The Unknown Story of Noach

What do you all remember about the story of Noach?

What do you think of? Flood. Rainbow. Dove. Me. Olive Branch. Ark Thing. Two by Two. Bill Cosby.

What are the lessons learned? The birth of rainbows? That if we aren’t moral that we will all drown? That Noach forgot the unicorn? That it ain’t going to flood no more no more?

Well, there are obviously many aspects of the story that you forgot or never learned!

So -- let’s look at some forgotten lessons and some intriguing details derived straight from the text. I sat down and read this so you don't have to! (You're welcome.)
Let's go over the serious stuff first. All this deep thinking will be over with soon -- don't worry.

1. The first thing we read is that Noach is a righteous and whole-hearted man. At least… for his generation. Now the Torah says that he walked with God, and that sounds pretty darn good, but notably it says later that Abraham walked ‘In front of God’… as an older, more mature child has the freedom to walk ahead of his dad. Noach, and the rest of mankind at that point, just doesn’t have that moral maturity yet.

Maybe if Noach had lived a couple hundred years more, he could have walked in front. But he only got to 600. 

Now we’re only a few chapters into the Bible, but the commenting Rabbi’s are already asking whether ethical behavior should be based on one’s circumstances or not. Was Noach only a good person in comparison to all the other depraved, despicable, disgusting, decrepit people God was about to kill? Or would he have still been outstandingly righteous if he had been born into a better environment with better role models?

2. God says that “All flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.” All flesh. That includes animals. What had the animals done? Some Rabbis say they had become more violent. But Noach wasn’t told to go out and find two of all the peaceful animals.

I’m not saying there isn’t an answer to this or the other questions I pose here, but for now I’m just asking.

3. Alright. Concerning the building the Ark -- all straight from the Bible. It was 3 stories with a door in the side, roof in the top (for the giraffe head?). There was some sort of mysterious ‘light’ stone that was placed up top inside. No one now really knows what that was. The ark was split up into separate nests for all the animals. He apparently had to cover the entire inside and outside with tree resin too. Where he got that many trees in the middle of the desert, I don’t know.

And of course, the Ark was measured in cubits. What’s a cubit? About 18 inches apparently.

4. Now, he had to get two of all the animals. It doesn’t say how long he had to do this, but heck. How hard could that be? The logistics obviously weren’t important. Waste of space in the Torah. What would you learn from it?

But that wasn’t all! For the ‘clean’ animals, he needed 7 pairs. The speculation is that these animals were for sacrifice, but there hadn’t been any sacrifices in the Bible yet. Nor had man eaten meat yet, at least officially, so clean in the kosher sense wasn’t important.

5. He got into the Ark and the ‘windows of heaven’ opened. Scholars say that the ancient people thought that the blue heaven was a big pool of water that the sky dome kept out. So, it was pretty easy to open some windows up top and flood the earth for 40 days.

6. I think at this point, as the rest of the human race was dying, Noach’s sons' wives must have been thinking their mothers were wrong! They married into the right family after all!

7. And what about the sea animals? They hadn’t become increasingly violent like the land animals? Eh, life isn’t fair. They had gills. I assume they lived.

8. Time period. 40 Days and Nights, and then another 90 or so days. That’s a long time! To be couped up feeding animals massive amounts of food. Oh, did I mention that God commanded him to get all the food for himself and the animals too? That’s a lot of food, but probably not as good as what we’re having tonight.

9. Noach means ‘calm’. That’s why he sent out a dove, right? Peaceful? Well… that was his second choice. He actually sent out a Raven first, a bird of prey, a predator. Where would the modern peace movement be today if that Raven had succeeded?

10. The olive branch. EXCEPT, it just wasn’t an olive branch. It was a little olive leaf. There wasn’t time for a tree to grow! But I guess I understand why we have the misconception. Sunday school book artists don’t want to draw a dove with a little leaf hanging from its mouth. It just doesn’t look cool.

11. Noach offered the first sacrifice. Interestingly enough, God didn’t tell him to. He did it on his own. Sacrifice was of human invention.

12. Now, I apologize to any vegetarians out there, but this story also marks the end of Biblical vegetarianism. “Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you.” And, Noach wasn’t Jewish and didn’t keep kosher, so he could even have all the bacon, shrimp cheeseburgers on a sesame bun during Passover that he wanted.

13. Noach planted the first Vineyard and was the first Biblical person to get drunk.

14. He was also the first angry drunkard after his highly non-kosher son, Ham, saw him without clothing and gossiped to his brothers about it. Know this story? It tends to be left out of school books. There may also be some darker sexual things going on, not spelled out word for word. Maybe it's a good thing it's not in the kid books.

So, concluding the parsha, Noach’s kids had many generations of kids. Just as Adam and Eve, his family was told also to ‘Be fruitful and multiply”. And before the portion concludes, some offspring are already Babbling on about some tower, and one of them down the line a little ways was named Abram.

Shabbat Shalom, Y'all!

Reading: A Waste of Time

It may be a tad counter to my purposes to write a column arguing that reading is a waste of time. But as do most intriguing titles, this one has a qualification. Overall, I find in my own life that reading for its own sake – ‘simple reading’ -- is not generally a productive use of my time. But there is another way. Reading for a purpose – ‘reactionary reading’.

First, what is this so-called simple reading?

It is a hobby, or at worst, a form of procrastination. Instead of creating something, tangible or intangible, we fill our minds with information that feels good and that we will probably never use again.

If you’ve picked a worthy work of fiction, it is an enjoyable endeavor. It can make you genuinely happy,  it can pass the time, and it can provide a topic of conversation with  your neighbor on the subway. These are worthy reasons, and I often use them to justify those enjoyable diversions throughout the year. But after a time the plot details become fuzzy, and those interesting tidbits of fact will be forgotten.

Maybe fiction is not your love, and you’d rather fill your head with scientific facts and interesting anecdotes from history. I certainly enjoy my reflexive education and value the time I sit reading. But if you are anything like me, soon all that knowledge so enthusiastically inscribed in your head will fade with the ink of the mind. You're left with nothing.

My true point is not that you shouldn’t read. Reading is crucial for our modern economy and for the educated citizen. But to squeeze the most out of a book, you must become a reactionary reader, one who allows text to stimulate action.

What do I mean?

This column is an example. I was reading an intriguing analysis of online marketing and public relations today when it struck me that I learn so much and so rarely apply it. I decided to write, to jump back on the bandwagon of personal PR. I allowed the ideas to spur me to action. Reading as inspiration.

If you’re reading a work of fiction (however trivial), write a response – if only for your own records. Forevermore, you’ll have a summary that will allow you to recall the book with greater ease and remember your thought processes.

Sure, there is some inherent good to simple reading. It isn’t watching television or surfing YouTube. It can allow you to take a break from a harsh reality, to find some solace. It can develop your vocabulary and lead to a familiarity with different writing styles. And it can provide the foundations for further education, especially for youth.

But there comes a point when pure education need end and action and creation need begin. A point to transform reading from a pleasurable activity to a useful activity. A point when your personal edification helps enlighten others, or at least spurs thought.

This is not a novel idea. Why require term papers and theses if society is only interested in what information you have accumulated over the years? Why do employers seem far more interested in your previous accomplishments than your library? Information retention and memory is easily tested with multiple choice exams. But these tests are useless to society.
It is your actions, creations, and synthesizations that are truly valuable.

Expend a bit of effort and become a reactionary reader. Instead of stewing over that latest political article, write an argument in response to strengthen or weaken the position. If you read a work on revolutionary France, create a YouTube speech summarizing the important points. Maybe a bit of poetry strikes you as exceedingly profound; try to explain your enthusiasm to a friend – more power to you.

Not only will you remember and understand the ideas better, you can influence others in the process and record the effect of a text on your mind.

React,
        Yaffe

Buffett's Specious Argument

I am growing rather tired of seeing Warren Buffett in the news – not because I have disdain for the man. In fact, I rather admire his past, developing an investment empire from the application of Benjamin Graham’s theory concerning undervalued companies. It was not just a matter of picking ‘lucky’ stocks, but getting down and dirty building companies he purchased. He certainly earned his living.

But while Buffett is a business genius, he lacks political perception in this instance.

The example he uses – and the President employed this week in his State of the Union address – has little relevance to a typical American or even a ‘standard’ millionaire. Buffett, garnering the majority of his income from capital gains and dividends of his equity enterprise Berkshire Hathaway, is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary who derives her income from salary. He fails to mention there are very few Americans that make their living from investment income.

Even ruthless stock brokers working for the top investment firms make their living from transaction commissions – taxed as normal income. And while there are CEO’s that have highly valued stock options, their substantial salary is still taxed at normal rates. No, Buffett is an anomaly when it comes to earning a living.

There some other factors that Buffett  and others overlook. First of all, investment dividends have already been taxed once due to our system of double taxation. All corporations on the stock exchange, by definition, have their income taxed at high federal and state rates before being distributed as dividends or retained for future use. Thus, while some of Buffett’s income is taxed at a lower dividend rate, he receives much less than he would have because the government already took a share. A hidden tax.

Second, while salary consists of a contractually determined sum to be paid on a timely basis, investment income is subject to high levels of risk. While capital gains are not directly taxed twice, the mechanism that makes capital gains possible involves tying up money in the market for an indefinite period of time, exposing funds to high levels of risk. Capital gain income is a reward for taking on risk and this need be recognized in the argument. Buffett could lose a huge portion of his wealth in a stock market crash while his secretary continuously receives a salary.

Yes, it's true that Buffett’s secretary’s salary is taxed at a higher rate. But she has an equal opportunity to risk her money in the stock market.  She could quit her job, place her savings in the hands of the market, reap lower-taxed capital gains in the future and live out the rest of her life investing. The benefits of capital gains are not limited to billionaires.

So, the real question is whether we should alter our system in order to target those rare investors who by wit and incredible luck are able to make money directly from the markets.

I, for one, do not wish to interfere with the vast majority of Americans, rich or poor, that look to investment income to grow their hard earned salary over many years, for purposes of retirement, schooling, and other life goals.

Buffett is wholly unrepresentative of how Americans support their families and his example should be thrown out as a useless non-sequitur.

Yaffe