Dunkin' Dating

Dunkin' Donuts is really reaching out to the needs of the frum dating community. We all know how critical the separation of the sexes is. So much so that one wonders why it is even necessary to ever be seen with the opposite gender. But what is one to do on a date? Sometimes, in a cafe or quaint restaurant, the tables are so small that the proximity alarm naturally springs to life. Heaven forbid if the man brushes up against her sexy high heeled boots, no matter that they somehow pass muster as being tzniut (even though many guys go gaga over it). What if he reaches for more sugar or splenda (if he is watching his girly figure instead of hers) and his hand touches her french manicured finger? Perhaps he can actually smell her perfume and she, his halitosis. Closeness leads to magnification of flaws. Some even believe it leads to mixed dancing, heaven forbid! But who dances on tables anymore? Is that what any of us need?

To combat these heinous possibilities, Dunkin Donut offers the two tiered approach to dating: The Before and After Tables. Before marriage, there is a rectangular design placed such that each of the test subjects are placed at opposite ends with a respectable distance between them. Word on the street is that these tables will be adjustable to greater length based on the height of the individuals and corresponding leg length but I have yet to see them in service. The other table is for post marriage (or for the really adventurous engaged couple) when the couple would tolerate proximity. Although the manager in the Rockaway branch told me that increasingly many married couples are asking to be seated at the extended tables. They claim that they are being extra stringent in accordance with the chumrah of the week club but he winks and says he knows how poorly husband and wife relate to each other and they just want their space especially when she is wondering why on earth he is taking her here instead of some fancy restaurant in Manhattan. Cheap bastard. Images in his mind swirl around donuts and football not even aware that there is someone nagging him, praying he doesn't have to leave a tip.

Perhaps this elongated table should be considered the standard size and only the few, the lucky, the ones in true love can get the cozy table. Proof of compatibility and license to stare starry-eyed required.

-

Our Man In Mosque-ow

Last night I heard a shiur from R. Frand about whether it was permissible to enter a mosque. It is forbiden to enter a house of avodah zarah (idol worship). The Ran and Mei'ri believe that Islam is true avodah zarah because they bow down to Mohammad and in effect deify him. Another rabbi in our time (didn't catch the name) ruled that if threatened with conversion to Islam or death, choose death because it falls under the three biggies, one of them is die rather than become an idolater. He even goes so far as to say that whoever doesn't believe in the one true religion ie. Judaism, is in the same category of idolaters. That seemed outrightly arrogant ant presumptuous. He is negating all the laws pertaining to non-Jews who aren't actual idol worshipers who have a legal status different than true idolaters thus making everyone but Jews idolaters. He also lacks a clear understanding of Islam and its tenets, with the dangerous inclination to issue rulings that would in effect put people in the position where they must accept a death sentence based on this rabbi's faulty knowledge. Why not err on the side of life and just look at the conclusion of the Yoreh day-eh and Rambam that says that Islam is a religion of monotheism. Muslims, themselves, say there is ONE true god even though they give Him a different name and Mohammad is His PROPHET (not a god).

The group I was with seemed upset by that conclusion, the one which ultimately Rabbi Frand ended with, that it is permissible to enter a mosque including M'arat hamachpaila. They argued with me that Muslims claim Mohammad had powers and that should be considered like deification. I retorted by asking what of our rabbis that we claim had powers to read the future in a mezzuzah or the other nonsense in all these books with legends of our rabbis. It's OK to ascribe powers to a person and consider them gifts of God without saying the individual in question is a god.

Another man claimed that Rambam only said that because he lived among Muslims. That is indeed a valid point but the reality is that the analysis that Islam is a monotheistic religion also holds true by an honest assessment by all of us in non-Muslim countries as well.

It seems everyone is looking to find the worst in those we consider 'other' rather than assessing the facts as they are. Now go bow down to Allah and get out there and make a profit.

Spitin' Image

The advertising department at Tide have nothing on David's Nuts.

The hyperlink connects to a previous post.

Shidduch Joke

Do you know why blind dates are called Shidduchs?
-Because when you see the other person, you say, "Shit, uch!"

Let's Mix It Up

Gloria London in Nov/Dec. BAR takes a stab at why we don't mix meat and milk. Maimonides suggest that boiling animals in their mother's milk was associated with idolatry. London points out that this Biblical restriction is mentioned twice after discussing festivals. So Maimonides has a good case.

In addition to that, in her research, she learned from potters in Cyprus that you never put meat in a clay pot that was used for milk. The reason is that the clay is porous and the sour milk clings to it. That sour milk is excellent for making yogurt and other similar products but it absolutely contributes to the souring and spoiling of meat. As a consequence, these Cypriots had a "common practice to keep all ceramic pots used for milk versus meat separate." And in case you are wondering about how meat was prepared in ancient Israel, the condition of most bones reveal that people mainly boiled or stewed meat rather than roasted, thus requiring a clay pot.

After I posted this, my store manager told me he heard this years ago. The article in BAR made it sound like news.

Israelite Origins

Dever advocates the theory that the early Israelites arose out of the Canaanite cities and sought refuge or a new life in the hill-country. Unfortunately, the support he has, has been challenged by, among others, Anson Rainey, who shows that the pottery culture is not sufficiently distinctive to be a definitive marker or ethnicity. The pottery that was shown by Dever to be similar and continuous with Canaanite pottery has also been attested to, east of the Jordan (not Canaanite). The same is true of the four-room house.

The coastal Canaanites ate pig. If the hill people emerged from them, why would they abandon that tradition , one that they are very familiar with, but not the pottery or building techniques?
Rainey shows that it would make sense for pastoralists NOT to have pigs because pigs are not suited for the desert areas or for herding.

Why not take the Bible for its word that the patriarchs or forerunners of Israel were pastoralists? Even the territories that they had dealings with, were pastoral groups and not city-folk. There is a "close affinity...with the Arameans who lived in the Syrian desert, and not with the city dwelling Canaanites or Amorites." Abraham's servants had to go back east to the Arameans to find a wife for Isaac. Abraham came from far east (Ur). "The Biblical narrative is quite clear as to where the first Israelites came from: outside Canaan, east of the Jordan."

What is interesting is that he shows that linguistically, Hebrew is closer to Transjordanian languages than with Phoenician (coastal Canaanites). Does it make sense that they would learn a new language or have spoken a different dialect than their feudal masters? They did however notice that "the Phoenician alphabet enjoyed a high prestige" and thus adopted it.

Rainey also notes that similar patterns of invasions of sedentary areas by outsiders occurred at the end of Late Bronze Age (~1200 BCE) which yielded a "new ethnic group, fully conscious of its ethnicity." (Libyans invade Egyptian Delta, Mushku invade Anatolia, Sea Peoples destroy Canaanite cities and settle them, Arameans entered northern Syria and Mesopotamia. So too, new immigrants came to the hill country).

In the Amarna letters there is description of the Shasu, who are pastoralists, and like the Bible story of Josef, they get permission to live in the Nile Delta to find sustenance. At the time of the emergence of people in the hill country (Iron I 1200-1000), the Shasu and others like the Midianites, Moabites, and Edomites were moving out of the steppe lands to find better sustenance during drought and famine. See BAR Nov/Dec 2008

Love Bites

It's been a year and a half since my pal, Gaston, got divorced. He has three kids, is good looking, and has all his hair (no fair). I think he still has feelings for his ex but he was broadsided (by his broad, no less). Since then, he has been the king of dating. What I can't fully comprehend yet is why he is aggressively dating if he sabotages his chances by revealing his lingering feelings and his deep-seated fear of commitment. I fear that when he finally IS ready to get serious, he will have no one left to date because all those who could've potentially been attracted to him, have already crossed him off their list.

This past Shabbat, he told me he met a nice woman from NJ who has FOUR kids and she is able to relocate. He has expressed that his former love is still ever present in his mind but he is starting to develop feelings for this woman. The biggest concern he has currently is how seven kids can live in one house. More specifically, neither of the two have a home that can accommodate more than what they already have. Do they sell both homes to buy a bigger one or do they build? And if so, who sells, whose kids get uprooted, how can you determine if the children can adjust to all these changes especially the addition of rival step-siblings? Should he even continue this relationship and perhaps fall in love, only to find that logistically it is impossible? How can he balance finding love with practical realities? Does he risk getting hurt or hurting her by continuing the potentially doomed relationship only to end up experiencing premature exasperation?

I don't have answers for him, just a few thoughts. Discuss the scenarios from the onset. I feel that if you know something can't be resolved, don't risk love. But if things have potential to work out, it's worth the risk of falling in love, even at the risk of extreme pain. As Jonny Cash sang, "Love, is a burnin' thing..." Your playing with fire, folks. Invariably, someone is going to get burnt.
-

Shidduch Crisis

I was reading an interesting post here. According to the North American Shidduch Initiative, 'the Shidduch Crisis is caused by the large age gap between husbands and wives...So if the logic that there's an even number of guys and girls of each age holds water, then, yes, bridging the age gap would pair up more couples close in age, thereby having more people available to others.'

My comment was that I think this concept is WAY OFF. Age is not the issue. I know that I have been able to relate to woman of variable ages. It's the personality that matters. Sometimes, a woman my age but with dissimilar life experiences, can not relate to me but to someone a decade her senior.

The shidduch crisis is primarily a result of the lack of understanding between genders. It is fostered by segregation of the sexes such that the social skills necessary to relate and understand of the thought processes of the other are stunted.

It also stems from the unrealistic expectation that society and individuals place upon themselves and their mate whether it be financial success, body type, style of dress or level of religious observance.

You must look for the inner fine character and be wary of the external trappings. He may treat you nicely on a date but look how he treats the parking attendant or the waiter. Observation is key to finding out what you need to know. So is good communication. Without it you will never truly be able to relate to you partner.

People need to learn how to relate, how to listen, how to consider others needs without hurting their own. Couples should have Mutual interests, common goals, similar religious level, the commitment to work hard, and most importantly mutual respect. Without respect disaster looms. It's ok to disagree, argue your point of view but it's not ok to yell, act passive aggressively (and certainly not aggressively). You should never give up who you are but rather be accepted and be accepting of the other. You need to be a team and not selfish or childish. If college could require courses in gender understanding and relationships (and tax preparation, how to change your oil, simple home repairs), people would have a better shot at finding true happiness and managing a functional home life.

The problem, even with the concept of "shidduch crisis," is the incorrect assumption that marriage is the GOAL. Marriage is only a means to develop and grow spiritually and physically with your soul-mate. It is but an indication of commitment to make this journey together. But when marriage is THE GOAL, people lose sight of what marriage is all about and meant to be. Marriage should be a journey of sharing & growth. Instead of getting all depressed (which is a turn off by the way) about not being married, be determined to keep seeking out your complement. Good luck to us all.

In the background, I hear the famous soccer announcer yelling, GOOOOOALLLL!
-

Fox News

This little segment from Fox News about the Israeli war clearly illustrates why we ALL should be watching Fox News and not CNN. ~3min video

Buss-ted

I had to stop. Ironically, I was carpooling the kiddies to school when I noticed this bus stopped (not at a bus stop). The kids were mesmerized by the bus and I wondered out loud why I must carpool when there are very capable modes of transportation already in use.

I hope the surgeons are successful.

The Great Cover-Up

Look out Cover Girl!

Tzniut, it's not what's on the outside that counts. I read a book given to me by Tali, specifically in reaction to the ERVA comment I made on our first date. The book is called Outside Inside: A Fresh Look at Tzniut by Gila Manolson. From her book, I gather that tzniut is a state of mind more than just a dress code, more for women but still applicable to men. She believes that it is of the utmost importance for us to find out who we are on the inside and then decide how to present that to the world and whether to reveal parts of ourselves or not.

Our essence is not what we do, what we accomplished, how much money we make, what we possess, nor what good causes we work for. That is not denying that those things have value and add meaning to life. They, however, do not define the soul. When those things are taken from us, there is still some core essence left. We need to focus on HOW we do things in life not just what it is we are doing. "The true measure of your worth is how GOOD you are. But you don't highlight how good you are by outwardly expressing it to all." People will think you're just doing it to show off. "Putting spirituality on display causes you to lose it."

"Judaism understands that God created the physical world as a vehicle for spirituality. Good food, wine, a beautiful home, art, music, the outdoors- all can bring us closer to God. So can our bodies. But there is a fine line beween attractive and attractING. Judaism encourages us to look good but to downplay the body so as to reveal the soul. The farther removed we are from animal level, the more we wear." A baby can go naked and we aren't phased. The same isn't true of streakers or so I've been told ;) . Covering up is to show I am more than just my body. I'm not an animal, my message is deeper.

Your dress affects how you see yourself as well as how others see you and your self image is constantly being reformed by interaction with others. Should a person choose to be a slave to the reaction of others and find validation by the approving stares of others or should a person discover their own value within themselves and then present to the world that favorable glimpse into their soul? You make the call.

Hopefully, the first thing you are going to look at is a persons face/head. At least that's what women keep reminding me. There are public actions that communicate to society a change in status. We have elaborate bar mitzvah's to inform the community that the boy is now a man; we have weddings to inform society that these two are now unavailable to others as mates and that they are now an economic unit called family. "Cross-culturally we show status by calling attention to our heads." We wear a cap at graduation, chiefs wear tribal headdresses. So when a women covers her hair, she is signifying change in status. Gila claims that women cover their hair because a profound and irreversible change occurs upon marriage. "Direct knowledge of intimacy imbues her with a greater understanding of her power and her womanhood." Hair is sensual. Now she understands that sensuality and reserves it for her spouse." Similarly, the seductive voice of a woman singing is quite powerful. (I think women know all this even as teenagers or even earlier).

While there are issues applicable to men, there certainly is a stronger emphasis on tzniut for women. Some of it involves the fact that provacative dressing affects men who have knee-jerk reaction to ogle (contrast this post with an older one). The reality is that reflex actions and evolutionary attractions can't be eliminated but presenting those temptations is not conducive to spirituality for the one subject to it nor to the one generating it. Consider also how it makes other women feel. Do they feel bad when they have to compare themselves? Perhaps it will negatively impact on their own self-image. Let's face it women are powerful.


Your choice of dress affects how you see yourself as well as how others see you. What is your character and how do you wish to convey it? Self-relevation is only meaningful when you have kept enough of yourself private.


In the end, your tradition will dictate the way these ideas are expressed and you must find your own comfort zone in its expression but realize that the first cause is self-transformation. To fix the world, you have to fix yourself first.

Now I reckon I'm gonna get me'self fixed!

-

Cataclysmic Discovery

I really was surprised by the letter I found in my son's backpack. He is in first grade and by all the teachers accounts, he is the bottom of the class but he shows diligence. I was expecting another scathing commentary on my lack of parenting skills that contribute to his delinquency. Well, this letter was not from the teacher but something he wrote on his own, for himself. It struck me how much my own actions can have a profound affect on others. I'm not even going to mention the recent fiasco that you have been so avidly following. Instead, I refer you back to this post. I made a decision I felt was in our families ultimate physical best interest but without realizing its long-term detrimental mental impact. Unfortunately, there are choices to be made that hurts, where either choice has its undesirable consequences. I can only use all the information I have to make the decision I feel is best for me and my kids. I originally decided not to type out what he wrote because I scanned it in, covering his name but in case your linguistic interpretive skills are infantile, here is what it says: I love my cat and I miss my cat and I wish my cat came back and my cat is so cute. Love....

In The Kitchen

It's kind of odd how my psyche cycles. When I'm in a relationship with a woman, I somehow find the ability to cook for shabbat even though I would much rather she do so. Sometimes it's a way of showing I care enough to help and chip in, other times it's to show her I'm not helpless without her, still other times it's just fun to be creative with food. Then the relationship ends and I morph back into Bachelorman. It's like I develop an entirely different relationship with my belly and my ability. I buy take-out for shabbat or accept offers of food from other family members. I felt myself getting into that rut again when my sister invited me for shabbat and I didn't think twice about accepting her gift even though I may have worn out my welcome.

But today I decided to start the new year on a different foot, one that was barefoot and in the kitchen. I made chicken, rice, gefilte fish, and for the first time even chicken soup. I went all out on the soup, putting everything in including the chicken sink! A friend gave me the idea to just buy a pack of chicken bones to save money. And let's face it no one eats that chicken anyway, it's just waste. I have no idea how it tastes but it LOOKS spectacular. I just wish I knew how to make matzoh balls. Perhaps that will be a project for another week. I invited my buddy and his kids as well as my sister and hers. I felt I owed her for all she has done for me. So we will see how shabbat meals go.

Stomach pump and emergency gear in place, just in case.
-