Keep on playing!

But in addition to these two mechanisms of bittul and bedikat hametz, a third option developed to satisfy the biblical prohibition against possessing hametz and that is selling hametz to a non-Jew or "mechirat hametz." This mechanism, while not explicitly Talmudic, is based on the Talmud's distinction between the dual laws of bal yeiraeh and bal yimatzei. According to the Talmud, bal yeiraeh only refers to the owners of the hametz since the verse actually says that hametz cannot be seen "for you" (lo yeiraeh lecha...), and consequently the second prohibition of bal yimatzei refers to having any hametz on your property even if it is owned by someone else (B. Pesachim 5b). Since the Talmud emphasizes personal ownership of both the hametz and the property on which it rests, then this problem could be solved by transferring ownership of both the hametz and the area in which it is contained over to a third party for whom hametz would not be prohibited i.e. a non-Jew.

While the logic behind mechirat hametz is sound, its efficacy depends entirely on its implementation; if one is truly selling hametz then the sale has to be legitimate. However this assumption is far from certain based on how mechirat hametz is conducted in most synagogues. In a typical scenario, a congregant will fill out a form roughly itemizing the hametz and their values along with the locations in the house or apartment. The Rabbi would then "sell" the hametz to the non-Jew for a sum to be paid at the end pesach. When the non-Jew does not pay for the rest of the hametz the Jews Rabbi would then "buy back" the hametz from the non-Jew such that the non-Jew profits slightly from the transaction. The details may differ from Rabbi to Rabbi, but this is a commonly used process.

R. Tendler criticizes these sorts of mechirat hametz as being "legal fictions," less a transaction and more of a semantic ritual. In most cases the non-Jew does not have access to the hametz which he bought, nor is there reasonable expectation that the non-Jew could in fact complete the sale. Furthermore, many Jews are fully comfortable knowing that the hametz which they "sold" will be fully available to them after pesach, indicating that they do not truly believe the hametz is not in their legal possession.¹

Since the result of an invalid sale would be the mass violation of two biblical prohibitions, R. Tendler officiates a more serious and legally binding version of mechirat hametz. First, the non-Jew selected is a fairly wealthy member of his community, one who could theoretically purchase all the hametz in Monsey.² Congregants itemize the quantity and value of their hametz and formally appoint R. Tendler as their agent who 1. has the "right to rent or sublease to the purchaser of this chometz [sic] the rooms or parts of the rooms in which the chometz [sic] is found"³ and 2. negotiate the sale of all hametz in the stated locations as well as all other hametz for which a person has legal responsibility. R. Tendler also collects a key from each seller, giving the non-Jew access to his recently purchased hametz. In fact each year someone from the community is selected to actually have the hametz taken by the non-Jew over pesach, and is compensated afterwards. The purchase is conducted as with minimal money down⁴ and the rest of the value being loaned. R. Tendler also insists on a guarantor since few people would make loans of this size without some form of collateral. At the end of the pesach the hametz is not "bought back" but rather the loan is forgiven conditional to the transference of property back to the previous owners.

In all, R. Tendler's mechirat hametz involves a nine step process incorporating several forms of kinyan (halakhic acquisition) as well as typical business etiquette:

1. Renting the property to the non-Jew through kinyan kessef (monetary transaction) and a handshake.⁵


2. Acquiring the hametz on the sold property via a kinyan karka.


3. Formally selling the hamtetz through kinyan kessef.


4. Establishing a loan for the remainder of what was not paid up front


5. Designating a cosigner for the above loan


6. A kinyan shtar - acquisition through contract for the hametz and the area in which it is contained


7. A symbolic but halakhically effective kinyan sudar.


8. Final handshake


9. As per the custom of the land, a mutual drink.

Thus for R. Tendler, the act of mechirat hametz assumes the laws and ritual of not only a Jewish transaction, but a civil one as well.

For those interested, here are pictures of the documents R. Tendler uses:
Seller's document: page 1
English contract: page 1, page 2, page 3
Hebrew contract: page 1, page 2
Guarentor's contract: page 1

1. As he described once in shiur the true test of ownership is who feels loss when an asset is lost or destroyed. For example, if someone "sells" his liqueurer collection and it gets destroyed in a fire over pesach, to what extent will he be disappointed (aside from the aesthetic pain of seeing good whiskey destroyed). A sense of loss indicates that he did not entirely relinquish his possession.
2. Actually he uses a former VP of UPS which means that he is one of the few people who could actually take possession of all the hametz in Monsey and ship it anywhere overnight.
3. The text is from the official form used by R. Tendler for the Monsey community.
4. Specifically the nominal value of a perutah per item, which R. Tendler currently values at around $0.10.
5. As is the custom in many business transactions, a handshake is a formality which "seals the deal."

Dave Brubeck first stepped to the microphone to make a small correction in the program. Instead of being 83 as listed, he was actually 87 and joked, "how time doesn't fly." Later he displayed some more of his humor describing how he wrote the song "London Sharps, London Flats" and dedicated it to his manager after a particularly difficult European tour:

You'll notice how my right hand goes up the keyboard on the sharps and my left one goes down on the flats.

It sounds terrible.

On purpose.

Of course it didn't sound that bad. Actually I hope I can play the piano that well when I'm 87.

Ramsey Lewis may not be as familiar, but is well known for jazz arrangements of other songs. Perhaps the most recognizable piece being a cover of Dobie Gray's "The In Crowd," but he also included a jazz cover of the Beatles' In My Life.
While Dave Brubeck's pieces played with chord structures and time signatures Ramsey Lewis' music more more rhythmic incorporating jazz, blues, gospel, and even a calypso riff.

Anyway, with everything else that's been going on this week, the timing (so to speak) couldn't have been better.

On the other hand, observing apparent instances of hashgacha immediately can have a profound effect on our outlook. Case in point, earlier today I had an appointment at 5:00 PM on the Upper West Side. On a normal Wednesday I would need to rush out of the downtown office, and depending on how well the 1 and 2/3 trains synch up, barely make it in time. But today, having more time on my hands than usual, I decided to head down earlier than usual and read outside on one of the benches in the middle of the pedestrian islands on Broadway. As I sat down to open the book¹ I noticed an elderly woman physically struggling with a younger person who seemed to be trying to help the older one. The exasperated younger woman explained that elder one had a history of dementia and tried to cross the street against the light to get away from her and asked for help in trying to get her to sit down on the bench.

Initially I just tried to diffuse the situation by talking to the elder woman, and eventually did get her to sit down though she was still very distraught. But as I was sorting out things with her aide, she said three very familiar words: "ata medaber ivrit?" As it turns out she was Israeli, initially from Tel Aviv, and a whole lot more lucid when conversing in Hebrew. Without getting into the details I spoke to her in Hebrew, calmed her down, and despite her claims of being completely fine, convinced her to go with the medics to Mt. Sinai hospital.²

While I have no idea what would have happened if I hadn't been there, I do realize that had I not been laid off I wouldn't have been there to help both her and her aide.

And the great thing is that this story of hashgacha is just beginning.

1. In an amusing irony, the book I was reading was The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.
2. She wanted me to come with her, and I might have if I didn't have the appointment (which I made with one minute to spare...again).

While the result is similar to being fired, my current circumstances are really not as severe all things considered other than looking for another job. It was a good run at JPMC - I may be applying to other positions there - and I'm looking forward to resetting priorities and approaching the next challenges and opportunities.

In the meantime, I'm brushing up computer and Rabbinic resumes and hope to use the time productively. Of course any leads would be greatly appreciated...

The discerning reader will notice differences between Haham Faur's, my father's, and my own writings (aside from the drastic dropoff in scholarship and sophistication as found on this blog). What was transmitted to me at least was more of a system of thought which could then be applied elsewhere, but will differ based on individual experiences.

Enjoy!

The Jewish Week reports the "breaking news" that R. Hershel Schachter has once again made irresponsible and controversial statements. From a YouTube clip taken at Yeshiva Hakotel R. Schachter was to have said:

First you have to know what the army is going to do. If the army is going to destroy Gush Katif, there's no mitzvah to destroy Eretz Yisrael...If the army is going to give away Yerushalyim [Jerusalem], then I would tell everyone to resign from the army - I'd tell them to shoot the Rosh Hamemshalah [Prime Minister]," which prompted laughter from his audience...No one should go to the army if they [the army] are doing aveirus [sins]...We're talking if the army is seeing to it that the country is secure, if they're doing the right thing. I'm not sure if the army is doing the right thing...we have to look into that.

This is not the first time R. Schachter has made controversial or irresponsible statements, but rather one in a pattern of such remarks which leads us to the question of the viability of his Rabbinic leadership.

• The Jewish Week article reported that on a prior occasion R. Shachter said that "Jews and non-Jews 'have different genes, DNA and instincts.'"
• Commenting on the first Edah conference in 1999, R. Schachter in a Parasha Shiur on Yitro questioned, "who gave them the right to speak" since "each one is a bigger am haaretz than the next" and heretics for not believing in "the spirit of the law". The audio file was posted on YUTorah.org and promptly removed. However we managed to save a copy here (file is in real audio format, relevant part starts at 14:20).
• In 2004, R. Schachter offended many by comparing women to parrots and monkeys.
• Regarding the infamous Negiah.org - an Orthodox Union abstinence website which blatantly misrepresented Rabbinic law and equated rape victims with vegetarians - R. Schachter endorsed:

  I have reviewed all the articles herein and I found them to be very powerful and fitting. It is quite appropriate to publicize words such as these in a style such as this - words that are straightforward for the sake of people with less background and words of encouragement that are agreeable and in a clean language for the sake of Observant Jews.

• At a 2006 medical ethics conference on brain death, R. Schachter argued against brain death as halakhic death such that removing a living heart organ donation is murder. However, once the patient has been "killed" we can still accept such transplants since the "donors" are dead anyway. R. Kenny Brander, sensing the audience's shock at his rebbe's remarks, quicky changed the topic to the intellectual and academic freedom offered by YU.
• A few days later, YU's Commentator published an interview in which R. Schachter denounced YU's curriculum, suggesting that certain "offensive" classes be taught in the first place.

In some instances R. Schachter stood by his remarks, other times students engaged in damage control. Here R. Schachter personally apologized:

Statements I made informally have been publicly excerpted this week. I deeply regret such statements and apologize for them. They were uttered spontaneously, off the cuff, and were not meant seriously. And, they do not, God forbid, represent my views. Jewish law demands respect for representatives of the Jewish government and the state of Israel.

Whether or not R. Schachter's comments were meant seriously would have to be determined by watching the video itself - though it is currently unavailable. However, we should consider whether or not someone in R. Schachter's assumed position has the luxury of making such remarks in the first place. The Torah is replete with warnings about careless speech especially from Rabbis. According to M. Avot 1:11, sages are supposed to be careful with their words lest they cause a desecration of God's name. Rambam writes in Yesodei Hatorah 5:11 that the greater the status of the Rabbi - for example one for whom people sing songs - the greater the desecration of God's name when he acts in an unbecoming manner.

The Jewish Week also reports a common theme among his apologists:

His defenders say he is naïve, not mean-spirited, in part because he has little dealing with the community at large, cloistered within the study halls of Yeshiva. They say he speaks casually in class, unaware of the larger ramifications of his remarks.

But even this anonymous defense seems to contradict R. Schachter's reputation as a religious authority. A necessary requirement of being a posek is through the interaction with the Jewish community. This is the primary difference between Rav and Rosh Yeshiva. The Rav is involved in the community and presumably will work with the community based on its needs. The Rosh Yeshiva's cloistered life leads to precisely such "naïve" errors in judgment.

In the ebony tower of the Yeshiva, Roshei Yeshiva are particularly susceptible to hubris. Not only are they rarely if ever challenged in a shiur or lecture, it is considered disrespectful to do so. Roshei Yeshiva have no obligation to defend their assumptions or positions, but rather it is the responsibility of the student to absorb and regurgitate as if the words came from Sinai itself. In this environment, such statements routinely pass not only as normal, but are to be interpreted as the authentic outlook of Judaism. In other words, this is an unsurprising consequence of a world without honest debate or the need for justification and accountability.

But thanks to the internet statements said in the privacy of the classroom are now publicized worldwide, thus exposing the rest of the world to the actual hashkafa of the Rabbis. Given that shiurim and lectures are not private confidential conversations, one should assume a "gadol batorah" would heed the warning of Kohelet 10:20, "Do not revile the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich in your bedroom, because a bird of the air may carry your words, and a bird on the wing may report what you say." In other words, for Torah the assumption of privacy is not an excuse for carelessness - certainly not for an assumed leader.

Rabbis are human and as such are prone to making mistakes and even saying the occasional boneheaded remark. I've been known to make several myself - quite a few of which are on this blog, and I've also defended and clarified positions based on feedback and counter arguments. To be sure, I've never claimed to be nor have I ever been mistaken for being a gadol. But on the other hand R. Schachter has long advocated an exclusive halakhic system where only an arbitrarilly select few are "entitled to an opinion." Given R. Schachter's halakhic writings one would presume he is - or at least considers himself to be - among them. As such, perhaps we should expect R. Schachter to hold himself to a higher standard.

But since the status of a gadol is determined more by social consensus than aptitude, the real question is for those who perpetually venerate R. Schachter as an indisputable authority worthy of special status. If after all these years R. Schachter is still this out of touch with the "outside world," then can he truly be a representative to the Orthodox world at large?

Realistically speaking, those who have committed themselves to R. Schachter are likely to continue praising his greatness and issuing apologetics and justification as needed. But for those who have not made such a personal investment, the question of what qualifies someone a gadol should be strongly reconsidered.

Service is prompt and quick. It's actually "fast food" such that you ought to know what you want when you stand in line, you get served promptly, and you move along. (Think Soup Nazi with less attitude and better bread). This isn't necessarily a small order.¹ You have several options of breads, meats, cheeses (paarve), and salads and there is no time for dawdling in line. I barely glanced at the menu before I blurted out my order. I give the staff credit for being patient with its new unaccustomed clientele.

I ordered the steak sub on toasted whole wheat with lettuce, peppers, and onions. I have to say this was by far the tastiest steak sandwich I've had, in no small part to the steak not having that rubberized texture of other places. But aside from the meat, what was impressive was how all the ingredients of the sub actually worked together to produce optimal flavor.² I'll try experimenting in the future with other combinations, possibly even trying out the paarve cheeses.

Of course there's one area in which the kosher Subway is like all other kosher restaurants: the price. Although it seems that for Subways nationally the prices are variable (PDF), it does seem that this one is high compared to the other Subways in a two-three block radius. If I'm not keeping kosher, there's no reason for me to spend the premium on over-salted meat. In order for this Subway to keep up, either Jews need to give them enough business or prices will need to come down a bit.

Here's the menu with prices as of 03/05/2008. (Click for larger view)

Note that this was printed on paper, so it's possible (if not likely) that the prices will adjust in the future.

One final point I'd like to make is that there is no distinctive wrapping for individual sandwiches such that it looks like it came from any other Subway:

I'm assuming for larger orders and deliveries there is some kosher tape, but in case people start looking at you funny or you're worried about marit ayin you might have some explaining to do.

Overall, I'd give it a 4 out of 5 for quality and price.

1. No pun intended. I mean it this time.
2. There's another joke to be made here about it being unusual for a kosher place, but I'll let it go.

But while the laws in Rambam are usually straightforward, the laws of yehareg v'al ya'avor have several qualifiers and criteria to evaluate, to the point that it became difficult to keep track of all of them in proper sequence. Being the computer geek that I am, I figured that pseudocode could come in handy. The following snippet assumes the functions do(); which entails preforming the sin in question and die(); means to allow oneself to be killed. It's not necessarily the most efficient code mind you, but I'm going for maintainability.¹

big3[] = {murder, idolatry, illicitSexualRelations};

if (governmentDecree == true){
    die();
}
else {
    if (big3[].contains(sin)){
        die();
    }
    else{
        if (nonJewBenefits == true){
            do();
        }
        else if (numJews < 10){
            do();
        }
        else {
            die();
        }
    }
}



There, that should make everything perfectly clear.

Update: Seth Berger contributes the following optimized code:


if( (!governmentDecree || !big3[].contains(sin)) && ( nonJewBenefits || numJews < 10)) {
    do();
}
else {die();}



Update 2: Reuven Weiser corrects Seth's optimization since in Seth's code a non-big 3 sin could still result in do(); if a non Jew benefits. This is incorrect and should rather be:
if( (!governmentDecree && !big3[].contains(sin)) && ( nonJewBenefits || numJews < 10)) {
    do();
}
else {die();}

This sort of confusion often comes up with too much negative logic. We can flip things around to create a slightly more readable optimization:

if ( (governmentDecree || big3[].contains(sin)) || (!nonJewBenefits && numJews >10)){
    die();
else {do();}


1. For Brisker's, of course

Dean Hyman hired several new professors, adding fresh talent to the established faculty. This also included importing professors from Israel for not only the summer semester but also the regular fall and spring program.

On a personal note I can attest to Dean Hyman's genuine desire to accommodate a serious student's academic wants and needs. As a Talmud major, myself and a few other students felt it reasonable to request a graduate level class in Aramaic, the logic being if Bible students get to take Biblical Hebrew, Talmud students should get to take Aramaic.² In a matter of days we had arranged and received Dean Hyman's approval for Dr. Richard Steiner give a class in the Talmud department on Galilean Aramaic thereby adding a new course to a relatively thin Talmud curriculum.

To borrow an academic trope, Dean Hyman's accomplishments are more impressive when we consider the historical context. Under the previous administration YU was well known for its near impregnable bureaucracy and general obstinacy even at the expense of educating its students. I found that Dean Hyman consistently and sincerely put the interest of the students first - even if some students didn't realize it at the time.

Also consider that maintaining a serious academic Judaic studies program in Yeshiva University is not a simple as one would expect. Ironically it is partially because of the religious nature of YU that academic activity is often stifled, especially when academic research contradicts the religious agenda.³ To put it another way, Dean Hyman worked to improve Revel's academic credibility, despite internal opposition from his own University system.

The Commentator reports that the new vision of Revel involved combining it with the undergraduate program, presumably a future center for Jewish studies. As I see it, this can have two possible effects. If this new program assimilates the undergraduate culture, then Jewish studies at YU will irrevocably regress into the intellectual ghetto for which it is already stereotyped. Alternatively, the merger could drastically improve the Judaic studies system and provide the serious student with similar opportunities that one would find in other university departments.

My past experiences with YU have led to reactive skepticism. However, I hope that the new administration recognizes Dean Hyman's accomplishments and continues to build on his unheralded work.

1. There is no mention of how long Dean Hyman held the position, nor of any mention of his accomplishments: just the typical sanitized pablum.
2. I requested to take an Aramaic grammar class, because yes, I am I geek. Thankfully there were five others in my chevra who not only helped organize the class, but provided much appreciated alternative perspectives.
3. As I often cite from one of my professors, "Brisk works if you accept all its premises and ignore all contradictory data." This was regarding Talmud study, never mind Bible criticism.

I'll leave the actual football discussion to those more qualified, but I did notice three trends with how people relate to the game. The first trend is historical revisionism and occurs when the media completely rewrites the narrative depending on the outcome. Had Plaxico Buress not made the deciding catch, we would be talking about Wes Welker's inspired performance, how Brady's ankle was a non-story, and how Randy Moss made the difference in the game and achieved redemption. Many football games are decided on one play at the end of the game, and yet that microcosm of football will retroactively influence all which preceded it. This is of course most convenient for media writers who are expected to churn out "analysis" on a moment's notice and likely have two versions of the game written up, and will be ready with either narrative regardless of the outcome.²

Given that sports media rarely have opportunity (or capacity) for insight, talking heads will often resort to glib clichés. One such example is the post-game assertion that the winning team "wanted it more." This is nonsense for two reasons. First, in high-profile games such as the Superbowl, it is safe to assume that both teams desire victory. It's the Superbowl after all! One caller to WFAN similarly opined before the Giants/Dallas playoff game that the winner would be "who wants it more." The host correctly responded that it's the playoffs! Everyone wants to win in the playoffs! Secondly, the assumption is that mere desire wins games, not the ability to execute plays.³ Did Plaxico Burress want to win more than Wes Welker? Tom Brady more than Eli Manning? Jason Tuck more than Teddy Bruschi? Tom Coughlin more than Bill Billicheck? Equating after-the-fact results with desire is disrespectful to the effort of both teams.

Finally, I noticed a gender-based clichés in how men and women approach the game. Naturally the men were more into the game, but were clearly focused on the seriousness of each play and how it would effect the outcome. By the end of the game we were joking that according to our conversations were at least seven "biggest plays of the game right here." On the flip side, the hostess had a less-competitive approach to the game, saying more than a few times, "regardless of who wins, this is a really good game." She gets credit for trying, the guys were having none of it, "no, it's about who wins."

Got any more of your own?

1. With few exceptions (the FedEx pigeon, the balloons, Carville/Frist, and the Terminator assaulting the irrationally irritating Fox Football Robot), this year's commercials were particularly depressing This is not surprising considering that Superbowl commercials have collectively declined in quality for several years. This trend started several years ago when the ads became more tongue-in-cheek postmodern self-referential satires of the institution of "Superbowl commercials." Think of the "we just wasted $1,000,000 on this ad" commercials or GoDaddy's commercial which referenced the previous year's commercial. Since advertisers went for snark and clever over funny there has been no going back to the glory days of talking frogs and Bud Bowl.
2. For an amusing example of such a hedge, see the Amazon page for 19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots which includes the following Amazon marketing line, "Buy this book with New York Giants: 2008 Super Bowl Champions by Sports Publishing today!"
3. Another in a long list of football clichés.

All this I can deal with, but then I get the following in the mail:

On the plus side I guess this means I can cash out on social security earlier and join one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country.

Now get off my lawn.

*waves stick*

Today's NYPost reports that the Manhattan DA's office is investigating fraud related to the demolition of the 9/11 damaged Deutsche Bank building. Thus far the demolition process has compounded tragedies from the worst of political bureaucracies to the fire which claimed the lives of two firefighters. WSJ's Daniel Henninger covered the negligence in detail.

But aside from the general risks of government waste, there were some more obvious red flags. As the NYPost reports:

The construction site's manager, Bovis Lend Lease Corp., which was contracted by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. to oversee the entire $150 million project, retained the John Galt Company to demolish the building and remove hazardous materials from it.

The LMDC, which purchased the land and the building for $90 million, was under pressure to get the demolition moving because the building was slated to be replaced with a new structure and remained a bitter eyesore next to Ground Zero.

"They were in a bind and wanted it done," one of the sources said.

"They did not ask too many questions, and that may be why there was room for f- - -ing around."

As it turned out, Galt was little more than a corporate entity utilizing officials from two other companies working on the site: Regional Scaffolding and Hoisting Co., and Safeway Environmental Corp., which had its own questionable histories and little experience.[Emphasis added]

Readers of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged will immediately recognize the name "John Galt" as one of the stories main characters. But since "John Galt" is a normal enough name and not as well known literarilly it would be easier to pass off than "Dumbledore and Associates" or "Hamlet Incorporated." But had anyone literate been paying attention, someone should have at least asked if it was a legitimate company. On the other hand, given the irony of The John Galt Company being instrumental in government waste and special interest pandering, it's possible the founders were just being postmodern.²

In either case, the lesson here is that liberal arts can be rewarding - either in identifying fraud, or apparently, perpetuating it pretentiously.

1. Excluding quiz shows.
2. It's possible they could have been referring to the Scottish novelist, but I find this reference more ironic.

I call one of them, "Brooklyn."

I can't really explain why I get so unnerved in Brooklyn. It could be the multi-million dollar mansions situated in anotherwise aesthetically depressed area, or the overwhelming particular Jewisness of the area one that can only be circularly defined as "Brooklyn."

Still, all fears must be confronted at some point so yesterday I joined my mother and grandparents on a little errand running excursion to Coney and J. The thinking was that while the rest of New York would be shut down - I can't remember crusing down the West Side Highway that quickly in midday - Brooklyn would be running along as usual. I didn't break out into hives or start convulsing, but there were definately some notable Brooklyn highlights:

• I was in Eichlers and overheard a father and mother (different families) with respective children recently engaged (not to each other) were comparing notes on wedding preperations (ketuvah, "backup tenaim," etc). In the course of their conversation, the woman complimented the man's tie. In the spirit of holiday, the man replied, "You like the tie? It's yours. I can get these for $5." and proceeded to take off his tie, puts it on the counter, and gives it to the dumbfounded woman.
• Waiting for my mother and grandmother in one of the Brooklyn dress shops, I noticed that the background music was not only sung by female, but the song was "White Christmas." I can excuse the vocalist because the only men who would enter the store would presumably already be beyond saving. But regarding the song choice, perhaps they consider it Jewish Music after all.
• Someone behind the counter of a pizza shop called over a teenager and asked him if he was new in town. The teen said yes and asked how he knew. The man said it was because he noticed that every time the teen got up from a table someone else came and took it, adding with a smile, "you've got to be more careful around here - don't be so trusting."
• And finally there was this priceless exchange at the same pizza store with an obviously appreciative customer:

  "God bless Christmas"
  "Yeah, only a Yid could pull this off."

You know, I may need to take Brooklyn off the list.

Maybe just for Christmas anyway.