Have Questions or Comments?
Leave us some feedback and we'll reply back!

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone Number)

    In Reference to

    Your Message


    Dear Vues Master:
    Looking towards Pesach, there has been persistent
    news of a Matzo shortage this year. One of the factors
    that caused this is the untimely closing of the Shatzer
    Matzah bakery. Some say that this is due to the war
    in Ukraine – no grain from Ukraine. Also there is a
    shortage of workers; they are too busy fighting there to
    bake matzos even for eighteen minutes. Other reasons
    include legal issues including the impending arrest of
    President Trump. However, we must look into the history of the bakery. The Shatzer bakery didn’t start operations last century. It has actually been around for
    many centuries beginning during the time of the first
    Bais Hamikdash. When Nebuchanetzer destroyed the
    Bais Hamikdash, he looted the keilim. What he was
    most proud of though was taking the ovens of the bakery. In fact, he eventually gave ownership of it over to
    his grandson. His grandson publicized this so much
    he became known as the Baal-Shatzer. Of course, we
    know he was punished for this and only lived for another few years. Now that we know the rich history of
    the bakery, we can only hope that the closing will only
    be for this year. Next year, we fervently look forward
    iy”h for the reopening of the bakery – the Chazuras
    Ha’Shatzer – and let us answer Umein!
    D F
    Vues Master’s Note: The price of Matzah will only go
    up! There is a new excuse every year!

    Dear Vues Master:
    It is a shame that both Israel and the USA governments are divided. Do they realize that enemies will
    take advantage of this. We need a miracle to save us.
    Let us hope that this time of year will bring that.
    Vues Master’s Note: Maybe it is time to understand
    that the only ally we have is Hashem!

    Dear Vues Master:
    Thirteen months ago, a war between Russia and
    Ukraine began, making it the first war in Europe since
    WW2. America and other western countries have given full support to Ukraine unconditionally. Sanctions,
    military build-ups, sending Ukraine money, tanks,
    and missiles, isolating Russia economically, and the
    expansion of NATO have been some of the actions
    taken against Russia. The reasons that have been
    given for these actions have been to stop “Putin’s
    invasion”, to “protect democracy and defend freedom”, and to “stop Russian aggression from spreading”. These reasons have been the prime defense for
    America and other nations’ non-aggressive approach
    to this war. The questions though remain on this approach; do these goals have legitimate assumptions?
    Has the response to the war accomplished the goals?
    Are there other consequences that could have more
    terrible outcomes? Those questions are obvious and
    legitimate to be asked, however, in the past year, if
    you were to ask these questions, you were labeled a
    “Putin sympathizer”. The overdramatic reaction to
    legitimate questions such as these with the implications of something like, I don’t know, nuclear war,
    indicates that something more is going on here than
    is being laid out on the surface. The response from
    western countries has been with one thematic goal of
    “defending Ukraine”. Maybe that is a very righteous
    cause, but for what interests does a country like the
    US have in defending Ukraine? Is it to stop “Putin’s
    invasion”? If that was true, why was there an effort
    among these same countries to continue this war? As
    stated by former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet, who was involved in secret negotiations at the
    beginning of the war, that ,”…Anything I [Bennet]
    did was coordinated down to the last detail with the
    US, Germany, and France,” he said. But, he noted as
    reported by Business Insider, “some believed it would
    be better to ‘keep striking Putin,’ lest he or other leaders be emboldened by a seeming desire for peace at
    any cost…” Further, if it was about peace, why would
    the United States or a pro-Ukrainian group sabotage
    the Nordstrom Pipeline to Europe if the goal was to
    stop “Putin’s invasion”? If the response to this war is
    about “defending democracy and freedom”, defending

    a country with historical problems
    of being an oligarchy brings up an issue.

    Though Ukrainian President Zelensky was elected on a platform to get rid
    of this oligarchy, an investigative report
    released over a year ago, dubbed “The
    Pandora Papers” revealed that Zelensky
    has previously undisclosed money in an
    offshore company, thereby continuing
    his country’s practice of corruption and
    oligarchy. Zelensky also in the past year,
    has banned religious organizations and
    suspended 11 political parties because of
    their “pro-Russian” nature. Banning religious organizations and elected members
    of parliament because of a belief is in no
    way democratic. Finally, if defending
    Ukraine is about “preventing Russian aggression from spreading”, why is NATO,
    an organization that was primarily created to stop aggression from the Soviet
    Union, a country that no longer exists,
    constantly putting troops on the border
    of Russia even before this war? What
    has this spirit of aggression on NATO’s
    part created? The answer is a natural feeling of defense on Russia’s behalf. That,
    of course, doesn’t mean, that the tragic
    killing, torture, etc. that has occurred this
    past year, is at all defensible, but to allege that this effort is to prevent Russian
    aggression is ludicrous. This year of responding in this environment has led to
    the alliance of Russia and China more
    closely together. How exactly is uniting
    the world’s 2nd biggest economy which
    happens to be communist, and a country
    with the most nuclear warheads a success
    and a “defense for democracy”? Besides
    all of the devastating results that this war
    has had on NATO country citizens; from
    an energy crisis, inflationary prices, gas
    shortages, and other effects, how has this
    response been successful and effective?
    The loss of life that could be prevented
    with talks of peace being advanced now
    before a nuclear war must be the only
    response. This week, Russia transferred
    nuclear weapons into Belarus, showing the world that they aren’t bluffing.
    Last week, Russia and China pledged
    to realign their alliance for the first time
    in 100 years. If truly this fight is about
    “defending democracy”, the citizens of
    NATO countries have a right to debate
    and vote on this war, especially with all
    of the devastating results that it has had
    on the world.

    Vues Master’s Note: Wait when is WWIII?

    Dear Vues Master:
    I once asked a young boy what he does
    to help out for Pesach? He told me that
    his mom told him to go out to the park.
    That would be the greatest help. He came
    back early saying I’ve helped enough.
    I once put on easy off on the stove and
    stood there with the kitchen hose like
    a fireman hosing down the oven till it
    was completely waterlogged! Well at
    least it was Kosher L’Pesach Mehadrin
    min hamehadrin. I also tried to surprise
    my wife when I told her how I bought a
    new recliner from the furniture truck that
    came down the block. I also told her not
    to worry, since I had asked the African
    American workers to take down the old
    recliner to the garage. Uh oh she keeps
    her jewelry in the old one oops! Sorry.
    I sat down on erev Pesach to clean out
    the vacuum bag of chometz. It did not
    have a bag. I tried cleaning out the dust
    & chometz from the vacuum cleaner but
    the ceiling fan was blowing everything
    all over the place. I took the entire vacuum cleaner and chucked into the sanitation truck! B”H Yom Yom! Chag Kasher
    Vues Master’s Note: And then you woke up!

    Dear Vues Master
    If you’ve ever researched the strange terminology for animal groups (known as
    terms of venery), you know there’s a lot
    more than just herds and packs. There are
    some well known ones like a pride of lions, a school of fish, a flock of birds and
    a gaggle of geese. There are even some
    lesser known ones like a murder of crows,
    a bloat of hippopotamuses and a parliament of owls. But did you know there are
    some unusual terms used exclusively to
    describe various Jewish groups of people
    ? There really aren’t but there are now!
    For example:
    1. A Minyan of worshippers
    2. A Kvelling of mothers
    3. A Moishav of Laitzim
    4. A Crockpot of Cholent Fressers
    5. A Plopple of talkers
    6. A Shlitah of Rabbonim
    7. A Zatzal of deceased Rabbonim
    8. A Fherd of overweight troublemakers
    9. A Shlemazel of Lo Mutzlachs
    10. A Kaparah of Balei Teshuvah
    11. A Momzer of shul presidents
    12. A Shnit of Mohelim
    13. A Shayla of Shochtim
    14. A Pshurah of Dayonim
    15. Ah Bruch of In-laws
    16. Ah Klulah of Mother in Laws
    17. A Mazal Tov of Kallahs
    18. An Extravagance of caterers
    19. A Klop of Gabboim
    20. A Donation of Meshulachim
    21. An Annoyance of Schnorrers
    22. A Shtreimel of Chassidim
    23. A Gorggle of Chazzonim
    24. A Trup of Bal-Korehs
    25. A Botlin of Laydigayers
    26. A Mesechta of Daf Yomi learners
    27. A Nusach of Cantors
    28. A Shvitz of Mikvah Goers
    29. A Tekiah of Shofer Blowers
    30. A Deafening of musicians
    31. A Shlock of Sukkah builders
    32. A Sermon of pulpit rabbis
    33. A Brucha of babies
    34. A clasp of jewelers
    35. A Pain of dentists
    36. A Suit of lawyers
    37. A Spread of proctologists
    38. An Orbit of astronauts
    39. A Dazzle of diamond dealers
    40. A Shondeh of prisoners
    Country Yossi Toiv
    Vues Master’s Note: Hilarious!!

    Dear Vues Master
    A Jew from Texas is visiting Israel for
    Pesach. Touring around the country on
    Chol Hamoed, he comes to a small kibbutz. Seeing they have horses, he decides
    that it’s a great day to go riding, and enjoy
    the countryside that way. The kibbutznik
    in charge of the stable tells him, “Here we
    do things different from America. If you
    want Shmuli, your horse, to go, you say
    ‘Oy Givolt’. If you want him to stop, you
    say, ‘Shalom alecheim’. You got that? Oy
    Givolt is go, shalom alecheim is stop.”
    “Got it”, says the Texan, adjusting his ten
    gallon hat, “No problem! Shmuli and I
    are gonna get along jest fine!” And with
    a loud ‘Oy givolt’, he’s off! Riding along
    enjoying the country, he spies Masada in
    the distance. What a great idea, he thinks,
    I can get up Masada with the horse, and
    don’t gotta hike all day! So with a loud,
    Oy givolt!, they’re off! And he’s ‘Oy givolting’ the whole trail, Shmuli galloping
    for all he’s worth, snorting, sweat flying
    in the wind! They get to the top of Masada, and Shmuli is still galloping in a
    frenzy, heading right for the edge of the
    cliff! The Texan is frantic! “What’s that
    word I gotta say! Oy Ribbono Shel Olam!
    What…oh yeah!” He yells out, “Shalom
    alecheim!” Shmuli stops, his hoofs right
    at the edge of the great drop! The Texan
    looks at the plunge downward, removes
    his hat, wipes his brow with shaking
    hands, and loudly exclaims, ‘Oy givolt!’
    Vues Master’s Note: Oy givolt! Keep the
    jokes coming! We love them!

    Dear Vues Master:
    Two women were speaking about their
    children. One said that her son is studying medicine and was planning on specializing as an ear, nose and throat doctor.
    When they next met several years later,
    the woman was asked how her son was
    doing. She responded: “He’s a dentist.
    Very smart move. He realized that a person has only two ears, one nose and one
    throat, but thirty two teeth.”
    Vues Master’s Note: I can see the wisdom in that profession!

    Dear Vues Master:
    N-ice A-wesome C-hein H-appy U-nbelievable M-entch S-uper Star E-xcellent
    G-evaldig A-lla Maalos L-ikeable
    Vues Master’s Note: I thought it was no
    soap radio!

    Dear Vues Master:
    A man was returning home from the burial of his wife, when a roof tile fell and
    just missed hitting him on the head. “Unbelievable!” he said, “We put her in the
    ground less than an hour ago, and she’s
    already gone up למעלה“.
    Vues Master’s Note: These jokes are just
    a dead issue!

    Dear Vues Master:
    The statement by Florida governor
    Ron DeSantis that Russia’s war against
    Ukraine is just a “territorial dispute” and
    is not “a vital American interest” has set
    off a firestorm of debate, finger-pointing,
    and, inevitably, comparisons to the Hitler era. But are the Nazi analogies completely unfounded this time? The controversy began when Fox News host Tucker
    Carlson asked possible GOP candidates
    if they consider “opposing Ukraine
    in Russia” to be “a vital American national

    strategic interest.” Carlson
    is a skeptic of U.S. support for
    Ukraine and the way he worded
    the question made it more likely
    respondents would take his side.
    Carlson could have asked simply
    whether the U.S. should continue
    supplying weapons to Ukraine.
    Instead, he added the word ‘vital’— “necessary for the success
    and continued existence of something,” according to the Cambridge Dictionary; derived from
    the Latin word for “life.” That
    left the door open for the candidates, even those who support
    aid to Ukraine, to say that doing
    so is not necessary for America’s
    existence. Gov. DeSantis turned
    out to be the one who stepped
    through that open door. Not only
    did DeSantis take Carlson’s bait,
    he compounded matters by mischaracterizing the nature of the
    Russia-Ukraine conflict. “While
    the U.S. has many vital national
    interests,” DeSantis said in his
    written reply, “becoming further
    entangled in a territorial dispute
    between Ukraine and Russia is
    not one of them.” The patently
    erroneous term “territorial dispute” invoked by DeSantis (or his
    speechwriters) is reminiscent of
    a blatant misstatement about the
    Russians made by President Gerald Ford. In his October 6, 1976
    debate with Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter, Ford asserted
    that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.” He
    named Soviet-occupied Poland as
    an example of a country that supposedly was “independent.” Ford
    was widely criticized at the time.
    DeSantis is now on the receiving
    end of similarly withering denunciations. Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie declared that
    DeSantis “sounds like Neville
    Chamberlain talking about when
    Germany had designs on Czechoslovakia.” Senator Lindsey Graham said, “The Neville Chamberlain approach to aggression never
    ends well.” It certainly didn’t
    end well for the Czechs. In 1938,
    Hitler demanded that Czechoslovakia surrender its western region, known as the Sudetenland,
    which had a large population of
    ethnic Germans. The Nazi leader
    presented the matter as a territorial dispute, not a threat to the
    existence of Czechoslovakia.
    The British and French decided
    it was not in their vital interest
    to confront Hitler. So they pressured the Czechs to surrender
    the Sudetenland in exchange for
    Hitler’s promise not to make any
    additional demands. The Munich
    agreement was signed. Chamberlain declared that he had delivered “peace in our time.” President Franklin D. Roosevelt said
    he “rejoiced” that “the outbreak
    of war has been averted.” Less
    than six months later, Hitler
    invaded and occupied the rest
    of Czechoslovakia. The Russian war against Ukraine is not
    a dispute over some piece of
    territory. The Russians never
    limited their attacks to the Donestk or Luhansk areas in eastern
    Ukraine; recall that the invasion
    began with an all-out assault on
    the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.
    Vladimir Putin’s statements that
    Ukraine should be part of Russia
    illustrate his goal of conquering
    the entire country. The broader
    problem here is the question of
    what constitutes a “vital American interest.” Tucker Carlson
    and other isolationists or fellow-travelers have embraced
    an extremely narrow definition.
    And they are far from the first to
    have adopted such a perspective.
    During the Holocaust, President
    Roosevelt saw no American national interest in taking even
    minimal steps to interrupt the
    Nazis’ mass murder of European Jews. In 1973, Secretary of
    State Henry Kissinger advised
    President Richard Nixon that
    even “if they put Jews into gas
    chambers in the Soviet Union,
    it is not an American concern.”
    In 1994, President Bill Clinton
    refused even to jam radio stations that were inciting the massacres in Rwanda, because he
    did not perceive any American
    economic or strategic interest
    in getting involved. Note that
    none of those types of intervention would have involved putting American lives in danger.
    Bombing the railways to Auschwitz would not have posed
    any additional risk to American
    pilots who were already targeting other railways in the vicinity. Putting economic pressure
    on the Soviet Union or interfering with inciting broadcasts in
    Rwanda would not have endangered American lives. Neither
    does sending U.S. weapons to
    Ukraine. Most Americans believe that our country should
    stand for something bigger than
    the mere pursuit of economic
    or strategic advantages. Values
    and ideals stand at the core of
    the concept of American exceptionalism. A definition of
    “American interests” so narrow
    as to exclude interrupting mass
    murder abroad or assisting U.S.
    allies against aggression betrays
    that cherished concept.
    Vues Master’s Note: Politics is just