Volume 33 Number 50
Produced: Fri Sep 8 5:50:35 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Al Neharot Bavel (more) (bad pun)
[Art Werschulz]
Aleynu's Cemsored phrase
[Sharon and Joseph Kaplan]
Children in Schule
[Danny Skaist]
Full-Defective Spellings
[Russell Hendel]
Gematria Pi
[Stan Tenen]
Gematriot
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
The meaning of the evil eye
[Russell Hendel]
Pi and the Yam Shel Shlomo (2)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz, Zev Sero]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:08:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Al Neharot Bavel (more) (bad pun)
Hi.
On a sillier note, P.D.Q. Bach did "By The Leeks of Babylon" (part of
"The Seasonings", IIRC), which had something like
By the leeks of Babylon
E-I-E-I-O
There we sat and there we wept
E-I-E-I-O
With a <sniff>-<sniff> here,
And a <sniff>-<sniff> there,
Here a <sniff>, there a <sniff>
Everywhere a <sniff>-<sniff>
with <sniff> ranging from a mild sniffle in the beginning, all the way
to a full sobbing cry.
It could be worse ... The computer jocks among us probably remember
Naomi Shemer's ode to a very old computer language ... "Algol Eileh".
Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y?
Internet: <agw@...><a href="http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agw/">WWW</a>
ATTnet: Columbia U. (212) 939-7061, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sharon and Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:23:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Aleynu's Cemsored phrase
In the Modern Orthodox community in which I grew up in the 50's and
early 60's, no one said the censored phrase; not in school or in shul.
And in my seven years at Yeshiva University (high school and college), I
do not remember hearing anyone say it either. It was only about 10
years ago that I began to hear people saying it and was told that day
schools were teaching their students to say it.
I continue to follow the teachings of my youth and do not say the
phrase, and I have told the principal of my children's day school
(unsuccessfully) that I thought it was a mistake to add that phrase to
the davening program.
My deep discomfort with adding this phrase once again into our teffilot
arises from the maxim of Hillel that what is distasteful to you do not
do to your fellow person. The Jewish community was outraged, and
justifiably so, when Louis Farakhan called Judaism a "gutter religion,"
and we were equally outraged when the head of the Southern Baptists
stated that God doesn't listen to the prayer of a Jew. If we are
insulted when our religion is insulted, why have we reinstated a phrase
that is equally insulting to the religion of our neighbors?
Joseph C. Kaplan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danny Skaist <danny@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 14:38:03 +0200
Subject: RE: Children in Schule
<<Yisrael Medad
ascent, I can testify to the fact that the "broad steps" that lead up
through the Ophel Area, the archeological park to the south of the
Temple Mount, are quite easy to walk: two steps flat and one step up.
Maybe they had children in mind.>>
No they had me in mind. The steps are a work of genius. 2 steps flat
and 1 up means that the "up steps" fall on alternate feet. This makes
it very comfortable. A child would require 3 and 1 making it a lot
harder.
danny
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:00:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Full-Defective Spellings
Ben Katz in v33n26 writes on my thesis that a DEFECTIVELY SPELLED WORD
means the object is POSSIBLY DEFECTIVE and MISSING COMPONENTS (for
example TABL (spelled without the "E") could refer to a 2 or 3 legged
table(ie a defective table missing a leg). I then cite about half a
dozen Rashis that explain a priori difficult Talmudic statements dealing
with full and defective spellings. I show that these Talmudic statements
do not contradict our Mesorah but rather are based the above grammatical
rule. (See http://www.RashiYomi.Com/fd-12.htm which summarizes Rashis
in Dt06-09a, Dt09-10a, Ex31-05e, Lv23-40c, Gn01-21a, Gn09-12a,Gn01-28a).
Ben writes >>The major problem with Dr. Hendel's clever arguments is
that they violate a fundamental law of logic known as Occam's razor or
the law of parsimony. When confronted with TWO DOZEN examples of a
phenomenon it is logically much more desireable to assume they all have
a single explanation rather than to explain each one away in a different
manner. This would be analogous to a physician confronting a patient
with a fever and a headache to treat each symptom separately and not
assume that they were part of the same disease process. The only reason
not to follow this approach is if the unifying hypothesis is shown to be
incorrect, which can happen. I submit that in instances such as this
the unifying hypothesis is theologically problemmatic to current
thinking and is therefore rejected a priori.>>
My question to Ben is "What is 'theologically problemmatic' about the
above grammatical rule on full/defective spellings which has 1-2 dozen
examples"
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA
Dept of Math; Towson
Moderator Rashi is SImple
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 09:28:49 -0400
Subject: Gematria Pi
Here's an example of how easy it is to find gematria that seem to have
meaning. This is not based on any tradition I'm aware of -- other than the
historical fact that the best _approximation_ for pi known in the ancient
world was
355/113 = 3.141592920354...
while the modern decimal expansion for pi is 3.14159265359....
Thus, the ancient approximation is good to 7 places after the
decimal. That's pretty good, by any standard.
There are some Hebrew words that could be understood to be metaphors for
a circle and a radius (or diameter). For example: the gematria for
"year", Shin-Nun-He, Shana, is 355. A year, of course, was a complete
circle of the heavens, which our sages certainly were aware of because
this knowledge was necessary for the calendar.
The Egyptians (did the Pharoahs know Hebrew?) might have been taken with
the gematria for Pharoah, Pe-Resh-Ayin-He, who of course was known to
command the land of Egypt. Lower Egypt is sometimes taken to be the
near-90-degree quadrant of a circle, centered near Cairo/Giza, and
extending to the Mediterranean shore (including Alexandria). So,
metaphorically, Pharoah is somewhat of a circle, or a quadrant of a
circle, also. The gematria for Pharoah is 355 (Pe-Resh-Ayin-He).
One could think of the radius (or diameter) of a circle as being a kind
of edifice, extension, or even "statue", seated at the center of the
circle, and extending to its perimeter. A Hebrew word for "statue" is
cHuQaH, cHet-Qof-He. Its gematria is 113.
Likewise, for an earring, which hangs from the quasi-circular lobe of
the ear. It also could be analogous to a radius. The gematria for
earring, a-gil, Ayin-Gimel-Yud-Lamed, is also 113.
Also, Pe-Lamed-Gimel can mean "to divide" or "half", which is what a
diameter does. Again, Pe-Lamed-Gimel = 113.
In the case of Pharoah, it's not too far-fetched to presume that he
would have set up a "statue" (113) to himself, Pharoah (355), in or near
Giza. In fact, we find what some archeologists think is a statue of
Pharoah -- the Sphinx -- at Giza, and we also find the Great Pyramid.
The PYramid is supposed to be some sort monument or tomb to Pharoah, and
the pyramid's dimensions, as many have noted, include excellent
architectural approximations for pi.
Martin Gardner used to write a column in Scientific American where he
sometimes presented the fictional "Dr. Matrix," who gave all kinds of
astonishing numerical coincidences. Gardner was trying to point out
that it was very easy to find apparently interesting
number-relationships, even when there was no real relationship.
So, what I'm suggesting here _cannot_ be proven to be meaningful, based
merely on the fact that "year," ShaNaH, divided by PeLaG or PeLeG, or
"Pharoah" divided by "statue," equal an excellent approximation for pi.
On the other hand, I expect that if our scholars were to investigate the
full range of Talmudic and Kabbalistic references, we might well find
that our sages were aware of these gematria coincidences, and might even
have had good reason to understand them as meaningful. In other words,
the arithmetic coincidences prove nothing, unless there's a solid
context in our tradition. (In this case, I think there might be, but in
most other cases, that's not likely, IMO.)
Best,
Stan
Meru Foundation http://www.meru.org <meru1@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 12:13:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Gematriot
> From: Zev Sero <Zev@...>
> Gilad J. Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...> wrote:
> > However, gematria sometimes caused things to be changed. An example
> > which come to mind is in tefilat "aleinu leshabeach." The sentence
> > "she'hem mishtachavim lahevel varik umitpalelim le'el lo yoshia" was
> > erased [by the censor] from most sidurim in the Middle Ages, and lately
> > found its way back into many sidurim. The line was censored because of
> > the gematria of "varik." "varik" [vav, reish, yod, kuf=316] and so is
> > Jesus [yod, shin, vav=316]. The Christians thought that the Jews spit at
> > Jesus, since 'rok' means also spittle, and it was customary to spit on
> > the ground during the recitation of this tefila.
>
> One tiny little problem: the word is `veLArik', which adds 30 to the
> gematria. What's 346 the gematria of?
From the Art Scroll siddur commentary on Aleinu (Rabbi Arthur Scroll
now appears to be our main source for knowledge these days (:-)).
Sheheim Mishtachavim Lahevel Varik ...
The inclusion of this verse follows the original version of Aleinu. In
the year 1400, a baptized Jew, no doubt seeking to prove his loyalty to
the Church, spread the slander that this passage was meant to slur
Xianity. He 'proved' his contention by the coincidence that the
numerical value of varik, emptiness, is 316, the same as y'shu (yud shin
vav), the Hebrew name of their messiah. The charge was refuted time and
again, particularly by Manasseh ben Israel, the seventeenth century
scholar, but repeated persecutions and Church insistence, backed by
governmental enforcement, caused the line to be dropped from most
Ashkenazic siddurim. While most congregations have not returned it to
the Aleinu prayer, some prominent authorities, among them Rabbi Yehoshua
Leib Diskin, insist that Aleinu be recited in its original form (World
of Prayer; Siach Yitzchak).
Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore" | Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
Jews are the fish, Torah is our water | Zovchai Adam, agalim yishakun
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:01:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: The meaning of the evil eye
Chaim Shapiro re-asks in Volume 33 Number 32 about the "meaning of
'the evil eye'" a concept that occurs here and there in Jewish law and
is used as a justification for prohibiting certain practices. I, in fact
have given a very simple rational explanation of this concept: It has
been published on the email group Torah Forum (and I believe on Mail Jewish
also).
Quite simply and succinctly 'evil eye' is a form of DAMAGE. There are
4 forms of prohibited damages: (a) PERSONAL DAMAMGE: It is prohibited for me
to eg break my friends hand (EVEN if he gives me permission(Rambam Damages5:11)
(b)PROPERTY DAMAMGE: It is prohibited for me to eg break my friends windows
UNLESS he asks me to in a particular case (Rambam Damages 5:12). As the
Rambam indictes in both these cases there is a requirement to pay for
any damages caused.
(c) PRIVACY DAMAGE: eg It is prohibited for me to open a window facing my
neighbors courtyard. However if the window was already there (when I bought
the house) I can use it. Similarly if I "acquire" permission I can use it.
Finally, if I do open such a window, then, although my neighbor can force me
to close it(because I 'damage his privacy') nevertheless there is no
requirement for me to compensate him for the privacy damage caused (eg Rambam
Neighbors chapters 3,7).
(d) EVIL EYE DAMAGE: My basic thesis is that 'evil eye' refers to specific
situations where a person is excessively brought into the communal eye.It is
stressful to be placed in the public eye. My suggestion is that The damage
caused by the 'public eye' damages is called 'evil eyes'. One simple
example might be 'giving a father and son an aliyah one after the other'.
Such consecutive aliyahs makes this father-son the 'talk of the shule' &
hence is classified as 'evil eye'. Similarly telling everyone you are
pregnant before it is noticeable brings you into the 'public eye' and is
classified as 'evil eye'.
The above explanation is both rational and halachic and does not require
reference to hidden forces of uncleanliness. I therefore think it has
positive value and can illuminate many sources.
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA
Dept of Math; Towson Univ
Moderator Rashi is Simple
http://www.RashiYomi.Com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 13:20:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Pi and the Yam Shel Shlomo
> From: Zev Sero <Zev@...>
> The problem is with the gemara on Eruvin 15a, which insists that pi is
> *exactly* three, with not even a slight error. It also insists that the
> Yam Shel Shlomo was perfectly round, which shoots down explanations that
> rely on odd shapes. Tosafot points out the problem, but doesn't suggest
> an answer, and I haven't seen anyone else who even mentions it.
I remember seeing an article (I had thought it was in the Judaica Press
edition of Melachim but I was not able to find it) which brings up
Rashi? saying that the Yam Shel Shlomo was actually a cylider built on
top of a square box. The ten amos on the side was the side of the
square box and the thirty amos circuferance was the circumferance of the
cylinder. The article quoted Rashi? that the diameter of a circle
inside a square is enough less than ten to make the circumferance an
even 30. IIRC, the proof given was geometric rather than mathematical.
Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore" | Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
Jews are the fish, Torah is our water | Zovchai Adam, agalim yishakun
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <Zev@...>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:39:29 -0400
Subject: RE: Pi and the Yam Shel Shlomo
> I remember seeing an article (I had thought it was in the Judaica Press
> edition of Melachim but I was not able to find it) which brings up
> Rashi? saying that the Yam Shel Shlomo was actually a cylider built on
> top of a square box. The ten amos on the side was the side of the
> square box and the thirty amos circuferance was the circumferance of the
> cylinder. The article quoted Rashi? that the diameter of a circle
> inside a square is enough less than ten to make the circumferance an
> even 30. IIRC, the proof given was geometric rather than mathematical.
Once again, such an explanation, while perhaps a good explanation of the
pasuk in Melachim, is irreconcilable with the gemara, which insists that
the YSS was perfectly round, and infinitesimally thin (rejecting the
theory that the circumference was measured on the inside, and the
diameter included the thickness of the walls), and that the ratio was
precisely 3, with not even the tiniest bit of rounding. And unlike the
Aron, whose strange geometry is cited as a great miracle, the geometry
of the YSS must be perfectly normal, since it is used as a proof that pi
= ~3 (or, according to the gemara, 3); if its geometry was miraculous,
then the natural value of pi could just as easily be ~4, or ~2 or 20, or
any other number!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 33 Issue 50
