web analytics
November 28, 2014 / 6 Kislev, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘temptation’

Touching the Opposite Sex

Monday, December 3rd, 2012

I hate the term and have no clue how that term came into being. I don’t think it is even used in Charedi circles at all. Shomer Negiah – meaning guarding against touching the opposite sex – implies that physical contact between the sexes is some sort of Chumra. That according to the strict letter of the law, it is completely permitted.

That is not true. With the exception of parents (and according to many opinions siblings), it is against Halacha for men and women to have any physical contact with each other unless they are married. While there are Halachic opinions about whether platonic contact is permitted, certainly any contact that is sexual in nature is not permitted by anyone.

When young people say they are Shomer Negiah they usually mean that they do not touch members of the opposite sex in the context of dating – where holding hands for example is a lot more than platonic touching. And certainly it applies to things like kissing and more aggressive forms of touching that are completely sexual in nature.

The thing is that being Shomer Negiah really means that one is following Halacha. It is just as Assur to hold hands with your girlfriend as it is having a glass of milk with your roast chicken. And yet there are Orthodox students who will casually say that they are not Shomer Negiah as though they are saying that they are not Machmir on something like Chalav Yisroel.

I think most religious high school students realize that. And yet this is how Shomer Negiah is treated. Like a Chumra that many do not observe.

Bearing all this in mind I found an article in the Forward about being Shomer Negiah on college campuses very intriguing. I was very happy to see that there are many Orthodox Jewish students  who attend secular universities that are very careful about these things. It was also gratifying to see that many non Jews or secular Jews are very understanding and supportive of them.

On the other hand I also found that some students who were Shomer Negiah gave it up as they made their way through the four years of college. And there are also many people who ridicule such strictures in 21st century America. After all non marital sex is about as common and as American as apple pie.

What is interesting for me is that even those who are meticulous about keeping this Halacha, acknowledge the difficulty in doing so in a culture that glorifies ‘hooking up’. That is indeed one of the ‘highlights’ of the campus life in an ‘away from home’ university.

Human nature is what it is. For the majority of mankind the libido (sex drive) is a very powerful force. Temptations to satisfy that drive are often very difficult to overcome. Being in an environment where both sexes interact socially and encourages sexual freedom is no place to be if one wants to guard themselves from temptation.

That said, of course it can be done. And is. Which is to the credit of those who do. Like Chana Lavaddin, a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania. Of course it helps to have a support system like the one at Penn where I am told there are many Orthodox students who for the most part have an on campus Orthodox social structure  complete with a Rabbi, Minyanim and Sedorim for Torah study.

But even with that resisting temptation is not easy when one considers that one will inevitably be involved with others (both teacher and students) who do not understand our religious values and often challenge them. Or even ridicule them. Which means that in some cases Orthodox students go in observant of these Halachos and come out not observant of them.  As was the case with another student, Jordan Katz. She called it evolving. And explained her reasons in the Forward article.

The fact is that the sex drive is hard to control even under the best of circumstances. Even in sex segregated environments like YU and Stern.  Not only that but even the most religious people in the world can succumb to temptation as did one Rosh HaYeshiva that I know about in Israel who ended up having an affair with a married woman.

Even if we go back to the era of the sages – the Gemarah tells us time and again about how certain sages were tempted and how difficult it was for them to overcome those temptations.If I recall correctly there is a Gemarah that says something to the effect that the greater the individual – the greater the temptation and the harder it is to resist.

Which is why the Gemarah also says “Ain Apitropus L’Arayos”. There is no real way to guard against sexual temptation. I think this is why Chazal built so many safeguards into our daily lives. It was to try and minimize temptation as much as possible.

That said, one can go too far with anything and there are certain segments of society that take these laws and extend them way beyond all reason. To the point where it becomes counterproductive.  It’s all about balance. Not extremes.

The concept of Ain Apitropus L’Arayos is real, however, and does not go away just because some people misuse it in the extreme.

Which is why I am opposed to co-ed high schools as a rule. (Although I admit that there is a place for such schools in some circumstances.) And why I support Yeshiva University and Stern as the best way to be balanced about these things. That is not to say that there aren’t problems there too. Every approach has problems attached to it.  The point is that in an ideal world one must neither be isolated from – nor blindly immersed in our sexually permissive culture.

In any case, the Forward article gives us some valuable insight as to what campus life is really like from the perspective of Orthodox students and is well worth reading.

Visit Emes Ve-Emunah.

The One Who Stopped

Friday, August 10th, 2012

Everyone knows the feeling you get when you want to do something you can’t do. There is always that temptation to do – especially because you know you can’t. Or sometimes it’s because you want to prove you can. Sometimes it’s because people expect it of you. Sometimes it’s a combination.

This feeling is common in skill related sports. When working out with a friend you may want to stay in the gym longer than her just to show how serious you are about exercising. When ice skating with your friends, you try going even faster and doing even cooler tricks to show how great an ice skater you are. This goes for everything; just think about it, you’re for sure guilty too.

So now put yourself in this situation. It’s a cold February day. You’re skiing with your younger brother. And your younger brother isn’t afraid of anything. And your younger brother happens to be a really good skier. Your brother easily skis down the steep black diamond trials while you cautiously make your way down, a little behind him.

So now picture this. Your younger brother proposes that you try a double black. You know you shouldn’t risk it. But there’s something so enticing. How much harder can it be, you ask yourself. And you can’t be the coward next to your younger brother. So you agree. So those of you who ski, understand that the steeper the trial the harder it is to slow down. The harder it is to slow down the less control you have. And without control you can’t stop, can’t turn, and can’t prevent your crashing into people, trees or any other object that might be on a ski trail.

Now put yourself on the trail. You gingerly slide down the slippery snow. You try not to gain too much speed. You turn carefully; you zigzag perfectly and try erasing all fear from your mind. And then there’s that bump you didn’t expect. You begin accelerating; then there’s that familiar sense of no balance. And that inevitable crushing feeling. You try catching yourself with your poles. And you try avoiding the ice patch ahead of you. You can’t catch yourself. You can’t slow down. And you fall, just like you thought you would. Your skis falls off, you try grabbing it before it slides down the slope. But you failed. You lay down on the snow annoyed at yourself. Your brother is already too far to hear you. You’re staring at the blue sky through your tinted goggles. You take a deep breath and sit back up. “Hashem please help me,” you mutter.

Almost instantly you hear the familiar sound of scraping skis carving down the trail. You see the expert skier coming down towards you. You know he’s just going to try avoiding you. . But instead he stops and asks you if you’re okay. You say you are and he notices your ski lying at the bottom of the trial.

“Lost a ski?” he asks.

“Yeah,” you admit.

“Hey girl, you stay here and I’ll go down and get it for you,” he says without thinking twice.

“No it’s okay,” you insist but he won’t let that stop him. And when he expertly makes his way down the trail and gets your ski and then climbs back up to give it to you everything suddenly makes so much sense. You thank him a million times and he insists it was nothing though you know it’s hard to walk up a double black diamond trail especially in ski boots. But you’re thinking how Hashem won’t let you down. You might have had some ego issues and you were afraid to admit that you might not be able to successfully ski a double black trail but Hashem is still going to help you.

You realize that when someone passes you and sees you hopelessly giving up they usually carelessly pass by. How many people would stop and actually help you? How many people actually go through the trouble of climbing up a steep slippery trail just to help you? Only a person who values others. A person who sees past your failure and recognizes you need a helping hand. You don’t need to be Jewish or religious to see that. And the man on Bellayre Mountain taught me that every person has a Tzelem Elokim. Every person needs an act of chesed whether they ask for it or not. Every person is special, holding part of Hashem in them. Every person deserves to feel that warmth – even on a cold ski trail.

Preempting The Death Penalty

Wednesday, July 18th, 2012

In this week’s parshah the Torah writes about a prohibition on killing a murderer prior to his trial. As the pasuk says: “…v’lo yamus harotzeach ad amdo lifnei haeidah lamishpat – … so that the murderer will not die until he stands before the assembly for judgment” (Bamidbar 35:12). The same rule applies to anyone who commits an aveirah that is punishable by death; no one is permitted to kill him prior to his trial in beis din, including the witnesses that warned him and witnessed the aveirah. The Sefer Hachinuch (mitzvah 409) writes that if one kills a transgressor prior to his trial, he is regarded as a murderer.

Anyone who performs any aveirah l’hachis (a transgression to spite Hashem, not because of temptation) is rendered a mummar l’kol haTorah. The Rosh (Moed Katan 3:59) says that one who is warned by two witnesses that the action he is about to perform is prohibited and punishable by death and responds that he will commit the aveirah despite the warning, attains the status of a mummar l’hachis. The reason is this: one performing the aveirah because of temptation would not do so after being warned that his life is on the line. Rather, we can assume that he is acting to spite Hashem.

Reb Chaim Ozer Grodzensky (Achiezer 3:53) writes that he discussed the following question with his wife’s grandfather, Reb Yisroel Salanter, the gaon ohr yisrael: the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 26b) says that one may kill a mummar l’hachis. (This is brought down in several places by the Rambam, including Rotzeach 4:10, and in the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 425:5.) This is known as “moridin v’eino malin – throw him into a pit and do not save him.” The view of both the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch is that if possible one should publicly kill the mummar with a sword. The Rosh (Teshuvos 32:4) says that one should only kill via a gramma (indirectly), i.e., throw him into a pit and remove the ladder.

Question: How can the Torah say that we cannot kill a murderer or any transgressor until after his trial in beis din, despite the fact that he was warned in front of witnesses? After all, according to the Rosh the transgressor has the status of a mummar l’hachis (since he is not acting out of temptation), thereby permitting anyone to kill him as per the halacha of moridin v’eino malin.

Reb Chaim Ozer suggested two answers, but believed that the question demands more analysis. His first suggestion is that the pasuk is teaching us that although one is permitted to kill the individual who sinned by means of moridin, the Torah nevertheless prohibited killing him in this case until after his trial in beis din. However, Reb Chaim Ozer rejects this answer for several reasons. One reason: Why does the Chinuch say that one who kills the sinner is regarded as a murderer? Since he could kill him from the halacha of moridin, he should not be considered a murderer. The Chazon Ish (Yoreh De’ah 2:17) maintains that the halacha of moridin only applies when the sinner cannot be tried in beis din due to technical problems, i.e., no witnesses. Therefore, in a case to be brought in beis din one may not apply the halacha of moridin.

The second solution is that the pasuk is referring to a scenario in which we know that the individual did teshuvah. Therefore he can no longer be killed under the halacha of moridin. However, teshuvah does not remove the death penalty from beis din. Hence, the Torah says that we should wait until he is found guilty at trial before killing him.

I would like to suggest that the question does not start. I was scared to say that I learned the Rosh differently than Reb Chaim Ozer and Reb Yisroel Salanter. But, Baruch Hashem, I found afterwards that the Chazon Ish (Yoreh De’ah 2:12) learns the Rosh as I did. I believe that the Rosh is being taken out of context. The Rosh is discussing the Mishnah that says that there is no aveilus for people who are killed by beis din. The Rosh explains that this is because since they were warned that their life was on the line but nevertheless sinned, they are obviously not acting out of temptation; thus, they are comparable to a mummar l’hachis. I think that the Rosh never meant to say that anyone who transgresses after being warned is a mummar l’hachis regarding the halacha of moridin; rather the Rosh is saying that regarding aveilus we consider him a mummar, comparable to a mummar l’hachis – whereby aveilus does not apply.

Killing Me Softly (Arachin 15b, 16a; Zevachim 88a)

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

A person’s reputation precedes him. A bad reputation prejudices any chance of a successful encounter. Damaging a person’s reputation is tantamount to booby-trapping human relations before they can blossom into happy relationships.

When one slanders or otherwise taints the reputation of another person, one causes damage not only to the slandered person but also to oneself and to the person listening to the slander. By uttering words of slander one renders all parties to the conversation accomplices to the crime. One also offends God in Whose image the slandered person is created.

If one denigrates the human being, one denigrates The Maker. God cannot bear to hear slander spoken about His people. If individuals use their freedom of choice to slander each other, God uses His freedom of choice to remove Himself from the scene. Regarding anyone who speaks lashon hara, God says, “I and the slanderer cannot dwell together in the world.”

“What,” asks the Talmud “is the meaning of the phrase “Life and death are in the hands of the tongue”? Does the tongue have hands? Rather, it is this metaphor that is used to convey the following message – just as hands can kill, so too can a tongue kill.” Except that killing with one’s tongue is worse than killing with one’s hands because it is anonymous. The poisonous words are aimed at the victim’s reputation but the killer can rarely be identified.

We are told that one of the punishments for slandering another is tzara’at, an ailment loosely translated as leprosy, which eats away at one’s body. The Torah tells us “this will be the punishment of the metzorah.” And what was the crime of the metzorah? He or she was motzi shem ra, a slanderer of another person. Perhaps the punishment of tzara’at fits the crime of lashon hara. The slanderer’s very own person will be diminished in the same way the slanderer diminished the reputation of the slandered. In addition, one of the consequences of tzara’at was that for a period of time the person afflicted with it was shut off from the rest of the community and kept in isolation. Anybody who has been slandered knows the feeling.

If the consequences of slander are so dire and the temptation to engage in it so overpowering, what is the antidote? What should one do to overcome the temptation?

First of all, we should take advantage of the two natural slander barriers God has created us with – namely, our teeth and our lips that enclose and guard our tongues. We should contemplate the irrevocable havoc our tongues can wreak before letting our tongues loose.

The second antidote might sound trite but it is nevertheless true. We have been given something far more stimulating to talk about than other people. It is a subject that draws people together and allows them to live an interesting yet harmonious life. My father never allowed the name of another person to be mentioned at our table and yet we kids were never bored.

“What is the remedy for speakers of lashon hara?” asks the Talmud. “Ya’asok baTorah” – one should talk about Torah, because its ways are harmonious. Torah is the conversation of our Maker who made us all in His image. If we join in His conversation He will remain at our table and spread harmony among us. If we speak about each other, He will depart and leave us to destroy each other.

Lashon hara has always been a problem. During the days of the Temple many preventative and corrective measures were taken to combat lashon hara. These measures, though not applicable today, leave behind very powerful and practical messages.

First, we are told that each of the eight vestments worn by the high priest during the avodah, the Temple service, had the power to atone for certain sins. Lashon hara often disrobes people, strips them of their social status and exposes them. The me’il, the robe, which was made of turquoise wool, a color reminiscent of God’s heavenly abode, covered the high priest from the head down, and atoned for the sin of lashon hara. Around the hem of the me’il were sewn thirty-six small bells which rang out as the high priest walked about performing the avodah, to drown out, as it were, the words of lashon hara and prevent them from expelling God from His Sanctum.

Second, we are told that the ketoret, the incense that was burned by the priest on the inner altar of the Temple, atoned for lashon hara. The ketoret was made up of ten sweet smelling ingredients and one foul-smelling ingredient known as chelbonah. Rabbi David Feinstein, in his commentary on Vayikra, explains the slander atoning power of the ketoret in the following way. Just as the ten sweet smelling ingredients of the ketoret were able to overcome the one foul smelling ingredient, so too should we strive to view people so that their good qualities outweigh the bad.

How Did Yitzchak Eat From Eisav’s Shechitah?

Thursday, November 24th, 2011

In this week’s parshah we read about the berachos that Yitzchak had intended to give Eisav, but instead (unintentionally) gave to Yaakov Avinu. Yaakov was able to receive the berachos instead of Eisav because Yitzchak had requested Eisav to go out to the field and hunt game for him. This provided Yaakov sufficient time to prepare everything in order for him to receive the berachos. When Yitzchak requested of Eisav that he hunt game for him, he told him to “…sa na keilecha telyecha vekashtecha – sharpen your gear, your sword, and your bow” (Bereishis 27:3). Rashi explains that Yitzchak was telling Eisav to sharpen his knife so that he would shecht (slaughter) properly; thus the food would not be a neveilah. The Sifsei Chachamim explains that by sharpening his knife he would ensure that there were not any nicks on the knife. Regarding this pasuk, the ba’alei Tosafos and the Rush add that the word in the pasuk, “tzayid,” is written with the letter “hay” although it is not pronounced. This is to inform us that Yitzchak taught Eisav the five (the numerical value of the letter “hay”) halachos of shechitah that can disqualify a shechitah.

The Chasam Sofer (She’eilos U’teshuvos, Yoreh De’ah 15) asks the following question regarding Yitzchak’s request to Eisav: Why did Yitzchak have to tell Eisav to sharpen his knife now? For if Yitzchak was indeed concerned that Eisav would otherwise not have sharpened his knife, how could he trust him now? And if Yitzchak felt confident that Eisav would generally check his knife, why was he compelled to remind him now? Similarly, one could ask why Yitzchak would now teach Eisav about hilchos shechitah. Shouldn’t he have taught him many years earlier, as Eisav was already 63 years old at the time of the berachos? Additionally, the ba’alei Tosafos ask another question on this episode. The Gemara in Chullin 5a says that a mumar (heretic) is unfit to shecht. How then could Yitzchak have eaten from Eisav’s shechitah, since the Gemara in Kiddushin 18a says that Eisav was a mumar?

As a result of this and other questions, the Chasam Sofer disagrees with the Sifsei Chachamim, saying that Yitzchak told Eisav to sharpen his blade for a different reason other than to ensure that it did not contain nicks. He explains that the purpose of telling Eisav to sharpen his knife was to remove the fat that was remaining on the knife from the avodah zarah foods that Eisav’s wives would serve. Generally this would not have prohibited the meat if it was rinsed, but since Yitzchak had asked for tzeli (roasted meat), as it was a korban Pesach, the meat would otherwise be prohibited unless the knife was cleaned via sharpening.

I would like to suggest the following solution to explain the opinion of the Sifsei Chachamim: The Gemara in Chullin 4a says that there are two types of mumars: a mumar leteiavon – one who sins out of temptation – and a mumar lehachis – one who sins without temptation but solely to spite Hashem. The halacha that a mumar is disqualified from shechting only applies to a mumar lehachis. A mumar leteiavon may shecht, provided that a trustworthy person checks his knife. In order to shecht properly there must not be any nicks on the blade of the knife. If there is, the shechitah is invalid. Therefore one must carefully check the blade prior to shechting, to ensure that there are no nicks on the blade. Since the process of checking the blade is burdensome, we may not rely on a mumar leteiavon exerting himself and checking his knife properly. Thus if a mumar leteiavon shechts without anyone checking his blade for him, the shechitah is invalid – for we assume that he did not properly check his blade and there may have been a nick on it. However, if someone else checks the blade, a mumar leteiavon may shecht.

When You Mess Up

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

Ever wonder what might have happened had the first Adam reacted differently?

 

I don’t mean if Adam hadn’t have eaten the forbidden fruit. I believe that somehow, on some level, that was a necessary component to our being human. We’re not meant to be perfect angels, or mechanical robots, always following directions explicitly, and always doing the right thing. Temptation and failings, challenges and adventure are meant to be a part of our human journey.

 

But suppose Adam would have responded differently after he ate the fruit.

 

Suppose when G‑d confronted him about not obeying His explicit and only commandment, Adam would contritely have said, “Oh, my gosh! You know, you’re so right! I can’t believe that I did that.

 

“Here you gave me everything I could ever need or want on a silver platter and the only one thing You ask me not to do, I go ahead and do.

 

“I am so sorry. You must be so disappointed in me. Please, let me make that up to You, dear G‑d. Please forgive me my insensitivity, selfishness and lack of care.”

 

I know it is hypothetical, but how do you think G‑d would have responded? It is kind of hard to admonish, punish, or even be angry with someone who so humbly and profusely apologizes for his misdeed.

 

I imagine G‑d would have said something like this, “Yes, Adam, you really did disappoint me. What you did was terribly wrong and you didn’t live up to your true potential. But since you realize your mistake and feel so regretful about it, I hope that you’ve learned your lesson. You have earned my forgiveness.”

 

Imagine how different human history would have turned out!

 

But instead, after eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam hides from G‑d, as if G‑d wouldn’t realize what he had done.

 

Then when G‑d calls to Adam, giving him an opportunity to express his regret, he messes up by lying, “I heard you calling and I was afraid because I am naked.”

 

And finally, in his fait accompli, when G‑d rebukes him point blank about his sin, rather than owning up to it, Adam blames someone else for his actions – “the woman that You gave me,” it was all her fault.

 

Fast-forward thousands of years.

 

“My dear spouse, stop ignoring me. We need to talk!”

 

“Honey, I’m not avoiding you I just had a lot on my head these last few days. And besides, I thought you were really angry, so I was afraid to speak with you. I thought I’d let you cool off first.”

 

“You know that what you did was so insensitive! How could you humiliate me like that? Don’t you care about my feelings? If there’s one thing that I’ve asked you so many times not to do, it is that!”

 

“It’s not true. I didn’t or at least, I didn’t mean to embarrass you. You are totally taking it the wrong way…

 

“In fact, come to think of it, you are always blaming me for things that go wrong….

 

“And besides, you could have made sure that you prepared me for this situation better. You really should have had more foresight ”

 

As humans, we will make mistakes. We will be tempted. We will succumb to our shortcomings and, inevitably, there will be times when we will fail.

 

But how will we react to those failings? Hiding, denial and blaming someone else – or is there perhaps a better way?

Chana Weisberg is the author of several books, including Divine Whispers-Stories that Speak to the Heart and Soul and Tending the Garden: The Unique Gifts of the Jewish Woman. She is an international inspirational lecturer on a wide array of topics and an editor at chabad.org. She can be reached at chanaw@gmail.com. Watch Chana Weisberg’s two-minute videocast on www.chabad.org/intouch for your dose of weekly inspiration.

When You Mess Up

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009


Ever wonder what might have happened had the first Adam reacted differently?

 

I don’t mean if Adam hadn’t have eaten the forbidden fruit. I believe that somehow, on some level, that was a necessary component to our being human. We’re not meant to be perfect angels, or mechanical robots, always following directions explicitly, and always doing the right thing. Temptation and failings, challenges and adventure are meant to be a part of our human journey.

 

But suppose Adam would have responded differently after he ate the fruit.

 

Suppose when G‑d confronted him about not obeying His explicit and only commandment, Adam would contritely have said, “Oh, my gosh! You know, you’re so right! I can’t believe that I did that.

 

“Here you gave me everything I could ever need or want on a silver platter and the only one thing You ask me not to do, I go ahead and do.

 

“I am so sorry. You must be so disappointed in me. Please, let me make that up to You, dear G‑d. Please forgive me my insensitivity, selfishness and lack of care.”

 

I know it is hypothetical, but how do you think G‑d would have responded? It is kind of hard to admonish, punish, or even be angry with someone who so humbly and profusely apologizes for his misdeed.

 

I imagine G‑d would have said something like this, “Yes, Adam, you really did disappoint me. What you did was terribly wrong and you didn’t live up to your true potential. But since you realize your mistake and feel so regretful about it, I hope that you’ve learned your lesson. You have earned my forgiveness.”

 

Imagine how different human history would have turned out!

 

But instead, after eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam hides from G‑d, as if G‑d wouldn’t realize what he had done.

 

Then when G‑d calls to Adam, giving him an opportunity to express his regret, he messes up by lying, “I heard you calling and I was afraid because I am naked.”

 

And finally, in his fait accompli, when G‑d rebukes him point blank about his sin, rather than owning up to it, Adam blames someone else for his actions – “the woman that You gave me,” it was all her fault.

 

Fast-forward thousands of years.

 

“My dear spouse, stop ignoring me. We need to talk!”

 

“Honey, I’m not avoiding you I just had a lot on my head these last few days. And besides, I thought you were really angry, so I was afraid to speak with you. I thought I’d let you cool off first.”

 

“You know that what you did was so insensitive! How could you humiliate me like that? Don’t you care about my feelings? If there’s one thing that I’ve asked you so many times not to do, it is that!”

 

“It’s not true. I didn’t or at least, I didn’t mean to embarrass you. You are totally taking it the wrong way…

 

“In fact, come to think of it, you are always blaming me for things that go wrong….

 

“And besides, you could have made sure that you prepared me for this situation better. You really should have had more foresight “

 

As humans, we will make mistakes. We will be tempted. We will succumb to our shortcomings and, inevitably, there will be times when we will fail.

 

But how will we react to those failings? Hiding, denial and blaming someone else – or is there perhaps a better way?


Chana Weisberg is the author of several books, including Divine Whispers-Stories that Speak to the Heart and Soul and Tending the Garden: The Unique Gifts of the Jewish Woman. She is an international inspirational lecturer on a wide array of topics and an editor at chabad.org. She can be reached at chanaw@gmail.com. Watch Chana Weisberg’s two-minute videocast on www.chabad.org/intouch for your dose of weekly inspiration.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/sections/jewess-press/when-you-mess-up/2009/05/27/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: