in the morning...
well. i'm off, too!
night night, yall!

The Real Shliach said...

For full info bug me later. Or something like that.