Peanut Candy Chews
Chaim Wassertzog, an overweight, forty year old, had a way with “kids who were off”. Wherever he would meet one, he would talk to them, provide them with food, he would comfort them when they were worse for wear, but most importantly he would give them Peanut Candy Chews, kosher ones, of course.
Wassertzog would say, no matter how depressed a renegade was, how dissociated from Judaism he or she had become, they all would respond to Peanut Candy Chews.
“Hello”, Wassertzog would say, “I know we have never met, but I want you to know, I understand you, I know how you feel, I have felt the same in the past …” he had saved many a soul with this simple chat up line.
“You think they have deep questions and that is what makes them go off? That is never the case.” he says excitedly to anyone in shul who will listen. “In the Haggadah there are lots of questions. The four questions and then the questions that the three sons ask. Where are the answers? They seem wholly inappropriate. The questions ask one thing, and the answers answer something completely different, random. Why is it that only the son that knows not to ask is given the full answer?”
“There are no good questions, you see? That is why in my work I see that Peanut candy chews work, always. There is no point in answering pointless and dishonest questions”.
Under every bed in the seminary dormitory, there is a suitcase, an empty cocoon, misshapen and shrivelled, lifeless and limp, forgotten by its owner. Chaya Rosen got out of bed. She had not slept at all that night.
The others were still sound asleep. A cocoon on a branch, in a forest, occupied and alive, hidden between leaves, undetected by prey. a portrait of rebirth and hope that was Chaya’s suitcase, under her bed, hidden away from prying eyes.
Chaya got up, dressed silently grabbed the case from under her bed. Silently she dragged it out of the dorm, into the hallway, out of the building. A fledgling chick had flown its nest. Chaya was Chaya no more.
Evelyn, now a medical student in university, was doing really well. She had a large circle of student friends, and was Jewish once more. She attended campus pro Israel meetings every now and then, and even a Shabbos Tisch but with several guitars and other instruments, where boys and girls would sing in unison. She had “oykh” learnt to write transliterated Yiddish, and knew every Basshevis Singer tale there was to know.
When Evelyn would visit her parents as she now did on occasion, her father would call an Asken, each an expert, a soul salvager who would without doubt save Evelyn from damnation. She would never know in advance who was coming, and they were all of course “friends, who so happened to pop by” and this time it was Chaim Wassertzog.
“Hello Chaya”, Wassertzog said, “I know we have never met, but I want you to know, I understand you, I know how you feel, I have felt the same in the past …”
As she sat in her seat on the train ride home, she smiled as she handed the peanut candy chews to an overjoyed little boy that sat close by, and then silently immersed herself in an article on modern advancements in treatment of Osteomyelitis.
Printable Version
leave evelyn! run! beat it! get out of health care while you still can!
Like this comment?
0
Got quite a few peanut chew candies myself.
Like this comment?
0
Nice post.
Like this comment?
0
I think this post explains exactly what makes this site different… Keep it up guys (and girls)!
Like this comment?
0
i knew there was a reason why i always hated those things!
great writing.
Like this comment?
0
But this was a whole packet!
Like this comment?
0
In defense of the peanut chew dispensers. Some of them are really sincere about helping out kids. The fact is that not every so called “teen at risk” has the courage and discipline to handle the switch to secularism. You need a tremendous amount of intestinal fortitude to survive and endure the process of acclimation into a new and foreign environment. Sadly, I have seen many fall through the cracks and in the process ruin their lives. It’s just as simple as that, not everyone is cut out to handle the rigorous task of reinventing themselves and adopting a new life approach. Some of these soul savers do great work in helping out the kids who have failed. So what that they have a religious agenda? I view them as human savers, not soul savers. I could care less about their motives.
Like this comment?
0
It depends on the motivation behind the switch. Those who leave out of ideological necessity as opposed to out of purely materialistic envy, rarely if ever, take kindly to interference by such ideologically light-weighted self gratifying extroverts.
Like this comment?
0
“You need a tremendous amount of intestinal fortitude to survive and endure the process of acclimation into a new and foreign environment. Sadly, I have seen many fall through the cracks and in the process ruin their lives. It’s just as simple as that, not everyone is cut out to handle the rigorous task of reinventing themselves and adopting a new life approach.”
Hear, hear!
Obviously, it depends on the individual. But all too frequently, the misfits and the troubled ones are those who are drawn to the allure of a more free-wheeling lifestyle. Which is all good and well, if they eventually find some direction in life. But often enough there’s a lot of self-destruction in the process.
The ideologically inclined obviously don’t need the peanut chews. But then again, the ideologically inclined are often happy enough by engaging their intellectual curiosities without resorting to a full-on lifestyle change. (I refer to those who have something vested in staying in the system: family, community, career, etc. Obviously there are many who don’t have that much. But I think it’s at least somewhat less common. Those who have little vested are often quite troubled by that very fact, and it’s a strong motivator to find fulfillment elsewhere.)
Like this comment?
1
“But then again, the ideologically inclined are often happy enough by engaging their intellectual curiosities without resorting to a full-on lifestyle change.”
It is a trade off, like any other, more often than not a painful one at that.
Like this comment?
0
Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.
Like this comment?
0
Unfortunately, the Kiruv-makers believes that all the upgefurene fall in the same catagory. They come for broken homes etc. and need varemkeit.
It’s a shame that most of those who leave, are because of anger and emotional frustration. Whereas, those with ideological objections tend to have a lot more invested in the system, such as family and parnuseh.
Like this comment?
0
Also, Pen, I have to take issue with the idea of leaving “out of ideological necessity.” I don’t think that exists. Leaving isn’t ideological — or at least almost never is. As much as I hate to say it (and it applies to me as well), I believe that a total lifestyle change is almost always at least partially motivated by non-ideological factors. Ideology can assist in the decision, but I don’t think that alone is motivation enough. It’s just the reality about what the undertaking involves.
Like this comment?
0
Just to add, that of course is different from discarding dogma and violating rules and customs in private. But those are (often) inconsequential in the long run.
Like this comment?
0
HR: I do think there’s a valid concept of leaving for ideological necessity. Your definition of lifestyle change is very limited. Leaving a lifestyle does not necessarily imply leaving a family or identity. There’s an important distinction between leaving and leaving behind.
For those who have children and leave with them, ideological factors can be the sole motivation. Historically, sacrifices in the name of future generations have always given beliefs a greater importance. Giving children different opportunities can in itself be an ideology worthy of an excruciating change.
Like this comment?
0
Note that I said purely materialistic envy, only when referring to those who leave without a backing ideology as a catalyst.
Haredi life is stifling without ideological justification. Needless to say, upping sticks in and of itself rarely comes to pass through pure ideological motivation. (unless one leaves to provide children with a decent education etc.)
Recall this on Zev Brenner: “why did you choose to leave orthodoxy?”
Malka Schwartz: “I realised that I don’t belive in a lot of the beliefs that are fundamental to the ultra orthodox lifestyle.”
The answer, it is so true and so untrue all at once, it is a work of art. Although you might say the emperor has no clothes.
Like this comment?
0
Re: Kids Shpitz, what is it to be great minds? or fools never differ?
Like this comment?
0
Shpitzle, we can go around in circles on this topic, since there are obviously no hard facts to be argued over. And indeed, if you want to change the definition of ‘lifestyle change’ then we’re down to arguing semantics. Limited or not, we’ll have to define what we’re discussing before we can argue over it. Of course, broaden any term far enough and you can make no valid or relevant point about it.
“For those who have children and leave with them, ideological factors can be the sole motivation.”
Well, yes. But such a case, I believe, is the rarity. And I have yet to encounter one. Also, I’m not implying there isn’t ideological motivation at all in play. I’m saying it’s hard to see that as motivation alone. As for providing opportunities to children, that’s hardly ideological. That’s practical. A Pakistani, say, who comes to the US to allow for increased opportunities for his children isn’t necessarily making an ideological choice; he’s making a practical one. And the Chasid who leaves for that reason, he/she too is just as much non-ideological.
And, btw, you can also make the same argument for those who are unmarried, have no children, and aren’t overly bound to the community with ties to career and the like. Those may simply drop certain behaviors without much consequence. And to a degree it might be true. But again, in most cases it would be hard to argue that it was purely ideological. I believe it’s almost inevitable that a degree of emotional/psychological dissatisfaction must exist before making radical lifestyle changes. (Of course, I’m assuming we know what I mean when I say ‘radical lifestyle change.’ Argue on the term, and we might very well be in agreement.)
I know this is a difficult reality to recognize, because it’s usually hurled as an insult by those who excoriate us for leaving. But I don’t think that non-ideological supporting factors for leaving are anything to be ashamed of.
Pen:
“Note that I said purely materialistic envy.”
Qualifier noted. And in that case we agree.
Like this comment?
0
I so want to get involved in the conversation. Some good points have been made, but I can’t figure out what was said first and what was said last; what is a response and what is a provocation. It’s all messed up. Some comments appear before others, it’s not in chronological order. For the sake of the continuous blossoming of this site, this needs to get corrected. I’m appealing to the creators, technicians or whoever is in charge, pleas fix this little glitch, its nerve racking.
Like this comment?
0
A&J — It’s a feature/glitch that only allows nesting a certain number of comments, after which they spread around in what seems to the reader as arbitrary. I guess it’s made for normal readers, who just comment once, not like us obsessive Chasidim who can’t let a debate go without having the last word. Sigh.
But I’ve disabled comment nesting for now. We’ll just have it the old fashioned way.
So now… welcome to the discussion. Have your say.
Like this comment?
0
” But again, in most cases it would be hard to argue that it was purely ideological. I believe it’s almost inevitable that a degree of emotional/psychological dissatisfaction must exist before making radical lifestyle changes.”
But here is the catch, Rebel. Once we start questioning, once ideology becomes a character on stage, when we start doubting and questioning iconic concepts such as sechar veonesh and life after death, how can there not be significant emotional/ psychological consequences? That kind of existential angst is enough to drive you insane.
And so the question remains. Chicken or egg?
Like this comment?
0
Maybe, maybe not, HT. Depends on the personality. I know plenty who don’t believe an iota of religious doctrine and are quite happy living the lifestyle. Some people can manage it.
Like this comment?
0
Thanks HR.
Hahaha. So true about our style of commenting. We just dont let go. I like it this way, its exciting.
I have to re-read the whole thread now, and try to make some sense of it. Than I will surely have the last word. I am the final authority, the “Goiyel Achroin”!!
Like this comment?
0
I know plenty who don’t believe an iota of religious doctrine and are quite happy living the lifestyle.
I know many who live the lifestyle and have resigned themselves to doing so. But “happy” doing so?
Like this comment?
0
There we go again, Pen. What’s in the term happy? With every aspect? All the time happy? Enough happy? A net gain of happiness? Using the same definition, how happy are others?
Like this comment?
0
And it’s not clear what HR meant with “happy living the lifestyle.” Is it because they’re living the lifestyle, despite of it, or just while they’re living the lifestyle?
Like this comment?
0
Group A is careless with god and his values. They behave with indifference towards God’s law. They however, more often than not profess belief when asked, they have no need or desire or motivation to de-construct God.
They are people to whom defined questions, answers, roles and boundaries exist to a lesser extent. They are people who don’t do yes/no/black/white.
Group B: Those who do ask defined questions and seek defined answers, are the more likely candidates for the ideological mekoshesei eitzim. They are also more likely to struggle to come to terms with “living a lie” and “providing children with less chance”.
They tend to glorify (sometimes with dishonesty) their choices in life as moralistic, logical and justified.
They might also have more constraints constructed by and for themselves in the past, in servitude of the lord, as über contentious Jews that they arguably would have been in better days.
This is a rather simplistic Y/N/B/W generalisation, I know, there some who do not fit A or B. But I think if someone was to carry out a survey of negel vasser drinkers these groups would arise.
Like this comment?
0
” I know plenty who don’t believe an iota of religious doctrine and are quite happy living the lifestyle.”
Considering that cognition often, (some will argue always) precedes emotion, its almost inevitable that an extreme paradigmatic shift in ideology will have significant consequences on behavior and emotion.
As long as I believe that praying longer and harder will secure me that coveted position at work, as long as I believe that swinging a chicken round my head will save my life, and that flirting with the mailman is a sin, doing and sacrificing will be enjoyable, or at least tolerable.
But once I perceive that my behaviors and sacrifices are meaningless, when my Raison d’être is gone, my lifestyle becames incredibly stifling and burdensome, I hook up with the Asian mailman, and I’m out. (And jewish philosopher blames it on Asian sex).
Like this comment?
0
“For those who have children and leave with them, ideological factors can be the sole motivation”..
Interesting thought Lady Shpitz, but extensive anecdotal evidence suggests that most non believers who don’t leave, will tell you they didn’t, because of the children.
Unless still very young, a radical lifestyle change will almost inevitable be psychologically scaring.
,
Like this comment?
0
Hozen, If one has no chance of leaving with the children, then to stay for the sake of those children, is still for the sake of ones child.
Leaving with kids, is rarely a viable option and is an unrealistic one. One that your extensive anecdotal sample, would hardly consider. My guess is they would say that they will not leave
alone for the sake of their children. But given the choice would leave with the children for the sake of the children.
As an aside, try this: Tell your kids a story of a Muslim child to parents who stopped believing in that faith.
The child was happy at his religious school, and was ripped away from friends and placed in a secular establishment. The child later became a police officer or a dentist.
Ask your child if the parents acted rightly or wrongly.
Like this comment?
1
“Leaving with kids, is rarely a viable option and is an unrealistic one. One that your extensive anecdotal sample, would hardly consider”.
Pen, my statement was somewhat nebulous, but I was refering to those who could leave, with their children, and those of course who have givin it serious thought, but probably could only leave in theory.
I don’t know about your children, but your typical chasidishe ten year old does not aspire to being a dentist or a doctor, and hardly associates dentist with success. Teacher, hatzole member, perhaps.
Your average chasidishe child often has a limited english language repertuare (talking about the boys), is afraid of his shvarze naighbor, loves his cousins, thinks the guy with the geshtizte beard is a bum, and so forth.
Fource the fish out of water?
Like this comment?
0
As an aside, try this: Tell your kids a story of a Muslim child to parents who stopped believing in that faith.
Pen, for you its simple. To you the terms Muslim and frum Jew are interchangeable, and you can substitute one for the other. But of course, your a fairly logical adult.
Most frum adults can’t even do this, what do you expect then from frum children?
Like this comment?
1
Your average chasidishe child living in a home where one or both parents is the above mentioned idealist, has a pretty normal grasp of the english language, and is hardly afraid of his shvarze neighbour….. and so forth.
So I am a “fairly” logical adult. That will have to do
Like this comment?
0
Well Pen, I guess we don’t live in the same neighborhood then.
Seriously speaking, every case is different. I was only taking issue with the original blanket statement that,” Giving children different opportunities can in itself be an ideology worthy of an excruciating change.”
The picture is far more complex.
Like this comment?
0
I think, when someone leaves its never just because of materialistic envy. Those usually stay and break the rules, and are considered bums in the community. The transition is so hard, and there are so many obstacles. Why would one learn a new language, work hard to fit in to new culture, and struggle to survive the day, so he can have sex or eat chazir. Why would one give up family, comfortability, and community support, for his little enjoyments here and there. One may do it for the sake of freedom. I think, when someone leaves, it involves a mix of ideological, emotional/psychological, practical, and materialistic reasons.
Like this comment?
0
TP, interestingly, you do meet some who have left, who do believe in god and in his system, but they add that “it just isn’t for me”, and that “god will understand”.
Like this comment?
0