Love and The Avot

I was reading over the Torah the other week and I was struck by the passion Yaakov had for Rachel. It made me further examine the Torah, in regards to the relationships the forefathers had with their wives, and what I found was very interesting. It seems that Yosef, Moshe and Aharon were somewhat apathetic to their wives. No where does it say Moshe or Yosef loved Zipporah or Asnat, nor is there any sort of "intense" pasuk suggesting as such (As we'll see below with Avraham). And does anyone know who Aharons wife was?! In regards to these men, who get more mentioning in the Torah than any other people save the Avot. Fortunately when I examined the Torah's account of the relationships they had with their wives I was rather pleased, if not touched. If we look at Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov and the relationships they had with their wives we can see three types of love.
It never says in the Torah that Avraham loved Sarah. Although surely he must have as he preferred her to Hagar, and clearly had a deep relationship with her. When Sarah dies the PASUCK in Chayai Sarah 23:2 uses a very odd word "Viliyvkotah" "and he bewailed her". In fact this is the only time this word is used in the 5 chumshai Torah. Surely when one bewails another he/she must love them, the word is too strong to suggest otherwise. So why does the Torah not say that Avraham loved her and uses that word here? Perhaps to show that the love he felt for her reached its apex after she was gone. He missed her so much, and knew that his life would never be the same without her. Sometimes in life we only recognize the full extent of our feelings for someone after they've gone. Certainly Avraham loved Sarah, but his passion for her didn't fully bloom till she was gone.

It only says that Yitzchak loved Rivka once. Rivka sees Yitzchak davening mincha and they meet. Then the torah says in Chayei Sarah 24:67 "And Yitzchak brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother, he married Rivka, she became his wife, and he loved her..." From this we see that he loved her over time. He got to know her, saw she was acceptable as a wife, married her and after living with her and truly knowing her THEN he fell in love with her. So often in relationships we don't truly fall in love with a person until we really know them, and this often takes time. A couple can claim to be in love after a month, but I'm betting that 99% of the time that couple loves one another even more if they manage to last a decade together. Because only through time to we learn how to understand another person through all the ups and downs of life. Yitzchak saw a great deal of his mothers greatness in Rivka. And after time he saw that Rivkah had her own unique greatness as well, and then his love for took another huge leap, perhaps then it was solidified.

Finally with Yaakov and Rachel we see another type of love. The love that comes under the debated "myth" of the ever famous "love at first sight" scenario. Yet this is seemingly what happens.Yaakov sees Rachel, is empowered with super human strength, lifts the rock of the well, waters her sheep and then in Vayetzei 29:11 it says that he went over and kissed her (I guess shomer negiah wasn't in effect yet.) He felt such passion for her that he couldn't hold back, he was completely taken by her after only knowing her a few minutes. The couple then go to meet Lavan to work out the marriage arrangements. In 29:18 it says "Yaakov loved Rachel...." then in 29:20 it talks of Yaakov working 7 years and how "it seemed to him a few days because of his love for her.". (The Torah also points out that Leah was "unloved", as all Yaakovs love was for Rachel). Yaakov fell head over heels for Rachel from the get go, and was willing to do whatever it took to be with her. His passion was so strong that 7 years truly did seem like a day. This is what our culture would call "Cinematic love", the type that Hollywood perfectly exploits to the delight of the heartsick public that enables films with this type of love to thrive. But we see from one of the greatest men who ever lived that such love does exist, and is it possible to experience (interestingly enough Rachel does have a tragic end which also falls into the common Shakespearian/Hollywood mode of romance).
Sometimes you don't know what you've got until it's gone. Sometimes the best thing in the world is right in front of you and it takes you a while to realize it. And sometimes lightning just strikes, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Anyone would be lucky to have anyone one of these things happen to them.
note- I hope I didnt offend anyone with this. I have no Mesorah for the chidushim I propagated here, but I do think what I wrote makes a lot of sense, and everything I used came from Torah Bichtav too. I was just going on the exact words te Torah used. But if anyone had any problems please let me know.

A Big Bowl of the Hopefools Insanity

OK I don't have a lot of time, but I haven't posted in a while and I figured I ought to, if only briefly. I've been having a lot of fun lately picking on breakfast cereal spokesmen- notice the 'MEN' part. There are no females spokespersons in this business- at least on the sugary side, there always seems to be a healthy looking career-oriented-young mother in adds for Special K or Corn Flakes, and theres usually a constipated grandma in Raisin Bran or Grape Nuts, and of course the mother-figure in Kix (who approves). But I'm talking sugar cereal here people. I'm talking Tony the Tiger, Wendell the Baker, Captain Crunch, Tucan Sam, Dig'em etc... All male. I don't think Wilma or Betty even make an appearance in Cocoa/Fruity Pebbles commercials. Why is this? Do women not eat cereal? Will men not trust a woman selling cereal? I mean I still buy Honeycombs even though that weird thing in the commercial is clearly overdosing on something (anyone know his name?). I think I would buy cereal if a women was selling it. I mean women are the producers of milk, why not be the pervayors of breakfast cereal.
I think it would be great if these cartoon spokespeople started doing commercials for other products. Just imagine Tony the Tiger for Depends ("They're Grrrrrreat!") Or Captain Crunch for Preparation H ("Ahhhhh now I can sit on the bow of the ship without my soggy cushion"), the captain would also be good for a laxative add (Immodium perhaps). The Trix rabbit could maybe do viagra or a Las Vegas add ("Silly Rabbit Trix are for prostitutes" to which he can reply "Hey, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"). Sunny the Coocoo bird should clearly be doing promos for ritillin, in fact you could have a cross-over add directed at parents telling them how to hide the ritilin in Cocoa Puffs. Wendel the Baker (Cinnamon Toast Crunch) could do Weight Watchers of Lucille Roberts- anything that involves him doing a bit of exercise- I think he's just been putting on more and more weight over the years. Maybe he ate the other two bakers who helped him make CTC back in the early 90's, those guys just mysteriously dissapeared with no investigation.
Oh and what the hell is up with that Golden Crisp bear? I think he might have a slight mental handicap, always singing that song with his deep voice. Maybe he's just totally baked (aka stoned) all the time, thus explaining why he always has the munchies. I heard he also got into a fight with Teddy Ruxspin over one of the Care Bears and brutally murdered him, so now literacy is on the decline once more. But don't worry Smokey the bear has vowed revenge. Dig'em the frog I should point out is also on the dumb side, but he's a frog and just the fact that he can talk is astounding. And for whatever reason that hat seems to be working for him.
Snap, Crackle and Pop need to get out and meet some chicks. They're like Ernie and Bert yet worse, as they don't seem to be closet homosexuals. They have a lot of potential going for them. They're cute, smart and know how to hold a beat. They might be gay, but I think that would hurt sales no? I guess it's really up to the guys who draws them.
The Honey Nut Cheerio Bee (forgot his name) should just sting someone (preferably the Cocoa Krispy monkey) and die. He's been bothering me for years, buzzing around whenever I'm taking a nap on a nice Shabbos afternoon. But I'm biased against insects in general.
Fred Flintstone clearly has anger management issues. I don't know why Barney and Wilma take it. Well Wilma at least. Barney is a real pain in the a-- too. Fred should have pulled a Tony Soprano and gone Ralphie on his tuchus long ago.
OK I'm going to go have a big bowl of LIFE now...on second though that Mikey kid is a bit annoying, anal retentive and stuck up. It's gonna have to be Hot Cereal then- Quaker Oats- that dude with the haircut resembling Prince Adam aka He-Man is OK in my book.
(oh and the Shepard would like to wish "Helga" a happy birthday.)

One Year Later

So now then....For the past few weeks I've been seriously debating whether or not to go ahead with this blog. It will certainly be my most personal one to date, and therefore my most dangerous. But I have found writing these entries to be very therapeutic and I think in the long run I'll be happy I decided to go ahead and post this.
It was a year ago today that I broke up (for good) with the girl who prompted the creation of this blog. It's funny how a year can be such a long time but also so little. I can't decide if one year sounds like a long time or not. It feels long in the sense that it seems like forever since I've had an actual conversation with her. I've also completely adapted to single life, and so the time feels like a lot. But on the other end I have certain memories, emotions and dreams that make it seem like we were just together last week. Either way (aka summer days for you Hillel folk) the important thing is that I'm actually healthy in this regard, whereas 6-8 months ago I was an absolute wreck. It's tough to end things with someone you love, but over time I came to terms with it and realized it was for the best (or so I hope). I know there were a lot of bad times we had, and plenty of things I wish I had never said or done, but I can't change the past, and now I find myself holding on to the good times and erasing the bad. I'm not idealizing the relationship, just trying to remember it as something positive.
I know that even though a year ago I made a foolish, false accusation that became the immediate cause of the break-up, the relationship was really over several weeks, if not months before that. But I didn't want to let go, I don't know if I could. Sometimes a sinking yacht feels a lot safer than a log raft on freezing waters. I even knew subcontiously that the only way to save the relationship would be to have a nice, long break- something she had suggested a month before the end. But I couldn't do it, and thus stayed in it, taking the plunge till the bitter, dramatic end.
It's weird. Three years ago today if you had asked me what I was doing next week I would have told you all about my plans to get engaged in 7-8 days. I've never spoken of this, but up until the point I got off the plane coming back from Israel that was the plan. We were both madly in love with each other, and though I had fears concerning my age and $ I was going to go ahead with it. So what happened? Simply put, she wasn't there. This short tale might sounds nuts, it certainly doesn't fully compute in my own head, but it's the truth. For months I was anticipating that moment when I would finally see her again. It consumed my thoughts multiple times a day. I would step out of the gate, and there she would be waiting for me, waiting to start our life together. But when the plane finally did land and I exited the gate, she wasn't there, and I was crushed. I know it's silly and illogical, but that's how I felt. I just thought she'd be there at the gate, that's the way I'd envisioned it for months. And even though seeing her 10 minutes later outside in the parking lot was a moment I'll never forget, I think deep down I knew that it wasn't going to happen between us...certainly not then at a minimum. A year and half later when I was finally ready once more to truly commit (ironically the night I landed from my summer travels) it was too late. But maybe it was all just a blessing in disguise.
One of the hardest things for me after we didn't get engaged three years ago, and finally ended things for real last year, was running into the guys from Yeshiva. I would blabber to anyone that would listen about how in love I was and how I was getting married when I got back, and yada yada yada. Basically Eyen Hora city. There were then at least 50 encounters with guys from back then asking questions along the line of "So hows married life like?" "Whats new with the wife?" "Hey how come you never got married?" etc... It all depended on what rumor they had heard. I even got one "Dude I'm really sorry about your divorce". Pretty soon after I got back I would dodge any guy I would see so I wouldn't have to explain everything (If you can dodge a an old pal from Yeshiva you can dodge a ball). But now when I see any of the great guys from this year I won't have to hide and I won't have to be embarrassed. I can just run up to them and be completely happy to see them. I'm looking forward to it.
Another hidden blessing: A few blogs back I talked about how I didn't think I was good at my job cause I wasn't having enough meaningful talks with the guys. But that's changed baruch Hashem. It seems that I've developed quite a niche for coaching the guys with broken hearts (just had a solid shmooze last night as a matter of fact). This is something I just couldn't have done three years back. Now I can empathize with the worst stories (and last nights came pretty close to my own). But more importantly I can give sound, constructive advice, having been at rock bottom (which was AFTER my relationship ended, not during as some might believe) and managing to pull my way out. It's hard to see but it seems that Hashem really is doing what's best in the long run.
So here I am a year later, back in Israel, back in yeshiva, hair longer than ever, going home in just three weeks, and it' all good. Sure things could be a little better, but isn't that an unspoken internal constant we all share deep down? Two of my friends here wanted to take me out drinking tonight to "celebrate" my anniversary, but I turned them down. What good would getting drunk do? Maybe if I was all down and moping, depressed and dejected....but I'm not. Thank G-d I'm doing fine. I certainly don;t need alchohol to bring me up. Yes, I still think about her sometimes- I think anyone who was in a long term relationship thinks about his/her ex from time to time (in fact one of the rebbeim here who is loves his wife and has a bunch of kids told me he still thinks about the girl he was dating for a year before he met his wife). It's only natural. I'll even admit that I still love her on some level. I don't believe that once you truly love someone you can stop altogether for eternity. And if you don't believe that, then ask yourself this about someone you once loved but no longer do: If they died tomorrow how would you feel? Not that easy, huh? Where ever she is now (I honestly have no idea) I hope she's doing well and that she's happy. And I hope she wishes the same for me.
I know how heavy this blog was, and that some might say I shouldn't have revealed as much as I did. But I'm cool with it, so you should be too. Obviously it's been on my mind a lot today (though the day really hasn't been that hard at all to be honest), and I just needed to let it out. But before I end of I just want to ask you this: Wouldn't it be hysterical if Captain Crunch started doing commercials for Preparation H? Or if Tony the Tiger was the spokesperson for Depends (Theyrrre Greattttt!)? Thinks about the possibilities...

The Goblet of Fire Doesn't Burn So Bright

When I saw "Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkiban" a few years back I walked out of the theater feeling disappointed. I felt director Alfonso Couran traded in substance for style. The film lacked a certain amount of depth towards the plot and the characters. Now having just seen "The Goblet of Fire" I am feeling many of the same emotions.

I didn't think it was possible but this Potter film felt even more rushed than its predecessor. New director Mike Newell does an excellent job of providing plenty of humor (as expected), showcasing the awkwardness and insecurity of the films pubescent teens. But he tells the story so superficially, just trying to get as much of the story out in the time allotted. The plot feels like it is going through boot camp, being pushed and shoved along with little down time for reflection. Obviously much had to be cut from the book for the big screen (primarily the Rita Skeeter part and the Quidditch World Cup) and so once again one feels that if a viewer has not read the book he/she is left with a multitude of questions. And even having read the 4th novel I was left pondering certain aspects merely alluded to and trying to understand why certain scenes and plot elements were changed for the film (why doesn't the winner of the Tri-Wizard Tournament not get 1000 Galleons?). These cuts are mostly for time, as it is believed that children wont sit through a three hour film. Yet I seem to remember quite a few kids in the theater around the ages of 9-12 when I saw The Lord of The Rings films in theaters. And though it was 10 o'clock on a Saturday night in Israel I also noticed that there was not one child in the sold out audience for Potter. One can only hope that Newell and producer Chris Columbus (who brilliantly directed the first two films) will take a page out of the book of Peter Jackson and release a directors cut of the film, adding a good deal of footage and thereby elevating the overall quality and enjoyment level of the movie .

Fortunately the film is full of excellent acting. Rupert Gint and Emma Watson perfectly bring to life Ron and Hermoine, and one can already see the romantic comedic delight their relationship will bring to the final three films. James and Oliver Phelps ARE Fred and George Weasely providing comic relief that will hopefully continue in the next film. Hogwarts Professors Snape (Alan Rickman) and McGonogall (Maggie Smith) are along for the ride once more, though with little to do, yet they still play there roles aptly. Brendan Gleeson is delightful in a creepy way as Mad-Eye Mooney, and though the CGI felt somewhat fake and misdirected Ralph Fiennes does a fine job of reincarnating the evil Lord Voldemort. Unfortunately I, as were many of the people in the theater, was once again irritated by Michael Gambon as professor Dumbledore. He just lacks the boyish charm that makes the Hogwarts Headmaster so pure and trustworthy, a trait that the late Richard Harris possessed. As Dumbledores part grows more significant in the next two films the producers must find a way to smooth over much of the rigidity that Gambon brings to the part, or in the best case scenario, simply find a new Dumbledore (I'd like to see Michael Caine). Gambon in this part is hurting the films.

A huge, and very noticeable absence in this film is the music of legendary composer John Williams. Williams' scores have been key in bringing a great deal of magic to the Potter films. I noticed half-way through the picture that I didn't find myself being carried along by the films music, and quickly remembered why. In fact the main motif of the previous films (known as "Hedwigs Theme") isn't heard until the closing credits. That is like having a "Star Wars" movie not open with their famous William tune (feel free to hum it now. I am.)

The film centers around Harry's tasks in the Tri-Wizard tournament, and the scenes involving Harry and his competitors (including a surprisingly generic looking Fleur Delacour), and for the most part the don't disappoint. They provide for a good deal of excitement, and help the flow of the film. Yet I was left yearning for more plot development, more character insight, more of the book brought to life (it would have been nice to meet Ron's brother Charlie in this film), more "fun" scenes between the three young friends (though there is a nice bit of nostalgia with them and Hagrid in a late night walk into the Forbidden Forrest), ....just more. But I guess this is what to expect when adapting an 800 page book: a bare to the bone stripping of all but the essentials. But it is the added extras of the books story lines, the "little things" if you will, that make them so enjoyably addicting, and what has made the last two installments so lacking.

I was glad that I got to see the movie with two good friends of mine (And their respective women). It might be the last time I get to spend time with both of them together for quite a while. For anyone who knows me, going to the movies isn't only about the film and the theater, but also who you watch it with (I can still remember who I've seen every movie with :) And I'm glad that I got to see this movie with two of my oldest and best friends.
So I was once again disappointed with a Harry Potter movie (which I think I'll enjoy more upon a second viewing as I did with the previous film because my expectations will be insignificant and I can just enjoy the film as it is, not what I want it to be). Yet there was enough comedy, excitement and viewing companionship to make the overall experience an enjoyable one.