The Talmud, Water and Cell Phones

A few weeks ago, my Rabbi admonished/begged the congregation that we need to be more fervent and concentrating in our praying during the services. He's not wrong on that score. We all do our share of talking during the services, which we really shouldn't be doing (though it isn't nearly as extensive as certain other congregations with which I am acquainted). Every once in a while, we need to be reminded of Whom we stand before.

This evening, the talking during the davening was relatively restrained. The problem was that someone's cell phone went off. Not quite four years ago, I posted on this issue, noting that when the cell phone that distracts our concentration belongs to a rabbi then there's much rabbinical credibility to be lost.

[I note that there are a number of rabbis besides our main "pulpit rabbi" who join us on a somewhat regular basis for the afternoon/evening services. They do things like oversee kosher food preparation at the local old age home, or watch over the dead at one of the local funeral establishments, or, in one case, the "pulpit rabbi" from a congregation in a neighboring town (who happened to have been my son's 6th grade Religious Studies teacher at the Jewish day school) whose own congregation has trouble during the week with making Minyan (a minimum prayer quorum of 10 Jewish males over the age of 13).].

In any event, the cell phone one of these other rabbis went off during the davening, so what did this rabbi do? He kept on davening until he was finished, which took perhaps a minute or two. And the other guys in the Minyan (about 14 of us) were all distracted.

Afterward, I went up to our congregation's "pulpit rabbi" and asked him what happens in the following situation: Two men are traveling in the desert, away from civilization. One has a canteen of water, the other does not. The man with the canteen has enough water to make it to civilization, but if he shares his water with his companion, the neither will be able to reach civilization alive.

That hypothetical was answered almost 2,000 years ago by Rabbi Akiva, who ruled that it is better that only one man perish than to have both men die. Rabbi Akiva's ruling is recorded in the Talmud [Bava Metzia 62a]. In modern times, it comes up with some degree of frequency in discussions regarding health care rationing.

So, of course, my Rabbi quoted Rabbi Akiva's pronouncement to me (as though I had never heard of the Akiva's famous ruling). He wondered what my ulterior motive was, and didn't have to wait long to find out.

I then asked him, "Which is preferable, one man being distracted from prayer for a few seconds to turn off the cell phone which should have been turned off before he began davening in the first place, or fifteen men being distracted because the first guy does not turn off his cell phone?"

The Rabbi laughed. It would not surprise me if, after I left, he had a little private discussion with the other rabbi who wouldn't turn off his ringing cell phone.

Dubai's Securities and Security

The posting of 15 December 2009 discusses how that technology known as text messaging is causing great consternation to various rabbis, who continually attempt to ban it amongst their followers (and have even resorted to litigation to try to limit the scourge of the cell phone text message). Well, it seems that in the 19 February 2010 edition of Yated Ne'eman, a newspaper by and for the more insular religious Jewish communities, Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg mentions in his regular column on page 14 that he himself actually received a text message. Having duly noted the foregoing, I now segue over to the notion that modern communications technology is now being used to protect the Jewish people and to strike at those who would destroy us.


The story of the 19 January 2010 death of Mahmoud al Mabhouh in Dubai under highly suspicious circumstances is now making the rounds. The smart money says that the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, was behind it. It has created an international scandal for all sorts of reasons. I have no specific "privileged information" on any particulars; I only know what I read in the media. Accordingly, my comments, which follow (in no particular order), are of necessity mostly conjecture and speculation. Time will tell how close to or far from the mark they are:

1. For those who have time to watch, videos released by the Dubai police are, in sequential order, here, here and here (they total nearly a half hour viewing time). The use of cell phones and other modern communications is passim.

2. I will not get into the morality of such cloak-and-dagger operations, other than to say that such activities are a tangled and dirty business of which I have not had any part, and have no intention of playing any part in the future. Those who would criticize Israel for Mossad's activities of this sort are, of course, free to do so, but I insist that they hold all other countries to the same standard as the one they impose upon Israel.


3. Espionage as a patriotic act was glorified in the 1960's and early 1970's by the TV sitcom "Get Smart" (which was a spoof of "The Man From Uncle" sitcom, which in turn was a spoof of Ian Fleming's "James Bond" books-cum-movies). There was also the "Mission Impossible" drama series. More realistic in a sense, however, was the TV show "The Prisoner" which starred Patrick McGoohan. Having previously served as a spy (as documented in the prior TV show "Secret Agent"), McGoohan's character resigns from the spy agency, and is imprisoned. The plot of each episode is that The Prisoner refuses to divulge why he quit.

What little I do know about the espionage business is that once you get involved in it, you can never quit. Your handlers will continue to demand that you produce, else you be outed and turned in to the authorities. Without going into details, I know of certain people who had to look over their shoulders every minute of the day because of their past involvements in espionage. It is not a life I would choose for myself.


4. Assuming that the Dubai operation was indeed Mossad's work, the much-needed objective of eliminating Mahmoud al Mabhouh was certainly achieved. Nevertheless, it seems that Mossad underestimated the degree of sophistication of Dubai's security infrastructure. There are certainly evidence leads to be followed from the videos, which surely will complicate matters for the Mossad agents and operatives who in any way participated.


5. The smart money says that some Fatah people helped in the operation. This is probably true, but I think that the Mossad also had operatives on the staff of one or more of the hotels involved.

6. The UK and Ireland are obviously hopping up and down mad and angry about this, given the use of passport information from the respective countries. All else being equal, UK and Ireland have to follow the leads and exact some sort of diplomatic recompense from Israel. All is not equal, however, and this aspect of the game may well be completely changed if Israel were to somehow produce (A) some individual wanted by the law enforcement or espionage organizations in UK and/or Ireland; or (B) some information which, if made public, would cause significant personal and professional embarrassment to a high-ranking UK and/or Ireland government official. I would bet upon the latter, but would not discount the former.

7. Given Dubai's precarious financial position, this is the least of that city-state's worries. I also take this opportunity to note the irony of Dubai's poor condition of financial solvency and possible default on certain major debt instruments backed by its government. Dubai, you will recall, is one of the few places in the world that still has the institution of debtors' prison.

8. Meanwhile, Britain and the other civilized countries continue to vilify and condemn Israel, even as they express great relief that a particularly dangerous terrorist has been removed from the world.

How do the Rabbis call this one?

I'm now back in busy mode. I have started teaching again, and so far, the semester has been busy as usual for this time of the year, but no remarkable incidents thus far. This, of course, suits me very well.

I had an appointment in Manhattan this morning, but it was scrubbed on account of the fatal incident at the Kingston Avenue station, which suspended train service from Brooklyn to Manhattan on the 2, 3, 4 & 5 trains. Fortunately, the E train was operational, and I was able to get to school in time to teach my class. One of my colleagues was kind enough to give me a ride home, so I didn't have to take the Long Island Railroad back.

If you are sitting in a courtroom and your cell phone goes off, it will be confiscated by the court officer. As a result of this well publicized and consistently enforced policy, I have heard damn few cellphones ring in courtrooms.

Compare that with the cell phone policies in synagogues! In one of the shuls I have frequent occasion to visit, there is a poster on the wall imploring everyone to respect the sanctity and dignity of the venue by switching off their cellphones during prayer. But 4 of the past 6 times I have davened there, at least one cell phone went off during prayer. They have a rule which is not enforced, so everyone considers it to be a joke.

Exacerbating the travesty is that the cell phone that went off during davening, in all but one instance, had an owner who is a rabbi.

If the rabbis won't abide by the shul's cell phone policy, then how can anyone else be expected to?