Every four years, YU holds its Chag Hasemikhah ceremony, celebrating their newly minted musmakhim. Some of you have seen the ads in the various papers, but many if not most have had the pleasure of avoiding every possible one.

I’ve been to two of these things before, and the best description I can give is that it’s a college graduation, but with all the speeches being given by Rabbis. To put things in perspective, the most memorable moment from the first one I went to was R. Tendler’s chair collapsing on stage during Ya’akov Ne’eman’s speech. ¹

Due to the mitzvah of kibbud av va’em I will be attending the upcoming one on Sunday as this is my “hag hasemikha class” and just having my klaf isn’t good enough for some people.

At any rate, as a public service to those who find themselves in the position of being stuck in one of these things, Avraham and I got together and made our own drinking game to make the day a little more leibedik. ²

It seems that Yeshiva University is in yet another scandal over it’s policies and treatment of homosexual students. According to the NY Post, AECOM student Jeevan Padiyar, a homosexual student, was harassed over the passed three years and eventually dismissed from the school. Padiyar alleges that his treatment was purely based on his sexual orientation. While such allegations are normally difficult to prove, Padiyar has produced a particularly incriminating memo (pdf) allegedly sent by Dr. James David, the Associate Dean for Students.

Thanks to a mistake in one of my brackets this year¹ I had the following she’eilah:

Question: Are you allowed to have North Carolina winning a Texas vs. UConn final?²

Putting aside the merits of the specific teams for a moment, is this a legitimate bracket? Do we count the winners of the games or simply who advances to the next round?
The answer I believe depends on how your bracket is scored. Most brackets are weighted such that victories in the second round are worth more “points” than the first round games, third round more than second, and so forth. The reason behind this system is obvious – the odds of a given team winning in the third round are significantly decreased when you consider that that team may not make it out of the second round. There are far too many variables and possibilities such that correctly picking the tournament champion ought to be worth more than correctly picking the 1-16 game.
Since weighted brackets are predicated on the logic of a formalized tournament, you cannot count a victory which would be impossible in the actual tournament. If you have a team eliminated in the sweet sixteen, that team cannot be counted in your final four. This error could be grounds for disqualification, but I’d be content to treat the errant pick as a loss even if that team does in fact advance in the appropriate round of the tournament itself.
However, in the unlikely event you’re involved in a pool which only scores the total number of wins – possible for a secondary prize – then the placement of these victories is no longer dependent on the actual tournament. As such, logic may be safely ignored and you’re free to pick whomever at any given stage even if you have that team losing in the first round.
UPDATE: Apparently, it’s not just me as even the famed sports guy made a similar mistake.

1. In a non-gambling pool, so no cracks about me being pasul l’eidut. Not for this anyway.
2. By “winning” I mean the actual game, not in some after-the-fact economic or recruiting benefits or the hana’ah (benefit) of mocking Duke for losing earlier in the tournament.

Happy Shushan Purim to All!
All is well in YUTOPIA, some quick updates:

• In a nice case of v’nahafoch hu, I recovered the previously lost comments
• Moving back to the heights soonish, likely spawning many interesting happenings.
• Had se’udah at future apartment with a bunch of YCT folk.
• Digital camera came in today
• Withheld a Purim posting because in the process of writing it, I realized I lost my sense of humor. Note that this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I have standards to uphold.
• Sunday I will be officiating my first wedding. More on this at some point.

As some of you may or may not know one of my first cousins is Deena Grant, married to Chaim Davis with whom I attended Gush so many years ago. Anyway, last week Deena gave birth to a really cute baby boy. At the bris this morning, the baby was named Akiva Eliezer, which as Chaim explained is partially after the baby’s 10th generation ancestor (on the father’s side), R. Akiva Eiger.
Sounds nice, but I’m personally schepping the irony. As Chaim noted, R. Eiger was known for his staunch opposition to all things haskalah. Deena, on the other hand, is a PhD student in Bible at NYU (hamaskil hameivin yavin).
No word yet on seismic activity in Bratislava, but I’ll keep you posted.

With Purim nearly upon us, it’s time once again for the reading of the four special parshiyot. We’re actually in the middle, having already covered sheqalim last week, but this week we get the spectacular fun of zachor (Devarim 25:17-19). Invariably, this reading generates much discussion as to how this passage should be read (including the practice of repeaing the last verse – a discussion for another time), and the extreme importance of being in shul to hear zachor being read.

Most of these discussions are based on the preception that the reading of parashat zachor is biblically mandated. This assumption has bothered me for some time, as well as the cavalier attitude with which it is presented. Despite the lack of textual evidence or logical consistency, few people question the nature of keriat parashat zachor. As luck would have it, my new upgraded Bar Ilan CD just came in and it’s all all revved up for a test spin.

It seems that everyone’s favorite shidduch website Saw You At Sinai has been going through some changes as of late. On 1/16/2006 the SYAS support staff sent out the following in an e-mail:

As of February 1st, all new Gold members can select two matchmakers, instead of the current three. This will allow matchmakers to have more time for each of their members allowing for improved relations and even better quality matches.
We wanted to inform all our GOLD members in advance of this change. Should you decide at any point to cancel your GOLD membership, you would then only have TWO matchmakers upon upgrading to GOLD again. This change will take effect on February 1st.

There have also been some changes on the matchmaker’s side as well. According to my sources, matchmakers can no longer decline a single who requests them if they have fewer than 20 “clients” – regardless if the single is appropriate for that matchmaker’s network. There have also been issues with matchmaker’s offering suggestions on profile changes such that some are told to lay off critiquing profiles.

I’m going to guess that whatever official changes have been made were done in response to common complaints. The need for quality matches is obviously essential. Members lack the autonomy to conduct their own searches and are instead dependant on the judgement of others who may not know them or don’t take the time to read a profile carefully. Such suggestions can be very discouraging, especially to paying customers.

I’ve also heard some horror stories involving rude, pushy, or obnoxious matchmakers. Some matchmakers give very constructive advice about a profile. For example, blurry pictures ought to be replaced and profiles should be written using complete sentences. However, some matchmakers have been outright insulting, in one case telling someone that she’s single because she wears glasses.

Sometimes matchmakers take rejection worse than the singles and have berated friends of mine for daring to use their own discretion. For privacy reasons I won’t get into details here, but yes there have been stories even worse than my own experience.

The point is that there is definitely room for improvement. However, I am not entirely sure how the new policies will really help the singles find decent matches. Finding an appropriate match is a very nuanced endeavor, and I would think that from a significant quantity, the singles could choose their own quality. Also, there are quite a few profiles out there which could be improved and may help that person find for what s/he is looking by refining the content to attract the desired person.

From people with whom I have spoken, I’ve found that there is a great deal of frustration and cynicism about the site. One even made the argument that the site is more interested in keeping customers than getting them married. While this is an interesting charge against the overall business model of such a site, I’m not sure I’d go that far as to say the recent changes are intended to be subversive.

For the record, I haven’t e-mailed the site or Marc Goldman about any of these changes but I am curious if there are any single’s or especially matchmakers out there who can share their experiences with the site and its new policies.

It’s 3:00 A.M. and I want to go to be-eh-ed…
Ok not exactly, but it took some time to recover from the weekend’s festivities (Monday wasn’t terribly restful either, but that’s another story). It’s really amazing what getting out and hanging with lots of good old friends can do for one’s disposition. The short summary is that everything was energizing, entertaining, and even enlightening at times.
The long version is, well, longer.