Volume 16 Number 92
Produced: Mon Nov 28 23:32:56 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Binyomin Segal's "My Daas on Daas Torah"
[Stan Tenen]
Flood and Mesorah
[Stan Tenen]
Response to Moshe Bernstein's Observations
[Stan Tenen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 12:14:18 -0800
Subject: Binyomin Segal's "My Daas on Daas Torah"
m-j subject: My Daas on Daas Torah
In m-j 84 Binyomin Segal reports that he spoke with a scientist who told
him that: "...the difference between a geocentric theory and a
heliocentric theory is merely how complicated the math is." Strictly
speaking, this is true. But, it is not the whole truth because
mathematics cannot provide spiritual truth. Mathematics is NOT the
territory, it is merely a map. (We and our feelings and experiences are
the territory.) When we examine the real world to see what the
mathematics applies to, we realize that the earth must circle the sun.
Otherwise, the distant stars would be forced to spin around the earth at
speeds far in excess of the speed of light. Since the speed of light is
a constant of relativistic time, this puts us in another impossible bind
which we can get out of only by rejecting an enormous amount of
experimental evidence. Fine, you say, let's reject this evidence. That
is okay too. But it means that our appliances and scientific
instruments that we use every day run on miracles. I am very reluctant
to attribute everyday affairs to the continuous intervention of Divine
authority.
It is interesting to note that there was a series of books published in
the 1960's that demonstrated how physics was consistent with the view
that it was not gravity that attracted, but rather that everything in
the universe was expanding at a exponential rate. The idea was that we
did not fall to earth, rather the earth rushed up to meet our feet and
our feet and bodies expanded to reach the earth (because it, and all
matter, was constantly exploding.) The mathematics for all of this is
entirely consistent also - just like the mathematics for a geocentric
solar system. The difference between this theory and conventional
understandings of gravity does not effect what we experience, and it is
not any better or worse mathematically than conventional theories
either. But it is plainly a ridiculous result - and worse, from the
point of the scientific principle known as Occam's razor, it was
gratuitously complicated. (I believe that there is a similar teaching
in Judaism: Don't make up a complicated result when a simple one serves
just as well. We should not presume that Hashem acts gratuitously.)
However, there is an essential sense to the geocentric model. It
applies to some kabbalist situations - it was never intended to be
physically true. Even in the ancient world, it was mostly only the
peasants and the emperors who believed that the earth was flat and in
the center of the solar system. The minority of educated persons always
knew of the physical evidence and the logic that demonstrated otherwise.
But the works of educated persons are usually reviewed by followers and
those less educated - who more likely are willing to agree with the
emperor's ignorant prejudices. This means that even when the original
ideas were sound, they were often bastardized by the "translations" and
misunderstandings of those who followed. Confusing the sacred geometry
of kabbalah, where there is meaning to a geocentric SPIRITUAL model,
with a model of the real world is an example of this. The secular world
has always been prone to this, but I am astonished to discover that it
also appears to be true to some extent in the Torah world. I do not
believe that we should emulate the secular scholars. Once direct
knowledge is passed to those who cannot distinguish metaphor from fact,
there is usually no way back. There must be a new Na'aseh before there
can be a regained Nishma. (I hope I am not offending by using "Na'aseh
v'Nishma" in this not completely accurate allegorical manner.)
There is a popular author, Zachariah Sitchin, who represents that he can
read the glyphs on Sumerian cylinder seals. He says that they say that
humans interbred with the "Nefilim" several hundred thousand years ago.
This is lunacy. We speak English, yet we cannot read Shakespeare well
enough to catch most of his jokes (without the aid of an expert), and
Shakespeare wrote only a few hundred years ago and did not use ambiguous
pictograms and glyphs. From my point of view, Sitchen's thesis is
totally unfounded because (beyond the question of how to read the glyphs
in the first place) we cannot tell if the Sumerian seals were intended
to be literal, metaphoric, or spiritual. (There are many other glaring
flaws in Sitchen's theories also.)
So, yes "You can assume the earth stands still and compute the sun &
planet's motion, or assume the sun stands still and compute." That is
true, but it simply does not have any bearing on how we know - with
certainty (NOT absolute certainty, just plain certainty) - that the
earth goes around the sun.
If you want to understand science, do not only speak with a scientist.
Spend a few years doing science. Na'aseh v'Nishma. There is a world of
difference. Who would think they understood Torah by asking an orthodox
Jew a few questions out of context?
Good Shabbos,
B'Shalom,
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 12:12:53 -0800
Subject: Flood and Mesorah
In m-j 82 Yosef Bechhofer states "The Rambam was a smart man, he knew
that science cannot state with certainty anything about the past,...".
I believe that this is an error caused by exaggeration.
It is certainly true that science cannot decide (and likely will never
decide) on what the exact age of the universe is. Science has proven
that some things cannot be known. For example, it is not possible to
measure the location and velocity of an electron simultaneously. So, in
a narrow exaggerated sense, it is true that science cannot know the past
(or even the present) with perfect accuracy. But this is NOT the issue.
Whatever the age of the universe, whether it is 18-billion years,
6-billion years, or even substantially more or less, makes no difference
to the argument. None of these ages is anywhere within 5755 years, and
we can be as absolutely certain as a human can be that science will not
find an age for the universe that is within a billion years of 5755
years. Let me repeat, for all the arguments already presented here,
science can state with certainty that the universe is much more than
5755 years old.
And, I too believe that the Rambam was a smart man. To me this means
that he would have been able to muster the very same arguments. I do
not believe that Rambam would so exaggerate the test of certainty so as
to prevent any realistic appraisal. I believe that precisely because
Rambam was a smart man he would never have made the arguments
against science that are being made here.
As to the question: "Is the Torah not history?" It is essential to my
faith in Torah that it NOT be ONLY history (although Torah does
obviously make use of and record accurate history). I'm not sure if
they have been posted again, but I repeated the quotations from the
Zohar and other kosher sources that state this emphatically, and that
describe persons who see Torah as EXCLUSIVELY literal history in very
unfavorable terms, even excluding such persons from the world-to-come.
And while some may be "amazed at the blind faith that some have when it
comes to 'multidisciplinary unanimity of numerous serious
researchers,'", I reject "blind" faith, both in science and in Torah.
That is why I have spent the past 27-years independently researching
these issues for myself. But I also understand why a Torah Jew would
accept Torah on the seemingly "blind faith" in the words of our sages.
That is because most Torah Jews have had personal experience with the
integrity and wisdom of their Torah teachers. Such faith is not
"blind"; it is rooted in personal experience and observation (of the
Torah student and the Torah community). I ask that the same logic be
used and the same principles be respected vis a vis "blind faith" in
science. One should not trust what a person not trained in science says
about science, no more than one should trust what a person not trained
in Torah says about Torah. But a person trained in science, who has
reviewed what they have been taught and how they have been taught it, is
not acting on 'blind faith" in science. This is especially true when
they have done their own research and come to their own conclusions.
That is not faith; that is experience. I do not need much faith to
believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I do not need much faith to
believe that the universe is much more than 5755 years old.
Let's not accept the judgment of persons untrained in Torah when they
speak about Torah, and let's not accept the judgment of persons
untrained in science when they speak about science. Let's only accept
the judgment of persons (who are mature and) who have had "hands on"
experience with the subject they are discussing. Is there something
wrong with this?
Good Shabbos,
B'Shalom,
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 22:15:01 -0800
Subject: Response to Moshe Bernstein's Observations
Subj: Response to Moshe J. Bernstein
Again I would like to thank Moshe Bernstein for clarifying and expanding
on my references. But, other than making it painfully clear that I am
not a master of these references, I'm not quite sure I understand his
point.
My work and my understanding of Torah is not based on training similar
to that of most persons who take an interest in these matters. I am
attempting to present my opinions, based on my independent and
idiosyncratic work, as best I can. There would be little point in my
doing so if I did not base what I am saying as accurately as possible on
what my findings seem to demonstrate (whether I or anyone else likes
these findings cannot be allowed to affect my reporting them honestly),
and there can be little point in my presenting them on m-j if they do
not support Halachic Judaism.
Besides reporting that my findings seem to demonstrate essential meaning
at the letter level of B'reshit, I have also found references that seem
to support or be consistent with the same view. It is not likely that
all references will agree, and it is certainly not likely that any prior
reference was aware of the data I have examined in the form I came upon
it. So it should be no surprise that there are differences of opinion.
Also, I should confine my remarks to my expertise and not imply sweeping
generalizations based on limited study. While there are excellent
indications that the letter level coding that I have been studying in
B'reshit extends throughout the entire text (and likely well into
Sh'mot, as well), I have only personally studied the first few verses of
B'reshit letter by letter and into the story of Gan Eden in an overview.
(There is good indication that the letter level patterns extend
throughout all Five Books.)
When I say that the Pshat, by itself, provides only a "flattened" sense
of Torah, I am referring to what I can explicitly demonstrate in
B'reshit. There can be no translation - into Greek or any other
language - that can preserve the letter by letter patterns that are
demonstrably in B'reshit. This is not based on any reference or
quotation from any source. The data is so, whether or not we can find
references to it in the Talmud or among our sages. (However, there are
many references.)
The pattern of the sequence of letters in the first verse of B'reshit is
so strong, that, G-d forbid, if a letter had ever been miscopied, lost,
or added, that could be detected and corrected by reference to only the
other letters in the first verse and the symmetries inherent in the
Hebrew alphabet. Further, the pattern formed by the sequence of letters
in the first verse of B'reshit is not random or arbitrary. It is
exactly defined and recognizable. The first verse of B'reshit defines a
Yad-shaped Tefillin strap. When this strap is bound on the hand and
different gestures are made, different Hebrew letters are seen outlined
by the Tefillin strap. The natural meaning of the gesture is the same
as the meaning of the name of the Hebrew letter seen. This Tefillin
strap is not mentioned in the literal story of B'reshit, and it is not
mentioned in any translation. Still, it is demonstrably present.
These findings are the results of 25-years of investigation. You can
examine the first verse of B'reshit, see how we formed the Tefillin
strap, place it on your hand, make gestures, and see Hebrew letters.
When you examine the Tefillin strap and the other forms that we have
found associated with the first verse of B'reshit, you can recognize
forms and relationships that our sages discuss - including many that are
otherwise hard to explain or understand.
I think we may be talking (or writing) past each other here. I don't
particularly disagree with most of what you have posted. In fact, I'm
grateful for the clear references and other clarifications. So, I am
not clear about what the problem is. (Perhaps you are most interested
in "the trees" and I am most interested in "the forest." I have not
studied "the trees", so my comments can only apply to "the forest.")
It seems to me to be a simple fact of ordinary observation that only a
literal story can be translated literally. (What point would there be
to making a literal translation of the "words" of a program written in
BASIC computer language? The "story" might be the same, but the
computer certainly wouldn't run.)
There is a story in Torah and we both agree that it is true. But, Torah
is not only a story. I think we agree on this. If it is not only a
story, there must be more to it than the story in Torah. Where could
that be? At least some of our sages tell us that it is in the sequence
of letters. The sequence of letters existed before we humans made the
choices that the stories in Torah speak about. There are at least some
sages who teach that this is so.
I have done independent research, not based on Talmud-Torah learning,
that seems to bear out what some of our sages say. B'reshit is highly
structured, letter by letter, and this structure cannot be included in
any translation. The letter level structure, NOT the story, seems to
actually describe "continuous creation" in a way that is entirely
consistent with both our kabbalistic teachings and modern technical
understanding. Beyond Hashem's dictation to Moshe, we can show that the
initial letter of Torah MUST be Bet as surely as any mathematician can
show that the initial digit in Pi is 3. No fudging and no apologia is
required. No belief in "creationism" is required - and consequently
Torah does not appear to be mythology or superstition to educated
persons.
This means, for example, that persons such as myself who were driven
away from Torah for most of their lives by what appeared to be
superstitious beliefs and mythology need not be lost to Judaism. I
would like to believe that there is a place for persons like myself in
Judaism. I would like to believe that other persons with modern
critical educations and secular backgrounds will also be attracted to
Judaism when they realize, for example, that belief solely in
"creationism", in the simple literal sense, is not the only way to come
to Torah.
This is what I mean when I say that belief that Torah is ONLY stories
"flattens" its meaning. How could it be otherwise? That is a logical,
not a Talmud-Torah question. I am not primarily seeking to answer that
question by references to the opinions of our sages, because I am not
knowledgeable in the opinions of our sages. Instead I have sought to
examine the Torah as it is received. I am not a Karaite, dispensing
with Talmud; I am trying to present data to the Torah community so that
what I have found can be understood in the context of Talmud.
With all due respect to some of our sages who may appear to have said
otherwise in what was likely a very different context than ours,
Biblical translations are not and cannot include all of Torah. The
Greek translation is useful for some purposes, but never for study of
the Sod level of Torah. There is no Sod in the Septuagint because the
Greek letter sequences cannot be the same as in our Masoretic text -
Greek and Hebrew being different langauges, as they are. Do you
disagree with this?
On another note, I remember reading in the old Jerusalem Post (while it
was still liberal) in a column by Rabbi Pinchas Peli (of blessed memory)
that there were over 900 rabbinically accepted word translations of the
first verse of B'reshit. Simply dividing the letters differently
(without regard to the accepted messorah) provides many seemingly
different translations. It is my understanding that variant readings of
this sort are encouraged as a means of understanding the meaning better.
Where some persons might see contradictions between these seemingly
different translations and be disturbed by the seeming ambiguities, a
student who strove to unify these different translations might see a
deeper underlying meaning.
I was not suggesting the use of Aristeas in an halachic context. I
apologize for not being more clear. Actually I did not know that
Aristeas was Jewish, but what I meant is that he was not a "kosher" ( an
halachic) source. It certainly is easy to misunderstand written ideas
when reading the words of someone with different training. I have no
idea who most of the sages quoted on m-j are, and I usually cannot
understand Hebrew and Yiddish words and phrases that are not translated.
I have never read any "classical rabbinic texts".
In my opinion it is symptomatic of a great tragedy that an essentially
untrained person like myself has come upon important understandings
about B'reshit and the alphabet, while these ideas have been lost and
not found within the Torah community. That brings tears to my eyes.
The Shoah and the nearly continuous persecutions of the past several
hundred years (at least) have taken a great toll on Judaism. We have
lost so much. We have enormous problems from assimilation, secular
Zionism, intermarriage, and "reform" versions of Judaism. Our sages of
this generation cannot understand and teach what Rabbi Akiva knew, or
even what the Baal Shem Tov knew. Very few of us meditate, and fewer
even believe that we should meditate. I believe that it is up to us,
you and me, to regain what has been lost. No researcher without a
Talmud-Torah background can do this without help from those within the
Torah world.
Without Judaism as it has survived we would have nothing. So,
regardless of all other considerations, it is imperative that we
maintain traditional halachic orthodox Judaism. It is also imperative
that we think for ourselves and maintain the highest standards of
intellectual honesty.
B'Shalom,
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 16 Issue 92
