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)

While the behavior of some Gadolim in their homes is very well-known, there is still more to discover.

These stories teach us fundamental lessons.

So why aren't these stories discussed more?

Maybe because:

• People tend to be impressed by major external accomplishments, like creating a successful yeshivah, cultivating an exceptionally profound knowledge of Gemara, astounding hasmadah, etc., but how a Gadol behaves at the dinner table lacks the "wow" factor (for some people, anyway...).

 

• People fear that wives will resent their husbands for not living up to the standards of the great Gadolim, and even use it as a weapon against him (i.e., "Rav Ovadia chose to learn in an airless closet just so as not to disturb his wife's sleep, but YOU always leave the bedroom door open when you KNOW the hall light really bothers me!!!")

 

• People simply don't know the stories. Look, they happened privately & who's to know except the Gadol's lucky wife & children?

However, withholding these stories presents everyone with a lopsided view of the Gadol, which then results in a false example to follow (both for the women who wish to emulate his rebbetzin and for the men who wish to emulate the Gadol).

These stories also help us because we see that the same Gadol who was so nice & helpful outside the home was equally pleasant & altruistic inside his home (unlike non-Gadolim who behave much better with non-family).

And the Gadol who seems serious & taciturn outside the home is actually warmly appreciative & considerate inside the home.

We need to know that how we behave at the dinner table (and other mundane or private situations) defines our true level of character.

Finally, the woman who feels resentment against her own husband when hearing such stories needs to take a look at that emotion & examine what's going on behind it, rather than to either just pretend these stories don't exist or use them as ammunition.

Maybe the wife has good reason to feel resentment or maybe she doesn't—either way, that needs to be addressed with emunah & not treated superficially.

(Also, women who are married to perfectly decent men who don't behave at the level of Rav Elyashiv or Rav Ovadia Yosef can remind themselves that they aren't exactly Rebbetzin Elyashiv or Rabbanit Margalit either.)

​After all, the real Gadolim ARE good to their families—and this should be publicized!

So, for example, I knew of a shul rabbi who behaved deplorably at home. 

Despite his obvious flaws (and the majority of his children at some point developing some kind of mental illness and/or going off the derech), his community remained ga-ga over him because—well....? Hmm.

I guess because treating a non-Gadol like a Gadol satisfied some inner emotional compulsion.

(Rav Miller opposed this kind of blind adoration, and used the example of Shem ben Noach toward Avraham as a What-NOT-to-Do when dealing with people who impress you. Please see HERE.)

Anyway, one of the more minor annoyances the errant rabbi embraced was his display of detachment from the material.

For example, his wife loved to cook generous, nutritious meals and showed her caring through feeding her family.

So, of course, he made sure to reject her efforts.

He dramatically insisted on eating the very minimum possible (and even then, leaving leftovers), without complimenting his wife's efforts—unless, of course, someone he wished to impress sat nearby (if he remembered to impress the guest in that way; often, he forgot). But when he remembered to impress a guest during a meal, the rabbi called out (in ringing tones) a generic compliment on the meal.

Weary after years of criticism, mind games, and emotional neglect, the rebbetzin usually ignored the compliment (because she knew it was only given to impress someone else).

At that point, the rabbi would inquire in ringing tones, "Did you hear me, Golda? I said that the meal was very nice!"

At that point, Golda, exhausted & wishing to get him off her back, would nod without even looking at him and say, "Yes-yes-I-heard-you-thank-you-very-much."

The rabbi would then sit there and blink in puzzlement (after all, he—the wonderful magnificent star-of-the-show—deigned to offer her a compliment!), then quickly return to whatever he was doing, the pesky nicety now out of the way.

However, if you know that Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv ztz"l, routinely heaped praises upon his wife's toil, using surprisingly flowery phrases, then you judge rabbis who DON'T do that with a more accurate measuring stick.

For example, Rav Elyashiv impressed most people as a serious, reserved, and stoic man of few words—a man completely detached from anything except his supreme dedication to Torah learning & his incredible Torah knowledge.

Yet his family remembers all the years of his behavior during mealtimes: 

Please note that the small amounts of simple food resulted from poverty, and not Rav Elyashiv's preference (although he was not into eating more than he needed, either)—nor did it emanate from a desire to show off.

He was real.

Also, please note that the above testimony comes from his family, and not guests or admirers.

Furthermore, his children testify that they never heard a word of criticism about the food—not that about something lacking or that something wasn't tasty. Not a word.

​His family remembers:

(That might sound like funny praise, but it refers to when Biblical Egypt was the global center of quality & abundance, and likely refers to Beresheit 45:18.)

It's also worth noting that Rav Avigdor Miller's son never remembers his father showing any dissatisfaction with any food given to him by the rebbetzin. He simply ate whatever she gave him, and offered her sincere praise & appreciation.

This is how real Gadolim behave during mealtimes.

If your rabbi doesn't do exactly that, he may still be a decent person worth respecting.

But he is likely NOT a Gadol and needn't be treated like one.

Another behavior always witnessed by family members & visitors was how Rav Elyashiv took care to avoid bothering any of his family members.

He was stringent about this to the point that the concept of "Bring me" or "Give me" or "Do for me" didn't even seem to exist for him.

Anything that demanded bother or trouble was done by the rav himself.

Even if it wasn't much trouble, he still did it himself. For example, if he needed a book from the shelf, he rose & brought it himself without asking the assistance of anyone else.

​Likewise, during a trip to spread Torah in America, Rav Ovadia Yosef & his wife, Rabbanit Margalit, stayed as guests in a private home over Shabbat.

Rav Ovadia requested from his host whether he could leave a light on throughout Shabbat, emphasizing that it needed to be a weak light so as not to disturb the rabbanit's sleep.

The host offered the only option available: a light turned on in the closet, the amount of light let into the room controlled by closing or opening the door as necessary.

Yet Rav Ovadia fretted over this as still too disturbing for his wife's sleep.

Finally, Rav Ovadia decided to place a chair inside the closet and sat himself there with his books, leaving the closet door open just enough to let in some air while he learned until the late hours of the night—all so his wife could sleep well. 

Rav Ovadia Yosef also participated closely in the chinuch of his children.

Despite the fact that the rav wasn't home much with the children, he listened carefully to his wife's reports & proactively took matters into his own hands—and he did so without saying, "Mommy told me that you..."

Instead, he playfully acted like he found out another way.

In addition, while it looked to outsiders like Rabbanit Margalit took care of everything with regard to the children's schooling, she herself testified that was not true.

After a careful scrutiny of the options available (including a look into who the teachers were & the level of learning), Rav Ovadia chose the schools for his children. 

Furthermore, despite the fact that Rabbanit Margalit carried out the school registration, attended the parent-teacher meetings, and communicated with the teacher throughout  the school year, Rav Ovadia kept track of each child's situation behind the scenes.

​The rav knew exactly what was happening with each child, and dealt with each one according to his or her individual circumstances.

Okay, I tried to pick stories that aren't so well-known because everyone already knows & loves the stories of Rav Aryeh Levine ("My wife's leg hurts us") & Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, so the above hopefully provide more stories to know & love.

​In addition, the above hopefully provides us with lessons on how to behave ourselves, and also offers us some guidance on who is really a Gadol worth swooning over...and who is not (though everyone should be treated with courtesy, regardless).

In Part II (here's Part I), we'll look at flagrant violations of the 7 Universal/Noachide Laws, plus why we need to stop focusing on gender & focus instead on values, evidence that no matter how much you blame immoral leaders, they still need the collusion of society to operate, why you should NEVER automatically trust the government & authorities, and more.

Note: Usually, I prefer to avoid names of wicked people as much as possible (because studies show it lends them a certain aura of importance, which affects society negatively, & which is maybe 1 reason why Jews traditionally say "May his name be erased" after saying the name of an evil person). But in this case, avoid names leads to confusion (because there are 3 of them). So I'll use initializations or drop titles, etc., instead.

In 1891, Georgia Tann was born to Beulah & George Tann.

Beulah respected in the community & devoted to her family.

George served as a local judge. A domineering man who publicly flaunted his infidelities, Judge Tann forced his daughter Georgia into piano lessons & hours of practice from the age of 5, insisting that his daughter becoming a concert pianist.

There was an older brother too, but it's not clear whether he was biological or adopted.

Despite Judge Tann's obvious flaws, he seemed to show genuine concern over abandoned or neglected children, often bringing them home.

The other alternatives at that time were either a child workhouse or a state asylum.

​So he brought them home. (The older brother may have been one of those kids.)

"I wish I had a doctor, a school teacher, and a far-seeing minister to sit as a committee and help me decide what should be done with these children," he often lamented.​

Georgia (from hereon called "GT") earned her unwanted degree in music in 1913.

But her real interest lay in law. 

She took courses in social work at the Ivy League Columbia University in New York, then studied law with her father and passed the Mississippi bar exam.

GT never showed any interest in getting married. (She only felt attracted to her own gender, and acted on this attraction for the rest of her life.)

But because practicing law was uncommon for women, her father refused to let her do it.

Instead, she became a social worker.

And that was the beginning of the end of the lives of many children.

GT found work in a Mississippi children's home.

There, GT adopted a little girl named June.

At that same place, GT also met a younger woman who'd given birth out of wedlock, but invented a new last name to appear widowed, and kept her out-of-wedlock son. 

Then she & GT ended up permanently living together in "that" kind of a relationship with the 2 children.

(Yes, this is getting weird for the 1920s.)

Here, GT first started displaying "questionable child-placing methods," which resulted in her termination in 1924.

In short, Mississippi parents who never agreed to give up their children took GT to court, where the judge allowed the parents to win & foiled what amounted to kidnapping on the part of GT.

And so GT found work in a children's home in Memphis, Tennessee, where she used aggressive tactics to take control of that home, becoming the manager in that same year.

At that time in America, adoption barely existed.

Before GT took over, there were maybe 5 adoptions in Tennessee throughout the entire year.

Unwed mothers generally married the father of their child.

It was GT who created the modern American adoption system. 

And it wasn't in a good way.

The best term to describe GT's operation is "child trafficking."

From 1924 to 1950, GT trafficked around 5000 children with the collusion of her motley staff and authorities like Mayor Crump and Judge Camille Kelley.

​While the adoption fee used to be affordable ($7), GT used lies & false promises (unfulfilled background checks, imaginary expenses, etc.) to elicit hundreds of dollars from wealthy couples looking to adopt.

In some cases, GT managed to earn $5000 for an adoption.

She took infants of poor, unwed mothers straight from birth without allowing them to see their baby even once, telling them they'd delivered a boy when they delivered a girl, and vice-versa, or claiming the baby had died—all so that they'd never be able to trace their stolen baby.

(GT obviously needed—and received—the collaboration of the hospital staff to carry this out.)

She lied to couples looking to adopt, telling them a child came from classy educated parents when the child was really from a backwoods uneducated family.

Jewish couples, who found it impossible to adopt (either because homes refused to adopt out to Jews or because so few Jewish babies were available for adoption) found GT willing to deal with them (for a high price, of course) and she sold them non-Jewish babies, claiming they were Jewish.

If couples wished to adopt a blonde blue-eyed child of, say, age 5, GT either went out herself or sent agents to scour playgrounds & streets for a child who fit that description, then stopped by that child in her elegant limousine.

In fact, GT specialized in blonde, blue-eyed children.

With her grandmotherly appearance & promise of candy, GT lured children for an exciting ride in her limo.

She even combed impoverished neighborhoods, looking for children playing outside on the porch.

At that time, it was perfectly safe to leave your baby in a carriage or crib on the front porch of your home (especially in those rural small-town areas), while you worked in the kitchen or took a nap.

GT lured all the unsupervised children from their front yard into her limo, even snatching the baby from its carriage.

In at least one case, the children played outside their home under the supervision of their oldest sister, age 8, while the mother was away giving birth at the hospital.

(Can't remember whether the father was dead or at work.)

GT took all the children.

If you can only imagine the trauma of the mother coming home with a new baby to a completely empty home, with no way to ever find her children.

In another case, a pregnant young widow took a nap while her children played on the front porch.

She woke to find her children gone.

Parents dropped off their children at preschool in the morning only to discover them "taken by welfare agents" when the parents returned to pick them up—in other words, kidnapped by GT.

GT also targeted children temporarily placed in an orphanage by parents struggling with illness or poverty.

Nuns who cared for children were forced to hide the children in attics when GT invaded their institution to seize their charges.

With her access to welfare files, GT targeted poor mothers, making visits to their homes & pretending to discover medical problems in the children, then promising to "help" the family by taking the children to the doctor herself & paying for the visit—yet GT & the children never returned to the deceived mother.

GT sold many children into child labor or to pervs.

GT falsified information & sealed documents or even destroyed records—doing everything she could to prevent biological parents, children, and siblings from later finding each other.

This system of sealed records spread throughout America, as did the adoption industry (although not as lethally or as abusively as GT's personal institution—although abuses still occurred within the nationwide adoption industry).

Myriads of Memphis children found themselves trapped into GT's children's home.

And conditions in GT's children's home later earned it the name: "house of horrors."

As no decent person would work in such a place (sort of like with abortionists; no decent doctor would work in today's abortion clinics), the caretakers were untrained men & women, who often worked while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Later, it was said that no boy passed through the home without being abused by one of the male employees.

Girls were also molested—including by GT herself.

Physical abuse was also common.

Hygiene & nutrition remained in a poor state.

​Children were given sedatives to keep them quiet.

And just when you thought things couldn't be worse...as per the fashionable science of the time (eugenics & social Darwinism), GT saw no use for babies who suffered some sort of defect or seemed weak or whom she considered "ugly."

She ordered her staff to wheel those babies out into the sun and leave them there.

Just like how the term "euthanasia" covers up the act of murder, this oh-so innocent act of wheeling a baby outside to "enjoy" the sunshine & fresh air covered up the intentional death caused by overheating & dehydration.

GT also devised ways to get rid of older children she found hard to place, but it's not clear how.

​When the poor hygiene of GT's enterprise caused an epidemic of dysentery in the home in 1945, GT continued to round up children—even when local doctors ordered her to stop.

​40-50 children died in that outbreak.

GT's horrific practices resulted in Memphis reaching the highest infant mortality rate in the nation.

It's impossible to know exactly how many children died in GT's custody.

Only 19 graves exist on the property because GT preferred cremation.

But some researchers estimate around 500 children perished under GT's custody.

Finally, Governor Gordon Browning (also a Democrat—let's give credit where credit is due!) overcame Mayor Crump's control and launched an investigation into GT's institution in late 1950.

​GT died of uterine cancer not long after the truth went public & so she never faced earthly repercussions for her crimes.

The house of horrors closed down.

Appallingly, no court ever launched an investigation into the black-market "adoptions."

No court ever returned any of the stolen children to their families.

Reunification only occurred decades later, when biological parents, children, and siblings decided to search for each other.

Traumas ran deep, especially in children old enough to remember their parents & siblings (like the 8-year-old twins sold to a well-meaning couple in California).

Debbie Branco was sold as a Jewish baby under the name Catherine Shredder to Jewish parents in New Jersey, then discovered her biological parents weren't Jewish at all. 

"Who knows what I am?" she said after the discovery.

Five siblings (of a family originally consisting of 6 siblings) found each other, but lamented over never finding the baby sister who arrived at GT's institution in 1945.

1945 was the year dysentery killed dozens of babies in GT's custody.

It's likely their baby sister didn't survive.

All in all, GT earned $1 million dollars from her racket—$11 million dollars in today's money.

How could such a travesty continue for 26 years?

​A combination of factors intertwined to enable this horror.

And it had a lot to do with appealing appearances covering up a complete lack of ethics.

First of all, Memphis elected the Democrat Crump as Mayor and he maintained a stronghold over Memphis, serving more as a crime boss than a mayor.

Crump achieved certain nice-looking goals for Memphis, like giving black citizens the right to vote & paying their poll tax & providing them transportation to voting stations, he gave them parks & sports fields—all so they would vote for him & his policies; he didn't actually respect black people, though; he labeled them as "inferior," and so on.

He gave free milk to poor whites & political positions to young professionals.

Crump paved the streets, made repairs, & lowered taxes.

Yet he took huge bribes that allowed major illegal activities to continue—GT's enterprise was one of them.

He forced city workers to contribute to the fund that provided city improvements—pay or be fired.

That's how he financed freebies & obligations while keeping taxes so low.

He also set up a voting system that allowed him to know how every single citizen voted.

Any city worker who refused to vote according to Crump's demands found himself unemployed.

Those who allied with Crump found easy success.

Yet success came with a price.

In one case, Crump instantly turned one young attorney into a state legislator, and then a senator 2 years later.

But when years of not being his own man ate away at this attorney-turned-senator, he finally criticized Crump's poll tax. (The poll tax was a prime way Crump stayed in charge.)

When the young man refused Crump's demand to resign from office, the man suffered threatening phone calls & police surveillance.

Memphis society shunned his wife & the Red Cross refused to accept her blood donation.

As they walked along a sidewalk one day, a black sedan zoomed at the couple as if to run them over.

The man suffered a heart attack at age 42.

Losing their wealth, the couple moved far away & remained poor.

Crump became so powerful that other Tennessee politicians (like senators & governors) could not win without his support.

Initially, Governor Browning won Crump's support, which is how Browning first gained in politics.

​Later, Browning turned against Crump & won.

And that win enabled the shutdown of the house of horrors.

Camille Kelley was a widow & former medical student who served as the juvenile court judge from 1920-1950.

While Camille's late husband was a lawyer, Camille never was. (After a few courses in medical school, she settled for being a housewife until her husband died and Crump offered her the bench.) 

Yet because Crump was in favor of women's rights (and because her husband was an ally), Crump decided to appoint Camille to the bench of juvenile court.

Again, appointing a woman to a high position, insisting on women's right to vote, & offering privileges to black citizens made Crump look oh-so progressive.

Known as "the little Irish judge," Camille rejected the traditional black judicial robes in favor of colorful dresses, furs, jewelry, and a flower pinned to her shoulder, saying, "Robes would scare the children to death. They're not so timid when they appear before me and see that I am wearing a flower."

Camille insisted on a balance between juvenile justice and sympathetic understanding for human problems.

She focused on taking nothing from a juvenile delinquent "but his mistakes."

She wrote books about her advice & experiences, and gave the books charming titles like A Friend in Court & Delinquent Angels & Kelleygrams.

Camille insisted on treating black & white children equally, seeking to improve circumstances for black children as much as for white children.

​She opposed physical discipline in the home.

Doesn't it all sound lovely?

Yet Camille also engineered 20% of GT's "adoptions"!

That means hundreds of kidnapped children passed under Camille's authority.

Later, Camille denied receiving any money from GT and even declared that she obtained favorable results in 85-90% of the 50,000 cases she handled over the course of her career—that includes GT's abducted children.

Yet how could Camille ignore the appalling high death rate at GT's institution?

The dysentery outbreak & GT's continuity of bringing children into the home at that time?

What about all the parents who sought justice in Memphis courts after experiencing the disappearance of their children—obvious abductions?

Records show that Camille also voided the rights of divorced mothers to enable their children to be placed by GT.

​It's appalling that children with 2 live parents who wanted them were forced from their home simply because their parents were divorced (and because GT wanted to make money by selling them).

I wasn't able to find more information online about Camille, but at least 2 books have been written that include information on her participation.

Regardless of how much Camille knew about GT's horrors, GT's crimes could not have occurred without Camille's participation.

Camille also died not long after the scandal broke, and she too never faced justice in This World.

GT maintained the appearance of a respectable matron who came from a well-respected family.

She lived in high style and associated with prominent members of society, including politicians.

She adopted a "needy" child herself and seemingly adopted a "widow" with a child into her own home.

Her institution was housed in a beautiful manor and her abusive, addicted, untrained nurses wore formal, impressive nanny uniforms.

She often insisted on these children from disadvantaged families being adopted into high society families.

One impoverished unwed young mother, who willingly gave her baby to GT, boasted later of having made sure her baby went to a more privileged home. She remained proud of this into her old age, certain that GT was a savior who'd done her & her child a tremendous favor.

​(However, it's impossible to know what GT actually did with that baby.)

​GT appeared open-minded, willing to provide Jewish couples or established single women with children.

People saw well-appointed offices & waiting rooms on the lower levels of the manor, while the children lived in rooms painted pink in the upper floors.

​​While many children died of murder or neglect (GT refused to follow doctors instructions to give medication to sick children & babies) & while many children were sold into child labor or to pervs, many children were also sold into loving, upper-class, stable families.

Some led lives of privilege with nurturing parents.

With GT's impressive externals & her criminal strategy to provide couples with any kind of child they desire, she gained prestige by providing high society celebrities with children: Hollywood star Joan Crawford, Nobel-prize-winning author Pearl Buck, star performers June Allyson & Dick Powell, New York Governor Herbert Lehman—they all adopted through GT

They did not know she stole the children; she lied to them.

(Also, while Joan Crawford adopted twins through GT, her adopted daughter who infamously wrote Mommie Dearest was adopted from another agency.)

​This celebrity support also lent prestige to GT's operation.

In other words, external appearances looked so nice.

Memphis looked pretty & oh-so progressive under Crump.

​"The little Irish judge" looked so caring & appealing & competent as a judge in juvenile court. She even won awards for her work.

​GT appeared respectable, matronly, helpful, and social-minded.

With today's superficial belief that being a non-racist automatically makes you a good person, Crump's wickedness shows that supporting rights for women & blacks confers no halo over your head.

How did everything go so wrong?

It's similar to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, which the Nazis set up to fool the Red Cross. The Nazis made everything look nice. But it was all a façade to allow the genocide to continue.

The deception should have been obvious, but the people involved apparently didn't wish to see the truth.

And that's what happened in Memphis.

But Mississippi shows that it didn't have to happen that way (and certainly, not for so many years).

As described earlier, Mississippi refused to tolerate GT's methods.

The children's home, the social workers, the courts, and the citizens themselves...

GT's exit is described as GT "being run out of town" by Mississippians.

Furthermore, the children's home in Mississippi chose to provide for the children's family.

Meaning, that if an orphaned or abandoned child had relatives, but the relatives lacked the means to take in this child, then the Mississippi children's home provided them with financial assistance.

This was exactly the opposite of GT's method.

The Mississippi home acted in the child's best interests, even if they need to pay out of their own pocket.

Their allegiance was to the children in their care.

GT looked to benefit herself, and not others.

​Mississippi refused to tolerate it.

But Memphis accepted it.

And even with Crump's corrupt tyranny, Memphis still voted him out of office at one point.

Black citizens grew tired of his corruption & being under his thumb.

Everyone else grew resentful of his tyranny and corruption.

They ousted Crump.

​Too bad they didn't do it earlier.

It's also impossible to ignore how GT's travesty came on the heels of Wilson's policies of racism & dominance & interference with rights on all levels.

The pseudo-science of eugenics (invented by a cousin of Darwin) and Darwinism (especially social Darwinism) was all the rage among the elite throughout Europe & America, both academics & the wealthy powerful magnates.

​It's chilling to realize that while GT murdered "undesirable" children, the Nazis also rampaged on a program of genocide against the Jews—and a program of eugenics which also saw the seizure of Polish children from their homes, the undesirable ones executed by injection or in medical experiments, and the blonde blue-eyed ones forced into a German identity & into German families—all very similar to GT's crimes.

​During this time too (1948-1954), the oh-so progressive secular Leftists in Eretz Yisrael committed similar crimes against not just the Yemenite Jews (although they were the main victims), but also against Holocaust survivors & anyone else they deemed appropriate to steal their baby, later claiming the baby had died and then adopting the baby out into upper-class families—if the baby was lucky.

Some met a more chilling end, if the hearsay is true.

​We see that sometimes a certain ruach descends throughout the world.

It may be supported & even promoted by the most successful in society, the most educated, and the most respectable.

​It may be backed by "science" and promoted through compelling stories & persuasive words, while also threatening with ridicule & rejection (or much worse) anyone who does not abide by this ruach.

And it takes a truly independent thinker and a true commitment to morality to resist being uprooted by this ruach.

​If Crump were a politician in our times, mainstream media would revere him for his stance as a Democrat, his progressive liberal values, for his advancement of women's rights & the rights of black people, for his dedication to running a city well, his care for the disadvantaged, his freebies, and his low taxes.

Yet anything seemingly good he did was ONLY to keep himself in power.

Today, many wealthy powerful people speak of the poor, minorities, and women with so much sympathy. They spout "progressive" values. They run organizations alleged to help the disadvantaged.

But it's all a show. 

​(I'm looking at you, Clintons.)

​Today, GT would be lauded as a savior of children. A "brave pioneer in women's rights" for attending a prestigious university and passing the bar.

The media would admire GT's refusal to marry and also her attraction to her own gender.

But they were all terrible, wicked people.

It shows why you can't be superficial about trusting the government or the elite in society or external appearances & emotionally appealing ideas.

It shows how easily people can be manipulated into believing that something is acceptable and even beneficial—when it's actually profoundly evil.

(This same dynamic occurred around the same time in Nazi Germany, BTW. Hitler, yemach shemo, offered people free or affordable stuff, equality regardless of economic class, improved workers' rights & conditions, provided nature-outings for children, instituted laws against animal cruelty...and convinced everybody that if only no Jews existed, then everything would be peachy. The Nazis used science to back up their ideology, and popularized everything through propaganda. Everything GT did parallels Nazi ideology.)

It's hard to sum up the lessons from the whole tragic saga.

(Except that maybe Rebbe Nachman already did it in his story, The Prayer Leader, in his description of the Land of Riches.)

It's about the influence of popular pseudo-science, and how that science infiltrates so many aspects of life—and is allowed to do so when people refuse to scrutinize what's being presented. 

It's about focusing on external appearances rather than actual values.

It's about wanting the easy way & settling for good enough.

It's about ignoring the 7 Universal Laws.

After all, had the mayor & the juvenile court judge realized their duty was to both enforce these 7 laws & punish those who violate, they never would've turned a blind eye to the horrifically high death rate in GT's institution, they never would have condoned the stealing of children (or, in Crump's case, stealing by forcing his workers to pay for stuff or stealing election, etc.), GT wouldn't have abused the children or allowed them to be abused, and so.

The mayor wouldn't have accepted bribes from the crime groups catering to human vice.

​If any of them had internalized the fact that every human being is a tzelem Elokim, the Image of God (and not just blonde blue-eyed children or the attractive strong ones, or wealthy people). 

There was definitely a certain ruach in the world at that time.

And we also learn that you can't complacently think, "Well, this guy supports minorities, so he's okay. And this guy supports career advancement for women, so he's okay. And we need women in charge because that's only fair."

It was davka men who fought Crump & shut down GT's house of horrors.

The identity politics played today, which encourages people to focus only on gender or race, proves deadly in the end.

We must only look at the actual values & goals of our authorities, and not meaningless externalities or fawning words.

Pirkeh Avot tells us: "Hechacham ro'eh et hanolad"—a wise person foresees the future results of present decisions & actions. 

​Only people of emunah & rock-solid integrity to stood up to the ruach of that time.

​And that's the key now too.

In Mishkan Shilo, a weekly Shabbat magazine distributed throughout Eretz Yisrael, the following Q&A appeared with the Sefardi talmid chacham, Rav Bentzion Mutzafi, regarding a woman's role & spiritual avodah [service] during the chag [holiday] of Sukkot:

The importance of some kind of a cheshbon hanefesh (self-accounting) cannot be underestimated.

A cheshbon hanefesh is an essential component of doing teshuvah.

Furthermore, there is sur me'ra (turn from evil) aspect of cheshbon hanefesh and also an aseh tov (do good) aspect.

I'm very into investing in the aseh tov aspect because that automatically brings one to turn from evil.

Not always, but a lot of times it works out like that.

For example, many people struggle with appropriate reading material for Shabbos.

This is really common, particularly during long Shabbos and particularly for people who are new to the whole thing and struggle to occupy themselves in way that is permitted according to the Laws of Shabbat, (i.e. no phones, no electronic entertainment or diversions, etc.).

That's all normal.

What happened for me was the more I read kosher things, Shabbat Laws and inspiration, and the more I emotionally bonded with Shabbat, the more I felt the negative effect of non-Shabbosy reading material.

It took me out of Shabbat in a tangibly unpleasant way.

In other words, reading non-Shabbosy material became too uncomfortable to continue doing it.

(For the details, please see that previous post.)

So when we work on ourselves, we naturally start to feel an aversion to non-Torah behaviors & activities.

It may take time, but it happens as long we keep going.

Having said that, there is also a "Just Do It" component to Judaism.

For example, rather than continuously reading up on the deeper meanings of Shabbat, one should simply start keeping it.

Yes, keep reading about it!

But Shabbat is one of these things that the act of doing it brings connection in its wake.

Likewise, I heard that men new to Judaism should simply start learning Gemara.

​Yes, it must be introduced on a level manageable for a newbie, but anecdote after anecdote has proven the value of just sitting a Jewish guy down and learning with him.

And placing oneself in the influence of Torah affects one all on its own.

For example, after I spent a year in Eretz Yisrael, I entered one of the Orthodox shuls I'd attended before that year, and was happily shocked to notice that 5 or 6 women were now wearing shaitels.

Before, they either weren't covering their hair at all or they covered the top of their head with a hat and wore the rest of their hair loose or in a ponytail.

Interestingly, these women were mostly not baalot teshuvah, but had been attending shul in this modern Orthodox community since they were little.

What happened?

That year, the community imported a kollel.

Now more frequent and steady Torah-learning occurred, plus the variety and amount of Torah classes blossomed.

Of course, the shul rabbi had always given shiurim, both to men and women.

But this injection of copious Torah affected the community more in 1 year than the rabbi had in 2 decades.

And for what it's worth, I also believe in the power of the support of Torah.

​When a community decides to support Torah learning, even if they themselves aren't on that level, it grants them favor from Heaven.

​It increases their merits.

Plus one mitzvah leads to another in its wake. 

​So the effect of increasing a Torah influence in the community rendered an unanticipated & powerfully positive effect.

So while we do need to address issues of what's wrong (while always showing examples of what's right so that people gain an idea of what to aspire to), by investing in teshuvah and reaching out toward greater inspiration & understanding, that is the best way of all to improve things.

For example, I tend to take a strong stand against shaitels that clearly violate halacha by all major opinions (including the opinions of those who solidly permit shaitels).

I often call them "va-va-voom shaitels" or "Las Vegas showgirl shaitels."

And yes, I think there does need to be at least some pushback against this trend.

They need to be called what they actually are: Not pretty. Not nice.

(I could use stronger language than that based on Chazal, but let's just stick with the above.)

Many people really do not know that these shaitels are halachically problematic.

(Well, that's not completely true. The men know because they know how seeing such shaitels, especially combined with the makeup and heels, makes them feel. But many women really don't know. They think it's chumros and anyway, when everyone else is doing it, it honestly doesn't seem so bad.)

At the same time, I know full well that real change won't occur unless a mental & heart change occurs.

Unless a woman feels that undignified behavior or dress is too uncomfortable to bear any longer, she won't really change.

And by "uncomfortable," I mean emotionally uncomfortable.

And this is true for anybody.

Maybe it's best to end with a core idea from Rav Eliyahu Dessler's Strive for Truth, Volume I, Part II, the end of the chapter entitled Mitzvot of the Heart:

If one suffers from "evil" in one's heart (even if one is otherwise a good person, but hey, no one is perfect except Hashem), then one simply accept reproof; the heart rejects it.

There is only one way, says Rav Dessler: "...show him the perfection and unity of the spiritual life."

Meaning, the beautiful interaction of a genuinely frum family, the multi-faceted relationship of a real rav and his talmidim in a good yeshivah, and other such examples.

Rav Dessler reassures us that even one with evil in his heart will still see the truth in other people (who behave correctly), and this eventually brings one to see what is wrong in his or her own heart, and thus correct it.

​One of the main purposes of life is the soul's journey.

People start off at different levels & with varying inclinations.

It can take time for people to arrive at certain destinations.

Some take longer than others.

On that note, I want to describe my personal journey from shaitels to cloth hair-coverings — but keeping in mind that regardless of my personal feelings, there are very big talmidei chachami who permit shaitels.

Also, it is MUCH easier & more acceptable to wear scarves or hats in Eretz Yisrael as a opposed to doing so in modern Western countries (where a hair-scarf can seem weird, unprofessional, or attention-getting — although Muslim women now do so without any qualms).

​In contrast, it's perfectly acceptable in Eretz Yisrael to go to the most formal event or fulfill the most professional role while wearing a hair-scarf or hat.

So that makes a difference too.

(And by "perfectly acceptable," I'm not referring to the rabid anti-Torah Leftists who froth at the mouth regarding any expression of Judaism. I mean perfectly acceptable within the general social structure of normal people here.) 

Yet in the interest of full objectivity, here is a halachic discussion of the issue, including sources for all different opinions:
https://dinonline.org/2010/05/26/hair-covering-for-women/

As stated in the above link, however, the very immodest va-va-voom shaitels are not okay and any hairstyle forbidden for a single woman's natural hair is really not okay in a shaitel.

But as stated above, this is a journey and different people find different parts of the journey more challenging or less challenging.

​It depends.

Appearances are definitely misleading.

But what's behind the appearance can be very helpful to know.

For instance, many "perfect" people cultivate handy secrets & clever shortcuts to fulfill their needs.

For example, years ago, a "perfect" friend of mine confided one of her shortcuts: She put the children to bed dressed for the next day.

Then she insisted I never tell anyone I heard it from her because she never wants anyone to know.

It never occurred to me to do such a thing, but once I heard it, I was hooked.

I'd get my kids showered and then put them in clean clothes. Sure, I made adjustments. For example, you needn't make your boys sleep in tzitzit and your girls sleep in tights.

And on hot nights, they could sleep without their shirt because it wouldn't take much time to put on their shirt the next morning.

This tip saved me so much stress on school mornings. I did it for years.

Having said that, most people don't like this suggestion.

It sounds weird. They tell me they could never do such a thing.

And I guess that's why my "perfect" friend insisted I never reveal my source.

Sure, it's not for everyone. Pajama pants are much more comfortable than regular pants, for example. So it depends on your child.

But many people simply don't like the idea.

Maybe it depends how many young children you need to get dressed in the morning in a short amount of time, with the pressure of the school transportation coming by a certain time.

Whatever you think of the idea (please remember, everything — the kids, the clothes, etc. — were CLEAN), it was my morning lifesaver during that phase.

Another time, I spent Shabbat in the American home of a family with 7 kids under the age of 10.

And it was perfectly spotless at all times.

I wondered how the young mother did it.

So I asked her.

And she said that part of it is that she puts away any mess immediately. Then she told me something surprising: If she doesn't have a place for something or if she doesn't have the time or energy to put it in the right place, she just tosses it in a closet or anywhere out of sight.

"Really?" I said. It sounded like those people who shove everything under the couch or throw it in laundry baskets when they hear guests are coming. That didn't seem like her at all.

"Yes," she explained nicely. "After all, it's not going to stay there forever, right? At some point, you go and find a place for it. Like, you see it in the closet or drawer and it bothers you, so eventually find a place for it."

Huh. That was a very interesting insight (which I'm not sure applies to everyone, but it was still a handy idea).

She also admitted that her children prefer to play on the main floor of the home, where their mommy is. Even though their basement was set up as a playroom with very appealing toys, the children (like most children) prefer playing where their mommy is. They might play in the basement playroom for 20 minutes, but she could never get them to make that their main play area.

So those are two examples of how "perfect" people don't do everything by the book.

Over the years, I've learned to ask people about their method when I see them excel in an area.

For example, I noticed that in one family, the siblings got along really well. It didn't matter boys or girls or what kind of personality or ages. Everyone was great friends with each other. 

And the mother wasn't amazing in other areas, but in the area of sibling relationships, I figured she must be doing something right. So I asked her and she told me, and I did it too and it worked!...and for the life of me, I can't remember what it was.

(That is so weird & frustrating. But I did it for years.)

So whether a person seems overall "perfect" or whether the person simply excels in a particular area, they usually have some kind of secret or method that works for them and that you can benefit from too.

And they're usually happy to tell you. (It can even be a big compliment for them that you think so highly of whatever it is that they're doing.)

Because they know that without the secret of their success, they would suffer consequences they prefer to avoid.

And they don't want you suffering either.