From my friend Reb Aaron: You can post responses as comments or email me for his address.
How does one maintain emuna in spite of all the corruption out there among frum society and its leaders? (By corruption, I am not referring to dramatic lack of integrity, as in lying, cheating, znus, etc. I think this exists, but is the exception. I refer to the absence of authenticity; i.e. the agenda, the cheshbonos, the apparent lack of running life decisions through the filter of rotzon hashem, etc.; the sum of which detract from the emes and shleimus of our religion, and therefore corrupt it). If you don't agree with my basic premise that there is such corruption going on, then we can agree to disagree. I do not care to argue that point. It is more than obvious to me.
When I face up to all this nonsense, at first it makes me wonder about the integrity of the mesorah handed down to me. Is all the trust that I had placed in that which was handed down from e.g. the Chazon Ish, the Chofetz Chaim, etc. misplaced? Is it possible that all these gedolim were really not that great but their image was bolstered by clever promoters? These doubts do not usually linger too long. I know enough products of these gedolim to restore my confidence. So I typically regain my bearings pretty quickly and my shaila becomes more focused. I wonder where the real leaders are that hashem must have (I had always thought) put here for us. My assumption had always been that every dor has its trusted leaders. If ours does not, how can we push forward our mesorah to the next generation. Can we exist as a believing nation without a set of trusted leaders?
My chizuk usually ends up coming from isolated events of integrity and righteousness which do exist among our rabbonim, great and small. What gets me, though, is that these are the exception rather than the norm. If a rav acts like a mentch, it is considered worthy of recording in an Artscroll biography. (look at some of the nonsense that gets recorded as acts of tzidkus). Why shouldn't we be able to hold our rabbis to the same standards of integrity that we hold ourselves?? If our religion can't foster the basic decency that is a given in other religions, what is it worth?? And even when there is no outright breach of integrity, there is almost always an agenda of some sort such as recruiting students, gathering $, or even influencing people to keep a particular brand of frumkeit. What happened to actually believing in g-d?? What happened to making believe we actually believe in g-d, and following through on all that that implies?? What happened to the simple "kiruv" work that our grandfathers did by welcoming another yid into their circle, without any agenda other than brotherhood and humanity??
I tend to think the real answer is that emuna comes from a place very deep in a person and it does not derive from leaders. It simply cannot afford to. It comes from our families; from a time before the whole daas torah rage, from a time when being frum was something deep in your genetics and did not depend on constant direction from "gedolim". It derives from the mesorah based on what all 600,000 of our parents saw; thus its transmission involves the whole klal, not just the leaders. This very basic, very real, very pious frumkeit (seems ridiculous to have to put the word pious before frumkeit) is what I observed in, and received from, my grandparents. They all had deep respect for rabbonim. But they did not appear to be deriving their whole belief system from the rabbis in the same obsessive manner that frum jews are doing today. If a rav did mess up it didn't shake their whole world because they understood that he failed as a man and that the religion itself is much greater than any one man. I remember remarking to a chaver in yeshiva that with all the rabbeim I had, all of whom were "good guys", I never met anyone as frum as my grandfather. To me he seemed to have the real stuff. No razzle dazzle, no frumeh cheshbonos, no nonsense. This emuna that I saw in all my grandparents had been injected very deep into their psyches by observing their own parents and grandparents, and was collective in the klal. I need to believe that we, as a dor, can push through without a reliable system of trusted leaders, based on the emuna that lives in the klal.
This is not a complete answer; just my theory for a framework of an answer.
As the very nature of my rant is about cutting the nonsense, I thought it would be counterproductive to polish up my rhetoric. I welcome all responses but ask that you keep them real; i.e. not party line verbiage or how you wished you believed, but stuff that would pass a lie detector test (unless of course it's funny). And please don't get hung up on my particular usages versus the spirit of what I am saying.
Gut voch,
Aaron
Dear Tzama:
ReplyDeleteI am aware of your work with respect to the internet. I'm sorry to ask, and hope i'm not offending you, but can you assure me of privacy and that I will not regret sharing my address with you?
Saul
Another Flood-related question at:
ReplyDeletehttp://rygb.blogspot.com/2006/01/learning-from-animals-eruvin-100b.html#comments
Saul: No need to apologize--no offense taken. And yes, you have my complete assurance of privacy (and vice versa, I hope.) Looking forward to hearing from you.
ReplyDeleteT
It struck me that this is the type of conversation that was is so much better suited to a list than to a blog. Hence, I have made an executive decision :-) to transfer the discussion to Avodah (although I will leave the conversation here in place). It has already picked up there, you can begin at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n093.shtml
and follow the subsequent digests. Feel free to subscribe at www.aishdas.org and join in there!
KT, GV,
YGB
As far as the matter of the historicity of the Flood, or the literal interpretation of the Mabul story, is concerned, the truth has been demonstrated above (i.e., there was no major flood when the Torah says there was) and you have given no reasonable counterargument. You can transfer the topic somewhere else, if anyone thinks there is anything further to talk about, but kindly leave this last post here, to make clear where we left off.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The only thing that has been proven is that you get nasty when people disagree with you and do not have the confidence someone would typically have if they knew they were correct. The fact that you have to ask everyone to let you have the last word doesn't look so great either.
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ.
ReplyDeleteI get upset when I've demonstrated a point, and shown that the opposing view is irrational, and then have the blog host pander to his audience by stating--without explanation--that the opposing view is in fact the most reasonable one.
And then move the discussion elsewhere.
I'm also hard-pressed to see where I've displayed a lack of confidence. Some readers might, in fact, attack me for seeming over-confident.
I wonder where you're "coming from." RYGB did not have a reasonable response to what I presented. Do you?
It won't fly, Reb Saul. Frankly, this is my blog, and I will take the privilege of the last word. I will delete all subsequent posts you make here on the topic. I gave you the opportunity of continuing the discussion on Avodah, take it there. In that vein, let me cite the response of one of the Avodah posters to your contentions, in a post that just appeared in the discussion of this topic that has begun there:
ReplyDeleteAt 04:51 PM 1/23/2006, Harry Maryles wrote:
>> So with all due respect to the knowledgable commentator, it's not quite that simple.
>
> At the risk of sounding like an Apikores, I must agree that it isn't quite that simple but I turn it around on you. To eliminate carbon dating doesn't eliminate "the millions of artifacts that testify to an unbroken chain of existence of various peoples and cultures that predate the Mabul." It just seems to me that it can't be all about carbon dating or tree rings. I don't beleive that sincere people who are believers in our Mesorah and point to these artifacts would not be so easily led away from a literal interpretaion of the Mabul.
I don't think you sound like an Apikores at all. It's a legitimate
question. I'm not sure you'll like the answer, though.
Bear in mind that I haven't seen the specific evidence that was
cited here. Nor am I an expert in radiocarbon dating, or other dating
techniques. But how do you suppose there can be "millions of artifacts
that testify to an unbroken chain... that predates the Mabul"? As I
said, I haven't seen the description of what artifacts the commentator
was referring to, but I'll stipulate that there might be an unbroken
chain of artifacts, just for the sake of argument.
So consider the earliest artifact in the chain. How do they know it
predates the Mabul? How do they know that it doesn't date to, say,
the time of Avraham Avinu? Or earlier or later or what have you?
That's why I immediately went to the question of dating. Because there
are no absolute dates in antiquity.
When I was little, I used to read the Encyclopedia Brown books. They were
mysteries/puzzles for kids. In one story, Encyclopedia is presented with
a coin that has the date "4 BC" (or something like that) engraved on it.
He deduces immediately that the coin is a forgery. The reason is obvious
to us as adults, but not so much to kids. You can't have a coin dated
that way, because that dating system postdates the supposed date.
Dating antiquity is done primarily by constructing chains; it's true.
But what you get after all that constructing is very much like a map
without a key. If I show you a map of a place you've never been, and
there are two cities marked on it, how do you know the distance between
the two cities? Without a key, it's impossible. There's a map on my
wall here, and it looks to me like New York and Chicago are a couple of
inches apart. Now, I *know* that they're closer together than Los Angeles
and Boston, because I can see that. I can make that sort of comparison.
But I can only conclude relative things unless I have a key.
So what's the key for ancient history? There may not be one. But that's
not at all satisfying to the scholarly mind. Enter radiocarbon dating,
tree rings, ice layers, and so on. They quench the thirst for order.
It feels good to know, even if the knowledge may not be that solid.
And now we get to frum Jews who bend to this sort of scholarly
proclamation. There are a few things happening here. One is that you
just can't be knowledgable in every area. For every minute I put into
learning about ancient history, that's a minute that I haven't spent
learning how to draw. As a result, I can't draw a straight line with
a ruler. You pretty much have to rely on specialists for most things.
So they rely on the experts in this area. They rely on their conclusions,
and never look at where those conclusions come from, because that's what
human beings do. Life is just too short to reinvent the wheel yourself
every time.
The other issue is one of... well, self-esteem, I think. The first thing
that happens when you reject a scholarly consensus is that people start
to look at you funny. And if they find out that you're religious, well,
it goes without saying that you're a fundie nut who is anti-science.
Who needs that kind of hassle? It's easier to go with what "everyone
knows". If it turns out down the line that the scholars were mistaken,
well, when that comes out, you'll be in good company with the other
people who'd been mistaken/misinformed. No harm, no foul.
Take my word for it. I know from personal experience how condescending,
belittling and arrogant people can get to someone outside of the
consensus.
> As I said, I am poorly equipped to argue their case for them. But the question is raised in my mind. I don't say that your answer is not complete, but I wonder what those who view the artifact evidence to be compelling would say to you.
I'd like very much to hear what the "artifact evidence" is that was
being claimed. Because while I was willing to stipulate it for the sake
of this discussion, I'm a little skeptical.
Lisa
Good response. About sums up my attitude as well.
Let me conclude the thread by reiterating my main point: Chazal's mesorah is more trustworthy than any reconstruction. And there is no other mesorah.
Ad kan.
I'm glad my post on Avodah was helpful. If anyone is interested in more information about the cultures of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and dating issues in antiquity, you can either write to me at lisa at starways d0t net, or go to my blog (http://lamrot-hakol.blogspot.com/2006/01/ancient-near-east.html) and add your comments.
ReplyDeleteLisa-
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be knowledgable about this area. You questioned Saul’s view, but haven’t given your own. I'm curious what it is. Even the PhD student from Yale (acc. to saul) seems to believe that Egypt is older than the date of the flood and the flood happened hundreds of years into egypt’s history. I think Saul may have asked at some point whether its reasonable to think that Egypt didn’t start until 1760-something B.C.E. when the people arrived from the tower of Bavel, as compared to starting around 3000 B.C.E. as the Yale fellow seemed to agree. The other scholars knocked it down no lower than 2500 B.C.E.
1760 B.C.E. is fairly recent. I’ve read there are definite dates in ancient history in the area for around 1000 B.C.E. And acc. to historians, about 2,000 years of egypt history from the beginning of Egypt till 1000 B.C.E. Can you really squeeze 2,000 yrs of history into 760 years from year 1760 to year 1000? Do any historians say that? Can you tell us where to find this?
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteBasically, the issue is where we get ancient dates from. In Egypt, there's a list of dynasties written by an Egyptian priest named Manetho, which goes from earliest times until his time (the Hellenistic period). At one time, it was believed that you could simply add the years in Manetho's account together, and find that Egypt's 1st Dynasty started some 6000 BCE.
Nowadays, that figure has been brought down by almost three millenia. There were dynasties which reigned in parallel, and there were coregencies between consecutive kings, and the numbers given by Manetho aren't 100% reliable. All of this is according to the consensus view.
What made Egyptologists aware that they needed to reduce their dates? One factor was the archaeology of Israel.
See, when you dig at a site in Israel, you often find layer upon layer of ruins. If one layer is higher than another, you can conclude that it represents a later period that built atop the ruins of an earlier one. If you find a layer of burnt material between two layers, it strongly suggests that the layer below the burnt material was destroyed by fire. Often as a result of conquest.
The styles of pottery and the material culture and technology (and weapons) available in any given area changed over the centuries, and by comparing remains from one site to remains from another site, you can say, "Hey, this level at Lachish probably thrived at the same time as that level from Shechem."
Do this long enough, and you get a fairly comprehensive map depicting the movement and development of nations and cultures in the area you're investigating. This is called the "stratigraphy" of the area, and the various layers are called "strata".
Egypt was big. And Egyptian artifacts are found in layers of digs in Israel. In some cases, it's possible to make a very strong link between them. For example, Ramses III of the 20th Dynasty is pretty firmly tied to the beginning of the Iron Age. Ramses II ("the Great") and his son Merneptah are tied both by links and by internal Egyptian chronology to the last years of the Bronze Age.
(Note, btw, that Bronze and Iron are names given to archaeological ages without regard for the actual use of metals. Iron didn't catch on in Egypt until late in the Iron Age, and it was well known in Asia Minor back in the Bronze Age. The names themselves are left over from when it was believed that they were universally valid, and only refer to periods of time now.)
So. When did the Iron Age start? Tragicomically enough, the commonly accepted answer is based on a misreading of biblical texts. We're told that in the days of Saul, "There was no smith in Israel" (I Samuel 13:19). Historians jumped on this as evidence of the period when bronze gave way to iron. The Philistines had iron, obviously, and they were preventing the Israelites from using it themselves, which means the Israelites were still using bronze.
Except that "smith" doesn't mean "blacksmith". It just means artisan. There's nothing there about bronze and iron. But the idea of the Iron Age starting back around the time of King Saul got adopted as a basic premise and then the source of that premise was forgotten about.
If you go to the article at http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/exodus.html and look at the end, just before the endnotes, you'll see a little table that shows the difference between what happens when you date the stratigraphy of ancient Israel according to the current Egyptian chronology (which very circularly is now the basis for such things), and dating it according to the local history (Tanach).
Yes, the Iron Age does go from 750 years to 250 years. But archaeologists describe the remains from the Iron Age in Israel as reflecting a very slow paced and stagnant culture. That's exactly what you'd see if you took 250 years worth of remains and tried to stretch them out over a period three times as long.
I'm not sure if I've answered your question satisfactorily. If not, please let me know, and I'll try and fill in the gaps.
Thanks Lisa-
ReplyDeleteYour answer is very interesting, but I must admit I'm confused by the technical terms you use for the different periods. Is it possible for you to help me by answering my questions using years and dates, even if only approximate ones? That way I could better see what you are saying. Perhaps you could phrase your answers based on my questions.
Again-
Even the PhD student from Yale (acc. to saul) seems to believe that Egypt is older than the date of the flood and the flood happened hundreds of years into egypt’s history. I think Saul may have asked at some point whether its reasonable to think that Egypt didn’t start until 1760-something B.C.E. when the people arrived from the tower of Bavel, as compared to starting around 3000 B.C.E. as the Yale fellow seemed to agree. The other scholars knocked it down no lower than 2500 B.C.E.
1760 B.C.E. is fairly recent. I’ve read there are definite dates in ancient history in the area for around 1000 B.C.E. And acc. to historians, about 2,000 years of egypt history from the beginning of Egypt till 1000 B.C.E. Can you really squeeze 2,000 yrs of history into 760 years from year 1760 to year 1000? Do any historians say that? Can you tell us where to find this?
Thanks.
Also, if egypt didn't start as a country until 1760, then should the carbon dating of all of the Egyptian relics be not affected by the flood, so that if a ruin or tablet dates by carbon dating to 2000 B.C.E., that date might be accurate and be before 1760 B.C.E.? Do you understand what i'm asking?
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDeleteThanks Lisa-
Your answer is very interesting, but I must admit I'm confused by the technical terms you use for the different periods. Is it possible for you to help me by answering my questions using years and dates, even if only approximate ones? That way I could better see what you are saying. Perhaps you could phrase your answers based on my questions.
Okay, I'll do that. But bear in mind, the dates are the issue. If you see a book that says "Scarabs bearing the name of Ramses III have been found in strata dating to 1150 BCE", you realize that they didn't find coins there marked "1150 BCE", right? It means that they found them in early Iron Age I strata, which are conventionally dated to 1150 BCE.
This can get confusing, because the consensus chronology is such a basic assumption for most people that they don't bother making that distinction when they write. They specifically use dates alone in order to make it easier for the reader. Sort of like what you're asking me to do. And in doing so, they're including hidden assumptions in their statements.
Back to you:
Again-
Even the PhD student from Yale (acc. to saul) seems to believe that Egypt is older than the date of the flood and the flood happened hundreds of years into egypt’s history.
I suspect the Ph.D. student from Yale doesn't think the Flood happened at all. But yes, the conventional dates for the founding of Egypt are around 3100 BCE, which works out to before Noah was born. I'm aware of that. It's those dates that I question.
I think Saul may have asked at some point whether its reasonable to think that Egypt didn’t start until 1760-something B.C.E. when the people arrived from the tower of Bavel, as compared to starting around 3000 B.C.E. as the Yale fellow seemed to agree.
<smile> You say "Yale" like it's a magic word.
The other scholars knocked it down no lower than 2500 B.C.E.
I don't understand what you don't understand. Are you just saying, "The history books say X, so how can you say Y?"
1760 B.C.E. is fairly recent. I’ve read there are definite dates in ancient history in the area for around 1000 B.C.E.
Okay, here's a good starting point. No, there are not definite dates in ancient history in the area for around 1000 BCE.
And acc. to historians, about 2,000 years of egypt history from the beginning of Egypt till 1000 B.C.E. Can you really squeeze 2,000 yrs of history into 760 years from year 1760 to year 1000?
Nothing of the sort is happening. Since you've chosen not to look at any of the links I've posted, let me give you some dates.
The Iron Age in Israel is considered to have ended around 587 BCE, with the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. Fair enough? Now I'm going to give you a table of archaeological periods, along with conventional dates and the dates I'm claiming are more correct. Let me know if this is helpful to you.
Note that the names of the periods are used differently by different historians. Finkelstein, for instance, lumps all of Iron II and Iron III into a period he calls Iron II. The Intermediate Bronze Age is also known as Early Bronze IV or Middle Bronze I (or EB IV/MB I), and so on.
Iron III B
Consensus: 750-587 BCE (Assyrian and Babylonian invasions - from the death of Jeroboam II to the fall of Jerusalem)
Revised: 605-587 BCE (Babylonian invasions - last four kings of Judah)
Iron III A
Consensus: 850-750 BCE (Jehu through Jeroboam II)
Revised: 635-605 (Josiah)
Iron II B
Consensus: 930-850 BCE (Divided monarchy through Ahab and his sons)
Revised: 700-635 (Manasseh and Amon)
Iron II A
Consensus: 1000-930 (David and Solomon)
Revised: 720-700 BCE (Assyrian hegemony in Israel and most of Judah until the seige of Jerusalem)
Iron I
Consensus: 1200-1000 (Israelite settlement)
Revised: 785-720 BCE (Assyrian conquests following the death of Jeroboam II and Samaritan settlement)
Late Bronze III
Consensus: 1300-1200 (19th Dynasty of Ramses II)
Revised: 885-785 (Jehu through Jeroboam II)
Late Bronze II
Consensus: 1400-1300 (late 18th Dynasty and Amarna letters)
Revised: 960-885 (Divided monarchy through Ahab and his sons)
Late Bronze I
Consensus: 1550-1400 (early 18th Dynasty)
Revised: 1040-960 (David and Solomon: rural culture)
Middle Bronze II B,C
Consensus: 1650-1550 (Hyksos Empire)
Revised: 1040-960 (David and Solomon: imperial culture)
Middle Bronze II A
Consensus: 2040-1650 (Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Ur III in Sumer and Hammurabi in Babylon)
Revised: 1400-1040 (Judges period)
Intermediate Bronze
Consensus: 2130-2040 (First Intermediate period in Egypt, Akkadian dynasty in Mesopotamia)
Revised: 1476-1400 (Desert wandering, Joshua and conquest of Canaan)
Early Bronze
Consensus: 3100-2130 (Egyptian Old Kingdom, Sumerian Early Dynastic, Gilgamesh and so on)
Revised: 1900-1476 (Patriarchs and slavery in Egypt)
Does that help?
Also, if egypt didn't start as a country until 1760, then should the carbon dating of all of the Egyptian relics be not affected by the flood, so that if a ruin or tablet dates by carbon dating to 2000 B.C.E., that date might be accurate and be before 1760 B.C.E.? Do you understand what i'm asking?
I understand what you're asking, but I disagree as to the efficacy of carbon dating. It's based on an assumption that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere hasn't changed. That all organisms absorb C12 and C14 indiscriminately. And to make things worse, carbon dating labs throw out results that skew too far from the expected results as "contaminated".
For the record, the dates I gave in the previous comment are rough ones. Historians vary the earlier ones by as much as a couple of centuries one way or another, and the later ones by decades. But for the sake of this discussion, I thought it was close enough.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Flood took place, biblically, 792 years before the Exodus (2448-1656). With the Exodus in 1476 BCE, that works out to 2268 BCE. If we use the traditional Jewish chronology and place the Exodus in 1310 BCE, the Flood works out to 2102 BCE.
I thought I'd add that to give some scale to the numbers I mentioned above.
Thanks, Lisa-
ReplyDeleteI did look at some of the links, I just couldn’t coordinate them with dates so it was confusing.
BTW, the fellow from Yale was someone Rabbi Bechhofer had found, and he is supposedly religious and the rabbi said he believes in the flood. But it seems, acc. to saul, he holds from the traditional chronology.
Your table greatly clarified your views. Correct me if I’m wrong (its taken some calculating, and I’m basing this on what saul and you said, plus what I know on my own), but the upshot of what you’re saying seems to be as follows. The exodus is about 165 years earlier than commonly believed according to our tradition (1476 vs. 1312 B.C.E.). The flood also is 165 years earlier (2270 vs. 2105 B.C.E.). The world isn’t 5766 years old, but 5931. Egypt didn’t start until 1900 B.C.E. (vs. 3100 that the historians say). Avraham and Sarah would have arrived in Egypt shortly after the country started, not coming into an established kingdom.
Writing didn’t start around 3200 as commonly believed, but more likely around 1900. All the artifacts and inscriptions that the historians believe show a framework of a 2800 year history of Egypt and Mesopotamia before the greek period in Egypt (about 330 B.C.E.) really represent a 1600 year period.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but as I asked I wonder if there are historians who agree with all this. Can you tell me who does?
Also, my understanding was (I forget from where, but I have seen this more than once) that the carbon dating supports the generally accepted historical dates. Are you saying that the carbon dating conclusions also are wrong, and not due to the effects of the flood but due to faulty scientific assumptions? Is there any good reason to suspect that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has changed significantly in recent times (i.e., totally within the period after the flood) or that organisms don’t absorb it the way scientists think? Are there scientists that think the carbon dates that read 2500 B.C.E. really are from 1300 B.C.E.?
Thanks very much for all your input. I’m hoping you can answer the above.
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHere are a couple of links discussing radiocarbon dating. Please forgive my citing creationist sites; they're the first things I could get my hands on.
http://www.eadshome.com/RadiometricDating.htm
http://creationscience.faithweb.com/carbondating.html
I want to quote some items from these pages which are actually citations of conventionally accepted scientific journals:
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a "fix it as we go" approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.
No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates."
--[Lee, Robert. "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981, pp9,29.]
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.
Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old.
Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago.
Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211
You ask "Is there any good reason to suspect that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has changed significantly in recent times?" My initial response would be, is there any good reason to conclude that it hasn't? The fact is, we don't know. We have no hard data. Assuming that "as things are, so they have always been" is comforting, but baseless.
We live in a chaotic universe. People want certainty and order. When the weather gets flaky, they feel that it must be due to our actions, since the world couldn't be that unpredictable by nature.
As far as the 1476 vs 1310 discrepancy, I think 1310 is the correct date. But that's a different battle for a different time, and it isn't relevant to the current discussion, because everything before around 600 BCE would move that 166 years in tandem.
Dear Lisa-
ReplyDeleteThanks again for the very interesting material on carbon dating.
One small complaint- you haven't answered my basic question. I'll restate it, using your preferred date of 1310 for the exodus:
Correct me if I’m wrong (its taken some calculating, and I’m basing this on what saul and you said, plus what I know on my own), but the upshot of what you’re saying seems to be as follows. The exodus occurred in about 1310 B.C.E., The flood in about 2105 B.C.E. Egypt didn’t start until about 1760 B.C.E. (vs. 3100 that the historians say). Avraham and Sarah would have arrived in Egypt (about 1730 B.C.E.) shortly after the country started, thus not coming into an established kingdom. The Jews were captives in egypt for over half of the time between its creation and the Exodus.
Writing didn’t start around 3200 as commonly believed, but more likely around 1760, the time of the Sumerians acc. to your reckoning. All the artifacts and inscriptions that the historians believe show a framework of a 2800 year history of Egypt and Mesopotamia before the greek period in Egypt (about 330 B.C.E.) really represent a 1400 year period.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but, as I asked, I wonder if there are historians who agree with all this. Can you tell me who does?
Sorry to be persistent, but this is a drastic revision of everything I've ever learned.
Lisa-
ReplyDeleteThere does appear to be some dispute. The second creationist site you linked to made the following statement: "Radiocarbon dates less than 3,500 years old are probably accurate."
This would tend to confirm things back to about 1500 B.C.E. If we use that as a fixed starting point, there's a lot of historical evidence that shows a long period of continuous egyptian and mesopotamian history prior to that, going back to much earlier than 1760 B.C.E.
The Jews were captives in egypt for over half of the time between its creation and the Exodus.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about "over half", but about half, hmm... yes, that sounds about right. And yes, to the rest.
With regards to that statement on the creationist site, I'm not in agreement with creationists on everything they say. And where I do agree with them, it's sort of like the broken clock that's right twice a day.
The fact that I gave you that link doesn't mean that I agree with every last thing they wrote there. I don't agree that raduicarbon dates less than 3,500 years old are probably accurate. I've seen some raw data for some Late Kingdom material that was tested, and the results were all over the place. It's a bad technique, Nonny. It's based on bad premises, and if I'd tried to fudge my data back when I took science labs in high school and college the way they do with radiocarbon dating, I would have gotten an F. And I would have deserved it.
As far as whether there are historians who agree with all this, may I ask why that matters? Something is right or wrong depending on its merits. Not depending on what kind of authority you can cite in defense of it.
I did graduate work in Assyriology at Hebrew University. Does that qualify me? Do you need someone with a Ph.D.? I'm not being facetious; tell me what kind of credentials you need to see before you'll accept something.
There's been a lot of work on revising the chronology of the ancient world. By necessity, most of it has taken place outside of academia. Because the moment someone takes a position that conflicts with the consensus, they are, by definition, no longer part of mainstream scholarship.
Some of the work is the sheerest crackpottery. Some of it is flawed, but not completely worthless. I'm not the person to ask about my work, because I'm understandably biased in favor of it. If I thought it was wrong, I'd modify it.
Did you read the Exodus article I gave you the link for? It mentions Emmanuel Anati and Rudolf Cohen, both mainstream archaeological experts, and each of whom has stated strongly that the material culture of the end of the Early Bronze Age is a match for the biblical accounts of the conquest of Canaan. And that no other historical period is. But both of them found ways to avoid suggesting that the Early Bronze Age should be downdated to the time of the Exodus. Anati postulated that there's a gap in the Bible between Joshua and Judges, and that an additional millenia elapsed between the Exodus and King David. Cohen's way of ducking the issue was to suggest that the Israelites adopted a well-known story of an invasion of Canaan for themselves, a millenia or so after it actually happened. In both cases, it's pretty obvious that the theories they put forth to explain away what they found were a sort of face-saving. Or rather, a reputation-saving.
Lisa-
ReplyDeleteThanks again for the clarification.
>As far as whether there are historians who agree with all this, may I ask why that matters? Something is right or wrong depending on its merits. Not depending on what kind of authority you can cite in defense of it.<
I agree. However, the only way we know which are the crackpot theories is when experts who are familiar with the vast amount of evidence (historic inscriptions, king lists, family geneologies, astronomical references, epigraphy, etc.) bring that knowledge to bear in challenging the revisionist. The layman is lost. The experts must debate the revisionist and see if (s)he can successfully explain apparently contrary evidence. I know of no other way. As to who judges who the winner is, that's a tough question. But there must be peer review and challenge.
>I did graduate work in Assyriology at Hebrew University. Does that qualify me? Do you need someone with a Ph.D.? I'm not being facetious; tell me what kind of credentials you need to see before you'll accept something.<
You have credentials. But perhaps not as much as a world-renowned professional Assyriologist or egyptologist with encyclopedic knowledge of thousands of pieces of evidence, who has published extensively and been subject to peer review. That doesn't make him right and you wrong, but it makes him the right kind of person to challenge your views, which, you must admit, are unconventional.
>There's been a lot of work on revising the chronology of the ancient world. By necessity, most of it has taken place outside of academia. Because the moment someone takes a position that conflicts with the consensus, they are, by definition, no longer part of mainstream scholarship.<
They may not be part of the mainstream, but they may be respected academics in the field. There is a difference between Kenneth Kitchen and Indiana Jones.
Persons like yourself should publish your research, and invite review and criticism by mainstream academics. If there is no such person willing to publicly agree with you, somewhere there must at least be someone who would be willing to try to attack your views. Your success might be measured by how strong an attack is mustered and by whether you could respond reasonably.
Am I wrong?
The gedolim are worse. The European minimalists claimed King David was a fictional character. Prof. William Dever (among many) attacked their view, but did not ban their books.
ReplyDeleteLisa: Aren't the minimalists proof that one CAN buck the establishment and survive? Perhaps your revisionism is just too radical for ANY scholar to take it seriously.
Just asking.
Don't insult her. She's entitled to her views.
ReplyDeleteI'd venture to guess that Lisa may have disdain for those extremists too.
ReplyDeleteMoshe, Chaim, Boruch, Shmiel: it's a m'chaya to hear such names.
ReplyDeleteBut are you familiar with the serious topic at hand? The question is whether anyone can seriously believe that Sumerians invented writing in 1700 B.C.E., when all historians say it was around 3200 B.C.E. And that the long succession of kings in Mesopotamia between 2500 B.C.E. and 1500 B.C.E. are to be squashed into a couple of hundred years starting after 1760 B.C.E.
Lisa: I think this is a very tough case to make.
Lisa-
ReplyDeleteDid you ever consider the possibility that midrashim such as the one that said that Paraoh reigned 94 years were created by Torah leaders in ancient times--based on Egyptian king lists--in order to fit Yetsias Mitsraim into egyptian history?
If they were, they hardly could be used as sources for reconstructions such as yours. Aren't you accepting such sources uncritically?
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDeletePersons like yourself should publish your research, and invite review and criticism by mainstream academics. If there is no such person willing to publicly agree with you, somewhere there must at least be someone who would be willing to try to attack your views. Your success might be measured by how strong an attack is mustered and by whether you could respond reasonably.
<laugh> In my copious spare time, right? I have a 10.5 hour day, including the commute, I have a five year old daughter (oops, five and three quarters) who needs attention, I just got asked to write another short story for an anthology and only recently finished that. I don't have the money to immerse myself in academia. Nor, frankly, the interest. There's far too much politics involved.
A. Lebedeff wrote:
Did you ever consider the possibility that midrashim such as the one that said that Paraoh reigned 94 years were created by Torah leaders in ancient times--based on Egyptian king lists--in order to fit Yetsias Mitsraim into egyptian history?
If they were, they hardly could be used as sources for reconstructions such as yours. Aren't you accepting such sources uncritically?
A fair question. The only Egyptian source that has that information in it was buried at the time. But sure, it's conceivable that the account in Sefer HaYashar derives from Egyptian information. That's hardly the basis for my conclusions. Just corroborative evidence.
Written documents can be mistaken or forged or dishonest. Physical remains are a lot more reliable. And the physical remains in Israel, according to all of the experts in the field (based on actual finds, and before interpreting them), show three cultures in Israel from the first urban settlement until Hellenistic times. These match the Canaanites, Israelites and Samaritans. As you focus in on each of these, the similarities between the archaeological evidence and the biblical account become more and more striking. The second culture spoke and wrote in Biblical Hebrew. Wrote poetry very similar to the Psalms. But according to the consensus chronology, these were Canaanites. The second culture invaded the land from the Transjordan westward near Jericho and destroyed the cities of the first culture. Ai and Jericho and all the cities mentioned in Joshua were destroyed at this time, and many of them (Ai, for instance) weren't rebuilt until the third culture came around.
It's a match. And it's such a detailed match for such an extensive period of time that there's no reasonable excuse for dismissing it.
Anonymous wrote:
What about the geologists, who know flood deposits when they see them, and who say there was no major flood in Mesopotamia anywhere near 2102 B.C.E.?
Good Lord. Go back and read what I already wrote. When they say there's no evidence of flooding near 2102 BCE, what they mean is that there's no evidence of flooding in Intermediate/Middle Bronze levels. But if they say that, they're just going to confuse people, so they use the date commonly associated with that period. But if IB/MB levels reflect the time of Moses and Joshua, then of course there's no evidence of flooding.
On the other hand, enormous flood deposits do exist in Mesopotamia at the end of the Chalcolithic Period. That's right before Early Bronze, and some historians have seen this as one of the causes of the explosion of migrations at the start of Early Bronze. And not coincidentally, Jewish tradition holds that there was a major flood in that area after the Tower incident. Like I said, one item after another item; it all matches.
Lastly, boruch and moshe, I'm not interested in your gratuitous haredi-bashing. If you have actual criticisms, I'm sure there are more appropriate places and ways to express them. I know I have major taanas against much of the frum community, but calling them names and throwing slurs is both unhelpful and wrong.
I removed some of the gratuitous bashing.
ReplyDeleteThanks. Wow... 227 comments so far. Who expected that?
ReplyDeleteI think the thing that puzzles me so much isn't how frum Jews can take current theories in science and archaeology as trumping the Torah. It's why they want to. If there's a way to reconcile science and Torah in a way that maintains the integrity of both, and another way in which the Torah gets dumped, it seems that there are some self-identified frum Jews who will always opt for the latter.
>On the other hand, enormous flood deposits do exist in Mesopotamia at the end of the Chalcolithic Period. That's right before Early Bronze, and some historians have seen this as one of the causes of the explosion of migrations at the start of Early Bronze. And not coincidentally, Jewish tradition holds that there was a major flood in that area after the Tower incident. Like I said, one item after another item; it all matches.<
ReplyDeleteIf so, are there flood deposits covering ALL of Mesopotamia (and Egypt, etc.) for the period a few hundred years BEFORE the Tower incident? It appears the answer is no. I have not heard of any such flood deposits covering all of Mesopotamia for ANY period during the last 10,000 years. Have you?
If they're not there, how can we say there was a flood as recounted in the Torah?
Your last post focused on Israel during the Canaanite, Israelite, etc. periods. The discussion on this blog has focused on the flood period. There is no evidence of any universal flood in Mesopotamia (or Egypt) anywhere near 2000 B.C.E., 3000 B.C.E., 4000 B.C.E., 5000 B.C.E., etc.
So where is the evidence of the Mabbul? I think things indeed do NOT "match" with respect to the Flood.
The evidence of the Flood of Noah is what's currently considered the last major Ice Age. What ice does slowly, water does quickly. And there's ample evidence that the Ice Age came on rapidly. Nor do I mean over the course of only a few centuries. I assume you're as well aware as I am of the animals who were flash frozen with food still in their digestive tracts. It's kind of funny to picture a wooly mammoth standing next to a glacier, munching on grass while the ice veeeerry slowly engulfs it, but that's more of a Far Side thing than anything that would have happened in real life.
ReplyDeleteYou know, Anonymous, some people have the courage of their own convictions. I'm well aware that many of my views are not mainstream, and I'm still willing to put my name on them. And I've made an exception to a longstanding rule of mine by even responding to you. I dislike talking with people who are hiding behind anonymity.
Furthermore, I think you're baiting me. Your tone has gotten progressively more antagonistic and rude. I don't think you're interested in answers to questions at all. I think that you think you have all the answers, and are merely throwing challenges at me until I "inevitably" have no answers. I think you're performing.
I have no objection to arrogance, as such. As anyone who knows me (either in person or online) can tell you, that's one of my own qualities. But there's arrogance based on being knowledgable, and there's arrogance based on being part of a majority and feeling that it's safe to diss those who aren't. I don't know you, and I don't know what your intent is. All I do know is how you're coming across, and it's very much as the latter.
In any case, I wish everyone here a Shabbat Shalom.
Here are a few links that some may find useful:
ReplyDeleteSynopsis of A Test of Time (David Rohl): http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm
Another synopsis: http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/newchrono.html
The NewChronology forum (Yahoo Group)- excellent!! Especially, check out the files and links! (You've got to be a member of the forum to do this though): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/
NewChronology2 (NewChronology reference archives): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology2/
Although this forum was originally set up to discuss Rohl's theories, they discuss a very wide range of revisionist theories (although I have not seen Lisa's particular theory come up). Although it is a very high-level forum - you'd probably need a serious background in Egyptology and Assyriology at the least in order to really follow all of the discussions - the files and links are still quite good and with a little patience and research perhaps one would be able to begin following the discussions a bit. I did, at least. In any case, from my experience it is a pretty good assumption that pretty much any support for or objection to any revision theory has been discussed knowledgeably and extensively at some point on the forum.
A list of problems with Rohl's theory: http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html Note that ALL of these objections have been addressed in the NewChronology forum (at least, that's what the forum moderator told me- I haven't looked through the forum enough to see how well they were addressed).
Another comment:
What are the sides of the issue if we would try to say the Mabul was only local? This wouldn't answer up the chronological problems with Mesopotamian history, but it would get rid of any problem involving any other part of the world.
First, R' Gedalya Nadel (major talmid of the Chazon Ish) in MiToraso Shel R' Gedalya (you can't get this in stores, by the way) says that he thinks "Tachas kol hashomayim" could just mean that the mabul covered everything that Noach and his family could see. He then goes on to say that he thinks a local mabul is perfectly reasonable, along with pre-Adam humans and a few other non-conventional shittos. Hmmm ... and you wonder why his family isn't selling this in stores.
My problem with a local mabul is that the possuk says it covered the harim hagevohim. But if it the waters got that high, why DIDN'T they cover the whole world? And it's very hard to say that harim hagevohim means large hills - aside from the fact that that's definitely not the mashma'us, the Zagros Mts. are not far away so it would be pretty strange to call much smaller hills "harim gevohim". Also, Ararat is understood to be the land of Urartu in what is now Armenia / E Turkey (if I remember correctly, Urartu is actually the Latinized version of the word Ararat - maybe I saw this in The Living Torah? don't remember) and that area is very mountainous. Can anyone come up with a way to answer this objection?
ALE
RYGB:
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone who is behaving civilly should be barred.
Thanks, ALE. I was on the NC list for a while way back when, but I left when the moderator made it clear that only Rohl's theories were legitimate topics of discussion. If it's changed, I'm not aware of it.
ReplyDeleteI'd point out, though, that in Rohl's revision, we still have highly cultured Canaanites speaking Biblical Hebrew and writing Tehillim-style poetry. We still have no Solomonic Empire. We still have no match between the cities destroyed by Moshe and Joshua and archaeological remains.
Urartu is definitely the Akkadian rendering of Ararat. And I can't see identifying a local flood as the Mabul. Chazal tell us of a major flood in the days of Enosh, the Mabul, and a local Mesopotamian flood at the time of the Tower. I suspect that any local flood would most likely be the last of those.
http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/noah/kav.html
ReplyDeleteBar-Ilan University's Parashat Hashavua Study Center
Parashat Noah 5763/ October 12, 2002
Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. A project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity.
Prepared for Internet Publication by the Center for IT & IS Staff at Bar-Ilan University.
Inquiries and comments to: Dr. Isaac Gottlieb, Department of Bible,
gottlii@mail.biu.ac.il
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parashat Noah 5763/ October 12, 2002
Science and the Flood
Prof. Moshe Kaveh
President, Bar Ilan University
Director, Resnick Institute for Advanced Technology in Physics
The story of the Flood in Parashat Noah is one of the most dramatic in the annals of man. The massive destruction and calculated deliverance in this narrative have sparked the imagination of novelists, poets and humanists, making the story of the flood and its hero, Noah, the most recounted myth in all human society throughout the ages.
Two hundred and seventeen cultures around the world have a flood story (see the book by C. Sellien and D. Balsiger). Many studies document stories of the flood in the region of Mesopotamia, including stories written on stone or papyrus (cf., for example, the documentation in Lambert and Miller, The Babylonian Story of the Flood).
From the documents that have been recorded and come down to us, we see that in most of the stories the dove heralds the end of the flood, appearing with an olive branch in her mouth, which in the fullness of time was adopted universally as the symbol of peace.
For over a century the flood has also been the object of scientific research, including recent studies by scientists at the world's leading universities. These studies examine the flood from the point of view of chronology, geology and oceanography, biology and zoology, archaeology, as well as philosophy and theology. Thus we see that interest in the flood is not confined to esoteric fields, rather it encompasses a broad spectrum of disciplines.
Everything, it turns out, can be a topic for research, even whether the zebra was on the second level of Noah's ark, next to the lions, or on the third level, next to the bears.
The Vast Amount of Water
Generations of scientists have sought an explanation of the source of the vast quantity of water in the flood. Some have argued that the water resulted from subterranean volcanic shifting, and others believe that gasses covered the earth's surface and turned into droplets of water. According to the latter theory, which today is considered more piquant than scientific, the gasses blocked the ultra-violet radiation, causing Noah to live nine hundred years. Scholars today generally accept the hypothesis that most of the water came from glaciers melting. Both cite the Bible in support of water flowing from above and from below: "all the fountains of the great deep burst apart, and the floodgates of the sky broke open" (Gen. 7:11).
As for dating the flood, early studies set it around 5,600 B.C.E. A British archaeologist by the name of Leonard Wooley dated the flood to 2,800 B.C.E. Recently Gene Faulstich, from the Iowa Research Institute, proved the exact date of the flood to have been 2,345 B.C.E. Using methods from astronomy, he dated the onset of the flood precisely to the 14th of May in that year. The Sages also related to the timing of the flood. Rabbi Joshua said that it took place in the month of Iyyar (approx. May; see Sanhedrin 108a); thus Faulstich's findings match the Sages' remark.
Noah's Ark
Attempts at finding Noah's ark have virtually become an obsession for more than a century. In 1887 two Persian princes reported that they had seen Noah's ark on one of the mountains of Ararat, and in 1916 two Russian pilots claimed to have seen it from the air. Since then dozens of similar reports have been published (see Bruce Feiler, Walking the Bible, HarperCollins 2001). Since 2000, in the wake of the findings mentioned above, the flood has become accepted as definite scientific fact.
It should be noted that none of the expeditions in search of the ark on the mountains of Ararat have come up with anything. Recently the idea came up of using satellite imaging from outer space. There is currently a plan to send up a photo satellite, Okono 2, capable of photographing objects as small as one meter, with which researchers hope to discover the remains of Noah's ark.
Life in Noah's Ark
Finding Noah's ark is a fascinating archaeological challenge. But short of actually discovering the ark itself, the idea of the ark has aroused the curiosity of zoologists and biologists. They relate to the ark as the largest biological laboratory in the history of the universe. According to the Torah, Noah's ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. That makes it a vessel about half as large as the Titanic. One of the most widely researched questions is how the ark could have contained some two million kinds of animals. John Whitcomb surmises that Noah's ark hosted 3,700 mammals, 8,600 birds, and 6,300 reptiles, and in view of the size of the ark there was room for all.
Another related question is how these animals were fed. How much food did Noah have to load on board his ark in order to support the living things in it? The question of garbage disposal has also been researched. According to zoologists from San Diego University, the animals in the ark must have produced about 800 tons of refuse. The stimulation for all this research is provided by the biblical narrative itself, this week's Torah reading.
The Scope of the Flood
Now we get to the motivation for writing this article, namely the amazing story that broke about a year or two ago, in which the world press announced that "decisive proof of the flood" had been discovered. The plain text of the biblical narrative gives the clear impression that the flood encompassed the entire world: "All existence on earth was blotted out - man, cattle, creeping things, and birds of the sky; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark" (Gen. 7:23). However, scientific computations show that there is not enough water to cover the entire earth to the height of Mount Ararat. Moreover, there is no tradition of a flood story in the ancient civilizations of the Far East. Chinese civilization, which is well documented as far as 7,000 years back, makes no mention of any event resembling a flood. Particularly in the ancient Near East, however, there are flood stories, such as the Gilgamesh Epic from Mesopotamia.
Views of the flood as local in scope go back to the time of the Sages. According to R. Yohanan (Zevahim 113b), the torrential rains did not fall on the Land of Israel. Likewise, the Torah Temimah commentary of Rabbi Epstein writes: "Regarding Babylonia receiving more rain than any other land in the world and being drowned by the flood, it should be noted that according to Tractate Zevahim, loc. sit., Babylon was therefore called Shinar, because all the creatures that perished in the flood were tossed (Heb. ninaru) there. It is a deep valley, and therefore is also called metzulah ('the deep')." In the mind of the Sages, Babylonia constituted the 'entire world'. This is evident in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (Horev ed., ch. 10, s.v. "be-shishi"): "... since all the creatures lived in one place, and seeing the waters of the flood, Nimrod became king over them, as it is said: 'the mainstays of his kingdom were Babylon, ...' (Gen. 10:10)."
Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event that Changed History, 1999, a book by Geologists Dr. Willian Ryan and Dr. Walter Peterman from Columbia University, suggests a fascinating theory based on research indicating that Noah's flood was a local event that came about as follows: at the end of the ice age European icebergs began to melt. The floods that resulted from this melting turned a fresh-water lake into a sea - the Black Sea. A study published in 1993 presented findings that a local body of fresh water was flooded by salt water. The Bosphorus blocked the water from flowing out; but gradually a channel was formed, and about ninety days later the water broke through with great force. Analysis of various shells from the area indicate the existence a subterranean division line that was formed thousands of years ago. Ryan and Peterman's study also showed that melting of icebergs caused the level of the Mediterranean Sea to rise and water to flow through the straits of the Bosphorus. Scientists calculated that water flowed through the Bosphorus so fast that the size of the lake increased at the rate of one and a half square kilometers a day.
Amazing Recent Discoveries by Ballard
An expedition called Black Horizon set out in the year 2000 under the leadership of the well-known oceanographer Ballard (famed for his discovery of the Titanic) to substantiate the above flood theory with remains of findings from the bottom of the Black Sea. About 20 kilometers offshore from Turkey, near the city of Sinop, the expedition discovered a well-preserved structure that was thousands of years old. This finding adds greatly to our knowledge about life in the ancient civilizations of this part of the world. It appears that from time to time the ancient dwellers of this area had to relocate due to floods.
An article in National Geographic describes the operations of a submarine robot that was lowered into the sea to photograph the area. The photos reveal a rectangular area approximately 15 meters long and 4 meters wide into which a structure of wood and mortar had apparently collapsed. The findings from this site - carved wooden pillars, tree branches and stone vessels - are well-preserved. There is broad consensus among scientists that this study, publicized in the press the world wide, is conclusive proof of the historicity of the flood.
The flood in the literature of the Sages
The Midrashic comments of the Sages were concerned not with the physical reality of the Deluge but with its moral and religious repercussions. They did not treat the deliverance from the flood as an event with religious meaning for later generations, due to the way the Sages thought one should react to "G-d's creatures drowning in the sea," namely, that one should not sing or declare a day of rejoicing in honor of Noah having been saved when so many other lives were lost. But the covenant made between G-d and Noah at the cessation of the Flood was preserved for all time by the Sages in the benediction they formulated, "Blessed art thou ... who remembers the covenant," recited whenever one sees a rainbow after a storm.
Instead, the Sages thought we could learn from the causes of the Flood; in Parashat Noah (Gen. 6:11) we read: "The earth became corrupt before G-d; the earth was filled with lawlessness." The human virtues necessary to maintain a proper society had been destroyed, and corruption and lawlessness reigned. Such a society was not worthy in G-d's eyes: "And the Lord regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was saddened" (Gen. 6:6). The sadness felt by G-d at having to drown the work of His hands did not give rise to a day of rejoicing, rather to an everlasting covenant between Him and man. Even though "the devisings of man's mind are evil from his youth," nevertheless the Lord promised never again to destroy all His creatures.
The very rainbow that forms in the sunlight after a rainstorm reminds human beings that the Lord remembers - as we say in the formulation of the benediction, "who remembers the covenant" - and symbolizes both refraction into the colors of the spectrum and the unity of the great light. Human beings, as diverse as they are, must lead their lives as creatures made "in the image of G-d" (Gen. 9:6).
Last Update:July 03, 2004
Rabbi Bechhofer:
ReplyDeleteThe article you posted, "Science and the Flood" by Prof. Moshe Kaveh may be interesting, but it in no way answers the serious questions raised by Saul Shajnfeld, which have not been satisfactorily answered here.
You have refused to let Shajnfeld post here, and now I see you have deleted posts supportive of him.
What gives?
Lisa Liel has some very interesting theories about the chronology of the ancient Near East. I highly recommend reading her own blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://lamrot-hakol.blogspot.com/2006/01/ancient-near-east.html
happywhistlestop said...
ReplyDeleteRabbi Bechhofer:
The article you posted, "Science and the Flood" by Prof. Moshe Kaveh may be interesting, but it in no way answers the serious questions raised by Saul Shajnfeld, which have not been satisfactorily answered here.
You have refused to let Shajnfeld post here, and now I see you have deleted posts supportive of him.
What gives?
Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:12:48 PM
The posts I have deleted today all basically say the same thing: "I think Saul was right." Sometimes they said that in pretty extreme and nasty ways. They covered no new ground, so were superfluous.
In my opinion, Prof. Kaveh's article is nothing but disconnected, incorrect and contradictory drivel.
ReplyDeleteShavua tov, Lisa-
ReplyDeleteI really don’t understand what I’ve said that you find arrogant, baiting or offensive. Please point out where I’ve done that. I’ve merely said that, and shown how, I have doubts about your redating as a solution to the flood problem. Surely it is permitted to express doubts.
> You know, Anonymous, some people have the courage of their own convictions. I'm well aware that many of my views are not mainstream, and I'm still willing to put my name on them. And I've made an exception to a longstanding rule of mine by even responding to you. I dislike talking with people who are hiding behind anonymity.<
As to my discussing things without using my real name, perhaps you haven’t followed the thread of this discussion from its beginning and learned the ground rules of Rabbi Bechhofer’s blog. I suggest you go back and read it through. I will summarize it for you.
You see, someone named Saul Shajnfeld raised serious questions about the historicity of the Torah’s literal account of the flood. Rabbi Bechhofer started throwing long excerpts from various websites at Saul, which Saul showed actually proved his own point. Then Rabbi Bechhofer enlisted the aid of a Yale-educated Orthodox Egyptologist. Saul proceeded to show that his views were unreasonable.
In desperation, Rabbi Bechhofer announced that the Yale fellow’s views, which Saul had shown to be basically absurd, were the most reasonable. A few readers called Rabbi Bechhofer on this. One even called the Rabbi’s remarks “wacko,” and threatened to finally throw away his yarmulka if a rabbi could make such an unreasonable statement. Rabbi Bechhofer deleted him. Saul kept pressing, to which Rabbi Bechhofer stubbornly attempted to pander to his audience by declaring that the view Saul was decisively defeating was the most reasonable (after Saul clearly demonstrated it was totally UNreasonable).
Not liking to have his viewpoint trounced on his own blog, Rabbi Bechhofer decided to transfer the discussion to Avodah, and banned further discussion of the topic on his blog. Saul retaliated by reminding the audience that Rabbi Bechhofer’s view had be refuted. Rabbi Bechhofer responded with this:
“Frankly, this is my blog, and I will take the privilege of the last word. I will delete all subsequent posts you make here on the topic.”
So Saul was banned, and the discussion “transferred” elsewhere. But, transferring the discussion elsewhere, and banning posts from Saul, did not stop Rabbi Bechhofer from posting your post, which happened to support his position. You see, in Rabbi Bechhofer’s eyes, the discussion is better carried on in Avodah—that is at least as long as Saul is taking part in it. Once Saul is banished, and once Rabbi Bechhofer has you to represent his view, the discussion can carry on on his blog, and it has. So long as Rabbi Bechhofer feels he’s winning, it’s OK for the discussion to continue. Those are the ground rules.
As for my anonymity, I learned a lesson from Saul’s experience: use your name, and show Rabbi Bechhofer he is wrong, and he will banish you. I’d gladly use my name if Rabbi Bechhofer had the decency not to resort to such inappropriate behavior.
As I said, I don’t believe I was being disrespectful to you. If I was, please show me where.
You now identify the flood with the ice age. But Chazal say that the residents of Eretz Yisrael were killed by the enormous HEAT generated by the flood. (I'm not an expert on ice ages, but I doubt that they work like air conditioners, taking heat out of Mesopotamia by blowing it into Israel.)
And do you really believe that the ice age occurred as recently as 2105 B.C.E.?
In fact, would you yourself believe much of what you’re saying about the period c. 2105 B.C.E. if the Torah did not claim there was a flood in that year?
>Furthermore, I think you're baiting me. Your tone has gotten progressively more antagonistic and rude. I don't think you're interested in answers to questions at all. I think that you think you have all the answers, and are merely throwing challenges at me until I "inevitably" have no answers. I think you're performing.<
I don’t know what you mean by “baiting.” Based on my understanding of history, I disagree that there was a major flood that destroyed all of Mesopotamia c. 2105 B.C.E. I am indeed interested in answers, but I reserve the right to challenge the answers if they seem wrong to me. Surely I have that right. And I don’t think you have any basis to attack me as “performing” or “dissing.” It seems to me you don’t like having your views questioned.
RYGB-
ReplyDeleteWhy do you keep deleting my posts, and without even leaving a note that you deleted them?
Did I use a word or two that you find offensive? If so, I can remove them.
Please advise.
Well, it finally appeared. I hope you leave it up.
ReplyDeleteKol tuv.
http://www.wits.ac.za/geosciences/egri/pdf_files/382.pdf
ReplyDeleteAn abstract from an article the author cites elsewhere gives this general description of the possible event [bracketed comments are from a very knowledgible correspondent who sent me this information]:
"...It is estimated that the Recent sediments of the Tigris-Euphrates plains were deposited in the last 5000 years, during which 130-150 km of seaward progradation has taken place [this could help answer those who assume the sea level of the time was as low then as it is now - and therefore demand a impossibly epic flood for the region for the ark to float to "arartu"...see additional forwarded letter to come]; ...Because of the extremely young nature of the sediments in the marshlands of the Tigris-Euphrates confluence area (<5000 years), it is difficult to find a geological explanation for the strikingly circular shape of the Umm al Binni structure, which differs markedly from the highly irregular shapes of the surrounding marsh lakes...The postulate that the structure was formed by a Recent bolide impact can account for the simple bowl-shaped geometry with slightly polygonal outline, and the apparent rim and annulus around the structure in pre-1993 imagery...Speculations and implications for Bronze-Age Mesopotamia, if Umm al Binni is of impact origin: The impact, with the energy of hundreds of Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs, would have had a devastating effect on the regional environment. [one can imagine people being atomized, as Rashi offers, as well as the destruction by fire, boiling water, etc] Since there are no accounts in the writings of Herodotus ...and Nearchus...or later historians, the event must have taken place in the Bronze Age at the dawn of recorded history (between ~3000 and ~1000 BC), and may have inspired the flood legends of Ziusudra and Utnapishtim... If the postulated impact site was under water, the water column would have absorbed some of the energy, resulting in a smaller crater than if the impact had been on dry land...Hence estimates of the bolide diameter (~150 m), based on the crater diameter (~3.4 km), are only a minimum, and the bolide could have been larger and more energetic. A wet impact would have generated huge tsunamis, which would have lashed all the port cities of Mesopot
Shurrupak, etc, within a radius of a few hundred km.
There could very well have been a confluence of large-scale events in the region; glacial waters swiftly rising (for the era, not at all unusual), a strong storm from the south (though a southern storm a possibly a noteworthy event, a viscious hurrican storm as such is hardly unheard of) and then a meteor (meteors hit earth all the...you get the picture) amplifying conditions...to put it lightly. I only just found this, but I will scout the net for more discussion of the idea. A size comparison map of the region would be nice, so people could get an idea of what a "regional mabul" can mean.
Yes. It has indeed been speculated that a meteor hit a lake, causing a large local flood in Mesopotamia, that this is the foundation of the flood stories in the Epics of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis, which exaggerated the flood to global levels, and that the author of the Torah borrowed these myths and de-paganized them.
ReplyDeleteYou're making great progress, Rabbi Bechhofer.
A sudden meteor hit. Yes, it sounds exactly like the story in the Torah. And the tsunami covered the highest mountains and stayed there for months.
By the way, how do you say "meteor" in Biblical Hebrew?
Keep this stuff coming.
Rabbi
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that Rabbi Schwab was wrong for taking his position.
Can I assume that the german jewry mesorah is now considered corrupt by the polish/hungarian jewry mesorah?
I know RSRH said that Chazal believed what the roman scientist told them regarding mermaids. Is RSRH also wrong?
Interesting how the mesorah in the last 100 years has become controlled by polish and hungarian jewry.
You also said that rabbi yochanan had powers to look at people and kill them.
halachically, is one considered a kofer if he doesnt think that rav yochanan could kill someone by looking at them?
You mentioned that Rabbi Schwab was wrong for taking his position.
ReplyDeleteCan I assume that the german jewry mesorah is now considered corrupt by the polish/hungarian jewry mesorah?
I do not know. I represent the German/Lithuanian mesorah, so I cannot speak for the Polish/Hungarian mesorah.
I know RSRH said that Chazal believed what the roman scientist told them regarding mermaids. Is RSRH also wrong?
No.
Interesting how the mesorah in the last 100 years has become controlled by polish and hungarian jewry.
Indeed.
You also said that rabbi yochanan had powers to look at people and kill them.
halachically, is one considered a kofer if he doesnt think that rav yochanan could kill someone by looking at them?
No.
You are 'taining very shtark' -which means in Yiddish, you are presenting a very strong argument (argument not meaning machalokes).
ReplyDeleteThis concept that you are speaking about is one that in a way is on my mind. And I appreciate your asking the question, for, as we know, it is easier to answer someone else's question sometimes, because you hear it as a question. Therefore, שלום! to you!
About what you said about filtering throuh the filter of ratzon Hashem, this is an excellent way of presenting this concept. I once heard from Harav Berel Wein שליט"א, a very interesting thing about this. He said this over in a shiur on chinuch in Lakewood about ten years ago. I heard a recording. He said as follows; that he would tell his talmidim to always say, וואס זאגט גאט -What does the Creator say - about this. And he said that at one point they had a paperwheight made for him with the words וואס זאגט גאט inscribed on it. And he said that it really helped him, having it on his desk.
So we see that this is a very special concept, and also that it is spoken about. Regarding Rabbonus, we know the concept of והלכת אל הכהן אשר יהי' בימים ההם - You should go to the kohen who will be in those days-the Torah says this regarding bringing Bikurim to the Bais Hamikosh, and RSH"Y ZTZ"L explains, אין לך כהן אלא שבימך -You do not have a kohen, only who will be in your days - that you should not say, today they are not as great as in a previous generation. And from here we learn to the concept of all rabbonim and all parents etc. And also children and talmidim. I once heard from R' Pesach Krohn Shlit"a, that he said over (I don't remeber from who) that, regarding these questions 'but what about nowadays', he said that a gadol said, "If many years ago the gedolim were greater, but the baalei batim were greater also! In other words this leads us to what I heard actually saw, I think in Yated, after the petirah of Harav Pam ZTZ"L, that he did not like the idea that 'today things are different', rather one should do what he could. So too, I am not saying that you said that 'today things are different', only the greatest suggestion is that we do what we can.
Now, there are hardships. However I want to say an astounding thing. The Chofetz Chayim brings a number of times throught sefer Chofetz Chayim and sefer Sh'miras Halashon, that ללמד ששקול עון לשון הרע כנגד שלש עוונות החמות. We learn in the CHZ"L who learn from p'sukim, that the aveirah of lashon horah wheighs as much as the three most serious sins. And the gemorrah has a few places to learn this from, one of them is from the first lashon horah, the nachas, that it says הטיל בה זוהמה thus he caused גליו עריות, he caused them to eat from the treee and violate HSHM's will, - thus he caused avodah zorah and he caused that now man will not live fprever, thus he casue retzicha. -These are the words of the Chofetz Chayim (you can look in the מפתח -index to find the place in the sefer (the gemorros are - ate least - ירושלמי-פאה-א-א, ובבלי ערכין ט"ו:)
p.s. Another great thing you are מקיים - fullfilling with this blog, is the posuk of (in Mishlei): דאגה בלב איש ישחנה לאחרים והם ייטיבוה -The gemorrah explains - "A worry in the heart of a man, he should talk it out to others - and some say he should eradicate it (translating the word as hashchasa - to destroy). I was thinking, that obviously, the navi - who is Shlomo Hamelech, the chochom mikal odom, is telling us that "they will make it good". So of course the first reaction must be that the navi is guarateeing is for us and that therefore this is a reality in the world. However, a person may ask, "Can you explain this to me a little more (and we will- the faith/knowledge of this in a moment. However I would like to explain the 'making good' part. And we can say, that, what is really bothering a person when he has a problem. The greatest answer is that it is a problem and that he sees it as a roadblock. What will the others do for him who the posuk tells us, 'will make it good'? The answer, we can explain, is, that, they will help him see it as a challenge, ang once a thing is a challenge, one knows what to do, he can work on it. And this can be even if they have not said a thing to him, because just by speaking himself out, already he has a lisyner who he receives a feeling from that he cares (recently, I applied to R' Avi Shulman - and he sent back abot ten pages - both about his service (as he calls himself ;life coach') and forms for me to fill out - mainly about my goals fro the next ninety days - and his goal is to help develop a structured program for a person and to encourage him along the way. One of the things which he wrote intruged me in that he said, "I will not be disrupted by anything during our conversation. This was truly beautiful and certainly spoke about the message he is teaching to the person himself. We can say, who knows if one has not lost a million dollar deal, simply because he took the phone while the persojn was there, and it was not an emergency. My rebbi would say this, "that if one is disturbed by a siren in middle of learning (like from a firetruck coming from the fire station which was on the next block), he must see it as a sign that it is more important than what he was doing (so, in other words, he must engross himself in the Torah study more and better-by learning about the specialness of Torah and its' study.
Now, so therefore, we see how special is the concept of giving a person time and undivided attention (and then from that we learn that how special it is to give the Ribbono Shel Olam such time which is respect)
Also, another great thing that one gains from speaking to a friend, is that now he has someone who cares abou him and that is something very special.
About rabbonim, I think that our main thing is to help them - as CHZ"L say אין מלך בלא עם -There is no king without a nation - this is in Rosh Hashono 15b (or 16b) that that is why the Ribbono Shel Olam tells us to blow shofar, in order that He should enking over us (that is an interesting word - should I patent it?!).
When we do things which are special, we will gain the rabbonims' approaval, and oh how good a person feels when he is doing productive things and respectable people are giving him approaval and encouragement.
Of course there is always room for improvement. Hear these words from the Gaon ZTZ"L. They are brought in the begining of Sefer Even Sh'leimah which is a compendium of the Gaon's writings and a (I think grandtalmid (is this another patent) compiled this sefer in order of topics. In the first perek, the second piece reads (basically word for word - I don't have the sefer in front of me); שהאדם לא נברא אלא לשבור את המדה אשר לא שבר עד הנה ואם לאו למה לו חיים - and I think the first piece read (basically), כל הדברים תליום בתיקון המדות - this means that our goal in this wold is to improve our character, meaning that it shouldn't be just robotical actions although החיצוניות מעוררות את הפנימיות - the outer actions arouse the inner feelings (this is the purpose of Lulav as the Chinuch (a Rishon) explains.
Thus there is always room for improvenment, however we should see that as what we are here for. However there is really constantly good being done.
And as for individual understandings, I saw recently from the Halach B'rurah, that they were talking about writing s'forim, and one of the reasons for writing a sefer they quoted, was that people will benefit and even the gedolim will benefit for since he went into a specific matter, one will gain and of course in the concept that each person has a special portion of chiddushai Torah that is destined for him. So too, we can say this is for compilation also.
I was thinking, that sometimes a person has a good idea and he amay think, "Why do I have to bring this to the rabbonimm for a הסכמה -letter of recommendation (or even verball)?" And I was thinking, if only to tell them of the good things that are taking place.
And also why should we only go to there may be a problem. There was the following astounding story. A bochur wanted to borrow a camerah from the house, however his father was reluctant. The bochur insisted saying he will be careful. So his father said ok but was still apprehensive. So the bochur said 'do you want me not to'? "Well, if you'll be carefull." The bnochur went. Outside he thought to himself, this is nusts, I can't take this, what is the right thing to do in this case? He thought, "I'll go to this and this gadol and ask him". Then he though, "No, I can't go to him like this, because his father was niftar and when he was very young." So the bochur just continued. He took pictures. Then he came home - and lo and behold, there was no film. Thus he had his lesson of "if he would have known this he would not have started out, zand this is what his Kibbud Av V'eim should be - as if there is no camerah etc. and even if they are just apprehensive.
About faith - I heard that a great gadol said that this comes from mesorah. And I heard from a noted speaker that emunah does not mean faith but rather knowledgs. Thus we can put the two together to mean that one has an intrinsic knowledge of The Creator. We are constantly getting to know Him better (as in my story - yeah it was me!). The mesorah must come from a loving caring 'link' ion the chain - that is a reason why it is so important. Interestingly, I never saw or heard of anyone who was suspicious of authentic Yiddishkeit that maybe it is missionining - or like the Russian teacher who would say 'pray to the motherland and she will give you a candy (I forgot to say that their heads had to be down). Anyway, when things are with authenticy, it is truly felt - this must be like good food for the body as opposed to junk food (and more so if it is organic!).
So, it is my prayer that you will ilke this, Please let me know what you think (I read the first few paragraphs of your post and relatively no responses (because I didn't have o much time). Have a great day. (if you will want an Electronic mail address I will be happy to supply it. Bye bye, Zai gezunt -be healthy BS"D.
Your anonymous friend (I really enjoyed this). Let's continue (and all the people) Thank you, I appreciate the zechus -merit to post here.
http://klalperspectives.org/aaron-berger/
ReplyDeleteAaron Berger
by Editor on February 12, 2015
Klal Perspectives, The Ben Torah Baal Habayis
To read this issue’s questions, CLICK HERE.
Addressing the Baal Habyis’s Challenge – a Baal Habayis’s Take
I must first express my appreciation to Klal Perspectives (KP) for soliciting thoughts from regular baalei batim (Jewish laymen) such as myself on serious topics such as the ones addressed in this issue. Since practical answers on topics of such import surely require rabbinic approbation, this article is intended primarily to trigger discussion in the vast virtual living room that is KP. The article’s inherent value, if any, is in presenting an earnest voice.
The Introduction and Questions to this issue builds a solid case that the sincere ben Torah baal habayis commonly has feelings of inadequacy and frustration at not possibly being able to meet the expectations imposed upon him by his community, or that are self-imposed. After all, how could someone not feel frustrated and inadequate when the task is so great and the day is so short? In fact, I found this thesis so compelling that when I concluded reading the Introductions and Questions, I began to feel desperately inadequate. This feeling, however, was not triggered by disappointment in my performance as a baal habayis, but rather precisely because I have not, until now, thought myself to be inadequate. I have not been walking around as an “ich bin ah gornisht” (I am a nothing), which, having now considered the KP Introduction, is exactly what I should have been doing all along. Unless I could claim that I had figured out how to perfectly execute all my baal habayis responsibilities (which clearly I could not), what right did I have to not feel miserably discouraged and inadequate?
Upon further reflection, I realized that my lack of disappointment resulted from two factors. First, I may not be taking my baal habayis responsibilities seriously enough, but second, I am not fully sold on all the assumptions that underpin the thesis of the Introduction. However, had KP done nothing more than raise the awareness of baalei batim like me that we, in fact, have such deep and profound responsibilities, dayenu! That awakening would have been reason enough to be grateful, since the recognition of a challenge (which I am not convinced we all knew we had) is the first and perhaps most important step toward addressing it.
Addressing the Issue
While I defer to the esteemed rabbinic professionals to guide the baal habayis in his struggle to prioritize among competing responsibilities, I have developed, with a small group of peers, several ideas that may assist the thinking of the baal habayis as he confronts these challenges. What can the individual do to successfully embrace his role as a baal habayis, and what can the community do to support him?
Accepting the Challenge – To the extent that baal habatim have given up on the goal of growing vigorously in avodas Hashem, the abandonment of this aspiration is due in no small part to the message, real or imagined, that becoming a baal habayis represents a monumental failure, reflecting a paucity of yiras Shomayim (fear of Heaven) or idealism. It is vital that efforts be made to militate against that kind of negative thinking. It is my understanding that one is not consigned to a lower level of avodas Hashem by pursuing a career in the secular world rather than remaining in the bais hamedrash. Bottom line here is: Adam muad le’olam – we are obligated to rise above anything we have heard that would lead us to lesser ambitions and lesser goals in avodas Hashem.
DeleteFashion and Follow a Plan – The frustration of the baal habayis is in many ways the same as anyone’s frustration when they find themselves distant from their most important goals. In fact, when one fails to delineate exactly what one is trying to achieve and whether or not there is a reasonable plan to get there, frustration follows.
In private industry, every year, department heads strategize on how to allocate their budget to best achieve their intended goals. The baal habayis should employ this same common-sense approach when dealing with his most precious commodity, his time.
The rather simplistic chart below is intended to illustrate the initial steps of a plan. Categories of activity should be listed, each weighted in priority and available focus. Perhaps in consultation with a Rav, each baal habayis should divide the pie chart in accordance with his personal needs and priorities.
This time allocation exercise can be pursued, however, only after investing in the hard work of formulating a set of goals and associated priorities. How is such an exercise pursued? A colleague of mine calls it “right-to-left-planning.” To know what to do now (the “left”), we must first envision where we need to be by the target date (the “right”). This is in line with the Ponovezher Rav’s statement that he had “backed into” all his activities when building his mega yeshiva in Bnei Brak.
It is no wonder that Daf HaYomi has been so successful in inducing so many of us to actually spend an hour or two every day learning gemara. Daf Yomi’s attraction is that it is based on definitive, concrete milestones that lead to a definitive, concrete objective – to finish shas. To reach that goal, one must obviously finish the mesechta, and to finish each masechta, one must do whatever it takes to get through today’s daf.
Applying this specific example to the broader range of life goals, we should envision how we, as baalei batim, will look and live once all is said and done (i.e.; retired and moved to Lakewood and/or Carriage House and/or 22 Pinsker). This “right to left planning” should produce a set of objectives, which should then yield an action plan to achieve them. I can almost guarantee that no one’s plans will be directly on the mark, and that most people will adjust them quite a bit as time goes on. Designing a plan, however, will significantly increase the chances of staying focused on achieving those accomplishments that one really cares about.
DeleteEach individual’s plan will be quite unique and personal. It may be helpful to take counsel with a spouse, close friend or Rav when attempting to define the right vision for oneself and to allocate time and focus responsibly. But even then, it is wise to prepare a first draft on one’s own, and only then seek the input of others.
Engaging a Rav as a Support System
If we were to track the life journey of an archetypical baal habayis, we would discover that he establishes a series of mentor relationships at the various stages of his development. Each relationship is valuable, but they are generally disjointed and typically become either unavailable or less meaningful as life goes on. As an adult, he may occasionally solicit advice from a “gadol” who, while rich in Torah foundation, is often relatively unfamiliar with his personal context, family background, strengths, challenges, goals and affinities. Since such advice is so often more generic than tailored, it often fails to resonate, or the baal habayis deems the advice unrealistic, leaving him with further feelings of isolation and inadequacy.
The baal habayis would benefit greatly from a constant mentoring resource, who would help tie together the various phases of his growth. As a thought for consideration, perhaps the family shul Rav can serve this role, becoming a key resource as he supports the baal habayis from childhood through the balance of his journey. Who is better qualified than the Rav, whose ever-growing Torah knowledge is complemented by his deep, personal, life-long familiarity with the baal habayis? The Rav can offer a perspective that puts the aggregate set of advice the baal habayis had received from his many mentors into a context that is relevant and meaningful in the “here and now,” helping keep the baal habayis centered and secure. The baal habayis would be at liberty to absorb messages that balance what he learned in yeshiva with new ideas appropriate to his current situation.
This suggestion implies a fundamental shift in the expectations of a Rav and his role. If this approach would be employed, the Rav’s relationship would necessarily be with his congregants’ entire family. He would be expected to strive to develop substantive relationships with the youth of his shul and commit himself to their long-term growth. These job requirements may affect a congregation’s “checklist” of qualifications when choosing a Rav in the first place. The broadened responsibilities would also put additional demands on the Rav’s time. The congregant would not think of the rabbi as a mere service provider, to be utilized for quick inspiration, for a halachic psak or for pastoral duties. The Rav would rather be embraced as a partner in his family’s overall growth. It may behoove a family to actually factor in a prospective Rav’s long-term potential in serving them when choosing a shul, much as they may factor a doctor’s ability to be there for long haul (I know I do this). Notwithstanding that the cradle-to-grave, or even fountain pen-to-grave, rabbi-concept will rarely play out according to script, I submit there is much potential value in broadening the rabbi’s role and leveraging his talents, holistically.
DeleteThe rabbi-for-life concept is actually not innovative at all. This model already has been established for quite some time in the Chassidic world. In the yeshiva world, of course, the role of the shul Rav is limited in favor of the rosh yeshiva, and often compromised as people move from place to place, and thus from shul to shul. The Chassidic model, by contrast, is all about the centrality of the Rebbe. The Rebbe relationship, at least in theory, provides the kind of continuity I am suggesting, and goes even further in that the Rebbe himself delivers the guidance; he is not just orchestrating the seamless melding of the various threads of advice. Disclaimer: I do not know how this is, or ever was, implemented in practice. I am simply suggesting that we need not start from scratch in envisioning this model. No matter how the Chassidic Rebbe model actually works, here are some characteristics of how I think the “pulpit Rebbe” needs to work:
Capacity to Engage – The rabbi needs to have sufficient time and focus to maintain meaningful relationships with his flock. [I suspect this may not be the case with the Rebbe model]
DeletePartnership Approach – A mutual relationship must be created in which the rabbi partners with the congregant to form strategies that the congregant ultimately owns and implements. This differs from a one-way relationship in which the rabbi simply directs his congregant as to how to act, [I suspect the Rebbe model might lean more to the one-way approach]
Individual-Focused – The nature of the rabbi’s advice must be tailored to the individuality and unique circumstances and history of each congregant. It must be immediately evident to the congregant that the advice being offered is suited to him as an individual, without the influence of broad, klal-level agendas that are not in his interests.
Depending on the Rav’s age at the outset of a relationship, the Rav could theoretically be there for the baal habayis into his 30’s, 40’s and beyond. As an illustration of the beauty and effectiveness of this dynamic, I will describe such a 47-year relationship that I have merited to have with a head of school, and that is still ongoing – thank G-d, bli ayin hora.
Allow me to bring you back a few decades. I have a clear memory of my first day of school at HANC (Hebrew Academy of Nassau County) in 1967. Approaching the half-flight staircase up to my first grade classroom in HANC’s split level building (building and stairs still there in West Hempstead!), I was greeted by a kindly man, a 40-ish Rabbi Meyer Fendel, the founder and principal, who, with a warm and gentle smile, wished me a good first day at school. This memorable interaction turned out to be an introductory step to a lifelong relationship with this chinuch giant and his family that I continue to cherish. Fast forward 47 years. I conferred with Rabbi Fendel as recently as this past summer on how to approach a challenging life situation. His guidance was spot-on and useful, and I found myself equally open to accept it. Why? Because not only did I respect the rabbi’s qualifications as a rabbi and wise man, but I also knew that he really knew me, cared deeply about me and understood the context of my situation in depth. Obviously, not every rabbi is a Rabbi Fendel, and there were clearly other factors that enabled me to maintain my connection with him. But this nostalgic divergence illustrates that a long term relationship is possible and the rewards immeasurable.
DeleteTweaking the Messaging – The yeshiva system’s messaging is clearly ‘up’ on learning and, if only by inference, ‘down’ on working (notwithstanding statements that there’s nothing wrong with it). I don’t think yeshiva leaders would deny, or even want to deny, this view. Fueled by the holy passion of Rav Aharon Kotler, zt”l, yeshiva leadership has done an unimaginably impressive job of firmly implanting Torah’s primacy as a core value into an American Orthodox community, for whom such concepts were once foreign and even unwelcome.
Alas, for the majority of the yeshiva system’s subjects, who do not stay in learning, an unfortunate side effect of this message is a feeling of never quite measuring up. I have confirmed with friends on the right end of the yeshivish spectrum that this is their feeling, though one was quick to add that he sees movement away from the “learning for everyone” approach. Another observer pointed out that, while the anti-work messaging today is not as strong as it was twenty years ago, there still is an inherent inconsistency between the yeshivas’ messaging to baalei batim and the message directed toward and about their sons. “It’s OK that you are working, but surely you want what is ‘best’ for your son.” The message is that since you want better for your child than you yourself could achieve, you should groom him to be a full-time learner.
DeleteIf the communal goal is to adopt a culture in which each person’s role has equal beauty to HKB”H, our messaging would have to change from early in the educational process. Mechanchim would need to refrain from sending signals that life in the working world is necessarily spiritually diminished. Schools would need to resolve, in their hearts, that it is noble and lechatchila to be a frum baal habayis, and the messaging imparted to their students would have to be consistent in reflecting this view.
As it would be silly for me to expect that the yeshivas transmit a message that they do not actually believe, my associated request to yeshiva leadership is to consider whether they really do not believe in the message, at least for most talmidim, and whether the strong anti-work messages are there to ensure the standard is not diluted.
Here are some quick thoughts of how schools could update their messaging:
A rebbi, giving an example of a job his student might someday have, would no longer shy away from saying. “So one day, when Yankel is a lawyer…”
The school would have a career day and have fathers come in and describe what they do for a living. They might even discuss head-on how they navigate the challenges of avodas hashem while succeeding at a job.
Rabbeim in yeshiva would have open discussions with their students on career options, obviating the need for students to go elsewhere for these discussions, for fear that all he will hear from his rebbi is “don’t leave yeshiva.”
I am sure that schools could each come up with their unique manner of conveying that it is a fine alternative for a ben Torah to be a baal habayis.
Acknowledging the Yeshiva System’s New Role
DeleteWhy should the yeshiva system dial down its passion for Torah? After all, Torah is what they do. Medical schools are all about medicine, law schools about law and culinary schools are obsessed with the perfect crépe.
Well, perhaps contemporary American yeshivas are actually not only about limud Torah; perhaps in today’s America, where nearly every bochur from a frum family attends yeshiva, the yeshiva is actually a preparatory staging ground for being a frum adult in America, regardless of one’s long term career.
In Europe, the yeshiva system was designed to transform high-potential talmidim into gedolei Yisrael, just as medical schools, lehavdil, measure their success by how well they train their students to become excellent doctors. But does today’s yeshiva honestly anticipate that all frum young men will spend their lives in kollel? Yeshivos must rethink their role regarding these segments of the student body, and update their curriculum to include practical life training. Corporations have learned to segment their customers by taking a hard look at the nature and needs of the customers being served and defining corresponding archetypes, each with its own personality, needs, style and buying patterns. This insight allows companies to serve each respective segment appropriately.
In recognition of the broad spectrum of talmidim, yeshivas should offer workshops on the mission of the baal habayis, how to define success, how to set time priorities, and so on. No doubt, the historical culture of the yeshivas and their leadership, and the traditional single-minded commitment to producing Torah giants, makes the introduction of such dramatic alterations extremely challenging. Moreover, there is certainly a legitimate concern that endorsing alternatives to the all-encompassing value of Torah lishma, if even only for some, threatens to compromise the commitment to Torah study of those who should be the future Torah leadership. These are surely valid points, and I identify with them.
But, can Torah really be built on the shattered idealism of those who do not properly belong in long-term Torah study? The same Torah giants who embrace and preserve Torah surely are equally committed to introducing methods by which the greater portion of the Torah community can grow in their holy role in Klal Yisroel. Perhaps we need different types of yeshivas, each with a curriculum that matches its student body, or perhaps each institution should have separate tracks. We can, and should, maintain the “Toraso Umanuso” (Torah as a profession) type yeshivos, but they should not be the only, or even dominant, style considered le’chatchila (first choice). Perception is key to the success of this idea.
Conclusion
We live in a very special time. In some ways, we face unprecedented challenges, but in others we enjoy unprecedented opportunities. We have a burgeoning community of bnai Torah who are full time Torah students, and an ever increasing community of bnai Torah baalei batim. Each has its own challenges, and each needs chizuk (strengthening) and hadracha (guidance).
I humbly observe, however, that whether or not the ever growing community of yeshiva graduate baalei batim remain loyal to the values and aspirations that they embraced before leaving yeshiva will depend upon how they view their rebbeim in retrospect. Did they prove to be life-long mentors or does it seem they were really only interested in those who would remain in full-time learning?
If they can come away from yeshiva with a vision of avodas Hashem that is naturally applicable to them throughout their lives, they will surely continue to build on their years of yeshiva throughout their lives, becoming a true source of strength for their families and communities far into the future.
Aaron Berger attended the Shaalvim, Ner Israel and Mir Yeshivos, works in IT strategy for EMC Corporation, and lives in Passaic, NJ with his baalas bayis and children.
part 1
ReplyDeleteI told Rabbi Bechofer I’d post about why the DH is compelling on this thread. This will be a long post and I will hope to cover as much of Tanakh as I can stay awake to write about.
The Torah
As is well known the DH holds that the Torah is composed of J,E,P and D (further subdivided but I’ll get into that later) documents (I’m not getting into the supplementary vs one guy sat down at his desk and did the redacting debate as it’s irrelevant for now)
E is said to be from the Northern Kingdom,J from the Southern Kingdom, P is priestly and sometime around Galus Bavel and D is Yoshiyahu’s time and redactions later
There are numerous stories which make way more sense when divided into 2 strands and in our textus receptus make little sense
For example:How was Yosef sold?
The full text is
יח וַיִּרְא֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ מֵרָחֹ֑ק וּבְטֶ֙רֶם֙ יִקְרַ֣ב אֲלֵיהֶ֔ם וַיִּֽתְנַכְּל֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ לַהֲמִיתֽוֹ:
יט וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו הִנֵּ֗ה בַּ֛עַל הַחֲלֹמ֥וֹת הַלָּזֶ֖ה בָּֽא: כ וְעַתָּ֣ה׀ לְכ֣וּ וְנַֽהַרְגֵ֗הוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵ֙הוּ֙ בְּאַחַ֣ד הַבֹּר֔וֹת וְאָמַ֕רְנוּ חַיָּ֥ה רָעָ֖ה אֲכָלָ֑תְהוּ וְנִרְאֶ֕ה מַה־יִּהְי֖וּ חֲלֹמֹתָֽיו:
כא וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיַּצִּלֵ֖הוּ מִיָּדָ֑ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ: כב וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם׀ רְאוּבֵן֘ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ הַשְׁלִ֣יכוּ אֹת֗וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֤וֹר הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְיָ֖ד אַל־ תִּשְׁלְחוּ־ב֑וֹ לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו:
כג וַֽיְהִ֕י כַּֽאֲשֶׁר־בָּ֥א יוֹסֵ֖ף אֶל־אֶחָ֑יו וַיַּפְשִׁ֤יטוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ אֶת־כֻּתָּנְתּ֔וֹ אֶת־כְּתֹ֥נֶת הַפַּסִּ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָלָֽיו:
כד וַיִּ֨קָּחֻ֔הוּ וַיַּשְׁלִ֥כוּ אֹת֖וֹ הַבֹּ֑רָה וְהַבּ֣וֹר רֵ֔ק אֵ֥ין בּ֖וֹ מָֽיִם: כה וַיֵּשְׁבוּ֘ לֶֽאֱכָל־לֶחֶם֒
וַיִּשְׂא֤וּ עֵֽינֵיהֶם֙ וַיִּרְא֔וּ וְהִנֵּה֙ אֹרְחַ֣ת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים בָּאָ֖ה מִגִּלְעָ֑ד וּגְמַלֵּיהֶ֣ם נֹֽשְׂאִ֗ים נְכֹאת֙ וּצְרִ֣י וָלֹ֔ט הוֹלְכִ֖ים לְהוֹרִ֥יד מִצְרָֽיְמָה: כו וַיֹּ֥אמֶר יְהוּדָ֖ה אֶל־אֶחָ֑יו מַה־בֶּ֗צַע כִּ֤י נַהֲרֹג֙ אֶת־אָחִ֔ינוּ וְכִסִּ֖ינוּ אֶת־דָּמֽוֹ: כז לְכ֞וּ וְנִמְכְּרֶ֣נּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֗ים וְיָדֵ֙נוּ֙ אַל־תְּהִי־ב֔וֹ כִּֽי־אָחִ֥ינוּ בְשָׂרֵ֖נוּ ה֑וּא וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֖וּ אֶחָֽיו:
כח וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֩ אֲנָשִׁ֨ים מִדְיָנִ֜ים סֹֽחֲרִ֗ים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֤וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִן־הַבּ֔וֹר
וַיִּמְכְּר֧וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֛ף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֖ף מִצְרָֽיְמָה:
כט וַיָּ֤שָׁב רְאוּבֵן֙ אֶל־הַבּ֔וֹר וְהִנֵּ֥ה אֵין־יוֹסֵ֖ף בַּבּ֑וֹר וַיִּקְרַ֖ע אֶת־בְּגָדָֽיו: ל וַיָּ֥שָׁב אֶל־אֶחָ֖יו וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַיֶּ֣לֶד אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וַאֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא:
לא וַיִּקְח֖וּ אֶת־כְּתֹ֣נֶת יוֹסֵ֑ף וַֽיִּשְׁחֲטוּ֙ שְׂעִ֣יר עִזִּ֔ים וַיִּטְבְּל֥וּ אֶת־הַכֻּתֹּ֖נֶת בַּדָּֽם: לב וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ אֶת־כְּתֹ֣נֶת הַפַּסִּ֗ים וַיָּבִ֙יאוּ֙ אֶל־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ זֹ֣את מָצָ֑אנוּ הַכֶּר־נָ֗א הַכְּתֹ֧נֶת בִּנְךָ֛ הִ֖וא אִם־לֹֽא: לג וַיַּכִּירָ֤הּ וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ כְּתֹ֣נֶת בְּנִ֔י חַיָּ֥ה רָעָ֖ה אֲכָלָ֑תְהוּ טָרֹ֥ף טֹרַ֖ף יוֹסֵֽף: לד וַיִּקְרַ֤ע יַעֲקֹב֙ שִׂמְלֹתָ֔יו וַיָּ֥שֶׂם שַׂ֖ק בְּמָתְנָ֑יו וַיִּתְאַבֵּ֥ל עַל־בְּנ֖וֹ יָמִ֥ים רַבִּֽים: לה וַיָּקֻמוּ֩ כָל־בָּנָ֨יו וְכָל־בְּנֹתָ֜יו לְנַחֲמ֗וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְנַחֵ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּֽי־אֵרֵ֧ד אֶל־בְּנִ֛י אָבֵ֖ל שְׁאֹ֑לָה וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ אֹת֖וֹ אָבִֽיו:
לו וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים: ***
לט:א וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיִּקְנֵ֡הוּ פּוֹטִיפַר֩ סְרִ֨יס פַּרְעֹ֜ה שַׂ֤ר הַטַּבָּחִים֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מִיַּד֙ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹרִדֻ֖הוּ שָֽׁמָּה: