Monday, May 23, 2011

Is the Rambam Torah-Code Against Chazal?

SummaryA masoretic codex (Hilleli) and a Rishon (Rikanti) both record different texts in the Chumash. each of these would mess up the neat 50 skip pattern. similarly, there are a number of other variant textual readings recorded, which would also mess up the 613 skip. this is in like with the statement of the Amora Rav Yosef that we don't have all the yuds and vavs correct, and we are not experts on which should be where. this effectively undermines the Rambam Torah code.

Post: In a recent comment, a commenter, Eli, pointed to the Rambam Torah Code as one that is particularly convincing. You can read about it here and see the actual code here, though don't swallow all the bits about the statistical significance.

To quickly summarize it, people ascribe to the RambaN, Nachmanides, the following hint in roshei teivos to the RambaM, Maimonides. In parshas Bo, in Shemot 11:9:
ט  וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, לֹא-יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיכֶם פַּרְעֹה--לְמַעַן רְבוֹת מוֹפְתַי, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.9 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Pharaoh will not hearken unto you; that My wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.'

And this is the only instance of the word 'Rambam' in roshei teivos in all of the Torah. And, it is meaningful because he is a rabbinic 'wonder' who prospered in Egypt. (I haven't seen this explicitly stated, but I think it is the logical elaboration.)

This is nice, though I wonder about the statistical significance of this. This is not the post to elaborate on this issue. But in short, what exactly are the odds that this would occur as pure chance. People actually have awful intuition about such matters. If Rambam were his only name, and not, for example, Moshe ben Maimon, then perhaps we could speak about the odds of this occurring. But if we would ooh and aah just the same if Rashi, or one of his synonyms would appear, but Rambam happens never to occur, then we are really just looking for the odds of any Rishon appearing. I am sure I have not convinced many people with this, but maybe I can elaborate better in a separate post. Enough of a digression for now.

The Torah Code gets better. Rambam was mentioned via roshei teivos (rather than a regular skip pattern). And Rabbi Weismandel discovered in this general area in the next perek a Torah code in which at skips of 50 letters, the word 'Torah' appears. Now, crossing the roshei teivos of Rambam is another Torah code which spells out Mishneh, again at a skip of 50 letters. And the gap between the code for Mishneh and the code for Torah is of 613 letters, which we treat as a meaningful magic number, and can kvetch a relationship to the topic, in that Rambam discusses the 613 mitzvos in his sefer!

This is a pretty impressive Torah code, especially if one does not know statistics to such a degree that one does not realize that similar patterns can be found in any large enough book, including non-religious works such as Moby Dick or War and Peace, and that not every seemingly meaningful pattern is indeed a meaningful pattern. Again, I am digressing. Sorry.

Here is the major problem. Rav Yosef says in Kiddushin 30aא"ל: אינהו בקיאי בחסירות ויתרות, אנן לא בקיאינן, that we are not expert in plene and deficient spellings of words. This may well mean that even in areas where there is no known divergence in the Biblical text we received from the time of the Amoraim, the text might be riddled with extra vavs and yuds, or missing vavs and yuds. If so, any Torah code in the Torah text given by Hashem to Moshe Rabbenu would be entirely off.

I present the grid for the Torah code from the aforementioned website, here. It spans from Shemot 11-9 until Shemot 12:11. 'Mishneh' and 'Torah' are highlighted in yellow, and 'Rambam' in orange. I will highlight the problematic letters words in red, and will discuss it after displaying the grid: The two red-marked items are #23 and #637.

1ו2י3א4מ5ר6י7ה8ו9ה10א11ל12מ13ש14ה15ל16א17י18ש19מ20ע21א22ל23י24כ25םline
1





משנה Mishneh
12
+50
26פ27ר28ע29ה30ל31מ32ע33ן34ר35ב36ו37ת38מ39ו40פ41ת42י43ב44א45ר46ץ47מ48צ49ר50יline
2
רמבם Rambam
51ם52ו53מ54ש55ה56ו57א58ה59ר60ן61ע62ש63ו64א65ת66כ67ל68ה69מ70פ71ת72י73ם74ה75אline
3
76ל77ה78ל79פ80נ81י82פ83ר84ע85ה86ו87י88ח89ז90ק91י92ה93ו94ה95א96ת97ל98ב99פ100רline
4
101ע102ה103ו104ל105א106ש107ל108ח109א110ת111ב112נ113י114י115ש116ר117א118ל119מ120א121ר122צ123ו124ו125יline
5
126א127מ128ר129י130ה131ו132ה133א134ל135מ136ש137ה138ו139א140ל141א142ה143ר144ן145ב146א147ר148ץ149מ150צline
6
151ר152י153ם154ל155א156מ157ר158ה159ח160ד161ש162ה163ז164ה165ל166כ167ם168ר169א170ש171ח172ד173ש174י175םline
7
176ר177א178ש179ו180ן181ה182ו183א184ל185כ186ם187ל188ח189ד190ש191י192ה193ש194נ195ה196ד197ב198ר199ו200אline
8
201ל202כ203ל204ע205ד206ת207י208ש209ר210א211ל212ל213א214מ215ר216ב217ע218ש219ר220ל221ח222ד223ש224ה225זline
9
226ה227ו228י229ק230ח231ו232ל233ה234ם235א236י237ש238ש239ה240ל241ב242י243ת244א245ב246ת247ש248ה249ל250בline
10
251י252ת253ו254א255ם256י257מ258ע259ט260ה261ב262י263ת264מ265ה266י267ו268ת269מ270ש271ה272ו273ל274ק275חline
11
276ה277ו278א279ו280ש281כ282נ283ו284ה285ק286ר287ב288א289ל290ב291י292ת293ו294ב295מ296כ297ס298ת299נ300פline
12
301ש302ת303א304י305ש306ל307פ308י309א310כ311ל312ו313ת314כ315ס316ו317ע318ל319ה320ש321ה322ש323ה324ת325מline
13
326י327ם328ז329כ330ר331ב332ן333ש334נ335ה336י337ה338י339ה340ל341כ342ם343מ344ן345ה346כ347ב348ש349י350םline
14
351ו352מ353ן354ה355ע356ז357י358ם359ת360ק361ח362ו363ו364ה365י366ה367ל368כ369ם370ל371מ372ש373מ374ר375תline
15
376ע377ד378א379ר380ב381ע382ה383ע384ש385ר386י387ו388ם389ל390ח391ד392ש393ה394ז395ה396ו397ש398ח399ט400וline
16
401א402ת403ו404כ405ל406ק407ה408ל409ע410ד411ת412י413ש414ר415א416ל417ב418י419ן420ה421ע422ר423ב424י425םline
17
426ו427ל428ק429ח430ו431מ432ן433ה434ד435ם436ו437נ438ת439נ440ו441ע442ל443ש444ת445י446ה447מ448ז449ו450זline
18
451ת452ו453ע454ל455ה456מ457ש458ק459ו460ף461ע462ל463ה464ב465ת466י467ם468א469ש470ר471י472א473כ474ל475וline
19
476א477ת478ו479ב480ה481ם482ו483א484כ485ל486ו487א488ת489ה490ב491ש492ר493ב494ל495י496ל497ה498ה499ז500הline
20
501צ502ל503י504א505ש506ו507מ508צ509ו510ת511ע512ל513מ514ר515ר516י517ם518י519א520כ521ל522ה523ו524א525לline
21
526ת527א528כ529ל530ו531מ532מ533נ534ו535נ536א537ו538ב539ש540ל541מ542ב543ש544ל545ב546מ547י548ם549כ550יline
22
551א552ם553צ554ל555י556א557ש558ר559א560ש561ו562ע563ל564כ565ר566ע567י568ו569ו570ע571ל572ק573ר574ב575וline
23
576ו577ל578א579ת580ו581ת582י583ר584ו585מ586מ587נ588ו589ע590ד591ב592ק593ר594ו595ה596נ597ת598ר599מ600מline
24
601נ602ו603ע604ד605ב606ק607ר608ב609א610ש611ת612ש613ר614פ615ו616ו617כ618כ619ה620ת621א622כ623ל624ו625אline
25
626ת627ו628מ629ת630נ631י632כ633ם634ח635ג636ר637י638ם639נ640ע641ל642י643כ644ם645ב646ר647ג648ל649י650כline
26





תורה Torah
626
+50
651ם652ו653מ654ק655ל656כ657ם658ב659י660ד661כ662ם663ו664א665כ666ל667ת668ם669א670ת671ו672ב673ח674פ675זline
27
676ו677ן678פ679ס680ח681ה682ו683א684ל685י686ה687ו688ה689ו690ע691ב692ר693ת694י695ב696א697ר698ץ699מ700צline
28
701ר702י703ם704ב705ל706י707ל708ה709ה710ז711ה712ו713ה714כ715י716ת717י718כ719ל720ב721כ722ו723ר724ב725אline
29
726ר727ץ728מ729צ730ר731י732ם733מ734א735ד736ם737ו738ע739ד740ב741ה742מ743ה744ו745ב746כ747ל748א749ל750הline
30
751י752מ753צ754ר755י756ם757א758ע759ש760ה761ש762פ763ט764י765ם766א767נ768י769י770ה771ו772ה773ו774ה775יline
31
776ה777ה778ד779ם780ל781כ782ם783ל784א785ת786ע787ל788ה789ב790ת791י792ם793א794ש795ר796א797ת798ם799ש800םline
32
801ו802ר803א804י805ת806י807א808ת809ה810ד811ם812ו813פ814ס815ח816ת817י818ע819ל820כ821ם822ו823ל824א825יline
33
826ה827י828ה829ב830כ831ם832נ833ג834ף835ל836מ837ש838ח839י840ת841ב842ה843כ844ת845י846ב847א848ר849ץ850מline
34
851צ852ר853י854ם


According to Minchas Shai, here are some problems:

(i) In the very first pasuk, there is a divergence in trusted masoretic texts, with the Hilleli Codex the word spelled אלכם, chaser, and according to the Jerusalem Codex, the word spelled אליכם, malei. But the word משנה is based on the 50 letter skip. If אלכם is chaseir, following Codex Hilleli, then from the mem to the shin we only have a 49 letter skip! But then every other letter is still 50 letter skips. The code is ruined, according to this masoretic text. Thus, see box 23.

(ii) The yud in box 637 is also in doubt. To cite Minchas Shai on Shemot 12:11:

יא  וְכָכָה, תֹּאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ--מָתְנֵיכֶם חֲגֻרִים, נַעֲלֵיכֶם בְּרַגְלֵיכֶם וּמַקֶּלְכֶם בְּיֶדְכֶם; וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֹתוֹ בְּחִפָּזוֹן, פֶּסַח הוּא לַיהוָה.11 And thus shall ye eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste--it is the LORD'S passover.


The Sage Rabbi Menachem Ricanati wrote that the word חֲגֻרִם is spelled missing the yud. And the author of the Levushim, in Sefer Or Yekarot {J: in what seems a commentary on R' Rakanti) explains his words, that he intends to say 'their chagor' {=chagoram}. That is to so, with a mem. And so did he explain in parashat Bereishit on the verse {in Bereishit 3:7} 'and they made for themselves חגרת.' Yet, in all the sefarim, the word חגרים is missing the vav and does contain the yud, and so wrote the Rabbi Meir Abulafia, za'l.

Here is where R' Rikanti says this:

So this is a dispute between two Rishonim. Perhaps one could assert that R' Menachem Ricanti would insert the vav just as he has the yud missing. (That is how he cited it. But this could well have been for the sake of stressing the rereading which gave him the interpretation he sought. Indeed, we'll see that Vetus Testamentum has none with full yud but missing vav.) If a vav were inserted, the letter count would return to normal. But if a vav were NOT inserted, then in the word 'Torah', with the 50 letter skip, there are only 49 letters between the tav and the vav of Torah. The code ceases to exist.

This is what Vetus Testamentum has, as alternate Jewish texts:

Text #300 is missing a yud, like Rikanti. And texts 1, 9, 69, 75, 84, 108, 132, 136, 150, 155, 193, 196, 260, 264, have both vav and yud. This is also different from our Masoretic texts. Adding a vav would also throw off the count, such that we would have a 51 letter skip, rather than a 50 letter skip, for the first two letters. See Vetus Testamentum for a number of other variea lectiones, any one of which will mess up the various aspects of the Torah code.

They are pictured to the right, from Shemot 11:9 until Shemot 12:11:

In each instance, what is listed is a variation from the standard, present-day Masorah. The caret symbol, ^, means missing. This, on the second line, revos, we have ^ vav, 184. This means that in (Jewish, Torah) text #184, the vav is chaser. This is only one text, out of many. But still, he notes it. If this chaser is indeed the case, it would mess up the skip count of the word Torah. Then, he lists on the word מוֹפְתַי, spelled without a vav. And here there are quite a number of texts that have this spelled chaser. And so on and so forth, throughout the entire perek.

Thus, we might not have 'Mishneh'; and we might not have 'Torah'; and we might not have a pause of precisely 613 letters (but rather, more or less). All this, for the reason Rav Yosef gave. We are not experts in plene and deficient spellings, and all of these codes are quite possibly off!

This is not the end of the story. There is another aspect, which is the statistical significance of this particular code. Why should one care about statistical significance? As Eli wrote in a comment on the previous post:
"I don't understand what the argument is; it's like I see a building and someone tells me it's not a building. I check some of the codes in my Chumash, and hey presto, I see them."
Alas, this I will need to leave over to another post.

24 comments:

Devorah said...

LoL - I can't read all that - it's so much easier just to believe it.

joshwaxman said...

i can try to sum it up in a few sentences. a masoretic codex (Hilleli) and a Rishon (Rikanti) both record different texts in the Chumash. each of these would mess up the neat 50 skip pattern. similarly, there are a number of other variant textual readings recorded, which would also mess up the 613 skip. this is in like with the statement of the Amora Rav Yosef that we don't have all the yuds and vavs correct, and we are not experts on which should be where. this effectively undermines the Rambam Torah code.

all the rest is just illustration and documentation of each of these points.

kol tuv,
josh

Anonymous said...

Hello Josh
Wow, it must have taken a lot of time and effort to put together all that research. It's a shame you didn't publicize this all those years ago, I would have been free from having to worry about all those do's and donts, and hundreds of hours studying obscure texts. Without some grip into my very limited human mind, all that stuff about oxes goring and strange illnesses appearing on skin, clothes and houses would have meant absolutely nothing, and I could have got on with all the stuff that normal people do, watching football (or worse), cleaning my car, films, clubs, travel, eating out, TV etc; there is so much to do out there why would anyone choose to lead such a boring lifestyle?
Once archaeology had presented enough evidence that the 10 plagues did actually happen, someone made an enormous effort to present research showing that it was all just one natural disaster following another; cause and effect. Nothing new, Moses had a very tough time proving to the Bnei Yisroel that all those miraculous happenings were the 'Hand of G-d'.
Is it not just possible that an Alm-ghty Creator can embed a message into the text that we actually use? The Sefer Torah and Chumash in our possession today? Do we have to look for get-out clauses?
I don't envy Moschiach, when he comes.
Regards
Eli

joshwaxman said...

Eli:
I still have to post on the seeing a building aspect, which together with this I believe totally upshlugs this Torah code.

But, to answer your points here:

Wow, it must have taken a lot of time and effort to put together all that research.
Not really. It took an hour or two. But I knew at the start precisely what I had to do. Minchas Shai + Vetus Testamentum is the disproof of nearly every Torah code. The real effort is in presenting it in a manner that the audience will comprehend and possibly accept.

It's a shame you didn't publicize this all those years ago
I didn't have to. Others already did. Such as Dr. Elman and Dr. Bernstein. But what they did not do was pick apart individual Torah codes and show how the disproof works.

more later. baby on lap.

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

baby now asleep, so here is more of a response.

I would have been free from having to worry about all those do's and donts, and hundreds of hours studying obscure texts.
i don't think your entire belief in Torah miSinai is predicated on this one Torah Code proof. surely all the generations, from Tanaim to Amoraim to Geonim to Rishonim to early Acharonim believed this without Torah code proofs. So why not we as well.

Is it not just possible that an Alm-ghty Creator can embed a message into the text that we actually use? The Sefer Torah and Chumash in our possession today?
Sure, since Hashem knows what would develop. But one must maintain this unwieldy assumption. And one that is also theologically fraught, since part of the underlying philosophy of the Torah codes is that this is all encoding of one long Divine Name, and so on and so forth.

Do we have to look for get-out clauses?
It is not a get-out clause. Rather, it is our chiyuv of limmud Torah. One is supposed to subject methods of Torah deduction to scrutiny. For example, darshening all the את-s in the Torah. When he discovered (to his mind, at least) that it failed, Shimon HaAmsuni, a Tanna, said 'K'shem shekabalti s'char al hadrisha kach ani mekabel s'char al haprisha'. He did not say 'why are you looking for get-out clauses?'

Besides, it is not a very impressive proof if the only way to prop it up is to question the motivations of those who ask serious questions.

In my next post on this subject matter, I'll try to explain why Rav Avigdor Miller, zatzal, would not (necessarily) consider this Torah code to be a 'building'.

kol tuv,
josh

Anonymous said...

Surely all the generations, from Tanaim to Amoraim to Geonim to Rishonim to early Acharonim believed this without Torah code proofs. So why not we as well.

Because outside of the frum world, to majority of the Jewish people at this time in history, this would mean absolutely nothing. Showing people, for example, the coded message in the 10 sons of Haman listed in Megillas Esther never fails to impress; thinking people are forced to concede that maybe there's something more here than meets the eye.
Apologies, no personal attack was meant.
Warmest wishes from your brother, Eli

joshwaxman said...

thanks.

i agree with you that outside the frum world, masorah means nothing or very little. so it might be important in kiruv efforts. still, i have extreme reservations of using such codes if ultimately they are not real. such might be, or might lead to, a perversion of classic Torah thought...

all the best,
josh

Anonymous said...

This whole post started when you referred to Torah codes as 'Bunk', which is strictly an opinion, as are most ideas in science and related subjects. Such a blanket statement rubbishes all the work done by Messrs Eliyahu Rips and company, plus previous generations of researchers eg. Rav Weissmandl. It offends the many people who have been helped back into Yiddishkeit this way, although it's true people do not make life-changing decisions based solely on intellectual proofs. Introducing the concept of Torah codes into kiruv has the full back-up of several big names: Rav Ezriel Tauber, I recall even Rav Shlomo Auerbach z'tsal approved; If we cannot go on their word, whose can we go on?
Back to Avigdor Miller, he was asked his opinion about the codes; without hesitation his response was something like "If someone tells you there's a bag under the table, you can have a look rather than take his word for it".
By the way you misunderstood my reference to a building, it was just an analogy taken out of the blue.
Regards, Eli

joshwaxman said...

thanks.

i'll try to respond more later.

i am not certain i understand the bag analogy. is he saying they are real, or that they require careful deliberation before promoting them?

kt,
josh

Anonymous said...

Eli says:-
What he was saying was, you don't have to rely on faith alone if there is concrete proof for something, in this case the Torah's authenticity.

S. said...

I'm not sure "it's offensive to knock something people take seriously" is a convincing response to the substantial point that scholars (and interested laypeople) who are interested in the textual history of the Torah are not convinced that the codes are meaningful. Can you name even one Minchas Shai buff who buys them?

With dozens of doubtful and conflicting readings (minor in the exoteric meaning of the Torah) how can the codes be meaningful? I submit that they only can be if you totally ignore the masoretic books.

Since you mentioned R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l, I recall reading (although I don't have the source handy) that he acknowledged that he didn't understand (or master?) the te'amim. Given this, is it too much to suggest that he was not a baki in the masoretic books?

Anonymous said...

Eli said:-
I question the motivation of frum people who put so much time and energy into de-bunking the serious research done by others, today and in previous generations. Are there not enough atheists, apikorsim and representatives of other religions who will do this because the core of their existence depends on disproving Torah's authenticity?
The argument is, 'if people are brought to Yiddishkeit on a false premise, this could be dangerous'. This does not hold up. Some of the researchers themselves have put their money where their mouth is, and changed from a secular to Torah-observant lifestyle based on their own conclusions. In the same way that the codes cannot be proved absolutey, the anti-code research cannot be proven; Hashem never takes away peoples' free choice. But why be such spoil-sports and attack something so exciting? I have my theories.
Good Shabbos

S. said...

>I question the motivation of frum people who put so much time and energy into de-bunking the serious research done by others, today and in previous generations.

It's pseudo-research if it buries its head in the sand about the most significant issue that is relevant here: do we have the Torah which God gave letter for letter? Or is that not even what the tradition claims, let alone shows?

>Are there not enough atheists, apikorsim and representatives of other religions who will do this because the core of their existence depends on disproving Torah's authenticity?

The fact that you have the chutzpah to equate the codes themselves with the Torah's authenticity is itself a powerful reason for those who know they are bunk to not remain silent.

>The argument is, 'if people are brought to Yiddishkeit on a false premise, this could be dangerous'.

That's not the only argument. The argument is also, why do the codes people get to propound their pseudo findings loudly, while the people who know the truth should shut up?

>This does not hold up. Some of the researchers themselves have put their money where their mouth is, and changed from a secular to Torah-observant lifestyle based on their own conclusions.

Mitoch she-lo lishma. Good for them. I hope they have reasons which are not bunk too.

>In the same way that the codes cannot be proved absolutey, the anti-code research cannot be proven; Hashem never takes away peoples' free choice. But why be such spoil-sports and attack something so exciting? I have my theories.

Too bad. until the Minchas Shai somehow disappears, people will note that even before you get to the math, even before you get to the question of coincidences and War and Peace and arbitrary words used because they worked, we still have to deal with the fact that counting the Koren Tanach or whatever is pointless because we do not have the letter perfect text of the Torah and only the introduction to the Stone Chumash claims that we do.

Just like you feel that you are standing up for the truth (I hope) and not the excitement.

Good shabbos as well.

Anonymous said...

That's not the only argument. The argument is also, why do the codes people get to propound their pseudo findings loudly, while the people who know the truth should shut up?
Wow, that's a powerful claim, people who know the truth, wow! There's no argument to that and nothing to discuss.
Question, if the Torah we have today is not the original text, why do read it and learn it?

joshwaxman said...

Question, if the Torah we have today is not the original text, why do read it and learn it?

this is a question for Rav Yosef, the Amora. and for the midrash, which speaks of Ezra dotting the words he is unsure about. and for the poskim who acknowledge this issue, in terms of whether we should correct sifrei Torah to accord with the derashot Chazal, and so on and so forth.

if the Torah we have today has matzos in Behaalotecha spelled with a vav, while the Zohar HaKadosh darshens it based on being chaser, being spelled without the vav, as one example of thousands, does that really change the *meaning* of the Biblical text? Rav Yosef, the Amora, in making the statement accepted by all of Chazal, was not denying that the Torah was divrei Elokim Chaim. would we not get the mitzvah of talmud Torah, jusdt because our sifrei Torah has an extra vav?

kol tuv,
josh

Anonymous said...

Eli said:-
Thanks Josh, you're not the same person as S, are you?
I find this to back up one of my previous posts:-

Following is a letter of approbation from the renowned Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe.
2 Marcheshvan 5759
It is known that a way exists to discover hints and matters from the Torah by reading letters at equidistant intervals. This method is found in the commentary of Rabeinu Bechai on the Torah and the works of Rav Moshe Cordovero. More recently, the tzadik, Rav Weissmandel, revealed wondrous things with this method. To my surprise, I have heard that opponents to this method have arisen claiming that various deceptions were performed by those who are involved in this method today. It is astonishing to me that they were not intimidated to state their claims after the Gaon Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach gave his clear agreement to the method of equidistant intervals, and after Rav Auerbach’s son, the Gaon Rav Shmuel, censured them. I am uncertain of these opponent’s intentions. Are they troubled that at seminars to make people religious, that these astonishing matters are sometimes taught, and their effect on the listeners is profound? Is this what is bothering them? Whatever the reason of those who oppose this method, it is certainly not a dispute for the sake of heaven, and we must strengthen those who are engaged in this method, for it is a totally honest endeavor. May they be encouraged and see blessed results to their deeds, and may they continue to increase the honor of our holy Torah and its influence on all who seek the Almighty’s closeness. May the Almighty help those who engage for the sake of heaven in this honest discipline of studying equidistant intervals,
Shlomo Wolbe.

Best wishes, Eli

joshwaxman said...

thanks.

no, S. blogs at On the Main Line.

i have a post in the works which will, beEzras HaSham, address this objection. critical inquiry should NOT stop just because of a Gadol's endorsement. some Gedolim have, unfortunately, endorsed facilitated communication. and this teshuva of the Noda Be-Yehuda is also pretty relevant.

kol tuv,
josh

S. said...

>Wow, that's a powerful claim, people who know the truth, wow! There's no argument to that and nothing to discuss.

Huh? You're the one who was saying that people who have objections to the codes should be silent, and you questioned their motivations and all but compared them to atheists.

>Question, if the Torah we have today is not the original text, why do read it and learn it?

The textual state of the Gemara is very problematic. On every daf there are textual variants, "hachi garsinans," etc. Are you arguing that we should not learn Talmud?

So on the face of it your question is immaterial. But as it happens the text of the Torah is very good. It isn't as if we have a safek if Yaakov received the berachah or something like that. It's a credible text. It's just not letter perfect, and that messes up the codes even before we ask other questions about the math, method, etc.

Anonymous said...

Eli said:-
Certainly critical enquiry, in a spirit of mutual respect. I'm sure you'll agree that our time is best spent in learning Torah and doing Mitzvos. But sometimes in our darkest moments struggling with difficult texts or situations, it's nice to have a little back-up to re-inforce our limited mortal intelligence.
Kol tuv

Anonymous said...

Hello S
The Text we have today is the one we use; strangely enough that's the one that has the codes, for this generation. They are there, I've seen them; or are my eyes deceiving me?

S. said...

Certainly cordiality is always called for (although we also ought to bear in mind the nature of the forum; internet debates are customarily a little rancorous, and this ought to be acceptable so long as it does not get over the top).

However, not all positions are equal. To use an extreme example, the millenarian group that was just promoting the Rapture on May 21, 2011 were also using what they believed were encoded messages in their Bible to support their claim. I don't think this claim is entitled to respect.

I appreciate your earnest point about how the Torah codes are edifying for you and others. I agree that this factor should be balanced. I can assure you that I do not pour mud on people who tell me such things. Nor do I go onto their blogs and tell them that they're wrong. However, I think that it is appropriate for discussions which take mine and the ba'al ha-blog's position to exist. No one is or should be forcing anyone who finds the codes meaningful to disbelieve them, but that doesn't mean that somewhere information concerning why and how they are erroneous should not be found for those who are curious.

S. said...

Anonymous

>The Text we have today is the one we use; strangely enough that's the one that has the codes, for this generation. They are there, I've seen them; or are my eyes deceiving me?

It's a big chiddush that every variation of the letter by letter text of the Torah in all their generations has some sort of special kedusha; you are saying that God revealed a specific sequence of letters and also anticipated its textual history. Maybe, but go ahead and prove that. Cite even one traditional source which suggests that. There have been poskim who explained that the reason why there is no bracha for writing a sefer is because we are not sure about its exact text. I mean, feel free to believe it, but that's your own choice. Certainly others are free to not accept that and you can see why it calls the codes into question.

You've seen them, but have you seen the codes which confirm that Jesus is the Messiah?

What about which words are chosen? For example, as Josh has recently shown, people tried to prove that Nir ben Artzi is a kosher clairvoyant because the word "chozeh" is found in close proximity to his name. Why "chozeh" and not "navi"? There's no method for choosing terms (or spellings) in a rigorous way, and no good way to account for failures to find things. In other words, no one touts the ones which didn't turn up. By its special nature as a triliteral Semitic language Hebrew doesn't need vowels to spell words. - but even so many codes have been found in War and Peace and other books, in many languages. You'd find codes in Spinoza in Hebrew translation, too.

joshwaxman said...

strangely enough that's the one that has the codes, for this generation.

it's not so strange. take any malei or chaser and flip it to create a new Torah, and you'd also have codes. different codes, but codes nonetheless. and then flip another malei / chaser, and you'd find codes as well. and so on and so forth. if you can find 'convincing' codes in War and Peace, then you can find them (though different from the ones we have now) in any Torah text with random malei and chasers flipped. That is where statistical significance comes into play, and why such a claim is rather unimpressive.

And at the same time, there is the extreme likelihood that our Torah text is not the same one, vowel letter for vowel letter, that Moshe Rabbenu had. and that is something to consider when attributing meaning to crosswords puzzles found in the text by people with too much time on their hands.

kol tuv,
josh

Anonymous said...

Eli said:-
Hello Josh and S, I'm glad we're all friends, I certainly didn't set out to offend anyone.
Yes I agree some of these later codes are stretching things a bit, but going back to the original research there were some impressive patterns eg. different trees encoded into the story of Creation. There is one thing, and one thing only, we can allow ourselves to take from it; some kind of Divine seal that these ancient texts are to be taken seriously. In this generation the Masora has been completely lost to such a large percentage of our people, and a little kick-start doesn't hurt.
As for the J code, I understand that it didn't come anywhere near satisfying the high standards of probability linked to the other codes. I also understand that War and Peace, and similar epic works, were used as a control in the codes experiments.
After all, most Rabbonim today will find a gematria to spice their sermons up a bit; is this very different to codes?
With best wishes, kol tuv

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin