Spiffy new disclaimer

If you're wondering about the new disclaimer at the top of this page, it's meant to be seasonal. I'm getting an increasing number of visitors who came searching for "chametz", and I expect that only to increase as Pesach approaches.

Currently, this site is the number one Google search result for "chametz". Sad but true. And I feel a bit guilty about it. Just a bit, mind you.

So let me again remind chametz-searchers that you can find out more about Passover here and chametz here, and if you're curious why I chose such an utterly irrelevant title, you can read my lame explanation here.

I expect to take down the disclaimer around May 1. Meanwhile, have a happy Purim!

Pre-Purim Jewish Raves

Latest Jewish Raves... Pre-Purim Edition

13/14 0:00 AM Israellycool: Polls open: Adar I or Adar II?
13/14 0:00 AM Bloghead: My Dad and I run the überblog. Keep drooling!
13/14 0:00 AM AJHistory by Menachem Butler: Rabbi Feivel Q. Brockowitz, "Lone Mohel" of Sioux City, 1927-1929
13/14 0:00 AM The Godol Hador: Flotsam-Jetsons Theory
13/14 0:00 AM Hirhurim - Musings: New Book: Introduction to a Prolegomenon to the Preliminary Study of Normative Halakhic Theology
13/14 0:00 AM A Simple Jew: What Am I Talking About?
13/14 0:00 AM Life in the Ghetto: New shul mattirs Eiruv, assurs Tube - how will I get to the shidduch?
13/14 0:00 AM YudelLine: YudelLine - The new Protocols?
13/14 0:00 AM Cross-Currents: Real Hareidim don't use the Internet
13/14 0:00 AM jewishwhistleblower: Confessed scumbag sheltering pedophilic gangsters in rabbinical corruption case... I forget which...
13/14 0:00 AM Blog in Dm: Forgettable new release by Shoeshine Boys
13/14 0:00 AM Rua da Judiaria: Eu não falo o português
13/14 0:00 AM The Town Crier: Waaaaaaaaahhhhhh! Boohoohooo! Sob, sob, sob...
13/14 0:00 AM Smooth Stone: Israel is in even worse danger than last time Israel was in danger
13/14 0:00 AM Chayyei Sarah: SJF, 32, MO blogging journalist, ISO SJM blogger who isn't a jerk and who I haven't already been set up with
13/14 0:00 AM Soccer Dad: Kayin and Heveil - was it terrorism? Mayor O'Malley says no!
13/14 0:00 AM //Comment This Out: C code. C code run. Run, code, run!
13/14 0:00 AM Dov Bear: Ha! Bush sucks! Down with GOP Jews!
13/14 0:00 AM News for Members of the Tribe: HAMAN, AHASUERUS ACCUSED OF ANTI-SEMITISM
13/14 0:00 AM Mis-Nagid: You don't really believe this Torah nonsense, do you?
13/14 0:00 AM Cong Ahavas Yisroel of Kew Gardens Hills: Mazal Tov on Disengagement: Hindenburg and Messerschmidt
13/14 0:00 AM FailedMessiah.com: EXCLUSIVE: Lubavitcher Rebbe Is Still Dead!


(With apologies to all.... Purim headlines I missed are welcome in the comments!)

Tefillin: A mitzvah and an acupuncture technique!

I have much more experience with tefillin (six times a week, 21 years) than acupuncture (never), so I can't evaluate Dr. Steven Schram's research. He is the author of "Tefillin: An Ancient Acupuncture Point Prescription for Mental Clarity" (PDF), a 2002 article for the Journal of Chinese Medicine.

The paper features diagrams of tefillin-laying and explanations of the various acupuncture points they stimulate.

Some excerpts:

The acknowledged purpose of the tefillin is to raise spiritual consciousness of the men who wear it. If we examine where the knots and wrappings are placed from a TCM point of view, it appears that the tefillin and wraps form a potent acupuncture point formula focused on the Governing vessel (Du Mai) and aimed at elevating the spirit and clearing the mind.

I explored the four major variations in wrapping procedures: Chassidic, Sefardim, Sefard, and Ashkenazi. By experimenting on myself with these different wrapping procedures, I was able to map out the significant acupuncture points that are stimulated through the procedure.

If someone handed an acupuncturist the above point formula and asked what was being treated, there is little doubt that mental and shen issues would be a strong part of the pattern. What is surprising is that such a point formula would be found in a non-Chinese procedure that has been continuously practised for many thousands of years. It may be that the originators of the tefillin ritual had some inkling of its special effects, even though they may have lacked the depth and specific knowledge we have today.

Regardless of the belief system behind the procedure, it seems clear that putting on tefillin is a unique way of stimulating a very precise set of acupuncture points that appears designed to clear the mind and harmonise the spirit.

In an article for the layman, "Super Charge Your T'fillin: The Secret's in the Wrap" (PDF), Dr. Schram explains how precisely to wrap your tefillin to best stimulate the acupuncture points:

It is important to understand that acupuncture points have very specific locations, and you must be exactly on the point for it to be stimulated. A quarter inch off the position results in missing that point. This means that you must remain aware of where you wrap the retzuah and you must do it carefully. To get the greatest benefit, (because the effects of point stimulation are cumulative), you should wrap exactly the same way every time you don T'fillin.

Donning T'fillin remains a great spiritual mitzvah based on a Torah commandment going back over 3300 years. Because the information presented in this paper is in full accordance with the various Halachic and traditional guidelines, there should be no barrier to the inclusion and application of this knowledge to your ritual use of T'fillin. By stimulating the acupuncture points that already lie along the path of the retzuah, you can bring about a heightened mental clarity to your prayers. The result of doing this can only enhance your mental and spiritual experience, allowing you to fulfill the Mitzvah to its highest degree.

To think all these years I've been receiving daily acupressure treatment without knowing it!

Gluckschmerz

I've learned a new word from Rich Lowry, who writes about how certain left-wingers have been coping with the recent spate of good news from the Middle East:

Schadenfreude has faded into its happiness-hating opposite, gluckschmerz. Liberal journalist Kurt Andersen has written in New York magazine of the guilty "pleasure liberals took in bad news from Iraq, which seemed sure to hurt the administration." According to Andersen, the successful Iraqi elections changed the mood. For Bush critics, this inspiring event was "unexpectedly unsettling," since they so "hat[ed] the idea of a victory presided over by the Bush team."

Gluckschmerz. Lightly rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? Words like that almost make German seem human. (If only my keyboard had an umlaut.)

Mark Twain, however, thought the German language was quite awful, as he demonstrates with his typical dry humor.

Laughing at the misfortunes of German speakers, though, would clearly be schadenfreude.


Update: Found an umlaut! Glückschmerz. Isn't that better? According to Wikipedia, without the umlaut the word should be spelled Glueckschmerz.

I'm starting to wonder if it's a real word, though. Google finds only a handful of hits for any of the spellings, none of them on German-language pages. Sounds fishy.

The Great Firewall of China

This week's episode of the BBC World Service's technology program, Go Digital, reports on the state of the Internet in China. Bloggers are burgeoning - so long as they avoid politics.

The central government actively censors content and prosecutes violators, while blocking unacceptable sites from outside China - including, among many, Blogspot. On the plus side, for the first time the government has a window into events in peripheral regions. A poor flow of information about the country to the government is one of those minor drawbacks of totalitarianism....

So if you're reading this in China, better watch your back!

The show can be accessed on video or audio.

Our neighbors to the north

It's been disconcerting lately to see the world press focusing on internal events in Lebanon and its relationship with Syria, with Israel hardly meriting a mention. I thought we were supposed to be the center of world attention! Who said they could generate news without us?

You think Daf Yomi is fast-paced?

Daf Yomi may be relatively new, but the idea of regularly reviewing a major Jewish work on a fixed cycle dates back at least 450 years to the publication of the Shulchan Aruch. In his introduction, Rav Yosef Karo writes that he has divided the text into thirty sections to facilitate regular review. By reviewing one section a day, one can complete all of halacha once a month.

I've never seen a modern edition of Shulchan Aruch with those divisions, and I'm curious to know what happened to them. Even without the Rama and later commentators, 30 days seems lightning fast to review the Shulchan Aruch, even for someone (unlike me) who's studied it all before.

The modern Halacha Yomis cycle takes four years, and that's just for Orach Chayim, the first of the four volumes of Shulchan Aruch. To get through it in a month one would have to cover not three halachot a day, but 144! And that's before even opening Yoreh Deah.

Women and communal Torah reading - III

(Previous posts on this topic can be found below: here, here, and here.)

Reflections and reactions

I've summarized the arguments and the discussion. Now it's my turn.

Perhaps surprisingly, R' Henkin and R' Sperber differ little in their halachic analyses. R' Henkin rejects R' Sperber's application of kevod habriot, but that is not essential to the case for the permissibility of women's aliyot. R' Henkin tacitly accepts that case - perhaps he even originated it - and certainly does not rule that aliyot for women are forbidden by halacha.

I see two main disagreements between them, one about the wisdom of such a move, and the other about halachic methodology. (To some extent here, I'm putting words into their mouths. I hope they don't mind.)


Is it the right thing to do?
R' Sperber argues that too many Orthodox women today are frustrated by the limitations on their role in communal ritual, in particular by the gap between that restricted role and their advanced levels of education in Jewish as well as secular studies. Some leave Orthodoxy entirely, either for other movements or for nonobservance. Others (from my personal observation) harbor a bitter resentment against the "Orthodox establishment", or the "men who decide the halacha", or whatever derisory term they prefer. They may believe that halacha is being manipulated to suppress women's rights. Many stop going to shul since they find it makes them angry. I can only imagine how many of them pass on such attitudes to their children.

In such a setting, R' Sperber argues, rabbis and communities must go out of their way to accommodate the needs of such women to the maximum extent allowed by halacha.

R' Henkin, meanwhile, may well be fully aware of the issues motivating R' Sperber, and sympathetic to accommodating them. He is, however, concerned about the social consequences of women's aliyot, both for communities which adopt them and for the broader Orthodox community. Will they be accepted as Orthodox communities, and their members as Orthodox Jews? There may be a handful of modern Orthodox intellectuals and activists who read The Edah Journal and understand the halachic case for women's aliyot, but the Orthodox masses, however halachically literate, do not.

I can see the guests at the Shabbat table: "You give women aliyot? I see.... But you do still keep kosher, right? Can you pass me the green salad and some tap water please? No, no cholent - another slice of challah please! Oh, you wouldn't happen to have disposable plates I could use?"

Jewish practice is as much about cultural norms as halachic theory. This is especially true regarding the status of women. How many Orthodox women hold a zimun when they bench in a group, even though halacha clearly permits it? How many Orthodox women think (wrongly) they're not allowed to make kiddush even for themselves, let alone for their families? To do otherwise goes against a lifetime of upbringing, halacha or no halacha.

Were there no non-Orthodox movements bearing the banner of halachic flexibility, if not irrelevancy, it might not matter what practices were adopted by an odd Orthodox community. In the existing social context, though, such a community risks being viewed as having crossed the line to join the non-Orthodox. Whatever the actual halacha may be.


Must we permit the permissible?
Regarding halachic methodology, R' Sperber argues that what halacha permits is ipso facto permissible. Rabbis, at least today, have no authority to forbid the permissible. Furthermore, where there are benefits to society from a permissible practice, it should be actively supported. Certainly, being Orthodox means being true to the halacha, no more and no less. There are no other legitimate criteria.

Despite his awareness of the distinctions betwen a posek and a talmid chacham, R' Sperber had no reluctance at the Yedidya event to give psak, including specific halachic guidelines on how to implement women's aliyot or women's prayer groups. I can only conclude that he sees halacha as determined solely by the sources, uncontaminated by the "public policy" considerations a posek may incorporate.

R' Henkin, however, feels that not everything permitted by halacha should necessarily be implemented. There is such a thing as "halacha v'ein morin kein" - it is the halacha, but we don't rule that way in public. As a posek, his role is not just to analyze the halachic facts, but to assess the effects of a ruling on society.

To a certain extent, Orthodoxy is defined not just by the halacha, but also by the great reluctance to change Jewish rituals. Thus, prudence is called for in implementing controversial changes to deeply-entrenched rituals. Innovation is not a good in its own right. It must yield benefits at least as great as its risk. Hence he is willing to show more flexibility in a private setting than in synagogue services. Aliyot for women may not be forbidden, but neither are they wise, and therefore they should remain no more than an interesting chapter in theoretical halacha.


Orthodox or not?
Unlike when the original essays were published in 2001, R' Henkin's contention that a congregation adopting aliyot for women will not be considered Orthodox is no longer a theoretical proposition. Kehillat Shira Hadasha has been around for a couple of years now. Whether or not it is considered Orthodox is an empirical question - and probably a very subjective one. Many prominent community members work in Jewish education, and I understand they have not encountered sanctions due to their involvement in the controversial congregation.

It may yet be too soon to assess R' Henkin's assertion conclusively. I'd be curious to hear from those in and around the Shira Hadasha community, though. Is it possible to adopt such unconventional practices without being rejected by the mainstream Orthodox community?


Continued ambivalence
Personally, I admit to continued ambivalence about this. On the one hand, I have a deep sense of the distress facing many professional, educated, modern Orthodox women (my wife included). Halacha is a system of law; why should we be deterred from acting in ways it permits - especially in the face of genuine, sincere motivations? (That's why, for example, my wife makes kiddush at Friday night dinner; according to the Aruch Hashulchan, it's even preferable in some circumstances.)

Yet, the conservative (small-c) in me is skeptical of deliberate social change. The Law of Unintended Consequences is real. Can such a community maintain its fidelity to halacha over time, without succumbing to the temptations of constant reinterpretation? Will women continue to feel frustrated by their exclusion from rituals no amount of halachic argumentation can allow, such as leading Mussaf or Hallel? Will they discover, as many men do, that leading the services or receiving an aliyah is not necessarily a spiritual experience, and often far from it?

Maybe they'd be better off learning Daf Yomi?


Update (Mar. 6): The Forward reported on the phenomenon in Sept. 2002, including reactions from within the modern Orthodox community. The article apparently preceded R' Sperber's endorsement of the practice.

Update (Mar. 8): Miriam of Bloghead calls on congregations to just do it; the comments on that post are quite feisty. Gil from Hirhurim summarizes the problems with R' Sperber's position, and notes that the Yedidya panel did not include anyone who unequivocally opposes aliyot for women. In this comment, Shira (Leibowitz) Schmidt reports that "A serious discussion refuting Rabbis Henkin, Shapiro and Sperber was written by Professor Eliav Shochetman and will appear in the coming issue of the Torah journal Sinai (Hebrew, published by Mossad Harav Kook)."

I don't currently plan to address this topic further unless there are new developments.


(The next post on this topic can be found here.)

Daf Yomi: The enduring spirit of the Jewish people!

I have both great respect - and a dose of jealousy - for anyone who has finished the Daf Yomi cycle, and substantial skepticism as to the practical value for most participants of learning Talmud by drinking from a fire hose. But, of all the current wave of Daf Yomi adulation, the worst was dished out this morning by the editorialists of the Jerusalem Post, of all people:

The next step would be to see the growth of daf yomi, or some form of similarly dedicated Talmud study, spread outside of traditional Orthodox circles, and into the non-Orthodox streams of Judaism.

In recent years, there has been a growing realization among Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist leaders, and even Jewish educators without specific affiliation, that exposing their constituents directly to the study of Judaism's fundamental texts is essential to elevating their basic Jewish literacy. Talmudic study in some form or another is no less essential to Jewish cultural life than synagogue attendance, no matter at what level of Jewish observance.

Non-Orthodox Jewish educational institutions should take the daf yomi example as an inspiration for their own efforts to make the study of Jewish texts more accessible and inspirational to a broader audience. Perhaps it should also motivate them to lend greater support to such projects as the Steinsaltz English translation of the Talmud, which was expressly designed to reach beyond the Orthodox world, and still awaits completion.

Are they serious? Too many Orthodox Jews in the diaspora can barely read a page of Hebrew, let alone Talmud. What value can there possibly be to Talmud study for audiences who are nearly ignorant about the Chumash?

All Jews should have some exposure to Talmud, as a basic matter of cultural literacy. It is one of our founding texts. But regular Talmud study for the Jewish masses must surely take a back seat to more fundamental study.

"A daf is the instrument of our survival in today's stormy seas," said Rabbi Shapiro a century ago. And the survival of daf yomi itself, through each unbroken cycle, testifies to the enduring spirit of the Jewish people.

The Jewish spirit is about Daf Yomi? Not Shabbat or prayer? Not Chumash or Rambam? Get a grip, folks.

Women and communal Torah reading - II

(Previous posts on this topic can be found immediately below, here and here.)

The Discussion at Yedidya

This was my first visit to Kehillat Yedidya in Jerusalem, probably easiest to describe as a liberal Orthodox congregation. Yedidya, some 25 years old, is known for its pioneering role in expanding the participation of women, within the framework of halacha. In their words, for example, "Many years ago, after much halakhic debate, Yedidya decided to permit women to read from the Torah during a women's Torah reading and Bat Mitzvahs, to allow women to read the megillot during holiday services and to encourage women to offer sermons and Torah discussions on Shabbat and holidays."

Since the recent establishment of Kehillat Shira Hadasha, with aliyot and Torah reading by women in the regular minyan based on Mendel Shapiro's arguments, Yedidya has, perhaps for the first time, not been the envelope-pushers in the Orthodox community. This was, I gather, part of the motivation for the event last Motza'ei Shabbat: to help the congregation decide whether to adopt these latest innovations. The concern was expressed that they wished to remain firmly within the Orthodox community, to maintain their standing and influence in the Orthodox world, rather than risk being rejected and marginalized as beyond the limits of Orthodoxy.

This was also my first opportunity to hear either Rabbi Henkin or Rabbi Sperber speak. It was a privilege and a pleasure. They addressed the issues directly, without invective or rhetoric. The rabbis clearly had great respect for each other, and the entire discussion was conducted with dignity.

I took only sparse notes, so most of what I write here is reconstructed from memory. I hope I have faithfully summarized the views expressed. Some of the points I mention may have been stated in response to audience questions after the initial presentations.

The evening was videotaped, and I assume it is possible to obtain a copy from Kehillat Yedidya.

Rabbi Sperber spoke first (after the moderator's introduction), in the clear, measured tones of a fluent lecturer. He mostly recapped the arguments from his essay; I'd mostly like to pick out some points I don't believe he has addressed in writing.

• He objected to R' Henkin's assertion that a community adopting women's aliyot would not be considered Orthodox; I don't recall the precise objection, but it was presumably along the lines that the only legitimate criterion for Orthodoxy is fidelity to halacha.
  
  
• R' Sperber suggested that the difference between a posek (halachic decisor) and a talmid chacham (scholar) is that, as a scholar, he is interested in the historical development of halacha, not just its current state. He noted that archeological evidence from ancient Greece indicates that women had significant roles in the leadership of synagogues, contrary to the Rambam's ruling (barring women from most positions of communal leadership). His point was that the role of women in Jewish society has undergone many shifts, and should be seen in a societal context rather than as a fixed element.
  
  
• The all-important baraita reads: "Everyone can be counted towards the seven, even a child and even a woman, but the sages said a woman should not read the Torah because of the dignity of the congregation." There are two layers here, one permitting women's participation in principle and one rejecting it in practice. This indicates that originally, a woman could be called to the Torah, and perhaps this was even the practice, until the sages decided it was inappropriate. Certainly, women's participation is not intrinsically invalid; its legitimacy is conditional on a social consideration.
  
  
• R' Sperber noted that, everywhere it appears in the Talmud, the phrase "but the sages said..." is an advisory statement, not a statement of halacha. (I can't remember if he attributed this insight to R' Henkin; in any case, R' Henkin confirmed it and extended it to similar language in Rambam.) Thus, while the sages advised that women not read the Torah in public out of a concern for communal dignity, they did not forbid such behavior by a binding enactment. It does not even rise to the level of a takana derabbanan.
  
  
• Furthermore, as the reason for the sages' enactment (or advice) is given, and as that reason (to avoid embarrassing the illiterate men) does not apply to our contemporary communities, the restriction on women's aliyot should no longer be applicable either.
  
  
• Human dignity (kevod habriot) can at times override even a Torah-level obligation. In this case the severe frustration and distress felt by many women due to their exclusion from the synagogue ritual should surely take precedence over what is at most a rabbinic enactment, probably only rabbinic advice.
  
  
• Many of these women are driven by their sense of exclusion into the arms of non-halachic streams of Judaism. We would be better served to accommodate their needs, especially as halacha permits it.
  
  
• Regarding the reluctance to change established practice, he emphasized a statement by R' Kook, also cited in his essay: "There is no need for concern about permitting something that is permissible according to the law of the Torah, even if in practice there was no previous custom to permit it."
  
  
• Aside from the Torah reading, he said women should be allowed to lead the congregation in any parts of the service which do not require a sheliach tzibur, in which the leader's function is only to set the pace of the prayers and focus communal attention, not to fulfill a halachic obligation. This would include, for example, pesukei d'zimra and kabbalat Shabbat.
  
  
• He emphasized repeatedly that such practices must not be introduced in such a way as to cause division or antagonism within a community. This generally means a congregation must be established with the express purpose of adopting such practices, rather than introducing them into an existing congregation.
  
  
• Establishing a new congregation in an existing town is not a problem, even if other congregations in town would object to such practices, as there are already diverse congregations in most communities which follow different forms of ritual.
  

Rabbi Henkin followed. Remaining seated at the desk, he spoke more briefly, mostly in rapid verbal bursts which were at times hard to follow. He apologized for being tired and seemed to have some sort of physical tic or habit. He shifted between cradling his cheeks between his hands and swaying his head back and forth past the microphone, neither of which enhanced his verbal clarity. Some of his points:

• He noted that he is in the odd position of disagreeing with his own statements, as this entire discussion traces back to an insight of his. It was he who pointed out to Mendel Shapiro that the issue of kevod hatzibbur should be inapplicable now that we have a single ba'al kri'ah, and the oleh only makes the brachot. Yet he still maintains that aliyot for women should not be adopted.
  
  
• R' Sperber is applying the concept of kevod habriot, human dignity, to realms to which it does not legitimately apply, much as the Israeli Supreme Court has done in its legislative interpretation. He is overreaching.
  
  
• His statement that a community which adopts aliyot for women will not be considered Orthodox was an observation about social realities, not necessarily an expression of his personal preferences. It is not that he believes such a community should not be considered Orthodox, just that in fact it will have removed itself from the Orthodox community.
  
  
• He rejected the suggestion that a posek is not interested in history; on the contrary. The difference between a posek and a talmid chacham, in his view, is that a posek must be concerned not just with the halachic sources, but also with the timing of a decision and its acceptability in society. He is certainly not averse to accommodating changes in the status of women where it seems appropriate, such as the saying of kaddish and sheva berachot.
  
  
• One point which gives him pause as a posek is that we have no evidence that women have ever received aliyot, even though there have been circumstances which would be thought to warrant them. The Maharam MeRuttenburg famously ruled that in a town with only cohanim, a cohen should be given the first two aliyot, with the remainder given to women. This is based on the argument that the impugning of a cohen's reputation is more severe than kevod hatzibbur. Yet, though there have been numerous cases in history of towns with only cohanim, we have no record of women being given aliyot. This may indicate that there are other reasons to refrain from such practices.
  
  
• R' Henkin mentioned an insight which came to him in recent weeks regarding women's obligation in hearing the Megilla. (I hope I understood him correctly.) While most rishonim (Rashi, Rambam) rule like the Gemara that men and women are equally obligated, and thus women can read the Megilla for men, the Behag rules that women have a lesser obligation and cannot read for men. Some (I missed who) have suggested that women were not allowed to read the Megilla for men because they were not allowed to read the Torah for men; allowing them to read the Megilla would be confusing and might lead to a situation where they read the Torah too.
  
  The difficulty with this is that the Purim story took place at least 20 years before the time of Ezra, who established our current practice of public Torah readings. So how could women be restricted from reading the Megilla based on the rules for Torah reading, when the Torah reading had yet to be enacted?
  
  R' Henkin suggested that this may indicate that the restriction on women reading the Torah may date back to an even earlier tradition of public Torah reading, from the time of the First Temple - and that even then women were barred from reading in public. The Megilla reading was then based on this practice.
  
  If this is so, he said, this offers a rare glimpse into the early origins of a rabbinic enactment generally assumed to be of much later provenance. It may imply that the restriction on women's aliyot is far more ancient than usually assumed.

Both rabbis rejected the suggestion that women's aliyot may be subject to kol isha, the bar on women's singing in the presence of men, though R' Henkin noted that a minority halachic opinion would apply kol isha to such circumstances.

The moderator made reference to a satire on halachic innovation making its rounds on the Internet. R' Henkin identified it as having appeared on Cross-Currents. So it seems safe to conclude that he is a blog reader!

That's enough for now. I hope to follow up again with some personal reflections.


(The next post on this topic can be found here.)