Divorce is no longer fashionable?

NYTimes   That a woman who has been divorced should feel such awkwardness and isolation seems more part of a Todd Haynes set piece than a scene from “families come in all shapes and sizes” New York, circa 2011. But divorce statistics, which have followed a steady downward slope since their 1980 peak, reveal another interesting trend: According to a 2010 study by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, only 11 percent of college-educated Americans divorce within the first 10 years today, compared with almost 37 percent for the rest of the population. 

For this cross section of American families — in the suburban playgrounds of Seattle, the breastfeeding-friendly coffee shops of Berkeley, Calif., and the stroller-trodden streets of the Upper West Side — divorce, especially for mothers with young children underfoot, has become relatively scarce since its “Ice Storm” heyday. 

For every cohort since 1980, a greater proportion are reaching their 10th and 15th anniversaries, said Stephanie Coontz, author of “Marriage, a History.”[...]

The experience of being a divorced woman has changed, along with the statistics. “The No. 1 reaction I get from people when I tell them I’m getting divorced is, ‘You’re so brave,’ ” said Stephanie Dolgoff, a 44-year-old mother of two elementary-school daughters who was separated last year. “In the 1970s, when a woman got divorced, she was seen as taking back her life in that Me Decade way. Nowadays, it’s not seen as liberating to divorce. It’s scary.”  [...]

“What happened?” asks the writer Claire Dederer in her memoir, “Poser,” which examines life as a new mother in Seattle. In the 1970s, “the feminists, the hippies, the protesters, the cultural elite all said, It’s O.K. to drop out.” In contrast, “We made up our minds, my brother and I and so many of the grown children of the runaway moms, that we would put our families first and ourselves second. We would be good, all the time. We would stay married, no matter what, and drink organic milk.”

Changes in marriage:Tragedy of Seridei Aish

I met Rav Nosson Kaminetsky tonight at a chasuna and asked him for some leads regarding changes in the nature of marriage. He reminded me of the following quote regarding the tragic experiences of the Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg that he had written about.

Making of a Gadol by Rav Nosson Kaminetsky page 819:

page 816 - When describing the disaster he entered into, he wrote, "This shiddukh was forced upon me by the Alter of Slabodka and the heads and members of Yeshivath Kneseth Yisrael (emphasis added)./'' An article in ... reveals the background of the misatch between the Chekhanovtzer 'Iluy, R' Weinberg, and the simple, orphaned daughter of the Rav of the small Lithuanian town of Pilvishok. R' Weinberg had been "dabbling with the idea of leaving the yeshiva world for the world of the Haskalah. (R' Finkel) sensed that (R' Weinberg) was at a crossroads and aranged the shiddukh which would bring him the dowry of that town's rabbinic post" and thereby bind him to the Torah world. Weinberg Obituary cites the following from R' Weinberg's letter: "Being young, I submitted to [their guidance], and by that, I ruined the course of my life [...]. During my tenure as the Rav of Pilvishok, the Alter of Slabodka established in Pilvishok a kibbutz of select bahurim in order to enable me forget my pain and my travails through the toil of delivering shai'urim." R' Weinberg's reference to having "ruined... (his) life" goes beyond his personal happiness because, with his talents, he could have developed into the greatest Torah leader of his generation, as discussed in the fourth paragraph of the following excursus.

page 819 - It is possible, too, that the Alter, though expert in understanding what made people, especially the young, tick - in my father's opinion, he understood people better than Freud  - was out of step with the change in the relationship between mates which modem trends had wrought in Jewish society as a whole, even the Torah world, by the time R' Weinberg married. We may speculate that the Alter's own domestic arrangement, which my father from his latter-day perspective described as "terrifying '', could not have endured even among bnei Torah 40 years later. Shades of the generational dichotomy in outlooks on this matter may be found in a report of an exchange between the Alter and R' Weinberg which was reported by R' Shmuel-Hayyim Domb in the name of R' Yehiel-Yankev's talmid R' Pinhas Biberfeld: When the Alter tried to convince R' Weinberg not to separate from his wife, he responded, "Where is the drugstore which sells a potion for love?" It may be assumed that R' Weinberg's purpose in repeating this conversation to his talmid was to convey this very idea - that by making the attempt to get him to stay with his wife, the Alter had demonstrated that he did not grasp what degree of compatibility was expected between couples in the new times. Even the extreme forbearance that the Alter knew R' Weinberg was possessed of could not hold a relatively modem marriage together.

page 826 - Based on what R' Hayyim Sarna heard from his father, the Alter held that R' Weinberg would become the gedol hador (greatest[Torah leader] of [his] generation); "And he would have become that, but for his unfortunate marriage, ,'' R' Sarna said °. He explained: "In Lithuania only teamsters (...) got divorced any person of standing would, as my mother would say, 'eat nails (... [suffer])' and stick it out." [Rachel Sarna used another idiom, viz., "any person of standing would 'bite into the quilt [...,,, (probably meaning, clench one's teeth under the covers, in privacy)]'". The interviewee said further that R'Weinberg "had to leave Lithuania because of the divorce"...

Ex Penn State president charged in abuse coverup

NYTimes

 Former Penn State President Graham B. Spanier was charged Thursday with hushing up child molestation allegations against Jerry Sandusky, making him the third school official to be accused of crimes in the alleged cover-up. [...]

Spanier has said he had no memory of email traffic concerning the 1998 complaint — by a woman that Sandusky had showered with her son — and only slight recollections about the 2001 complaint — by a team assistant who said he stumbled onto Sandusky sexually abusing a boy inside a campus shower.

Ex-gays protest view that therapy doesn't work

NY Times   Mr. Smith is one of thousands of men across the country, often known as “ex-gay,” who believe they have changed their most basic sexual desires through some combination of therapy and prayer — something most scientists say has never been proved possible and is likely an illusion. 

 Ex-gay men are often closeted, fearing ridicule from gay advocates who accuse them of self-deception and, at the same time, fearing rejection by their church communities as tainted oddities. Here in California, their sense of siege grew more intense in September when Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law banning use of widely discredited sexual “conversion therapies” for minors — an assault on their own validity, some ex-gay men feel.

Signing the measure, Governor Brown repeated the view of the psychiatric establishment and medical groups, saying, “This bill bans nonscientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to depression and suicide,” adding that the practices “will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.” 

 But many ex-gays have continued to seek help from such therapists and men’s retreats, saying their own experience is proof enough that the treatment can work. 

College rape cases - unique difficulties

Time   The recent media swarm around an anguished report of rape at Amherst College, in Massachusetts, is understandable, especially when every day seems to bring another grotesque proclamation from a political figure appearing to minimize, or even justify, rape. But the gravity of sexual assault shouldn’t be an excuse to draw black-and-white conclusions about the problem of rape on college campuses.

Most rapes are hard to prosecute, in part because they rarely have witnesses, but college rapes on college campuses are an even bigger challenge because at least 90% of alleged rapes are between people who know each other (often boyfriends, ex-boyfriends, or current friends and acquaintances). College rapes also typically involve less physical evidence (like signs of physical struggle), and one or both parties are more likely to be intoxicated by alcohol, often making it hard for the alleged victim and assailant to recall or report a clear story. College-rape survivors sometimes delay reporting rape, as the Amherst survivor did, until they have concluded that they were in fact raped — an ambiguity that is much less common in the general population. [...]

Moreover, college students are adults with their own legal and moral agency; college officials are not compelled by law to report assaults to the police, as school administrators are for suspected cases of sexual abuse with minors. Campus sexual assaults are thus adjudicated in an often deeply unsatisfying he-said-she-said administrative process that can’t always establish truth, much less actual justice. As former Harvard College dean Harry Lewis noted in Excellence Without a Soul: How a Great University Forgot Education, “In rape cases there is often no middle ground … When one student is accused of raping another, the college cannot make everyone happy.”

Who is spending the night with your daughter?

In the posting about David Kaye the issue has been raised as to why he should be viewed as dangerous (i.e. rodef) when he has not done anything wrong halachically? He is obviously disgusting and not welcome - but should he also be considered dangerous  since he never did anything to harm another person and he has a life time of helping others. His major downfall was a sting operation by a TV. station involving what he thought was a 13 year old boy. The whole crime for which he was sent to prison is simply a mental fantasy - and some claim that only according to secular law is it wrong. In order to understand this better let me present the follow case.

You and your wife are leaving in an hour to celebrate your parent's golden anniversary in Florida - so you will be gone for one night.Your younger kids have been distributed to neighbors. However your 13 year old daughter says she is old enough to stay home for one night and says one of her friends is coming over to keep her company.

You do a last minute check on Google maps for traffic conditions and then a quick glance at email to see if there are any important last minute messages. With great irritation you notice that the email is still logged in to your daughter's account - but you also notice an email with a very inappropriate subject line. Pushing aside the concerns for Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom of reading other's mails - you start reading the letter.

Shock and revulsion hit you as you realize that it is a letter from a 35 year old male who claims to be a rabbi. He has been having an exchange of very explicit sexual communications with your daughter. You notice the exchange has been very intensive and some of the emails have attached nude photographs of him and others which have pictures of her. The last email says he is coming over to spend the night with your daughter.

With your head spinning you think of what you should do in the 30 minutes before you have to leave.

 1) Call the rabbi of the shul where you go for daf yomi and who is a world-wide expert on kashrus. 2) confront your daughter and force her to come with you. 3) contact your next door neighbor who has mafia connections who will make sure the guy receives the proper message in a forceful unambiguous manner4) Do nothing since after all your daughter is halachically an adult and it is a consensual relationship. You give yourself a mental note to have a talk with your daughter - when you get back - about how inappropriate it is and that she is only a child and not old enough for these types of relationships. 5) Call the police

More single mothers are having children

Times of Israel   With studies showing American Jewish women marrying at older ages than ever, more and more Jewish women are confronting the choice of whether to become single moms while it’s still biologically possible, or to continue to gamble with those chances and wait for Mr. Right.

Many mothers say the decision is the hardest part. Can they raise a kid on their own? Will conservative-minded family or friends ostracize them? Later in life, will their child resent them for it?

Then there’s the cost. Aside from mothers shouldering the burden of being the sole provider, fertility treatments can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000. In Israel, treatments are free for women to have two children.

Tehilla Blumenthal, an Israeli psychologist who wrote her doctoral dissertation on single Jewish mothers, says medical technology that has made it easier for older women to become pregnant has prompted a growing number of Jewish women to try single motherhood.

One 41-year-old Orthodox Jewish doctor in the New York area who recently gave birth to a set of twins through IVF said she was pleasantly surprised by how accepting her community has been.

Wife does intimate tasks for husband for endearment

A wife is obligated to do certain tasks for her husband for the sake of endearment. These tasks include pouring his cup, washing his face, hands and feet, making his bed, standing before him to attend to his wishes such as getting a drink and anoint him with oil.  There is a dispute as to whether these tasks are obligatory or optional. The Yerushalmi Kesubos (5:6) clearly holds they are obligatory for the wife to do them. Rashi (Kesubos 61a) and others hold that they are optional - simply advice that our Sages gave to increase the husbands liking of his wife. Simple question is what happened to these tasks. I have never seen a wife do these tasks for her husband. Even according to Rashi who says they are optional - but they are recommended in order to endear the wife to the husband. Furthermore if we say that according to the Rambam that when our Sages recommended something it becomes a command - then how can there be a dispute here whether these recommended tasks are obligatory?

Of greater importance why are these halachos not relevant. If this is a rabbinic decree as the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch seem to imply - then even if the reason for the decree are not relevant anymore - but the takanos are still active. In short you can't throw out halacha that way or ignore it. "kashrus is because of sanitation so it is not relevant" "Two day of Yom Tov because we didn't have accurate knowledge so it is not relevant today." "Divorce depending solely on husband's wishes is irrelevant to today" "Extra marital sex & incest is only for fear of having a baby whose father's identity is unknown or is a mamzer - not relvant today with birth control" "Mamzer is unfair and therefore not applicable today"  

There is really three issues here. 1) how could these obligations simply disappear? 2) They are reflective of and determine the nature of the relationship. If the values they reflect are Torah values then if we don't establish these values in the way described in Shulchan Aruch then how are they established? 3) If they are no longer considered Jewish values - what are the values in marriage and family relations?
======================================

Kesubos (61a): If she has four slaves - she may lounge in an easy chair. Rav Huna said that even though they said she can lounge in an easy chair but she fills his cup and makes his bed and washes his hands and feet. Furthermore Rav Huna said that all the work that a wife does for her husband she also does it when she is a niddah – except for filling his cup, making his bed and washing his hands and his feet and making his bed. Rava said this restriction for a wife who is a nida is only if she does the work in his presence but he is not there then there is no problem.

Rashi (Kesubos 61a): But she fills his cup and makes his bed – to spread the sheet something which is not strenuous – since it an act of endearment in order that she be more beloved to him. Therefore it is not comparable to the making of the bed mentioned in the Mishna which involves considerable physical effort and she can be forced to do it. She is not forced to do these works of endearment but the Sages merely suggested them as good advice as to how Jewish wives should behave. Except for pouring his cup -  when she is a Nida then all activities which draw them closer and increase endearment are to be avoided because they can lead to prohibited sexual activity.

Yerushalmi Kesubos (5:6): Rav Huna said that even if he had 100 maidservants to do the housework, his wife would still be forced to do the intimate tasks for him. What are these intimate tasks that she must do? It is to anoint his body with oil, wash his feet, and pour his cup. Why should she be obligated to do these when they have so many servants? Is it because it is inappropriate for a maidservant to do these tasks for him or because she has to do them? The difference between these two views is if he has male slaves rather than maid servants then it would remove the concern that maid servants should do these tasks for him and if she still had to do them that would show that the reason is because it is a wife’s obligation to do these tasks...It seems more likely that in fact she must do them solely because it is her obligation to her husband. 

Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 21:3-4): 3) A husband who takes an oath to prohibit his wife not to do any work at all – is required to divorce her and give her the kesuba. That is because idleness causes immorality. Similarly every wife needs to wash her husbands face, hands, and feet as well as pour his cup and make his bed and to stand before him to serve him. Examples of her service are to give him water or a utensil or take things from him etc.,  However she does not stand and serve his father or his son. 4) These tasks need to be done by the wife herself – even if she has many servants – she alone is required to do them.
  

Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 80:4-5): 4) And similarly every woman is to wash her husband’s face, hands and feet and pour his cup and to make his bed. (Some say that she is obligated to make all the beds in the house). And she is to stand before him and serve him doing tasks such as giving him water or a utensil or taking things from him etc. However she does not stand and serve his his father or son (However some say that is only when she is not dependent for support from her husband). 5) These works need to be done by the wife herself – even if she has many servants – she alone is required to do them. (There is a dispute regarding making beds see E.H. 80:8).

Court: Phone harassment akin to indecent act

YNet   The Central District Court rendered an unprecedented ruling this week, declaring that a conviction over an indecent act is possible even if the perpetrator did not physically touch, or even see, the victim.

According to a Tuesday report in Yedioth Ahronoth, the ruling was made following an appeal filed by a man who was convicted of an indecent act against two minors, which was perpetrated over the phone.[...]

"The fact that there was no actual physical contact makes no difference, since verbal violence is just as traumatic as physical violence," the court ruled.

Rapist has visitation rights with child he fathered?

Fox News  The case of a Massachusetts man seeking visitation rights to the child he fathered after raping a 14-year-old girl has landed in front of the state’s highest court, MyFoxBoston.com reports.

The girl was 14 when she was impregnated by then-20-year-old Jamie Melendez, who pleaded guilty last year to four counts of statutory rape of a child.

The teen victim is arguing that she should not have to face potentially years of family court battles with the man who violated her, according to My Fox Boston.

According to the site, the youth's attorney, Wendy Murphy, argued before Supreme Judicial Court Justice Margot Botsford that the lower court judge, Superior Court Judge Thomas McGuire, essentially forced her client into a relationship with her rapist by sentencing Melendez into Probate and Family Court.

Melendez has asked a family court judge for visitation rights.

Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

Hirsch: Loving another - only means their welfare

Rav S.R. Hirsch(Vayikra 19:18): You shall love your fellow as yourself – This rule applies to all our social activities in knowledge, speech, and deeds. Ahava (love) is the most elevated of our emotions in relationship to G‑d and man. The word “ahava” is basically the word hav (give) with the addition of the letter aleph which attaches it to a particular. Thus the meaning of the word ahava (love) is to devote oneself to another and to bring the other to oneself (See also the comments to Bereishis 37:4). Two individuals who function as one is ahava (love) as opposed to hatred (See Vayikra 37:17). Note that the Torah doesn’t say “Love your fellow” which is the normal way of the verse. If it had said that then it would mean loving the other person and that would mean that we would be obligated to equate the love of the other with the love of ourselves. Such a task is simply impossible to accomplish. Rather the love expressed here is an obligation in relations to all other people. In contrast the love which is directed to the person of the other requires fulfillment of certain conditions which happens only extremely rarely. It requires a high degree of compatibility and closeness between the souls which is found only between a few people for example Dovid and Yonason. Concerning their love it says, “The soul of Yonason was bound with the soul of Dovid and he loved Dovid as his own soul. (Shmuel I 18:1). In contrast it says here, “And you shall love your fellow as yourself.” The term “your fellow” does not mean the unique person of the other but merely the fact that he is human. Therefore you should do what you can regarding the conditions of his life that they be good or improved and that is what our love is directed at. In sum the verse is commanding us to be concerned about his welfare and what is good for him in the same way we are concerned that we obtain good things in our lives [but does not require that we love him personally]. We should be happy with his wealth and said with his suffering – as if these had happened to us. With generosity we should contribute to his well-being as if it was our own well-being and we should protect him from suffering as if the harm was a threat to us. This requirement can be done in regards to all men – even if you don’t feel any personal closeness to them. That is because this mitzva is totally detached from any personal feelings to the other person and is not based on any personality characteristics he possesses. The whole basis for being concerned about others is because of the phrase “I am G‑d” that ends this verse. G‑d has obligated us to relate in a positive fashion to all men because He has established that we all are “comrades” with each other. Comradeship increases his welfare and with the welfare of your fellow brings genuine peace. Such an attitude prevents us from being bothered by the success of others and the success of one does not come at the destruction of another. A person doesn’t rejoice in his own success as long as he is aware that his fellow is suffering.

Accepting a pedophile rabbi as a congregant?

washington post                  [see previous post video]

 [...] in February, David Kaye, a longtime Montgomery County rabbi and registered sex offender, started attending Saturday services.

Adat Shalom’s three clergy had quickly agreed to a request from Kaye to pray at the synagogue, believing his presence to be in keeping with Adat Shalom’s identity as an open, diverse spiritual community where all are welcome.

Through the spring and early summer, Kaye was a part of the congregation. He came for Sabbath and oneg, the post-service lunch. He stood with other mourners to say the communal prayer for the dead, for his parents. He went to the silent retreat.

But over the months, discomfort with Kaye’s presence in some quarters of the 500-family congregation grew. Finally, he was asked to leave.

The matter came to a head last month in the days before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the holiest days of the Jewish calendar, a time when Jews pray desperately for forgiveness, for themselves and others.[....]

Divorcing a wife of 30 years if she won't keep Shabbos?

I received the following letters from Michael regarding a very sensitive  personal issue i.e., whether to divorce his wife because her refusal to observe Shabbos is preventing him from proper fulfilment and progress in Yiddishkeit. I replied that this is a question for one's rav - not some anonymous collection  of people who don't know who he is or his relationship to his wife. Nevertheless he persisted. 

After some thought I decided that it might be helpful to discuss what the pros and con's of divorcing and possible advice as to nudging her in the direction of Shabbos observance. It might also help clarify what exactly is the place of marriage in the context of developing shleimus in Avodas HaShem. This is a genuine halachic dilemma and I appreciate his decision to submit  this problem to a public forum.  I will delete all comments which I think are counterproductive. I will also remove this post if Michael decides it isn't helpful. 

Michael I think it would be helpful if you tell us a little more about yourself. Where do you live? Are you a Chasid, Sefardic or Ashkenaz Jew? Do you belong to a community? What objections does your wife have to keeping Shabbos? Please don't reveal information that would reveal your actual identity.

==================================================

Shalom Kevod Harav,
For more than 30 years, I have been married to a Jewish woman who is saintly in all matters except she does not keep Shabbos. For the first 10 years of our marriage, I was not a Shabbos observer but became observant even as she stubbornly refused to do so. As we grow older, I feel increasingly isolated although she is perfectly content to continue as is. I have great compassion for her since she is a fine human being. Still, I feel that I could probably make more progress in my life if she were not my wife.
Should we divorce or continue together?
Behokara ubevrachot,
Michael

=========================

Daas TorahOctober 28, 2012 2:36 PM

Michael this is a very serious question. do you have a rav that you ask questions? If so what did he tell you.

If you want to explain in a guest post why she doesn't want to be observant and why you think that it is keeping you from making progess - it should be helpful to others since the issue is an important problem in the modern world.

However for you to get a meaningful answer for yourself you really need to speak to a rav who knows you well and your wife well or can get to know your better. Blog comments are not the best place to get a personal answer.

 ============================

Shalom Kvod Harav,
There is no rav who knows me, no rav who has ever cared to know me, but that's ok. As soon as they get a whiff of my dilemma, they keep their distance. Here's the rub: I do not know a single person whose midot are on the level of my wife's. I am acquainted with many shomer shabbos women who cannot approach my wife in the areas of tznius, optimism, and generosity, both materially and spiritually. When I first started to be shomer shabbos, we had loud arguments. In fact, we probably argued for about 10 years. Finally, we just stopped and silently agreed to disagree. My three children are now in their 20's. All have respect for yiddishkeit. Two do not keep shabbos while the third is a very strict shabbos observer and learns in a yeshiva. All three have outstanding midot. Getting a personal answer in this forum is not vital but I still wanted to share my experience. This is really a great test from Hashem. He wants to see how badly I want to keep Shabbos. Also, there is always the possibility, however remote, that my wife could become shomer Shabbos. And, in the end, if one Jew does not keep Shabbos, it is every other Jew's responsibility to change that behavior and, if we truly want Moshiach, we know his arrival depends on each Jew keeping Shabbos. I should mention that my wife regularly buys chalot on erev Shabbos and, upon prompting, lights Shabbat candles. She also does netilas yadayim. Also, my wife welcomes my saying kiddush for her and participates in havdalah.

Shooting Hoops on Shabbos?

Five Towns Jewish Times    by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

They can be found in virtually every neighborhood in the Five Towns and Far Rockaway.  Walk from Lawrence to Woodmere and you will find many dozens of them.  And, even on Shabbos, they are being utilized. They are portable, movable, basketball hoops.

The question is - what is the Halachic status of this pastime - when done on Shabbos? Should parents discourage their children from playing ball on Shabbos?  Is there a difference between very young children, children who have reached the age of Chinuch, and children above the age of Bar Mitzvah?

Certainly, we can all understand the sentiment that children need to be given some space and time to let off  steam or energy.  Every child is different and "chanoch lanoaral pi darcho."  If the underlying aspects of this activity are not forbidden, should wereally be making an issue out of it?

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Taanis 4:5) tells us of a great city named Tur Shimon with its very own Tomchei Shabbos that delivered 300 barrels of material to the poor each Friday. The Talmud, however, goes on to explain that this city was ultimately destroyed. Why was it destroyed?  One opinion says that it was because of untoward activity. Another opinion says that it was on account of, yes, ball playing.  Gulp.

Ostensibly, it was ball playing on Shabbos as most of the commentators explain. Indeed, Rav Huna in Midrash Aicha Rabasi explicitly states that the ball playing was on Shabbos.  This Yerushalmi is cited by the Bais Yoseph (OC 308).  Finally, there is a third opinion (See Rokeach Hilchos Shabbos 55) that they played ball on Shabbos and did not learn Torah.

NUMEROUS POSSIBILITIES

What is remarkable is that nowhere in these sources (other than in the words of the Rokeach) is the exact problem with ball-playing on Shabbos fully or even partially explained.  What was the exact violation?  There is, of course, an entire litany of halachic possibilities as to the exact nature of the problem (which, as the reader may have surmised, will be explored), but perhaps the very silence of the sources is instructive in and of itself.

LOST OPPORTUNITY

Perhaps, the reason Tur Shimon was destroyed was that this remarkable town - with such remarkable chessed going on in its midst should have utilized the Shabbos as a means to further their Dveikus Bashem - their cleaving to Hashem.  Excessive ball- playing, or any other mundane activity can sometimes be indicative of a lack of such a relationship with Hashem - and that lost opportunity may very well have been the  reason for Hashem not having saved this town from destruction. [For rest of article click Five Towns Jewish Times]