Photos: Ghostly Stream

I spent just about all day yesterday in Harriman State Park, taking pictures of fall foliage. While I got a number of nice foliage shots (some of which I might post here), my best shot of the day (IMHO) was of a stream. Here's the pic:

Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens, 30 seconds, f/32

As you might imagine, the stream did not really look like that. It was simply water flowing down and around the rocks. So, how did I get the water to look like that? Did I use some Photoshop magic? No, I didn't (as a matter of fact, I don't even own Photoshop).

The trick to taking "ghostly water" shots like that is to use a long exposure. If you look under the picture, you'll see that for this shot, I left the shutter open for 30 seconds. That's quite a bit of time. Because the water was flowing at a nice pace (had it been flowing faster, the water would have looked even more "ghostly") leaving the shutter open for so long allowed me to capture much of the movement, resulting in the image you see.

Of course, it's important to remember that if you're going to leave the shutter open for that long, there are two things you MUST do:

1. Use a tripod. I don't care if you're the best surgeon in the world -- no one can hold their hands still for 10 seconds, let along 30. You absolutely must use a tripod to keep your camera still while the shutter is open.

2. Change the f/stop on your camera. I stopped the camera all the way down to f/32 -- the smallest aperture I could get with the lens I used. If you don't do this, your entire picture will be completely overexposed.

3. Although not a must, a filter would also help to reduce the amount of light coming into your camera. This will allow you to keep the shutter open longer.

As always, I welcome all comments, critiques and criticisms.

The Wolf

See? Science and Torah Can Agree!

The Boston Globe is reporting that genealogists have discovered that President Barack Obama is a distant cousin of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin -- high profile members of the opposition political party.

I don't really care to comment about Obama, Limbaugh or Palin -- you'll notice that I rarely, if ever, bring up politics on this blog. But the article brought me to an interesting conclusion -- that there is one thing that even the most ardent Biblical literalist and the most atheistic evolutionist can agree on -- that if you trace back far enough, all human beings are related to each other.

See, science and Torah can agree! :)

The Wolf

Poor Arguments

Every now and again,  you come across an argument put forth by someone and wonder how it is possible that they don't see the refutation to their very own argument.  A good example of this was found on Rabbi Lazer Brody's website earlier this week.  He writes:

My simple mind asks a question - How is it that the scientists purport to know what happened millions of years ago, yet deny the hard historical fact that 2 million men, women, and children saw the revelation of Hashem on Mount Sinai a mere 3323 years ago? This latter fact has been passed down from father to son and from rav to talmid (teacher to student), so that's why I go with the simple faith of our forefathers. Also, if it was good for the previous generations' spiritual giants, it's certainly good for me.

The answer, of course, is very simple -- (1)  Events that happened millions of years ago left behind physical evidence that can be examined today -- fossils, geological formations, layers in ice cores and the like.  Mattan Torah, on the other hand, did not leave behind any physical evidence.  That's not to say that it did not happen -- on the contrary, I believe that Mattan Torah occurred.  But you cannot express dismay at the fact that scientists are willing to rely on physical evidence and not on historical retellings that have one root source.

Another factor to consider is that there is a qualitative difference between "hard" evidence (such as the physical evidnce I mentioned earlier) and "soft" evidence (traditional retelling of historical events).  The latter type of evidence is far easier to manipulate than the former.  Just to give an example, ask any two random people to tell you the story of Little Red Riding Hood without referring to a written text.  In the vast majority of cases, the people telling the stories will not relate them exactly the same way.  Some people may choose to play up or embellish one part of the story more than the other.  Or put it this way -- did your father tell over the story of the Exodus by the seder EXACTLY the same way every year?  Do you tell it over to your kids EXACTLY the same way?

Lastly, of course, there is an additional difference.  Rabbi Brody may have this tradition passed down from father to son and from rebbe to talmid -- but the scientists don't.  If Rabbi Brody is willing to accept this, then that's fine -- but he cannot insist on forcing those same views on others -- not unless he's willing to accept the ancient traditions passed down by other religions as well.

Rabbi Brody continues in his post:

It's utterly absurd to think that anyone could have been capable of pulling the wool over the eyes of such intellectual and spiritual giants as the Ramcha"l, the Vilna Gaon, Rebbe Chaim Volozhiner, Rebbe Nachman of Breslev or the Chofetz Chaim. Stories do change and develop over time, no one can argue with that. But the holy Zohar warns that our Torah is not a mere collection of "stories", G-d forbid, but precision Divine wisdom. That's why our sages throughout the generations believed in every iota of Torah

I don't necessarily know that the scientists would agree that it's "utterly absurd" that the wool could have been pulled over the eyes of the tzadikkim he mentioned above -- but let's put that aside for the moment.  The real problem with his argument here is that he's assuming something that's not in evidence -- that a deception is being perpetrated.  His argument (as I understand it) is as follows:  if Mattan Torah is false, then someone lied.  If it's a lie, the above named people would never have fallen for it.  Hence it can't be a lie.

However,  Rabbi Brody is engaging in the fallacy of the excluded middle.  There is another possibility -- that the people who transmitted the historicity of Mattan Torah to these tzadikkim actually believed in these events.   As such, when (for example) the Chofetz Chaim first learned about Mattan Torah from his father, he has no reason to doubt his father's word, because his father believed in the historicity of Mattan Torah.  There was no deception being perpetrated against the Chofetz Chaim because his father presented the facts as he believed them to be and as he received them from his father.  I don't know anything about the Chofetz Chaim's father, but for the sake of argument, let's say that he, too, was an extraordinary man who would never knowingly accept or transmit false information.  But could you say the same thing about his father?  His grandfather?  And every person in the chain back to whichever son of Aharon (if I recall correctly, the Chofetz Chaim was a Kohen) he is descended from?  Is it not within the realm of possibility that *someone* in that chain was deceived, duped or even just came to believe information that was not historically accurate?  If so, then no one is "pulling the wool" over these giants any more than Ptolmey "pulled the wool" over the people of his day with his geocentric model of the universe.  There was no deception -- merely people working with the information that they had at the time.  By framing it as a "deception," Rabbi Brody excludes the possibility that they could have simply believed in inaccurate information because that was the information/evidence that they had at the time.

I don't have any problems with Rabbi Brody's beliefs.  As I mentioned above, I, too, believe in Mattan Torah.  But I do have a problem with his arguments -- they are poorly thought out with easy refutations at hand -- refutations to which he has seemingly blinded himself.

The Wolf

Men Behaving Badly During Davening

A Public Service Announcement to the folks I davened with on Sunday:




To the fellow davening next to me:

It's bad enough that the shliach tzibur (prayer leader) for Shacharis is reciting the Chazaras HaShatz (the repitition of the amidah) so low that I can barely hear him.  Please don't compound the problem by saying your "catch up" davening loudly next to me.  I believe that, even though you are a member in the shul and I am only a guest, my right to hear the chazzan trumps your "right" to say Az Yashir in a loud voice.  An even better idea would be to come on time next time so that you can say Az Yashir when the rest of the congregation is doing so. And you didn't make matters any better when you recited portions of your (silent) Amidah out loud.


To the parade of people marching to and from the sukkah at the start of Hallel:

Yes, it's a nice minhag (custom) to bentch lulav and esrog in the sukkah.  I get it, I really do.  But if doing so is going to result in your missing half of Hallel, then you're better off just bentching lulav by your seat.  I highly doubt it's worth missing half of Hallel (I saw some of you coming back inside as we were up to "Ana HaShem..." just so that you can bentch lulav in the sukkah.  If the minhag means that much to you, then next time bentch lulav at home in your sukkah before coming to shul, or else come early and do it in the shul's sukkah before davening, or else just do it at your seat right before Hallel.

To the conversationalists:

I understand... it's a Sunday, it's Chol HaMoed, there's no work for most of you and you have plans for a great day with your families.  I get it, I really do.  But there's no reason to be discussing them (or any of the other minutiae) that is discussed during davening.  I was barely able to hear the Chazarras HaShatz for Mussaf because of all the talking in the shul.  Yes, I suppose I am partially to blame because I sit all the way in the back -- I suppose if I moved closer I might be able to hear better -- but I really shouldn't have to.  It's not as if the Shliach Tzibur for Mussaf was all that low -- he wasn't.  Absent the talking, I could have heard him perfectly where I was.   Once again, I'm willing to bet that even though I am only a guest and you are members, that my right to hear the chazzan trumps your "right" to discuss your plans for the day.  Perhaps, in the future, you might consider the following:

I am normally strongly opposed to the practice that some people have of removing their tallis and tefillin before the very end of davening.  Yet, I understand that sometimes people are in a rush because they have to get to work or because they have important plans that are time-sensitive.  So I'm dan l'kaf z'chus (I give the benefit of the doubt).  But I would much rather see you leave early and hold your discussions outside while the davening is still going on rather than have you discuss them in shul.  It's REALLY hard for me to be dan l'kaf z'chus when I hear you discussing things that are (a) not related to the davening and (b) don't HAVE to be discussed right then and there and (c) are discussed loudly enough that I can hear you a few rows away and can no longer hear the shliach tzibbur.  So, next time, how about leaving instead of talking?  Both are wrong, but at least if you leave, I have grounds on which to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The Wolf

Frum People Don't Kiss or Hug Their Spouses...

... or at least that's what one couple wants their nearly teenage daughter to believe.

A very interesting and sad thread appeared on Imamother this past week in which the topic was discussed.  In the thread, a woman says that her very sheltered 12 year old daughter accidentally saw her neighbors making out on the couch.  The couple had apparently left their blinds open and hence the daughter was able to see them kissing and hugging.  Being very sheltered, she probably never saw anyone kiss beyond a quick peck on the cheek and was disgusted that her neighbors -- otherwise fine Jews (from my reading of the post) -- were "acting like chilonim."  As the poster puts it:

Obviously I'll never know just how much she saw but she was in total shock that this couple were "behaving like chilonim" and she was nauseous over the whole thing. Needless to say, my dd is very sheltered and could not imagine that anyone Charedi would do something so disgusting! 

The poster's first instinct was to tell the kid the truth -- that married couples do engage in such behavior but that it is meant to be private and that the couple should not have been doing such when others can see them.  And so she told her daughter.  Her daughter's reaction:

She was not happy with that answer and of course, started to ask me about her father and myself.  I didn't give her a straight answer but I did let her know that it's normal and natural.

So far, so good.  Kid sees something that was meant to be private.  Being a pre-teen and never having been exposed to this, she's kind of grossed out - a perfectly natural, normal reaction (given her upbringing).  Mother tells the child that it's normal and natural for couples to behave this way and that she'll learn more about it as she gets older.  

But the story doesn't end there.  When the woman's husband hears about the story, his reaction is different.  In her words:

When DH found this out he was not a happy camper. He would rather have her think that the neighbors are pervs or something. Oy.

And sure enough, he does just this.  In a later post, the woman recounts what happened the next day:

She ran to tell my dh about it this morning before I woke up. He told her that it's ossur and not done and that the neighbors are not beseder and that the only reason I said that it is done is because I didn't want to say bad things about the neighbors and that I didn't know what to say. She asked me if that's true and I said yes.

and

My husband says that the mere fact that she got such a shock from what she saw is enough of a reason to make sure she gets back on track and the only way to get her back to her equilibrium is to let her think that it's wrong. He says it's allowed by halacha to lie about this. I said that she'll eventually know I'm a liar and he said that the important thing here is not if I'm a liar or not - it's her state of mind.

The thread goes on for seven pages in total and in those seven pages, EVERY single woman who expressed an opinion on the matter all agreed that the initial response was the correct one and that her husband's approach was wrong.  These responses come from just about all segments of Orthodox Judaism as represented on Imamother -- Chareidi, Chassidic, Litvish, Modern Orthodox, etc.  Yet, in the end, she continues to stand by her husband's decision.

So, what's the end result here?

1.  Over the next few years, one or both of the following is going to happen to this poor girl:

     a.  She will internalize the message her father gave her, come to view physical intimacy with loathing and disgust and possibly even suffer from self-hate when her own hormones kick in and she begins to have desires for physical intimacy.  Oh, and heaven help her kallah teacher and future husband.


     b.  She will find out from her friends that her parents lied to her and that they cannot be trusted to provide her with serious mature answers to the important questions in life.

2.   The father, by telling his daughter that "it's ossur and not done and that the neighbors are not beseder" has, in effect, told her that the neighbors are disgusting perverts.  Granted, they should have closed the window blinds, but from the mother's description, it doesn't sound like we're dealing with serial exhibitionists here - it was a mistake, pure and simple.  But the father chose to paint them as deviants rather than have the courage to face the truth with his daughter.

3.  By telling his daughter that her mother lied, she, in effect, helped to undermine her credibility.  By "confirming" the "lie" (which, mind you, was in fact the truth), she has put herself in a position (vis-a-vis her daughter) from which she has no credible resolution.  IMHO, undermining a spouse's authority with anyone (and *especially* with her children) is one of the worst things you can do in a marriage. 

I don't want to address the fact that this couple has obviously never shown affection for each other in front of their kids.  If that's the way they want to run their marriage, that's their business.  It's not how Eeees and I run ours.  Our kids see us hug and kiss.  They can visibly see the affection that we have for each other -- whether we're in physical contact or not.  Eeees and I believe that it's healthy for children to see these things (and yes, they did go through their "ewwww" phase -- but they got over it) and to see that hugging, kissing and physical intimacy (within limits, of course) are perfectly normal and healthy in a married relationship. 

I can understand a parent wanting to keep their child sheltered.  It's a perfectly natural parental reaction.  Yes, some parents tend to overdo it, but at the core of a parent is the desire to protect his or her child.  Unfortunately, however, children cannot be sheltered forever.  At some point, they will have to be told about subjects that you might not want brought up -- and sometimes they'll come up sooner than you like.

We had this issue with one of our children.  Eeees and I were forced to give him information about intimacy sooner than we would have liked.  No, s/he didn't walk in on us or anything like that -- but s/he became aware of some information on his/her own and we, as parents, had to put that information in the proper context.  We could have lied to the kid and we could have buried our heads in the sand -- but that would have been the wrong thing to do.  The child would have grown up and internalized the wrong message about intimacy -- and that would have required far more extensive "fixing" later on and a total loss of trust in us as parents. So, we chose the responsible choice -- giving the child the information s/he needed and putting it in the proper context.

Children are naturally curious about the world.  They will constantly ask questions, and they will sometimes see or hear things that you would rather they not know about.  But a child also needs to know that they can come to their parents for accurate information when they see something that so shakes the foundation of their world.  That doesn't mean that you *have* to answer every question -- sometimes a subject should be avoided or pushed off -- but a child needs to understand that a parent won't lie to them.  As one poster in the thread beautifully put it, you can't be mechanech with sheker - period.

Perhaps our method isn't for everyone -- but I can say this:  if my kids had accidentally spied a married couple making out, they might have been a bit grossed out -- but they also would have realized that it's a natural part of the relationship.  Furthermore, they would know that they can talk to us about it and receive honest and truthful answers.  Eeees and I don't lie to our kids, nor do we EVER make the other parent out to be a liar.

The Wolf

Hat tip:  Pesky Settler and OnionSoupMix

Shana Tova

I want to wish all my readers, my correspondents and everyone else a Shana Tova.  May you all be blessed with health and happiness.  May all your wishes for the coming year be fulfilled.

The Wolf

Do People Actually Hear Themselves When They Speak...?

... or write, in this case.

The proposed Park51 community center/mosque/whatever you want to call it has been in the news for the last few weeks.  Personally, I'm of two minds about it and can hear both sides' argument.  As a result, I don't have terribly strong feelings on the matter one way or the other.

Other people, of course, have strong opinions about the building -- and they're certainly entitled to them.  But sometimes people make some really silly statements and I wonder if they actually give much thought to their statements and whether what they're saying might be just as equally applicable to themselves or their community.

Let's take a look at a few examples, courtesy of the YWN Coffeeroom.

The first response in the thread is a good example in fear-mongering.  

What I find scary about this whole thing is they'll build one mosque, than another and another....and than they will literally just take over!  

Now, I'm going to switch just one word in the quote -- tell me how is sounds to you.


"What I find scary about this whole thing is they'll build one synagogue, than another and another....and than they will literally just take over!"

Not too nice sounding, is it?  But I bet you could have heard some people saying the same thing in communities where Orthodox (and even non-Orthodox) Jews moved in.  I would not be surprised to find out that such sentiments were uttered by long-time residents in places such as Lakewood, Williamsburg, Boro Park, Postville, Monroe and Flatbush in the past who saw the character of their neighborhoods changing.  And if someone uttered it today, we'd (rightfully) denounce the person as a bigoted, ignorant and antisemitic.  But yet, the very same people who would scream and holler about it being said about them have no compunctions about using such language against others.

A similar sentiment is expressed further down the thread by a poster named Baruch-1:

It's bad enough to have a growing Muslim population in America, I don't want it in my back yard in NY! And if it means using logic like not allowing a mosque on WTC grounds, then I'm up for using whatever it takes to prevent Islam from growing here. 

And, again, here's the "revised" quote:

"It's bad enough to have a growing Jewish population in America, I don't want it in my back yard in NY! And if it means using logic like not allowing a synagogue on WTC grounds, then I'm up for using whatever it takes to prevent Judaism from growing here."

Again, sounds pretty ugly, doesn't it?  We'd scream and protest (again, rightfully) if someone said that today, but to say it about Muslims and suddenly everything's okay?

Next, we turn to the hypocrasy that some of the posters, knowingly or unknowingly, exhibit.

Here's one from a poster with whom I usually agree and is usually pretty level headed:

No, it should not be built. The freedom of religion does not apply to a religion that BANS ALL freedom of religion.

I would suggest that before she suggests stripping Muslims of their freedom of religion on the basis that they don't allow it that she actually look into just how much freedom of religion is allowed to non-Jews under halacha.  Granted, they don't have to be Jews, but their choices are actually quite limited and Judaism clearly does not have the concept of "freedom of religion."

Baruch-1 (who provided a quote above) also gave us an example of this as well.

Islam is by its nature (according to the 'pashut' reading of the Quran) a controlling and an intolerant religion! There I said it! Forget about contemporary Talibans and Wahabis, since its very creation, Islam has subscribed to the belief that Christians and Jews are Dhimmis thus making them subserviant to Muslims under Shariyah law.

Is Baruch not aware that halacha is also very controlling and, at times, intolerant?  Does he not understand that, under halacha, one could find situations where non-Jews are subservient to Jews?  Is he really so blind as to not see it?  And yet he basis his opposition to Muslims on this.  As the saying goes, "doctor, heal thyself."

I have no beef with people who have strongly held opinions on whether this building should be built.  As I said, I can see both sides of the argument and both sides have valid points.  But when people resort to pure hatred and hypocrisy to make their points, then I consider it out of bounds and in very bad taste.

The Wolf

Photos: Daisy In Drop

I can't say this is one of my best shots ever, but it's the beginning of an experiment in macro photography.

Canon XSi, MPE-65mm macro, f/16m, 15 seconds.

As always, comments, criticisms and critiques are welcome and appreciated.

The Wolf

To see all my photo pictures, click here.

Don't You Find It Amusing....

... when people who say "let's flood the public schools" with our kids as a solution to the community tuition problems are probably the same ones who want their yeshivos ultra-segregated so that only the "right" kids can attend?

What do they think the public school system will do?  Set up "yeshivish-only" classes?

The Wolf

Molestation... and the Lakewood Response To It.

The Asbury Park Press is reporting about a recent case of a Lakewood father who decided to notify the authorities when his son accused a yeshiva teacher of sexually abusing him for about a year.   The teacher has since been arrested, pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial. 

But there is another story here, aside from the child and the molester.  As it turns out, the father now facing opposition in the community for having chosen to go to the police rather than have the matter handled internally by a local Bais Din. Attempts were made to get the father to drop the charges.  Notices were distributed as a recent charity event decrying the "shameful thing" that was done -- not the abuse, of course, but the fact that the victim's father went to the police.  One Lakewood resident has been charged with witness tampering in the case.

Personally, I believe that most people, if they felt confidence in the system provided, will use it.  People will go to Bais Din for civil cases when, and only when, they feel confident that justice will be served.  If people feel that an institution is corrupt or unable to solve their problems, they will find another system that can do so.  If this is true for civil cases, how much more so will it apply to criminal cases when people may fear for the safety of their families or others? 

I think it's evidently clear that, in the case, the father of the victim did not feel that Bais Din was capable of handling the matter -- and, in truth, I can't say that I blame him for having such feelings.  Given their inexperience with such matters, the past track record of rabbinical organizations in sweeping such allegations under the rug and and lack of any true enforcement and prevention mechanism, there probably isn't a great deal that any communal rabbinical organization can do alone to stop molesters.  That's not to say that at some point in the future they may not come up with a valid, reliable method for handling such cases in the future, but, for the present, there is no evidence of any credible method for dealing with criminals in our midst.  And with no assurance that the rabbinic authorities can prevent this person from harming his son or anyone else, he turned to the ones he felt were best able to ensure that this does not happen again.

But aside from all that, there is another dimension to this case -- that of the implied social contract between ourselves and our neighbors.

Rabbi Shmuel Meir Katz, a senior Dayan in Lakewood, was quoted as saying the following:

"We have our own system. We have our own laws, and as long as the Bais Din (rabbinical tribunal) feels competent on taking care of something themselves, that's our surest recourse in our circles.''

What Rabbi Katz doesn't seem to realize is that we don't live in isolation.  In Lakewood, as in most places in the world, we live side-by-side with non-Jewish neighbors.  And since we live side-by-side with them, actions taken by either group tend to affect the other.  If there were a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, or even a simple cat burglar in our neighbor's midst and they struck, we'd want to make sure that they are brought to justice.  Even if we don't care about our neighbors, we'd want to at least be sure that the criminal will not strike us.  But how would Rabbi Katz feel if the molester's community defended him saying "we have our own laws, we will take care of it internally?"  Would he feel confident that the matter is resolved?  Would he feel safe that his community is secure because his neighbors have decided to handle it amongst themselves with no outward accountability?   Or would he demand that the police get involved to remove the molester from the Lakewood area so that children will once again be safe?  My guess would be that most people would not be satisfied with such an arrangemnet.

But that being the case, how can Rabbi Katz expect that his non-Jewish neighbors will be satisfied with such an arrangement?  How can he, in good conscience, tell reporters "we have our own laws" when he would not accept such an argument from any other group?  And, with the knowledge now public that we won't turn over criminals to law enforcement, how can he ever in the future, in good conscience, complain when another group refuses to hand over someone who harms a Jew?

The Wolf

Hat Tip:  VIN