Noah & Lot

Parshablog noticed similarities in the stories of Noah and Lot. Both of them survived a destruction, got drunk afterward and committed carnal sins. He comments that he had no deep thoughts to offer on the matter. I commented that maybe these stories come to teach us that solving problems through destructive means (whether globally applied or locally applied and even if justly deserved) invariably leads to more problems than it solves.

Can You Dig It?

Last night I attended a biblical archaeology lecture at Queens College given by Dr. Ann Killebrew of Penn State. I won't bore you with the details of the lecture even though I love this stuff. Instead, I would like to note how refreshing her attitude was towards the Bible and religion. Some questions from the audience seemed bent on using the lack of archaeological finds for an exodus as proof the Bible was false. Others used archaeology to voice that early Israelite were really not monotheistic. The audience also had a strong modern orthodox representation who obviously were not prepared to accept the Bible as less than true regardless of archaeological evidence.

Dr. Killebrew's response was so well tuned that I wondered if she shouldn't become a diplomat instead. She claimed that archaeology should serve to illuminate the Bible but not to serve as a means to prove or disprove the Bible. Within archaeology there is no clear cut consensus of interpretation of data. Certainly in areas of C-14 dating but also even in analyzing the statigrafy or the material find within its given context. Religion, she went on, is a matter of faith and a matter of how one chooses to view their role in the universe and how to conduct their lives. Why should her evaluation of someone else's garbage be the definitive word on how to serve God. Her work should only shed light on the development and evolution of a people who have since had a unique history and enduring tradition.

The Philistine's who were colonizers from Cyprus and Cilicia (she goes against most her colleagues who feel they were Aegean) existed side by side with the Israelites from the 12th century BCE until they were exiled along with the Israelites to Babylon. They disappeared in history but the Jews did not. Faith in God or the lessons of the Bible or the traditions of the Jewish people do not need the validation of archaeology. The unfortunate politicization of archaeology loses sight of this fact and causes more harm than good.

She feels that many archaeologist maintain their positions, dig in firmly, and are not open enough to new and changing evidence. She admits that her lecture today would be different 10 years from now because she won't let her ego get in the way of the most current evidence. An open mind is what we all need in archaeology and in all areas of our life.

Having Words With Rabbi Frand

Rabbi Frand is a great and insightful speaker and I really enjoyed his words. It's not easy to find a rabbi who seems to speak to you, your heart, and your neshama but he has, over the years, managed to do so. Here is some of his Torah:

(winning=neetzachom) Why do we want to win an argument? It gives us a piece of eternity (netzach). When we lose an argument it's like a mini death. We have a strong impulse to have children to attain some aspect of eternity through them. When someone dies it's a shock to us even after long illness. "I can't believe he is dead." No one likes to lose.

There was a butcher in Brisk (specialty: brisket) who went before the Dayan (judge) with a question whether the animal he slaughtered was traif (not Kosher) and it was deemed so. He lost a lot of money but accepted the ruling and left without saying a word. A few months later he was before the same judge in a small claims matter with another man. When the butcher again lost, he flipped out, cursed the judge. The Judge asked the Rav what's the difference in the butcher's reactions where in one case he had no reaction for great monetary loss while in another case he had extreme vehemence over a few rubles? The Rav's response was, "In the second case, the butcher lost to another man but in the first case the cow didn't win." When there are opposing sides, each one digs in, defending his position and honor to the end.

Rabbi Frand related a story of a couple in Bnei Brak who couldn't have children for 20+ years and tried everything from brachas, segulas, doctors etc. A Rabbi told them to get a bracha from someone who kept their mouth shut during an argument and didn't respond. They walked out sullen because 'Does anyone know someone who kept their mouth shut during a challenge?' Concurrently, another lady was about to rent an apartment when another crazy lady screamed at her not to sign the lease because there is a judgment against the landlord and she intends on making trouble. The first lady asked her rabbi how to approach this matter. He said he was the judge who ruled against crazy lady, she is wrong, go ahead and rent the apartment. Sometime later the renter lady was at a bar mitzvah, Crazy came over and started yelling and cursing her. Some third lady comes over and begs her not to respond to Crazy which she didn't. Then the third lady who is obviously the lady from Bnei Brak then asked for a blessing and after 24 barren years had a child! [I kinda thought there were more romantic ways to accomplish this, but hey that's just me].

Rabbi Frand believes the following is the source of how keeping quiet in a fight is a segulah for children. Rachel asked Leah for the flowers and Leah got mad and said first you steal my husband('s heart) and now you want my son's flowers??? Rachel doesn't respond. The rabbi gathered from this story that Rachel's silence in the face of a challenge where Rachel would have full right to say: "Excuse me, [insert a little attitude and side to side head movement] On my wedding night I gave you the signs so that you could take MY intended husband and thus save you from embarrassment of being the older unwed sister." But she didn't and so 8 pesukim (sentences) later it says Rachel gave birth [I would have said 'one pasuk prematurely']

The generation of the Tower of Babel wasn't wiped out when they rebelled against God because they had peace and unity. But the generation of Noah who were robbers were wiped out because conflict is the most destructive force. An entire world can be uprooted and destroyed through strife.

It's amazing how the most frum Jew wouldn't think of violating the prohibition against using a razor on his face. Nor would he think not to keep a second day of yom tov in galut (this is a rabbinical prohibition but we have accepted these laws to be immutable almost on the level of min haTorah). Even though arguing is considered a 'Lav' (a commandment), no one seems to follow it because everyone believes they are right and that make their point l'sheim shamayim (an argument for heaven's sake is permitted).

How do we keep quiet? Like a pilot who is cool and controlled during a major in-flight emergency because he has prepared and trained for all contingencies, so too we must prepare ourselves for calm and presence of mind in a verbal argument. Instead of preparing for all the things you would do if you won the lottery, which is a useless waste of time, instead prepare yourself to react properly when faced with an argument.

******The key point is to keep your peace during an argument, don't answer back. NO ONE EVER LOST BY BEING M'VATAIR (abdicating their position; giving in, even if they were 100% correct)

What struck me was that the speech was geared for an ideal world but the reality is that put two human's together and there is conflict although I would never have guessed this by witnessing the state of affairs between married couples I know! Maybe we need a book like, "How to Fight Within The Bounds Of Halacha & Decency."

After his speech I went over to him and mentioned the following: There is a well-known Mishnah that defines an argument for ‘heaven’s sake’ as that of Beit Shamai vs. Beit Hillel while that of Korach and Moshe was not a legitimate conflict. The terminology of the Mishnah is interesting because it seems unbalanced. It mentions Shamai vs. Hillel as proper but said only "Korach and his followers" without mentioning the opponent, Moshe, was improper.

It occurred to me that the reason the Mishnah only lists one side in the argument that was not legitimate is that in those types of conflicts, often one side does not in any way validate the existence of an alternate point of view or give proper attention to the opponents concerns. In effect, they are right, they know how everything should be and therefore proceed as if no one else exists and nothing else must be deftly managed or diplomatically addressed. So maybe we should all take a good look at ourselves and see just what are we fighting for and just how are we fighting.

He responded, "Of course, that's what the mefarshim say."

He then autographed my book.

Outed by Big Mouth

I guess I wasn't careful enough and I suppose it was inevitable. Sooner or later someone would connect my call name here with another email address I used elsewhere and ouila! we have active defamation. Apparently, a lady friend from the neighborhood told me that someone showed her the things I wrote and she should 'watch out'. This third party is supposedly someone I don't even know personally yet this individual felt it is was his(her?) prerogative to disseminate my ideas with a negative light. Who deputized him God's policeman? "Stop, in the name of the Lord," he shouts as he attempts to bind me with succah chain-link decorations and gag me with an esrog.

Gossip. It is ubiquitous and exists in every culture in every generation. No matter that it be vilified, it thrives on people's obsessive, uncontrollable desire to not only know other people's business but to actively perpetuate the tale. I return once again to Pascal Boyer who describes this phenomenon as an obvious outgrowth of who we are as humans. Human society is dependent upon information and cooperation. Much of the information we process regards OTHER people’s mental states (thoughts, actions, beliefs, desires, etc.) and we keep mental files about everyone we know. Gossip is information about others (usually that they prefer not be known). It centers on adaptive values like sex, resources, status and conformity. Gossip is our quest to acquire strategic information and we in turn spread gossip to advertise that WE are trustworthy with information and thus cooperative within a social context! Contemptuous as it may be, it's a fact of life and there is no escaping unless you detach yourself from society, which is a fate far worse for social creatures than being maligned. Sooner or later the conversation shifts to someone else.

The Chafetz Chaim has written extensively about guarding one's language precisely because the problem of gossip is so pervasive. So I sit back for a moment and reflect upon this 'religious' person who felt it his/her place to degrade me in the eyes of another for things that I wrote. How easy it is to see the shortcomings of others and be blind to one's own spiritual maladies. It is interesting that the last post I wrote was about how science is actually making me revitalize my level of devotion to God. So it's ironic that older info comes back to haunt me. What is more distressing is that there is someone out there who thinks it's his/her job to be motzei shem ra (giving another a bad rep).

To me this blog has been a diary of sorts, a work in progress, evolution of ideas that I consider and hopefully get some intelligent feedback. I'm not the same guy I was 2 years ago and definitely not the same as 10 years ago but to take something I wrote anonymously (HA!) and say that represents me now may or may not be the case. I could have kept my thoughts to myself and kept up my appearances for public consumption but I thought I had some interesting topics, some well off the beaten path and I wanted to share. But now I have to cast an incantation and make things conform.