Ramban, the perfect encoding of Torah, and hidden messages such as Torah codes

From the Ramban's hakdama to his commentary on Chumash:

עוד יש בידינו קבלה של אמת, כי כל התורה כולה שמותיו של הקב"ה, שהתיבות מתחלקות לשמות בענין אחד. כאילו תחשוב על דרך משל, כי פסוק בראשית יתחלק לתיבות אחרות, כגון: בראש יתברא אלהים. וכל התורה כן, מלבד צירופיהן וגימטריותיהן של שמות.

וכבר כתב רבינו שלמה בפירושיו בתלמוד, ענין השם הגדול של ע"ב, באיזה ענין הוא, בשלשה פסוקים: ויסע ויבא ויט. ומפני זה ספר תורה שטעה בו באות אחת, במלא או בחסר - פסול. כי זה הענין יחייב אותנו לפסול ס"ת שיחסר בו ו' אחד ממלות אותם שבאו מהם ל"ט מלאים בתורה, או שיכתוב הו' באחד משאר החסרים, וכן כיוצא בזה, אע"פ שאינו מעלה ולא מוריד כפי העולה במחשבה.

וזה הענין שהביאו גדולי המקרא למנות כל מלא וכל חסר, וכל התורה והמקרא, ולחבר ספרים במסורת עד עזרא הסופר הנביא, שנשתדל בזה, כמו שדרשו מפסוק ויקראו בספר בתורת האלהים מפורש ושום שכל ויבינו במקרא. ונראה שהתורה הכתובה באש שחורה על גבי אש לבנה, בענין הזה שהזכרנו היה, שהיתה הכתיבה רצופה בלי הפסק תיבות, והיה אפשר בקריאתה שתקרא על דרך השמות, ותקרא על דרך קריאתנו בענין התורה והמצוה, ונתנה למשה רבינו על דרך קריאת המצות, ונמסר לו על פה קריאתה בשמות.

וכן יכתבו השם הגדול שהזכרתי כולו רצוף, ויתחלק לתיבות של שלוש שלוש אותיות, ולחלוקים אחרים רבים, כפי השימוש לבעלי הקבלה. 

"There is also in our hands a true tradition that the entire Torah is composed entirely of Divine names. That the words are divided into Names in one matter. As if you would consider, by way of analogy, that the pasuk of Bereishit would be divided into other words. Such as [in place of בראשית ברא אלהים, "In the beginning of God's creation...], בראש יתברא אלהים. And all the Torah so, aside from the combinations and the gematriot of the names.


And Rabbeinu Shlomo {=Rashi} already wrote in his commentary to the Talmud [on Succah 45a] the matter of the great Name of 72 [letters], and in what manner it is, in three verses, ויסע ויבא ויט. [Meaning, there are three consecutive verses in a row of 72 letters each, which can be combined to form Divine Names.] And because of this, a Sefer Torah in which a single letter is in error, as a malei or a chaser, is invalid. For this matter requires us to invalidate a Sefer Torah which is missing a single vav from the word אותם, from which 39 are written malei in the Torah. Or if the vav were written in one of the other ones [about 180] which are supposed to be chaser, and so the like in this, even though as far as one might think, it neither helps nor harms.


And this matter is what brought the greats [experts] of Scripture to count every malei and chaser, and the entire Torah and Scriptures, and to compose books on the masoret until Ezra the Sofer and Navi, that we should endeavor in this, as they darshened from the verse  ויקראו בספר בתורת האלהים מפורש ושום שכל ויבינו במקרא. And it appears that the Torah, written with black fire upon white fire, in this manner that we have mentioned it was, that the writing was continuous, without a space between words, and it was possible in reading it that one could read it by way of the Names, and to read it by way of our reading it in the matter of Torah and Mitzvot. And it was given to Moshe Rabbenu by way of the reading of the mitzvos, and it was transmitted to him Orally the reading via the Names.


And so do they write the great name I have mentioned, entirely continuously, and it is divided into words of three letters each, and into many other divisions as well, according to the utilizations of the masters of kabbalah."


The Minchas Shai is aware of this Ramban, and cites this in his lengthy introduction to his work, as one of his motivations for working to establish the proper Masoretic text.

At the end of the day, with the many many divergences recorded, discussed, and analyzed in Minchas Shai, one comes to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that our current sifrei Torah are correct in every malei and chaser. There are too many disputes among masoretic notes, and diverges from the Torah text before various Rishonim and before Chazal.

Besides that, there is the statement in Masechet Soferim 6:4 indicating a compromise harmonization between various scrolls in the Azarah (or of Ezra). And Kiddushin daf 30 claims that gachon is the middle letter in the Torah. But it is NOT, in our counting of present-day sifrei Torah, nor was it before the Amoraim, which prompts Rav Yosef to say that we are not experts in malei and chaser. So all Sifrei Torah are in error, and would be pasul based on this insistence.

See, however (footnote 34), Rama on Orach Chaim 143:4 where an error in malei / chaser would invalidate only lechatchila, not bedieved, as understood by the Nodah Be-Yehuda on Yoreh Deah 2:178, and also the Minchas Chinuch who holds that this would not invalidate a sefer Torah at all.

Torah Codes are based, in part, on this kabbalistic concept. The text of the Torah in its present form is perfect and can be used to discover hidden meanings. But if one disagrees with this assertion -- and there is strong reason to do so -- then all Torah codes are thrown off.

Rabbi Avner the apostate in a Haazinu Torah Code

Summary: Except of course that it is a likely a bubbe mayseh, and it is no Torah Code.

Post: In Seder HaDoros, by Rabbi Yechiel ben Rabbi Shlomo Halprin, on page 56b, written about 1697, we read:

"And I have received a tradition that the Ramban had a student by the name of Rabbi Avner, who became a Sadducee {presumably, Christian; perhaps a Karaite?}. And his mazal cased him to become great, and he was awesome throughout the land. After these days, on Yom Kippur, he sent and brought the Ramban his teacher before him. He slaughtered by himself a pig, cut it up, cooked it, and ate it. And after he ate it, he asked the rav how many kareses he had violated. And the rav answered him that it was four. And he said that it was five. And thus, he wished to dispute with his teacher. And the Ramban cast his eyes upon him in anger, and that man fell silent, for he still retailed a bit of fear of his teacher. And in the end, the rav asked the man what brought him to apostasy. And he answered him that one time, he heard him {=the Ramban} darshen in parashat Haazinu that in that parashah were included all the mitzvos and all the things in the world. And since this was to him something impossible, he became another person. And the rav answered and said 'I still maintain this. Ask what you will.' And the man was extremely astonished and said to him, 'If so, please show me if my name name is written there.' And the Ramban answered, 'You have spoken well, that which you seek from me.' And immediately, he went into the corner and prayed, and the pasuk came to his mouth {Haazinu 32:26}, 

כו  אָמַרְתִּי, אַפְאֵיהֶם;  {ר}  אַשְׁבִּיתָה מֵאֱנוֹשׁ, זִכְרָם.  {ס}

26 I thought I would make an end of them, I would make their memory cease from among men;

that the third letter of each word spells out the name of the man, which is R' Avner. And when he heard this matter, his face fell, and he asked his teacher if there was any cure to his hurt? And the rav said to him, you have heard the words of the verse. And the rav went on his way, and immediately, the man took a boat without sailors or oars, and went wherever the wind blew, and no more was known of him. (And see in Emek haMelech, shaar rishon, perek dalet.)"

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, in telling this over -- see here at Shirat Devorah -- stresses that the rabbinic title, the R', was still present in his name. This is the sort of thing that the Rebbe, with his focus on kiruv rechokim, would notice and stress. I don't know that this was the intent, more than the focus on the negative message in the verse towards an apostate, as well as his path towards making amends.

This is an awesome story, in which we see the ruach hakodesh of the Ramban, the comeuppance of an apostate, and the message that the Torah is all-encompassing, and thus certainly relevant to our own lives. In addition, it seems to be a bolstering of the Torah codes, since someone as great as the Ramban put forth this Torah code.

Except, of course, it is not a Torah Code. There is no regular skip interval. Between the first few letters are six letters, but between the nun and the resh of Avner, there are only five letters. Rather, it is a more classic sort of kabbalistic derasha, finding the Xth letter of each subsequent word. This is the sort of thing we find regularly in Baal HaTurim. And Torah Codes proponents might well dismiss this sort of code as mathematically irrelevant, since it is not a priori. After all, one needs just look for any skip until one encounters one word, Avner. I say this just to stress the divide that exists between classic derashot of this sort and the Torah Codes. It is a different sort of derasha, where they make up their own, mathematically-grounded, rules.

Who was this Avner? If he really rose to such prominence and fame, shouldn't we have heard about him?

Well, it turns out that there was a famous apostate named R' Avner, in about the same time and place as the Ramban. The sefer Seder HaDoros does not identify him in particular, but it makes sense that he is referring to Avner of Burgos. The Ramban lived in Gerona and Avner was of Valladolid, both cities in Spain. Here is a bit about Avner, but read the whole article (drawn initially from JewishEncyclopedia):

Abner of Burgos (ca. 1270-ca. 1347, or a little later) was a Jewish philosopher, a convert to Christianity and polemical writer against his former religion. Known after his conversion as Alfonso of Valladolid.

As a student he acquired a certain mastery in Biblical and Talmudical studies, to which he added an intimate acquaintance with Peripatetic philosophy and astrology. He was graduated as a physician at 25, but throughout a long life he seems to have found the struggle for existence a hard one. In 1295, he reportedly treated a number of Jews for distress following their experiences in the failed messianic movement in Avila. As Abner reports in his Moreh Zedek/Mostrador de justicia, he himself "had a dream" in which a similar experience of crosses mysteriously appearing on his garments drove him to question his ancestral faith.

Not being of those contented ones who, as Moses Narboni says in his Maamar ha-Beḥirah (Essay on the Freedom of the Will; quoted by Grätz, p. 488), are satisfied with a peck of locust beans from one Friday to another, he resolved to embrace Christianity though at the advanced age of sixty, according to Pablo de Santa María (Scrutinium Scripturarum); according to other writers he took this step soon after he was graduated in medicine. According to the statements of his contemporaries, such as Narboni, he converted, not from spiritual conviction, but for the sake of temporal advantage. Something of the apostate's pricking conscience seems to have remained with him, however, although he was immediately rewarded with a sacristan's post in the prominent Metropolitan Church in Valladolid (whence he took the name of Alfonso of Valladolid). The argument that Abner converted for material gain is put in to question by the fact that his post as a sacristan was extremely modest and he never, throughout his long and public polemical career after conversion (ca 1320-1347) advanced in his post to something more lucrative.

The "problem" with this Avner being the student of the Ramban in question is that Abner of Burgos was born in 1270 in Spain, while Ramban died in 1270 in Eretz Yisrael. They would not have met, and so certainly he would not have been a student. Furthermore, there are no records of this Avner of Burgos repenting and going off on a boat, never to be heard from again. Still, I would stand by the identification, and say that whoever composed the story figured that this was someone who lived a generation after the Ramban in Spain, so it makes sense to make him a student of the Ramban. Also, because apparently Ramban did make a statement about everything in Jewish history being contained in Haazinu, so it just worked out so perfectly.

Rabbi Joshua Hoffman discusses this story here.

The Sifrei praises the shira, or poem, of Ha'azinu, because it includes the present, the past, the future, and the world to come. Ramban and Rabbeinu Bachya both write that all of Jewish history is included in the parsha of Ha'azinu. Ramban, in fact, writes that it is called 'shira' because the Jews had a practice of reading it regularly as a song, with joy, and Rambam, in his Mishneh Torah, Laws of Prayer, 7:13, mentions a practice of reading Ha'azinu every day. Rabbi Yechiel Halperin,an eighteenth century ancestor of the famed Rabbi Gavriel Zev Margolis, whose seventieth yahrzeit was observed on the tenth of Elul this past year ( 5765), mentions, in his Seder HaDoros, a story regarding a student of the Ramban, Abner of Burgos. Abner became an apostate and told the Ramban that it was this teaching of his, that every person can find a hint to himself in parshas Ha'azinu, that led him to abandon the Jewish faith. Ramban then demonstrated to Abner that his name is, indeed, alluded to in the verse, "I said I will scatter them, I will cause their memory to cease from man" (Devorim, 32:26). Abner was so overwhelmed by this proof, so the story goes, that he sailed off alone on a boat, never to be heard form again. it [sic] While this story, as many of the stories found in Seder HaDoros, may be apocryphal, it bespeaks a profound truth, as we will see. 

(A bit about Rabbi Hoffman and his Netvort:

Netvort, founded by Rabbi Josh Hoffman in 1998/5758, is an essay on the weekly Torah portion ("parsha") that aims to find a message meaningful to the contemporary reader through use of rabbinic commentators from throughout the ages. Netvort currently has some 600 email subscribers.

Known for decades as "The Hoffer", the author studied in Skokie Yeshiva, Yeshivat Mercaz HoRav, and Brisk Rabbinical College, where he received semicha from Rav Aharon Soloveichik. He also studied under Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik at Yeshiva University, as well as in YU's Kollel Elyon. He received an MA in Modern Jewish History at YU's Bernard Revel Graduate School, where he is currently pursuing a PhD.

)

Thus, he agrees with the identification of R' Avner with Avner of Burgos, and also that this story, along with many stories in Seder HaDoros, may be apocryphal. "Apocryphal" is the scholarly term. We would simply say that it is a bubbe mayseh.

If I had to guess, the story began as someone (a random person, perhaps a rabbi) finding a negative encoding of this sort for Avner in Haazinu. (Did this Avner ever criticize this rabbinic statement?) They promulgated this as a response to the apostate that everybody hated. And the story developed from there.

It is, perhaps, an effective story, to convey important lessons. Still, it would be nice if it were actually, you know, true.

Minchas Shai on the Gog-bama Torah Code

Yeranen Yaakov has been running an English translation / presentation of someone's masterpiece as to why 2012 is the time of mashiach, according to (mis-)interpretations of Zohar and the Gra. You can read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7 there.

In part 5, we read:

 Similarly, the Zohar notes that close to the end of the 72 years, the nations of the world will be energized against Yerushalayim, and it will be "and it is a time of trouble unto Jacob, but out of it shall he be saved," that which unfortunately, we already see in our days that the United States is going against Yerushalayim. And also the President of the United States Obama [אובאמה] is hinted to in the verse (Yehezkel 38:2): "בֶּן-אָדָם, שִׂים פָּנֶיךָ אֶל-גּוֹג אֶרֶץ הַמָּגוֹג--נְשִׂיא, רֹאשׁ מֶשֶׁךְ וְתֻבָל; וְהִנָּבֵא, עָלָיו. וְאָמַרְתָּ, כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה" ['Son of man, set thy face toward Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, and say: Thus saith the Lord GOD...] with a 7-letter skip. [YY - See Yehudi Yerushalmi and Shirat Devorah as examples where this was mentioned previously.]  And also Magog, the land of Gog, in gematria is 52, which equals the number of states in the United States [YY - I'll assume the author is including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, but this is a bit far-fetched.  צ"ע.]

 I'd like to consider this Obama Torah Code for a moment. Firstly, it is not really a Torah code. It is a Navi code. While I think the Torah codes are nonsense, all the research, and I am pretty sure your typical Torah code, is done on Torah, not on Neviim and Ketuvim. And there is a theological divide between the two. There is a kabbalistic idea of the Torah being a long encoded Divine Name; not so for Neviim and Ketuvim. And Torah was direct Divine revelation to a prophet whose caliber will not be repeated, such that we might expect to find hidden messages in Torah more than that of some random navi. And so on and so forth. So a 'Torah'-code in Yechezkel is somewhat out of the ordinary.

There is also the question of whether this 'Torah'-code even works. It assumes a skip length of seven. But Minchas Shai on this pasuk reads:

On Yechezkel 38:2, "In most precise sefarim the vav is missing {in Tuval}, and so too the one in the pasuk after it. And there are sefarim in which both of them are malei {with the vav present}."

Thus, the entire Ezekiel Code is predicated on assuming that the text we have in our Mikraos Gedolos is letter-accurate. But it is possible that it is not, and that the relatively few precise sefarim which have both Tuvals malei are correct. If so, then this would be the seven letter skip:

בֶּן-אָדָם, שִׂים פָּנֶיךָ אֶל-גּוֹג אֶרֶץ הַמָּגוֹג--נְשִׂיא, רֹאשׁ מֶשֶׁךְ וְתובָל; וְהִנָּבֵא, עָלָיו. וְאָמַרְתָּ, כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה

This would them spell Onoy. I don't know who Onoy is, but if he is Gog, then surely Barack Hussein Obama is not!

There is also the wiggle room issue. In Hebrew, one can spell Obama in a number of ways. And thus one can run these searches and find the best match for the content you want, and then select the spelling later. As is pointed out in this blog, this is not the standard way of spelling Obama, with two alephs. Rather, from their campaign pins.

Indeed, doing a Google News search on recent news, on the two spellings, without the second aleph yielded about 625 hits, from a number of different Israeli news sources, while with that second aleph yielded only 23 hits, from far fewer sites.

There is also the undercurrent of lunacy that pervades this sort of Obama / Gog allegation. It is associated with conspiracy theories about his birth certificate, associations with the Illuminati, the New World Order, and so on and so forth. I opposed it back when it was President Gog Bush and I oppose it for President Barack Gogbama. It is silly.

I suppose he included it because it makes for even "better" proof of the coming apocalypse. But I think that this is one instance in which Chazal's statement of ""kol hamosif, gorea " strongly applies.

Was Korach a Gilgul of Kayin or of Yisro? Also, the earliest Torah code, perhaps known to Rishonim!

Summary: One kabbalistic source says Kayin, and one says Yisro? Can they be harmonized?

Post: Gilgul is likely a foreign superstitious import, as Rav Saadia Gaon asserts. Yet is is deeply embedded in kabbalah.




Thus, in this week's parsha, Rabbi Menachem Tziyuni (a mid-14th century kabbalist -- see Daat's Encyclopedia Yehudit), we read:

Thus, he will hint to us as he has himself received. The pasuk stated {Bereshit 9}:

ו  שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם, בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ:  כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם.

6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.

and this means within that man himself. And since you drowned someone, you were drowned, etc. And so too Hevel killed Kayin {and?} in the days of Moshe and the death of Korach was via swallowing {up in the earth} as midah keneged middah, as is known. And just as Korach investigated and darshened in the warf {shesi}, place the woof {erev} and you will find a wondrous secret.

I don't know what the secret is. However, I have my unfounded suspicions. And I am not a kabbalist and not privy to their secrets and their methods, but I can try to make an semi-educated guess.

Where was Korach choker vedoresh? In "Vayikach Korach". That is where Chazal explain that he had various arguments based on a techeles string on a beged entirely of techeles, or based on a mezuzah on a room entirely full of sefarim.

And if we form a matrix, counting certain letters across (=the warp, the shesi), we will find one secret. And if we then move down the matrix, counting certain letters down (=the woof, the erev) we will find another aspect. Shesi veErev means horizontally and vertically. I don't know that this is a Torah code, but the language can support it. And the Gra, a kabbalist, had various insights based on skipping letters.

Reuven Wolfeld writes the following insight in Truth in Numbers: Insights Into the Book of Bereshis:

There is thus a 'Torah Code' that brings in Kayin and Hevel, just here in the beginning of Korach. That is, highlighting Kayin in red and Hevel in blue:

א  וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב, וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת--בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן.

1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men;

This is an ELS skip of five followed by an ELS skip of two. Here is a graph I put together to demonstrate it:

My guess is that he is not speaking of Hevel at all; rather, just start your count from Vayikach Korach and arrange it as a matrix of five across. And then count words going vertically down. Thus, you have the horizontal plain text and the vertical secret text. And we are only supposed to go three rows down. Hevel is not part of it, since it does not form a vertical. Maybe you can form the words החי and קבר working vertically in those three rows.

I don't know how Hevel specifically killed Kayin in the days of Moshe, except if Moshe Rabbenu is the gilgul of Hevel. And that is how I have seen it reported.

I'll just make explicit what was otherwise implicit. Surely this pasuk is a part of it. In Bereishit 4:

יא  וְעַתָּה, אָרוּר אָתָּה, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר פָּצְתָה אֶת-פִּיהָ, לָקַחַת אֶת-דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ מִיָּדֶךָ.

11 And now cursed art thou from the ground, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand.

In both places the ground swallowed them up, in Bereishit Hevel and in Korach, Kayin. And this is the midah keneged midah that Tziyuni was speaking about.

On the other hand, according to the Arizal, Moshe was Hevel's gilgul and Yisro was Kayin's gilgul. Thus:

The Arizal reveals for us a fascinating a piece of information which can provide us with a deeper understanding of several points in the beginning of Parshas Yisro. The Arizal writes that Moshe was a gilgul (reincarnation) of Hevel and Yisro was a gilgul of Kayin. His student Rav Chaim Vital notes that this is hinted to by the first letters of the words “Ani chosencha Yisro” – I am your father-in-law Yisro – which spell the word “achi” – my brother.

I would note a more straightforward derivation that this roshei teivos hint. According to the Mechilta, Yisro had seven names. Two of them were Chever and Keini, presumably based on חבר הקיני, husband of Yael. If Yisro is קיני, that he is Kayin.

Can two people simultaneously be someone's gilgul. Someone asked that question, Rabbi Yaakov Shlomo Weinberg:

Although he rarely spoke on these matters, the Mashgiach, Mori V’Rebbi Horav Dovid Kronglas zt”l, once mentioned that Korach was a gilgul (reincarnation)  of Kayin. (Indeed, they both fell because of the trait of jealousy. ) It’s also brought in seforim (books) that Moshe was a gilgul of Hevel. (Moshe is an acronym – in Hebrew – of Moshe, Shes  and Hevel .) Regarding Kayin, the pasuk (verse) states, “…min ho’adomoh asher potzetzoh es pihoh…”   (You are cursed from the ground which opened its mouth to take the blood of your brother from your hand.) Regarding Korach it says, “…upotzetzoh ho’adomoh es pihoh…”   That which Kayin did to Hevel, Moshe/Hevel did midoh k’neged midoh (measure for measure) to Korach/Kayin.
An Aside
As an aside, the Mashgiach once mentioned that Yisro (Moshe’s father-in-law) was a gilgul of Kayin. I asked him afterwards how could Korach and Yisro both be gilgulim of Kayin since they were contemporaries. He answered me that gilgul doesn’t necessarily mean the whole person is a gilgul. Rather, various aspects or traits can be a gilgul by one person and other aspects by another. 

I would answer in a different manner. While Chazal were content with inter-Biblical allusions and would call it maaseh avot siman levanim; or would draw midrashic comparisons and contrast between various stories or character traits, kabbalists have this new tool at their disposal, to claim that this instance of parallel is actually an instance of gilgul.

Maybe two people cannot simultaneously be someone's gilgul. And maybe it really was a machlokes. This certainly is not the first dispute in kabbalah. Of course, we cannot have a dispute in kabbalah, if it really is kabbalah. In other words, we would like to believe that these are mystical traditions and secrets, going all the way back to Moshe Rabbenu, that the holy Arizal is revealing to us, or that the holy Tziyuni is revealing to us. But in reality they are simply derashot created by human beings, applying kabbalistic hermeneutical methods, and operating in a kabbalistic framework and worldview.

If these are all derivations by human beings trying to discover the truth, then there is room for machlokes. But I am not sure that there is room for such an explanation in the mystical worldview, when it comes to contradiction in kabbalah.

{Update: See the comment section, where Arizal explicitly has different aspects of Korah in different contemporaries. So it certainly is possible, and would handily answer the question, just as Rav Kronglas did above. And this is the standard current understanding of gilgul, as different sparks of a root soul.}

Ibn Caspi, and the dots over Aharon; also, a Torah Codes connection!

Summary: Ibn Caspi's note that plural and singular of pakad and pakdu would both be acceptable verbs might shed light on just how the variant of משה vs. משה ואהרן came about. Also, how Aharon's absence would mess up the Torah codes.

Post: In parashat Bamidbar, there is a pasuk with dots over the words Aharon. As I discussed in a previous post, a midrash explains that this indicates that Ezra haSofer was unsure about whether a word should be present, based on different textual witnesses which stood before him, and so, to satisfy both in an halachically acceptable manner, he wrote the word in the sefer Torah but put dots over it, where dots are typically a scribal convention for noting that a word should be removed. I further noted in that post that indeed, the Samaritans are missing the word Aharon on that verse. (Septuagint and Peshita have it, however.) In a follow-up post, I noted the implications, in terms of the eighth principle of faith of the Rambam as well as the antiquity of trup.

I will add to this the connection to Torah codes. Let us say a Torah code passes through this pasuk. If the word should not be there, for it was not in fact part of the Torah that Hashem transmitted to Moshe in the Midbar, then five letters are missing. If so, if we have a skip of say 50, and the previous letter was before this pasuk and the next was after this pasuk, then we would be identifying the wrong letter. And so for many many codes, and many words discovered within the code.

The other day, I saw an interesting comment in the commentary of Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi on a related pasuk, in the first rather than third perek. That pasuk:

מד  אֵלֶּה הַפְּקֻדִים אֲשֶׁר פָּקַד מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, וּנְשִׂיאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, אִישׁ:  אִישׁ-אֶחָד לְבֵית-אֲבֹתָיו, הָיוּ.

44 These are those that were numbered, which Moses and Aaron numbered, and the princes of Israel, being twelve men; they were each one for his fathers' house.

Ibn Caspi writes:

אלו אמר אשר  פקדו היה נכון ג״כ
"Had it stated which they {pakdu} numbered it would also have been correct."

His point is that when you have a list of people, and an action, the verb could be in the singular or the plural form, and both are acceptable. (We could say, perhaps, that the verb is distributing across all actors. Or that the close binding selects the number and gender, but it still applies to all actors.) Compare with ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה על אֹדות האשה הכֻּשית אשר לקח כי אשה כֻשית לקח, where vatedabeir is singular and feminine, even though another, male, actor is present.

I was thinking that perhaps this is related to the pasuk under consideration. Our pasuk reads:

לט  כָּל-פְּקוּדֵי הַלְוִיִּם אֲשֶׁר פָּקַד מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, עַל-פִּי יְהוָה--לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם:  כָּל-זָכָר מִבֶּן-חֹדֶשׁ וָמַעְלָה, שְׁנַיִם וְעֶשְׂרִים אָלֶף.  {ס}

39 All that were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered at the commandment of the LORD, by their families, all the males from a month old and upward, were twenty and two thousand. {S}

Perhaps that there are two actors, Moshe and Aharon, yet a singular verb, pakud, made some scribe second guess the presence of Aharon. Since on the surface, it looks wrong, but on careful consideration, it is legitimate, the principle of lectio difficilior applies -- the more 'difficult' word or phrasing is more likely original. Even so, Ezra HaSofer considered both readings as eminently plausible, and we should keep that in mind as well.

Is the Rambam Torah-Code Against Chazal?

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

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

To quickly summarize it, people ascribe to the RambaN, Nachmanides, the following hint in roshei teivos to the RambaM, Maimonides. In parshas Bo, in Shemot 11:9:

ט  וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, לֹא-יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיכֶם פַּרְעֹה--לְמַעַן רְבוֹת מוֹפְתַי, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.

9 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Pharaoh will not hearken unto you; that My wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

1ו 2י 3א 4מ 5ר 6י 7ה 8ו 9ה 10א 11ל 12מ 13ש 14ה 15ל 16א 17י 18ש 19מ 20ע 21א 22ל 23י 24כ 25ם line 1 משנה Mishneh 12 +50 26פ 27ר 28ע 29ה 30ל 31מ 32ע 33ן 34ר 35ב 36ו 37ת 38מ 39ו 40פ 41ת 42י 43ב 44א 45ר 46ץ 47מ 48צ 49ר 50י line 2 רמבם Rambam 51ם 52ו 53מ 54ש 55ה 56ו 57א 58ה 59ר 60ן 61ע 62ש 63ו 64א 65ת 66כ 67ל 68ה 69מ 70פ 71ת 72י 73ם 74ה 75א line 3 76ל 77ה 78ל 79פ 80נ 81י 82פ 83ר 84ע 85ה 86ו 87י 88ח 89ז 90ק 91י 92ה 93ו 94ה 95א 96ת 97ל 98ב 99פ 100ר line 4 101ע 102ה 103ו 104ל 105א 106ש 107ל 108ח 109א 110ת 111ב 112נ 113י 114י 115ש 116ר 117א 118ל 119מ 120א 121ר 122צ 123ו 124ו 125י line 5 126א 127מ 128ר 129י 130ה 131ו 132ה 133א 134ל 135מ 136ש 137ה 138ו 139א 140ל 141א 142ה 143ר 144ן 145ב 146א 147ר 148ץ 149מ 150צ line 6 151ר 152י 153ם 154ל 155א 156מ 157ר 158ה 159ח 160ד 161ש 162ה 163ז 164ה 165ל 166כ 167ם 168ר 169א 170ש 171ח 172ד 173ש 174י 175ם line 7 176ר 177א 178ש 179ו 180ן 181ה 182ו 183א 184ל 185כ 186ם 187ל 188ח 189ד 190ש 191י 192ה 193ש 194נ 195ה 196ד 197ב 198ר 199ו 200א line 8 201ל 202כ 203ל 204ע 205ד 206ת 207י 208ש 209ר 210א 211ל 212ל 213א 214מ 215ר 216ב 217ע 218ש 219ר 220ל 221ח 222ד 223ש 224ה 225ז line 9 226ה 227ו 228י 229ק 230ח 231ו 232ל 233ה 234ם 235א 236י 237ש 238ש 239ה 240ל 241ב 242י 243ת 244א 245ב 246ת 247ש 248ה 249ל 250ב line 10 251י 252ת 253ו 254א 255ם 256י 257מ 258ע 259ט 260ה 261ב 262י 263ת 264מ 265ה 266י 267ו 268ת 269מ 270ש 271ה 272ו 273ל 274ק 275ח line 11 276ה 277ו 278א 279ו 280ש 281כ 282נ 283ו 284ה 285ק 286ר 287ב 288א 289ל 290ב 291י 292ת 293ו 294ב 295מ 296כ 297ס 298ת 299נ 300פ line 12 301ש 302ת 303א 304י 305ש 306ל 307פ 308י 309א 310כ 311ל 312ו 313ת 314כ 315ס 316ו 317ע 318ל 319ה 320ש 321ה 322ש 323ה 324ת 325מ line 13 326י 327ם 328ז 329כ 330ר 331ב 332ן 333ש 334נ 335ה 336י 337ה 338י 339ה 340ל 341כ 342ם 343מ 344ן 345ה 346כ 347ב 348ש 349י 350ם line 14 351ו 352מ 353ן 354ה 355ע 356ז 357י 358ם 359ת 360ק 361ח 362ו 363ו 364ה 365י 366ה 367ל 368כ 369ם 370ל 371מ 372ש 373מ 374ר 375ת line 15 376ע 377ד 378א 379ר 380ב 381ע 382ה 383ע 384ש 385ר 386י 387ו 388ם 389ל 390ח 391ד 392ש 393ה 394ז 395ה 396ו 397ש 398ח 399ט 400ו line 16 401א 402ת 403ו 404כ 405ל 406ק 407ה 408ל 409ע 410ד 411ת 412י 413ש 414ר 415א 416ל 417ב 418י 419ן 420ה 421ע 422ר 423ב 424י 425ם line 17 426ו 427ל 428ק 429ח 430ו 431מ 432ן 433ה 434ד 435ם 436ו 437נ 438ת 439נ 440ו 441ע 442ל 443ש 444ת 445י 446ה 447מ 448ז 449ו 450ז line 18 451ת 452ו 453ע 454ל 455ה 456מ 457ש 458ק 459ו 460ף 461ע 462ל 463ה 464ב 465ת 466י 467ם 468א 469ש 470ר 471י 472א 473כ 474ל 475ו line 19 476א 477ת 478ו 479ב 480ה 481ם 482ו 483א 484כ 485ל 486ו 487א 488ת 489ה 490ב 491ש 492ר 493ב 494ל 495י 496ל 497ה 498ה 499ז 500ה line 20 501צ 502ל 503י 504א 505ש 506ו 507מ 508צ 509ו 510ת 511ע 512ל 513מ 514ר 515ר 516י 517ם 518י 519א 520כ 521ל 522ה 523ו 524א 525ל line 21 526ת 527א 528כ 529ל 530ו 531מ 532מ 533נ 534ו 535נ 536א 537ו 538ב 539ש 540ל 541מ 542ב 543ש 544ל 545ב 546מ 547י 548ם 549כ 550י line 22 551א 552ם 553צ 554ל 555י 556א 557ש 558ר 559א 560ש 561ו 562ע 563ל 564כ 565ר 566ע 567י 568ו 569ו 570ע 571ל 572ק 573ר 574ב 575ו line 23 576ו 577ל 578א 579ת 580ו 581ת 582י 583ר 584ו 585מ 586מ 587נ 588ו 589ע 590ד 591ב 592ק 593ר 594ו 595ה 596נ 597ת 598ר 599מ 600מ line 24 601נ 602ו 603ע 604ד 605ב 606ק 607ר 608ב 609א 610ש 611ת 612ש 613ר 614פ 615ו 616ו 617כ 618כ 619ה 620ת 621א 622כ 623ל 624ו 625א line 25 626ת 627ו 628מ 629ת 630נ 631י 632כ 633ם 634ח 635ג 636ר 637י 638ם 639נ 640ע 641ל 642י 643כ 644ם 645ב 646ר 647ג 648ל 649י 650כ line 26 תורה Torah 626 +50 651ם 652ו 653מ 654ק 655ל 656כ 657ם 658ב 659י 660ד 661כ 662ם 663ו 664א 665כ 666ל 667ת 668ם 669א 670ת 671ו 672ב 673ח 674פ 675ז line 27 676ו 677ן 678פ 679ס 680ח 681ה 682ו 683א 684ל 685י 686ה 687ו 688ה 689ו 690ע 691ב 692ר 693ת 694י 695ב 696א 697ר 698ץ 699מ 700צ line 28 701ר 702י 703ם 704ב 705ל 706י 707ל 708ה 709ה 710ז 711ה 712ו 713ה 714כ 715י 716ת 717י 718כ 719ל 720ב 721כ 722ו 723ר 724ב 725א line 29 726ר 727ץ 728מ 729צ 730ר 731י 732ם 733מ 734א 735ד 736ם 737ו 738ע 739ד 740ב 741ה 742מ 743ה 744ו 745ב 746כ 747ל 748א 749ל 750ה line 30 751י 752מ 753צ 754ר 755י 756ם 757א 758ע 759ש 760ה 761ש 762פ 763ט 764י 765ם 766א 767נ 768י 769י 770ה 771ו 772ה 773ו 774ה 775י line 31 776ה 777ה 778ד 779ם 780ל 781כ 782ם 783ל 784א 785ת 786ע 787ל 788ה 789ב 790ת 791י 792ם 793א 794ש 795ר 796א 797ת 798ם 799ש 800ם line 32 801ו 802ר 803א 804י 805ת 806י 807א 808ת 809ה 810ד 811ם 812ו 813פ 814ס 815ח 816ת 817י 818ע 819ל 820כ 821ם 822ו 823ל 824א 825י line 33 826ה 827י 828ה 829ב 830כ 831ם 832נ 833ג 834ף 835ל 836מ 837ש 838ח 839י 840ת 841ב 842ה 843כ 844ת 845י 846ב 847א 848ר 849ץ 850מ line 34 851צ 852ר 853י 854ם

According to Minchas Shai, here are some problems:

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

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

יא  וְכָכָה, תֹּאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ--מָתְנֵיכֶם חֲגֻרִים, נַעֲלֵיכֶם בְּרַגְלֵיכֶם וּמַקֶּלְכֶם בְּיֶדְכֶם; וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֹתוֹ בְּחִפָּזוֹן, פֶּסַח הוּא לַיהוָה.

11 And thus shall ye eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste--it is the LORD'S passover.

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

Here is where R' Rikanti says this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not the end of the story. There is another aspect, which is the statistical significance of this particular code. Why should one care about statistical significance? As Eli wrote in a comment on the previous post:

"I don't understand what the argument is; it's like I see a building and someone tells me it's not a building. I check some of the codes in my Chumash, and hey presto, I see them."

Alas, this I will need to leave over to another post.