Volume 17 Number 58
Produced: Fri Dec 30 1:18:11 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Accurate Torah Text
[Seth Ness]
Codes in the Torah
[Richard Schultz]
Computer Codes in the Torah
[Stan Tenen]
Exodus 6:2-8 and a Numbers Code
[Moshe Shamah]
Microphones and kashrus (2)
[Stan Tenen, Avi Feldblum]
Microphones on Shabbat, Conservative Get
[Sheldon Korn]
Torah codes (2)
[Josh Cappell, Avi Feldblum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seth Ness <ness@...>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 19:17:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Accurate Torah Text
there is an already existing corrected version of the chumash on line. it
was made by dan rice from the public domain tanach, which is the leningrad
codex. He used published texts dealing with the leningrad codex, to
correct all the diffrences from the masoretic text. unfortuantely, this is
only for the chumash, not nach. while this text hasn't been certified as
accurate, it is certainly very, very close, if not perfect.
it is available as 'masoretic chumash' in the tanach directory at shamash/
Seth L. Ness Ness Gadol Hayah Sham
<ness@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <schultz@...> (Richard Schultz)
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 07:04:53 EST
Subject: Codes in the Torah
In m-j 17:54, Hayim Hendeles <hayim@...> writes
---
> IMHO even more significant then the algorithm used, is the text used.
> There is a public domain version of Genesis available (in Hebrew), which
> appears to be "fairly accurate" --- for some definition of the word
> fairly. Nonetheless, for sophisticated analysis, one would like a copy
> of the text which is "certified".
What I would be more interested in finding out is how they determined
which text to use irrespective of "accuracy". The Sephardic text
differs from the Ashkenazic text in two places, one of which is a letter
substitution and the other of which affects the number of letters in the
text ("vay'hi" vs. "vayihyu"). The Yemenite text (reproduced in
Breuer's Tanach) differs in a few more places, and these differences are
chaser vs. malei [that is, words that do not have internal yods and vavs
to indicate vowels vs. those that do], so they will obviously affect the
number of letters in the text as well. If I understand what the
statisticians were up to, all of these differences will affect minimum
skip distances. Were there statistically significant differences in the
results for these three texts? As I recall, the authors claimed that
the Samaritan text gave significantly worse results.
Another, perhaps more obvious, question that arises is that even in the
Gemara they say that we are no longer certain about chaser and malei.
Did the authors try various permutations of writing words chaser and
malei to see if it affected their results any?
Richard Schultz
<schultz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 18:28:03 -0800
Subject: Computer Codes in the Torah
In m-j 17,54 Hayim Hendeles discusses "fairly accurate" vs. "certified"
Hebrew Genesis texts. Exactly what sort of inaccuracies are likely in a
"fairly accurate" version? We have a data base that we received from
friends at the University of Pennsylvania over 10-years ago. Is this
likely to be unreliable and if so, how unreliable? Are there
differences likely in the sequence of letters, or are the differences
likely to be ONLY in vowelization, cantillation, the use of large or
small letters, line numbering, etc.? Since I have been examining the
letter text of B'Reshit without regard to anything except the letters
themselves (I have not yet examined vowelization or cantillation, etc.),
the question of accuracy of the sequence of letters (in these data
bases) is very important to me.
While I am asking, another related question comes to mind. Does the
Masoretic text of B'Reshit published by Artscroll or Soncino, for
example, differ from the scholarly "Stuttgart" and/or "Leningrad"
text(s) in the letter sequences?
Fortunately for my work I have only examined the first several hundred
letters of B'Reshit in detail. I am not aware of any differences in any
traditional or scholarly version in this part of the text. Is this
correct, or are there variations (in different computer data bases) in
the letter sequence in B'Reshit even before Gan Eden? (BTW, does anyone
know how the statisticians count the small Heh, the 1835th letter in
Torah, in B'Reshit II,4?)
Thanks in advance.
Good Shabbos,
B'Shalom,
Stan Tenen CompuServe: 75015,364
Meru Foundation Internet: <meru1@...>
P.O. Box 1738
San Anselmo, CA 94979 U.S.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MSHAMAH@...> (Moshe Shamah)
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 13:22:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Exodus 6:2-8 and a Numbers Code
In writing on this week's parasha a gematria application (sum of the
Hebrew letters' numbers equivalents) which appeared compelling presented
itself. I don't know if it has been published previously. It is of a
different nature from Arachin's work, combining content and form in a
straightforward manner, thus immune to much of the criticism levelled
against Arachin. It would be especially interesting to hear the opinion
of statisticians, mathematicians and others on whether this gematria
analysis is an authentic insight into the passage's explication.
(Courtesy of Sephardic Institute to whose publication I submitted this
piece.)
The phrase "Ani YHVH" (I am G-d, using the Tetragrammaton) appears four
times in this majestic proclamation of G-d. It comprises His first two
words, His last two words, His exact middle two words - which at the
same time serve as the first two words of the message Moshe is to relate
to Israel - and also appears as the major part of the phrase which
expresses the object of Israel's cognitive perception and concludes
articulation of a covenantal subunit excerpt within the passage -
"...and you shall know that I am the Lord your G-d...." It is clear
that "Ani YHVH" is the key phrase of this passage.
The gematria of YHVH - 26 - and its multiple 52 appear to be deeply
embedded in this passage's fabric. Counting forward from the first word
G-d speaks to Moshe - "Ani" - the 52nd word is YHVH and counting forward
from the first word of G-d's message to Israel - also "Ani" - the 52nd
word is once again YHVH. Counting forward from the YHVH that was the
52nd word from the beginning of G-d's words, counting it as word one,
the 26th word is again YHVH and counting forward from that YHVH,
counting it as word one, the 26th word is also YHVH. As this last YHVH
is G-d's final word in the passage, this latter correspondence is also a
case of counting 26 backwards from the last word.
The total number of words in G-d's full message is 102. Perhaps the
reason it is not 104, exactly four times 26, may be because the middle
two words "Ani YHVH" are used to complete the first 52 word count
segment and begin the second segment of 52, in essence counting twice
and providing the 104 in a far more sophisticated manner.
Although I don't know what he may have said about this passage, the
above analysis is influenced by the pioneering work (mostly unpublished)
of Rabbi Solomon D. Sassoon a"h, who discovered many Biblical passages
where a key word's gematria coincides with the passage's word count or
the key word's location within the passage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:54:28 -0800
Subject: Re: Microphones and kashrus
In m-j 17,57 David Charlap mentions a microphone that does not generate
any current. Does anyone know what this is about? How can a microphone
turn sound into electrical signals without those electrical signals
consisting of current? Old telephone-type microphones used a chamber
filled with carbon granules that varied in resistance depending on the
acoustic pressure applied, and they do not "generate" current. But they
modulate current and in so doing they may make internal microsparks.
This is very old technology. Is this what is being referred to and is
it halachically acceptable on Shabbos?
Good Shabbos,
B'Shalom,
Stan Tenen CompuServe: 75015,364
Meru Foundation Internet: <meru1@...>
P.O. Box 1738
San Anselmo, CA 94979 U.S.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 01:17:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Microphones and kashrus
Stan Tenen writes:
> In m-j 17,57 David Charlap mentions a microphone that does not generate
> any current. Does anyone know what this is about? How can a microphone
> turn sound into electrical signals without those electrical signals
I know that I heard a lecture several years ago in Baltimore about a
"microphone" system that used compressed air and resonant cavity effects
to amplify voices. R. Heinamen was in the audience (he has spoken
earlier about electricity on Shabbat) and when asked about this device,
he could find no halakhic objection, but at the same time said that he
would not allow it without a P'sak from someone one the level of
R. Moshe.
Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...> or feldblum@cnj.digex.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon Korn <rav@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 00:08:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Microphones on Shabbat, Conservative Get
I would like to comment on two items.
1) It simply is not true that Orthodox synagogues did not ever use
microphones on Shabbos. The Orthodox synagogues of Baltimore in the
50's used vaccum tube amplifiers and the microphone was placed in a box.
The Rav of the shuls involved no doubt spoke into the box. I was told
that a Posek had given heterim for Shuls in Detroit and Baltimore to use
the devise. I personally saw the device in Baltimore--at an Orthodox
shul...not a Shteible.
2) In reference to an assumption that an Orthodox Beis Din will accept a
Conservative Get Bidieved is wishful thinking. I personally know of a
case of a woman who had received a conservative get and later met a
Jewish man by whom she became impregnated. When she and her lover
decided to go the Orthodox way, the Orthodox Beis Din insisted on an
Orthodox Get and then refused to marry them on grounds of Assur L'baal
V'assur l'boel. Of course she was left with 2 gets and 1 Mamzur.
When I questioned a Beis Din administrator of another American city..he
told me that under no conditions could the Beis Din accept a
Conservative Get for obvious reasons.
The above is Halacha L'maysa...therefore assumptions are dangerous to
make by saying that a Beis Din will act in a different fashion if there
is Mazerus involved.
Sheldon Korn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <josh@...> (Josh Cappell)
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 94 15:51:46 EST
Subject: Torah codes
I noticed that some messages have been posted with information
on availability of search programs that allow you to find patterns in
the Torah. I too have seen ads for such programs. Some give you the
option of entering in a search string. The program will then report
back a location and pattern in the Torah that yields the desired phrase.
To any mail-Jewish participants who own such software: I'd be
curious to see all the numerous RAMAZIM it will undoubtedly find for the
words "Jesus", "Mohammed", "Shabtai Zvi", or for that matter
"Schneerson".
While many people have submitted letters pointing-out the
mathematical absurdity of the codes business, few have bothered to point
out another important issue: They are religiously invalid as well.
Josh Cappell
<josh@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 01:02:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Torah codes
Josh Cappell writes:
> While many people have submitted letters pointing-out the
> mathematical absurdity of the codes business, few have bothered to point
> out another important issue: They are religiously invalid as well.
Inverting the order of the statements, we had a quite extensive
discussion some time ago, starting I believe with a posting from Arnie
Lustiger, on the question of what the codes, if they are valid, mean to
us as believing Jews. Different people on the list had various opinions
on the matter. So the topic has been discussed here.
I do not know that anyone has presented arguements about the
"mathematical absurdity" of the codes experiment that has recently been
published. I did shut down discussion on that topic because one side
said it was a "mathematical absurdity" and the other side said it is all
in the article but we can't give out preprints until it has been
accepted and is in print. So if you don't know what "it" is, you cannot
have a coherent discussion.
Now the paper is out. The reference was given a few issues ago. I will
check with Discovery office about the possibility of getting it on-line,
as well as the availability of reprints from them. Once people who deal
in this field have a chance to read it, I will be happy to have pro and
con submissions on the list.
Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...> or feldblum@cnj.digex.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 17 Issue 58
