Y. Dror 

“The Omer counts days – but it measures our unity.” 

The forty-nine days that connect Pesach with Shavuot correspond to the forty-nine drives and traits of the human heart. In the desert each day saw the refinement of one of the sefirot that reflect these traits, which brought Klal Yisrael closer to achieving the level needed to obtain the holy Torah. 

Each year we retrace this inner journey with our “Counting of the Omer.” Beginning on the second night of Pesach, the day during which the korban haOmer was sacrificed, we show our thirst for Matan Torah and we begin to count the days and weeks – “Today is one day to the Omer,” “Today is seven days, which are one week to the Omer,” and so on – until “Today is forty-nine days, which are seven weeks to the Omer.”  

The number seven represents completion, as the entire world was created and completed in seven days. “Shavuot” means “Weeks,” teaching us that by the time Matan Torah is reached, and one had just completed seven cycles of seven, a forty-nine-step process of self-refinement, he is complete and ready to become a servant of Hashem and receive the Torah. 

On the day of Shavuot, the korban of “Sheteh Halechem,” which is made of wheat, is sacrificed. This korban is unlike the korban haOmer brought on the second day of Pesach, which is made of barley. This hints to us that prior to the forty-nine days we were on an animal-like level, as animals would eat simple barley. But now, after we have acquired a higher level, we offer a korban made up of wheat, which is eaten by humans.  

But in the middle of all this excitement of improving one’s self and preparing for Matan Torah, for the most part we are actually practicing several forms of mourning.

The Gemara in Yebamot (62) explains: Rabbi Akiva had twenty-four-thousand students, all of whom passed away due to not treating each other with the proper respect.   

One might ask: Can it really be true? 

Could it be that thousands of students of one of the greatest Tana’im – a man who restored Torah and halacha to Klal Yisrael – passed away for not treating each other with the proper respect? Furthermore, one may ask, why would it occur during a time that Klal Yisrael are preparing to receive the Torah?    

The Midrash Tanhuma cites a pasuk in Mishleh: “Do not rob a poor man because he is poor,anddo not crush the poor man in the gate.”Firstly, why would the pasuk need to tell us, “Because he is poor”? And second, if he is poor – then what is there to steal?   

The midrash explains that the pasuk means that if a person who used to support a poor man decides to discontinue his support, it is considered as though he is stealing from the poor person. 
Perhaps through this interpretation we can better understand what really happened with Rabbi Akiva’s students. Maybe they did not actually act wrongly or do anything inherently bad, but if, for example, one regularly greeted his friend every morning, and then stopped, it is like he stole and purposely did not greet him. “Hashem is meticulous with the righteous like a hairsbreadth.”    

Perhaps that is also one of the reasons they passed away during the time of year when we are preparing to receive the Torah. It is to teach us that without unity and the proper respect for one another it’s impossible to properly serve Hashem and accept the Torah even if your teacher is Rabbi Akiva.    It is imperative that we always keep in mind that Klal Yisrael accepted the Torah, “Keh’ish echad be’lev echad” – “As one man with one heart.” 

Investigative Journalist Lisa Daftari on Iran’s Uprising and the War Reshaping the Middle East

DAVE GORDON

The joint U.S. – Israel military campaign against Iran began not as a war of choice, but as a necessity. The attacks were a rapid and calibrated response to an onslaught of Iranian provocations over decades, that had pushed the region to the brink. Within days of precision strikes on Iranian command centers, defense analysts described what followed as a cascade of falling dominoes within the Islamic regime. Dozens of senior military and intelligence figures were eliminated, command communication fractured, and the once-formidable Revolutionary Guard showed signs of internal collapse.

The February 28th strikes came after weeks of protests that left a reported 90,000 Iranian demonstrators killed by the regime, and a total regime-led internet blackout of 90 million Iranians.

Tehran’s leadership appeared increasingly desperate, after a series of drone and missile strikes extended to eleven countries, including neighboring Muslim countries once considered off-limits.

For Washington and Jerusalem, the calculus was clear. After years of containment and deterrence, Tehran’s behavior left no diplomatic option. The ensuing strikes – swift, surgical, and devastating – signaled not escalation for its own sake, but the defense of global stability from a regime unmoored from restraint.

Award-winning investigative journalist and foreign policy expert Lisa Daftari weighs in exclusively for Community, clarifying the many layers needed to understand the conflict.

Born in New Jersey to Persian Jewish parents who met in the United States and married in Iran, Daftari brings to her journalism a deeply personal connection to the Iranian story. Even as a graduate student, she gravitated toward stories connected to Iran, producing an investigative documentary on an underground Iranian political and freedom movement that was later screened in the U.S. Congress.

Her early professional years took her into the world of Washington think tanks, where she researched Middle Eastern politics and terrorism, and produced detailed reports for the Pentagon and other government bodies. Immersed in policy debates on Iran, divestment, and regime behavior, she attended legislative hearings and compiled extensive research on Iranian youth movements and opposition networks.

Over the years, she has been a frequent guest and analyst on Fox News, as well as appearing on networks including CBS, NBC, and PBS.

As Editor-in-Chief of The Foreign Desk, a digital news platform she founded, Daftari oversees coverage of global affairs with a particular emphasis on how events abroad reverberate in American policy and domestic life. The outlet covers topics ranging from Iran’s internal unrest and nuclear ambitions to persecution of religious minorities in the Middle East and cyber threats originating from hostile regimes.

Over the course of her career, Daftari has covered some of the most significant developments in contemporary Iranian history, from the Green Movement and subsequent waves of protest to the ongoing 2025–2026 demonstrations sparked by economic collapse, corruption, and demands for political change.

This interview has been edited for brevity.

What is different about this recent wave of protests compared to earlier uprisings?

That’s a great question. One of the things I often talk about is the evolution of the protesters in Iran. So for years, we saw protests, but the Western world didn’t know what to make of them. We saw the Green Revolution (2009-2010). It was called a protest for reform because it was over a fraudulent election. Then after that, we saw the Iranians just starting to dabble with the concept of regime change. If you fast forward to the “women, life, freedom” protest (2022) [this protest movement launched after the death of a young Kurdish woman who was arrested by the morality police for not wearing her hijab properly], they began to be very clear – this is not just about women’s rights, but it’s about the entirety of the regime.

Really, all ages, all socioeconomic brackets [are involved] – and I think that’s an important part of this [current protest], that is really [happening] across the country. Iran is a diverse patchwork of different ethnicities, but right now they’re very much united in their message, and that is the message of regime change.

It’s almost the perfect storm. You have the regime at its weakest point ever, economically. The economy in Iran is in the downward spiral in terms of its proxies. They have been severely diminished by Israel the aftermath of the October 7th war.

And then, with regards to their weapons and nuclear program, we are just coming off of the 12 Day War [with Israel] in June, which severely degraded and also humiliated the regime, although they will not admit it. Then you have Bibi Netanyahu in Israel and Donald Trump in the United States, both leaders who have the moral courage to look beyond their terms in office, and look at the Middle East as a place where they can make significant change, and reset the entire region for decades to come.

I think this is going to put the Abraham Accords on steroids. What we’re seeing right now in the Middle East is a complete reset, with the Iran regime shooting indiscriminately into civilian areas, into these Arab states. We’re seeing realignment with Israel and its neighbors, and really seeing, hopefully, a new day for the Iranian people, for the region, and for global security.

How many people have taken to the streets in Iran so far, and how many people have been killed by the regime? Do we have those numbers?

It’s hard to verify. You’re not going to get real numbers from the regime, and there’s no way to really tell. But I would even say the numbers that we’re seeing are significantly higher than that [which the regime reports]. What we’re seeing quoted is 30 to 50,000 protesters killed.

There is consensus among Iranians of all 31 provinces. This is significant. Iran being twice the size of Texas. All generations are coming out onto the streets. We’re talking about millions of people, in a country of 90 million, because this is something worth sacrificing for.

The regime has responded with internet blackouts, arrests, and killings. What are you hearing from your sources inside Iran about how people are going about their daily lives?

It’s a great question. You know, the way I describe the Iranian people right now is with an “anxious optimism.” Obviously, nobody wants bombs coming over their heads. But imagine a people so desperate for change, so desperate for basic freedoms. We can’t understand this here in the West, but they are so desperate for basic freedom that they were asking for military intervention on their soil.

I think that that’s being lost in the mainstream media coverage of all this. They are trying to stay safe. A lot of people have gone out of the major cities for safety.

The Achilles heel of this regime has always been the people of Iran coming out in grassroots fashion, and rising up. They showed us in 2009 they were the first people on earth to use social media in an integrated effort, to tell the world their stories. They became citizen journalists. They were sending us videos and sending us stories, and telling us their stories without any reporters on the ground. So they [regime members] do the blackout, because they don’t want people to organize and to let one another know about where the next protest will be, or how they should organize politically.

You support the return of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. Why?

I support him for many reasons. From the time I was a child, my dinner table conversations revolved around this nostalgia about Iran that my parents carried with them to the United States. I was born in the United States. I was born after the revolution, but I inherited this nostalgia for a time under the Shah of Iran that my parents told me about. My mother went to university (in Iran), and she wore trendy outfits. They spoke of such a glorious time. The younger generation inherited their parents’ stories, too.

They want to go back to the glorious times of Iran. They are very cognizant of the fact that their country went backwards in the last 47 years instead of going forward.

I have had the honor of interviewing Pahlavi many times, getting to know him. I interviewed his wife. More recently, I interviewed his daughter, getting to know their family. They have become the guardians of this civilization. Pahlavi hopes to be a transitional leader – giving the Iranian people what they want, and putting them on the right course to reclaim their country and determine their future.

What signals do you look for to determine whether or how the US-Israel strikes are making a real difference?

It’s so interesting to me to watch the mainstream media and the political opponents here and around the world, whether they’re in Europe or the Middle East or in the United States, be so impatient. They’re asking: how are we going to dismantle a five decade tyranny in a week?

I think it really warrants more patience. I’m very much enthused, as I listen to briefings by the president, also by the IDF, as to what targets they’re hitting, and what their plans are. I’m enthused to hear that they are ahead of schedule. They’ve hit thousands of targets and eliminated fifty members of Iranian top-tier leadership. That’s a huge win for this war and for the Iranian people’s morale. If we don’t remove the regime now, we’ll maybe face nuclear weapons, more ballistic missiles, more proxy attacks, and an existential threat to Israel and the entire Middle East. I know the Arab countries being shot at now feel the same way.

There is no scenario in which this regime should be left with remnants [of munitions].

During a press conference on March 12, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a striking remark. “In these days, my team and I are weaving additional alliances with countries in the region, alliances that only a few weeks ago would have seemed unimaginable.” Is there code behind that? What does that mean?

I think it’s actually very clear that he’s talking about alliances with countries that now understand this threat better, clearer, than ever before. So, just as an example, the Qataris were housing and funding Hamas, and now Iran regime missiles are falling into Qatar.

The same goes for a long list of Persian Gulf Arab states that are now on the receiving end of the fury of this tyrannical maniac regime. I think that we’re looking again at a reset of the Middle East. We’re looking at an entirely new day on the horizon for the Middle East. I think for many years, a lot of us have been saying it, but now it’s become clear on the military battlefield.

If we remove the Iran regime, we will remove the biggest obstacle for Middle East security for decades to come, if not for generations to come. I think that that’s exactly what Netanyahu was referring to. This is the tremendous impact the removal of this regime will have on global security.

There is some discussion over what happens if the United States decides to halt operations before Israel is ready to do so. What does that situation look like, and how could that be handled?

I interviewed Ambassador Dr. Yechiel (Michael) Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, and posed the same question to him. He said very emphatically that the United States and Israel have never been so closely aligned from the beginning of this war to this very moment. So I’d like to echo his sentiments.

What message do peace-loving Iranians in Iran wish to send to the West?

I receive many videos, whether people are talking straight to the camera, or they are showing me graffiti, or they are dancing and praising Bibi and Donald Trump, for this very courageous effort. They look at this as a rescue mission.

Donald Trump saw an opportunity to end a war that started 47 years ago. From the first days of this regime, they said “Death to America.” They burned American flags, and then they took American hostages, and they started targeting our assets, and targeting our service members.

In the region, Iran was the number one state sponsor of terror. They put every dollar they had either into their nuclear program, their ballistic missile program, or into their proxies. The Iranian regime tried to train people to hate Israel and hate America, but that’s not the people of Iran. We love America. We love Israel. I think that they [the Iranian people] look forward to joining the global community and being free of this regime. So, they are grateful for this rescue mission.

Band-Aids in World War II

Although early sales of Band-Aids were slow, the product’s popularity took a big leap during World War II. As Johnson & Johnson expanded its first-aid supplies, it included Band-Aids in kits sent overseas to U.S. servicemen and allies, where they were widely used for minor cuts, blisters, and scrapes in training and combat situations. This exposure helped millions of soldiers become familiar with the product and brought Band-Aids into common usage when many veterans returned home after the war. The wartime distribution played an important role in transforming Band-Aids from a niche household item into a trusted staple in American first-aid care.

How the Boy Scouts Helped Spread the Brand

One of Band-Aid’s early marketing breakthroughs came through an unexpected partner: the Boy Scouts of America. In the 1920s, Johnson & Johnson included Band-Aids in first-aid kits for Boy Scouts, and later distributed free supplies to Scout troops. Scouts frequently encountered the kinds of scrapes and minor injuries that Band-Aids were designed to treat, making them ideal users of the product. This grassroots exposure helped familiarize entire families with Band-Aids and contributed significantly to growing demand nationwide. The Boy Scouts partnership is an early example of targeted product sampling that helped make Band-Aids a household name long before mass advertising.

Trademark vs. Everyday Language

The name Band-Aid has become much more than a product – it’s a well-known example of a brand name entering everyday language. While Johnson & Johnson still holds the trademark and officially refers to its products as “BAND-AID® Brand Adhesive Bandages” to protect that trademark, many people use the term generically to mean any adhesive bandage. This process, known as “genericization,” occurs when a brand name becomes synonymous in common speech with the category itself. Other examples include “Kleenex” for tissues and “Xerox” for photocopies. Even though Band-Aid remains a protected trademark, its widespread use in language reflects its deep cultural impact.

Inventions are the ingenious gadgets and machines that have made our lives a little more fun, interesting, and useful. Real inventions are the things that we did not think were possible yesterday, and yet, it would be difficult to live without today. From the tiny paperclip to the massive jet engine, every month we will explore the history behind our world’s most famous inventions and learn about the innovators who designed them.

This month we explore the history behind an invention that is an absolute staple of any home’s First Aid Kit…

The

BAND-AID

Earle Dickson was employed as a cotton buyer for large medical and healthcare firm, Johnson & Johnson in New Brunswick, New Jersey. In 1917, Dickson married Josephine Francis Knight. His wife routinely suffered minor injuries in the kitchen while preparing food. By 1920, Dickson became used to the routine of bandaging the occasional cut, burn, or graze on his wife’s fingers and hands.  Available bandages at the time were often big and bulky. It consisted of separate gauze and adhesive tape that you would cut to size and apply yourself. When Dickson noticed the gauze and adhesive tape his wife used would soon fall off her active fingers, he decided to do something about it.

Ingenuity and Determination

Earle  Dickson was determined to create something that would be easy to apply yourself, remain in place, and protect wounds better. He took a piece of gauze and attached it to the center of a piece of tape then covered the product with crinoline to keep it sterile.

This ready-to-go product allowed his wife to dress her injuries by herself. She now had access to a roll of pre-prepared dressings which she could cut a small piece off at any time to apply a small bandage to a knife-nicked finger or grazed elbow. For the first time, a dressing could now be applied easily and single-handedly by the injured person without any assistance.

Promotion to Vice President

When Dickson’s boss James Johnson saw the invention, he decided to manufacture the product to the public and make Earle Dickson vice-president of the company. The new bandages went into production in 1920.

The BAND-AID is Born

Executives struggled to come up with a title for the new product until the superintendent of the mill, W. Johnson Kenyon, had a spark of inspiration and suggested BAND-AID.

Sales, however, did not skyrocket right away. In the first year of production, only $3,000 of the product was sold. However, changes were made on both the marketing and product design sides. By 1924, the bandages were being produced in a range of convenient sizes – particularly the three inches long, three-quarters of an inch wide plaster people are most familiar with today, and the hallmark red thread pulled to easily open each plaster’s packaging was introduced.

Johnson & Johnson hired traveling salesmen to demonstrate how to use the product and also distributed large numbers of BAND-AIDS for free amongst Boy Scout troops across the entire United States. That seemed to do the trick, as sales rose sharply soon thereafter.

Major Milestones

Although the product itself has remained relatively unchanged throughout the years, its history still came with a few big milestones including the introduction of machine-made band-aids in 1924, the sale of sterilized band-aids in 1939, and the replacement of regular tape with vinyl tape in 1958, all of which were marketed as the latest in at-home medical care.

Successful Inventor & Innovator Earle Dickson served  as vice president for Johnson & Johnson until he retired in 1957. After his retirement, he was a member of the board of directors until his death in 1961. By this time Band-Aids were well-known and a hot seller for the company. At the time of Earle’s death, around $30,000,000 worth of Band-Aids sold each year. Quite an accomplishment from its first year total of only $3,000!

Our kids are the future of the community. We invest not only in them, but in their children and the generations to come. It is incumbent on us to be the best parents we can be, and I see many in our community take this challenge seriously. This month let’s look at  a tricky parenting topic – technology for our kids. When and how should technology be allowed, and  when should it be restricted?

Most parents recognize that technology is bad for our brains – especially for underdeveloped ones. So, maybe we should cut it out completely. Unfortunately, for a multitude of reasons, this option seems untenable. Technology has become part of our lives now, like it or not. Clearly, it’s been extremely useful for classrooms and learning in general, especially during Covid. It is not practical to avoid teaching our youth how to interact with technology because in the real world, it’s practically everywhere. Especially AI can be a game changer in almost all areas of business and even for home economics.

But, the risks are high. One concern is that if we now require technology for learning then how do we keep our youth safe from the dangers associated with certain types of technology? Also, do we hold the schools responsible for making and enforcing boundaries around technology or is it primarily a parent’s job? I posed these questions to my Instagram followers. Here are their responses.

Community Member #1

As a parent of teenagers and younger children, the topic of technology in our community schools is very concerning.  After COVID, families were suddenly thrust into a world of technology far beyond what most of us had previously experienced, and it quickly became clear that many of these changes were not benefiting our kids.

It was refreshing to see schools and the community begin to take initiative together. However, the conversation seems to have stalled. While many schools have implemented different rules and regulations regarding technology, these steps, although positive, are only a starting point.

For example, one school has asked parents to sign a contract stating that their family agrees not to give their child a smartphone until eighth grade. Another school is actively working to remove smartphones from the school building entirely. Meanwhile, other schools simply avoid acknowledging that smartphones exist at all. The reality, however, is that the phones are still there.

Children whose schools prohibit smartphones often still have them. They either leave them at home or hide them in their bags at school. When kids feel they must hide their phones to avoid consequences, it unintentionally teaches them that being dishonest is the way to navigate the rules. This is not a lesson any of us want to reinforce.

Schools may threaten consequences if phones are discovered, but punishment alone does not address the larger issue: children are not being taught how to use technology responsibly or safely.

Many parents also feel unequipped to handle this challenge. They may not fully understand how to introduce technology to their children in a safe and developmentally appropriate way. Some schools have begun pilot programs that teach students about online safety, including topics like stranger danger and the risks associated with technology. These are important steps.

However, as a community we need to go further. Instead of relying solely on rules or restrictions, we should focus on providing families with the tools and knowledge needed to introduce technology in a thoughtful, gradual, and responsible way.

Community Member #2

Our school is very vocal when it comes to technology. However, it has to start at home as a partnership with the parents. Unfortunately, I have personally had an issue with my child and group texting. As the bullying went on, many parents were not monitoring their children on their devices. I approached the school and they said they “could not parent the children.” While I agree with this, I also see it as a much larger issue. Technology and our children are quickly becoming extremely uncontrollable. If parents do not monitor their kids’ use of, technology, it will (and already does) cause a lot of harm. 

Community Member #3

Some schools even have a large screen in kindergarten classrooms – which I find crazy! Screens are in every single grade going forward. Some kids are wearing Apple watches to school and already have phones – and now they’re getting computer time in school at such a young age. I honestly think it’s just too much screen time. Shouldn’t school provide a break from screens?

Community Member #4

My kids are young now so I’ll have to cross this bridge when I get there. But I have a plan. I ‘m going to have a large computer desktop in the family room for homework. If the school requires laptops – no problem, but laptops stay in backpacks and will be for school only – not for home use. My kids will likely have phones because that is the way of the world. However, I won’t allow social media or WhatsApp- Group chats of any kind. They’re going to have to lift the phone to their ears and make some good old fashioned phone calls to connect with friends.  I feel that’s the safest way. The other side of the coin is if you don’t expose them enough when they are younger, they can get really hooked on technology when they’re old enough to self-govern. I’m aiming for controlled exposure, kind of like candy, which we enjoy in moderation. 

Community Member #5

I’m very pleased that my school has multiple meetings a year about having technology filters on all devices in the home. Also, they’re not allowed to have smartphones until a certain age. I feel like my school is on top of it and I’m grateful for that!

Community Member #6

I know one school that requires parents to pledge no smartphones until 8th grade. I wish more schools promoted this. At the end of the day, parents need to make rules for their own households and not just rely on the schools’ judgment. If parents were to band together that would be very helpful and empowering. That way, students wouldn’t feel left out, as their parents would be advocating for them. I think a lot of classroom management issues would be resolved if we banded together as a community to limit access to media that is too mature and anxiety inducing. Maybe some brave parents can take the initiative and suggest it to fellow parents who have kids in their kids’ grades.

Community Member #7

I have a high schooler – no restrictions (besides the obvious no phones in class rule). I don’t like it, but these kids grew up this way and aren’t as comfortable with textbooks as millennials were. They juggle it well and have less to carry around. They have access to everything when they need it. They never “forgot what they need in school.”

Community Member #8

As a parent, I wish kids would be taught safe ways to use technology instead of “tech is evil don’t touch it.” Let’s face it, the kids are going to be using it. We might as well teach them how to use it responsibly and safely. As an elementary school staffer (I work in a school office), those ChatGPT essays and assignments that kids hand in are obviously plagiarized. I definitely have not seen any upsides to it at all. I also hear a lot of the drama and fights that are happening on Snapchat, texting, etc.

Community Member #9

As a mom, I hate that summer homework is on a computer! What happened to getting a workbook sent home and the students actually have to write and show their work?

There’s something about hand written homework away from a screen that is simply superior. And if I leave them alone to do the work while I go shower or make dinner they click away and end up on YouTube or the like. It’s a gateway for them and I don’t see the pros outweighing the cons.

I think that as a community we recognize  that both our schools and parents are making efforts to navigate the new technology our kids are exposed to. This is an important issue that needs constant attention and effort. We are dealing with a new issue and we have to realize that  it’s going to take time and concerted effort to create regulatory systems that actually work. I am hopeful, because as a community, we have strong values and we have faith in our leaders to guide us. Bezrat Hashem  we will ultimately come up with workable solutions to address the new technology issues. Honestly, I’m praying we won’t have to because Mashiach will come soon and abolish the evils amongst us. But until then, it’s incumbent on parents and schools to stay vigilant to protect the generations to come. 

Signing off until next time,

Frieda Schweky!Frieda is an event and portrait photographer. Check Frieda out on Instagram @friedaschwekyphoto For photography inquiries or article topic suggestions email her friedaschweky@gmail.com.

Jack Gindi

I recently read a story about renowned physicist Richard Feynman as a young boy, walking with his father and learning about the world around him. Other children could proudly name the birds they saw. They had memorized them perfectly. But his father asked a different question: “What does it do? How does it move? What makes it different?”

He wasn’t teaching his son to label the world. He was teaching him to observe it. To stay curious. To look longer than everyone else.

Feynman later said the easiest person to fool is yourself.

That line stays with me.

Because I’ve seen how easily we fool ourselves, not with ignorance, but with certainty.

An Open Palm or a Closed Fist

Some people move through life with an open palm. Others move through it with a closed fist.

An open palm is willing to learn. A closed fist fights to be right.

Now here’s something important: I live with certainty. I always have.

When I entered the real estate brokerage business, I was certain of one thing. I would become a top producer. I didn’t know how. I had no connections, no playbook, no roadmap. But I was certain of the destination.

That certainty didn’t close my hand. It opened it.

Because I didn’t know how, I had to watch. I had to ask questions. I studied the best. I followed leads. I failed. I adjusted.

My certainty was about where I was going. My openness was about how I would get there.

There’s a difference.

A closed fist says, “I already know.”

An open palm says, “Teach me.”

When Certainty Turns into Fear

We see this posture in the smallest moments. A disagreement at the dinner table. Feedback at work. A spouse pointing something out. A child asking a hard question.

Something challenges what we believe, and we feel it, that tightening. We defend. We explain. We protect our position.

That tightening can feel like strength.

But often, it’s fear.

Fear of being wrong. Fear of losing control. Fear of discovering we still have more to learn.

The most dangerous certainty isn’t believing you’re right. It’s believing you no longer need to grow.

You cannot receive anything new with a clenched hand. Not wisdom. Not correction. Not even deeper connection.

I learned this the long way.

There were seasons in my life when I believed standing firm meant refusing to question myself. I thought strength meant holding my ground at all costs. Over time, I discovered something humbling: when my hand was closed, nothing new could enter.

Wisdom does not force its way in.

It waits for space.

Naming Isn’t the Same as Seeing

We label situations quickly: “That’s just how I am.” “That’s the problem.” “That’s the answer.”

Once we’ve named it, we believe we’ve mastered it.

But naming isn’t seeing.

Seeing requires humility, the willingness to look again.

And humility is not weakness. It is strength under control.

Our children are watching this more than we realize. They don’t learn humility from lectures. They learn it by watching how we respond when we’re corrected.

Do we listen? Do we reconsider? Do we admit when we’re wrong? Or do we tighten our grip?

Confidence without curiosity becomes arrogance. Conviction without openness becomes blindness.

The Strongest Posture

The strongest posture I’ve found in life is this:

Be certain about your direction.
Stay open about your method.

Be certain about your values.
Be open about how you apply them.

Be certain about who you are becoming.
Be open about what you still need to learn.

Before you leave this thought tonight, ask yourself:

Where in my life am I certain about the outcome but closed to learning the path?
When was the last time I truly changed my mind?
What belief might I be holding too tightly?

Growth does not require abandoning conviction. It requires loosening our grip on how things must unfold.

Wisdom is not something we conquer. It is something we receive. And it can only enter an open hand. Onwards together – with love and gratitude.

Why Brooklyn’s Jewish Community Must Speak Up Now

Linda Argalgi Sadacka

In Brooklyn’s Jewish neighborhoods, certain scenes are so familiar that we rarely pause to notice them.

On Shabbat morning, fathers walk with their sons toward shul. Mothers guide small children down the block. Teenagers drift toward friends already waiting outside synagogue doors. Grandparents move more slowly along the same sidewalks they have walked for decades, sometimes leaning on a cane, sometimes arm in arm with a spouse or child.

In neighborhoods like Flatbush, Midwood, Gravesend, and the surrounding communities, the walk to shul is not simply routine. It is one of the quiet, defining rhythms of Jewish life.

No one used to think twice about it.

New Question of Safety

Which is why the question many Brooklyn families now quietly ask would have sounded unimaginable not long ago: will the walk to shul always feel safe?

For generations, Brooklyn represented something powerful for Jewish life. It was a place where Jewish families could practice their faith openly, build institutions, and raise children with the confidence that their synagogues were places of prayer, dignity, and community.

But since October 7, the atmosphere surrounding Jewish institutions in New York has shifted in ways that many families feel every week.

Sometimes the change is subtle. Sometimes it is unmistakable.

Security outside Jewish schools has increased. Synagogues have become more vigilant. Parents walking with their children to services find themselves paying closer attention to their surroundings.

A Pivotal Event

For many Brooklyn residents, the moment when that tension became impossible to ignore came during the protest outside Congregation Shaare Zion on Ocean Parkway, when demonstrators gathered outside the synagogue in response to a planned appearance by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Supporters also arrived, and police were forced to separate the groups as tensions escalated. Clashes broke out, arrests were made, and the event was eventually canceled.

For those watching the scene unfold, the most unsettling aspect was not the political disagreement itself. New Yorkers are accustomed to protests. The city has always been a place where people gather to express strong views about global events.

What made this moment different was where it was happening. This was not a demonstration outside a government building or a public plaza. It was unfolding outside a synagogue where families had gathered for a community event and where worshippers regularly come to pray.

Once protests move to the doors of houses of worship, the nature of the confrontation changes.

Sanctity of the Synagogue

A synagogue is not a ministry or a parliament. The people walking through its doors are not policymakers or negotiators. They are parents bringing children to services, elderly congregants attending prayer, and families participating in the rhythms of Jewish life.

Yet the protest outside Shaare Zion was not an isolated moment. Similar scenes have taken place outside Jewish institutions across New York, including outside Park East Synagogue in Manhattan, where protesters gathered while congregants attempted to attend services.

Moments like these raise a troubling question: if houses of worship become routine protest sites, what happens to the ordinary act of entering a synagogue?

Children absorb these moments in ways adults sometimes overlook.

A child approaching synagogue should be thinking about prayer, about friends waiting inside, about the warmth of community. That child should not be processing hostility directed toward the place where their family gathers to worship.

The elderly feel this tension as well.

Anyone who has watched older congregants make their way slowly toward synagogue understands how vulnerable that walk can already be. Many move carefully. Some rely on assistance. To place them in the middle of emotionally charged demonstrations is not merely inconvenient. It is deeply unsettling.

Buffer Zones

The debate over buffer zones around houses of worship grew out of precisely these concerns.

Within a week of the October 7 attacks, as protests began spreading throughout New York City, I reached out to members of Mayor Eric Adams’s staff to raise the idea of establishing buffer zones around houses of worship. Watching demonstrations escalate so quickly, it seemed clear that the city needed to think several steps ahead.

The proposal never advanced to the level of serious policy discussion.

Fast forward to City Hall, where the New York City Council recently held a nearly ten-hour hearing debating legislation that would allow the NYPD to establish limited buffer zones around houses of worship and schools.

The proposal, part of a broader effort introduced by Council Speaker Julie Menin to combat rising anti-Semitism and hate crimes, does not prohibit protest. Demonstrators would still be able to assemble and express their views.

What the legislation seeks to do is to ensure that protests do not take place directly at the entrances of houses of worship where worshippers must pass to enter.

For many members of the Jewish community, that distinction is both reasonable and necessary.

Community Members Take a Stand

During the hearing, several voices from the community articulated that concern directly.

Community activist Abie Hamra addressed lawmakers and made a straightforward point: the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but those rights do not extend to blocking access to houses of worship or interfering with another person’s ability to pray.

Cities impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions all the time. Ensuring safe access to houses of worship should not be controversial.

District leader Joey Saban also emphasized the importance of legislation introduced by Senator Sam Sutton. In addition to serving in the Assembly, Saban is also Senator Sutton’s Chief of Staff.

“The buffer zone legislation introduced by Senator Sutton is precisely why it is so important that we have a seat at the table,” Saban said. “Through his leadership we have been able to introduce a major piece of legislation that will have a direct effect on keeping our community safe at a critically fragile time for the Jewish community in New York.”

I was invited to testify during the hearing as well. Because I was available earlier in the morning and could not remain until my scheduled speaking slot later in the day, I submitted my testimony to the Council by email.

Addressing Arguments by Opponents of Buffer Zones

In my testimony I addressed an argument raised by several opponents of the legislation.

During the discussion, much of the justification for protests centered on claims that certain religious institutions host events connected to political or international disputes. People may strongly disagree with those issues, and protest is a protected and important part of democracy. But the individuals walking into a synagogue, church, or mosque are not policymakers or negotiators. They are ordinary people coming to pray.

If disagreement with an idea becomes justification for confronting people at the doorway of a house of worship, then no doorway remains neutral ground.

Parents arrive pushing strollers. Grandparents move slowly with walkers. Families come seeking prayer, comfort, and community. They should not have to pass through shouting crowds or emotionally charged demonstrations simply to enter a religious space. At that point, it ceases to be protest and becomes intimidation.

Buffer zones do not silence protest. Demonstrators remain visible and heard. What buffer zones do is create a margin of space so that worshippers are not forced into confrontation simply to practice their faith.

Devorah Halberstam and Inna Vernikov

Among those who also addressed lawmakers was Devorah Halberstam, whose son Ari was murdered in a terrorist attack on the Brooklyn Bridge in 1994. For decades she has worked to combat anti-Semitism and advocate for Jewish safety in New York.

Speaking during the hearing, she urged lawmakers to pass the legislation for Ari, a”h, and ensure that houses of worship remain places where families can gather without fear.

Council Member Inna Vernikov has also expressed support for protecting access to houses of worship, emphasizing that while protest is a protected right, intimidation that interferes with the free practice of religion should not be tolerated.

Troubling Trends

Still, beyond individual statements, many Jewish New Yorkers are concerned about a broader convergence of troubling trends.

Public sympathy for groups that openly celebrated the October 7 massacre has appeared at protests and across social media. At the same time, debates about policing and enforcement have left some communities questioning whether sufficient resources exist to respond when demonstrations escalate.

When sympathy for extremist violence, uncertainty about enforcement, and the absence of clear protections around houses of worship collide, the result can feel like a dangerous vacuum.

And that vacuum is felt most clearly at the doors of synagogues.

If the ordinary rhythms of Jewish life begin to feel uncertain, the consequences ripple outward. Parents hesitate. Children absorb the tension. The sense of security that once defined community life begins to erode.

That is why this moment cannot be met with quiet concern alone. Brooklyn’s Jewish community must make its voice heard.

Speak Up!

Residents should contact their City Council members and state representatives and tell them clearly that protecting access to houses of worship must remain a priority.

Reasonable buffer zones are not about silencing protest. They are about ensuring that families can enter synagogues without intimidation.

New Yorkers can identify their elected officials by entering their address here: https://www.mygovnyc.org.

The message should be simple. Support reasonable buffer zones around houses of worship so that worshippers can pray without fear.

Congregants should also speak with their rabbanim and community leaders and encourage them to publicly support these protections. When lawmakers hear directly from the families who fill Brooklyn’s synagogues every week, the issue becomes impossible to ignore.

The demonstration outside Shaare Zion should not become normal in Brooklyn.

The hostility seen outside Park East Synagogue should not become the expectation for Jewish families entering houses of worship anywhere in this city.

The walk to shul should remain what it has always been, a peaceful expression of faith – not an act of courage. And ensuring that it stays that way requires the community to speak up now.