From Uman to Manhattan - Going from the Sefer to the City

Sorry for not being more active recently. As my readers know, I am soon joining the world of "Biglaw". You also know that I am leaving for Uman today.

B"H I have received many many names from Jews (and even a Ben Noach) all over the world in the comments of my previous post and by e-mail. IY"H, BL"N, I will have you all in mind when I say the Tikun Klali and give tzedaka by Rebbe Nachman's tziyon, and by the other kivrei Tzadikim as well. I will not be able to take any more names as I will be pretty much incommunicado till I get back next Sunday.

I just received word last last week that I will be starting my new job the day after I return from Uman. This is much earlier than I was expecting. It's amazing how things work out together like that. IY"H this Rosh Hashana process should prepare me for the battle ahead.

Over Shabbos, I saw a Toldos Yaakov Yosef on Parshas Vayelech which which referred to something he said in Parshas Shoftim. He spoke so so clearly about this change that I'm about to embark on. While the job is a huge bracha, it is also contains overwhelming challenges. And this piece, which I have captioned on the right side of this post, offers amazing guidance and something for me to think about as I leave my current "learning vacation" and embark on my commute to, and work-life in, New York City.

He speaks on the pasuk in Parshas Shoftim, Devarim 20:2, which says, "And it will be that when you come close to the war, the Kohain will approach and speak to the nation." (captioned on the right)

I'll adapt the paragraph from the Toldos on that pasuk (captioned) into English: "The Torah says 'And it will be that when you come close...' The Sifri and Rashi (which brings the Sifri) explain that 'come close' refers to when the Jewish people come close to going out from the border ("s'far") of our enemies. This refers to when a person comes close to going out from the sefer [The word for border, s'far, has the same shoresh as the word for Torah book, sefer], and into the city to do business. Immediately, it is a war with the yetzer hara which tries to seduce a person into הסתכלות נשים, speaking gossip, cynicism, and the like. Therefore, one may not trust in the fact that he has been involved in learning Torah until now by [erroneously] thinking that the yetzer hara will not bother him. Instead, [the verse continues] 'the Kohain will approach and speak to the nation.'"

Anyone who goes to work has many challenges if he wants to try and keep his mind in kedusha. It's tough even for a person who has learned much better and longer than I have. In my case, I will even have to walk through (or near) Times Square every day from the train to my office. Sometimes avoiding הסתכלות נשים and the rest of it is so hard that it is easy to think it it is just better to give up. The task is fearsome and the tendency is just to want to stop fighting it and become misgashem like the surrounding, superficial world.

With this Toldos in mind, I went to look at how the psukim continue (also captioned above after the text of the Toldos). What is the chizuk that the Kohain gives the person who's leaving his sefer to go off on the Long Island Rail Road and walk through Manhattan? What does such a person need to keep in mind during that process?

The psukim (Devarim 20:3-4) continue with the Kohain's message: "And he says to them, 'Hear Israel: You are approaching today to make war on your enemy [the yetzer hara]. Don't become weak-hearted. Don't be afraid, don't panic, and don't be terrified of them because Hashem your G-d is going in front of you to fight for you with your enemies to save you."

As the Gemara in Kiddushin 30b says, if Hashem would not help us, we would not be able to beat our yetzer hara on our own ("ואלמלא הקב"ה עוזרו אין יכול לו")!

This is such amazing chizuk. I made the psukim, the Rashi, and the text of the Toldos itself, into a card. (Click the image to enlarge and print if you wish.) IY"H, when I get back from Uman I want to laminate it so I can read it before I get on the train every day, at least at the beginning, to remind myself to always ask Hashem to help me fight the big battle for me.

IY"H, we should all be zoche to renew our battle against the yetzer hara throughout the day every day, and we should be zoche to win in that battle and win on the Yom Hadin this week.

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox or here to subscribe in Google Reader.

Please donate to my son's cheder by going to minivanraffle.org to buy a raffle ticket. The drawing for a new minivan, car, or $20,000 cash will be IY"H Chanukah time. $100 for 1 ticket. $360 for 5. Where the form says "Referred by," please write "Dixie Yid." Tizku l'mitzvos!

My Child Became a Tortfeasor This Morning!

When my 5 year old son secretly snuck into our bed during the night despite the fact that we told him he had to stay in his own bed, I could not be liable for this little undiscovered tresspassor's transgression because of the attractive nuisance doctrine.

Yes, I admit it, it's hard to get my brain out of bar exam mode.

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox or here to subscribe in Google Reader.

Please donate to my son's cheder by going to minivanraffle.org to buy a raffle ticket. The drawing for a new minivan, car, or $20,000 cash will be IY"H Chanukah time. $100 for 1 ticket. $360 for 5. Where the form says "Referred by," please write "Dixie Yid." Tizku l'mitzvos!

It's Done!!!!!!

Praise the L-rd!

Picture courtesy of lifewithpaul. Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox or here to subscribe in Google Reader.

Please donate to my son's cheder by going to minivanraffle.org to buy a raffle ticket. The drawing for a new minivan, car, or $20,000 cash will be IY"H Chanukah time. $100 for 1 ticket. $360 for 5. Where the form says "Referred by," please write "Dixie Yid." Tizku l'mitzvos!

Am I Wrong to Join the Rat Race?

A particular piece from the Me'or Einayim in Parshas Ve'eschanan struck me hard this past Shabbos. This is particularly so because I'm working hard studying for the bar exam now (which I'm taking tomorrow and the next day). The piece also struck me because I'm planning on earning my "gold and silver" working very long hours at the job I'm IY"H starting in November. Here's a summary/translation of the relevant parts from the middle of the first piece in Ve'eschanan:

The root of all of the desires, pleasures, and ways of this world are "gold" and "silver." Money is the means through which one can attain all of the desires and pleasures of this world. But their source in the upper world are Ahava (love of Hashem, in the case of silver) and Yirah (fear of Hashem, in the case of gold). [Reb Nachum then proves this with various verses] Since gold and silver are rooted in Ahavas Hashem and Yiras Hashem, the verse "Mine is the silver and mine is the gold," (Chagai 2:8) applies to it. And "mine = for my sake." Meaning that silver (love, desires) and gold (fear and anxiety) are meant as means to come to love of Hashem and Yiras Hashem.

When man desires gold and silver, runs after it day and night wihtout rest, chases after his livelihood, and amasses wealth, he falls into the trap of the yetzer hara. This in turn results in one being cut off continually from the Creator of the world. This is a trap laid out before all of the living. In fact, most people in the world come to sin by cutting into others' livelihood, hurting others financially, stealing, and the like. Such people do not believe in the fact that everyone has only what Hashem desires them to have and has absolutely nothing from anyone else (Yuma 38b). This is why the 600,000 letters of the Torah (which correspond to the 600,000 souls of the Jewish people) cannot touch one another in a Sefer Torah; because even though the Torah is one unit, each letter (and Jewish soul) is separate and one may not touch that which is designated for another person. (Ibid.)

If one is smart and knows and believes this (that all of the desires and fears of this world are meant as means to assist one in drawing himself close to the root of those desires and fears, Ahavas Hashem and Yiras Hashem), then he would not run after his livelihood day and night. And as Shlomo Hamelech (source?) said, "אם לא היה האדם רודף אחר פרנסתו, היה פרנסתו רודפת אחריו." "If one would not chase after his livelihood, his livelihood would run after him."

It is the nature of things on a lower level to run after things on a higher level to be nullified into them and elevated through them. The majority of the world who run after the physical world, and are cut off from Hashem, place themselves on a lower level than the physical things of this world, which are rooted in the highest levels of Ahava and Yirah. Therefore, they run after gold, silver, and livelihood all of the time because those things exist on a higher level than them.

But a Jewish soul that is connected to the Creator of the world and runs after Ahavas Hashem and Yiras Hashem directly (as opposed to running after making a living, gold, and silver, etc.) is thereby connected to the ultimate source. Such a person is therefore on a higher level than all of the gold and silver which are less connected to the Divine source than this Jew is because they are a more constricted (lower) form of that light. This is why this person's livelihood runs after him; because he is on a higher level than it is.

If a person does as he should do, as we mentioned above, the livelihood which is designated to him will run after him so that it can be elevated through him to its root from which it came...

I know that later in the fall, IY"H, I'll be working very long hours. This sounds like I'm falling right into the yetzer hara's trap. On the other hand, since I cannot think of any alternative right now which wouldn't constiute a dereliction of my duties as a husband, father and Jew, how could I not do what I'm planning to do?

I think at my current level of lack of connectedness to Hashem, if I tried to go back to not working too hard, it would not work in any case. My wife pointed out an analogy to what is says in Eruvin 13b, that when one runs after gedula, gedula runs away, but if one runs away from gedula, gedula persues him. She correctly pointed out that when one runs away from greatness, but is looking over his shoulder, hoping greatness will follow, he is still essentially running after it. Here too, if I did not pursue a livelihood fully, hoping that it would chase after me, I would essentially still be running after it and would certainly not merit Shlomo Hamelech's (?) promise!

I'm not sure there are any real answers here. The best I can figure it, if I can remind myself in tiny hisbodedus'n through each day that everything I'm running after are rooted in Elokus and if I ask Hashem constantly to help me elevate the hidden Elokus in everything I'm involved in to its source, then maybe I'll increase my connecttion to Hashem. And if do that, maybe in a few years some non-hishtadlus-intensive parnasa will just come knocking at my door, just begging me to leave the rat race behind and spend a lot more time on Avodas Hashem... Who knows...

Picture courtesy of istockphoto. Please donate to my son's cheder by going to minivanraffle.org to buy a raffle ticket. The drawing for a new minivan, car, or $20,000 cash will be IY"H Chanukah time. $100 for 1 ticket. $360 for 5. Where the form says "Referred by," please write "Dixie Yid." Tizku l'mitzvos! Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox or here to subscribe in Google Reader.

I Graduated!

Three and a half years and 1,463 posts ago, when I put up my first couple of posts, I was in the middle of the winter break after my first semester of (evening) law school.

And now I'm happy to say that this past Sunday, I graduated! It has been a long four years, and I am very grateful to Hashem and my whole family for making this project a successful one.

The next step is starting my BarBri bar exam preparation beginning Monday morning, followed by the bar exam, and the rest of the process for getting admitted to the Bar as an attorney.

May Hashem grant me the wisdom to use this path to fulfill His will.

Picture courtesy of Mrs. Yid. Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox or here to subscribe in Google Reader.

Resolving the Conflict Between Jewish and Secular Estate Law

The Wills, Trusts, and Estates Law Professor blog just posted an law student's article on the topic of how to do an estate plan which does not violate halacha.

There are seforim, rabbinic websites, and journal articles in the Jewish world that discuss this topic and offer the solution presented in this article. But there are no secular legal sources that can be used as a resource for lawyers to assist their observant Jewish clients with this matter. There are also no articles which extensively address the issue of how the various solutions to the conflict between Jewish and secular estate law interface with secular law.

The Wills, Trusts, & Estates Prof blog post is HERE.

The pdf of the journal article, in the Hofstra Law Review, is HERE.

Picture courtesy of Beacon Hill Legal. Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox or here to subscribe in Google Reader.

"Every Day is a Test" in BigLaw and in Life

Today is the first day of my summer associateship in "BigLaw." I will not be at the law firm at which I usually work for the next two and a half months. There is one particular aspect of the process of working toward getting a job in "BigLaw" that I think I really ought to incorporate into my approach to avodas Hashem.

Because I have recognized that every contact with the law firms to which I have applied is judged strictly, I have come to look at every phone call, every meeting, every e-mail, every letter and every social event (and doing quality work even more so) as a test. Hiring partners must choose between a multitude of applicants for these positions so I think their attitude is, "If I have a choice between two applicants, and one made a silly typo in an e-mail, said something a bit awkward at his interview, or had a small stain on his jacket, showing that he is not even detail oriented when attempting to obtain a high-paying job, why should I entrust him with our highly billed clients?"

I have, therefore, reviewed and customized every single résumé and cover letter that I sent out, edited and re-edited every e-mail or letter that I sent to a firm and tried to be cognizant of the fact that these items were the medium by which I would be judged by the members of firm recruiting departments and hiring partners. At many of my call-back interviews at the firms' offices this past Fall, I was taken to lunch by two younger associates at various expensive kosher restaurants in Midtown. I know that each one of them had to fill out an evaluation form about me afterward with their impressions about how I "performed" at lunch.

In fact, especially in this economy, this whole summer will be one big nine week "interview" where every day I will be judged and reviewed on everything from my legal memo writing abilities to my social skills. It will be an exercise in constant vigilance to ensure that everything that I say, do and wear will be "just right."

Every day in Modim, we thank Hashem "ועל נסיך שבכל יום עמנו," for His everyday miracles. Of course we thank Hashem for His open miracles whereby it is revealed that he has saved the Jewish people from danger, especially after last week's yeshua when Hashem used the FBI's dedication to save us. But this tefillah teaches that we also thank Hashem for the everyday miracles when he saves us and we do not even know about it.

But, as Rav Shwartz points out in Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh, Vol. 5, in about the 30th Ma'amar of the "Pirkei Avodah u"Machshava" section, there are three root meanings of the word "נס." One of them is "test." Thus, when we thank Hashem "ועל נסיך שבכל יום עמנו," we are also thanking Him for the fact that he "tests" us every day. As the author of that sefer points out, everything is a test.

I think that I have mostly internalized the knowledge that "everything is a test" when it comes to trying to get, and IY"H eventually keep, a job in "BigLaw." The real test is to use the methods generally outlined in Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh seforim to turn the intellectual knowledge that every part of life is a test in avodas Hashem

Picture courtesy of rd.com. Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox or here to subscribe in Google Reader.

Using My Gemara Kop to Get Out of a Cell Phone Ticket

Ever since I read New York's anti-cell-phone-while-driving law, I had a hankering to get pulled over so that I could put my law-school-acquired statutory construction skills to good use. For good measure, I xeroxed a copy of the mobile phone statute and kept it with me in the car just in case.

My wish came true about a month ago. I was holding the phone in my hand. It was on the "speaker phone" setting and I was holding it an inch or two below my chin. I was pulled over by a nice Nassau County police officer. After surrendering my license and proof of insurance, he told me that he was going to give me a ticket for talking on the cell phone. I asking him if, since he'd already decided to give me the ticket anyway, I could explain to him why I thought I didn't violate the statute. Out of a sense of amusement, I think, he gave me the go-ahead.

So I whipped out the copy of the New York VTL (Vehicle and Traffic Law), § 1225-c that I had prepared for just such a moment and I showed him the pertinent parts of the statute that you can read here:

§ 1225-c. Use of mobile telephones.
1. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall mean:
...
(c) "Using" shall mean holding a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user's ear.
...
(f) "Engage in a call" shall mean talking into or listening on a hand-held mobile telephone, but shall not include holding a mobile telephone to activate, deactivate or initiate a function of such telephone.
(g) "Immediate proximity" shall mean that distance as permits the operator of a mobile telephone to hear telecommunications transmitted over such mobile telephone, but shall not require physical contact with such operator's ear.
2.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway while using a mobile telephone to engage in a call while such vehicle is in motion...

At first, he argued, "Were you using a hands-free device or not?!" I retorted that the statute does not require someone to use a hands-free device. Rather, in order to violate 2(a), the actual prohibition in the statute, two elements must be present for the purposes of my case. You have to be (1) "using" a mobile phone and (2) "engag[ing] in a call." Subsection 1 of the statute defines "using" as "holding a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user's ear." And it defines "engage" as "talking into or listening on a hand-held mobile telephone."

In my case, while the second element may have been present since I was talking to Dixie Dad on the phone, the first element was absent. The phone was not "to, or in the immediate proximity of, [my] ear." It was in the vicinity of my chin, but not my ear! One cannot violate a criminal statute unless all elements of the violation are present and since the first element was absent in my situation, I didn't violate the statute!

The officer responded that what I was saying wasn't true. It didn't mean that it had to be by my ear. It just meant that I was in violation merely by holding the phone. In the alternative, he argued that the phone's position below my chin should also be considered "in the vicinity of" my ear.

I responded that I didn't think that could be true. If the legislature wanted to prohibit all calls where the cell phone is in one's hand, it could have left out the definition of "using" in subsection 1, thus leaving only the definition of "engage in a call" as the only operative part of the statute. Then, the mere act of being on a phone call while driving would have been prohibited. Alternatively, the legislature could have defined "using" as "holding the phone in the user's hand" without any reference to proximity to the ear. Obviously, since they inserted the language about "proximity to the ear," they intended only to prohibit calls where the phone is right by the driver's ear. Not only that, but the statute requires the phone to be in the immediate proximity of the ear, and not merely in the "proximity" of the ear, thus requiring that the phone actually be extremely close to (even if not touching) the ear. Perhaps they even inserted this language specifically to indicate that they were permitting the use of cell phones with the "speaker phone" feature, like mine!

The officer vehemently disagreed with me but nevertheless said that he would not give me the ticket. (!!!) I think he realized that I might take this to trial and didn't want to be cross-examined by this over-eager, Perry-Mason-Wanna-Be law student. Woo hoo!

Incidentally, my nine year old daughter made the policy argument that since the reason for the statute is to prevent distracted driving, that perhaps I shouldn't even use the speaker phone while driving in the spirit of the reason for the statute, which is probably the biggest question on my statutory construction argument. "Tamim Tihiye im Hashem Elokecha." "Be simple with the L-rd your G-d" (Deuteronomy 18:13).

Do any lawyers, law students, Lamdanim, Gemara Coppers or any others want to argue with my statutory interpretation? Please comment. :-)

-Dixie Yid

(Picture courtesy of City of La Palma)

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox or here to subscribe in Google Reader.

How Did Driving Yishmael Out Effectively Disinherit Him?

I have a Jewish inheritance law question. In Breishis 21:10, in the 5th aliya of Parshas Vayeira, the pasuk says, "וַתֹּאמֶר, לְאַבְרָהָם, גָּרֵשׁ הָאָמָה הַזֹּאת, וְאֶת-בְּנָהּ: כִּי לֹא יִירַשׁ בֶּן-הָאָמָה הַזֹּאת, עִם-בְּנִי עִם-יִצְחָק." "She said to Avraham, "Drive out this slave-woman and her son, for the son of this slave-woman will not inherit with my son, with Yitzchok." (Translation: Metzuda) Although one could say this is talking about being Avraham's spiritual heir, the simple meaning here, and Rashi's comment, indicate that Sorah's concern was that Yishmael should not financially inherit from Avraham, even though he was Avraham's son. She intended to accomplish this by driving him out of the house.

I don't understand. How does living outside of Avraham's house diminish Yishmael's right to inherit from Avraham? For instance, Rambam in Hilchos Nachalos lays out the order of heirship for those that inherit when someone passes away. I don't see anywhere that a son being kicked out of his father's house causes that son to lose his status as an heir! Although if one uses various sideways methods of disinheriting a halachic heir, "the spirit of the sages is not happy with him," Avraham didn't even do one of those methods here. All Avraham did here was remove Yishmael from his home. He did not use one of these methods of getting around the law.

So does anyone know how there was any nafka mina, any effect in the laws of inheritance, by Avraham driving Yishmael out of the house? How did that act disinherit Yishmael?

It is true that Chizkuni on this pasuk says that Avraham had the din of a Ger and "ger she'nisgayer k'katan shenolad dami," a Ger is halachicly sepparated from all of his blood relatives which would mean that Yishmael would not inherit from him anyway. But I have two questions. One is that Yishmael would have been a non-child to him even if he had stayed in the home! So what did driving him out of the home have to do with inheritance even according to that pshat?! And furthermore, according to the simple meaning of the Torah, and according to the opinions that Avraham did not technically have the din of a Jew, Avraham would have still had the din of a gentile technically, and Yishmael would inherit from him notwithstanding his expulsion from Avraham's home! (See, Rambam Nachalos 6:11)

Any ideas?

-Dixie Yid

P.S. I am actually writing an academic paper on the various methods of allowing one's non-halachic heirs to inherit while staying within the parameters of Jewish and secular law.

(Picture courtesy of floridaestateplanninglawyerblog)

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox or here to subscribe in Google Reader.

Inner Unity in the Machlokes Btw Ramban & Rambam Re "Dinim"

We've talked before about Toraso Shel Moshiach, and how one can discern the unity behind the various machlokes'n (disputes) between major Jewish authorities throughout history.

Tuesday night, September 9th, 2008, I was talking to Rav Itamar Shwartz, the author of the Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh seforim on the way back from Ma'ariv during his speaking trip to the U.S. We were talking about the fact that I was in law school we were talking about being Jewish in a non-Jewish court system and I brought up the opinion of the Ramban (on Breishis 34:12) that non-Jews must keep all of the civil laws that the Jewish people have to keep under their mitzvah of "Dinim" (which is one of the 7 Mitzvos for Bnei Noach). This is in contradistinction to the Rambam's opinion that under "Dinim" gentiles only have to enforce the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach.

The next morning on the way to Baltimore, I told him that I was curious whether or not he had a mehalech (method) of learning any inner unity between the opinions of the Rambam and the Ramban with regard to whether or not Bnei Noach's civil laws are simply an incorporation of the laws of the Jewish people. He asked me if I was asking this because I had my own mehalech or because I wanted to hear if he had one. I told him that I didn't have a mehalech, but that after learning many of the Torahs in Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh Al HaTorah, I had a feeling that he would have a mehalech in learning what the inner unity in this machlokes is.

Without hesitation, he began to explain his pshat in this machlokes to me. He pointed out that there is a question; "How is it shiach (possible) for the Ramban to hold that gentiles have any shaychus (relationship) at all to the Torah's civil laws for the Jewish people, when they come from such a completely different reality than the Jewish people come from?"

He began to answer this by pointing out that in Yemos Hamoshiach, it is stated in the Rambam that on a certain level, the nations of the world will become Avadim to the Jewish people. Which Torah laws does an Eved Kena'ani have to keep? All of the negative Mitzvos and all of the positive mitzvos aside from time-bound commandments. So even though he is still not Jewish, he will keep almost all of the laws of the Jewish people, including the civil laws.

And it is this reality that Bnei Noach actually do have a relationship to the Jewish Civil laws because they will apply to them in the times of Moshiach that makes it possible for them to have any shaychus at all to those laws. And it is this reality that makes it possible for the Ramban to hold that our civil laws are applied to them within their mitzvah of "Dinim."

Amazing insight, eh? I asked him if this is written in any of the seforim and he said he didn't know. (!) Not sure if that's true, but it was certainly an amazing thing to see that he doesn't only unify dispirate aspects of Yiddishkeit in certain areas that he's pre-selected, but even in a machlokes that I just brought out at him from left field, he still had a mehalech at the ready. Ashreinu sheyesh lanu Madrich kazeh!

-Dixie Yid

(Picture courtesy of jurylaw)

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox.

Is It Appropriate for a Professor to Call On Me As "Young Jew!"?

I was sitting in my Real Estate Transactions course the other night (this past week was our first week back). The Professor asked something and I raised my hand to answer the question. The professor pointed at me and called out "Yes, Young Jew, what's the answer?"

I was a bit taken aback by the way he called on me so I hesitated, but before I could begin answering, a Chinese student behind me began answering and the professor didn't object that he'd called on someone else. So I didn't say anthing. After class, another frum guy commented on how funny it was that the guy's first name behind me actually is "Yung Ju"!!! (Though I know I'm not spelling it right) Whodathunkit?!

-Dixie Yid

(Picture courtesy of inmagine)

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox.

Keeping My Head on Straight When Applying for Summer Associateships

I'm in the process now of seeking out and applying for summer associateships for next summer as part of my law school's fall recruitment program. That's with the goal in mind of ultimately finding a firm to work in once I finish law school. With all of this going on, it's hard to get a proper perspective on reality. Unfortunately, many of the things that I've hard are required to do well in law firm life, long term, lead to a mindset of mochin d'katnus, small mindedness.

I know that this idea is the opposite of what most people think. What could be better than being a "rainmaker" in a big firm, spending hours at ballgames, golf courses, or Nicks' games with clients worth millions of dollars, and which could bring millions of dollars in legal fees into the firm, all thanks to you!? Hey, the small timers deal with small clients, small cases & small courts. But the "big firms" deal with "big" clients, "big" deals and "big" courts. The problem is that the more I or we get caught up in the "big" things of this world, we start to think of them as truly the big and important things of the world, and forget about the fact that they are meaningless in reality.

Whether we work on "small things" in this world or the "big, important" things, why should we be doing them? Because they are big or important things, inherently? No. They aren't. Rather, we only do it because it is Hashem's will. I must remember that whether I'm writing a Legal Memorandum for an attorney in a case where $5,000 is on the line, or $5,000,000 is on the line, I must do a good job because it is the Ratzon Hashem, Hashem's will, to do the right thing and make a kidush Hashem by doing excellent work.

But if I ever end up doing these "big" things, and thinking of only them as "big" and feeling big and important because of the job I have or am doing, I must remember that this is the biggest mochin d'katnus, small mindedness that I could fall into, R"L.

In parshas Matos, we read that the people of Gad & Reuven had much wealth in the form of cattle and told Moshe (Bamidbar 32:16) that they would "גִּדְרֹת צֹאן נִבְנֶה לְמִקְנֵנוּ פֹּה, וְעָרִים, לְטַפֵּנוּ," build pens for their sheep and cities for their children." It is well known that Moshe rebuked them for their bad order of priorities, since they placed their sheep (their wealth) before their children in telling Moshe what they would do before coming to help the rest of the Jewish people conquor the land of Israel. Therefore Moshe told them (id. at 24)"בְּנוּ-לָכֶם עָרִים לְטַפְּכֶם, וּגְדֵרֹת לְצֹנַאֲכֶם." "[First] build cities for your children [and then] pens for your sheep."

Similarly, the Gemara in Bava Basra 10b tells the following story: "יוסף בריה דר' יהושע חלש אינגיד א"ל אבוה מאי חזית א"ל עולם הפוך ראיתי עליונים למטה ותחתונים למעלה א"ל עולם ברור ראית." "Yosef, the son of Rebbe Yehoshua [had a near death experience]. His father said to him, 'What did you see?' He said, 'I saw an upside-down world. Those who are high were down low and those who are low, were up high.' He said to him, 'You have seen a clear world.'"

The light of this world's brightest and most important-seeming things have the strongest ability to blind us from our own knowledge of the truly important things in life and turn our sense of our priorities upside-down. May Hashem help me and others keep our propper perspective in life and recognize the things of this world as the small things that they are. May he help us do our best to do an excellent job in them despite our consciousness of them being small things, while having in mind that we are doing so because it is the Ratzon Hashem, Hashem's will.
-Dixie Yid

(Picture courtesy of ctemploymentlaw)

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox.

A Modern American Assimilated Jew Making the Ultimate Choice

I work full-time as a Law Clerk in a Law Firm while I attend law school at night. The other day, the partner in my firm told me a story that illustrated a recent example of how even a modern Jew in America can be given the choice to deny his Judaism in order to safeguard his life and health.

The partner told me the story of his friend, who is a partner in a major Manhattan law firm. This man originally was born as an Egyptian Jews. He was not observant and moved to the United States. Here, he became a successful lawyer, but thanks to his upbringing and schooling in Egypt, he spoke fluent Arabic and French. Partly due to this fact, and due to the fact that he was just a very good lawyer, he got a Saudi princess who controled hundreds of millions of dollars as a client for all sorts of business arrangements. He also got many of her Arab associates as clients for various deals and his Arabic and French lanuage skills held him in good stead. He was always very careful never to give any hint that he was Jewish.

One one occassion (before Saudi Arabia had to say they would let Jews into the country in February 2004) his client invited him to Saudi Arabia for a meeting in relation to a major deal. With all of the millions in legal work he had done for her, he could not refuse, as uncomfortable as he felt, not knowing what would happen to him if it was discovered that he was really Jewish. He went on the trip, which was at the very end of the calendar year.

On the afternoon of December 24th, the princess asked him which church (probably in a private home) that he would need directions to? Now, if he said that he just doesn't go to church or if he just accepted the directions and them just didn't go to the church, it would look like he was affirming that he was a Xian. So, despite the fact that he found himself in a hostile country with a barbaric Shariah based legal system, he turned to her and said, "There is something that I have to tell you that I haven't mentioned before..."

At that point, I think he deserves all of the credit for disregarding whatever potential harm he might have faced for being a Jew in Saudi Arabia who's not on an American Army base. However, the story doesn't end there.

Before he gets to tell her that he's Jewish, she says "Don't worry you don't have to tell me. I already know. I've always known."

Flabergasted, he asks "What? Then why have you and all of your Arab colleagues accepted the services of a Jewish lawyer all of this time?!"

She just answerd "We know what we want..."

I guess even Saudi Princesses and Arabic businessmen know that Jewish lawyers are the way to go!

I usually don't think of the possiblity of having to make the choice between affimatively denying my Jewishness as a practical problem these days. But it is nice to see that the nekuda tova in that Jew would not let him even impliedly deny his Jewishness, even to save himself from potential danger. Wow.

-Dixie Yid

(Picture courtesy of familycourtchronicles)

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox.

Don't Bite the Hand that Feeds You - The Ultimate Partner

The head partner at the law firm in which I am a Law Clerk seems to have decided to take me under his wing. In between discussing various assignments related to his law practice, he teaches me the ropes in various aspects of practicing law, which I very much appreciate and it's a great experience.

The other day, he told me about the politics related to being a partner in a "big firm." (His wife is the managing partner in a "big firm.") He told me that there is a heirarchy of power among the partners in the firm. And he said that this heirarchy of power is reflected in the assigned seating arrangements at partner meetings. I've put together this diagram up above to help my dear readers understand what I mean. The #1 most powerful partner in the firm sits at the center head of the conference table. The 2nd and 3rd most powerful partners sit on either side of him. And the newer and less powerful partners sit increasingly farther and farther away from him. Assuming a 19 partner firm, the diagram above illustrates, number ordered according to power-position, how the assigned seating arrangement would look.

He said that one's prestige and position as a partner is carefully guarded. New partners can only be chosen when one of the partners nominates him and then the rest of the partners take a vote on whether that associate will be elevated to partner or not. Therefore, since a partner doesn't want to lose face by appointed a partner who doesn't get "confirmed," he makes sure to pre-garner all the votes necessary to get that person chosen as partner before he nominates him (or her).

Since that new partner's status as partner is due to the efforts of that one other partner who put his name behind getting him nominated as partner, there is a constant status of gratitude that is owed to that partner. The junior partner is then expected to tow the line on any position his nominating partner takes. If he's ever disagree publicly with a strong position taken by his nominating partner, he will likely find himself out of the firm within a couple of years. The junior partner would be considered an ingrate and one who has bitten the hand that fed him.

This got me to thinking. Just as one would never bite the hand of the partner who fed him his partner position, kal va'chomer, how much the more so, should one be conscious of the feeling of gratitute to Hashem for everything that Hashem has given him?!

A senior partner may "give" a person their position. But it is Hashem who decided to use that senior partner as the kli to give you the job. And it is Hashem who gives you your parnasa. So just as you would hesitate going against the will of your nominating partner, who is only a vessel for your parnasa, you should certainly not do anything against the will of the "Ultimate Partner," the Melech Malchei Hamelachim, Hakadosh Baruch Hu!

And it would follow from that, that if your senior partner asks you to take a position which the Ultimate Partner disagrees with, that the Ultimate Partner should certainly overrule the mere "senior partner!"

-Dixie Yid

(Picture courtesy of Me)

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox.

My Chance to Meet Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

This is a legal oriented post, and not a Jewish one, so don't read on if you're not interested! I just want to write this down to help me remember some of the details.

I was given the opportunity by my law school (I work full time by day and attend law school in the evenings) to participate in a "round table discussion" between a group of students and Supreme Court Justice Alito. I was able to ask him a question, which was how he is able to be an originalist and a strict constructionist in a legal system that has already strayed so far from the original meaning of the Constitution. What does it mean to be an originalist or a strict-constructionist, today?

He basically answered that in most areas of the law that the Supreme Court will be asked to consider, the law is very well developed already, in its perhaps non-originalist form, and the Supreme Court is only being asked to consider very specific sub-issues. In cases like these, we are basically stuck with the law as it stands, and one would not be able to really flex his "originalist muscles." (My language, not his). However, he said that in the minority of cases, where constitutional or stautory issues come up which have not been significantly hashed out by previous cases, then one's originalist philosophy would be able to really come to the fore.

He said that a great example of this is the DC v. Heller case, the "D.C. Guns" case, which was argued before the Supreme Court yesterday, Tuesday, March 18th. Before this case, which considers the extent of the coverage of the right to bear arms, virtually no Supreme Court had considered the exact definition of the Second Amendment. So this would be an example of a case where the originalists on the court will be able to fully express their strict-constructionalist judicial philosophy.

After the "round table discussion," I was able to tell him that it was listening to his and John Robert's Confirmation Hearings which inspired me to take seriously my thoughts of going to law school. I also followed up with him about a comment he had made during the discussion, calling the modern supreme court nomination confirmation process, "unfair." I asked him specificly what he meant by that.

He gave two major examples. One is the constant pressure on nominees to tell exactly how they would vote on certain issues, should they come before the court. He said that no nominee has ever answered these questions but that the pressure is mounting that they do so nonetheless, and that to do so would violate legal ethics, taking away their ability to be objective when specific cases come before the court with their specific facts and specific legal questions. He said that if every Senator were able to get answers from the nominee on how the nominee would rule on all of his "hot button" issues, and given the modern quasi-need for a 60 Senator filibuster-proof majority, no nominee would ever get confirmed!

Also, he pointed to the nit-picking of faults by pundits, who try to make issues out of non-issues. He gave the example of how he was faulted for not recusing himself immedietly in the Vanguard case, even though he was not required to recuse himself in that case, because of the rule of judicial ethics.

I pointed out to him that since his opponents knew that he would not answer direct questions about whether or not he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the major issue underlying everything that went on in the confirmation hearings, they were forced to make issues out of other non-issues, since they couldn't speak directly about those with him (Alito).

It was a nice and interesting opportunity to speak to Justice Alito and I wanted to write this down to help me remember what happened!

-Dixie Yid

(Picture courtesy of FlapsBlog)

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox.

Are These Proper Criteria From Choosing Justices?

Though this sounds, at the beginning, like a political post, it's not. I was upset recently by what I read about what the Democratic front-runner for the Nomination, Barack Obama, has said about what criteria he would use in appointing supreme court justices, were he to become president.

Here's one comment, among several, that he made about his criteria: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

This seems to imply that a supreme court justice (who is charged with deciding the law on a given matter, and not issues of fact), should not judge based only on the law, but should have a broader role, that of affecting social change for the victims and the helpless of the world. Now that sounds very beautiful, but this former constitutional law professor is forgetting that there is a separation of powers in this country! Judges, at least in the supreme court, are judging issues of law. They are merely there to decide the meaning of statutes and the Constitution, not as agents of societal change.

The Torah speaks about this when it commands judges, in Vayikra 19:15, "--לֹא-תִשָּׂא פְנֵי-דָל, וְלֹא תֶהְדַּר פְּנֵי גָדוֹל: בְּצֶדֶק, תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ," "Do not favor the the poor man, nor should you honor the rich man. With truth shall you judge your people." The Sifra on Vayikra 4:2, Parshas Kedoshim, clarifies, "שלא תאמר עני הוא זה, הואיל ואני והעשיר הזה חייבים לפרנסו - אזכנו ונמצא מתפרנס בנקיות; לכך נאמר: 'לא תשא פני דל." "Lest [the judge] say, 'Since this man is poor. And this rich man [the other litigant] is obligated to support the poor, I will cause him [the poor man] to win, and he will be supported honorably.' Therefore, the Torah says 'Do not favor the poor.'"

Being a judge is not easy. Sometimes the law simply does not come out on the side of the party who you or I would like to see win, because of their unfortunate situation. But the Torah says that the solution is not to pervert justice to get the desired outcome. Similarly, l'havdil, in secular law, we would be in a very bad place if judges and justices did as Barack Obama here seems to imply they should do, i.e. let their sympathies determine the outcomes of their judgments, rather than the law.

Hashem gave us the mitzva of tzedaka to give us merit by doing this mitzva. There is no need to obviate the need for this zechus/merit by perverting justice to support the poor and the oppressed through the judicial system. There are many things outside of the judicial sphere that we can and should do to help those that need it.

-Dixie Yid

(Picture courtesy of student.bricanica.com)

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox.

Klal U'Prat U'Klal Versus Ejusdem Generis

Klal U'prat u'klal: A general followed by a specific followed by a general, one may only include cases that are similar to the specific means that it doesn’t have to be the specific item, but it must be like the specific item.

Ejusdem Generis: Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. (this canon of stautory construction is not always used, but it is like a rule of thumb.)

I just came across the concept of ejusdem generis reading some cases today and realized that it's application is similar to the application of the principal of biblical exegesis (from Rebbi Yishmael's 13 midos she'hatorah nidreshes bahem). The interesting thing is that the cases in which it applies are when you have a principal in a statute, followed by specific examples. However, in Chumash, when you have a case like that, all you have are the specific examples actually mentioned and you may not expand the list at all. Whereas in application, a klal uprat uklal situation in Torah would be applied the same was as a plain klal u'prat in a secular statute. Interesting!

-Dixie Yid

(Picture courtesy of newyorkpersonalinjuryattorney.com)

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox.

James Madison on Reform Judaism

According to the Pittsburg Platform of 1999 by the CCAR, reform judaism's Central Conference of American Rabbis, reform judaism's stance on Torah is that individuals and communities must study Torah and decide whether given mitzvos "address" them or not:

"We are committed to the ongoing study of the whole array of (mitzvot) and to the fulfillment of those that address us as individuals and as a community."

James Madison, in the 10th Federalist Paper, wrote:

"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time..."

Devarim 16:19: "וְלֹא-תִקַּח שֹׁחַד--כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים, וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִם." "Do not take a bribe because a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and distorts the words of the righteous."

-Dixie Yid

(Picture courtesy of earlyamerica.com)

Click here to get Dixie Yid in your e-mail Inbox.

Frum Yid Appointed by President Bush to be Next Attorney General

Check out this article on Michael Mukasey's frumkeit.

-Dixie Yid

James Madison on How the Yetzer Hara Perverts Reason

"As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves."

Federalist Papers #10

-Dixie Yid

(Picture courtesy of VisitingDC.com)