Two new Books

Baruch Hashem this is an exciting week. Two new books coming out which I was involved with.

Just in time for Yom Kippur - a new translation from TorahLab of Eleh Ezkera: The Midrash of the Ten Martyrs. It is three different versions of the midrash which describes the story of the Ten Martyrs which we read on Yom Kippur as part of the Mussaf prayer. This is the original midrash which the prayer is based upon.



Translated and annotated by me, with a foreword by Rabbi Yaacov Haber, it is published by torahlab and is available directly from them by clicking on this link

We had lots of problems with the spelling of the name of the midrash. Who would have thought that there are so many ways of spelling Eleh Ezkera? We ended up with proofs which had Eleh Ezkerah, Eleh Ezkara, Eilah Ezkera just on the cover (not to mention many other spellings inside the book). Hopefully we have corrected them all now.

A very different project (my afternoon 'gig') is the hashkafa circle - a kollel which focusses on learning Jewish philosophy and history. We have just published the second edition of our journal Reshimu, which has articles from all the kollel members, and which I wrote for, but also did the editing, typesetting and layout. It is available through Lulu. It is also available as a free pdf download from our website www.hashkafacircle.com. Also on the website are video and audio shiurim from Rabbi Triebitz on 'The History and Development of the Talmud' and 'Moreh Nevuchim on Negative Theology'.

New kitchen

OK, I'm hot and exhausted but feeling very proud of myself for having actually accomplished something this morning. I have spent the last 2 hours putting in two shelves. I took a couple of pieces of wood that I found near the dumpster, sawed them (with a small hand saw) to the right size (well, almost the right size, by the third time it was right). One shelf was inside a cupboard, so I just had to put in those little nails with the plastic hats to hold the shelf up (I hate those hats - they never want to go in when and where I want them to). The other shelf was to hold our meaty oven (and by meaty I'm not making a comment about its size, but rather referring to the kind of food we hope to make inside it). So I had to put brackets on the shelf and on the wall. Once I'd put the brackets on the shelf, I had to take them off and put them on again, because I realised that I had the wrong side facing out, then had to redrill the holes in the wall. But finally it is up, and so far the oven hasn't fallen off (I hope it doesn't do so on Shabbat, because that will create all sorts of muktze problems). I tried putting one of my kids on the shelf to see if it was strong enough (I wouldn't want to have the oven drop now would I? - actually I'm joking. I didn't really put my children on the shelf. That would be cruel. I had them hold the wood while I was sawing it instead. NO, I'm still just kidding. I love my kids really).

We had to replace our kitchen because the old one was rotting and leaking and the sinks fell out. Luckily some friends moved into an apartment and replaced the kitchen there, so we took the old kitchen cabinets. And someone else gave us a stainless steel double sink (but that's another kashrus question, which deserves its own blog). So all we had to pay for were the counters (which are not cheap) and the guy who put it in. All in all it was less than 6000 shekel. Not bad at all (it is only about 5999 more than we can afford - but what is money between friends).

Now my wife is inspecting my handiwork ... and ... she likes it! YAY!

OK kids, my work here is done. Up up and away!

Some suggestions for the 2nd JBlogging Convention

OK, I suppose I was a bit too harsh in my assessment of the JBlogging convention because I've had many more hits than usual and been mentioned by DovBear! Must be bad. The truth is that if I'd just read his liveblogging of the event it would have been much better. He cut Bibi down to a paragraph (which was more than he deserved, in my HUMBLE opinion).

Also, after reflecting for a day, I don't think any of the first three speakers were bad. They just weren't sure what they were supposed to be saying. There was no clear remit. Was it supposed to be about them? about everyone else? about Israel? etc.

So, instead of being negative I'll make some suggestions for next year's convention.

* Work out what the purpose of the conference is beforehand. Promoting Israel is fine, I have no problem with that, but give me something that will improve my blog (because blogging is always about me) to make it worth the trip.

* NO POLITICIANS! (Even though in all likelihood next year will also be an election year!) Talk about blogging and talk about Israel. Don't make it into a party political platform - PLEASE!

* Remember the vegetarians! How much meat can people eat? How about some sticky buns instead! (I know it will ruin the pun, because you can't have 'sticky bun and greet', but think of a new joke for next year)

* Try to encourage the speakers to prepare what they are going to say before they stand up to speak (especially the ones who you are flying in from the States in business class!)

* Let people submit questions beforehand to guide the discussion and the direction of the evening.

* Let the panel discussions just be panel discussions, instead of 4 short speeches.

* Bring in people who can talk about the latest in the computer/blogging/software/ world that will improve the technical quality of the blogs (as well as just telling us what to write about Israel)

* NO POLITICIANS (Just in case they missed it the first time)

* Have a live band. I would have stayed if Angus Young and AC-DC were going to close the show.

* Try to raffle of something that doesn't rhyme with 'raffle'. It sounds silly (not funny, just silly)

* and finally - since I obviously know everything best, because I have a blog and am going to change the world - give me the starring role! ;)


(that last line was definitely a joke. It is much more fun to sit in the back row than to talk to the cameras)

Research says: Large families aren't so bad

Cassandra Jardine has written an article for the Daily Telegraph about the advantages of having lots of children. She makes a lot of good points, showing the many advantages of large families, and some of the disadvantages (many of which only apply in Britain - higher taxes, or Australia - carbon tax!)

The funny (to me) thing is that a large family means five children. Now I hear you say that five is quite a lot. But I am one of six kids, and five would be small, not big. I have five kids, and it doesn't feel like a big family (though sometimes they are quite a handful - especially now during the holidays).

My chevrusa is one of only 4 boys, but between him and his 3 brothers, his mother now has 41 grandchildren (11, 11, 13 and 7). Those sound to me like big families.

The main assumptions of those against larger families are that bigger houses cost more (learn to sqash!), more children cost more money (don't send them to a private school), and it is selfish because the world is overcrowded (doesn't apply to Jews - we have 6,000,000 to catch up - and anyway I don't buy that arguement).

Apparently having five children now is "a public declaration of a huge income, limitless energy and a selfish disregard for the future of the planet, to boot". I feel rich, even though i have no money, but I'm not so sure about the limitless energy one (I never seem to have any!).

And the best line in the article:

Each throw of the genetic dice is a new adventure, a fascinating individual, another sometimes tiresome, usually loveable bundle of strengths and weaknesses.

USUALLY LOVABLE! Hear that kids??

When I tell people that I have five children, they tend to say: "Lucky you." Roughly translated, that means: "What a show-off." A generation back, large families were generally attributed to rejection of contraception; nowadays, they are considered to be a public declaration of a huge income, limitless energy and a selfish disregard for the future of the planet, to boot.

None of the above is true in my case, but I'm always rather feeble in putting the case for large families any more coherently than to say that I enjoy having lots of children, however expensive and tiring they can be.

Each throw of the genetic dice is a new adventure, a fascinating individual, another sometimes tiresome, usually loveable bundle of strengths and weaknesses. I didn't plan to have so many; I just couldn't bear to stop.

The point about big families is that they are more than the sum of their parts - they are a microcosm of society in which the members battle for attention and the best seat in the car.

The squabbles are endless, and often intense, but at the end of the day (literally) everyone has to get on with one another, because they have to share the television remote control. As such, I've always believed that large families are not just a selfish pleasure but beneficial for the country, even the world - but, until now, I've been short of ammunition for arguing my case.

I'm grateful, therefore, to Sky News presenter Colin Brazier, who has spent the past five years assembling evidence that supports the idea that larger families are A Good Thing. "We are so often told about the disadvantages of large families that we have lost sight of the hidden advantages," he says.

His mission began one day at the start of the Iraq war when, while embedded with the United States army, he heard a radio report claiming that the cost of bringing up a child had risen to £180,000.

At the time he didn't have the five children that he has now, but he was already aware that it was bunkum to suggest that it costs as much as the price of a family house to raise each child. By sharing bedrooms, baths and toys, he could see that each additional child in a large family worked out cheaper to raise than a child in a small family.

Nor did he feel it was fair to calculate that each child adds an additional 750 tons of carbon dioxide to the environment. "What about economies of scale?" he thought.

"A four-person household uses half as much electricity, per capita, as a home for one. The people who are messing up the planet are the single people living alone in swanky apartments. Someone needs to rebut these nonsensical stories."

Since then he has not just gathered arguments for the defence, he has gone on the attack. Having condensed his research into an article for the think tank Civitas, he may need to don his flak jacket again, because the anti-natalists who advocate the benefits of a small family may not like what he has to say.

Nor may the Government. In France, parents with three or more children are given medals for their procreative valour. In Britain, we are penalised by higher taxes on people carriers and will soon have to pay through the nose for rubbish collections and water use.

Private schools don't offer discounts for bulk buying, while state schools are abandoning sibling policies, so parents can't assume that they won't have to hurtle around to several schools each morning.

The result of such measures, combined with the constant scare stories about the cost of children, is that 90,000 people have fallen into a baby gap: they would like to have more children but don't dare because they can't afford a larger house or bigger car.

With the British birthrate currently standing at 1.7 per woman - well below replacement level - Brazier argues that there's no need for such restraint. It doesn't matter if you can't afford a large house.

Children who share bedrooms are physically healthier than those who don't, because their immune systems are toughened up by catching minor illnesses from one another in their early years. If they are a bit cramped and have to endure being told they can't always have the new trainers or toy they want, that's good for them.

Having several siblings is also a pointer to future mental health. Scions of large families stand a good chance of making a success of their marriages, because they are used to sharing.

There is also safety in numbers from the pressure of ambitious, fussing parents whose tendency to hover like helicopters over their children's heads contributes, according to a recent Unicef survey, to British children being the most miserable in the developed world.

I'm as keen as the next mother for my children to be world-beaters, but with several children to compare I'm more realistic about their talents and don't have either the time or the resources to apply the mental thumbscrews. Mostly, I'm happy to settle for the children being whoever they happen to be, so long as they help with the washing-up.

Chores are an issue in larger families. The very rich can employ armies of cleaners to pick up after their broods, but the rest of us rely on the children to look after themselves. With a little benign neglect they are forced to learn to clean, cook, fix things for themselves and babysit one another. They may grumble, but these are more useful life skills than playing the violin.

Not that children from large families underperform educationally, as used to be thought.

The theory was that parents with lots of children stop reading to them and park them in front of the television, but a survey of 22,000 French school-leavers found that academic performance improved with additional siblings so long as one parent was "an educated professional". Knowledge and studious habits trickle down the family.

Younger children get less parental help with their homework, but their older siblings act as teachers and the younger ones learn to work on their own. It would be nice if it were so. Children from large families are also less likely to be members of the awkward squad at school: having had their rough edges worn down by sibling squabbles, they tend to be co-operative in the classroom.

One non-economic, non-ecological reason why parents limit themselves to small families these days is that they like the idea of having the time to be best friends with their mini-mes. In large families relationships between siblings become more important than those with their parents, who are too busy keeping the show on the road to go on endless one-to-one shopping or football trips.

This, too, brings bonuses: not only do children in large families have more siblings among whom to find soul-mates but there is always someone to give advice or act as whistle-blower if they are doing something dodgy.

Taking the emphasis off the parent/child relationship also means that twentysomethings from big families are less likely to join the growing hordes who live at home, behaving like ''kidults" well past the age when they should be taking responsibility for themselves.

They are also better at being parents themselves - and less likely to need Supernanny's advice - because they have more experience of seeing how it's done.

What's missing in this country, Brazier concludes, is a lobby to uphold the manifold benefits and interests of the large families. If he wants to start one, he can count me in. Why size really matters

Pros

• Children from larger families get into fewer fights, and are better at making and keeping friends.

• Through having siblings, children learn empathy, team playing, gratification deferment, time-management and how to resolve disputes.

• Children with several siblings have lower rates of asthma, eczema and hay fever. They make fewer visits to the doctor and have a reduced risk of leukaemia, cancer and diabetes.

• Older siblings prevent younger ones being bullied.

• In larger families play is less closely supervised. Children learn to take risks, which will make them better employees and employers.

• Children in large families learn to cook, use the washing machine and to iron.

• In larger families there is more emphasis on thrift.

• Those who grow up with siblings are better at getting on with the opposite sex and have fewer divorces.

Cons

• Developers are building so few larger homes that a third bedroom can add a fifth to the price of a house, and a fourth two thirds.

• Since 1988 the tax and benefits system has left larger families living on average incomes worse off.

• Converting a loft or basement means higher council tax bills.

• Family tickets for many attractions are limited to two children.

• Car tax on larger cars may soon be followed by dearer parking.

• Many swimming pools allow an adult to supervise only two children.

• In Australia there are proposals for a carbon tax on parents with more than two children.

inside the monkey suit - Jblogger convention

There is a principle in halacha that people don't lie about something which can easily be proven false.

Which is why I don't understand the guys who found Bigfoot. What were they thinking? Perhaps nobody will notice it is a rubber monkey suit?
Quite honestly I couldn't care less if there is a bigfoot or not, but how dumb can Americans be to think they could convince anyone with a rubber suit and some possum dna?

Which brings me to my main subject...

I was at the JBloggers conference last night. Ok, there was probably no possum dna there, but the rest was the same (apart from the rubber monkey suit).

I'm not sure what I was expecting. I was hoping to learn tips for blogging, ways to increase readership, ideas for blogs, software etc. - and of course some free food!

It was so disappointing!! To be fair I left after Bibi (May I call you Prime Minister on Miluim) Netanyahu finished boring me silly with his tripe. So perhaps the evening improved. I had to leave because my brain had turned into blancmange and I couldn't take any more.

It was packed with people, but I found myself embarrassed to say I was a blogger. I was tempted to grab a press sticker and hide in the back.

The first speaker began with a d'var Torah about the importance of humility. To a room full of people who were only interested in self-promotion! (Come on, be honest. Which blogger doesn't dream of a mass readership and changing the world? Everyone is in it to some extent for the ego trip. Yes, even me!)

To see and hear people who write so brilliantly, but really didn't have anything to say when facing a room full of people was sad and actually quite pathetic. There was no clear agenda, no proper discussion, no difficult questions, and no content. I learnt more from 5 minutes browsing the web than I did from 2 hours last night.

And why did they invite Bibi? I know why he wants the publicity - it is election year after all. But to watch the women primp and preen as he walked in (a quick application of lipstick - with him there is always a chance). Then he waffled on (not the waffle iron they were raffling - or the raffle iron they were waffling) for almost an hour about such interesting topics as the CERN particle accelerator and a course in Jewish history. He was asked the most benign questions (can I sign up for your party? Do you think blogging will change the world) by a fawning audience who cheered his every word! I thought bloggers were supposed to be independent thinkers. Apparently most of them just want to find a party line to tow! (although apparently kumah picked up on that and mentioned it in his talk later in the evening).

If I would have gone to a Star Trek convention it would have been equally geeky and probably just as boring - but at least there would have been some fun costumes!

The only funny line of the night was when Bibi tried to begin his speech with wit, by making fun of Jewlicious's name. Bibi said (imagine dark chocolate voice) 'Jewlicious?' To which David Abitbol replied 'Netanyahu?'

Unfortunately for me, the intelligent, witty and bright bloggers I read on the web were for the most part revealed as an empty monkey suit. They should have kept the conference in the freezer with Bigfoot.

(Though if they have the second JBloggers Conference next year, some of those who attend will have a chance to leave the bedroom for a second time!)