After all, the Torah codes bolster the Mayan Apocalypse, which is now upon us. (Posted from my bunker, where I have sought refuge from the flaming meteors which have obliterated New York.)
You can buy the wondrous book all about how the Torah and midrash is in accordance with the Mayan idolaters here:
New Edition Mayan Calendar BookM.Glazerson - Haralick - D.Katz Mayan Calendar New Edition: Buy Now!Email: rabbikatz@virtualyeshiva.com for Downloads and FAQ
40 comments:
Anonymous
said...
It states on the video: "On the lower right in red is the Hebrew date 10th of Tevet which is also Sunday Dec. 23, 2012, which is 2 days later than the Mayan date."
how do you know that a spiritual change did not happen five days ago, or four? that is a non-falsifiable prediction.
if the Mayans had a great deal of astronomical knowledge (as did the Greeks), that does not mean that they had a great deal of spiritual knowledge. as Chazal say: if someone says 'there is wisdom among the gentiles', believe him. if someone says 'there is Torah among the gentiles', do not believe him.
meanwhile, the Mayans did not really predict an apocalypse. all along, this has been a misinterpretation of what the Mayans believed, paired with a misrepresentation of what the Torah holds about the Mayans, often paired with a incorrect scientific beliefs.
but that was just the Erev Rav talking. personally, I believe in the Mayan apocalypse. how could I believe otherwise, when a giant sinkhole has swallowed Yankee stadium?
Torah is truth, and the end of the story. As we see here it mentions] 10th of Tevet. Which was the beginning of Something bad in our history. Have an easy fast and this time do some soul searching and individual prayer as well.
Rabbi David Katz: no, not the book specifically, only various website postings about Mayans, and fake connections to Yoktan, based on fake etymological connections, selective citations from midrashim, interpreted in various ways, etc. i didn't want to waste five bucks.
in retrospect, maybe i should have. i could have better prepared against the horde of zombies now banging at my door.
Devorah: i've seen that claim. it is not true. that is what i meant by "paired with a misrepresentation of what the Torah holds about the Mayans".
even if they got their astronomical knowledge from the Jews, that does not mean that they are correct on any spiritual plane. let big kabbalists, who really know what they are talking about when they come to kabbalah (e.g. a Rav Kaduri) of today say that there are spiritual ramifications of this day, and then we can talk.
ariela: huh? the 10th of tevet which was the beginning of something bad happened centuries ago. let the Mayans speak about THAT day. and let them his actually the day, not something two days later.
Someone please send help. What best repels zombies?
The name Yucatán, also assigned to the peninsula, came from early explorations of the Conquistadors from Europe.
That is, NOT from the Mayans, but from the Spaniards. Why did the Spaniards label it so?
There are reliable versions that the name was result from confusion between the Mayan inhabitants and the first Spanish explorers around 1517: According to one of them, was the answer of a Mayan indigenous to the question of a Spanish explorer, since he wanted to know the name of the region. The Mayan probably replied Ma'anaatik ka t'ann which means in the Maya language I do not understand your speech or I do not understand you. It is also said that the Spaniards gave the name of Yucatán to the region, because the Mayan answered their questions with the phrase uh yu ka t'ann, in Mayan language means hear how they talk.
Then, you have Rabbi Glazerson assert that Yucatan was the Mayan name, and then assert that this is a corruption of Yoktan. What am I supposed to think, other than that he is making up history and making up Torah to match it, and that people who don't know any better are swallowing these misrepresentations?
here is another gem from that Rabbi Glazerson's article:
The name Balam-Qitze, a leader in the description given in Title of the Lords of Totonicapan, has a Hebrew cognate. Baal, בעל, is a Hebrew word meaning Lord, Master, owner, possessor. The Torah discusses idol worship of the principal Canaanite idol called Baal. There is also a biblical character Balaam (Numbers 22:5). There is an adjective in Hebrew Qatzar, קצר, which has a form Qitzar which is cognate to Qitze. This leader's name is then Short Master. The Mayans are genetically short measuring about 4 foot 8 inches from archaeological skeletal remains. They were the pygmies of Central America.
He apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "cognate". A cognate is a word in one language that also appears, with more or less the same meaning, in another language. Even where cognates exist, sometimes they are false cognates which do not show any true connection.
In this case, Baal is spelled with an Ayin. Bet, Ayil, Lamed. And it means master.
Meanwhile, the word Balam in Balam-Qitze means Jaguar. And Rabbi Galzerson provides no evidence that Qitze means short, so as to establish it as a cognate of Hebrew QaTSaR or QiTZaR (with a resh, I might add). He is taking a random Mayan word he has no idea what the meaning is and confidently asserting that it is the parallel of a Hebrew word, with absolutely no evidence that this is so.
Guess what? Human language uses vowels and consonants, and if you match up word lists in two languages without caring about meaning, you will find "matches". To then cite this as "evidence" of Mayan coming from Hebrew is just silly.
But most readers are too uneducated in linguistics to spot the silliness.
They are staking out their positions publicly. And are stating incorrectly that this is Torah. And they use science and rabbinic titles to put forth such silliness. And some of the uneducated masses are following them.
But why are we arguing about this? I've asked about zombie repellent. This is an urgent situation...
R' Waxman, No, no you got it ll wrong. M-Y-N-S is merely a roshei teivot for 'Malchut Yisrael Niglu Sancheirev!' This is irrefutable proof the Mayans are the lost tribes.
The fire and brimstone was a reference to Gog and Maghog and the zombies, as I believe you have pointed out, was a reference to Moshe. (If he died on the mountain, was buried in the valley, and no one knew his grave's location, the only rational explanation is Moshe was a zombie. Plus, the medrash says there God decreed he cannot enter the land in life or after death, a further proof to his being a zombie.)
Thus, the ten lost tribes were obviously saying the 21st was the appointed date for the Moshiach coming and Moshe entering the land and building the third, eternal mikdash - in fire!
The only reason this wouldn't have happened is if so-called 'rationalists' refused to accept the impending days of judgment and joy, forcing Mashiach to be cancelled until such time as BNY are more worthy...
Hope you're happy! Hillel
PS: If you're still in need of a Moshe-Zombie repellant, try worshipping a golden calf. My understanding is this will cause him to to remove himself to "outside your encampment - far away from your encampment..."
so let me clarify,you have not read my contribution to the book, and therefore it seems you have committed motzie shem rah on me along with loshon hara, and have equally embarassed another in public in rav glazerson? does that sum it up? all in the name of your self righteous crusade as a self appointed am ha-aretz. chazal are known to be masters in astronomy and their enigmas [gra;various locale in shas] the words of the rav were in remez - davka, not to be taken as pshat, but the again to learn kabalah is a zchut [gra - shulchan aruch] and many mekubalim and zohars [that you are aware of, but deny validity to kabala, again, zchus issue] speak of '73 as an es ratzon of geulah. it is certainly logical to think that chazal with zohar times in mind, knew of the astronomy that the mayans somehow came into possession of. it has been made very clear to you josh, namely by your cousin, that we are in a tekufa that extends to '75/6. if at the end nothing materializes, then one must assume we missed an oppurtunity, and it wouldnt be the first time in history.['67] however, if we do teshuva, and seize the moment, now is an es ratzon. nobody is looking at dates or catastrophes; only you taking things out of context because apparently you have nothing better in torah to post. this is a tekufa inyan, always was.and if you care so much to win your little crusade, why dont you call glazerson and have it out with him, if he is so dangerous? i could go on [as ive stated to you many times before], but can't you just drop it? moshiach coming is an ancient part of judaism, it captivates. yes it harms also [shabtai tzvi] but i also think in todays dor, it is better for ones emunah to feel how close we are [which majority of people will ack.] vs. your misnagdic approach that is worth "alot of zimbabwe dollars"
a self-appointed am ha'aretz? i don't understand. yes, i wrote to you in an email that in matters of kabbalah, i am a relative am ha'aretz. at the same time, when it comes to **revealed** Torah, i have been extremely unimpressed with your level of scholarship. and as a result, i have extreme doubts as to your depth of knowledge when it comes to the hidden portions of Torah. this is whether or not Zohar is authentic, the question is whether YOU understand it. of course, the baalei teshuva and noachides to whom you cater don't have means of assessing your level of Torah knowledge.
the "many zohars" which speak of 5773 are probably a reference to the Cosmic Clock which you and others have spoken about before. I've shown how this is a misinterpretation of the Zohar, and Gra, etc.
why should I have it out with *Rabbi* Glazerson? (why did you strip him of his rabbinic title?) Do you really think I would convince him, even if I was entirely right? I don't argue with the in-patients in Bellevue that they are not Napoleon.
what I could tell from your putting your name on the book is that you are lending credence to the silliness put forth by Rabbi Glazerson, that Yoktan == Yukatan, etcetera. And lending credence to Mayan astrology, as a separate entity from Mayan *astronomy*. indeed, here you speak of Chazal knowing of Mayan astronomy, when Mayan astrology is the topic.
I was saying that, hopefully in retrospect, everybody now realizes that the Mayan stuff in bunk. too bad.
I have nothing better in Torah to post? I've held my tongue for many months. Why not check my posts for last week on Vayigash / Vayeshev?
I understand that you are upset. I am sorry that you are upset. But that doesn't mean that nonsense is Torah.
From Rabbi David Katz: "Discover more about yours - what your name means, how it influences your life, gematria [numerology] and personal in-depth and Authentic explanations. Offering full insight into the Jewish Soul - Based on all Torah and Kabalah Sources.... staying current with ancient texts. Starting at US$ 45.00 per Personal Request"
Name readings, red strings, segulah rings, chai rotel. It's all the same nonsensical, superstitious BS that is most assuredly geneivas daas and possibly avodah zarah.
How can you allow yourself to insult someone else? Aren't you yourself complaining about people mocking your work? You would do well to source your claims or argue against points made, instead of ad hominem attacks.
What a disgrace this has turned into because you wanted to kick someone on your blog. This was totally unnecessary. Do you feel better and more superior, now that you've trashed not one but two Jews publicly? It is a sin to to try embarrass a Jew and you are gleefully and arrogantly doing so. You're such a Torah giant, that doesn't matter to you?
Moriah: I was pointing out the failure of the **enterprise** of Torah codes (correctly or incorrectly). People put forward all sorts of nonsense, and the gullible follow this nonsense.
There should be some responsibility of admission of error when a messianic prediction fails, so that we can keep track. For example, Menachem (who people for some reason call Rav Menachem, despite his not having semicha) of Absolute Judaism insisted on mashiach a few months ago. And he even knew which fellow was mashiach. What ever happened to that?
It was these people who embarrassed themselves, by promoting the nonsense. I am just (in the main body of the post) pointing out that the nonsense has failed to pass. Then, when asked to produce substance -- whether I've actually evaluated the claims -- I explained, with a few examples, how this was nonsense under the guise of Torah.
if Rabbi Katz wishes to respond to that substance -- e.g., how the name Yucatan, given by the ignorant Spaniards, establishes a connection to Biblical Yoktan, he is certainly welcome to do so here.
Devorah: "There are many theories as to where the name Yucatan came from." If you read the next sentence of the website you got it from, it is "The common theme between the theories is the Spanish interpretation of what the Mayans were saying."
"So it is possible... and named" means that Rabbi Glazerson decided to wildly speculate, ignoring all the existing evidence, such as the linguistics of the Mayan language.
Babal as "confusion" may indeed be a coincidence. You, and Rabbi Glazerson, do not know enough about linguistics to so confidently assert otherwise. In Hebrew, the word is BaLaL. (And there is the pun / strange etymology of Bav-El, gate of the gods, for the tower, from Ki sham BaLaL.)
Did you bother to read about the false cognates I linked to before? With enough words in a pair of languages, just by random chance, some parallel words will match in meaning, even though they have different sources.
(the word babble, to utter in an incoherent way, could well be of imitative origin. and yet, one could easily assert that it comes from the word Bavel.)
Seder HaDoros, in case you read his article, was written by Rabbi Heilprin (1660-1746). This is an Acharon theorizing and trying to account for the existence of people in the New World. It does not reflect ancient midrashic sources about the Mayans.
1) youve never seen my scholarship to know. you post yours [which is indeed unimpressive to put it mildly] and rav glazerson would be more than happy to discuss with you, he is very open in that way. im sure if you feel he is doing a chilul Hashem and misleading people and he has the chance for teshuva, and you can correct his ways, thus bringing us, and all of mankind to your truth, by all means, and im sure he will delight in your awe-inspiring teshuva. please share how you have assessed to great detail my lack of torah knowledge josh, id love to hear. did i fake my way through my smicha tests too? youve seen blog posts that are torah -lite youve never been through the mazal name issue, nor would i expect you to you probably never went through much detail of anything on torah any time you certainly arent going to be interested in noahide torah, and if you are that would be rather curious of you. we both know that the diet of yeshiva is shas, and i have stated to you over and over again: people on the internet are not looking for a blog on gemara in an iyun style. for that you go to a site, and dnload the file on your way to work. so again, have you seen my torah sh baal peh learning josh? or are you judging by a book that was approaching a certain area of interest [and you never ack. my points that i brought up] are you judging my current even blog? are you now a noahide expert? i have put maybe,1% of my knowledge on the net. if you are so interested in seeing what i know, you may feel free to contact me at your leisure. im always available. people have interests, and i like to teach on those interests. 2012 to me is interesting, for many reasons. one reason i like the most, is the reason offered by mckenna - he resonates [albeit from klippah] something that is happening. that and many other fronts led me to investigate, and report my findings. i have never used menachems absolute mantras. yet you make it like i have. names and mazal are real torah and are interesting. torah news events is real and interesting. you are not interesting. nor is your loshon hara. its base and offensive. rav glazerson is one of the best men i know, and you show him no respect. quite frankly, he is a known talmid chacham, he is older than you, he has been a rosh yeshiva, etc etc. that is a chilul Hashem, sorry to tell you. not to mention that he is an ish emes, and has brought more than thousands to teshuva, so yes he has zchus as well. what i personally find the most interesting, is talmud b'iyun and shulchan aruch. again, the internet blog scen is not the place for shas and chiddushim on shas. for the last time: if it will make you happy to see that i have a life of torah off the blog [i..e the other 23 hours and 45 mins that i dont drink a cup of coffee and blog], then pick up your phone, and call. if you are a yeshivish guy, it will take about 2 seconds to figure me out, its not the big sugia you make it to be. people have interests, and i try to make torah interesting for them. B'H one day all of the Torah will be found interesting amongst the rabim, and then Hashem will be honored as He should. in the meantime, cacha. galus doesnt give you the right to be a chilul Hashem and then put the laundry on others who are trying to help and be good jews. as i have always said with you, i can go on, because its emes, but its not my job to teach you derech eretz and emes.
Devorah, I agree with R' Josh: Rabbi Glazerson doesn't know anything about linguistics. At all.
Also, he doesn't seem to know anything about history, anthropology, or sociology.
Also, the sort of associations he makes (e.g., between the gematriot of "America in Hebrew" and "the land of the Chavilah in Hebrew") are either jokes, or the sort of thing that fascinates a sick mind.
rabbi david katz: "youve never seen my scholarship to know." it may be true that you are only posting what you deem to be Torah-lite. however, that wasn't the basis of my assessment. it was for instance here, where you utterly misunderstand Rashi, and then because Rashi makes "no sense", proceed to butcher Rashi further. Or here, where besides for insanity about UFOs, you appear to misunderstand Onkelos. Just for the two I've explicitly discussed on this blog.
"did i fake my way through my smicha tests too?" chas veshalom, I am not accusing you of falsehood.
my assumption is that with a proper study guide, a chavrusa, and a predefined topic to study, you could repeat back what is necessary to pass semicha tests.
i was wondering about your semicha though. what exactly is semicha in Hilchot Shabbat? is that more or less rigorous than classic semicha, where the study includes Yoreh Deah?
"are you now a noahide expert?" No, but I suspect that you are not one either. But Noahides are more or less ignorant, which is why you have decided to elevate yourself among them.
It once again pains me to see that you cannot move away from attacking other people's reputations. If that is your response to perceived attacks on your own reputation or Rabbi Glazerson, you should not even mention loshon hora at all, for you are engaging in it as well.
As for name mazals, do you think the Rambam would agree? (http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN242/rambam2.html) Do you think that modern science would agree? If not, why would you expect that this is something that someone should not be able to dispute.
You would do well to distinguish between an attack on the pseudo-science-mystical concepts, and an attack on the person. When Rabbi Waxman mocked the books and videos, that was one thing. you are attacking a person, not based on reason, but because you are simply offended that he could question the ideas you hold dear.
"tell me more about the "But Noahides are more or less ignorant"
I am surprised that you don't realize this. A typical FFB attends 12+ years of Jewish schooling. He will know Hebrew, Chumash, Mishna, some gemara, some classic machshava, and so on.
A typical Noachide does not have this background. As such, if someone says things that are misinterpretations of a gemara, I would not expect a Noachide to spot it. Would you?
I'm sorry, Devorah, I just do not see Rabbi Waxman attacking Rabbi Glazerson or Rabbi Katz's character or person.
When debating ideas, there are many ways to approach various topics. When accusing someone of "wild speculation", you are not being mean, but truthful. It is wild speculation. Can you debate its speculatory nature? Would you rather RW's tone was more neutral, yet with the same idea?
As for RK: RK accused RW of not understanding what he wrote, because he is a self appointed am haaretz. RW had to defend himself by calling into question if RK actually has a grasp on what he talks about, all the while bringing up logical points to refute his claims. This is as opposed to RK, who attacks with no apparent substance, and cries loshon hora.
I am sorry that you read that as attacking his reputation. I was explaining the the **assertion**, as well as much of the article, is wild speculation. That is, he made it up. That he is a nice man, who has been kind to you, has a beard, is a rosh yeshiva, and that you like him, does not change that this is wild speculation.
To say that "maison" and "mansion" are cognates, since we know the meaning of both, and something of the etymology of both, is something well-founded. To take a name, Balam-Qitze, not know what it means, but **assume** it is a cognate to Hebrew, and then say 'well, he was a leader, so let us drop the Ayin and add a Mem from Baal to make Balam, and drop the Resh from Katzar, and say Mayans were short, such that this must mean Short Leader, and so poof, we have evidence of Hebrew influence' -- that is making things up.
As I wrote you in an email, I am aware that Rabbi Glazerson has written a book on Hebrew Linguistics, trying to show that all languages derive from Hebrew. Writing a book on Hebrew language does not make one an expert linguist. Heck, he wrote a book on Mayans, and I don't think he is an expert on Mayans!
I am sorry, Devorah, that you are not knowledgeable enough to recognize wild speculation when it occurs. It is the same issue which causes you to pay heed to (or at least worry about) a whole slew of ridiculousness. For example, believing that Nir Ben Artzi is at all a visionary. Or not knowing enough about science (or religion) to understand why the autistics are ridiculous. Or believing hoax after hoax, about UFOs, for example.
by the way Devorah, this is what I wrote about one of my OWN ideas, back in 2005:
I will offer three traditional answers, and then offer some completely unsubstatiated and wild speculation.
Do you think that I was attacking my own reputation? I wasn't.
Still, in this case, it follows that if the ideas are all wild speculation, then I don't think that Rabbi Glazerson has made his case, even though he thinks he has. And I suppose it follows from there that he is not an expert in history and linguistics, as you assume. So yes, disagreement ends up, sort of automatically, representing a challenge to his expertise.
I know you don't endorse Nir Ben Artzi, in the sense of believing every word he says.
However, because of a Torah code by Rabbi Glazerson, as well as other predisposed beliefs, you believe that he has some powers of supernatural sight. Thus, that he is a "Chozeh". You have said so explicitly!
I read through this blog. It is all very disappointing with these so called rationalist kind of arguments about the derivation of Yucatan.
Let us suppose that the wiki article is factually correct. It states:
The proper derivation of the word Yucatán is widely debated. Hernan Cortes, in the first of his letters to Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, claimed that the name Yucatán comes from a misunderstanding. In this telling, the first Spanish explorers asked what the area was called, and the response they received, "Yucatan," was a Yucatec Maya word meaning "I don't understand what you're saying." [1][2] Others claim that the source of the name is the Nahuatl (Aztec) word Yokatlān, "place of richness."
So on this basis Waxman seems to be correct. But do you really want to limit understanding how God works in our world to wiki's level of explanation? I may be very disciplined rationally (see haralick.org for my scholarly writings) but I will not accept any kind of rational or secular arguments when it comes to our interaction with God or God's hand in our world. Basically, the argument in this blog on this topic is a secular rational argument.
I hold that God is present everywhere in our world and is constantly involved in working miracles in ways that appear to be natural. From this point of view the Torah family name Yoktan could have been miraculously brought into the Aztec language or the Mayan language so that one way or the other it became the name of the place Yucatan. Furthermore, if you look carefully at the Mayan people you will see some physical resemblances of a semitic appearance.
The stories in wiki about the name Yucatan are only stories. They are not facts that I would immediately accept. Nevertheless, if you ask whether there is real physical or factual evidence for the Yoktan to Yucatan connection. I would reply no in the context of secular rationalism.
If you ask whether there is a suggestive similarity that may indicate that God's hand is involved. I would reply yes. For it is in the category of coincidences. If you believe that coincidences are random happenings, then your Judaism is not my Judaism. In my Judaism, there are no coincidences. And when you find one, smile and be joyous for you can sense the hand of God.
1) Foremost, your explanation is not the same one as Rabbi Glazerson's explanation. So how can you criticize me for not accepting your modified proposition? Rabbi Glazerson asserted that the Mayans named the Yucatan after their ancestor, and thus, we have evidence that the Mayans descended from Yoktan. You are asserting that the Mayans did not name the Yucatan this, but that you believe -- based on other evidence, I suppose -- that the Mayans were descended, and so Hashem arranged it that the Spaniards named it in a way that was reminiscent of Yoktan. Can you explain how I should have responded to your assertion, rather than to Rabbi Glazerson's assertion?
2) Agreed, that your Judaism and my Judaism is not the same.
I believe that Chazal first examined the world to determine reality, and then make theological judgements about it. Rav, the great Amora, studied under a shepherd for many years so as to accurately rule about the eye afflictions of sheep (as they related to mum). He did not simply rely on gematria or the names of the sheep to divine whether it was a blemish or not.
If the Torah, or Chazal, said that the Mayans were from Yoktan, and then this connection were made, then it would be a suggestive similarity propping up what we know (theologically) to be true. But this is not the case. Instead, the very BASIS is from the gematria or etymological wild speculation.
3) But let us assume that, since their are no coincidences, one can engage in such wild speculation or etymological / gematria connections, and it will accord with reality. What then?
A while back, some ultra-religious group put up wall posters in Jerusalem asserting that Internet causes Cancer, because they share the same gematria. In reply to this, another group put up wall posters asserting that Lettuce causes autism, because they share the same gematria!
If there are no coincidences, then both should be true, because Hashem would not construct the world such that these share the same gematria.
Another example. I will give an etymology of your name that I don't believe myself. Haralick sounds a lot like harelip (just change the "ck" to a "p"), which is a condition of a cleft lip and palate. I theorize that your ancestors must have had a harelip.
You respond, correctly, with a proper etymology of the name Haralick.
I respond that that may be the secular explanation of the name, but "I will not accept any kind of rational or secular arguments when it comes to our interaction with God or God's hand in our world". God must have had a hidden hand, since there are no coincidences, in forming the name, so my suggested etymology MUST be true.
Rabbi Glazerson suggested an etymology of Yucatan (which sounds similar to, but is not the same as, Yaktan). He suggested an etymology for Balam-Qitze. Both seem very farfetched.
Are you really saying that, just because Rabbi Glazerson suggested these etymologies, that God had these particular etymologies in mind? If so, would you also say that God had my suggested etymology of your name (harelip) in mind?
5) Finally, I understand that you may be upset with me. Sorry about that. But is "Waxman" (rather than "Josh", or "Rabbi Waxman") really necessary? I seem to recall that the last time we talked, when you were under the mistaken impression that I was a Reconstructionist Rabbi, you referred to me as Rabbi Waxman. It sounds like a tone of hostility.
M.Glazerson - Haralick - D.Katz Mayan Calendar New Edition: Buy Now! Email: rabbikatz@virtualyeshiva.com for Downloads and FAQ
40 comments:
It states on the video: "On the lower right in red is the Hebrew date 10th of Tevet which is also Sunday Dec. 23, 2012, which is 2 days later than the Mayan date."
that does not mean that the apocalypse must wait until 10 teves. as indeed it hasn't, as the many fireballs in the sky prove.
but if the oceans burn up tomorrow, then indeed we will have further proof as to the authenticity of Torah codes. thanks for pointing that out!
how do you know that a spiritual change did not happen five days ago, or four? that is a non-falsifiable prediction.
if the Mayans had a great deal of astronomical knowledge (as did the Greeks), that does not mean that they had a great deal of spiritual knowledge. as Chazal say: if someone says 'there is wisdom among the gentiles', believe him. if someone says 'there is Torah among the gentiles', do not believe him.
meanwhile, the Mayans did not really predict an apocalypse. all along, this has been a misinterpretation of what the Mayans believed, paired with a misrepresentation of what the Torah holds about the Mayans, often paired with a incorrect scientific beliefs.
but that was just the Erev Rav talking. personally, I believe in the Mayan apocalypse. how could I believe otherwise, when a giant sinkhole has swallowed Yankee stadium?
:)
did you read the book josh? do you have any clue what rav glazerson wrote about?
Torah is truth, and the end of the story. As we see here it mentions] 10th of Tevet. Which was the beginning of Something bad in our history.
Have an easy fast and this time do some soul searching and individual prayer as well.
Rabbi David Katz:
no, not the book specifically, only various website postings about Mayans, and fake connections to Yoktan, based on fake etymological connections, selective citations from midrashim, interpreted in various ways, etc. i didn't want to waste five bucks.
in retrospect, maybe i should have. i could have better prepared against the horde of zombies now banging at my door.
Devorah:
i've seen that claim. it is not true. that is what i meant by "paired with a misrepresentation of what the Torah holds about the Mayans".
even if they got their astronomical knowledge from the Jews, that does not mean that they are correct on any spiritual plane. let big kabbalists, who really know what they are talking about when they come to kabbalah (e.g. a Rav Kaduri) of today say that there are spiritual ramifications of this day, and then we can talk.
ariela:
huh? the 10th of tevet which was the beginning of something bad happened centuries ago. let the Mayans speak about THAT day. and let them his actually the day, not something two days later.
Someone please send help. What best repels zombies?
kol tuv,
josh
i did read this web posting by Rabbi Glazerson, for instance.
here are the etymologies of Yucatan:
The name Yucatán, also assigned to the peninsula, came from early explorations of the Conquistadors from Europe.
That is, NOT from the Mayans, but from the Spaniards. Why did the Spaniards label it so?
There are reliable versions that the name was result from confusion between the Mayan inhabitants and the first Spanish explorers around 1517:
According to one of them, was the answer of a Mayan indigenous to the question of a Spanish explorer, since he wanted to know the name of the region. The Mayan probably replied Ma'anaatik ka t'ann which means in the Maya language I do not understand your speech or I do not understand you.
It is also said that the Spaniards gave the name of Yucatán to the region, because the Mayan answered their questions with the phrase uh yu ka t'ann, in Mayan language means hear how they talk.
Then, you have Rabbi Glazerson assert that Yucatan was the Mayan name, and then assert that this is a corruption of Yoktan. What am I supposed to think, other than that he is making up history and making up Torah to match it, and that people who don't know any better are swallowing these misrepresentations?
here is another gem from that Rabbi Glazerson's article:
The name Balam-Qitze, a leader in the description given in Title of the Lords of Totonicapan, has a Hebrew cognate. Baal, בעל, is a Hebrew word meaning Lord, Master, owner, possessor. The Torah discusses idol worship of the principal Canaanite idol called Baal. There is also a biblical character Balaam (Numbers 22:5). There is an adjective in Hebrew Qatzar, קצר, which has a form Qitzar which is cognate to Qitze. This leader's name is then Short Master. The Mayans are genetically short measuring about 4 foot 8 inches from archaeological skeletal remains. They were the pygmies of Central America.
He apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "cognate". A cognate is a word in one language that also appears, with more or less the same meaning, in another language. Even where cognates exist, sometimes they are false cognates which do not show any true connection.
In this case, Baal is spelled with an Ayin. Bet, Ayil, Lamed. And it means master.
Meanwhile, the word Balam in Balam-Qitze means Jaguar. And Rabbi Galzerson provides no evidence that Qitze means short, so as to establish it as a cognate of Hebrew QaTSaR or QiTZaR (with a resh, I might add). He is taking a random Mayan word he has no idea what the meaning is and confidently asserting that it is the parallel of a Hebrew word, with absolutely no evidence that this is so.
Guess what? Human language uses vowels and consonants, and if you match up word lists in two languages without caring about meaning, you will find "matches". To then cite this as "evidence" of Mayan coming from Hebrew is just silly.
But most readers are too uneducated in linguistics to spot the silliness.
Don't you ever feel any shame for being so eager to mock another Jew so publicly? Because it IS shameful..
No, I don't feel shame in this.
They are staking out their positions publicly. And are stating incorrectly that this is Torah. And they use science and rabbinic titles to put forth such silliness. And some of the uneducated masses are following them.
But why are we arguing about this? I've asked about zombie repellent. This is an urgent situation...
R' Waxman,
No, no you got it ll wrong. M-Y-N-S is merely a roshei teivot for 'Malchut Yisrael Niglu Sancheirev!' This is irrefutable proof the Mayans are the lost tribes.
The fire and brimstone was a reference to Gog and Maghog and the zombies, as I believe you have pointed out, was a reference to Moshe. (If he died on the mountain, was buried in the valley, and no one knew his grave's location, the only rational explanation is Moshe was a zombie. Plus, the medrash says there God decreed he cannot enter the land in life or after death, a further proof to his being a zombie.)
Thus, the ten lost tribes were obviously saying the 21st was the appointed date for the Moshiach coming and Moshe entering the land and building the third, eternal mikdash - in fire!
The only reason this wouldn't have happened is if so-called 'rationalists' refused to accept the impending days of judgment and joy, forcing Mashiach to be cancelled until such time as BNY are more worthy...
Hope you're happy!
Hillel
PS: If you're still in need of a Moshe-Zombie repellant, try worshipping a golden calf. My understanding is this will cause him to to remove himself to "outside your encampment - far away from your encampment..."
so let me clarify,you have not read my contribution to the book, and therefore it seems you have committed motzie shem rah on me along with loshon hara, and have equally embarassed another in public in rav glazerson? does that sum it up? all in the name of your self righteous crusade as a self appointed am ha-aretz. chazal are known to be masters in astronomy and their enigmas [gra;various locale in shas] the words of the rav were in remez - davka, not to be taken as pshat, but the again to learn kabalah is a zchut [gra - shulchan aruch] and many mekubalim and zohars [that you are aware of, but deny validity to kabala, again, zchus issue] speak of '73 as an es ratzon of geulah. it is certainly logical to think that chazal with zohar times in mind, knew of the astronomy that the mayans somehow came into possession of. it has been made very clear to you josh, namely by your cousin, that we are in a tekufa that extends to '75/6. if at the end nothing materializes, then one must assume we missed an oppurtunity, and it wouldnt be the first time in history.['67] however, if we do teshuva, and seize the moment, now is an es ratzon. nobody is looking at dates or catastrophes; only you taking things out of context because apparently you have nothing better in torah to post. this is a tekufa inyan, always was.and if you care so much to win your little crusade, why dont you call glazerson and have it out with him, if he is so dangerous? i could go on [as ive stated to you many times before], but can't you just drop it? moshiach coming is an ancient part of judaism, it captivates. yes it harms also [shabtai tzvi] but i also think in todays dor, it is better for ones emunah to feel how close we are [which majority of people will ack.] vs. your misnagdic approach that is worth "alot of zimbabwe dollars"
Rabbi Katz:
a self-appointed am ha'aretz? i don't understand. yes, i wrote to you in an email that in matters of kabbalah, i am a relative am ha'aretz. at the same time, when it comes to **revealed** Torah, i have been extremely unimpressed with your level of scholarship. and as a result, i have extreme doubts as to your depth of knowledge when it comes to the hidden portions of Torah. this is whether or not Zohar is authentic, the question is whether YOU understand it. of course, the baalei teshuva and noachides to whom you cater don't have means of assessing your level of Torah knowledge.
the "many zohars" which speak of 5773 are probably a reference to the Cosmic Clock which you and others have spoken about before. I've shown how this is a misinterpretation of the Zohar, and Gra, etc.
why should I have it out with *Rabbi* Glazerson? (why did you strip him of his rabbinic title?) Do you really think I would convince him, even if I was entirely right? I don't argue with the in-patients in Bellevue that they are not Napoleon.
what I could tell from your putting your name on the book is that you are lending credence to the silliness put forth by Rabbi Glazerson, that Yoktan == Yukatan, etcetera. And lending credence to Mayan astrology, as a separate entity from Mayan *astronomy*. indeed, here you speak of Chazal knowing of Mayan astronomy, when Mayan astrology is the topic.
I was saying that, hopefully in retrospect, everybody now realizes that the Mayan stuff in bunk. too bad.
I have nothing better in Torah to post? I've held my tongue for many months. Why not check my posts for last week on Vayigash / Vayeshev?
I understand that you are upset. I am sorry that you are upset. But that doesn't mean that nonsense is Torah.
kol tuv,
josh
From Rabbi David Katz: "Discover more about yours - what your name means, how it influences your life, gematria [numerology] and personal in-depth and Authentic explanations. Offering full insight into the Jewish Soul - Based on all Torah and Kabalah Sources.... staying current with ancient texts. Starting at US$ 45.00 per Personal Request"
Name readings, red strings, segulah rings, chai rotel. It's all the same nonsensical, superstitious BS that is most assuredly geneivas daas and possibly avodah zarah.
Rabbi Katz,
How can you allow yourself to insult someone else? Aren't you yourself complaining about people mocking your work? You would do well to source your claims or argue against points made, instead of ad hominem attacks.
What a disgrace this has turned into because you wanted to kick someone on your blog. This was totally unnecessary. Do you feel better and more superior, now that you've trashed not one but two Jews publicly? It is a sin to to try embarrass a Jew and you are gleefully and arrogantly doing so. You're such a Torah giant, that doesn't matter to you?
Moriah:
I was pointing out the failure of the **enterprise** of Torah codes (correctly or incorrectly). People put forward all sorts of nonsense, and the gullible follow this nonsense.
There should be some responsibility of admission of error when a messianic prediction fails, so that we can keep track. For example, Menachem (who people for some reason call Rav Menachem, despite his not having semicha) of Absolute Judaism insisted on mashiach a few months ago. And he even knew which fellow was mashiach. What ever happened to that?
It was these people who embarrassed themselves, by promoting the nonsense. I am just (in the main body of the post) pointing out that the nonsense has failed to pass. Then, when asked to produce substance -- whether I've actually evaluated the claims -- I explained, with a few examples, how this was nonsense under the guise of Torah.
if Rabbi Katz wishes to respond to that substance -- e.g., how the name Yucatan, given by the ignorant Spaniards, establishes a connection to Biblical Yoktan, he is certainly welcome to do so here.
Devorah:
"There are many theories as to where the name Yucatan came from."
If you read the next sentence of the website you got it from, it is "The common theme between the theories is the Spanish interpretation of what the Mayans were saying."
"So it is possible... and named" means that Rabbi Glazerson decided to wildly speculate, ignoring all the existing evidence, such as the linguistics of the Mayan language.
Babal as "confusion" may indeed be a coincidence. You, and Rabbi Glazerson, do not know enough about linguistics to so confidently assert otherwise. In Hebrew, the word is BaLaL. (And there is the pun / strange etymology of Bav-El, gate of the gods, for the tower, from Ki sham BaLaL.)
Did you bother to read about the false cognates I linked to before? With enough words in a pair of languages, just by random chance, some parallel words will match in meaning, even though they have different sources.
(the word babble, to utter in an incoherent way, could well be of imitative origin. and yet, one could easily assert that it comes from the word Bavel.)
Seder HaDoros, in case you read his article, was written by Rabbi Heilprin (1660-1746). This is an Acharon theorizing and trying to account for the existence of people in the New World. It does not reflect ancient midrashic sources about the Mayans.
1) youve never seen my scholarship to know. you post yours [which is indeed unimpressive to put it mildly] and rav glazerson would be more than happy to discuss with you, he is very open in that way. im sure if you feel he is doing a chilul Hashem and misleading people and he has the chance for teshuva, and you can correct his ways, thus bringing us, and all of mankind to your truth, by all means, and im sure he will delight in your awe-inspiring teshuva.
please share how you have assessed to great detail my lack of torah knowledge josh, id love to hear. did i fake my way through my smicha tests too?
youve seen blog posts that are torah -lite
youve never been through the mazal name issue, nor would i expect you to
you probably never went through much detail of anything on torah any time
you certainly arent going to be interested in noahide torah, and if you are that would be rather curious of you.
we both know that the diet of yeshiva is shas, and i have stated to you over and over again: people on the internet are not looking for a blog on gemara in an iyun style. for that you go to a site, and dnload the file on your way to work.
so again, have you seen my torah sh baal peh learning josh? or are you judging by a book that was approaching a certain area of interest [and you never ack. my points that i brought up]
are you judging my current even blog? are you now a noahide expert? i have put maybe,1% of my knowledge on the net. if you are so interested in seeing what i know, you may feel free to contact me at your leisure. im always available.
people have interests, and i like to teach on those interests. 2012 to me is interesting, for many reasons. one reason i like the most, is the reason offered by mckenna - he resonates [albeit from klippah] something that is happening. that and many other fronts led me to investigate, and report my findings. i have never used menachems absolute mantras. yet you make it like i have.
names and mazal are real torah and are interesting. torah news events is real and interesting. you are not interesting. nor is your loshon hara. its base and offensive. rav glazerson is one of the best men i know, and you show him no respect. quite frankly, he is a known talmid chacham, he is older than you, he has been a rosh yeshiva, etc etc. that is a chilul Hashem, sorry to tell you. not to mention that he is an ish emes, and has brought more than thousands to teshuva, so yes he has zchus as well.
what i personally find the most interesting, is talmud b'iyun and shulchan aruch. again, the internet blog scen is not the place for shas and chiddushim on shas. for the last time: if it will make you happy to see that i have a life of torah off the blog [i..e the other 23 hours and 45 mins that i dont drink a cup of coffee and blog], then pick up your phone, and call. if you are a yeshivish guy, it will take about 2 seconds to figure me out, its not the big sugia you make it to be. people have interests, and i try to make torah interesting for them. B'H one day all of the Torah will be found interesting amongst the rabim, and then Hashem will be honored as He should. in the meantime, cacha. galus doesnt give you the right to be a chilul Hashem and then put the laundry on others who are trying to help and be good jews. as i have always said with you, i can go on, because its emes, but its not my job to teach you derech eretz and emes.
Devorah, I agree with R' Josh: Rabbi Glazerson doesn't know anything about linguistics. At all.
Also, he doesn't seem to know anything about history, anthropology, or sociology.
Also, the sort of associations he makes (e.g., between the gematriot of "America in Hebrew" and "the land of the Chavilah in Hebrew") are either jokes, or the sort of thing that fascinates a sick mind.
rabbi david katz:
"youve never seen my scholarship to know."
it may be true that you are only posting what you deem to be Torah-lite. however, that wasn't the basis of my assessment. it was for instance here, where you utterly misunderstand Rashi, and then because Rashi makes "no sense", proceed to butcher Rashi further. Or here, where besides for insanity about UFOs, you appear to misunderstand Onkelos. Just for the two I've explicitly discussed on this blog.
"did i fake my way through my smicha tests too?"
chas veshalom, I am not accusing you of falsehood.
my assumption is that with a proper study guide, a chavrusa, and a predefined topic to study, you could repeat back what is necessary to pass semicha tests.
i was wondering about your semicha though. what exactly is semicha in Hilchot Shabbat? is that more or less rigorous than classic semicha, where the study includes Yoreh Deah?
"are you now a noahide expert?"
No, but I suspect that you are not one either. But Noahides are more or less ignorant, which is why you have decided to elevate yourself among them.
tell me more about the "But Noahides are more or less ignorant -[jw]"
Rabbi Katz,
It once again pains me to see that you cannot move away from attacking other people's reputations. If that is your response to perceived attacks on your own reputation or Rabbi Glazerson, you should not even mention loshon hora at all, for you are engaging in it as well.
As for name mazals, do you think the Rambam would agree? (http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN242/rambam2.html) Do you think that modern science would agree? If not, why would you expect that this is something that someone should not be able to dispute.
You would do well to distinguish between an attack on the pseudo-science-mystical concepts, and an attack on the person. When Rabbi Waxman mocked the books and videos, that was one thing. you are attacking a person, not based on reason, but because you are simply offended that he could question the ideas you hold dear.
Rabbi Katz:
have you responded to my questions yet (above)?
"tell me more about the "But Noahides are more or less ignorant"
I am surprised that you don't realize this. A typical FFB attends 12+ years of Jewish schooling. He will know Hebrew, Chumash, Mishna, some gemara, some classic machshava, and so on.
A typical Noachide does not have this background. As such, if someone says things that are misinterpretations of a gemara, I would not expect a Noachide to spot it. Would you?
I'm sorry, Devorah, I just do not see Rabbi Waxman attacking Rabbi Glazerson or Rabbi Katz's character or person.
When debating ideas, there are many ways to approach various topics. When accusing someone of "wild speculation", you are not being mean, but truthful. It is wild speculation. Can you debate its speculatory nature? Would you rather RW's tone was more neutral, yet with the same idea?
As for RK: RK accused RW of not understanding what he wrote, because he is a self appointed am haaretz. RW had to defend himself by calling into question if RK actually has a grasp on what he talks about, all the while bringing up logical points to refute his claims. This is as opposed to RK, who attacks with no apparent substance, and cries loshon hora.
Devorah:
I am sorry that you read that as attacking his reputation. I was explaining the the **assertion**, as well as much of the article, is wild speculation. That is, he made it up. That he is a nice man, who has been kind to you, has a beard, is a rosh yeshiva, and that you like him, does not change that this is wild speculation.
To say that "maison" and "mansion" are cognates, since we know the meaning of both, and something of the etymology of both, is something well-founded. To take a name, Balam-Qitze, not know what it means, but **assume** it is a cognate to Hebrew, and then say 'well, he was a leader, so let us drop the Ayin and add a Mem from Baal to make Balam, and drop the Resh from Katzar, and say Mayans were short, such that this must mean Short Leader, and so poof, we have evidence of Hebrew influence' -- that is making things up.
As I wrote you in an email, I am aware that Rabbi Glazerson has written a book on Hebrew Linguistics, trying to show that all languages derive from Hebrew. Writing a book on Hebrew language does not make one an expert linguist. Heck, he wrote a book on Mayans, and I don't think he is an expert on Mayans!
I am sorry, Devorah, that you are not knowledgeable enough to recognize wild speculation when it occurs. It is the same issue which causes you to pay heed to (or at least worry about) a whole slew of ridiculousness. For example, believing that Nir Ben Artzi is at all a visionary. Or not knowing enough about science (or religion) to understand why the autistics are ridiculous. Or believing hoax after hoax, about UFOs, for example.
kol tuv,
josh
by the way Devorah, this is what I wrote about one of my OWN ideas, back in 2005:
I will offer three traditional answers, and then offer some completely unsubstatiated and wild speculation.
Do you think that I was attacking my own reputation? I wasn't.
Still, in this case, it follows that if the ideas are all wild speculation, then I don't think that Rabbi Glazerson has made his case, even though he thinks he has. And I suppose it follows from there that he is not an expert in history and linguistics, as you assume. So yes, disagreement ends up, sort of automatically, representing a challenge to his expertise.
I know you don't endorse Nir Ben Artzi, in the sense of believing every word he says.
However, because of a Torah code by Rabbi Glazerson, as well as other predisposed beliefs, you believe that he has some powers of supernatural sight. Thus, that he is a "Chozeh". You have said so explicitly!
kol tuv,
jos
I read through this blog. It is all very disappointing with these so called rationalist kind of arguments about the derivation of Yucatan.
Let us suppose that the wiki article is factually correct. It states:
The proper derivation of the word Yucatán is widely debated. Hernan Cortes, in the first of his letters to Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, claimed that the name Yucatán comes from a misunderstanding. In this telling, the first Spanish explorers asked what the area was called, and the response they received, "Yucatan," was a Yucatec Maya word meaning "I don't understand what you're saying." [1][2] Others claim that the source of the name is the Nahuatl (Aztec) word Yokatlān, "place of richness."
So on this basis Waxman seems to be
correct. But do you really want to limit understanding how God works in our world to wiki's level of explanation? I may be very disciplined rationally
(see haralick.org for my scholarly writings) but I will not accept any kind of rational or secular arguments when it comes to our interaction with God or God's hand in our world. Basically, the argument in this blog on this topic is a secular rational argument.
I hold that God is present everywhere in our world and is constantly involved in working miracles in ways that appear to be natural. From this point of view the Torah family name Yoktan could have been miraculously brought into the Aztec language or the Mayan language so that one way or the other it became the name of the place Yucatan. Furthermore, if you look carefully at the Mayan people you will see some physical resemblances of a semitic appearance.
The stories in wiki about the name Yucatan are only stories. They are not facts that I would immediately accept. Nevertheless, if you ask
whether there is real physical or factual evidence for the Yoktan to Yucatan connection.
I would reply no in the context of
secular rationalism.
If you ask whether there is a suggestive similarity that may indicate that God's hand is involved. I would reply yes. For it is in the category of coincidences. If you believe that coincidences are random happenings,
then your Judaism is not my Judaism. In my Judaism, there are no coincidences. And when you find one, smile and be joyous for you can sense the hand of God.
Dr. Haralick:
Thank you for commenting.
1) Foremost, your explanation is not the same one as Rabbi Glazerson's explanation. So how can you criticize me for not accepting your modified proposition? Rabbi Glazerson asserted that the Mayans named the Yucatan after their ancestor, and thus, we have evidence that the Mayans descended from Yoktan. You are asserting that the Mayans did not name the Yucatan this, but that you believe -- based on other evidence, I suppose -- that the Mayans were descended, and so Hashem arranged it that the Spaniards named it in a way that was reminiscent of Yoktan. Can you explain how I should have responded to your assertion, rather than to Rabbi Glazerson's assertion?
2) Agreed, that your Judaism and my Judaism is not the same.
I believe that Chazal first examined the world to determine reality, and then make theological judgements about it. Rav, the great Amora, studied under a shepherd for many years so as to accurately rule about the eye afflictions of sheep (as they related to mum). He did not simply rely on gematria or the names of the sheep to divine whether it was a blemish or not.
If the Torah, or Chazal, said that the Mayans were from Yoktan, and then this connection were made, then it would be a suggestive similarity propping up what we know (theologically) to be true. But this is not the case. Instead, the very BASIS is from the gematria or etymological wild speculation.
continued in next comment...
3) But let us assume that, since their are no coincidences, one can engage in such wild speculation or etymological / gematria connections, and it will accord with reality. What then?
Well, whose etymological / gematria speculation accords with reality? Rabbi Glazerson's?
Let me give you a few examples to flesh this out.
A while back, some ultra-religious group put up wall posters in Jerusalem asserting that Internet causes Cancer, because they share the same gematria. In reply to this, another group put up wall posters asserting that Lettuce causes autism, because they share the same gematria!
If there are no coincidences, then both should be true, because Hashem would not construct the world such that these share the same gematria.
Another example. I will give an etymology of your name that I don't believe myself. Haralick sounds a lot like harelip (just change the "ck" to a "p"), which is a condition of a cleft lip and palate. I theorize that your ancestors must have had a harelip.
You respond, correctly, with a proper etymology of the name Haralick.
I respond that that may be the secular explanation of the name, but "I will not accept any kind of rational or secular arguments when it comes to our interaction with God or God's hand in our world". God must have had a hidden hand, since there are no coincidences, in forming the name, so my suggested etymology MUST be true.
Rabbi Glazerson suggested an etymology of Yucatan (which sounds similar to, but is not the same as, Yaktan). He suggested an etymology for Balam-Qitze. Both seem very farfetched.
Are you really saying that, just because Rabbi Glazerson suggested these etymologies, that God had these particular etymologies in mind? If so, would you also say that God had my suggested etymology of your name (harelip) in mind?
5) Finally, I understand that you may be upset with me. Sorry about that. But is "Waxman" (rather than "Josh", or "Rabbi Waxman") really necessary? I seem to recall that the last time we talked, when you were under the mistaken impression that I was a Reconstructionist Rabbi, you referred to me as Rabbi Waxman. It sounds like a tone of hostility.
Thanks again for your input,
Josh
Post a Comment