The Malbim provides intriguing insights regarding interactions between Ruth & Boaz, and then Ruth & Naomi.

In Ruth 2:8, Boaz invites Ruth to continue gleaning in his field exclusively, adding:

However, when Ruth later transmits Boaz's message to Naomi, she is called the Moavite woman (haMoaviyah) and claims that Boaz told her to stick with the young MEN (2:21):

Understanding the culture & mentality from which Ruth came, Naomi gently corrects Ruth, emphasizing the need for Ruth to stick with the maidens (2:22):

These 3 little verses hold some very powerful messages for us.

Here are some questions these exchanges elicit:

• (1) Why did Ruth, such a wholesome & truth-seeking person, change Boaz's words when she transmitted them to Naomi?

 

• (2) And why did Ruth, a paragon & the historic Jewish example of tzniyut (modest dignity & nobility), change the wording to something so lacking in modesty & propriety? 

 

• (3) Why does the text suddenly call Ruth "the Moavite woman"? After all she did & sacrificed out of loyalty to Hashem, Judaism, and her Jewish mother-in-law, why is Ruth suddenly referred to by her ignoble roots & the depraved nation of Moav?​

The Malbim on Ruth 2:21 states:

The Hebrew word used for "stay close" also means "to cleave" (lidabek) and is the same word the Torah uses to command a man to cleave to his wife.

So deriving a marital interpretation from tidbakin isn't crazy.

However, the refined Jewish way to find a husband isn't to hang out with a bunch of guys in the hope that one of them will marry you.

In contrast, Moav, with its more licentious culture, held no such separation between males and females. If a young woman wished to hang out with a bunch of guys, then that apparently was fine. 

Moreover, Ruth's intention was to find a husband—not to just hang out with the guys.

So to her it made sense.

So though Boaz specified the maidens, Ruth heard it as the young men—which in Hebrew also makes sense because a masculine plural can either mean just males or males & females together. So maybe she thought she should be friends with everyone.

Fortunately, Naomi automatically understands everything.

​Regarding 2:22, the Malbim says:

Despite Ruth's wholehearted commitment to Torah Judaism & her innate sense of tsniyut, residue of the Moavite mentality still clings to her.

Without even meaning to, Ruth jumps to a conclusion that a bat Yisrael of that time would never make.

I think we can all relate to that.

Even those who are FFB still grow up in an atmosphere permeated by the warped values of their surrounding culture.

Rav Avigdor Miller spent most of his life raising awareness about this & offering the authentic Torah attitudes as a replacement.

​Being influenced by our past attitudes is entirely normal.

As we see, even the best person can stumble in this.

And again, it's ironic that Ruth stumbled in precisely the area she excelled:

Tsniyut!

That's a big lesson right there: No one is immune.

Ruth cared so much about tsniyut, yet because of her background, she hadn't fully integrated the Torah attitude.

Also, Ruth proved an incredible person. As noted before, the power of her sincere conversion released all the sparks trapped in Moav, which eventually led to their complete disappearance.

Hashem designated her as the progenitor of Mashiach.

Ruth was AMAZING.

​Nonetheless, you know what?

Internalizing Torah values takes time.

That's important mussar right there: patience.

Be patient with ourselves & our mistakes & our progress.

And also be patient with others & their mistakes & their progress.   

No one is perfect. Only Hashem is Perfect. 

Naomi really shines here.

So positive, so tactful, so sensitive...

Let's examine what she says, word by word:
 
"Tov—it is good to..."

Please notice how Naomi doesn't castigate Ruth or shriek: "What?!! Are you trying to give me a heart attack? Do you really mean to hang out with young men like you're some kind of I-don't-want-to-say-what? Are you trying to cause a scandal? Where are your common sense and your womanly wisdom? I can't believe Boaz would suggest such a thing. OBVIOUSLY, you must stick with the girls, not the guys! This is clearly your Moavite mentality coming to fore. You lack the proper Jewish hashkafah. You really need to work on that more."

Instead, Naomi avoids commenting on Ruth's misinterpretation.

Fascinatingly, Naomi offers NO CRITICISM AT ALL. Not even nicely phrased constructive criticism.

​She never tells Ruth outright she was wrong.

Naomi merely notes what would actually be good to do—emphasizing its benefit for Ruth.

Naomi genuinely holds Ruth's best interests at heart.

And as Naomi speaks, she immediately calls Ruth "biti—my daughter."

This displays warmth & feelings of strong connection to Ruth.

Rather than pushing Ruth away for reverting to a Moavite attitude, Naomi brings Ruth in as close to Naomi as possible—a daughter.

Calling Ruth a daughter also affirms Naomi's view of Ruth as the Torah Jew Ruth intends to be—despite the Moavite residue that seeped out for a moment. 

In a sense, Naomi also reminds Ruth of who she really is: a daughter of Yisrael and not a daughter of Moav.

​Then Naomi offers the gentle directive of going out with the maidens, gently pointing out to Ruth how, by sticking with the girls, no scandal or suspicion would harm Ruth.

In this way, Naomi nicely explains to Ruth WHY she should stick with the maidens.

This is no blind order.

Naomi needs to explain what the Moavite mentality overlooks: WHY a girl should avoid sticking with the guys (even for the purpose of marriage).

And Naomi does so very nicely, living up to her name of "pleasant"!

Happily, Ruth yet again shows herself as sincere, open-minded, and quick to catch on.

​The episode ends with 2:23 stating of Ruth:

Ruth never argues or suggests that perhaps Torah Judaism needs to stop being so uptight and take a leaf from Moav's book.

She never huffs, "Well, how exactly am I supposed to get married if I hang out only with girls ALL the time? Anyway, my situation is different! I'm the only Moavite in the entire country and nobody here likes Moavites. What Yisrael family would allow their son to marry an impoverished Moavite convert—especially when not all the major talmidei chachamim agree that my conversion is even valid? But if these field hands get to know me, then maybe one will take a liking to me, and I'll get a man that way.

"Clearly, rabbis like Boaz don't really understand how things work, especially nowadays and in my kind of situation. All the Moavite self-help gurus explain why the Yisrael way of complete separation between genders is outdated and even hinders marriage—something that Judaism insists is very important! An exception needs to be made here. I think the Moavite pop psychology works in this situation. After all, it achieves the Yisrael goal of marriage. Like, hel-lo? Can we please stop being so close-minded & intolerant here?

Nope!

Instead, Ruth snaps into action. Without any further ado, Ruth clings to Boaz's maidens.

And that's that.

She listened carefully to Naomi's advice and the reasons behind that advice. She realized Boaz meant what he originally said. And now she understood why.

And with this, Ruth was able to keep propelling herself forward.

Likewise, we also don't see Ruth berating herself, calling herself stupid, or sinking into toxic shame.

She accepts her mistake and MOVES ON, bolstered by her newfound knowledge & awareness.

She reverts to Ruth the Moavite woman for just one moment, then when she listens to Naomi, the text (2:22) immediately refers to her as "Ruth kallata"—Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. 

The minute Ruth shows she's ready to listen, she redeems herself from her mistake—yes, even before she hears a word!

​Ruth's mere readiness to listen & learn liberates her from her Moavite residue. 

Here's a summary of the lessons detailed above:

Teshuvah & Self-Transformation
​

• Self-transformation takes time.

 

• We need to be patient with our progress.

 

• We need to be patient with the progress of others.

 

• Stumbling on our path to teshuvah is NORMAL.​

​
​
The Art of Rebuke

• View the errant one in the most positive light possible ("my daughter").

 

• Exude warmth & closeness.

 

• Avoid focusing on what was wrong.

 

• Focus on what's right, what's good to do.

 

• Avoid focusing on the past.

 

• Focus on how to move forward.

 

• Point out the benefit of the right way.

 

• Explain WHY the Torah way is correct & better.

​
How to Deal with a Fall (especially if you didn't even realize you'd fallen!)

(The following applies to mistakes & sins too.)

• RATZON—You've got to want it.

​

• Attach yourself to genuinely GOOD mentors—then be ready to really listen to them, even when it's hard or doesn't initially make complete sense.

 

• Be ready to learn at all times.

 

• Be open to messages from Hashem (especially since He uses agents to deliver these messages rather than telling us directly).

 

• Keep an open mind to new & unfamiliar ideas from authentic Torah sources.

 

• The moment you show yourself to be ready to change already effects a change!

 

• Avoid self-denigration.

 

• Avoid self-hatred.

 

• Avoid despair.

 

• Avoid drowning in toxic shame.

 

• Immediately change direction.

 

• Have faith that Hashem is guiding you at all times.​

​

• Pick yourself up & KEEP MOVING FORWARD!

The Karak area of today's Jordan, formerly the territory of the really powerful, hotshot nation of Moav.
Yoo-hoo, Moavites! Anybody there? Anybody? Hello? Guess not.

That body of water is known today as Wadi Mujib, but most authorities say it is the Arnon River mentioned in Tanach.

Megillat Ruth (the Book of Ruth) contains some of Judaism's most stunning messages and fundamental morals.

Let's go back to what the Vilna Gaon says regarding Megillat Ruth 1:18 & take a deeper look into one of those lessons. Here's the text of Megillat Ruth (source):

The Hebrew word above, mitametzet, translated here as "steadfastly minded" (or "determined" according to other translations) indicates a struggle.

​Malbim defines its root (amatz or amitz) as a "strengthening of the heart" (chizuk halev), which leads to enduring & unfailing strength; Malbim views it as inner strength.

Ruth needed to gather the extra "oomph" she displayed in her famous statements of devotion in verses 16 & 17 ("for wherever you go, I will go too..."). 

The Vilna Gaon views mitametzet as also physical, meaning Ruth needed to gather physical strength to continue the journey, and he noted the following:

Prior to this last statement, the Vilna Gaon details the innate nature of a human being as heavy and lazy due to a person's physical body originating from the heavy & stagnant element of earth.

Remember, the name Adam comes from the word adamah (earth) and Hashem formed the first human being from earth.

So when people feel lazy, heavy, and unmotivated, there isn't anything unnaturally wrong with them. Such a person simply reflects the natural state of a human being.

However, Judaism both commands & expects us to at least struggle to rise above this natural state.

Happily, Naomi possessed the wisdom to discern Ruth's inner conviction expressed by her words combined with Ruth's sudden physical depletion.

This combination meant that the yetzer tov propelled Ruth, and that Ruth's statements came from the right place—a place of utter sincerity.

Likewise, in Rav Levi Yitzchak Bender's book Words of Faith, he mentions that even the binding of a book can be an obstruction.

Meaning, have you ever had the experience of looking at your siddur sitting a couple of feet away from you on a table, and you feeling like, "Oh, man...I just don't have the koach to get up and get it"?

Or maybe your Sefer Tehillim lies right smack in front of your face, but you perceive the mere act of opening the book as too much trouble?

This happens with books of learning too.

​Whether you wish to learn the parsha, mussar, or Gemara...all of the sudden, you get struck by this overpowering feeling of "dragging myself up to get the book is too much trouble" or "Oy, to drag myself all the way across the living room to open the glass door of the book case, and then actually pull the sefer off the shelf...I feel overwhelmed just thinking about it."

And then you feel embarrassed because laziness on such an irrational level must indicate something very wrong with you.

You know it makes no sense.

After all, you happily skip across the same room to grab a piece of pizza.

You energetically traverse not only the living room, but the kitchen, and easily open the cabinet containing your favorite coffee in order to treat yourself to your beloved beverage.

​The same guy who leaps out of sound sleep to hop on a motorcycle struggles to drag himself out to a minyan.

The later Harry Potter novels are massive—yet do you ever hear of someone who can't be bothered to read them because it's too much trouble to physically lift book #4?

Nope.

​Some people mock or despise those who feel heavy—even when the object of the mockery only occasionally feel too lazy to do a very simple mitzvah.

It just sounds so irrational.

But now, because of Rav Bender and the Vilna Gaon, we know that such heaviness & laziness does not indicate something very wrong with us—but rather, something very right!

It indicates a sincere yearning to do the right thing. It also means that if we actually do it, it's definitely the best thing and also very powerful.

After all, Ruth's conversion ended up sucking out all the holy sparks from Moav.

Her conversion to Judaism depleted the entire lifeforce of Moav.

Very powerful!

Even today, archeologists barely find anything left of Moav—just a stele here and a sarcophagus there.

Literally. Just one stele and one sarcophagus.

Interestingly, this one stele presents a description by King Mesha of the Yisrael-Moav war of Kings/Melachim II:3:27, providing external validation of the Torah's narrative—not that we need it, but it's funny how the one piece of writing left by Moav validates the Torah narrative (although King Mesha tweaked it to make Moav look better—as if!).

We don't even know what the Moavites looked like, their lives and wars, nothing. (Nothing outside of the Torah, anyway.)

That was the power of Ruth.

Yet paradoxically, that moment of Ruth's greatest power showed her as weaker and wearier than an old & depleted widow.

​In fact, Ruth's body dragged so much, the Vilna Gaon describes Ruth as being "unable to walk after Naomi."

She literally could not move another step.

So this concept is helpful on the personal level.

It gets rid of the excess shame we feel at the admittedly irrational perception of a simple & easy action as nearly insurmountable.

​We now know our sloth is normal and the result of the yetzer hara.

It is not insurmountable—that perception is an illusion produced by the yetzer hara due to our intrinsic greatness.

Also, it helps us choose friends & mentors.

Those who seem flummoxed by your sloth may be very good in other ways, but simply unfamiliar with this particular aspect of the yetzer hara—and may not be able to help you with this particular issue.

Those who scorn or mock you for feeling this way likely never worked on themselves with any significant honesty or analysis and may even hover at a lower spiritual level than you, despite their external presentation.  

Certainly, those unfamiliar with this concept will be unable to see the positive aspect of it—meaning, that your heaviness indicates a powerful potential within.

Or, as with Ruth, maybe you are in the middle of actualizing something very good and the sloth hits you at the critical moment.

As Naomi did for Ruth, a friend or mentor aware of the Vilna Gaon's interpretation & Rav Bender's observation could more effectively help you out of the slump.

Related links:

• The Powerful Secret of Sincere Conversion

http://www.myrtlerising.com/blog/the-powerful-secret-of-sincere-conversion

• The Secret Saga of a Righteous Convert as Told by a True Tzaddik

http://www.myrtlerising.com/blog/the-secret-saga-of-a-righteous-convert-as-told-by-a-true-tzaddik

• Converts in the Breslov Community

http://breslovcenter.blogspot.co.il/2011/01/converts-in-breslov-community.html

• How to Conquer Toxic Shame

http://www.myrtlerising.com/blog/how-to-conquer-toxic-shame
(some fundamentals of releasing & elevating hidden & trapped sparks)

• Why was Ruth's Conversion to Judaism So Monumental? What Does Conversion Actually Accomplish? And Why is It So Vitally Necessary for a Conversion to be Absolutely Kosher & Sincere?

​http://www.myrtlerising.com/blog/why-was-ruths-conversion-to-judaism-so-monumental-what-does-conversion-actually-accomplish-and-why-is-it-so-vitally-necessary-for-a-conversion-to-be-absolutely-kosher-sincere​

Here is a message you may have already seen from Rav Kanievsky, after his son asked him how we should respond to the Meron tragedy:
https://hamodia.com/2021/05/04/hagaon-harav-chaim-kanievsky-meron-tragedy/

A summary appears in English alongside the original Hebrew handwritten letter (which enlarges when you click on it).

It's important to read the original, but here's a bulleted summary here:
​

• We need to strengthen ourselves in Torah.
• We need to strengthen ourselves in hasmadah ("diligence") in Torah learning.
• Women should strengthen ourselves in tsniyut (dressing & behaving with dignity & modesty).
• We need to invest more in washing our hands properly before a meal, both in kavanah & the halachic details.
• We need to strengthen our kavanah when we recite blessings with the goal of feeling closeness with Hashem.

Maybe it's good to address the issue of tsniyut mentioned here because major rabbanim tend to mention this after a disaster, resulting in even committed frum women tend to respond with some kind of attitude like, "Oh, not THAT again..." or "They're always blaming women for things" or some kind of vague "Yeah, I'll keep trying," and so on.

Are these women bad or superficial?

No.

I mean, maybe some are. But most are really good & sincere.

So let's take a look at what's really going on beneath the surface...

​Hopefully, tsniyut was always presented to you and dealt with in a positive way.

But some girls and women experienced a negative approach at some point, making them feel harassed or embarrassed or condemned, etc.

Some endured a severely negative experience or a series of negative experiences regarding tsniyut.

So that's erects a barrier for some.

On the other hand, a friend of mine who attended an exclusive Yiddish-speaking girls school in New York explained that her school always addressed tsniyut positively & respectfully—yet she still found herself feeling defensive about it at times. (She dresses very, very tsniusly, BTW.)

Based on that, she thinks there is something deeply personal about it, which therefore produces instinctive defensiveness, no matter how gently and tactfully a girl or woman is approached regarding improvement in that area.

It's true that girls & women tend to express ourselves through our clothes & accessories. Hairstyles, jewelry, accessories, makeup, clothing, shoes—many females choose these with care, trying them on while deliberating before a mirror and with friends, and so on.

Again, it's a deeply personal expression and you can tell something about a female by the way she has chosen to look.

Not to solely judge someone by her appearance—no!

But let's face it: There is a difference in personality between a woman wearing an extravagant brassy shaitel and large studded hoop earrings & a woman wearing a neat, refined shaitel with pearl stud earring in a delicate gold setting.

Their shaitels & earrings don't say everything about them—earrings & hair-coverings don't indicate how nice someone is, for example—but they do say something.

And the woman who dresses plainly without any adornments? It also says something about her.

Another example: 

Purple is my favorite color.

And I've noticed that women who love purple attract each other.

​When I wear purple and there is another purple-loving woman around, she'll approach me. I can do the same with other purple-wearers.

And you know what? In means something! We purple-lovers definitely have certain inner aspects in common.

​Yes—a purple sisterhood definitely exists out there; I've experienced it.

So we see from all this, plus our own experiences & observations, that a woman's personal appearance is a vehicle of her own unique self-expression.

And this inborn feminine aspect makes tsniyut more complex & challenging—yet also more rewarding and self-validating at the same time.

Social influences affect women, which also affects her tsniyut.

Whether positive or negative, this social influence comes from her family, her husband, her community, and her surrounding society.

Women understandably use their external appearance to feel good about themselves on the inside.

I can't help noticing that one sign of marital disharmony is when the wife's tsniyut starts deteriorating.

I don't mean right after she marries.

Sometimes, lack of tsniyut right after the wedding simply means her parents had a lot of control over her outfits, but then she married a guy who enjoys laxity in tsniyut (he's wrong, BTW) and she's like, "YES! I can finally dress the way I want AND my husband appreciates it!"

I'm not talking about that.

I mean the ones who cared about tsniyut and then it all starts going out the window during their marriage.

Her husband makes her feel bad about herself on the inside, so she seeks to feel good about her outside.

That's very normal. It's not correct. But it's definitely normal.

But a downslide in tsniyut doesn't always reflect a downslide in shalom bayit.

​Other reasons exist.

For example, many women feel like a height-of-fashion "wow!" appearance creates a kiddush Hashem.

It doesn't. 

This is a common misunderstanding of kiddush Hashem, which reverberates far beyond tsniyut.

Many frum people think kiddush Hashem is anything that makes them look good in the eyes of their surrounding culture.

Many times, that's true. But not always.

Kiddush Hashem means representing Hashem truthfully & with integrity.

​For example, if your surrounding culture prizes the abuse of Welsh Corgi puppies, would it be a kiddush Hashem to go around kicking Welsh Corgi puppies?

Absolutely not.

It would be a disgusting chilul Hashem.

Likewise, walking around looking like a million dollars is a problem.

(Ostentatiousness is condemned for Jewish men too, says Orchot Tzaddikim.)

And I think we've all seen frum women with classy, refined shaitels & clothes, who suddenly develop a need to "upgrade" her appearance. And so she comes out with a va-va-voom shaitel, flashy clothes, and all these swishy, alluring mannerisms & air of blazing confidence...

​...and then gushes about how good she feels about herself, how the Torah wants women to feel good about themselves (it does—just not in this particular way), and how covering your hair in this way makes you feel fabulous as opposed to feeling nebbuchy or downtrodden. 

And that ties in with her wanting to feel good about herself on the outside when she does not feel good about herself on the inside.

So...it's all very understandable.

Rav Shimshon Dovid Pincus stated that tsniyut provides protection.

It's like an iron dome or bomb shelter.

It provides practical protection & spiritual protection, both to the woman herself, to her family, and to all of Am Yisrael.

Is it completely fool-proof?

No.

Is anything completely fool-proof & guaranteed in This World?

No.

One frum teenage boy told me that when he walks around with his friends, a couple of them will say, "Hey, see that girl over there? She looks more 'open.' Let's go talk to her."

At that point, the other boys say no, and they keep walking. (The truth is they're shy & this is all just talk.) Furthermore, the boy who related this expressed the good sense to know that the girls don't realize the impression they're making. He sees they're innocent.

Yet the indecent ones refuse to see female laxity as innocent.

Female dress & behavior offer certain messages to males, whether the message is "c'mon over!" or "trespassers will be shot!", and whether she intends that message or not.

Years ago, I spoke with a friend who staffed the women's crisis hotline at her Ivy League university. She revealed how the most common crisis occurred when a young woman went out to the bar on the weekend nights, got drunk, then got left there alone by her friends.

("I really think you need to get new friends," was one piece of advice my friend used to give them.)

At that point, a fellow male student on the prowl for young co-eds in this precise situation would hone in on her and...we'll omit the details of what happened next, but it resulted in a call to the crisis hotline.

And the predator was almost always an athlete on a sports scholarship playing for that Ivy League university's sports team.

With no proof of a crime, the young women were left with the option of "dean's discipline." However, my friend discouraged this because it usually ended up intensifying the victim's trauma with no justice served in the end.

Why?

Well, the Ivy League university dean happened to be a secular liberal white woman who wished to protect her employer's big money-maker (football & basketball).

Or perhaps she was simply a terrible person with a crummy value system.

Anyway, when confronted with a female student post-assault who knew the identity of her violator, the female dean displayed fake sympathy, then proceeded to explain how the violator can't really understand what he did was wrong due to his underprivileged background.

The liberal secular female dean then explained why the young woman should drop her charges against the oh-so pitiable young predator, who simply does not know any better.

Awwww...boo-hoo...the poor morally ignorant boy from an underprivileged background! Bless his underprivileged little heart! Where, o where can I wring out my tear-sopped hankie?

(And you thought only rich, white males enjoy privilege! But no, if you get into an Ivy League university on a football or basketball scholarship, you too can become a repeat offender with absolutely no repercussions!) 
 
Anyway, the point is that some males are predatory. 

Sure, it would be nice to shove the predatory types off a cliff. But that's not realistic until Mashiach comes.

So for now, it helps females to develop tsniyus behaviors, like not going around drunk in public areas, and especially not by herself. (Not that you would do that; just using it as one example of non-tsniyus behavior—although not going around by yourself at night, especially if you're a young woman, is always good advice.)

It's not her fault if a predator preys on her vulnerability.

At the same time, the less vulnerable she is, the better off she is.

​(More about that here: http://www.myrtlerising.com/blog/two-powerful-lessons-revealed-by-dinahs-ordeal-in-parshat-vayishlach)

​And that's the practical protection of tsniyut. 

Spiritual protection explains why most frum Jewish women do not remove their hair-covering or change into pants when hanging out a home with a female buddy.

Tsniyut is an enhancement of the neshamah.

​Many frum women feel more natural when dressed tsniyusly, which is why she remains tsniyus even when in an all-female environment.

(Certainly, there are exceptions to this statement. I'm speaking generally.)

Tsniyut applies to men too (which is why you do not see charedi men strolling around in Hawaiian shorts or sleeveless shirts), but it applies even more to women.

Though often imperceptible, female tsniyut provides wonderful protection on all levels for herself, her husband, her children, and her Nation.

All the above (and more!) demonstrate why Rav Kanievsky advises women to strengthen our tsniyut.

Please notice he did not say to revolutionize our tsniyut, but to just strengthen it.

This means we can look at our makeup, hair-covering, jewelry, shoes or our behavior and lovingly examine whether we can refine some aspect of it—to beautify it with dignity.

Husbands & fathers can definitely assist in this by internalizing the importance of feminine kavod in Judaism, enabling him to then project that outward onto his female family members.

Most husbands & fathers lack awareness of the powerful influence they have on their wives & daughters regarding tsniyut. 

Men can impact tsniyut in wonderfully positive way.

Husbands & fathers can gently & warmly encourage their wives & daughters toward tsniyut with lots of compliments & validation, and also by re-orienting their own minds to view Jewish women with kavod & appreciation for the Jewish female's intrinsic value and innate holiness as a bat Yisrael.

May we only hear good news.

One of my favorite writers is someone I discovered only around a year ago:
Sofya Sara Esther Tamarkin.

Born in the Soviet Union, Tamarkin immigrated from Saratov with her family in 1989 when she was around age 12.

Her journey to Torah Judaism has been more than a journey of intellect & deeds, but also of heart & soul.

Her English writing is superb and possesses a certain depth & dimension beyond articulation, but definitely experience each time coming across a new article of hers.

Here her articles on chabad.org:
https://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=23400&page=3&jewish=Tamarkin-Sofya-Sara-Esther.htm

​And here are her articles on Aish:
https://www.aish.com/authors/573126641.html
​
Growing up in America, I well remember the plight of the Jewish refuseniks & the stories we heard and the letters we wrote them to show the Russian government we cared, hoping it might offer them some kind of protection.

(Mostly, the letters never arrived to the refuseniks, but were returned obviously opened & carelessly glued shut. The letters mainly signaled to the Russian government that someone cared about the family; someone on the outside was aware of their existence. I've no idea how much it worked for the average refusenik—other than Natan Sharansky, for whom it worked well as he received a continuous ocean of mail—but during the age of 11-14, it was all I knew to do & it made me feel I was doing something for them.)

Tamarkin is only a couple of years younger than me, so it means a lot to read about her experiences during a time that made such an emotional impression upon me. Without having known of her specifically, she was one of the people about whom the young me felt so much concern.

Here are some favorite articles by Tamarkin:

https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/4687452/jewish/Confronting-the-Teacher-Who-Incited-an-Anti-Semitic-Riot.htm
Within, Tamarkin describes the 7th-grade-girl "pogrom" she endured at the incitement of one of her teachers. Amid the atrocities throughout Jewish history, it isn't the worst event of Jew-hated you'll ever come across, but for the sensitive young Tamarkin who grew up with these girls and considered them real friends, it was a traumatic betrayal.

We merit a rare finale to the saga when the adult Tamarkin visits the teacher (now a principal) years later.

https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/4969777/jewish/Why-I-No-Longer-Need-My-Holiday-Tree.htm
I think many if not most people can relate to this one. 

Tamarkin discusses the emotional attachment we have to non-Jewish aspects of our former lives. Even FFB people can feel attachment to certain aspects of whatever they experienced in their surroundings.

Also, in a funny twist, the story of Snegurochka ("snow maiden") was one of my favorite fairy tales as a child, so that added another relatable element to the topic as in, "Oh, she knows the beloved Snegurochka of my childhood!" (But in a completely different context. I never knew about Snegurochka's connection to the December holiday.)

Different versions of this fairy tale exist, but the one I knew told of a childless couple who merited a lovely daughter made out of snow named Snegurochka. I don't remember many details, but the basic premise was that one day toward the end of winter, her normally overprotective parents allowed her to go berry-picking (or something like that) with the neighborhood children.

As the morning drifted into afternoon, the day grew warmer.

​Snegurochka got separated from the group. Then they heard her cry out for help, but when they arrived, all that was left of Snegurochka was a puddle of snow.

How deliciously tragic to the young me! 

I don't know what that says about me as a child, but I also loved Little Mermaid (not the Disney gooped-up version, but the real tragic version tempered by the comforting ending about how the foam-absorbed former mermaid earns a soul by reporting all the good deeds of children around the world).

But one of Tamarkin's best turned into a delightful unfolding story in continuing parts, starting here:
https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/4624330/jewish/The-Impossible-Dream-of-a-Chinese-Girl-in-Singapore.htm

If you don't want spoilers, then just go straight to the above link about the impossible dream of a Chinese girl in Singapore & follow the events & links from there.

Actually, you should read it anyway before continuing so you'll know what the rest of this post is talking about.

Anyway, that article made me feel so intrigued. 

Also, Tamarkin described everything in a way that allows to you to experience it as if you were there with her.

Judging by the comment section, I saw I wasn't the only one who yearned to know what happened to that irresistibly sweet & mysterious Chinese girl with her page of Tehillim, and who tiptoed around Singapore's Chabad House out of her great attraction to Judaism.

Yes, Tamarkin managed to find out that the sweet 16-year-old Chinese girl was on her way to converting, but didn't know any more.

The comment section continued to fill with comments wishing to know more.

​Me too!

Then comments came in from readers who thought they knew her, claiming her name was Elisheva and she was now a Lubavitcher rebbetzin. 

Others remembered her as a fantastic teacher in England whom they referred to as "Miss Yu."

Fortunately, readers thought to send Tamarkin's article to the formerly "timid yet determined" Chinese girl and...bingo!

Now the mother of a little girl & married to an Italian convert, Elisheva (Yu) Martinetti contacted Tamarkin to let her know what became of her in the end.

Here is the result:
https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/4691797/jewish/How-the-Impossible-Dream-of-a-Chinese-Girl-Turned-Jewish-Came-True.htm

Then they conducted an interview with Elisheva Martinetti.

Despite describing herself as having "an introverted nature," she ended up as an impassioned enthusiastic teacher of Chassidic thought to frum girls in England.

You can tell she has really found herself in Torah Judaism. She seems like she was born frum.

Here it is:
https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/video_cdo/aid/4764886/jewish/A-Chinese-Girls-Journey-to-Judaism.htm

And of course, Elisheva's husband David Martinetti also has a powerful story about his own journey:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4819005/jewish/From-Catholic-Italian-to-Jewish-Rabbi-David-Martinetti-Shares-His-Story.htm
​
And then a video of them both telling their shidduch story:
​https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/video_cdo/aid/4785894/jewish/How-the-Chinese-Girl-Who-Became-Jewish-Found-Her-Soulmate.htm

​​It was unusually fun & exciting to follow each installment as it unfolded because I read the first article when the identity & fate of the sweet Chinese girl was still a mystery, then followed it as it developed.

How often do we get this kind of closure in real life? 

And with this kind of inspiring, spiritual, Jewish theme!

I hope all this gives you some good, geshmak Jewish reading.

Note: No one asked me to publicize Tamarkin's writing & she has no idea I even exist. (Update 30/3/21: This was true when the article was first written. As you can see in the comment section, it's no longer true. Such are the "magical" powers of the Internet...) The reason for writing this is that I just really like her writing & wish for others to enjoy it too. 

When first hearing about yeshivah bachurs going around (especially on Purim) collecting money for their yeshivah, it was presented in a negative light.

Unwittingly, this negative impression remained in my mind until one of my older sons went collecting for his own yeshivah (both on Purim itself and on regular days).

He spoke about all the wonderful families he encountered this way, including poor families who felt so strongly about supporting Torah, they warmly gave generous donations—a very humbling experience for the boys collecting.

He described dancing in their homes on Purim and the whole atmosphere of love for Torah.

He also mentioned how he felt about those who received them kindly, offered them a drink (non-alcoholic)—even if they gave a tiny donation—versus those who just handed them the money and then shut the door. 

(Of course, it's still easy to view them positively, that they felt pressured or harassed at that moment, and despite their situation, they still gave something.)

​Because of his experiences collecting for his yeshivah, my son started relating to tzedakah collectors with friendliness & concern.

If he's at home when a collector comes knocking (whether for a yeshivah or any other reason), my son treats them with warmth & friendship, offers them something to drink or eat, and gives them as much of a donation as he can.

And hearing about his experiences also changed me.

Feeling grateful to all the people who treated my son so kindly during his collection, I view the yeshivah boys who come knocking as "sons" rather than "them."

Especially the younger ones collecting for the first time, they can feel very vulnerable.

For example, one showed up at my door last week, stammering through his mask and temporarily forgetting the name of his yeshivah, for which he was collecting.

I pretended not to notice his awkwardness, and treated him warmly while giving him a donation. He looked grateful & relieved.

It felt like I was "passing it forward"—meaning, I was merely doing for someone else's son what others had done for mine.

While I was always polite to collectors and wished them well, I learned from my son how important it is to put even more heart into it.​

However, tsniyut (modest, appropriate behavior) still comes first and I'm not warm or friendly to these men & boys in the way my son is.

I hold back.

If my husband or an older son is at home, I might politely (withOUT a big warm smile) offer them a drink.

It's important for women to realize that without a sturdy teenage or adult male at home, she has NO obligation to open the door to tzedakah collectors.

If she does, she has NO obligation to smile or offer refreshments, nor any other behavior that could be interpreted as inviting.

Even if he claims to be desperate to use the facilities, the answer is...NO!!!!!!!!!!

I could tell you stories about that. Here they are...

Scary Story #1:

Years ago, a recently widowed thirtysomething friend of mine, who was experienced in self-defense techniques (which she had used successfully against predators), opened the door to a tzedakah collector in a frum neighborhood and found herself with a knife pointed at her stomach accompanied by a demand for her valuables.

Despite her confidence & experience in self-defense, she could not utilize her skills with the knife pointing where it was.

After taking her valuables, he left—with her in hot pursuit. She felt sure she could successfully attack him from behind.

But he got away.

I'm including this story because the "Blazing Brunhilda" archetype has gained so much popularity, but women's best self-defense & self-protection always has been & still is: Avoidance. Prevention.

Despite my friend's assertive personality & effective self-defense skills, she still got mugged.

It's not a common occurrence (especially with the knife), but because it can happen, it's so important to encourage women to FEEL GOOD ABOUT PROTECTING THEMSELVES and NOT performing the wonderful mitzvah of tzedakah unless it's absolutely safe to do so.

Scary Story #2:
A friend with numerous small children at home opened the door to an apparent tzedakah collector who requested use of the facilities.

She felt uncomfortable because her husband wasn't home. But at the same time, she pitied the guy who seemed desperate.

Without going into detail, let's just say he ended up flashing both her & her young children, but made it seem unintentional.

(It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not. A man who cannot or will not behave appropriately has no business being in your home or around your children.)

NEVER let a strange man into your home UNLESS you have a sturdy male around!!!

​(Little boys—no matter how many—don't count.)

If a man desperately needs the bathroom, let him go to a nearby supermarket or shul, or knock until he finds a home with a sturdy male in attendance.

Any normal man understands this. Men have wives, sisters, and mothers whom they would not want them to let in strange men.

​So any normal man understands why you are denying him entrance.

If he doesn't understand & even gets upset, then that means he's a pompous jerk (or a predator) who doesn't deserve any favors from you anyway.

​(On the contrary, he deserves a good kick.)

You are worthy & good and deserve to protect yourself.

UPDATE: Please see that Jewish Law supports the woman's right to safety:
https://dinonline.org/2021/03/03/danger-of-not-knowing-tzadakah-collector/

Anyway...

So that's how my son collecting for his yeshivah pinpointed a prejudice I didn't even know I had, and changed both my attitude & his...plus the bonus piece on how, despite the praiseworthiness of giving tzedakah, a woman must put her own safety & that of her children first—and she should fulfill that priority with confidence & conviction.

There is an enormous amount to say about Shemot/Exodus 22:17:
​“A machshefah shall not live.”

Machshefah (often translated as sorceress or witch) comes from the word kishuf (kee-shoof—often translated as magic, sorcery, witchcraft, divination, or occultism).

(And despite the feminine noun used, all the commentaries state that the prohibition definitely includes men: warlocks, wizards, sorcerers, etc.)

The translation causes confusion when people want to know whether this verse also prohibits magic shows and the like.

Modern Hebrew labels sleight-of-hand magic shows as kosmut (kohss-moot) and their magician as a kosem (koh-sem)—an “enchanter.”

It’s not real magic.

The magician relies on fancy handwork, gimmicks, assistants, and mirrors to achieve his “magical” results, which his delightful audience finds enchanting.

Nonetheless, halachic sources throughout the ages find even the gimmick-based magic shows problematic, albeit less so today because in our times, even young children respond to a magic trick by asking, “How did you do that?”—meaning, they know it’s not supernatural, but accomplished using very natural strategies.

Basically, the magician in a magic show must include a disclaimer that he is not performing real magic, but merely entertaining tricks with very rational strategies behind them.

However, acts in which the performer wishes to convince the audience that he uses supernatural or psychic powers (like bending a spoon with his mind) are problematic.

Rav Yehoshua Pfeffer (the author of the below articles) advises consulting with a halachic authority before entering the profession or arranging for a magic show.

For a comprehensive discussion of Jewish Law on the topic, please see:

• Magic: As Innocent As It Seems?
• Balak – A Halachic Glance at Magic

However, the machshefah referred to in the Torah isn’t a just a mistress (or master) of fancy handiwork. 

There are 2 types of forbidden kishuf (sorcery, witchcraft, magic):

• The fake, sleight-of-hand, gimmick-based magic mentioned above, but one that is used to deceive people into believing in the power of the occult & causes them to question, doubt, or deny Hashem’s power.

(Its intellectual twin is today’s atheist scientist, who exploits literary eloquence & layman ignorance, and utilizes weasel words to convince his audience of his personal mastery & to destroy people’s emunah.)

• Real kishuf. Meaning, the medium uses occult tactics or entities to achieve the desired effects. Such a person accesses the powers of harmful tumah (impure spirituality) to carry out his or her objectives.

​
This post focuses on the second type of kishuf: those involved in the occult—also known as those who utilize kochot hatumah (the powers of impure forces).

For a long time, I found it difficult to understand why kishuf merits the death penalty in the Torah.

That’s because I grew up with Halloween & its appealing presentation. In addition, the mainstream outlets presented kishuf as imaginary & fun.

Furthermore, old-time spiritualists & modern Wiccans emphasized the concept of “white magic” & “white witchcraft”—in other words, kishuf used for neutral (like finding a parking spot) or even for good (like healing others).

(You’ll see in a later post why even “white” kishuf is a problem.)
 
The only people I knew who took kishuf seriously were my church-going classmates & neighbors.

But I found it hard to take THEM seriously.

After all, these are the same people who insist on cultivating in children the belief that a dangerously obese man in a red wool suit rides around on a reindeer-driven sleigh & slides down chimneys to fill stockings & arrange presents under indoor fir trees—this belief cultivated by the same people who believe that 1 equals 3.

(Or that 3 equals 1? Whatever.)

They also related stories of people they knew struck by demonic possessions and cured by exorcisms.

My high school classmates even returned from a church youth group weekend retreat with stories of another classmate who displayed signs of demonic possession (uncontrollable shaking, etc.), and for whom only the intervention of their heroic minister ended the crisis.

Convinced only rational explanations existed, I refrained from arguing with them, but mentally chalked up such things to group hypnosis, the power of suggestion, bias confirmation, hysteria, etc.

Wholly secular at the time, I couldn’t even entertain the possibility of something supernatural occurring in those situations.

So I remained unmoved in my conviction of rational explanations only.

And those rational explanations really could have explained their experiences.

However, with their unintentional harnessing of themselves to the powers of tumah (there is no “son of God”—so to whom exactly are their prayers & religious energies going?) and the compulsion of some church leaders to create possession events, they really could be accessing the occult—even though that’s the very dynamic they claim to oppose & fear.

When I first started keeping Torah & mitzvot, my Orthodox community consisted of Jews who maintain strict allegiance to the rationalist stream of Judaism—mostly based on the Rambam.

I felt very comfortable there & continued to grow in my newfound Torah Judaism.

Much later, I began to realize that Judaism cannot be fully embraced within a 3-dimensional world of the strictly rational.

Too many questions remained unanswered.

For example, I found the concept of suffering impossible to accept without the concept of gilgul—reincarnation.

Gradually, I realized that the world must comprise far more than just 3 dimensions.

Quantum physics—still undiscovered in the Rambam’s time—opened up new venues of understanding.

Furthermore, I couldn’t help noticing that the most brilliant & holy minds of Jewish history overwhelming believed in the existence of worlds within our world, of unseen entities, a variety different dimensions, and much more outside the strictly 3-dimensional rational.

Not only that, they understood how this all worked, knew how to deal with them when encountering them (and they DID encounter them, even if they didn't want or mean to), and they also knew how to protect themselves from it all.

In fact, a significant chunk of the standardized Jewish daily prayer provides protection from harmful entities, like prosecuting angels (mekatrigim) or demons and that whole subset associated with harmful entities mazikin or nezikin (damagers), chitzonim (outsiders, externals), klippot (impure "shells" which imprison holy sparks), and so on.

These prayers are a gift from those same brilliant & holy minds for our protection.

In her book, To Play with Fire: One Woman’s Remarkable Odyssey, Tova Mordechai recalls the faith healings & spiritual highs she either observed or experienced during her years trapped in a church cult.

A rav explained to her that these events utilized kochot hatumah—the powers of spiritual impurity.

She noted how the rav's explanation finally explained why the aftermath of the spiritual high of these tumah-based “faith healings” always left her feeling depleted, with a dark emptiness inside.

Former practitioners of Eastern occult systems (who later became frum) also recall a dark empty feeling that replaced their initial spiritual high, leaving them feeling irritable.

Furthermore, aside from experiences with spiritual tumah, strange events occur to people that defy any rational explanation. (And I mean documented events by reliable people, not just claims by eccentrics.)

Books like Chessed L'Avraham & Kav Hayashar & Minchat Yehudah (or the Zohar itself) testify to all sorts of entities & events far beyond the realm of the rational.

Gradually, I made the shift to accept a world full of other worlds and beings.

Paradoxically, Judaism now made more sense than ever.

The Truth of Torah shined brighter too.
​
And with this, the capital severity of kishuf also became more understandable.

The deception produced by gimmick-based sleight-of-hand can cause severe injury to one’s emunah. Throughout the ages, clever tricksters gained followers in this manner.

Throughout history, thousands of people also lost their souls to these charlatans.

Ultimately, poverty, homelessness, rancor, illness, and death resulted from following such “magical” deception.

That’s reason enough for the death penalty.

But the implementation of supernatural kishuf deceives just as dangerously, with equally harmful results.

Its very hiddenness make it impossible to stop without executing the practitioner.

The classic story of this involves Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach’s handling of a mountain coven of 80 witches who were “destroying the world.”

One rainy day, Rebbi Shimon gathered 80 disciples wearing clean garments, and also 80 vessels. He instructed the disciples of their mission to deal with these 80 witches, then explained his strategy: They would all make their way to the cave of the coven, their clean garments kept bone-dry in the firmly sealed vessels.

Upon arriving at the coven, Rebbi Shimon planned to engage the witches, then he would whistle once—that was the signal for the men to don the dry clothes.

​A second whistle was meant to summon the men to come rushing into the cave.

And that’s what happened.

Rebbi Shimon reached the cave, his disciples hidden nearby. He called out to the witches, posing as an occult master like them.

They let him in.

Then, in what seemed to be a demonstration of skill & a challenge to this newfound "master wizard," one witch conjured up a loaf of bread out of thin air. Another conjured up a cooked meal while another conjured up wine.

“What can you do?” they challenged.

"I will whistle twice,” replied Rebbi Shimon, “and 80 men wearing clean clothes will come here to make you happy."

“We want them!” said the lascivious witches.

Rebbi Shimon whistled once, and the hidden disciples donned their clean, dry clothing.

He whistled a second time and they rushed into the cave.

​He hinted to them that each one must take a witch and raise her up off the ground because the loss of contact with the ground nullifies the occult power.

He told the one who conjured up bread, “Bring bread!”

She could not.

So Rebbi Shimon said, “Hang her!”

And so on throughout the remaining 80 witches.

Back at the ranch (so to speak), this caused quite a stir because Jews don’t judge 2 capital cases in one day, Rebbi Shimon handled the whole situation wildly differently than capital cases are handled, he did not follow halachic protocol, etc.

(Like any other capital case, a person accused of being a machshefah must be tried in a court of justice by a group of Sages possessing high-level wisdom & discernment.)

Why did the great Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach make such a radical detour in his handling of the 80 witches?

First of all, the occult acts were performed directly in front of the judge (Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach himself); there was no doubt involved.

Secondly, it was an emergency situation.

The witches were ruthless, conniving, and in possession of powerful supernatural powers.

They were said to be destroying the world with their hidden machinations.

It was either now or never.

So Rebbi Shimon acted upon the opening he’d created in that moment.

Another even more disturbing example appears in the Me’am Lo’ez.

​It relates the story of a machshefah who portrayed herself as a master midwife.

The women in her town suffered extremely difficult labors in which the baby seemed to get stuck and only her appearance on the scene seemed to finally enable the birth.

You can imagine how much the people revered her. You can imagine how willing even the poorest were to pay her whatever she demanded for her special “service.”

What they discovered, however, was that she both caused & enabled the births via kishuf.

She kept special sealed jars full of I-can’t-remember-what; the sealed jar associated with each birthing woman obstructed the delivery of the baby.

Whenever she was summoned to a stuck birth, she secretly brought the sealed jar with her. Upon arriving, she found a place where she could break open the jar undetected, then return to the birthing woman and “miraculously” deliver the baby.

At one point, she was killed.

(I can’t remember whether the court sentenced her to death or whether, upon the chilling discovery of her jars, something happened that killed her. But I think she was actually executed.)

This story stands out as an outlier because ever since the starring role of Shifra & Puah, Judaism shows a lot of appreciation for midwives.

The old-time Jewish midwives in Morocco or Yemen brought their emunah & Jewish compassion, along with their practical skills, into their midwifery.

In fact, one Yemenite midwife became a well-known healer of infertility after coming to live in Tiveria in Eretz Yisrael. I believe her name was Simcha Demari and she used reflexology & herbs & homeopathy to help women get pregnant.

(In fact, one of her successful patients told me that Simcha gave her capsules of myrrh & frankincense—both used in Ketoret—to assist with fertility. Now Simcha's daughters-in-law carry on the practice.) 

In contrast, if you ponder the machshefah midwife for a moment, her heartless cruelty stands out.

For example, despite what many natural-birth proponents claim, unmedicated births can be excruciatingly unbearable (ask me how I know...).

​(Just by way of brief explanation: The unmedicated birthers either don’t experience excruciating births or they love the idea of both facing & overcoming pain, feeling like triumphant winners when the ordeal ends. But many of us definitely do NOT feel that way.)

To intentionally cause a laboring women so much pain & emotional anguish is unforgiveable.

Furthermore, we all know that babies can suffer serious damage (or even death, Gd forbid) if they get stuck in the birth canal.

It can also harm the woman, with internal tearing or even a fractured tailbone.

The extreme distress caused to the woman and those attending her, the fear for her life and that of her baby—all so this machshefah could acquire power, honor, and wealth?

And even if she promised to never indulge in such kishuf again, how could anyone trust her?

​She already proved herself to be a merciless, greedy, conniving psychopath.

Can you trust her proclaimed repentance?

Furthermore, due to the easy concealment of kishuf, how could you ever supervise her future conduct?

Once again, if the Torah so strongly condemned a certain practice, then that means something.

I think all this together offers a clear idea why kishuf is much viler than portrayed in the movies and on college campuses and women's studies.

We can better understand why something so dangerous—and so incredibly easy to hide—demands such a severe consequence.

​Having said all that, we no longer judge capital cases in rabbinical courts.

We haven't done so for centuries.

We also don't commit vigilante justice.

For example, no one kills a Sabbath-transgressor (even though the Torah demands the death penalty for transgressing Shabbat).

Instead, we try to encourage the Sabbath-transgressor to learn more about Shabbat & Judaism so that he or she develops on their own a desire to keep Shabbat.

The reason why the response changed is discussed copiously in scintillating detail throughout millennia of rabbinical scholarship and too much to explain here.

But the end result is that no one executes Sabbath-transgressors, nor does anyone want to.

To read more in this series:

• Part II: What's the Problem with Kishuf?–A Torah Discussion of Witchcraft, Sorcery, and the Occult from Both the Rationalist & Supra-Rationalist POV

 

• Part III: What's So Bad about Kishuf? – What's Wrong with White Magic? LOTS!

A truly caring friend makes sure to send me the Bitachon Weekly every week. Bursting with fascinating Torah ideas, it also gleans from a wealth of Navordok mussar.

I love it.

For Parshat Shemot, it mentions a little-known fact about Miriam HaNeviah (the Prophetess):

In contrast to the majority of other saintly personalities throughout the Torah, Moshe Rabbeinu's famous big sister was not so good-looking.

And that's putting it lightly.​

Sotah 12a explains how Miriam was known by different names to reflect her unfortunate situation:

• Yeriot (curtains)—because her face was extremely pale like yeriot.

 

• Chelah (sickly)—because she was sickly.

 

• Azuvah (rejected, abandoned)—because "everyone abandoned her" due to not wanting to marry her because of her sickly, unattractive appearance (!!!)

It's hard to believe after everything she did for Am Yisrael, no one wanted to marry her due to her sickly, unattractive self.

Such wholesale rejection implies severe unattractiveness (but Chazal is too nice to come right out & say it. But the implication is definitely there).

Also, think of the tremendous slap-in-the-face against the concept of positive middah-k'neged-middah (measure-for-measure) this must have seemed.

After all, since her young girlhood, Miriam HaNeviah embodied the concept of unswerving loyalty.

She stood by the continuation of Am Yisrael by encouraging the fruitfulness of Am Yisrael under the sick decree of Pharaoh against the newborn boys of Yisrael.

She stood by her baby brother as he floated down the Nile.

Later, she risked her life as Puah to stand by Am Yisrael as a dedicated midwife, saving life after life.

She never abandoned one Jew, even at risk to her own life.

​So how was it that she herself was abandoned & rejected to such an extreme?

Also, while sickly is never an asset, it used to be worse before modern technology.

With so much of the most basic domestic duties demanding intensive labor (getting a fire going, digging up vegetables & washing them without running water, hand-washing laundry, cooking, childbirth, nursing, childcare, etc.) that challenged a healthy woman, how could a sickly woman possibly manage?

Sure, in the Midbar, bnei Yisrael enjoyed the luxury of manna & the Cloud Pillar (which did the laundry), but women still faced other demands.

And can you imagine being such an object of rejection that it becomes your name?

You know how people sarcastically say, "If you look up _____ in the dictionary, you'll find my name under the definition"?

Well, for Miriam, it was literally true! Azuvah. Rejected. Abandoned. Unwanted.

Yet one man rose to the occasion: Kalev ben Yefuneh.

Yes, Kalev again. The famously positive & emunah-filled spy.

​Kalev married Miriam solely for her holy personality.

And because he married l'Shem Shamayim (for the sake of Heaven, for the purest motives), Kalev earned unique merits; Hashem rewarded him richly.

After marriage, Miriam's appearance transformed into the opposite of what it had been.

Thus, she became known by new names:

• Vardon (a type of rose)—because she developed a beautiful rose-like appearance

 

• Na'arah (young woman)—because she became healthy & beautiful like the ideal young woman.

While her initial state of extended singlehood may not have seemed fair (after all, she was a savior of Am Yisrael—and saved Am Yisrael more than once!), it was her flaws that launched her into a marriage with one of the best men of the Nation.

Only Kalev was willing to marry such a sickly & unattractive tzaddikah.

Had she been more attractive & healthier, she would've had her pick of husband—a very good man, of course, but still not on the level of Kalev ben Yefuneh.

Yet after she married Kalev, she no longer needed her sickliness & unattractiveness. Those negative qualities had served their intended purpose. So Hashem replaced them with health & beauty.

Also, this marriage enabled Miriam to become a mother of royalty.

She not only married into the Tribe of Yehudah, but Mashiach descends from Kalev's line—a fitting reward for the woman who served as the courageous midwife, Puah.

​So Miriam's "flaws" actually ended up being her assets; they enabled both her & Kalev ben Yefuneh to express their highest levels of emunah & righteousness.

This aspect of Miriam's life also recall the theme of rejection running throughout the lives of our most brilliant & most accomplished ancestors: Noach, Leah Imeinu, Yosef Hatzaddik, Moshe Rabbeinu, David Hamelech, Chana HaNeviah, the Shoftim (Judges) Gidon & Shimshon, Yirmiyahu HaNavi...

Even ma'asu habonim hayatah l'rosh pinah.

The stone despised & rejected by the most expert & professional builders?

​THAT stone ends up as the foundational cornerstone of the most important building in the world.

Please, please, please realize that Mashiach descends from rejection, loneliness, and maltreatment.

Throughout the line of Mashiach, you do not find stories of privilege, honor, popularity, power, and prestige (at least, not initially, anyway).

​This is straight from the Torah.

Being cast down & cast aside may paradoxically be signs of GREATNESS, and not signs of inferiority.

Please never give up on yourself and please do not believe a society that tells you otherwise.

Miriam HaNeviah's  episode recalls a true story that happened in Yerushalayim decades ago.

A yeshivah student was set to marry a poor, sickly, pockmarked girl with sterling middot from a wonderful family.

Though repelled by her appearance, he strove to overcome his repulsion by speaking positively with his roommate, repeatedly emphasizing her wonderful & righteous personality.

However, as they stood together under the chuppah, the bridegroom realized he simply could not go through with it.

He stepped down, effectively abandoning her under the chuppah before the crowd gathered to celebrate the wedding.

His roommate, who spent so much time hearing about the bride's exceptional character, stepped up to marry her instead with the intent of saving her from this public humiliation.

She agreed and they married.

Not long after the wedding, her pockmarks, ill health, and other external flaws completely cleared up, showing a very nice-looking girl.

It's clear that, as with the case of Miriam HaNeviah, Hashem arranged these physical defects in order for her to marry the right guy—someone like Kalev ben Yefuneh, who publicly demonstrated his willingness to marry a woman purely for the sake of Heaven. (In this case, solely to save her from this public & shocking rejection.) 

After meriting such a wonderful husband, she no longer needed her physical flaws, so Hashem wiped them away.

They ended up raising a large & particularly wonderful family—just like Kalev & Miriam did too.

Related posts:

• What Tanach Teaches Us about Responding to Rejection & Persecution
• Loneliness & Rejection as Aspects of Mashiach
• ​The #1 Path to True Greatness & Achieving Your Absolute Best: Rejection, Isolation, and Being Quashed​
• Were You Ever Despised or Treated as Inferior? Then You Need to Read Rav Avigdor Miller's Dvar Torah for Parshat Vayetzei

For example, one successful writer offered a free ebook on writing.

While the book contained genuinely effective advice, she peppered the book with references to Obama's supposed superiority & the inferiority of anyone who disliked him or his policies.

She clearly considered her actions "cute," but not only did she overdo these political references (with no connection to the book's topic), I quickly grew disdainful of her ditzy adoration of a man who proved himself useless at best & harmful at worst in one of the most powerful positions in the world.

Had the book promoted constant cutesy references critical of Obama, that would also irritate me.

Politics hold no place in a book meant to help with writing—especially such a bloated amount of such self-indulgent political comments. 

​I deleted the book without finishing it—an act which wouldn't bother her in the least (if she ever found out about it) because she obviously feels too enchanted with her own humor & opinions, and too contemptuous of people like me, to care.

However, as a non-fiction authority, her opinions carry influence, even if only unconsciously.

Constantly promoting a political stance as self-evident influences readers, especially because so many other people do it, it seems normal.

This same insistence on the repetitive promotion of bad ideas, plus the refusal to examine the ideas in the first place, also assisted in the popular embrace of Nazism & Communism.

A fascination with lighthouses and their culture once led me to read about women & lighthouse-keeping.

The author, a popular expert in everything nautical, described the life of Abbie Burgess, an American woman born into a lighthouse-keeping family, who eventually married a lighthouse-keeper, and lived the lighthouse-keeping life until her death in 1892.

​He described it as follows (I'm summarizing his words):

• At age 14, Abbie Burgess started helping her father tend two lighthouses in Maine in the 1850s.

 

• She soon developed such proficiency, she enabled her father to bring in extra money via lobster-catching while she tended the lights.

​

• Due to a violent storm that prevented her lighthouse-keeping father from returning home, 16-year-old Abbie Burgess successfully tended the two lighthouses throughout the storm, while also caring for her ill mother, her frightened sisters, and a flock of chickens.

​(So far, so good.)

Then:

• The Republicans came to power in 1860 under Abraham Lincoln.

Okay, so here, the author emphasizes a Republican rise in a foreboding manner, and makes sure to mention it occurred with Lincoln's election.

Could the implied threat of a Republican rise be a slam on Lincoln? Not sure.

Many modern Americans consider him a hero. But many are also aware of his personal condescension toward black people, and also how he fought the Civil War not to free enslaved black Americans, but for the sake of economics & federal power. 

• Because lighthouse appointments depended on political connections, Abbie's father lost his job to a "staunch Republican" lighthouse-keeper.

(Again, note the emphasis on not just losing the job to a Republican, but a STAUNCH Republican. Cue the scary music here...)

However, if lighthouse appointments truly depended on political connections, then how did Abbie's dad gain his lighthouse appointment in 1853?

Meaning, wouldn't it work both ways?

Apparently, Abbie's dad gained his appointment the same way the "staunch Republican" gained his.

In 1853, the Democrat President Franklin Pierce came to power—which is exactly when the Democrat keeper Burgess won his lighthouse position.

So the lighthouse appointment worked the same for Democrats as for Republicans...only you'd never guess that according to the way this author described it.

The way he described it, it looked like davka a Republican power grab, rather than the routine ebb & flow of political appointments of that time.

Let's go on with the author's description of what happened next:

• Abbie was temporarily "allowed" to remain to show the new lighthouse-keeper and his son, the assistant, the ropes.

Oh, the staunch usurping Republican ALLOWED her to remain? But wait a minute...wouldn't such a stay be expected?

After all, it makes sense for the new lighthouse-keeper to receive brief training from the old lighthouse-keeper to understand the workings of that particular lighthouse and the necessary routines.

Furthermore, flawless lighthouse maintenance was considered a matter of life-and-death. 

In the times when seafaring transportation dominated, a lighthouse needed to maintain flawless function at all times.

An unusually dedicated bunch, records show how American & British lighthouse-keepers performed astounding feats of dedication to keep the lights burning.

​So why wouldn't Abbie—or her dad—not just be allowed, but even expected to stay on until the new keeper learned the ropes?

Also, the use of the term "allow" implies that Abbie was forced out of her lighthouse duties after the initial training period. As if, initially, the "staunch Republican" usurper "allowed" her to remain, but then...

However, the basic biographical facts prevent the author from imposing too much of his bias because:
​

• Dazzled by Abbie's impressive skill in maintaining the lighthouse, the staunch Republican's son, Isaac, proposed marriage only a few weeks after meeting our heroine—a proposal which the now 22-year-old Abbie accepted. They married a year later.

So apparently, the whole Republican usurpation wasn't as big a deal as implied by the writer. After all, Abbie married the assistant usurper. (And as we see from the above description of how Abbie's father won his appointment. It was all par for the course.)
​

• With her marriage, Abbie was appointed "second assistant keeper." 

This shows the respect on the part of Isaac and his father. Many times, the wife & children of the head lighthouse-keeper received no official title—no matter how much they participated in the lighthouse-keeping.

Except for sometimes, as in Isaac's case, an older son became the official assistant. 

But despite Abbie's skill and her family's appreciation, I found no indication that Abbie's father appointed her as his official assistant. Maybe he did. But I don't see it.

Her family clearly appreciated her skill & dedication, whether she worked under an official title or not.

Yet the writer muses that:

• Abbie must have resented being cast as "second assistant." After all, she already proved her proficiency in lighthouse-keeping. So she must have "felt the injustice" of being only a second assistant, rather than a first assistant or the main lighthouse-keeper.

​This unfounded imposition of the author shows poor history writing.

Reader reviews of historical non-fiction tend to remark with resentment on unfounded presumptions like "she must have thought" or "she likely felt" and so on. 

Who is the author to impose his or her emotions or thoughts on someone they never even met?

What's more, we have records written by Abbie herself. 

​So we don't need the author's insertion.

Abbie recorded in detail her rescue of the family's chickens during that historic storm—a rescue that ended up saving her family from starvation during the storm; they ate the eggs laid during that event.

Her records also show that while she found the storm-imposed duties exhausting, she was able to perform the lighthouse duties as well as her father—a success she attributed to God.

Abbie also recorded her feelings of dedication toward lighthouse-keeping, especially after her husband died in 1875, prompting Abbie to take over as head keeper until her own death in 1892. 

Yet the writer offers nothing from Abbie herself to back up his presumption of resentment.

Based on the way he phrased his presumption ("she must have felt") and based also on the absence of any quotes from Abbie herself for this presumed resentment (though he quoted her in other passages), likely no such expression of resentment exists.

The author also shows limited awareness of the demands on married women of that time.

Basic housekeeping demanded laundry washed by hand, dishes washed in a tub with a rag, water drawn from a well, and ovens & stoves that needed to be coaxed into starting every morning.

Hand-sewn clothing (or if not hand-sewn, hand-repaired when needed), and basic dinners worked up from scratch: eggs must be collected from under chickens, potatoes needed to be dug up from the ground & chickens must be slaughtered and dressed before the cooking even started.

Pregnancy & nursing added extra difficulty to these labors. (Abbie ended up having 4 children.) In addition, the physically demanding work of the lights (including running up & down the stairs leading to the lights) could cause problems if performed while pregnant.

Nursing babies & busy toddlers also don't leave a mother with much time or endurance to safely tend the lights.

Abbie's step down from lighthouse-keeping was probably not seen as a demotion, but as a natural necessity.

(And like I said, I think it was nice that her father-in-law gave her a title at all because I don't think that was the norm.)

So the reality holds significant differences in contrast to the author's portrayal. 

The desire for titles, official high positions, & a competitive streak tend to be masculine attributes.

Sure, there are ambitious honor-seeking competitive women too.

But to assume that a religious 19-Century woman felt resentful of being relegated to second assistant, just because her modern secular liberal male researcher would feel that way?

​This shows a poor grasp of the people about whom he's writing.

Furthermore, many 19-Century women expressed a strong sense of duty toward their husbands.

If they felt any pride, it was in their supporting role.

The writer of Abbie Burgess's heroics knows this because he quotes these demurring women in his own work!

For example, when her husband's sudden & debilitating illness in 1856 forced 19-year-old pregnant Mary Patten to take charge of his ship, she did so with great success—despite a mutinous first mate, sailing through ice, and nursing her ill husband back to health.

After successfully making it to their destination, Mary focused fully on her husband & his recovery in a local hotel.

The media led the entire nation into adulation for Mary's competence, integrity, and heroism, but Mary politely brushed off reporters in order to give her husband the rest & care he needed.

The ship's company sent Mary $1000 (approx. $33,000 in today's money) in appreciation for saving their vessel.

(In today's money, the vessel and its cargo equaled around 10 million dollars. So yeah, they were pretty darn grateful to Mary. Also, you see why she felt so determined to bring the ship and its cargo to their rightful destination—and to arrive on time.)

​In response, Mary sent them a thank-you note, insisting that she had merely carried out the basic duty of a wife toward a husband stricken with severe illness.

She also credited the cooperation of the crew (minus the mutinous first mate), specially emphasizing the services of the second officer on board.

Furthermore, Mary disliked speaking about the voyage because the memories pained her. She viewed that time as one of suffering, not heroism.

This demonstrates another massive difference between traditional American mentality and modern American mentality: People behaved with more stoicism & pragmatism than they do now.

Many people disliked speaking about traumatic experiences, so they didn't. They also viewed them as part of life and not something deserving of special attention.

Whether you think that's positive or negative, please just understand that this is simply how your average American behaved at that time. 

Other donations of appreciation arrived to Mary, including $1400 from the ladies of her hometown of Boston.

Her unwanted celebrity spread to the UK, where a blind London gentleman sent her a check of $100.

Yet Mary only ever saw her heroics as part of her wifely duties!

There was no "I hope every little girl reading this today sees that this is a country of possibilities where she too can captain her own ship" or "Girls, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful. My example shows you the way."

Again, whether you agree or not that successful women should laud themselves with those sentiments, the plain fact remains that Mary did NOT think that way.

Not one little bit.

And she wasn't an exception.

If you read the writing of or about American women in the 1800s, they displayed impressive modesty.

And a strong sense of duty toward their husbands & children & parents.

In fact, reading the words of women of that time, their strong sense of duty pops up repeatedly in their writings.

They experienced tremendous gratification in their supportive roles, and their sense of duty & a job well-done endowed them with profound self-worth & fortitude.

Both Abbie & Mary felt a profound devotion to what they saw as their duties. Their heroism (and the heroism of other women of that time) emanated from a feeling of duty & moral obligation, and not a desire to prove themselves or produce a really cool selfie.

​They often expressed feeling they had no other choice.

Remember, at that time, nearly every American home both owned & read a bible.

Remembering verses & sermons was an important goal for many from childhood.

And Americans LOVED Mishlei (Proverbs) & Kohelet (Ecclesiastes).

Church-going people still love these books.

And why not? They are some of the best books ever written!

And they influenced Americans with the values of patience, modesty, charity, humility, honesty, faith, duty, and so on.

In fact, colonial Americans even named their daughters Patience, Modesty, Obedience, and Chastity.  

Can you imagine parents doing that today?

A modern parent might name a daughter Scarlet, but have you ever met someone named Modesty or Obedience?

​I bet you haven't.

(​Please also note that Shlomo Hamelech's books influenced Americans, but did not prevent Americans from behaving in opposition to the values he expressed.)

But the point is that your average American behaved with a stoicism and pragmatism to which we not only find it difficult to relate, but that the modern mentality even considers negative.

What's more, duty & loyalty are values that have been cast out the window in modern society.

While the women here describe feeling a strong sense of duty, men of that time also expressed a sense of duty.

A person felt committed to the duties of their job, mission, family, society, spouse, and so on.

Again, these values prove very difficult for a modern American to appreciate because many simply do not feel such things. 

Look at our society's popular phrases:

• Follow your heart.
• Follow your dream.
• Just do it.
• Be yourself.
• Be true to yourself.
• You owe it to yourself.
• All's fair in love & war.
• Reach for the stars.

None of these ideas emphasize duty or loyalty to others.

On the contrary, some of the above ideas lead one away from duty.

For example, if your heart turns to something other than your spouse or your concern for your company's finances, then following your heart causes you to abandon others, regardless of the consequences (as we've seen more & more in today's world).

​Objectively, it is silly for a modern liberal secular man to think he automatically  understands the mentality of a religious conservative woman in the mid-1800s. (Nearly everyone held conservative views back then.)

He could if he worked at it, but as mentioned throughout the post, that goal is beyond the reach of many modern minds.

As stated above, part of the reason why Abbie gave no indication of resentment toward her designation as "second assistant" is because the routine duties of a wife & mother consisted of morning-to-night duties.

Lighting the morning stove, drawing water, laundering by hand, making dinner from scratch (which back then including slaughtering & dressing the meat), washing dishes & pots with a rag & a tub of water—these did not leave time or energy for lighthouse-keeping.

Yes, she managed to run a home & two lights during a storm. But to keep that up permanently?

No way.

Furthermore, the lighthouse-keeping demanded using stairs & lots of physical labor—how is a nursing or pregnant woman supposed to keep up without harming herself or her child? 

Abbie's dedication & heroics aside, Isaac and his father likely tended to the lighthouse better than she could simply because of their greater physical strength and their ability to dedicate all the necessary time & energy.

Why on earth would she resent the designation of "second assistant"? Especially since, as noted above, lighthouse wives often received no official title at all.

​She only took over much later, long after her child-bearing & intensive housekeeping years and her husband's death.

Having said that, many modern liberal women also flub up on this bias.

Of course, modern liberal men & women COULD get into the mentality of historical figures, but it seems like they don't WANT to.

And this remains a massive flaw in modern history books, especially those written for the mainstream.

​Initially, I thought it was a refusal to write objective history.

And that does partly explains the wall of bias found in much of today's non-fiction.

With so many editors, literary agents, and writers continue to hatch from secular, liberal, biased university programs, it makes sense that they all think the same way—that's how the universities program them to think.

And they honestly feel they benefit society by a constant drip of "Republicans are racist, uncaring, corrupt, and stupid...while Democrats are open-minded, caring, ethical, and smart."

Or the continuous presentation of religious people as hypocritical, judgmental, & stupid while portraying secular people as sincere, accepting, and intelligent. 

Or portraying same-gender relationships as a totally normal lifestyle choice (despite copious evidence to the contrary), including showing them in fully committed long-term monogamous relationships (as portrayed in many novels & movies)—even though such monogamy almost never occurs among men who act on their attraction to their own gender.

Or that the California wildfires result from "global warming," rather than from really bad "conservation" policies in force for the past 40 years.

For those controlling what we read, pushing such agendas is a huge mitzvah in their own minds.

While concepts like giving credit where credit is due & striving to offer the most unbiased information possible boosts a reader's trust in the author, trustworthiness has lost its luster in today's society.

Trustworthiness requires a sense of duty & loyalty.

But how can you be dutiful or loyal if your main priority is to follow your own heart, your own dreams, and be true to your own self?

Furthermore, a God-fearing person realizes that he or she will one day face God & that God will demand of them crystalline honesty & payment for any lack of integrity in This World.  

And so, the modern liberal secular mind cannot place integrity & trustworthy narration above its lovely-sounding agendas.

Secular liberals honestly believe that if everyone thinks like them, the world will be a much better place.

​Therefore, they do all they can to push their agendas.

​But then I wondered whether many modern minds are simply incapable of remotely grasping the average mentality of America in the 1800s—or any mentality other than their own.

Yes, they definitely promote an agenda.

But maybe their choices led them to such a narrow place, that now, very little choice remains?

With the indoctrination of the universities and the mainstream media, plus the rising inculcation of narcissism, perhaps a history researcher simply cannot entertain any mentality other than his or her own. 

Yet they read the words of the people about whom they write. 

So how are the above author and his colleagues able to quote Mary Patten & Abbie Burgess, but unable to make rational assumptions about their thoughts & feelings?

Then I realized: These modern researchers simply view people like Mary as an exception.

​Meaning, they see her as exceptional in her modesty & sense of duty, rather than typical of the women of their time.

​(Mary's situation was exceptional, but her attitude was not.)

So yes, the researchers read tons of accounts, but rather than striving to understand what the long-gone diarist is actually saying, they put the words through an automated "translation program" in their mind.

​Despite the fact that Mary Patten was not the only captain's wife to take charge of a ship when her husband fell ill, and despite the fact that many women stated reasons of duty & devotion to explain their insistence on accompanying their husbands on long voyages...the author chalks this up to the mentality of captains' wives or whalers' wives, rather than seeing it as it actually was: a mentality common among women of that time.

Most Americans felt religious at that time. They felt proud of their belief in God, their insistence on crediting God made them feel good, and they admired people who upheld values like morality & virtue. 

Likewise, many men also acted out of duty to their wives, parents, children, communities, and country.

This post focused mostly on the writing (or re-writing) of history.

But these issues apply to any non-fiction published today.

Again, the 2 factors preventing truly informative & trustworthy non-fiction today are:
​

• the insistence on presenting information with an agenda to influence thought & opinion in the author's chosen direction

 

• the inability to grasp any thoughts or feeling different from the author's

Needless to say, the above 2 factors also affect modern education because educators concern themselves so much with the thought-programming agenda that they too cannot grasp alternative thinking.

​This is a big frustration, especially for inquisitive people (like me), who like to peer into an interesting neutral topic, but keep getting slammed in the face with distorted agenda-driven information and the author's inability to think outside his or her narrow little box.

Yet to fight back against the liberal agenda, right-wing conservatives feel they need to insert their agenda into information—also without giving credit where credit is due when it doesn't suit their agenda.

Likewise, many conservatives, affected by generations of the corrupt values expressed in Hollywood movies (yes, even the black 'n' white movies of the 1920s promoted bad values) struggle to understand other mentalities (though they succeed more than the secular liberals do).

In fact, conservatives aren't even so conservative anymore, what with the female pundits dressing like cocktail waitresses and hardly any promotion of premarital-abstinence, and other values essential for a morally robust society.

And who promotes innately feminine qualities anymore—like nurturing, gentleness, gentility, civility, and devotion?

People laugh at such virtues.

But these virtues are essential for a psychologically healthy society.

Anyway, it's becoming increasingly impossible to access accurate information on even the most basic topics.

Even a tiny newspaper column gets the facts wrong.

Altogether, the above makes it increasingly difficult to cultivate independent thought.

We are constantly bombarded with biased & distorted information given via narrow-minded conduits.

When Shlomo Hamelech (King Solomon) arrived at the correct conclusion in the historic court case of the 2 women fighting over 1 baby, his ministers praised him as a "free man."

"Happy are you, O Land, whose king is a free man!"

Why does his profound wisdom & insight define him as "free"?

The Me'am Lo'ez on Kings I:3:28 explains 1 reason: 

It's very difficult to scrabble out the truth right now.

So anything you do in that direction is very precious—more than you realize.

Just the fact that you realize that most of what you watch or read seeks to make you smarter or honestly informed—that alone sets you apart in a really good way.

​May Hashem please lead us on the path of Truth—and may it be a happy path!

Here are some interesting links with little-known tidbits of new information to discover (especially good to read for Parshat Vayetzei):

Who Were Bilhah and Zilpah?
(Learned some tidbits about them I never heard before.)

Why aren't Bilhah and Zilpah Jewish Matriarchs?

12 Facts Every Jew Should Know About Rachel

13 Facts About Leah Everyone Should Know
(Did you know that the wife of Lavan & mother of Rachel & Leah was named Adina? A second Adina was the wife of Levi ben Yaakov, who was the granddaughter of Yoktan, who descended from Shem ben Noach, via Shelach & Yovav. Please see Who Was Adina? With so many Jewish girls named Adina—or the Yiddish equivalents: Aidel or Yenta—this is great information to know.)

Why a Leah Imeinu Can't (and Shouldn't) be a Sara Imeinu
​This is an old Myrtle Rising article.

​Esav and His Wives
What was the deal with Esav & his wacky wives? And what about the one with the fine-sounding name, Yehudit? Or the daughter of Yishmael he married to appease his parents? Not much is discussed in Chazal, but you can find out more in the above link.

In Rav Avigdor Miller's dvar Torah for Parshat Chayei Sara: Feeding the World, Rav Miller starts off by describing the backstory of the young Rivka Imeinu, including the realization that watering camels until satiation requires enormous amounts of water & effort.

Rivka Imeinu showed a deep grounding in the trait of chessed (loving-kindness).

But how did she develop this way?

After all, Rav Miller notes that her family wasn't special. And not only that, but Lavan was a terrible & greedy person.

So what was Rivka's secret to breaking free of her family's middot?

First of all, Rivka Imeinu knew about her great-granduncle Avraham Avinu.

(Nachor & Avraham Avinu were brothers; Rivka Imeinu was Nachor's great-granddaughter.)

​Avraham Avinu earned widespread renown for his righteousness, wisdom, kindness, and generosity in ancient Mesopotamia.

So Rivka definitely knew about him and what he did.

Furthermore, people passing through or returning to Padan Aram from Eretz Canaan (Eretz Yisrael) reported to Rivka's family about what they saw & heard regarding that side of the family.

So she heard all about Avraham Avinu's astounding dedication to caring for wayfarers. 

​Yet Rivka didn't just listen to the stories, says Rav Miller. She analyzed them, asked for more details, and internalized the stories.

And she observed that Hashem's prince, a man who only sought to emulate Hashem, went to extreme lengths to imitate Hashem (who spends all day, so to speak, feeding every live thing in the world every day)—this man, Avraham Avinu, made it his mission to also feed the world.

So Rivka Imeinu knew that davka this must be a vital service in the world.

On pages 11-13, Rav Miller describes in compelling & colorful detail the nature of fruit to procreate, and open our eyes to the beauty of our routine meals and the natural processes that bring us this bounty.

​In fact, fruit is not only tasty & nutritious, but so beautiful that people use fruit (or fruit replicas) to decorate their sukkah. Many people also like paintings of fruit.

And on the day Eliezer came to find a wife for Yitzchak Avinu, Rivka Imeinu prayed to Hashem for the opportunity to bring water to people.

She already supplied her family that day with water.

But she wanted to do more.

That's why she was outside when Eliezer came; she was on the hunt for chessed opportunities.

So even though Eliezer only saw Rivka Imeinu as the answer to his prayers, Eliezer & his entourage were equally the answer the Rivka Imeinu's prayers too.​

Having said all this, Rav Miller emphasizes that women home alone should not invite strange men inside for a drink or a meal—even if her husband is in town.

(My own note: Even if the charity collector claims he desperately needs to use the bathroom, don't let him cross the threshold if you're home without your husband! This happened to my friend: The "charity collector" used the bathroom excuse at my friend's house when her husband wasn't home to expose himself to her young son. DON'T let a strange man into your house unless you have your husband at home with you!!! Don't think that if you have little kids around, then it's okay. Or even if you have a child old enough to prevent yichud—although old enough & big enough to be intimidating is okay—but if your husband is not at home, then no other man comes into your home, no matter what. Don't feel embarrassed or guilty about saying no & closing the door.)

But if you can, it's very good to offer the collector a meal—or a drink at the very least. Rav Miller recommends keeping around food (like chalav Yisrael milk) with kashrut than anyone can eat, plus disposable dishes & cups, for these people.

​Rav Miller also encourages us to emulate Hashem's generosity in the following way (page 19):

You should think this whether you're giving food to your spouse or child or guest or roommate. Or, if you live alone, to yourself.

​​And also this (page 19):

Don't forget to check out the practical tip for emulating the above on page 21.

Also, if you ever wondered how Rivka could go out & interact with a strange man, it's because back in those days, towns, villages, clans, and tribes were so protectives of each other that strangers needed to fear, and not the other way around as it is today.

In other words, little Rivka was as safe speaking to Eliezer by the well as she was speaking to him in front of her parents.

​(Please see here: Rav Avigdor Miller on Rivka, Our Model)