Two Men Come Down the Same Chimney

This is one of those old stories which are often attributed to the Talmud. This is the version from Rabbi Telushkin's book, "Jewish Humor." There are slight variations in any version of the story, but you'll get the point. I have posted this before. 

Two Men Come Down the Same Chimney

A young man in his mid-twenties knocks on the door of the noted scholar Rabbi Shwartz. “My name is Sean Goldstein,” he says. “I’ve come to you because I wish to study Talmud.”

“Do you know Aramaic?” the rabbi asks.

“No,” replies the young man.

“Hebrew?” asks the Rabbi.

“No,” replies the young man again.

“Have you studied Torah?” asks the Rabbi, growing a bit irritated.

“No, Rabbi. But don’t worry. I graduated Berkeley summa cum laude in philosophy, and just finished my doctoral dissertation at Harvard on Socratic logic. So now, I would just like to round out my education with a little study of the Talmud.”

“I seriously doubt,” the rabbi says, “that you are ready to study Talmud. It is the deepest book of our people. If you wish, however, I am willing to examine you in logic, and if you pass that test I will teach you Talmud.”

The young man agrees.

Rabbi Shwartz holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

The young man stares at the rabbi. “Is that the test in logic?”

The rabbi nods.

”The one with the dirty face washes his face,“ he answers wearily.

“Wrong. The one with the clean face washes his face. Examine the simple logic.The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Very clever,” Goldstein says. “Give me another test.”

The rabbi again holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“We have already established that. The one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Wrong. Each one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face. When the one with the dirty face sees the one with the clean face wash his face, he also washes his face. So each one washes his face.”

“I didn’t think of that,” says Goldstein. It’s shocking to me that I could make an error in logic. Test me again.”

The rabbi holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Each one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Neither one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. But when the one with the clean face sees the one with the dirty face doesn’t wash his face, he also doesn’t wash his face. So neither one washes his face.”

Goldstein is desperate. “I am qualified to study Talmud. Please give me one more test.”

He groans, though, when the rabbi lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Do you now see, Sean, why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Talmud? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is "narishkeit", foolishness, and if you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”

Note: The illustration does not represent the hypothetical fireplace to which the 2 hypothetical men would descend from the hypothetical chimney. It must be assumed that there would be no fire in it at the time of the descent. I only add this to provide some tongue in cheek clarity; as well as to ward off any deep discussion on the matter.

Jesus and the Fig Tree - A Parable

The parable in the New Testament concerning Jesus and his encounter with the fig tree just before overturning the money changers tables in the temple has always been a source of contention for many people; Christian and Jewish alike.

As a child; and being Jewish; I took this as simply being proof that Jesus was not the spiritual, healing person he claimed to be. That was before I knew about analogies; and also before I had actually read the New Testament for myself. (I got that opportunity while serving 3 days on bread and water in a Navy brig in Norfolk.  They only had New Testaments, and as I had no previous engagements, over the next 3 days I read it.)

This was the first time I ever heard of the book of Romans, which to my mind is the key to the larger meaning of the New Testament. It explains; in the form of an olive tree; the relationship between the Jewish faith and the Christians.

This past weekend I was reading the Religious Viewpoints column in the newspaper. I find it to be informative; and sometimes infuriating; but I enjoy reading it as both an intellectual exercise and also due to the possibility of learning something new. In this case I was pleasingly surprised to see that some of my suppositions concerning the larger meaning of the New Testament were possibly shared by another person; and a Reverend to boot!

Here is what the Reverend Eugene Curry, pastor of Park Hill Baptist Church wrote about the Parable of Jesus and the Fig Tree:

The incident with the fig tree troubles many people when they first encounter it. Stripped of context, it can make Jesus seem petty and impulsive.

But Jesus wasn't just being an unreasonable jerk to a plant. Instead, he was making a point.

The Israelites believed that they had a special relationship with God. And in the Hebrew Bible, this idea was commonly presented through agricultural metaphors: God was a farmer, and Israel was his much-beloved plant that he tended. Sometimes Israel was described as a grapevine, sometimes as a fig tree (Hosea 9:10).

Well, like any farmer, farmer-God hoped that the fig tree that was Israel would produce good fruit, things like justice and faithfulness.

But time and again, the prophets warned their countrymen that Israel wasn't being particularly fruitful in the virtues that God expected of them. And Jesus took up this motif of prophetic warnings in his own ministry.

So, in the Gospel of Mark, we're given a little sandwich of stories in Chapter 11.

Jesus approaches the fig tree, sees that it has produced no fruit, and curses it. Then, right after that, he marches into the temple and condemns the rank commercialism he finds there.

Again, Jesus finds no fruit, this time on the metaphorical fig tree that was Israel.

With that done, Jesus and his entourage leave the temple and Peter notices that the literal fig tree has withered, just as Jesus said. The moral of the stories is that Israel needed to finally shape up, that continued fruitlessness would not be tolerated much longer.

Tragically, Israel didn't heed this warning, and terrible consequences followed. The temple was destroyed. The nation was scattered. The figurative fig tree withered.

Now it's on us. We're called to produce the "fruits of the Spirit," things like love, goodness and self-control. Will we now heed God's call? Or will we be just another bunch of fig trees that refuse to produce fruit?

And here is my note to Reverend Curry;

Good Morning,

This message is for Pastor Eugene Curry. I just finished reading your wonderful viewpoint in "Voices of Faith" in the Charlotte Observer. I couldn't help but to try and find you to say thanks.

I am Jewish. My father was Catholic and my Mom was Jewish. I chose the Jewish faith as an adult. I read the New Testament while in my early 20's. My favorite portion was Romans. I especially enjoyed Romans 11; and the part about the Olive tree. Once again; a tree; just as in the parable referenced in your column.

In this section of Romans the Christians are warned about becoming too haughty over the original branches of the tree (Hebrew) being broken off- it says that if the original branches can be lopped off by God then what of the newer Christian branches if they displease him.

Reading your interpretation of the parable of the fig tree and Jesus brought Romans 11 to my mind in an instant! How wonderful that you can see the imperfection in us all- and that we do fall short- and so must try even harder to avoid being fruitless.

Your column was a breath of fresh air to someone like me who has a hard time with "organized" religion.

May you continue to do your work in Peace.

Is God Fair? A Question of Faith.

This is Michelangelo's beautiful work from the Sistine Chapel showing God Creating Adam. Whether or not you believe in Creationism, or even God, the works of Michelangelo are certainly evidence of the beauty we are capable of carrying within us.

Man has been arguing religion for so long now, thousands of years, with no progress having been made concerning the respect for different beliefs. At times it seems more like a war than a theological discussion. And, at times, it has been just that.

I really enjoy stories from the Talmud and the Mishna. They are the codifications of the events, and their meanings, in the Old Testament. The Talmud and Mishna are almost as old as the Bible itself, and though they are chiefly concerned with the teachings of the Old Testament, many lessons can be learned from these wonderful stories. From them have sprung up many Talmudic "type" of stories, which usually illustrate some principle which has already been expressed in either the Talmud or the Mishna. My favorite is the one about "Two Men Coming Down the Same Chimney", which I have posted here before. But there are so many more. Here is another of my favorites, illustrating a basic concept;

Once a man was visiting a small town for the weekend. He attended the local services at the synagouge. When it was time to honor some of the congregants with Torah blessings, he noticed that the Rabbi was calling random people to be blessed, without regard to name, age or community status. After the service he went to the Rabbi to complain about what he perceived to be an unfair practice. The Rabbi said, "You have been in this synagogue only one day, and yet you feel that there is no order here? I have a list, and I make sure that everything is in order. Remember, we are only on this earth for a short time, and that God has a list, too. Rest assured, verything is in order."

The point here is that we never get to see the whole, larger picture. So how can we judge what is fair, or not? Just a thought for the day...

Two Men Come Down the Same Chimney

The following story concerns the Talmud, the book that codifies the meaning of Judaic Law. They are somewhat akin to the Parables used in Christianity when explaining the meaning of some things in the New Testament. I first ran across this tale a few years ago while reading Rabbi Telushkin's "Jewish Humor." I hope you will enjoy the story, but more importantly, the meaning of the story. And the book is terrific, as are all of Rabbi Telushkin's writings.

Two men Come Down The Same Chimney

A young man in his mid-twenties knocks on the door of the noted scholar Rabbi Shwartz. “My name is Sean Goldstein,” he says. “I’ve come to you because I wish to study Talmud.”

“Do you know Aramaic?” the rabbi asks.

“No,” replies the young man.

“Hebrew?” asks the Rabbi.

“No,” replies the young man again.

“Have you studied Torah?” asks the Rabbi, growing a bit irritated.

“No, Rabbi. But don’t worry. I graduated Berkeley summa cum laude in philosophy, and just finished my doctoral dissertation at Harvard on Socratic logic. So now, I would just like to round out my education with a little study of the Talmud.”

“I seriously doubt,” the rabbi says, “that you are ready to study Talmud. It is the deepest book of our people. If you wish, however, I am willing to examine you in logic, and if you pass that test I will teach you Talmud.”

The young man agrees.

Rabbi Shwartz holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

The young man stares at the rabbi. “Is that the test in logic?”

The rabbi nods.

”The one with the dirty face washes his face,“ he answers wearily.

“Wrong. The one with the clean face washes his face. Examine the simple logic.The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Very clever,” Goldstein says. “Give me another test.”

The rabbi again holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“We have already established that. The one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Wrong. Each one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face. When the one with the dirty face sees the one with the clean face wash his face, he also washes his face. So each one washes his face.”

“I didn’t think of that,” says Goldstein. It’s shocking to me that I could make an error in logic. Test me again.”

The rabbi holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Each one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Neither one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. But when the one with the clean face sees the one with the dirty face doesn’t wash his face, he also doesn’t wash his face. So neither one washes his face.”

Goldstein is desperate. “I am qualified to study Talmud. Please give me one more test.”

He groans, though, when the rabbi lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Do you now see, Sean, why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Talmud? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is "narishkeit", foolishness, and if you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”