This stuff always reminds me of the uncanny similarities of the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations:
- Chuck Hagel:
- can be spelled in Hebrew צ'ק איגל [using a silent H]. צ'ק is the same letters as קץ, while איגל is the gematria of דם [blood].
- And his father has German heritage.
- And he was born in North Platte, Nebraska, signifying מצפון תפתח הרעה.
- Also, this can be spelled נור ת, meaning "the fire of Tav" - the 400 men of Esav and Amalek
- He worked at Firestone Tires, again "fire". Also, פַיֶירְסְטוֹן is the gematria of משיח בן דוד.
Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.
Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both were shot in the head.
Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatre.
Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.
Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners.
Both successors were named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are comprised of fifteen letters
Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
A month before he was shot, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland.See Snopes' debunking of this. For instance, this paragraph:
The coincidences are easily explained as the simple product of mere chance. It's not difficult to find patterns and similarities between any two marginally-related sets of data, and coincidences similar in number and kind can be (and have been) found between many different pairs of Presidents. Our tendency to seek out patterns wherever we can stems from our desire to make sense of our world; to maintain a feeling that our universe is orderly and can be understood. In this specific case two of our most beloved Presidents were murdered for reasons that make little or no sense to many of us, and by finding patterns in their deaths we also hope to find a larger cosmic "something" that seemingly provides some reassuring (if indefinite) rhyme or reason why these great men were prematurely snatched from our mortal sphere.Yes, the "frum" approach is to counter this with the assertion that, since Hashem controls the world (down to every falling leaf), there are no coincidences.
But even if we grant that every factoid was set in place by Hashem, the corresponding of the millions of little facts to establish a meaningful relationship is something done by humans. Rabbi Fish's last name is Fish, and I would assert that his methodology is fishy. Just because I, a human being, established a connection between the last name (a matter established by God) and the adjective "fishy" (also a matter established by God), that does not mean that God intended the correspondence to have meaning.
Even in pesukim, directly authored by God, not every human interpretation reflects Hashem's intent. The pasuk says Naaseh Adam Betzalmeinu, and a midrash states that Moshe objected that the human heretics would use this as proof of multiple gods. Hashem said that if humans want to err, let them err. Hashem wanted to make a homiletic point about the importance of consulting others.
If you line up any two historical events, or any two persons, there will be millions of factiods associated with them. And by the rules of large numbers, there will be a number of factiods from each set which match. To then point out the similarities reveals absolutely nothing.
And misusing gematria, synonyms, and multiple alternate spellings (e.g. spell Hagel with an aleph rather than a heh) to arrive at a predetermined outcome is bittul Torah in every sense of the word.
30 comments:
I agree that this is one of Rav Fish's sillier posts, and I understand, according to your opinion that he is "always silly", why you would pick this one to denigrate him.
However, I disagree with you on your points. Using gematria in this way is most definitely NOT Bittul Torah - aderaba - it is part of the Torah called Remez and has been used by great gedolim in the past 200 years (e.g. Rav Yosef Hayim, Rav Yaakov Abuhatzeira, and others). I wish you would see your error.
If you would have had a problem with the lack of a "ה" in his name, or using North Platte as צפון, I would not argue with you in your criticism. However, you took your criticism to the next level, and for that, you should be criticized.
maybe great Gedolim use it in precisely this manner of kvetching, maybe not. I didn't claim that in this post.
but if indeed they do (we should look at a concrete example), then it would be that the use of gematria has developed over time to such silliness. and i would consider this sort of remez to be bittul Torah, even from a dubbed Gadol. people can propose midrashic methods (such as darshening "et"), and people can subject the methods to scrutiny. and personality of gadol-worship should not stand in the way.
i don't think Amoraim regularly said, "Rava said X, so it must be right, even though I can point out major problems with it."
Rabbi Shmuel David Luzzatto, btw, blames the Zohar for gematria abuse:
Rashi z"l pushed off the aggada many times, when he found that it did not sit wall on the language of the Scripture, and so too after him did Rashbam his grandson, and Ibn Ezra and Radak and the Ramban. And before this, Rabbenu Saadia Gaon, Rabbenu Chananel, Menachem ben Saruk and Dunash ben Labrat, and after them Rabbi Yehuda Chayyuj, Rabbi Yonah ben Janach, Rabbi Moshe haKohen, and Rabbi Yehudah ben Bilaam, all of them great pashtanim, who shone a great light on the simple meaning of Scriptures, and they returned the crown of the Torah to its former glory, and these were the heads of the commentators both in time and in significance, and there is not found by them a mention or hint to the remazim and sodot and acronyms and gematriot, and all the other dreams and nonsenses which they appoint.
And the first who began to speak about these, behold it was the Ramban, who was the last of all of them chronologically, and he also speaks fairly little about these matters. But after the sefer haZohar was revealed, immediately the lamp of wisdom was extinguished {/faded} from amidst Israel, and the knowledge of the peshat of Scripture continuously degraded, and the love of the truth went missing, and men of intelligence are despised and considered repulsive, with their heads covered up and choosing absolute silence for themselves, and the earth is filled with faulty derashot, and the Torah is girded with worn out rags, and they abuse it not in its normal way, men who are honored with its disgrace and the disgrace of its Giver, may He Be Blessed. And upon it arise {?} a multitude of their nonsenses and dreams, and the thoughts are garbled, the hearts are spoiled, the eyes are blinded, darkness it placed to be light and light to darkness, and whoever increases in relating the going out from the peshat, he is praiseworthy. { A play on lesaper biytziat mitzrayim.} This is the first "redemption" which the sefer haZohar has brought us.
What does gadol-worship have to do with this?
i don't think Amoraim regularly said, "Rava said X, so it must be right, even though I can point out major problems with it."
You're not just pointing out major problems with it, you are throwing the whole thing out the window.
And, WADR, you are not on the level of the Ben Ish Hai or the Baba Sali's grandfather.
Remez, Derush and Sod are important parts of the Pardes of Torah. It doesn't take away from Peshat, it adds to it. But they are integral parts too that cannot just be dismissed.
Calling it silliness and bittul Torah is tantamount to לועג על דברי חכמים.
What Shada"l bemoans, I celebrate. The revelation of the secrets of the Torah is something to celebrate - not ח"ו denigrate.
yaak:
May I point out that someone here seems to be conflating multiple levels here?
1) Ignoramuses, who only started learning about Judaism as baalei teshuva in 2000, in just 10 years claim to be experts on deep mystical knowledge, and say whatever the heck they want under to cover of "remez", because remez can make insane ramblings sound like Torah.
2) People with a greater Jewish background but who learned some remez, and are conspiracy theorists, who abuse remez to predict the apocalypse.
3) Rabbis of previous generations making use of remez in unspecified fashion, where it is unclear whether or not this is abuse of the stated methodology.
4) The status of remez in Torah in general. E.g. can you provide convincing evidence that Chazal, meaning Tannaim and Amoraim, regularly made use of remez and sod?
I criticized level #2 here, and responded to aspects of other levels. And each level is a good question. But please don't elevate criticism of silly people abusing remez to support their conspiracy theories into an attack on Torah miSinai.
to be continued...
further, I wish you could hear yourself. In one breath you say:
What does gadol-worship have to do with this?
and in the very next breath you say:
And, WADR, you are not on the level of the Ben Ish Hai or the Baba Sali's grandfather.
!!!!!!!
You are legitimizing the methodology because rabbis you believe are holy shamans engaged in it. It is evidence from personality, not evidence from logic.
Meanwhile -- and I ask this in ignorance, so please fill in the blanks for me -- can you establish that these men were great talmidei chachamim without begging the question? (See the technical definition of the term.) If their Torah output was solely in the realm of what might or might not be silliness and bittul Torah, how can you use them as support for it not being bittul Torah?
(separate from this is the question of whether, if a talmid chacham believes something, it is automatically Torah.)
shabbat shalom,
josh
Re: 1, R' Akiva Yochi'ah.
Re: 2, I guess you and I disagree on what constitutes abuse of Remez.
Re: 3, it is highly unlikely that the rabbis mentioned would come to the level of abuse of Remez
Re: 4, of course Haza"l have used remez and Sod, including gematrias.
Re: what you call gadol-worship, that is not what I call gadol-worship. Believing what a gadol says regardless of the logic involved is not gadol-worship. It is called אמונת חכמים.
Shabbat Shalom,
Yaak
yaak:
1) yes, i had Rabbi Akiva in the back of my mind. the difference is that Rabbi Akiva studied for 24 years, and continued his studies even after that point. and the difference is also that Rabbi Akiva started with Hebrew as his first language, unlike the American Baal Teshuva in question. it is several years to get to the level of Torah knowledge of an FFB, from there several years to become a Torah scholar, and from there, several years before becoming an expert in nistar. there is a reason one must first **master** torat hanigleh before moving on to torat hanistar.
2) indeed. i don't think that the Baal Haturim abused remez. he started with great Torah knowledge and connected pesukim in the Torah with their associated midrash via remez methodology. and did this in a consistent manner.
and this sort of remez is defensible to my criticism in the main body of the post, with a slight degree of creativity.
perhaps because you have a different definition of remez and abuse of remez (such as connecting two random things in the world in the way you want, Internet to Cancer, Lettuce to Autism, based on gematria and kvetching) that you consider the criticism to have been an attack on the fundamentals of remez. if you want, ask, and I'll show you three defenses which possibly exempt much classic remez from the critique.
2.5) Do you consider this abuse of remez:
Naftali Bennet: New Premier of Israel?
One thing struck me right away with him: Naftali Bent = בנט = שטן in atbash. Just an observation at this point.
3) if it is highly unlikely, then why bring them in? but if they did abuse remez, or if all remez is indeed silly, then it remains silly even if the rabbis in question did it.
4) saying "of course" is not convincing proof. but note that you changed my "regularly made use of remez and sod" into " have used remez and Sod, including gematrias". You stripped out the word regularly. please don't point me to one or two midrashim, such as Eliezer as gematria 318. show me regular usage, to the same extent that they engaged in derash.
no, that is not called emunat chachamim. shutting off your brain is not called emunat chachamim. i've pointed you to this article in the past, and I will direct you to it again.
kol tuv,
josh
1) Agreed.
2) Some of that is indeed abuse of remez - along with the one in 2.5. Using remez to denigrate Jews is such abuse. However, I would be cautious to call everything you and I disagree with "abuse". That is abusing the word "abuse".
3) I don't understand your question here or your point.
4) You know that Remez and Sod isn't used to the same extent as Derush, so what your asking for is impossible. However, we know it is used as we have the gemara in Hagiga of "Arba'a Nichnesu LePardes". If you have another explanation for "Pardes" other than "Peshat Remez Derush Sod", I would love to hear it.
Furthermore, we have an entire Tanhuma (Korah Siman 12, with the same thing mentioned in Midrash Rabba) that is replete with Remazim. And re: Sod, have you heard of something called the Zohar? :-)
in terms of Tanchuma, read on Wikipedia about Tanchuma A, B, and C. Where in Midrash Rabba? Do you know that Bamidbar Rabba is rather late, from around the time of Rav Moshe haDarshan?
I don't need to explain Arabaa Nichnesu leFardes (paradise). I don't think, though, that "peshat remez derash sod" is the correct explanation. It is, rather, one of many retrojections of kabbalists, projecting onto Chazal their own beliefs. And indeed, I've heard of the Zohar, which indeed many kabbalists admit is of a later date than Rashbi. e.g. it was written by a late kabbalist inspired by Rashbi. or there are late additions.
My point in (3) is that you assumed my criticism was a take-down of all of remez. But one **could** say that, even if one admits that there are millions of facts floating around such than a human-made connection need not be a God-intended, connection, we could still say that:
a) there still are some connections that are God-intended, and someone with ruach hakodesh is privy to these connections.
b) within a constrained realm of pesukim and independently-arrived at midrashim, the existence of remez connections is less likely to be by chance and regardless reflects a God-intended connection.
c) like asmachtot, these allusions are mnemonic devices or legitimate word-play, to arrive at already legitimately known conclusions.
Whether one can or should say this is another story, but you leapt to the conclusion that I was criticizing / undermining remez in general in this particular post.
kol tuv,
josh
FWIW, Pardes is first used to mean pshat remez drash and sod in the late 13th century. Rashi, Rashbam, Raddak, Ibn Ezra and their predecessors (Saadia Gaon, Dunash, Menachem, Bachya, etc.) never use the term in that way.
If you're looking for another explanation of pardes, othert than its literal translation, why not look at Rashi on the gemara you cite. He renders it as 'alu larakia'
KT,
Hillel
Hillel, point taken, but your 13th century earliest dating would really depend on whether you hold of a late authorship of the Zohar, something I don't accept. Zohar Bereishit 26b says "Peshat, Remez, Derush, Sod" pretty clearly.
Yaak,
I didn't 'date' anything. My only point it that no Gaon or Rishon prior to the late 13th century refers to pardes in that way. It doesn't matter when you believe Zohar was authored; none of the commentators use that term earlier than that. Make of it what you will, but it seems strange for you to assume pardes must be an acronym related to methodology when even Rashi on the very daf you cite doesn't read it that way.
KT,
Hillel
And as I said, I concede that point about Rashi. But re: your statement "Pardes is first used to mean pshat remez drash and sod in the late 13th century." I believe this statement to be false.
To be clear; Pardes as an acronym does not, to my knowledge, appear anywhere in Zohar (including the page you cite). It does appear in the tikkunei zohar, but I do not believe the tikkunim are taken to be of ancient origin (though I could be mistaken.) See Liebes, Studies in Zohar.
Beardless of whether or not it so appears, and when Zohar was written, the fact remains that the interpretation of 'pardes' as and acronym for methodology does not appear to have been used by anyone in late antiquity or the early middle ages.
KT,
Hillel
*Regardless*
Hillel
Please check the page I cited again. It starts at the bottom of the page that I linked to. It clearly divides Pardes into Peshat, which it calls "שונה הלכות", Remez, which it calls Remez, Derush, which it calls דרשא, and Sod, which it calls מוחא. See the Sulam's explanation there.
Yaak,
One final point. Why would you write "Zohar Bereishit 26b says 'Peshat, Remez, Derush, Sod' pretty clearly."? You know full well that phrase does not appear there, and the only such reference on that page is in the commentary to the zohar, 'Hasulam' not the Zohar itself. Hasulam was published by R' Ashlag in 1953. How does this support your point?
KT,
Hillel
Based on your previous point, perhaps you did not realize this. The Zohar never says pardes is an acronym for peshat drash remez and sod. That is a much later convention.
KT,
Hillel
Oh, come on!
You'd have to live on an alternate universe to not understand that that Zohar means Peshat Remez Derush Sod! Please, offer another explanation. Sheesh!
Yaak,
OK, I'm done. You went from saying it's pretty clear in Zohar to relying on sarcasm and a commentary from the 1950's, all because the Zohar itself says nothing of the kind, at least not on the surface. In fact, the Zohar never even uses the terms peshat or sod in this context. The Zohar certainly never implies it's an acronym. Plus, of course, you haven't addressed the fact that for 1000 years no one mentions this acronym.
You can respond if you want, but I'm done.
KT,
Hillel
No, it was not sarcasm, it was frustration, and I didn't mean to offend, but it's amazing to me that you cannot concede this point. Sincere apologies if you took offense at my words, which it seems you have.
In fact, the Zohar never even uses the terms peshat or sod in this context.
The Zohar doesn't need to use those words - the Zohar doesn't always say things straightforward. However, think about it: it talked about ארבעה נכנסו לפרדס and it's dividing it up into four parts. The 2nd part is Remez and the 3rd part is Derasha. We now need to fill in the blanks. The first one is "פי שונה הלכות" which is a fancy way of saying Peshat, based on the Notrikon of Pishon. The fourth is Moha, which is a fancy way of saying "Sod".
The Zohar certainly never implies it's an acronym. It most certainly does, based on the context.
Plus, of course, you haven't addressed the fact that for 1000 years no one mentions this acronym.
This question can be applied to a more general idea. There are various explanations given for the hidden nature of the Zohar and its teachings. A famous one is that only Yehidei Segula throughout the generations preceding its revelation knew Sod, and didn't want to reveal it. If this explanation originated in the Zohar, it may be something that previous generations did not want to reveal.
however, what this amounts to, then, is that the proof to the existence of Sod and Remez as disciplines does not rely on the gemara, but on the Zohar, which itself was at the very least revealed late, and which has many other 'problems' which seem to date it late (e.g. Esnoga). i would not consider this to be satisfactory evidence that Chazal regularly engaged in sod and remez.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Whether there is evidence that is satisfactory to Josh or not doesn't bother me. The evidence is more than satisfactory to me. I gave you the Zohar, Tanhuma, Bemidbar Rabba, gemara Hagiga, but of course, none of that is satisfactory. We'll just have to leave it at that then.
you "gave me" all of these.
but e.g. you didn't give me the gemara Chagiga. you gave me the gemara Chagiga as **interpreted** by the much later Zohar. Which means all that you really gave me there was the Zohar.
you gave me Tanchuma siman 12, which is cited by Bamidbar Rabba, such that they are really a single source.
You even **linked** to that source. And you failed to notice, within that link, the following statement:
From here until the end of the parasha is not found in Yelamdeinu in manuscripts, as the printer in the Mantoba printing testifies. However, in all of the printings it is found.
!!!
In other words, your selected evidence is highly suspect. And you cite Bamidbar Rabba, which is the same exact material, and dates to the time of Rashi.
But in that source (and probably elsewhere in Tanchuma, let us grant), they do make use of gematria and notrikon in this source, including in some attributed statements. Is this as developed as we see in kabbalistic sources, with atbash, albam, roshei teivos, sofei teivos, im hakollel, etcetera?
can you blame me for not being convinced? hamotzi meichaveiro, alav haraaya.
kol tuv,
josh
Although it was (I think) the Ba'al Shem Tov's saying for which to credit with your presumption:
"since Hashem controls the world (down to every falling leaf)"
- today, because physics has already found more than 150 sub-particles inside the atom, we can give Hashem a little more credit in that He is now in control of much more than just a leaf's calisthenics - by, say, another 10 to the 80 power more particulates.
"Although it was (I think) the Ba'al Shem Tov's saying for which to credit with your presumption"
indeed, the Baal Shem Tov popularized it, but the Arab philosophers called the Kalam said it first. and the Rambam argued on them.
... "the Rambam argued on them"
What are you trying to say, Josh, that the Rambam refused to believe Hashem controls ALL of life; That Hashem created things with "built-in, predestined movement" or some such nonsense? Or that some goy stood on higher intellectual ground than the Rambam?
in the vanguard:
Why not read Moreh Nevuchim, and the Chinuch for yourself?
Moreh Nevuchim, read here. Chinuch, here. An excerpt from Sefer HaChinuch (#162):
There are some groups that believe that Providence applies to every living creature - both man and animal. There are also those who extend Providence further and say it applies to every entity in the world - living or non-living. In other words they say that the smallest entity only moves as response to G-d’s will and decrees. They go so far as to say that even when a single leaf falls off a tree that G-d decreed that it should fall. That it is impossible that its falling be delayed and advanced by an instant. However such a belief is ridiculous - extremely far from human intelligence.
Who says that just because the Baal Shem Tov stole the idea and formulation eventually from "some goy", as you put it, that "some goy" stood on "higher intellectual ground"? This regardless of which position is correct, btw.
It sure struck me as remarkable, what the Rambam and Chincuh wrote. In the meantime I also have found a source that relates to this from the Rebbe but I need to look longer and harder to know the subject. Thanks for those sources, Josh - they sure left me amazed, because today who does NOT believe in divine providence in every aspect?
I did not understand what you meant by the Baal Shem Tov "stealing" a goy's idea, as if the BST would read goyishe books. The Rambam may well have had to to dispute with them, or for some other reasons.
in the vanguard:
indeed, it is surprising to most people (myself included) when they first hear it, because of how entrenched the "frum" kalam position is in current mainstream frum circles. that is not to say that i don't know people who hold like the rambam in this.
a bit of possibly helpful background. under the reign of the Abbasid caliph al-Ma'amun, in the early 800s, they translated many Greek scientific and philosophic texts into Arabic. this had a profound impact on Muslims, who grappled differences between Greek philosophy and Muslim theology. The Kalam were Muslim philosophers who tried to integrate and respond. At the same time, Jews, such as Saadia Gaon, had their own responses / integration to this philosophy, as part of a Jewish kalam. And Rambam tried to integrate the two (Torah and philosophy) in Moreh Nevuchim. He presents various approaches, which naturally includes the pure philosophical approach, the Arabic kalam, the Jewish kalam, Chazal, and his own position (!).
It is certainly possible that the Baal Shem Tov took the idea from some Jewish author who eventually took it from the Muslim kalam, rather than reading it directly. That is what I meant by "eventually". Though I don't think that Rambam, who famously asserted שמע האמת ממי שאמרה, had a problem with reading these non-Jewish books.
Post a Comment