Better Know a Noble

Wedding of
Naomi Boyarsky
and
Yoni Noble
May 26, 2008
21st of Iyar, 5768


We dedicate our wedding to Hashem and to our parents, without whom we would not be.

B”SD
Our Dearest Loved Ones,

We are so excited to be able to share with you this very special moment in our lives! Each of you has played a crucial role in our intellectual, emotional, and spiritual growth, and we respect you greatly for it. We are thrilled to have you in our lives and pray we will continue to share many more monumental moments together, please God.

A Jewish wedding is full of meaningful rituals and customs. It is our hope that by reading this pamphlet you will better understand and appreciate our wedding.

There are three major components to a Jewish wedding as we practice it today: the kabbalas panim/reception hour, the Chuppah ceremony, and the festive meal.

Kabbalas Panim/Reception Hour

Kabbalas Panim literally means “greeting of faces.” This is the time when guests arrive at the wedding and greet the bride and groom. Since the groom (chosson) and bride (kallah) are compared to a king and queen, a reception is held in their honor on the day of their wedding. Jonathan is seated at the head of the table and Naomi on a throne-like chair, as relatives, friends, and honored guests come to greet us and offer their good wishes. Since Naomi and Jonathan do not see each other the week before the wedding, these receptions are held in separate rooms. We are anxiously waiting to greet you, so please do come over and say “hello”. Both of us would absolutely LOVE to hug and kiss everyone, but in accordance to Jewish law, Jonathan can only hug and kiss men, and Naomi can only hug and kiss the ladies. After you greet us, be sure to have something to eat from the two rooms, although the food is usually better where the bride is.

During Kabbalas Panim, Jonathan signs two Jewish legal documents: the tennaim and the ketubah. The tennaim, lit. “conditions,” is a legal document that became customary to write during an engagement in Europe in the Middle Ages. It traditionally contained conditions agreed upon by the two families that were joining. Nowadays, we sign a similar version promising to be open with each other financially. After it is read and signed, Ma Boyarsky and Mom Noble will break a china plate, tempering this moment of great joy with a reminder of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Also, just as this plate is irreversible, so too should be the engagement.

The second document is the marriage contract, the ketubah, an agreement in which the groom obligates himself to cherish, support, and sustain his bride. In it, Jonathan promises to support Naomi in various ways, including to provide her with food and clothing and to redeem her in case she is captured by bandits! The ketubah is the original premarital contract. The rabbis ordained that a man may not remain married without giving a ketubah to his wife as a means of security for her. It is therefore read to Jonathan at the beginning of the wedding, in the presence of two witnesses who will sign it, so that he may give it to Naomi as soon as they commit to their marriage under the chuppah.

The tennaim are read aloud here, but the ketubah will be read aloud to the couple under the chuppah. In addition, it is customary for the groom to deliver a short Torah discourse, or dvar Torah, at the Kabbalas Panim.

The Bedeken- “To Check”

After the dvar Torah, family and friends dance to accompany Jonathan as he goes to greet Naomi and perform the bedekin ceremony, the veiling of the bride. Jonathan lowers the veil over Naomi’s face, reminiscent of when Rebecca saw her husband-to-be, Isaac, for the first time, she took the veil and covered herself (Genesis 24:15). This is the Biblical allusion to the Badeken. The tradition also symbolically infers that by covering Naomi’s face, her physicality, Jonathan shows that he wishes to marry her for her whole being. Once Naomi is veiled, she receives blessings from her father.
The men then dance Jonathan back out and the guests proceed to the chuppah where the ceremony will take place. Men and women are seated separately on either side of the aisle, both enjoying clear and equal visibility of the chuppah.

Chupah (“Canopy”) Ceremony

The Chuppah is a canopy, representing the future home that Naomi and Jonathan will build together, please God. It is open on four sides to reflect the Jewish home being open to all. Just as Abraham welcomed guests from all directions, you are all always welcome to our future home (or apartment)!

Naomi and Jonathan are both escorted to the chuppah by their parents to represent the unification of the two families. The candles the parents hold are symbolic that Jonathan and Naomi’s marriage should be one of light and happiness, please God.
When Jonathan reaches the Chuppah, he dons a kittel with the help of Mom Noble. A kittel is a white robe worn to represent the purity one attains on his wedding day. This is because the Talmud teaches us that on a person’s wedding day, all of his sins are forgiven. In addition, a small amount of ashes is placed on Jonathan’s head, as a sign of mourning for the loss of the temple.

When Naomi arrives at the chuppah, she circles Jonathan seven times, figuratively building the walls of their new home. This circling has its origins in Kabbala and has been explained as a re-enactment of the revolutions of the world in the process of creation. This is to show that marriage is also a new process of creation. Additionally, seven alludes to the dimension beyond the physical, into the realm of the spiritual. Just as Shabbos (the 7th day) infuses the week with holiness, so too does the spiritual bond between husband and wife infuse their relationship with holiness. A singer will simultaneously bless their marriage through a song.

Following the song is one of the most important parts of the ceremony: the kiddushin. Kiddushin, which literally means “consecration,” refers to Jonathan’s consecration of Naomi to be his wife. First, two blessings are made over a full cup of wine, a traditional symbol of joy. The blessings are made to express thanks to God for the sanctity of marriage. The consecration occurs when Jonathan places a ring that he owns on Naomi’s finger and recites the Hebrew phrase:
“Behold you are sanctified to me through this ring in accordance with the religion of Moses and Israel.”
According to Jewish law, at this point Jonathan and Naomi are married! (Yay!!!)

One honored guest is called to the chuppah to read the ketubah aloud. The ketubah is read aloud to separate between the kiddushin (betrothal) and nissuin (marriage). Nissuin literally, “to carry/lift”, is the ceremony of spiritually lifting the chosson and kallah into the married state. Jonathan gives the ketubah to Naomi, who hands it to Ma Boyarsky for safe-keeping.
During the nissuin part, a number of honored guests are called up to the chuppah to bless the bride and groom according to the traditional sheva brachos or “seven blessings.” This is in line with the Talmudic adage, “a bride without a blessing is forbidden to her husband.” That is, before any new couple starts life together, we bless their endeavor so that it should be successful. The chuppah ceremony is concluded when Jonathan breaks the glass to remind us of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which occurred about 2,000 years ago.

Cheers of “MAZEL TOV!” and “Hurray!” echo through the crowd, as Naomi and Jonathan are escorted down the aisle by singing and dancing guests.

Naomi and Jonathan are danced down the aisle to the yichud (seclusion) room, where they are alone for their first moments as husband and wife. In Jewish law, a man and woman may not be alone together in a secluded location before being married. Naomi and Jonathan now enter the yichud room to show that they are officially married. During this time, the wedding party will commence and food will be served.


Festive Meal

Feel free to start the meal right after the chuppah. We will be taking [quick] pictures, so please do not wait for us to start eating. When we return, expect to dance with us on the dance floor! Although the seating at the reception may be mixed, the men dance with Jonathan on one side of the partition, while the women dance with Naomi on the other side of the partition. It is a great mitzvah to dance before the bride and groom, so guests generally attempt to entertain the couple with funny tricks and jokes. Feel welcome to bring silly props to dance with- the funnier and wackier, the better. We fully endorse a good time for all!

In between dancing, try to have a bite to eat. At the end of the meal, birkas hamazon or “grace after meals,” is recited. This includes another of the sheva brachos, the seven blessings recited by some of our guests.

The seven days after a wedding are considered a festive time for the couple. Whenever they have a formal meal during these seven days, the sheva brachos are recited at the meal’s conclusion. One new person who was not present at the wedding or other sheva brachos must be present at each meal. This custom of continued celebration follows the example of Jacob and Leah’s celebration that lasted one week.

Finally, we want to express our sincere thanks to you for your respect. We understand that some of the customs at our wedding may seem unusual for some, and it means a great deal to us that you are so accommodating. We hope our wedding will be a new and exciting experience for all!

We CANNOT wait to celebrate with you!

With love and respect always,
Naomi and Jonathan (Yoni)

China and Google

Strength in Numbers


Scrolling through the class blogs, I came across a particularly trenchant blog entry by The New England Patriot. He claims that someday soon the master bloggers of the Net will join the ranks of mainstream Media, trading in their independence for greater visibility and credibility in an otherwise chaotic environment.

My hope is that this never comes to pass. Blogs of all sizes and influence draw their strength from the democratic outpouring of millions of wired people. A blog is only as good as the comments that accompany it. Notwithstanding the growing presence of trolls, pesky miscreants that disrupt online discourse with non-constructive input, participation is a key ingredient to a blog's success. If certain blogs ever attained MSM status, the blogging community as a whole will shrink. Why start a blog if people are going to read the DailyKos anyway?

I can empathize with the effort to establish trust and journalistic integrity on the Net. But I am cautious to endorse any policy or course of events that will subject the Net to the same hierarchical structures as found on the radio and television. To me, this short-term gain cannot outweigh the inevitable chill it will place on creative blogging. Lets keep growing, even at the expense of some journalistic integrity.

Fetch my Blog, Spot!

For the first time in nearly a century, professional journalists face a formidable challenge to their dominance in the news industry: the Blogosphere. On any event, topic, or study, blogs can offer just as much valuable, insightful information as the best newspapers. Given the options, how should the average news consumer proceed?

My suggestion would be to choose depending on the type of story being covered. What are the advantages of professional journalism? One is the training to observe an event without becoming emotionally engaged. Zayed, an Iraqi blogger from the heart of Baghdad, reports on the daily condition of Iraqis in his blog Healing Iraq. He is an incredible eye witness to the Gulf War experience. Yet, does he have the emotional fortitude to exclude himself from the scene and report objectively? More likely, the experienced journalist can handle the task better than an embedded participant.

There are other types of stories, however, that the blogger can offer much more thorough coverage. Dan Gilmore, writer for The San Jose Mercury News, admits often that his readers have a much better grasp of the high-tech field than he does. He can relate what Steve Jobs actually said at the conference and still miss the important implications because he lacks the requisite techy background. Most journalists are trained in Grad school to be generalists, not specialists. A tech blog, therefore, might be a better source of useful information than a general article in a major newspaper.

Whereas professional journalists offer skills, bloggers can offer area-specific expertise. For coverage of an event, such as a catastrophic hurricane, I would first consult established media. For a highly specific topic or a hyper-local concern, blogs are my pick.

A YU Blog? Why Not!


Why do I sit at this desk pounding out yet another blog posting? Do I delude myself into believing that more than a very small group of people will ever read these words? Will my post incite millions to throng the streets tomorrow, triggering massive social upheaval?

The chances of any single blog enjoying that kind of influence are slim. Far more than other mediums, the Internet approaches democracy in its literal sense: It takes the combined force of many bloggers to wreak havoc on corporate corruption, scandal, and government malfeasance.

The power of bloggers united has matured into a formidable force in today’s political climate. As Dan Gillmor illustrates in his book We the Media, bloggers were partly responsible for ousting Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in 2002. At first, major news outlets found the remarks innocuous. The story was buried deep into The Washington Post, and ABC News had barely mentioned it. It was the swarms of angry bloggers that forced the issue into the national scene (for further analysis, read a Harvard study).

Ironically, blogs can also serve the needs of the corporate elite. For the potential candidate and the corporate executive alike, maintaining a timely, open blog is an excellent way of engaging your targeted audiences and putting a human face on a product brand. You can read Blog Maverick, written by Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks. Just be sure you don’t delegate blog writing.

A more difficult question to answer is whether blogs can be classified as communities. Sure, bloggers network to build active discussion groups on topics of relevance to them, from DVD players to Yoga dancers. Bloggers have even developed a system of typing etiquette, such as a disdain for capitalized lettering, which is the electronic equivalent of shouting. Yet if communities are defined in the strictly traditional sense, neighbors meeting at a county fair, then something is lacking in the blogsphere. Bloggers tend to form communities with those they already agree with, spurning exposure to diversity for an echo room. If diversity is considered to be a necessary component of a community, then most blogs are not communities.

Perhaps, if Richard Joel were to start his own blog, a la Mark Cuban, a YU blog-based community could possibly develop. In time, the blog would engage the diverse YU denizens in issues that affect us all, satisfying my diversity requirement. For all the talk of “building the community”, I’d imagine that this one’s a no-brainer. Check out the existing alumni blog on the YU site, it's pathetic! This "blog" merely lists off the recent headlines that have graced the front page of the website, no more.

President Joel, if you are reading this, could you please respond with a comment?

Life After Wikipedia

I can’t remember where I first heard it, but a particular childhood story came to mind when I read Chapters One and Two of Dan Gillmor’s We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People:

Once upon a time, a young king of some distant land desired to master all areas of knowledge. He proceeded to commission a team of learned scholars to prepare for him an authoritative book on every subject. Years past and the scholars weren’t even close to finishing the monumental project. The king then relented, asking for at least a compendium. When that wasn’t enough, the king knocked it down to a digest. Unfortunately, just when the scholars had completed chapter one, the king had past away.

Until recently, creating the penultimate repository for all knowledge was a librarian’s fantasy. No encyclopedia could hire enough experts to submit enough articles to cover all areas. At best, we had to allow the experts an incredible amount of power to triage knowledge for us.

Such undemocratic and ineffective methods of information collecting were symptomatic of the Dark Ages before Internet. Today, however, Wikipedia has revolutionized the way we gather knowledge and even the definition of truth itself. It’s a giant encyclopedia written and edited by thousands of average people. Over the summer, I read an absolutely fascinating article on the history and impact of Wikipedia in The Atlantic Monthly. Marshall Poe, the author, claims that truth has now become what most people, not the experts, say it is:

The power of the community to decide, of course, asks us to reexamine what we mean when we say that something is “true.” We tend to think of truth as something that resides in the world. The fact that two plus two equals four is written in the stars—we merely discovered it. But Wikipedia suggests a different theory of truth. Just think about the way we learn what words mean. Generally speaking, we do so by listening to other people (our parents, first). Since we want to communicate with them (after all, they feed us), we use the words in the same way they do. Wikipedia says judgments of truth and falsehood work the same way. The community decides that two plus two equals four the same way it decides what an apple is: by consensus. Yes, that means that if the community changes its mind and decides that two plus two equals five, then two plus two does equal five. The community isn’t likely to do such an absurd or useless thing, but it has the ability.

Wikipedia’s critics warn that the new technology will wrought absolute destruction on authoritative knowledge. Poe, I believe, would counter that Wikipedia has instead entrusted the knowledge of mankind to mankind itself. What belongs to us should be returned to us.

Lapdogs or Watchdogs?


Eric Boehlert's new book Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled over for Bush makes a few bold assertions.

1. The national press failed miserably in its role as the public advocate to question President Bush's motives to wage war in Iraq.
2. Press coverage of the Bush Administration, at least until Katrina, was far more positive and supportive than of the former Clinton Administration.
3. Moreover, the press marginalized Cindy Sheehan's peace movement, favoring the Christian Right's Terry Schiavo crusade instead.

These events are neither incidental nor coincidental, Boehlert would claim. In the past thirty years, the conservative donors, think tanks, media watchdog groups, and press have quietly consolidated and streamlined a powerful right-wing media cartel, penetrating national political discourse as never before. Their favorites (Bush) get kid-glove treatment, their enemies (Clinton) get boxing-glove treatment.

Boehlert is probably right, though without reading his book, I'd need a few points clarified. First, he notes how Whitewater and the various sex scandals persistently followed Clinton throughout his presidency, but Bush's drinking and coke-sniffing escapades were quickly disregarded. True, but Clinton’s scandals were ongoing, while Bush is coke-free for almost thirty years. How is that relevant anymore?

Also, “conservative media cartel” probably isn't the only storyline here: Aren’t we forgetting 9/11? That fateful day had a chilling effect on an otherwise feisty media. Supporting the president became popular again, especially during a military campaign in Afghanistan.

When the dust settles, even a cursory overview of recent political history would finally debunk the myth that the media swings to the left.