In this post we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Isaiah (from Ch. 11, 1:13).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In this post/podcast, we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Ezekiel (Chapter 38, “Gog and Magog”). This podcast replaces an earlier one with an enhanced audio file.
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In this post we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Amos (from Chs. 8, 9:13, and 9, 6:15).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
These days we mark anniversary to the assassination of President Kennedy (Nov. 22, 1963).
I was 16 at the time. Half a year after the event, I published an article in an Israeli youth journal, Ma-ariv La-Noar (published June 09 1964). The subject was the significance of having a ruler of a country who is young vs. having an elderly one.
I can add today a third option, I did not conceive of when I composed this essay. Indeed, this is an option pursued by the elderly President Trump: Have an elderly “ruler of a country”; However, let this ruler be surrounded by mostly young talented people!
Indeed, an optimal solution!
I read the original article once again these days (60 years after it was published), and really liked it. So did my close friends whom I have shown this article from days-past.
The article is attached herewith as a PDF file (Hebrew). Feel free to increase fonts as necessary.
Enjoy!
In this post we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Zechariah (Ch. 8 and verses from Chs. 9, 10).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In this post we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Jeremiah (verses from Chapters 2, 30, 31, 33).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file.
Audio file below is an enhanced audio, posted November 04, 2025:
The “Chosen People” is assumed to be taken from the Bible. Therefore, it seems appropriate to refer to the Bible for accurate description of what it means to be God’s “Chosen People”, and, no less important, to learn how the Jews “benefit” from being the “Chosen People”, and whether they have a choice at all to cease being so.
The Bible, in its totality, is incredibly specific and accurate answering all these questions.
We start with a single verse from the Bible that, we believe, best answers the first two questions (What is “Chosen People”?; What is the “benefit”?). It is taken from prophet Amos (3:2):
“רַק אֶתְכֶ֣ם יָדַ֔עְתִּי מִכֹּ֖ל מִשְׁפְּח֣וֹת הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה עַל־כֵּן֙ אֶפְקֹ֣ד עֲלֵיכֶ֔ם אֵ֖ת כָּל־עֲוֹנֹֽתֵיכֶֽם:”
“Only you did I know of all the nations of the earth; therefore, I will visit upon you all of your iniquities.”
In a single verse, in so many as thirteen Hebrew words, the prophet asserts explicitly why the Jewish nation is “Chosen”, and what it entails.
- The Jewish nation is “Chosen” because: “Only you did I know of all the nations of the earth;”
- The “benefit” to the Jewish people: “Therefore, I will visit upon you all of your iniquities.”
In other words, you, the Jewish people, keep the covenant with God, or else…
What covenant?
The Jewish nation has a covenant with Jehovah God:
- Isaiah (43:10,12; Bold not in the Bible):
“You are My witnesses,” says Jehovah, “and My servant whom I chose,” in order that you know and believe Me, and understand that I am He; before Me no god was formed and after Me none shall be.”
“I told and I saved, and I made heard and there was no stranger among you, and you are My witnesses,” says Jehovah, “and I am God”.
- Leviticus (19:1-2; Bold not in the Bible):
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the entire congregation of the Children of Israel, and say to them, holy shall you be, for I, Jehovah, your God, am holy.”
Question: What “being holy” requires?
Answer: Keeping the highest moral standards, as specified in The Ten Commandments and derivatives, and as specified in some detail in Leviticus, Chapter 19 (as quoted above), and elsewhere in Torah. (see also “Becoming Holy” — The Bible Prescription).
Question: What would occur if the Jewish people decided to cease serving as “The Chosen People”, as “Witnesses”, and violate the covenant with Jehovah?
Answer: Prophet Ezekiel does not mince his words, delivering his historic stern warning to the Jewish people (Ezekiel 20:32,33):
“But that which comes unto your mind shall be not, that you are saying, ‘Let us be like the nations, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone.’ As I live, says Jehovah God, if not with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with poured out fury will I be king over you.” (see also Four Major Bible Messages).
The first of the Ten Commandments is bizarre:
“I am Jehovah, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of a house of slaves.” (Exodus 20:2).
This “Commandment” is bizarre on two counts.
First, The Bible starts with God as creator:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1).
Why, then, God introduces Himself as God of History (“Who took you”), and not as God of creation (“In the beginning God created”)?
Secondly, unlike the rest of the Ten Commandments, articulated as commands, this commandment is articulated differently, not as a command but as a statement of fact (“I am Jehovah…” God of history). Why is this bizarre way of “commanding”?
To answer these two puzzles, it is instructive to learn that in the original Hebrew there are no “Commandments”. Only Devarim (from the Hebrew verb “to speak”, namely, Divine communication in the form of a dialogue). In Genesis 1 God does not “Speak”. God “says”!! And this implies a monologue, namely, a Divine command. God command is obligatory. It is always fulfilled, to the letter (Genesis 1). Conversely, the Ten Commandments are Divine utterances, out of a dialogue (“speaking”). And in this dialogue, human beings preserve their most basic condition of existence, Free Will. We, human beings, are free to decide whether we wish to pursue the Ten Commandments, or otherwise. The Ten Commandments are for us to decide, out of the precious free-will, bestowed on us by our Creator.
Once the dependence on free-will in pursuing the “Ten Commandments” is properly grasped, the First Commandment is bizarre no more.
Regarding the first puzzlement (“Why God of History and not God of Creation”), the First Commandment requires of us to accept, out of free will, that God rules history. Therefore, there is purpose to life on Earth, both for the collective (in the form of nations and other forms of societies), and for our own personal existence on planet Earth (“Divine Providence”). God of Creation is easy to adopt as fact. It seems logical (to many, not all…). Not so with God of History. This requires a high level of faith. It is not nearly self-evident (as God of Creation is). God of history hides Himself. Prophet Isaiah recognizes the difficulty, and states this in no ambiguous terms:
“Indeed, You are a God Who conceals Himself, the God of Israel, Savior.” (Isaiah 45:15).
Therefore, addressing the second puzzlement (“why the First Commandment is articulated as statement of fact”), this commandment is indeed a command. It requires of us to accept as fact an invisible, unprovable fact. The unobservable reality that Jehovah is indeed also God of History, looking out for what transpires in His world, and leading it towards its Ultimate Goal:
“And I will reveal Myself in My greatness and in My holiness and will be recognized in the eyes of many nations, and they will know that I am Jehovah.” (Ezekeil 38:23).
“For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of Jehovah, to worship Him of one accord.” (Zephaniah 3:9).
A new post by Professor Haim Shore on The Blogs of The Times of Israel:
Haim Shore_ King, Judge and… Quality Inspector (about the Judicial Reform)_September 12 2025
Categories
Most Read Articles of All Time
I am pleased to share that two of my papers now belong to the restricted list of the “most read articles of all time” in two journals (as of writing this post):
- 10th on the list:
Shore, H. (2020). An explanatory bi-variate model for surgery-duration and its empirical validation. Communications in Statistics: Case Studies, Data Analysis and Applications, 6(2), 142–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/23737484.2020.1740066
- 12th on the list:
Shore, H. (2024). Why the mode departs from the mean—a short communication. Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods, 54(5), 1391–1396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2024.2337069
In this post/podcast, we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Ezekiel (Verses from Chapter 39, “Gog and Magog”).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
Categories
Jehovah – God of History?
In a previous post, I related to the hidden message of the first chapter of Genesis, namely, that Jehovah/Elohim is not only God of creation, but also ruler of that which has transpired since, namely, God of history (The Hidden Message of the First Chapter of the Bible (Podcast)
Same is also reflected in the first of the Ten Commandments, where Jehovah “introduces” Himself not as ruler of nature, but as ruler of history.
One of the most incredible manifestations of God as ruler of history is revealed in Passover. The beginning of this festivity starts with the Seder (“Order”, as in “orderly row”). But order of what?
As it turns out, seven of the annual Jewish festivities, either declared in Torah, like Kippur, or those added later throughout Jewish history, like Purim, are each linked to a single day of the seven days of Passover. More specifically, each of these Jewish festivities starts on the same day of the week as the corresponding Passover day, to which it is linked.
An intriguing outcome of this finding, regarding Jewish calendar, is that seven specified Jewish festivities will always appear on different (non-overlapping) days of the week. This is an event highly unlikely to occur by random.
The table below displays results for the year 2025, followed by an eye-opening talk, based on classical Jewish sources:
In this post/podcast, we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by prophet Isaiah (verses from Chps. 61, 62).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In this post/podcast, we read Chapter 1 of the first book of the Bible, Genesis.
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
This post displays direct links to all Bible Reads (Audio; Hebrew; Hebrew/English PDF), produced and posted on this Blog and on my personal YouTube channel (Earlier on the list later posted; First Bible read produced November 2024):
- Reading Bible Prophets (Isaiah, from Ch. 11; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast; Enhanced Audio)
- Reading Bible Prophets (Amos, from Chs. 8,9; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Podcast)
- Reading Bible Prophets (Zechariah Chs. 8,9,10; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Podcast)
- Reading Bible Prophets (Jeremiah, Chs. 2,30,31,33; Enhanced Audio; Hebrew/English text)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Ezekiel; Ch 38; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Enhanced Audio)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Ezekiel; Verses from Ch 39; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Isaiah; Chps. 61, 62; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible (Genesis, Chapter 1; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text)
- “Let Us Wipe Them Out So That the Name of Israel be Remembered No More” (Reading Psalm 83; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading From Torah (The Ten Commandments and Kedoshim Portion; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Why Did the Jews Go into Exile? How Would They Return? (Reading Jeremiah Prophecy, Ch. 16)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (End-time Vision by Isaiah, Ch.2, and Michah, Ch.4; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Zephaniah; Chp. 3; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Isaiah; Chps. 43, 45; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Ezekiel; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Malachi; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Zechariah; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Joel; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Jeremiah Chs. 2,30,31,33; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Isaiah; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- “Comfort, comfort my people” (Isaiah, 40:1) – Post/Podcast (English/Hebrew)
In this somber day, when thousands of Israelis line-up the streets and highways of Israel, escorting in their last journey the Bibas family, mother and two toddlers brutally murdered by Hamas while in captivity, I choose to read in their honor Psalm 83. Below the audio is a PDF file with the text (Hebrew/English) and a YouTube link:
In this post/podcast, we read from Torah: The Ten Commandments (Exodus, verses from Chapter 20) and Kedoshim Portion (Leviticus, verses from Chapter 19).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In this post/podcast, we read end-time vision, envisaged by prophet Jeremiah (Chapter 16, verses 9:21).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
(See same post also on The Blogs of Times-of-Israel: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/hamas-and-nazi-terezin-camp-find-the-differences/ )
On 25th of January, 2025, Hamas released four Israeli hostages (female soldiers abducted from their beds in a base in southern Israel on October 7th, 2023). The four women were forced to parade in the Palestine-Square of Gaza, to the cheers of a mob of Gazan Arabs, most of them armed, and then led to a raised platform, all smiles, to wave cheerfully to the cheering mob, so that no one has any doubt how much they have enjoyed their 477 days in the captivity of Hamas. Representatives of the Red-Cross were present, witnessing the shameful parade in Gaza, as the hostages were soon to be delivered to these representatives to be re-delivered same day to Israeli IDF.
For me, son to parents whose both families were exterminated in the Holocaust, my first association, as I was witnessing this shameful scene, was the story of the visit of the Red-Cross to Nazi-occupied Jewish Theresienstadt Ghetto
Here is from Wikipedia on the Nazi-occupied Jewish Theresienstadt Ghetto and the Red-Cross visit, June 1944, to the ghetto (referrals to references omitted):
“In February 1944, the SS embarked on a “beautification” (German: Verschönerung) campaign to prepare the ghetto for the Red Cross visit. Many “prominent” prisoners and Danish Jews were re-housed in private, superior quarters. The streets were renamed and cleaned; sham shops and a school were set up; the SS encouraged the prisoners to perform an increasing number of cultural activities, which exceeded that of an ordinary town in peacetime. As part of the preparations, 7,503 people were sent to the family camp at Auschwitz in May; the transports targeted sick, elderly, and disabled people who had no place in the ideal Jewish settlement”.
Wikipedia on “Theresienstadt Ghetto and the Red-Cross”:
“In 1944, the ghetto was “beautified” in preparation for a delegation from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Danish government. The delegation visited on 23 June; ICRC delegate Maurice Rossel wrote a favorable report on the ghetto and claimed that no one was deported from Theresienstadt. In April 1945, another ICRC delegation was allowed to visit the ghetto; despite the contemporaneous liberation of other concentration camps, it continued to repeat Rossel’s erroneous findings.”
In this post/podcast, we read end-time vision similalrly envisaged by prophets Isaiah (Chapter 2, read in full) and Michah (Chapter 4, partially read, verses 1:7).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In this post/podcast, we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by prophet Zephaniah (Chapter 3).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In this post/podcast, we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by prophet Isaiah (verses from Chps. 43, 45).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
Categories
Wildfires in California
America (USA) has not allowed Israel to defend itself properly against the vicious raids, launched against her in the south-west part of the county (the west part of the Negev, bordering Gaza). This cost many Israeli lives.
Regrettably, now, a few days before termination of the Biden Administration, America (USA) finds itself unable to defend itself properly against the vicious raids of wildfires, launched against her in the south-west part of the country (California south). Unfortunately, this cost many American lives.
What a bizarre and extremely painful coincidence!
(See my earlier post of 2014: “An Outrage in Afghanistan” and One in Israel ; also “As America Has Done to Israel…”).
In this post/podcast, we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Ezekiel (verses from Chps. 36, 37).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In this post we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Malachi (Chapter 3). Enhanced audio is linked, as of March 2025.
Following the audio is two YouTube podcasts (first is a newer one, with enhanced audio), and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In this post we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Zechariah (verses from Chapter 14).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In this post we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Joel (verses from Chapters 2, 3, 4).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In a single chapter (Amos 1), the Bible prophet delivers end-times prophecy about all actors, currently engaged in hostilities against the Jewish state (Israel).
Attached below is a PDF file with all relevant verses from Amos (Hebrew/English).
The names of the “actors” are colored yellow, while relevant terms (like the cities of the Philistines in Gaza) are marked gray.
Added to the list is Jordan (residing where the biblical Ammon lived), with its capital, Amman (Rabbat Ammon in Hebrew), mentioned as Rabbah (marked gray). Currently, Jordan is not engaged in hostilities against Israel.
Also mentioned are hostages, in relation to Gaza (“whole captivity”).
Egypt, neighbor of Israel, is not related to at all in this prophecy (neither is Egypt currently engaged in hostilities towards Israel).
The leader of Ammon (Jordan) is denoted “King” (and solely here). His destiny – “their king shall go into exile”.
In this post we read end-time scenarios, as prophesized by Jeremiah (verses from Chapters 2, 30, 31, 33).
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file.
Audio file below is an enhanced audio, posted November 04, 2025:
In this post we read from Isaiah, Chapter 11, verses 1-13.
Following the audio is a YouTube podcast, and then the text (Hebrew/English), available for download as a PDF file:
In these agonizing times for the Jewish people, in general, and for Israelis, in particular;
As we are witnessing the nearly-daily ultimate sacrifice of our best;
In these agonizing days, we may draw comfort from the words of the Bible prophets.
In this podcast, Professor Haim Shore reads, in the original Hebrew and in his own voice, words of comfort and visions of brighter future, as conceived and prophesized by the Bible prophets.
Each newly-added episode will appear, within this post, as a single new podcast.
In this first episode we read, in Hebrew, from Isaiah 40 and 41. The read verses appear in a PDF file below.
Episode 1: “Comfort, comfort my people” (Isaiah, 40:1)
An example for the realization of Gal (see this post/podcast), as delivered in… Exodus (second book of Torah).
The fundamental thesis of the “Gal Post” is that the repeated cycles of exile (Galut) and salvation (Geula) of the Jewish people aimed at a single Divine mission:
To spread recognition of Jehovah to the nations of the world.
This endeavor, carried out by the Jewish people throughout generations of agonized Jewish history, had been assigned to the Jews with Abraham’s Covenant, and thence in repeated assertions of the Covenant at Mount Sinai and later on (as described in Torah).
The two monotheistic faiths, emerging from Judaism, are testimony to the triumph and success of this endeavor.
Surprisingly, a demonstration to realization of the mission, as prescribed by Gal, is delivered in… Exodus (second book of Torah).
Israel is in exile (Galut) in Egypt. Moses, with his older brother, Aharon, are called upon to go to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and demand:
“Let my people go”.
The story of the transformation of the king, his change of heart, from total denial of the existence of Jehovah, to recognizing the concealed “God of the Israelites”, to asking for Jehovah’s blessing — this story is unfolding before our bewildered eyes in Exodus.
The following verses describe Pharaoh’s initial attitude towards Jehovah (denial), and the process of Pharaoh’s fundamental transformation (acceptance):
- Start: Complete denial:
“And Pharaoh said: Who is Jehovah that I should obey his voice to let Israel go; I know not Jehovah, nor will I let Israel go” (Exodus 5:2);
- Then: Admission; recognizing the uniqueness of Jehovah:
“And Pharaoh sent to call for Moses and Aharon, and said to them: I have sinned this time. Jehovah is righteous and I and my people are wicked. Entreat Jehovah that there be no more mighty thundering and hail…” (Exodus 9:27-28);
“And Pharaoh hurriedly called for Moses and Aharon, and he said: I have sinned against Jehovah your God and against you; Now, forgive my sin only this once, I pray thee, and entreat Jehovah your God that He removed from me this death only” (Exodus 10:16-17);
- Finally, asking for Jehovah’s blessing:
“Also take your flocks and your herds, as you have said, and be gone and bless me also” (Exodus 12:32).
In my book (see, for example, on Amazon), I have related to several words/names in the Bible that, though not originating in biblical Hebrew, yet convey significance to world affairs, in general, or to the Jewish people, in particular, past and present. Two examples therein are Pharaoh and Chammas. In a podcast on this blog, we similarly related to Covid, and its similarity to the biblical Hebrew Kavod (find details in “Comments” of this post).
Here, we address another name, “Kamala”, and wonder what would that name mean were it a biblical Hebrew name.
The “Hebrew root” of the name is K.M.L (ק.מ.ל). This root gives rise to various Hebrew words meaning decay, wither, or the process of decline. In the bible, the word appears twice in the book of prophet Isaiah:
“…the reeds and rushes shall decay (Kamelu)”; Isaiah 19:6;
“…Lebanon is ashamed and withers (Kamal)…”; Isaiah 33:9.
Comment: Post is not intended to express author’s opinion, or attitude, vis-à-vis current candidate for USA president, carrying same name.
Charles Darwin (“On the Origin of Species”, 1859):
“Survival of the Fittest”;
Implications:
Implication 1: Nazi Germany – “We are part of Nature” *;
- No. We are not (Genesis 1:27): “So, God created Adam in His own image, in the image of God created He him, male and female He created them”.
Implication 2: Nazi Germany — “Therefore, we are entitled to “accommodate” Nature”;
Implication 3: Large scale euthanasia murders, executed by the Nazi regime on the “less than fittest”;
Final result #1: Ways and means for execution of people were being developed (Professor Zimmerman; in an Interview on Reshet Bet (Israel Broadcasting Service), August 31, 2024).
“An Idea” (Nazi Germany): “Why not use same “ways and means”, developed for euthanasia, to help us alleviate “The Jewish Problem”? (For the un-initiated: “Let us “get rid” of Jews and others, less than the “fittest” ”);
Final Results #2: “The Final Solution” (term used by the Nazis to conceal what is behind the term — The Holocaust).
Bottom line:
For those of us still of the view that the scientific study of nature would show us the way to tell, justifiably, right from wrong (rather than correct from incorrect), we need to remember —
We have already been there.
I have just submitted a new paper to be considered for publication (after review).
The new paper continues an earlier popular paper:
Why the Mode Departs from the Mean (Published, Open Access)
Here is an Abstract of the new submission.
Abstract
In a recent short communication (Shore, 2024a), we have introduced a new paradigm for sources of random variation. It helps explain why the mode occasionally departs from the mean. In essence, the new paradigm states that for any perceived random variation there are at most two sources of variation —identity instability and error. When identity is stable (there is only error variation), the allied statistical distribution is symmetric (mode equals the mean). When identity is completely random (there is only identity variation, error undefinable), mode either does not exist or resides at either end-points of the distribution support. The purpose of this communication is to explore how error is re-defined, consistent with the new paradigm. A general model for random variation is developed, comprising two additive independent random variables, averaged by a repetitiveness measure. Model’s implications are probed.
:המשמעות של המלים “גג” ו-“גל” בעברית המקראית ובמקרא והקשר לאחרית-הימים
:ראה פודקסט ביוטיוב:
:עברית
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iplKecSWhUw&t=1s
YouTube (English):
העברית המקראית מעניקה שמות לאובייקטים שהם משמעותיים. לא רק ביחס לתכונות הפיזיות שלהם (כפי שמעיד המחקר שלי על העברית המקראית), אלא גם ביחס לתפקוד שלהם, ולבסוף ביחס ליעדם, פיזית ורוחנית.
בפוסט קודם, התייחסנו ל-“גג” המקראי:
Agag, Haman the Agagite, Gog, Magog, Gag — What binds them all together?.
הדגמנו את המשמעות הרוחנית הענקית שהאמונה היהודית מייחסת ל-“גג”, כסמל לניתוק בין שני העולמות, שנבראו “בראשית” (בראשית א:א).
“בראשית ברא אלוהים את השמים ואת הארץ.”
אין פלא, אם כן, ששילוב זה של אות כפולה אחת, האות השנייה הנדירה ביותר בעברית המקראית, האות גימל, מופיע שוב ושוב בשמות כמו אגג, המן האגגי, גוג ומגוג.
בפוסט זה, אנו מתייחסים לשילוב נוסף של מילה עברית בת שתי אותיות, גל. מילה זאת כוללת את האות השלישית באלפבית העברי, גימל, ואת האות השתים עשרה, למד. כנראה לא במקרה, שם האות האחרונה כולל אותיות של השורש העברי ל.מ.ד, מקור למילים עבריות שונות, הקשורות כולן ל… למידה.
שילוב זה של שתי האותיות, גימל ולמד, מופיע באופן מפתיע שוב ושוב במילים רבות שנראה שאין להן שום דבר משותף. דוגמאות:
חטא העגל; חטא המרגלים; גלות; גאולה; גילוי; התגלות; גלגול (גלילה); גל.
שילוב זה של אותיות מופיע גם בשמות של שני אזורים בארץ ישראל – גליל וגולן. אלה הם שני האזורים היחידים המוזכרים בתיאור של סימני אחרית הימים על ידי רבן גמליאל (מהמאה הראשונה לספירה, מצוטט במשנה, מסכת סוטה, פרק ט; ראו הרצאה בעניין על ידי הרב ינון קלזן בהערה 1).
בפוסט זה, אנו בוחנים האם כל המילים הללו, עם השילוב הנדיר של גימל+למד, אכן חולקות שילוב זה באקראי, או, להיפך, אולי מסתתרת משמעות עמוקה יותר מתחת למילים אלו, שנראות לכאורה לא קשורות. בנוסף, אנו בוחנים מדוע גל עומד בניגוד מוחלט, למעשה כהפך, ממה ש-“גג” מסמל. כלומר, סמל לתהליך של גילוי (של מה?), ושל הקמת הקשר הסופי בין “השמים והארץ”.
נתחיל עם עיקרון בסיסי של האמונה היהודית, המוטמע בעברית המקראית (כפי שנראה מיד) ובמקרא:
אלוהים קיים; עם זאת, אלוהים נסתר.
וזהו תפקידו של העם היהודי, לאורך התפתחות ההיסטוריה היהודית, לגלות את יהוה לעמי העולם, מהזמן של קבלת עשרת הדיברות בהר סיני, ועד אחרית הימים, עם הגאולה הסופית, כאשר (יואל ד:כא):
“… יהוה שוכן בציון”.
עיקרון זה מוצא ביטוי הן בעברית המקראית והן לאורך המקרא כולו. נתייחס לכמה דוגמאות.
“עולם” זוהי מילה שיש לה אותו שורש בן שלוש אותיות, ע.ל.מ, שממנו נגזרות מילים כמו “נעלם” (כמו במשוואה מתמטית), תעלומה ועוד.
שאלה: מה “עולם” מסתיר?
תשובה: העולם הוא עדות לקיומו הנסתר של יהוה. ובתהליך המתמשך של קישור בין הארץ לשמים, תהליך היסטורי המתבצע במחזורים, כמו גלים (גל), קיומו של יהוה (כיום נסתר) מתגלה בהדרגה לאנושות.
שורש עברי נוסף בן שלוש אותיות להסתתרות של אלוהים (וגם לשימושים אחרים) הוא ס.ת.ר. משורש זה נגזרות מילים עבריות כמו להסתתר, או מקום נסתר (סתר; מסתור). בתנ”ך, זועק הנביא ישעיהו (מה:טו):
“אכן, אתה אל מסתתר, אלוהי ישראל, מושיע”.
ספר אסתר הופך לעדות היסטורית לאמיתות של זעקת הנביא, ולהתגשמותה. למרות שיהוה אינו מוזכר באסתר, אפילו לא פעם אחת, ברור לחלוטין ש”אלוהי ישראל” נמצא “מאחורי הקלעים”, מציל את היהודים מהניסיון הראשון אי פעם לבצע שואה בעם היהודי.
באופן דומה, אנו מוצאים בתהילים (פט:מז):
“עד מתי, יהוה, תסתתר, לנצח?..”
(ראה גם תהילים צ:א).
מעניין, שהמילה האנגלית, המתארת את סיפור תולדות האנושות לאורך הדורות, היא… היסטוריה. מילה זו מכילה את השורש העברי להסתתר, ס.ת.ר (באנגלית אין הבחנה בין “ט” ל-“ת”). עם זאת, ברור שמקור המילה “היסטוריה” אינו בעברית המקראית.
הופעתו הראשונה של “גל” בתנ”ך עשויה להיחשב כסמל לתפקיד המתמשך של העם היהודי לאורך הדורות. יעקב, בציווי אביו, יצחק, נוסע לפדן-ארם למשפחת-קרובו, לבן, לחפש אישה (בראשית כח:ה). בהגיעו ליעד, פוגש יעקב את רחל, בתו של לבן שהייתה רועת צאן, מגיעה לבאר להשקות את צאן לבן. יעקב מגלגל במהירות את האבן שכיסתה את פי הבאר (בראשית כט:י):
“…ויעקב ניגש, ויגל את האבן מפי הבאר, וישקה את הצאן…”.
והעם היהודי נדרש, לאורך דורות של היסטוריה יהודית, לחזור על מעשה יעקב — לאפשר לעמי העולם, שוב ושוב, “לשתות” מים טריים, בעוד פי הבאר עדיין מכוסה. משימה זו של העם היהודי החלה עם קבלת עשרת הדיברות בהר סיני, ותסתיים באחרית הימים, כאשר “יהוה שוכן בציון” (יואל ד:כא). כלומר, יהוה נסתר לא עוד.
כיצד גל קשור לכל זה?
“גל” הוא סמל להתפתחות היסטורית, המתבצעת במחזורים (כמו גלים), של גלות וגאולה. תחילה הגלות למצרים. לאחר מכן גלות בעקבות חורבן בית המקדש הראשון, ולאחר מכן בעקבות חורבן בית המקדש השני. עם כל גל, הבורות לגבי אלוהים (“הסתרת אלוהים”) מתמוססת לאט לאט, הידע על יהוה הופך לנפוץ יותר, והתקדמות מושגת לקראת התוצאה הסופית (יואל ד:כא). כל מילה עברית מקראית המתייחסת לתהליך ההיסטורי הזה, שהעם היהודי נדרש למלא באמצעות הברית, קשורה ל-“גל”. הגלות במצרים (מחוץ לארץ המובטחת); שני חטאי בני ישראל בדרכם לארץ המובטחת (חטא העגל; חטא המרגלים, שגרם ל”מיני-גלות” של ארבעים שנה במדבר); הגלויות בעקבות חורבן הבית הראשון והשני; גאולה (חזרה מהגלות לארץ ישראל), מלחמת גוג ומגוג ולבסוף, התוצאה הסופית — גילוי (התגלות).
כל אחת מהמילים, המתארות תהליכים היסטוריים אלו, כוללת בתוכה את השילוב הנדיר של “גל”. והתקדמות היסטורית זו מובילה אותנו לקראת סוף הסתרת יהוה, סוף הניתוק בין “השמים” ו-“הארץ”, שיוחלף בזמן נצחי של גילוי יהוה (מלאכי ג:א):
“הנה אני שולח את מלאכי, והוא יפנה את הדרך לפניי. ופתאום יבוא האדון, אשר אתם מבקשים, אל היכלו. ומלאך הברית, אשר אתם חפצים, הנה הוא בא, אמר יהוה צבאות”.
לבסוף, מדוע “גג” מסמל ניתוק בין “השמיים והארץ”, בעוד “גל” מייצג את ההפך?
פשוט.
“גג” מורכב משתי אותיות זהות. העולם הפיזי (“הארץ”) הוא כל מה שיש. הדבר מרמז על קיפאון, סטגנציה, עמידה במקום. אין התקדמות, אין התפתחות, אין למידה. המעבר מהאות הראשונה לשנייה (הזהה) הוא חסר משמעות. שום דבר לא משתנה. העולם הפיזי הוא כל מה שיש.
האות הראשונה של “גל” היא כמו של “גג”. היא מייצגת את העולם הפיזי (“הארץ”). אבל האות השנייה, למד, היא שונה. שמה מציין למידה, ואולי באופן צפוי החלק העליון השמאלי שלה מצביע כלפי מעלה, לכיוון השמיים. “גל” מרמז על תהליך דינמי, מתקדם בגלים, של חיבור בין “השמיים” ו-“הארץ”, לימוד דרישות יהוה, והתקדמות לעבר ידיעה של יהוה, כך שאלוהי ישראל לא יהיה עוד נסתר.
הנביא ישעיהו מבטא זאת בצורה תמציתית ונפלאה (ישעיהו י”א:ט):
“לא ירעו ולא ישחיתו בכל הר קדשי;
כי מלאה הארץ דעה את יהוה כמים לים מכסים.”
הערות:
- כדי ללמוד עוד כיצד הגליל והגולן הם חלק בלתי נפרד מתרחישי חבלי משיח, ולכן חלק מהתהליך ההיסטורי המוביל ל”יהוה שוכן בציון”, צפו בהרצאה של הרב ינון קלזן (עברית), על סימני סוף הזמן ואירועים עכשוויים.
Rav Ynon Kalazan on Signs of End-times and Current Events
- גלילאו גליליי (1564-1642) היה אסטרונום אשר, בעזרת תצפיותיו המבוססות על טלסקופ חדש שהמציא, עזר להפיץ את התפיסה ההליוצנטרית החדשה שהתחיל קופרניקוס (כדי להחליף את התפיסה הגיאוצנטרית ששלטה בתפיסת העולם במשך 1500 שנה קודם לכן; ראו ויקיפדיה, “המודל הגיאוצנטרי”; Geocentric Model). גלילאו עסק רוב חייו בלימוד התנועה המחזורית של גרמי השמיים, ושילב את תצפיותיו עם מתמטיקה. מפתיע שגלילאו נשא שם שמרמז, בעברית, על מחזורים (גלגל, מעגל, גליל, גלילה). ראו: “גלילאו גלילי” בוויקיפדיה.
- כדי ללמוד עד כמה ברצינות החזיקו חוקרים יהודים באמונה כי יש התאמה בין שמות עבריים מקראיים ותכונות של אובייקטים שהשמות מייצגים, עיינו בפוסט שלי (באנגלית): מדוע רב יהודי תהה ש-“שמש” בעברית לא נקראת “ארץ” (כדור הארץ)?
Why a Jewish Rabbi wondered that Sun in Hebrew not named Eretz (Earth)?
(Related post, with added author’s comments: Glila, Galut, Geula, Gilui, Galilee, Golan, Gal – What binds them all together? )
Biblical Hebrew assigns names to objects that are meaningful, not merely with respect to their physical properties, but also with regard to their functionality, and ultimately their destination, physically and spiritually.
In this post/podcast, we relate to Gal (two-letter Hebrew word), and contrast it with Gag, addressed in an earlier post/podcast (Agag, Haman the Agagite, Gog, Magog, Gag — What binds them all together? ).
Here is the podcast (without the added author’s comments):
עברית:
Comment: A podcast is below the post. See also links to YouTube below.
Biblical Hebrew assigns names to objects that are meaningful, not merely with respect to their physical properties (as my research testifies; Math Unveils the Truth. Evron’s Video), but also with regard to their functionality, and ultimately their destination, physically and spiritually.
In an earlier post (here), we related to the biblical (and modern Hebrew) Gag (גג), meaning roof (read Hebrew right to left). We have demonstrated the gigantic spiritual significance that the Jewish faith attach to Gag, as an epitome for the disconnect between the two worlds, created “in the beginning” (Genesis 1:1):
“In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”
No wonder, therefore, that this combination of a single double letter, גג, comprising the second most rare letter in biblical Hebrew (the most rare is Tet, ט), appears repeatedly in such names as Hagag, Hamman the Agagite, Gog and Magog (find details therein).
In this post, we address another combination of a two-letter Hebrew word, Gal (גל), comprising the third letter in the Hebrew alphabet, Gimel, plus the twelfth letter, Lamed (למד). Probably not accidentally, the name of the latter comprises letters of the Hebrew root, L.M.D, source for various Hebrew words all related to… learning.
This two-letter combination, Gimel and Lamed, surprisingly appears repeatedly in numerous words that seem not to share anything in common. Examples:
The Sin of the Golden Calf (Egel, עגל), the Sin of the Spies (Meraglim,מרגלים ), Exile (Galut, גלות), Redemption (Geula, גאולה), Revelation (Gilui, גלוי), Rolling over (Glila, גלילה), Wave (Gal,גל).
This same combination of letters is also embedded in names of two regions of Eretz Israel — Galilee (Galil, גליל) and Golan (Golan,גולן), the only two regions addressed in an account of the signs of End-times by Raban Gamliel (of first century CE, quoted in Mishna, Masechet Sotta, Ch. 9).
In this post, we explore whether all these words indeed share same rare combination, Gimel+Lamed, by random, or, conversely, perhaps some deeper significance is lurking underneath these seemingly unrelated words. Furthermore, we explore why Gal stands in stark contrast, indeed as the opposite, of what Gag symbolizes, namely, an epitome for the process of revelation (of what?), and of the final establishment of linkage between “the heaven and the earth”.
We start with a basic tenet of the Jewish faith, embedded in biblical Hebrew (as we shall soon see) and in the Hebrew Bible — God exists; However, God is concealed; And it is the task of the Jewish people, throughout the unfolding of Jewish history, to reveal Jehovah to the nations of the world, from the time of receiving the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai to End-times, with the final redemption, when “…Jehovah dwells in Zion” (Joel 4:21).
This tenet is pervasive throughout biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible. Let us address some examples.
“World” in Hebrew is Olam (עולם), having same three-letter root, A.L.M, from which such words are derived as “unknown” (as in a mathematical equation, Ne-elam, נעלם), Mystery (Ta-aluma, תעלומה) and else.
Question: What does Olam hide?
Answer: Olam is testimony to the concealed existence of Jehovah. And in linking Earth with Heaven, via a historic process carried out in cycles, like waves (גל), the existence of God (currently concealed) is gradually revealed to humankind.
Another three-letter Hebrew root for the hiddenness of God (and also other uses) is S.T.R. From this root such Hebrew words are derived as to hide (Le-Histater), or a concealed spot (Seter, Mistor). In the Bible, prophet Isaiah (45:15) outcries:
“Indeed, you are a hiding God (El Mistater), God of Israel, savior”.
The book of Esther (אסתר), thence, becomes a historic testimony to the truth of the prophet’s outcry, and to its realization: Although Jehovah is not mentioned in Esther, not even once, it is amply clear that the “God of Israel” is “behind the scenes”, saving the Jews from the first ever attempt to inflict Holocaust on the Jewish people.
Similarly, we find in Psalms (89:47):
“Till when, Jehovah, will you hide thyself (Tistater), for ever?…”.
See also Psalms (90:1).
Interestingly, the English word, standing for the story of the unfolding of human affairs throughout the ages is…History (containing the Hebrew root for hiding, S.T.R). Obviously, “history” did not originate in biblical Hebrew.
The first appearance of Gal (גל) in the Bible may be regarded as epitome to the enduring role of the Jewish people throughout the ages.
Jacob, at the command of his father, Isaac, travels to Paddan-Aram to his family-relative, Laban, to look for a wife (Genesis 28:5). Approaching destination, Jacob encounters Rachel, Laban’s daughter who was a shepherdess, reaching the well to water Laban’s flock. Jacob hurriedly rolls over the stone that covered the well’s mouth (Genesis 29:10):
“…and Jacob went near, and rolled (ויגל) the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the flock…”.
And the Jewish people are tasked, throughout ages of Jewish history, to repeat the same act of Jacob, allowing the nations of the world, over and over again, to “drink” fresh water while the well’s mouth is still covered. This task of the Jewish people started with receiving the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, and will end at End-times, when “Jehovah dwells in Zion” (Joel 4:21), hidden no more.
How is Gal connected to all these?
Gal, גל, which originally means wave, is a symbol for the historic development, carried out in cycles (like waves) of exile and redemption, Galut and Geula, first from Egypt, then with the destruction of the First Temple, then with the destruction of the Second Temple. With each wave, ignorance of God (“concealment of God”) is slowly dissolving, knowledge of Jehovah becomes more prevalent, and progress is achieved towards the ultimate outcome (Joel 4:21).
Each and every biblical Hebrew word relating to this historic process, which the Jewish people was tasked to fulfill via the Covenant, is affiliated with Gal (גל). From the exile in Egypt and away from the Promised Land (Galut), to the two sins of the Children of Israel on their way to the promised land (Sin of the Egel; Sin of the Meraglim, which caused a mini-exile of forty years in the Sinai desert), to exiles following the destruction of the two temples, to redemption (Geula, return from exile to Eretz Israel), to the War of Gog and Magog and ultimately to the final outcome, revelation (Hitgalut). Each of these descriptive words of historic processes has embedded within it the rare combination of Gal. And this historic progress is moving us towards the end of Jehovah concealment, the disconnect between heaven and earth, to be replaced by the ever-lasting time of Jehovah’s revelation (Hitgalut, Gilui; Malachi 3:1):
“Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall clear the way before me; and suddenly shall the Lord, whom you seek, come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, behold, he shall come, says the Lord of hosts”.
Finally, why Gag (גג) symbolizes disconnect between “Heaven and Earth”, while Gal (גל) represents the opposite?
Simply:
Gag (גג) comprises two identical letters. The physical world (Earth) is all there is. This implies stagnation, stalemate, standstill — no progress, no development, no learning. Transition from the first to second (identical) letter is immaterial. Nothing is changed. The physical world is all there is.
The first letter of Gal (גל) is the same as that of Gag, representing the physical world (Earth). However, the second letter, ל, is different. It is named Lamed (meaning learning), and perhaps expectedly its upper left part is pointing upward, towards Heaven. Gal implies a dynamic process, progressing in waves, connecting heaven and earth, learning of God requirements and moving forward towards the total and general knowledge of Jehovah so that the God of Israel is concealed no more (Isaiah 11:9):
“They shall do no harm nor destroy in all of my holy mountain; for the earth shall be filled with knowledge of Jehovah as the water covers the sea”.
Podcasts:
English:
Hebrew:
גְּלִילָה, גָּלוּת, גְּאוּלָה, גִּלּוּי, גָּלִיל, גּוֹלָן, (Podcast) מה קושר את כולם יחד
Comments:
- To further learn how Galilee (Galil, גליל) and Golan (Golan,גולן) are part and parcel of End-time scenarios, and therefore part of the historic process leading to “Jehovah dwells in Zion”, view lecture by Rav Ynon Kalazan (Hebrew): Rav Ynon Kalazan on Signs of End-times and Current Events
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was an astronomer who, with his observations based on a new telescope that he had invented, helped spread the new Helio-centric world view initiated by Copernicus (to replace the Geo-centric world view that dominated world-view for 1500 years prior; see Wikipedia, Geocentric Model). Galileo was engaged most of his life in learning the cyclic motion of celestial objects, combining his observations with mathematics. It is indeed surprising that Galileo carried a name that implies, in Hebrew, cycles. Galgal in Hebrew is “wheel”, Maagal is “circle”, and Galil in biblical Hebrew means Galilee (a region in Eretz Israel), but also, in biblical Hebrew, something that turns around an axis, like door. In modern Hebrew Galil means “cylinder”. See: Galileo Galilei.
- To learn how seriously Jewish scholars have persistently held the faith-based belief in the correspondence between biblical Hebrew names and properties of objects that the names stand for, refer to my post: Why a Jewish Rabbi wondered that Sun in Hebrew not named Eretz (Earth)?
- Interestingly, Small-Gematria of Gag and Gal are equal (6). The latter value represents, in Jewish tradition, the physical world (like the six sides of a cube).
Links to YouTube:
English: https://youtu.be/H8_sC2TNzc8
Hebrew: https://youtu.be/iplKecSWhUw
A common perception of the Bible is that its main objective is to demonstrate how the Divine responds to human conduct. In other words, how a Divine System of Justice (occasionally wrongly named “Poetic Justice”) is operating in the world.
The belief in the existence of Divine Justice is explicitly pronounced by Abraham, outcrying (while attempting to secure Sodom and Gamora from total destruction, Genesis 18:25):
“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice?”.
A main ingredient of this belief is that justice is exercised in the same “coin”, and usually by same measure, as the sin. It is manifested, symbolically, in the known, and wrongly interpreted and defamed (Exodus 21:24):
“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise”.
In this post, we present two cases of Divine Justice — As presented in the Bible (exercised in midwater) and current (as exercised in midair).
Example 1: Midwater
The Sin:
Exodus 1:15-16: “And the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives…when you do the office of midwife to the Hebrew women, if it be son then you shall kill him and if daughter then she shall live”;
Exodus 1:22: “And Pharaoh commanded all of his people, saying, every son that is born you shall cast into the Ye’or River and every daughter you shall save alive”.
Divine Justice:
Exodus 14:28: “And the waters returned and covered the chariots, and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them, there remained of them not even a single one”.
Example 2: Midair
The Sin:
April 14th 2024, Sunday (Sixth day of the Hebrew month of Nissan): Over three-hundreds deadly projectiles launched from Iran towards the State of Israel (see: Scores of Projectiles Launched on Israel with No Casualties?? — Not for the First Time ).
Divine Justice (plausibly):
May 19th 2024, Sunday (Eleventh day of the Hebrew month of Iyar): President of Iran, Raisi, with the Iranian minister for foreign affairs and others, were killed in midair in a helicopter-crash, amid heavy fog, as they were travelling back from a visit to northern Iran (near the borders with Azerbaijan and Armenia), where they discussed an infrastructure dam project with Azerbaijan president.
Comments:
- Post written under the current commonly accepted perception that the cause of Iranian helicopter-crash was solely weather-related.
- A lecture, in same line of thought as this post, by Rabbi Ben-Porat (added May, 22, 2014; Hebrew): Rabbi Ben-Porat on the Death of Iranian President in a Helicopter Crash_(May 22nd)
Prophet Joel (4:1-2):
“For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will assemble all nations to the Valley of Jehoshaphat*, and there will I enter into judgement with them for my people and my heritage Israel, whom they scattered among the nations and have divided up my land”;
Joel (4:19):
“Egypt shall become a desolation, and Edom a desolate wilderness, for the violence done unto the Children of Judah, that they have shed innocent blood in their land”.
Final Outcome (Joel 4:20-21):
“And Judah shall forever be settled, and Jerusalem for all generations to come…
and Jehovah dwells in Zion”.
_____________________________________
* Literally (in Hebrew): “Valley where Jehovah has judged”.
Recent attack on Israel by Iran, April 14th 2024, comprised over three-hundreds hostile flying objects. However, it caused no casualties within the State of Israel.
Below, we present a response to this event by a physics professor, Professor Abitbol, who introduces himself thus: “I am a professor of physics and I worked for several years in the defense industry in Israel, in projects that are still the cutting-edge technologies of the defense of the State of Israel.”
His intriguing perspective of what had really happened is given below.
Prior to this, we share our own personal experience from the nineties, during the First Gulf War. This war was initiated by US and allies after Iraq, ruled by Saddam Hussein, launched an invasion of neighboring Kuwait (August 2, 1990), and fully occupied the country within two days.
The First Gulf War started January 7 1991, and ended February 28 of that year. During this period, over forty missiles were launched on Israel from Iraq, causing devastating damage within Israel (no sophisticated anti-missile defense-systems, like Iron Dome, existed at the time). Yet, despite this extensive barrage of missiles showering Israeli territory, there were no casualties!!!
Like these days, with the attack from Iran and its proxies!!
Hopefully, this comment of mine may help pursue better the sentiment expressed by Professor Abitbol, as now given:
“I wanted to share something that is much more than a feeling. Something that comes from a real calculation: What happened in Israel on last Motzaei Shabbat was not less than the scale of the splitting of the Red Sea.
I am professor of physics and have worked for several years in the defense industry in Israel, in projects that are still the cutting-edge technologies of the defense of the State of Israel. When I look at what happened on Motzai Shabbat, on a scientific level — it simply cannot happen!! Statistically!
The likelihood that everything, but really *Everything*, works out, does not exist in complex systems like the defense systems that were used to defend Israel from the massive Iranian attack. These systems have never, *but never*, not only in the State of Israel, been tried in real time!!
I took a pencil and dived into the calculations to check the statistical probability that such a result would materialize. The large number of events that had to be handled, when each missile or UAV is handled independently (that is, human error, or some deviation of one operation, is not offset by other successful operations), compounds the chance of making a mistake. With all the high technologies, a breach was expected in the defense of the skies of the State of Israel.
Even if we got 90% protection it would have been a miracle!!
What happened is that everyone, but everyone — the pilots, the systems operators and the technology operators — acted as one man, at one moment, in total unity.
If this is not an act of G-d, then I no longer know what a miracle is.
It is Greater than the victory of the Six Day War, or the War of Independence. Those wars can also be explained through natural events.
BUT
The rescue that took place for the people of Israel on Motzai Shabbat is simply impossible naturally. I believe that this miracle saved the lives of many people in Israel. If the defense system had failed to intercept a number of cruise missiles, the result would have dragged us into a very complex war. I wouldn’t bet that next time it will work like this without Divine supervision. The simple proof of what I said is that the managers of the defense industries, who have developed and manufactured these systems, guarantee no more than 90% success!
And we all saw, with our own eyes, 99.9% !!!
Thank You Hashem!!
Prophet Micah (7:15): “As of the days of your coming out of the land of Egypt I will show him Wonders”.”
An interview with Dr. Abitbol (Hebrew):
My new paper (Why the Mode Departs from the Mean ) has been accepted for publication in Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods. It is now published (Open Access; Online April, 14, 2024).
One reviewer, in particular, has captured well the significance of the new paper, and its ramifications for Statistics.
The review is given below.
(related post: How We Perceive Ourselves and What Can We Become — The Story of Moses )
How humble Moses presents himself to God, receiving his life-mission which he feels unfit for, and his eventual two important legacies for human civilization:
See also on YouTube:
Comment: See also podcast: How We Perceive Ourselves and What Can We Become — The Story of Moses (Podcast)
When Jehovah approaches Moses, assigning him his life mission, to rescue the Children-of-Israel from the bondage of Egypt, or, more specifically, sending Moses to talk to Pharaoh, ruler of Egypt, modest Moses responds:
“…O my Lord, I am not an eloquent man, neither yesterday nor the day before, nor since thou have spoken to your servant, because I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue” (Exodus 4:10).
In other words, I am stuttering and therefore not fit for the job.
In the original Hebrew, “I am not an eloquent man”, is, literally:
“I am not a man of words (Devarim)”.
What is the greatest legacy Moses has left to human civilization, as a messenger of Jehovah?
The Ten Commandments.
How are these named in the Hebrew Bible?
Let us read the opening verse, prior to a detailed specification of the Ten Commandments:
“And God spoke all these words (Devarim) saying” (Exodus 20:1).
In other words, biblical Hebrew for the Ten Commandments is
Devarim
(a consistent reference throughout the Hebrew Torah, as shown in detail in an earlier post, here ).
The last book of Torah, the fifth book, is the book of Deuteronomy (attributed, in Jewish tradition, to Moses).
What is its biblical Hebrew name ?
Devarim
Humble Moses, who had initially reduced himself before God as “A man of no Devarim”, same Moses grew up during his life span to bequeath humanity, as a messenger of Jehovah, two of the greatest legacies of human civilization:
- The Ten Commandments (Devarim)
- Deuteronomy (Devarim)
One can only wonder at this amazing lesson Torah is delivering to us,
A lesson in human growth; A lesson in human hope.
(Related post: The Hidden Message of the First Chapter of the Bible )
An earlier related post, addressing evidence for the new interpretation:
“And Elohim Saw Ki Tov” (“that it was good”)” (Gen. 1) — A Different Viewpoint
View on YouTube:
(Related podcast: The Hidden Message of the First Chapter of the Bible (Podcast) )
God had created all.
This is an apparent and self-evident message of the creation narrative of Genesis. It is a message common to all monotheistic faiths.
However, this is the trivial message.
There is another, deeper, less self-evident. That message relies heavily on proper understanding of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1. It is expressed by the repeated descriptive notification:
“And God saw that it was good” (Ki Tov; conventional interpretation).
In an earlier post (available here), I repudiated this interpretation. This was based on other verses of the Bible, where the central couple of Hebrew words, “Ki Tov”, has a single meaning, consistent throughout the Hebrew Bible:
“Ki Tov” = Because God is good.
The new interpretation changes dramatically understanding the message of the first chapter of the Bible. Suddenly, the bizarre verse, “And Elohim saw Ki Tov”, repeated over and over in Genesis 1 (with variations), attains a completely different meaning.
The message of the first chapter of Genesis is not only, and not mainly, that God created all that there is. No less important message is that Elohim also continuously monitors all that He had created.
Why?
Ki Tov (because of the goodness of God).
The major message of Genesis creation narrative is that God is present in all that He had created, and that He continuously takes care of the created.
However, Divine Providence is currently concealed (“Is there God?”).
This is best demonstrated in the biblical Book of Esther (root of the name is source to various Hebrew words, all related to a single verb… to conceal). God is never mentioned in Esther. Yet, it is amply clear, from beginning to end, that the chain of events, described in great detail, is subject to Divine Providence.
An example:
“Letters were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate all Jews, young and old, women and children, in one day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar…And the king and Haman sat down to drink” (Esther 3:13, 15). How very familiar…
Why is the presence of God concealed?
We are living in an era of free-will. Indisputable knowledge that God exists cannot cohabit with free-will. The latter is the underlying principle governing our current existence, as human beings, on Planet Earth. As a consequence, we are free to pursue whatever our heart desires.
Why is that important?
We are here to form ourselves. First, while we grow physically, and later, when we grow spiritually as a result of the chain of experiences, which we are subject to throughout our lives. Our growth as human beings is predicated on our existence as agents of free-will.
Will the era of free-will, of the hiddenness of Divine Providence, ever come to an end?
As documented in the Bible, in Torah and the prophets, the end of God concealment would arrive suddenly, unexpectedly:
“Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall clear the way before me; and suddenly will the Lord, whom you seek, come to his temple…” (Malachi 3:1)
With current realization of End-Time scenarios, unfolding before our bewildered eyes, with the tectonic changes in world affairs that we all witness, perhaps these changes portend the end of a long chapter in human history, the era of concealment, the era of free-will.
To be replaced with a new chapter in human history,
when Divine Providence be concealed no more.
Comment: Main message of this post is given further credence on reading the first of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2): “I am Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage”.
“Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew” (3rd Edition, Sep. 2023) is now available for free download.
Book accessible via a password-protected PDF file:
Haim Shore_Coincidences Book_Third Ed_Feb 18 2024-protected
Password:
Amazon link:
Haim Shore. “Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew” (3rd Ed, Sep., 2023). Amazon.com
I have recently authored a short communication, explaining the occasional departure of the mode from the mean in terms of the new “Random Identity Paradigm”.
This article has been accepted for publication in Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods. It is now published (Shore, online April 2024; Open Access):
Why the mode departs from the mean—a short communication.
An insightful review of the paper, by an anonymous referee, is linked in a separate post:
Review of an Accepted Paper (“Why the Mode Departs from the Mean”)
A core concept in the explanation for the departure of the mode from the mean is the new “Random Identity Paradigm”. It is associated with new terms like Identity Stability, Identity Variation, and Identity-full/less distributions. A thorough introduction to the new paradigm, and allied terms, is delivered in Appendix A of the new paper (Shore, January 2024; Open Access):
See also an earlier post, referring to the latter paper:
Why the Mode Occasionally Departs from the Mean?
Some further implications of the new paradigm are explored in my four-part series at “Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online”:
- The Effects of the Box–Cox Transformation (Stat08456)
- The Mean, Mode, Standard Deviation and Their Mutual Relationships (Stat08457)
- Asymptotic Normality and the Coefficient of Variation (Stat08458)
Comment: As of writing this comment (May 10, 2024), the new article has become the most read of all articles published in the last twelve months in the host journal (CIS – Theory and Method, with 233K annual downloads/views):
Most read articles (of articles published in the last twelve months)
Since the massacre of October 7th (2023), committed by Hamas terrorists infiltrating the sovereign territory of the State of Israel, President Biden and the Biden administration have been continuously engaged in advising the democratically elected Israeli government how to conduct its war against the infiltrators (Hamas).
Now, in front of our bewildered eyes, an unbelievable mirror-image is internally developing in the USA, where Governor Abbott of Texas is on a collision course with the Biden administration, the latter continuously advising the former how to conduct its war with the infiltrators (from Mexico).
These parallel scenarios remind me of a theme I have addressed some years ago, in my post: “An Outrage in Afghanistan” and One in Israel .
In essence, the episode in this post addresses yet another coincidence of a strange pattern, noticed by some (see references in the post), that whatever the US is adversely doing to the Jewish state is returning to it, like a boomerang.
The strife between the local government of the state of Texas and the federal Biden administration, engaging in a fierce battle of how to handle illegal infiltrators coming through Texas border, is perhaps another incredible coincidence of
“As America Has Done to Israel…”.
(See related post at: Four Major Bible Messages)
Here are four major messages of the Bible, aimed, in particular, to the Jewish people:
Comment: See “Holy” by Bible standards:
Here are four major messages of the Bible, aimed, in particular, to the Jewish people:
Message 1. Covenant between Jehovah and the Jewish people:
“And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation…” … “…you shall be holy for holy am I, Jehovah your God” (Exodus 19:6; Leviticus 19:2);
Message 2. Unconditional Divine Commitment to the Covenant:
“Thus says Jehovah, if my covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth have I not established, then will I cast away the descendants of Jacob and David my servant… (Jeremiah 33:25);
Message 3. Divine Definition of Covenant Violation:
“And that which comes into your mind shall be not, when you say “Let us be like the nations, like the peoples of the world, to serve wood and stone” (Ezekiel 20:32);
Message 4. Divine Warning for Covenant Violation:
“As surely as I live, declares God Jehovah, if not with a mighty hand, and out-stretched arm and outpouring rage shall I be king over you” (Ezekiel 20:33).
Comment: See “Holy” by Bible standards:
“Becoming Holy” — The Bible Prescription
I am pleased that my new article:
is now accessible/included in ENBIS-22 Special Issue (online, Dec. 17, 2023):
The ENBIS-22 Quality & Reliability Engineering International Special Issue
(See podcast at: How Will the Jews Re-gather Into Their Ancestral Homeland? – Jeremiah Prophecy (Podcast) )
Jeremiah 16:14-16:
“Therefore, behold, days are coming, so says Jehovah, when it shall no more be said, as-Jehovah-lives, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
But, as-Jehovah-lives, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the North, and from all the lands into which He had driven them;
And I will bring them back into their land, that I gave to their fathers;
Behold, I will send for many fishers, so says Jehovah, and they will fish for them;
And later on, will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them out from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the clefts of the rocks.”
My four-part mini-series on Statistics is now published by Wiley:
Shore Four-Part Mini-Series on: “Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online”
Here are links to all four parts (stat08456 to stat08459):
Parametric and Parameter-Free Shape Moments (Stat08459)
Asymptotic Normality and the Coefficient of Variation (Stat08458)
The Mean, Mode, Standard Deviation and Their Mutual Relationships (Stat08457)
The surprising answer is the Eighth Commandment: “Do not Steal“.
Find details here:
Shorty*: Where “Do Not Steal” Appears in the Ten Commandments
We, the Jewish people, have been preaching the Ten Commandments to the world for the last three-thousand and three hundred years.
Therefore, we do not believe, indeed cannot believe, that someone, somewhere, wishes to kill us.
I remember, then a first-year student at Technion during the Six-Day War, running to the shelter to escape bombing from the air, with a single thought running in my mind, a young person that I was at the time:
“Why does someone, somewhere, wish to kill me?”
And because of this built-in conflict in the Jewish culture, believing, on the one hand, in the goodness of the human race, yet in desperate need to be prepared to be massacred, on the other, because of this built-in conflict, we are surprised. Over and over again:
- We were surprised during the Holocaust;
- We were surprised before the Six-day War (1967; Yes, we were surprised; I lived throughout those years);
- We were surprised before the Yom Kippur War (1973);
- We were surprised again now, at the massacre of October 7, 2023.
We, the Jews, pay dearly for this built-in conflict in our culture.
We pay dearly for our optimistic view, despite clear evidence to the contrary, of the nature of the human race (or else the Ten Commandments would not have been so wide-spread throughout the world).
Yet, regardless of the heavy price, I prefer this built-in conflict to continue be an essential and integral part of our inherited Jewish culture.
My new book has just been published on Amazon.
It is available both as paperback (14$) and Kindle e-book (5$):
Please rate, comment. Thank you.
Roi Rutenberg was a young shepherd, member of Kibbutz Nahal Oz (on the border with Gaza, nowadays much in the news).
He was murdered by an Arab, infiltrating from nearby Gaza to murder the Jewish youngster, Roi.
Moshe Dayan, then Chief of Staff (Ramatcal) of the IDF, gave a thrilling eulogy over Roi. Here is a link to the famous eulogy (English):
Moshe Dayan’s Eulogy for Roi Rutenberg – April 19, 1956
A recording, the original eulogy as delivered by Dayan, is available and probably can be traced on the net.
Over sixty years later, like nothing had changed.
But something did change.
In Roi case, 1956, Israelis at the time knew that Roi was murdered by an Arab, from Gaza (then under the rule of Egypt, so no notion of a Palestinian even existed).
Now we know that the perpetrators of the massacre of October 7th, 2023, were… Chamas.
No. Not Palestinian Arabs from Gaza.
Like the perpetrators of the Holocaust were… the Nazis
(Sorry, I forgot: Nazis who? from which people? from which nation? from which culture? from which system of values?).
For millennia, Jewish rabbis, and other scholars of monotheistic faith, have related to the Hebrew-Bible text as mathematical precise (even when this term was obviously not used).
The objective of this podcast is to demonstrate this precision with three examples (of many), where translation is causing the original Hebrew-text meaning to be lost:
Living in the period of the Geo-Centric worldview, a Jewish Rabbi wondered (claimed) that it is the sun that should be named Eretz (Hebrew for Earth). With the later science-based shift towards the Helio-Centric worldview (Sun is “still”, Earth is “running” around it), biblical Hebrew once again proved to describe accurately physical reality:
The answer to this question is detailed in a new paper, just published (Shore, 2024a; Open Access):
A related post, referring to a more recent paper (Shore, 2024b; Open Access):
Why the Mode Departs from the Mean (Published, Open Access)
A Layman’s Abstract, published by Wiley, may be found here:
Enjoy and please share!!
First ten digits of Pi are: 3.141592653… (Last digit not rounded).
The first verse of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 1:1) is:
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
In this post, we address the relationship between Pi and the only two biblical Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1 relating to the physical world (marked in red), namely: “And the Earth”.
We have written several posts about the relationships between Pi and the first verse of the Bible, as revealed in Oren Evron research work (for example, here1, here2, here3). In this post we add another finding of our own, relating to Gematria values of the seven letters comprising the two words.
As explained and demonstrated elsewhere (here2), there are two types of Gematria values: regular Gematria and small Gematria. The latter is traditionally defined in Jewish scholarship as the sum total of the Gematria values of individual letters comprising the word, with the zeros deleted; for example, the letter Yod (10) is counted as 1, the letter Resh (200) as 2 and so on.
Let us examine small Gematria of the seven letters comprising the two marked words :
First letter: 6 (letter “ו”); Second letter: 1 (letter “א”); Third letter: 4 (letter “ת”, value of 400 in regular Gematria); Fourth letter: 5 (letter “ה”); Fifth letter:1 (letter “א”); Sixth letter: 2 (letter “ר”, value of 200 in regular Gematria); Seventh letter: 9 (letter “ץ”, value of 90 in regular Gematria).
Here are the two sequences, side by side:
Pi: {1, 4, 1, 5, 9, 2, 6}; Genesis 1:1: {6, 1, 4, 5, 1, 2, 9}.
We realize that the two sequences are two permutations of the same single combination of digits!!
Note, that ignoring the first digit in Genesis 1:1 (“6”), the remaining three pairs of digits also preserve same order as in Pi.
The Probability/Statistics oriented reader is challenged to calculate the probability of these two findings happening by chance…
(hint: total possible number of such seven-digit sequences is nine to the power of 7, namely, 4.8 millions!)
Comment. See my other finding about Pi and Genesis 1:1 here.
Categories
Current Detoxification of Israeli Society
(This post may also be viewed on Times-of-Israel: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/current-detoxification-of-israeli-society/ )
In Exodus (19:6), God calls unto His people:
“You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”.
Why should you become a holy nation, and how do you become a holy nation?
The answer and prescription are delivered in no uncertain terms in a certain segment of the Jewish Torah, generally referred to, in Jewish tradition, as Parashat Kedoshim (Segment “The holy ones”).
First the answer (Leviticus 19:1):
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses saying, speak to all the congregation of the Children of Israel and say to them: “Holy shall you be because holy am I, Jehovah your God”.
In a verse, prior to the end of the Parashah, the same assertion is repeated (Leviticus 20:26):
“And you shall be holy to me for holy am I, Jehovah…”.
The prescription to becoming a holy nation is delivered in the Parashah in a series of ‘Do’s and ‘Do-not do’s. However, throughout the Parashah, the signature of the Divine is repeated, time and again, as if to remind the listener (or reader), of their Divine source: “I am Jehovah” (For example, Leviticus 19:16).
Here is a sample of those ‘Do’s and ‘Do-not do’s (see elaboration and references on my post “Becoming Holy” — The Bible Prescription):
“Do not walk around offering your merchandise of slander” … “Do not stand still, while your fellow human-being is in a potentially threatening blood-shedding situation. I am Jehovah” … “Do not hate your fellow human-being in your heart” … “Do not do wrong in return for wrong-doing committed unto you” … “Do not reserve resentment” … “Love thy neighbour as yourself. I am Jehovah”.
Let us relate to resentment (see also my post “Speak Hebrew and Be Righteous”).
Hebrew for “Resentment” (or “Grudge”) is Tinah. Tin is Hebrew for “Silt” (mud that sinks to the bottom of the pool).
The Hebrew language educates: Resentment is like silt.
The latter rests silently at the bottom of a pool of water, nearly undetected, until the pool’s water is disturbed. The mud then rises up to blur and obscure all that shape up under the surface of the water.
Likewise, resentment can be hidden from view (even your own) until triggered into action. Once activated, old grudges rise up to blur and obscure all that is shaping up inside your psyche, rendering your soul non-transparent. This results in distorted vision of reality, in impairing relationships with family and friends and ultimately in poor judgement in decision-making scenarios.
However, there is also an extremely positive side to Tinah. Once activated due to stormy water, it generates an opportunity for Tikkun (“Correction”). The dirt in your soul becomes visible, in full view for you to understand the negative sides of your soul, and to take action to purify yourself from all the dirt and poison that have sunk into you, becoming invisible over the years.
In other words: As a result of stormy water, you undergo a process of Detoxification. Your heart becomes purified.
I believe this is an accurate description of the root of the mayhem, now generating big waves throughout Israel.
The process is both positive and negative.
The positive side is that one may consider the gigantic waves, now rattling Israel, and their expected final result, mass Detoxification, as fulfillment of a biblical prophecy:
- Ezekiel (11:19): “I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them; and I will remove the stony heart out of their flesh and will give them a heart of flesh”;
- Ezekiel (36:25-26): “..I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I would remove the stony heart out of your flesh and gave you a heart of flesh”.
However, this process of cleansing, of Detoxification, is not riskless. It may expose Israel to grave dangers. Israel’s enemies smell internal weakness within the country as predators smell blood. We have been there before. Prior to the Six-Day War (June, 1967), Israel was in decline, economically and otherwise. The general sentiment of Israelis was that of despair and lack of hope. Emigration out of the country assumed unusual proportions. The most widespread cynical joke of the time stated that at the gate of outgoing flights, at Ben-Gurion Airport. there is a label stating: “The last one, please turn off the light” (!!!). Some humor!
Will the current status of the country, outwardly looking like fragile and falling apart, will it trigger an all-out assault against Israel’s very existence?
We hope not.
And we hope that the current internal turmoil the country is going through ultimately prove to be a necessary change of heart (from stone to flesh), and a healing process that started with quarrel (Yariv*) but would end up in great joy (Simcah*).
______________________
* Yariv and Simchah are first names of, respectively, Israel Justice Minister and chair of Knesset Judicial Committee, both main figures to carry out the planned (and controversial) judicial reform.
My paper of 2020:
An Explanatory Bi-Variate Model for Surgery-Duration and Its Empirical Validation ,
which outlines a novel approach to modeling and forecasting surgery-duration, has now become Free Access (namely, open for all to read).
The paper has become cornerstone for a series of related papers that followed.
If you feel qualified (in terms of basic knowledge of Statistics),
Read and enjoy!!
Comment:
Related more recent articles:
[1] A new paper that generalizes to any process the results of the first paper (Open Access):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qre.3386
[2] A Layman’s Abstract, published by Wiley, may be found here:
Living in the period of the Geo-Centric worldview, a Jewish Rabbi wondered (claimed) that it is the sun that should be named Eretz (Hebrew for Earth). With the later science-based shift towards the Helio-Centric worldview (Sun is “still”, Earth is “running” around it), biblical Hebrew once again proved to describe accurately physical reality:
I have now uploaded to YouTube my presentation of March, 2006, delivered at Auburn University (USA), in which I explain my new methodology (RMM) to model variation (random or systematic).
Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has allowed enhancing the quality of the video audio so that it could be uploaded to YouTube.
Associated PowerPoint presentation, first in PowerPoint format, second in PDF format (helps preserve the correct form of the equations):
Haim Shore Seminar_ Auburn Univ_March2006
Haim Shore seminar_RMM_Auburn Univ_March 2006
Entry at Wikipedia: Response modeling methodology – Wikipedia
YouTube link:
(Related podcast: Why a Jewish Rabbi wondered that Sun in Hebrew not named Eretz? (Podcast) ).
Comment: This post is based on an excerpt from my book “Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew” (Shore, 2012, 2nd Ed.), Section 8.1.
As reported in Jewish written sources, the name Earth in biblical Hebrew was the subject of much debate and puzzlement over the ages.
The source for these was the fact that the name for Earth in biblical Hebrew resembles the word for… “run”— namely, “move fast” (Earth in Hebrew Eretz; run is ratz).
A Geo-centric world view, according to which all heavenly bodies are rotating around Earth, was dominant for over 1500 years, until the late 16th century and onward, when it was replaced by the Helio-centric model of modern science (Wikipedia, Geocentric Model).
Living in the geocentric world view, Jewish scholars over the ages were puzzled about this resemblance of Eretz and Ratz (same philological root). They explained that this similarity is most probably due to the “fact” that the moon and the sun and all stars are “running” around the earth.
Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel (1437– 1508), a well-known commentator of the Bible, did not accept this interpretation. In his commentary to Genesis, he explained that “since the earth is a still center, it would have been appropriate that the wheel [meaning sun] should be called Eretz, and not the still center around which it revolves.”
Obviously, living prior to the historic shift towards the heliocentric worldview, Jewish sages have tried to fit their interpretations to the scientific knowledge of the time. Abrabanel rejected their explanations, based on pure logic.
The Jewish rabbi was obviously unaware that not many years later, Copernicus (1473–1543), in his book published not long prior to Copernicus death, would start the heliocentric revolution.
This resolved the quandary, raised by the Jewish rabbi, about a single biblical Hebrew word, Eretz, which to this day is used in Hebrew and in other languages (Earth),
describing accurately what planet Earth is actually doing, namely,
“running” around the sun.
I have now uploaded the complete series of thirteen lectures (Hebrew) on “Quality by Design”, delivered by me to graduate students (engineers from Israel industry) in the summer of 2014.
Recent AI techniques to improve audio have allowed me to upload this series to YouTube, for the benefit of Hebrew-speaking quality professionals.
Enjoy, and please share:
The story of my father, participating in the first Maccabiah (1932), how his life was spared, and how I repaid my debt:
( Related post: How I Repaid Maccabiah for Saving My Father from the Holocaust )
(A related podcast: How I Repaid Maccabiah for Saving My Father from the Holocaust (Audio-podcast) )
Maccabi World Union is a Jewish International Sports Organization, spanning more than 450 clubs in over 70 countries in 5 continents. Every four years, Maccabi organizes the Maccabiah, routinely called the Jewish Olympics, during which time (summer time), thousands of Jewish athletes come to Israel to compete in various sports branches.
The First Maccabiah opened on March, 1932. A large delegation from Poland participated, among them my late father, Daniel, who was part of the soccer team. My father grew up in Levov, then of Poland (currently Lviv of Ukraine). After the Maccabiah ended, my father decided to stay in Eretz Israel (then named Palestine, under British mandate).
Doing so, his life was spared. Not so with the rest of his family members, most of whom perished in the Holocaust.
On July of 2009, the 18-th Maccabiah was scheduled to take place. About a year earlier, the organizing committee of the 18th Maccabiah approached me with a request to organize a Satisfaction Survey, intended to be administered online after the Maccabiah ended. The survey was to be conducted separately for three groups of people (Athletes, Delegation Officials and Staff).
At the time, I was affiliated with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, where I served as a tenured engineering full professor (retired 2015). As common practice, Israeli universities allow employees, after obtaining proper permission, to engage in delivering services outside the university, even when services rendered are not in academia. I started negotiating with the representative of the organizing committee of the Maccabiah on the terms of the contract, under which the planned Satisfaction Survey would be carried out.
Shortly after negotiations started, it dawned on me that my own life would not have come into existence were it not for the First Maccabiah, which hosted my father and ultimately caused him to stay in Eretz Israel.
I notified the organizing committee of the 18-th Maccabiah that I would conduct the requested survey free of charge. I explained the motivation.
At the time (summer of 2008), 3rd year undergraduate students in my engineering department were supposed to find a subject for their final project, to be carried out during the final 4th year of study. The final project was supposed to be carried out by a pair of students, although larger teams were occasionally allowed. Two students responded to my call, Rinat Bidany and Keren Farm. During their fourth year of study, the three of us worked diligently to build the necessary tools to conduct the survey. Once the tools were ready, they had been submitted to the Maccabiah, which administered the survey during the summer of 2009. By that time, the academic year was already over, Rinat and Keren got their high mark for their final project, and all three of us were invited to attend the opening ceremony of the Eighteenth Maccabiah, held in Ramat Gan, with participation of the Israeli president, the late Shimon Peres.
I spent most of the summer of 2009 statistically analyzing the results of the survey, culminating in a three-volume report that was submitted to Maccabi World Union Executive body. The first volume is attached herewith.
As a token of appreciation, I was granted a nice three-dimensional figure, representing the Maccabiah 18 emblem. The label (Hebrew) reads:
“Prof. Haim Shore. With Gratitude for Your Contribution to the 18th Maccabiah”.
The Ten Commandments, in their original biblical Hebrew, are — The Ten Devarim, or Ten Dibrot (the singular of which is Diber); The Holy of Holies, where the tablets with the Ten Commandments were held in the Jewish temple, is — Dvir; A plague is — Dever.
All these share a common root in biblical Hebrew — D.B.R (ד.ב.ר).
What does this root mean?
Deuteronomy 32:21:
“They have made Me jealous with Lo-El (literally, “No-God“),
provoked Me to anger with their vanities (Havalim, literally, “Nonsense“);
And I will move them to jealousy with Lo-Am (literally, “Non-people“),
with Goy-Naval (literally, “vile-nation“) will I provoke them to anger”.
To-date, within the Statistics literature, one may literally find thousands of statistical distributions.
Is this acceptable?
Or perhaps we are wrong in how we model random variation?
The related post, with references:
Where Statistics Went Wrong Modeling Random Variation
References:
My Trilogy of Articles on Surgery Times – Now Complete (Published)
Update: A new free-access article, published 2024 (“Why the Mode Departs from the Mean – A Short Communication“) adds a new dimension to the contents of the post below.
(Related podcast: Where Statistics Went Wrong Modeling Random Variation (Podcast) )
A model of random variation, generated by a “random variable”, is presented in Statistics in the form of a statistical distribution (like the normal or the exponential).
For example, the weight of people at a certain age is a random variable, and its observed variation may be modeled by the normal distribution; Surgery duration is a random variable, and its observed variation may, at a specified circumstance, be modeled by the exponential distribution.
In the Statistics literature, one may find statistical distributions modeling random variation directly observed in nature (as the above two examples), or random variation associated with a function of random variables (like a sample average calculated from a sample of n observations).
To-date, within the Statistics literature, one may literally find thousands of statistical distributions.
Is this acceptable?
Or perhaps we are wrong in how we model random variation?
Pursuant to a large-scale project, where I have modeled surgery times (a research effort reported in three recent publications, Shore 2020ab, 2021), I have reached certain conclusions of how random variation should be modeled as to be more truthful to reality. The new approach seems to reduce the problem of the insanely gigantic number of distributions, as currently appearing in the Statistics literature.
I have summarized these new insights in a new paper, carrying the title of the post.
The Introduction section of this paper is posted below. Underneath it, one may find a link to the entire article.
Where Statistics Went Wrong Modeling Random Variation
- Introduction
The development of thousands of statistical distributions to-date is puzzling, if not bizarre. An innocent observer may wonder, how in most other branches of science the historical development shows a clear trend towards unifying the “objects of enquiry” (forces in physics; properties of materials in chemistry; human characteristics in biology), this has not taken place within the mathematical modelling of random variation? Why in Statistics, as the branch of science engaged in modeling random variation observed in nature, the number of “objects of enquiry” (statistical distributions) keeps growing?
In other words: Where has Statistics gone wrong modeling observed random variation?
Based on new insights, gained from a recent personal experience with data-based modeling of surgery time (resulting in a trilogy of published papers, Shore 2020ab, 2021), we present in this paper a new paradigm to modeling observed random variation. A fundamental insight is a new perception of how observed random variation is generated, and how it affects the form of the observed distribution. The latter is perceived to be generated not by a single source of variation (as the common concept of “random variable”, r.v., implies), but by two interacting sources of variation. One source is “Identity”, formed by “identity factors”. This source is represented in the distribution by the mode (if one exists), and it may generate identity-variation. A detailed example for this source, regarding modeling of surgery times, is presented in Shore (2020a). Another source is an interacting error, formed by “non-identity/error factors”. This source generates error variation (separate from identity variation). Combined, the two interacting sources generate the observed random variation. The random phenomenon, generating the latter, may be in two extreme states: An identity-full state (there is only error variation), and an identity-less state (identity factors become so unstable as to be indistinguishable from error factors; identity vanishes; no error can be defined). Scenarios, residing in between these two extreme states, reflect a source of variation with partial lack of identity (LoI).
The new “Random Identity Paradigm”, attributing two contributing sources to observed random variation (rather than a single one, as to date assumed), has far reaching implications to the true relationships between location, scale and shape moments. These are probed and demonstrated extensively in this paper, with numerous examples from current Statistics literature (relate, in particular, to Section 3).
In this paper, we first introduce, in Section 2, basic terms and definitions that form the skeleton for the new random-identity paradigm. Section 3 addresses implications of the new paradigm in the form of six propositions (subsection 3.1) and five predictions (presented as conjectures, subsection 3.2). The latter are empirically supported, in Section 4, with examples from the published Statistics literature. A general model for observed random variation (Shore, 2020a), bridging the gap between current models for the two extreme states (normal, for identity-full state; exponential, for the other), is reviewed in Section 5, and its properties and implications probed. Section 6 delivers some concluding comments.
A link to the complete article:
Earlier Climate Change:
“In the sixth hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth for forty days and forty nights” (Genesis 7:11-12).
What Caused It:
“Now, the earth was corrupted in front of God, and the earth was filled with Chamas” (plunder, extortion). “And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupted because all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth” (Genesis 6:11-12).
In an earlier post, we have addressed the significance of GAG (roof in biblical Hebrew). The word comprises two appearances of the second most rare letter in the Hebrew alphabet, the third letter, Gimmel (corresponding to the letter g in English).
In an added comment, I have observed that the two major sins of the Israelites, on their way to the Promised Land, are denoted, in Hebrew, the Sin of The Egel (Sin of the Golden Calf), and the Sin of The Meraglim (Sin of the Spies). For both sins, the Hebrew names include Gimmel as their middle letter. Combined, the two sins form a particular version of Gag, the Israelite Gag.
As the Bible tells us, both sins were responded by extreme Divine wrath.
Reacting to the sin of the Egel, God said to Moses:
“Now, therefore, let me alone, that my wrath may burn against them and that I may consume them; and I will make of thee a great nation” (Exodus 32:10).
Reacting to the sin of the Meraglim, God said to Moses:
“..How long will this people provoke me and how long will they not believe in me for all the signs which I have performed amongst them? I will smite them with the pestilence (Dever), and disinherit them, and will make of thee a great nation and mightier than them” (Numbers 14:11-12).
Moses prayed to God, and his prayer mitigated the severity of the intended Divine punishment.
According to Jewish tradition, as reflected in Talmud and affiliated interpretations, the Jewish people, for generations to come, had to pay dearly for these two sins. For example, the sin of the Meraglim occurred, according to Jewish tradition, on the ninth of the Hebrew month of Av. This date is known in Jewish tradition (and possibly also historically) to be also the date when the First Temple and The Second Temple of Jerusalem were destroyed. Other catastrophes that befell the Jewish people throughout history (like the expulsion from Spain, 1492) had also taken place on that date.
Reading these two episodes in the Bible, the Egel episode and the Meraglim episode, one cannot escape the conclusion that with these two sins, combined, the Israelites have created their own particular form of Roof (Gag), namely, a disconnect between The Heaven and The Earth.
Unlike the Gag of Agag, king of Amalek, Hamman the Agagite, Gog and Magog, a Gag formed with an explicit intention to disconnect The Heaven and The Earth (Genesis 1:1; refer to the earlier linked post), the Israelites formed a particular version of Gag, one that is not deliberately pre-planned, one that is not intentional.
What can we learn from this particular form of Gag? Can we construct a similar Gag?
The two sins teach us a powerful lesson of how to construct own personal Gag. We detail herewith a two-step procedure to achieve this goal.
Step 1: Repeat The First Sin (of the Egel): “Dancing around a Golden Calf”.
Explanation: Build your whole life around a materialistic objective, like gold (money), fame, territory and other similar materialistic assets.
Step 2: Repeat The Second Sin (of the Meraglim): “Slander and refusal to go to the Promised Land” (for whatever excuses).
Explanation: The latter involves two elements:
- The spies spoke ill of the Promised Land. The Israelites spoke ill of God (Deuteronomy 1:27). Therefore, Prescription A:
“Speak ill of all, all the time” (whether people, Promised Land, God or otherwise);
- The Israelites refused to “go up” to the Promised Land, giving excuses (Deuteronomy 1:26-27). Therefore, Prescription B:
“Refrain from any attempt to gain blessing awaiting you; Generate your own personal justification to stay passive, idle, to stay lazy” (Example: “…in Jehovah’s hatred of us He had brought us forth out of the land of Egypt..”, Deuteronomy 1:27).
Articulated more succinctly, Step 2 to owning a Gag involves rejecting any possible blessing by avoiding necessary work to be done (”And Elohim blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He ceased from all his work which Elohim had created to be done”; Genesis 2:3).
We have outlined in this post a two-step prescription to becoming happy by pursuing the two sins of the Israelites, on their way to the Promised Land. The Israelites constructed their own version of Gag, namely, disconnecting the physical dimension of life, The Earth, from the spiritual dimension, The Heaven. As related in the Bible, over and over again, constructing the Gag is guarantee to stop “pouring down” of blessing.
If, to the contrary, the idea of building a personal Gag does not seem that appealing, we may wish to re-consider how Eretz Israel is described in the Bible, which also becomes a faithful description, so we believe, of the most basic human condition on Planet Earth (Deuteronomy 11:11):
“And the land, into which you go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys; By the rain of the heaven will you drink water”.
A Divine Commandment is always fulfilled, to the letter.
An example:
“And Elohim said: “Let there be light”, and there was light” (Genesis 1:3).
If that is so.
If divine command, by definition, is always fulfilled:
- How is it that the same has not materialized with regard to another set of Divine Commandments, the Ten Commandments?
- How come that since its inception at Mount Sinai, about three thousand and three hundred years ago, we are witnessing violating of the Ten Commandments by the human species throughout history, abundantly, continuously, right, left and center?
And more generally:
How do the Ten Commandments comport with free-will, endowed by The Creator onto humankind, the created?
Free-will is emphasized in the Bible, again and again:
- “See, I set before you today life, and that which is good; and death, and that which is bad” (Deuteronomy 30:15);
- “I call Heaven and earth to witness this day against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; Therefore, choose life that both you and your seed may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).
Hebrew prophets, likewise, do not cease to insist (emphasized mine):
- “He has told thee, O man, what is good and what does Jehovah requires of you, but to do justice and love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).
If emphasis on free-will is so prevalent throughout the Bible, and given the wide-spread ignoring of the Ten Commandments, throughout history, how should we account for this seeming inconsistency in the Bible?
The answer to this intriguing question is simple and straightforward:
In its original biblical Hebrew, the Bible does not have a concept of “Ten Commandments”.
Instead, biblical Hebrew for the Ten Commandments is “Devarim”.
The root of this word, in its verbal form, means to speak. “Devarim”, literally, implies divine utterances.
A thorough discussion of this concept, with biblical quotes, is delivered in:
“Diber” or “Dever” – Two Modes of Divine Dialogue with Humankind in a World of Free-Will .
* Shorty is a short post
Accurate prediction of surgery-duration is key to optimal utilization of operating theatres. Yet, current predictions, based on best available statistical and AI techniques, are highly inaccurate. This causes operating rooms worldwide to operate in a sub-optimal mode. Based on personal experience, supported by recently published three peer-reviewed articles, we believe that the poor state-of-the-art of current predictive methods for surgery-duration is traceable to a single cause. What is it? What is the remedy?
Literature
[1] Shore, H (1986). An approximation for the inverse distribution function of a combination of random variables, with an application to operating theatres. J. Statist. Com. Simul. 1986; 23:157-81. Available on Shore’s ResearchGate page.
[2] Shore, H (2020). An explanatory bi-variate model for surgery-duration and its empirical validation, Communications in Statistics: Case Studies, Data Analysis and Applications, 6:2, 142-166, DOI: 10.1080/23737484.2020.1740066 .
[3] Shore, H (2021a). SPC scheme to monitor surgery-duration. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 37: 1561– 1577. DOI: 10.1002/qre.2813 .
[4] Shore, H (2021b). Estimating operating room utilisation rate for differently distributed surgery times. International Journal of Production Research. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2021.2009141
[5] Shore, H (2021c). “Predictive Methods for Surgery Duation”. Wikipedia. April 16, 2021.
(Related podcast: Why Predictions of Surgery-Duration are So Poor, and a Possible Remedy (Podcast) ).
Operating theatres are the most expensive resource at the disposal of hospitals. This renders optimizing scheduling of surgeries to operating rooms a top priority. A pre-condition to optimal scheduling is that accurate predictions of surgery-duration be available. Much research effort has in recent years been invested to develop methods that improve the accuracy of surgery-duration predictions. This ongoing effort includes both traditional statistical methods and newer Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods. The state-of-the-art of these methods, with relevant peer-reviewed literature, have recently been summarized by us in a new entry on Wikipedia, titled “Predictive Methods for Surgery Duation”.
Personally, I was first exposed to the problem of predicting surgery-duration over thirty years ago, when I was involved in a large-scale project encompassing all governmental hospitals in Israel (at the time). Partial results of this effort had been reported in my published paper of 1986, and further details can be found in my more recent paper of 2020. Both articles are listed in the literature section at the end of this post (for podcast listeners, this list may be found on haimshore.blog).
My second involvement in developing predictive methods for surgery-duration was in more recent years, culminating in three peer-reviewed published papers (Shore 2020, 2021 ab; see references below).
Surgery-duration is known to be very highly volatile. The larger the variability between surgeries, the less accurate the prediction may be expected to be. To reduce this variability, newly devised predictive methods for surgery-duration tend to concentrate on subsets of surgeries, classified according to some classification system. It is assumed that via this classification, prediction accuracy may be enhanced. A common method to classify surgeries, implemented worldwide, is Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®). This coding system delivers, in a hierarchical fashion, particular codes to subsets of surgeries. In doing so, variability between surgeries sharing same CPT code is expected to be reduced, allowing for better prediction accuracy.
A second effort to increase accuracy is to include, in the predictive method, certain factors, known prior to surgery, which deliver variability to surgery-duration. It is hoped that by taking account of these factors, in the predictive method, unexplained variability in surgery-duration will be reduced, thereby enhancing prediction accuracy (examples will soon be given).
A third factor that influence accuracy is the amount of reliable data, used to generate predictions. Given recent developments in our ability to process large amounts of data, commonly known as Big Data, Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods have been summoned to assist in predicting surgery times.
These new methods and others are surveyed more thoroughly in the aforementioned entry on Wikipedia.
The new methods notwithstanding, current predictive methods for surgery-duration still deliver unsatisfactory accuracy.
Why is that so?
We believe that a major factor for the poor performance of current predictive methods is lack of essential understanding of what constitute major sources of variability to surgery-duration. Based on our own personal experience, as alluded to earlier, and also on our professional background as industrial engineers, specializing in analysis of work processes (of which surgeries are an example), we believe that there are two sets of factors that generate variability in surgery-duration: A set of major factors and a set of secondary factors. We denote these Set 1 and Set 2 (henceforth, we refer only to variability between surgeries within a subset of same code):
Set 1 — Two Major Factors:
- Factor I. Work-content instability (possibly affected by variability in patient condition);
- Factor II. Error variability.
Set 2 — Multiple Secondary Factors, like: patient age, professional experience and size of medical team, number of surgeries a surgeon has to perform in a shift, type of anaesthetic administered.
Let us explain why, in contrast to current practices, we believe that work-content instability has critical effect on prediction accuracy, and why accounting for it, in the predictive method, is crucial to improving current accuracy, obtained via traditional methods.
To prepare predictions for any random phenomenon, assumed to be in steady-state, the best approach is to define its statistical distribution and estimate its parameters, based on real data. Once the distribution is completely defined, various statements about the conduct of the random phenomenon (like surgery-duration) can be made.
For example:
- What is the most likely realization (given by distribution’s mode);
- What is the middle value, which delivers equal probabilities, for any realization, to be larger or smaller than that value (expressed by distribution’s median);
- What is the probability that any realization of the random phenomenon exceeds a specified value (calculated by the cumulative density function, CDF)?
Understanding that complete definition of the distribution is the best approach to predict surgery-duration, let us next explain what type of distributions can one expect in the two extreme states, regarding the two major factors of Set 1:
State 1. There is no variability in work-content (there is only error variability);
State 2. There is no error (error variability is zero; there is only work-content variability).
The two states define two different distributions for surgery-duration.
The first state, State 1, implies that the only source of variability is error. This incurs the normal distribution, for an additive error, or the log-normal distribution, for a multiplicative error (namely, error expressed as a percentage).
State 2, lack of error variability, by definition can only materialize when there is no typical value (like the mode), on which error can be defined. Since no definition of error is feasible, error variability becomes zero. For work-processes, like surgery, this can happen only when there is no typical work-content. In statistical terms, this is a state of lack-of-memory. An example is the duration of repair jobs at a car garage, relating to all types of repair. The distribution typical to such situations is the memoryless exponential.
We learn from this discussion, that any statistical model of surgery-duration, from which its distribution may be derived, needs to include, as extreme cases, both the normal/lognormal distributions and the exponential distribution.
This is a major constraint on any model for the distribution of surgery-duration. It has so far eluded individuals engaged in developing predictive methods for surgery-duration. Lack of knowledge of basic principles of industrial engineering, as well as total ignorance regarding how instability in work-content of a work process (like surgery) influences the form of the distribution, these probably constitute the major culprit for the poor current state-of-the-art of predicting surgery-duration.
In Shore (2020), we have developed a bi-variate model for surgery-duration, which delivers not only the distributions of surgery-duration in the extreme states (State 1 and State 2), but also the distributions of intermediate states, residing between the two extreme states. The two components of the bi-variate model represent work-content and error as two multiplicative random variables, with relative variabilities (standard deviations) that gradually change as surgery-duration moves from State 1 (normal/lognormal case) to State 2 (exponential case).
What do we hope to achieve with publishing of this post (and the accompanying podcast)?
We hope that individuals, engaged in developing predictive methods for surgery-duration, internalize the grim reality that:
- Unless their predictive method allows for the normal/lognormal and for the exponential to serve as exact distributions of surgery-duration at the extreme states;
- Unless their predictive method allows intermediate states, spanned on a continuous spectrum between the two extreme states, to converge smoothly to these states (as in Shore, 2020),
unless these two conditions be met, the likelihood for the accuracy of predictive methods for surgery-duration to improve anytime soon, this likelihood would remain, as it is today, extremely slim.
Literature
[1] Shore, H (1986). An approximation for the inverse distribution function of a combination of random variables, with an application to operating theatres. J. Statist. Com. Simul. 1986; 23:157-81. Available on Shore’s ResearchGate page.
[2] Shore, H (2020). An explanatory bi-variate model for surgery-duration and its empirical validation, Communications in Statistics: Case Studies, Data Analysis and Applications, 6:2, 142-166, DOI: 10.1080/23737484.2020.1740066 .
[3] Shore, H (2021a). SPC scheme to monitor surgery-duration. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 37: 1561– 1577. DOI: 10.1002/qre.2813 .
[4] Shore, H (2021b). Estimating operating room utilisation rate for differently distributed surgery times. International Journal of Production Research. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2021.2009141
[5] Shore, H (2021c). “Predictive Methods for Surgery Duation”. Wikipedia. April 16, 2021.
On the general concept of “Roof” in the Hebrew Bible, and what does it really signify:
(Related podcast: Agag, Haman the Agagite, Gog, Magog, Gag — What binds them all together? (Podcast) ); Another related post/podcast: Glila, Galut, Geula, Gilui, Galilee, Golan, Gal – What binds them all together? (Post/Podcast) )
Gag in Hebrew is roof.
For example:
“I lie awake; I have become like a bird on the roof (Gag)” (Psalm 102:8; 102:7, in some English translations).
Agag was king of Amalek. The latter, throughout the Bible, serves as epitome for the disconnect between the Heaven and the Earth (Genesis 1:1). Therefore, the Israelites are explicitly commanded, in no ambiguous terms:
“Remember what Amalek had done to you on the way, when you came out of Egypt…you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky; thou shall not forget” (Deuteronomy 25:17,19).
The Bible tells us about king Saul, and what he did to Agag, king of Amalek:
“He took Agag king of Amalek alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the sword” (1 Samuel 15:8).
Haman, a central figure in the Book of Esther, was the first historic figure to conceive and then attempt to implement a “Final Solution” on the Jewish people (during the reign of the Persian Empire, as expounded in detail in the Book of Esther). Haman was a descendent of Agag, namely, of Amalek seed:
“Esther again pleaded with the king, falling at his feet and weeping. She begged him to put an end to the evil plan of Haman the Agagite, which he devised against the Jews” (Esther 8:3).
Gog and Magog are well-known names, central to Ezekiel’s prophecy of End-Time final war:
“Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him” (Ezekiel 38:2).
What binds together all these names?
Answer: The double appearance of a single letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, the third letter, Gimel (corresponding to the English g).
In Biblical Hebrew, as well as in modern Hebrew, a double appearance of Gimel forms the Hebrew word Gag (written with two Gimels, גג). This combination has a single meaning — “Roof”.
The roof is that part of a house, which protects its residents from harm that may befall them from the sky.
In biblical terms, the roof attains a much wider meaning, indeed a gigantic symbolic significance:
As a roof of a house disconnects earth from sky, the biblical “Roof” symbolizes disconnect between “The Heaven” and “The Earth”, as these are alluded to in the first verse of Genesis:
“In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
The most concrete biblical allusion to this interpretation is given by the command, given to the Israelites, to build booths (Sukot) during the Feast of Tabernacles:
“You shall dwell in booths for seven days; All native-born Israelites are to live in booths so that your descendants will know that I made the Israelites live in booths when I brought them out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:42).
There is no solid protective roof for the booths, where the Feast of Tabernacles is celebrated. Traditionally, the roof must be made from natural elements that have grown from the ground. Most people use either palm fronds or bamboo with wooden beams as support. The roof also must be thick enough to provide significant shade, but thin enough to let the stars shine through.
Why does the Sukkah not have a solid roof? What does this signify?
The answer is simple: Lack of solid roof signifies complete faith in Divine Providence, in Divine protection against harm that may befall us. Conversely, relying on the symbolic “physical roof” as protection, perhaps sole protection, signifies a deep faith that “The Earth” (Genesis 1:1) is all that there is. There is no heaven. There is no God.
The roof of a house generates a disconnect from the sky. Symbolically, sitting in the booth during the Feast of Tabernacles, while removing the roof, signifies faith in Divine protection that would protect against any harm (from the sky or otherwise). And more generally, complete faith in the connection between “the heaven” and “the earth”.
Amalek embodies the opposite: There is no heaven, no system of Divine justice, no God. There is only “the earth” (the observable physical reality, ruled by law of nature). Everything else, which looks random, is indeed random. There is no Divine Providence.
Agag, Haman the Agagite, Gog, Magog — they all represent the Amalekite philosophy of life: “No God, no heaven, all is coincidental”. The biblical concept of “Roof” symbolizes exclusive reliance on our own ability (and capability) to understand nature, rule nature, and construct the needed “Roof” that would protect us.
“Roof”, consistently throughout the Bible, is an integral part of names of historic figures, past (Agag) or future (Gog), and of names of lands (like the mysterious Magog), which represent a philosophy diagonally opposite to that of the Bible, a philosophy central to current Western Civilization (see here) — the Amalekite philosophy of life.
Surprisingly and unexpectedly, all these names include the Hebrew “Gag” (Roof).
And how will the future Gog and Magog war end?
Quote from prophet Zechariah:
“And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations, which have come against Jerusalem, shall go up, every single year, to bow before the King, the Lord of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles” (Zechariah 14:16).
Personal confession: Amazing!!
Comment.
The Israelites, on their way to the promised land, committed two major sins, both being testimony to lack of faith in Divine protection:
- The sin of the Golden Calf (in Hebrew, sin of the Egel);
- The sin of the spies (sin of the Meraglim).
Both sins are considered, in Jewish tradition, to have fateful consequences to Jewish history.
The first sin caused Moses to smash the first tablets with the Ten Commandments. This required of Moses going up Mount Sinai to receive the tablets the second time.
The second sin occurred, in Jewish tradition, on the ninth of the month of Av. In Jewish tradition, this was the date when the two temples in Jerusalem had been destroyed. Other catastrophes in Jewish history are also known to occur on that same date.
Surprisingly, Hebrew names of both sins have, as their middle letter, the second most rare letter in biblical Hebrew, the letter Gimel.
With these two sins, combined, the Israelites, on their way to the promised land, formed their own particular version of GAG (“Roof”).
(Related post: Is Torah Divinely Inspired? )
Three research efforts that have found shared patterns between scientific models of physical reality, the Hebrew Bible and biblical Hebrew.
How are these associated with the critical question of whether Torah is divinely inspired?
YouTube addresses of all three videos are given below (on haimshore.blog):
Fibonacci Numbers in Biblical Hebrew
Physical Properties in Biblical Hebrew Words
This podcast on YouTube:
(Related podcast at: Is Torah Divinely Inspired? (Podcast) )
The first verse of Genesis reads:
“In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth”.
This means that there are two worlds apart: The heaven and the earth.
Two cultures prevail over Planet Earth:
Culture 1: There is only “The earth” (namely, the observable physical world). There is no heaven.
Culture 2: There are two worlds, and our duty is to connect the two.
The first, Culture 1, prevails in current Western Civilization.
Culture 2 is cornerstone in Judaism, and probably also in other monotheistic faiths.
The question of whether Torah is divinely inspired is tightly linked to the choice between the two cultures (as succinctly outlined above):
According to Culture 2, Torah is divinely inspired. Therefore, it represents the Divine moral code, the spiritual dimension of our physical existence on Planet Earth, with the Ten Commandments at its center, and details scattered throughout the Five Books of Moses (Torah). If Torah is divinely inspired, we are here to connect the heaven and the earth.
According to Culture 1, Torah is a historic relic of human writings from ancient times. In view of the scientific progress, made over recent centuries, in understanding how the physical world is structured and how it is functioning, Torah is no more relevant to our lives. Torah can only serve in academia as a subject of scientific research of ancient cultures.
How do we decide between the two cultures?
How can we lend scientific validity to the truth of one culture over the other?
In other words: How do we scientifically prove, or disprove, that Torah is divinely inspired?
Numerous words and lectures, nowadays also videos, have been produced to address this extremely critical question. Endless number of words of persuasion, one way or another, have been put forward.
We believe that there is a single method to scientifically address this question:
To find out whether certain patterns, recently discovered by science to widely prevail in scientific models of the physical world, whether these same patterns also prevail in Torah and in its original language, namely, biblical Hebrew.
Can we scientifically demonstrate that, indeed, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth”?
Three such research efforts have been carried out in recent years (expounded in three meticulously-produced videos by Oren Evron):
- Rav Ginsburgh, on Fibonacci numbers in biblical Hebrew (Hebrew; English subtitles, please activate):
- Professor Haim Shore (me), on the reflection of numeric values of physical reality in corresponding biblical Hebrew words (English):
- Oren Evron, on the associations between numbers, relating to the first verse of Genesis (in its original biblical Hebrew) and constant Pi, cornerstone and frequent-visitor in numerous scientific models of physical reality (English):
All week-days in Genesis 1 have specific names.
These are (Hebrew, left to right):
Echad (“One”; Sunday); Sheni (“Second”; Monday); Shlishi (“Third”; Tuesday); Reviee (“Fourth”; Wed.); Chamishi (“Fifth”; Thurs.); Yom Ha-Shishi (“The Sixth Day”; Friday); Yom Ha-Sheviee (“The Seventh Day”; Sat.) or Shabbat (Sabbath).
Each of these biblical Hebrew names has a specific numerical value, the sum total of the numeric values of the Hebrew letters comprising the name.
Do these values represent the ordinal position of the days they represent?
Pursuing the same method used by me throughout my research of the Bible and biblical Hebrew (namely, “linear plot indicates same set of values, represented by two different scales”), the attached plot, with the explanatory comments that follow, seem to support the claim expressed in the title of this post:
,
“Why Bad Things Happen to Good People?”
A somewhat original insight to an age-old mystery:
A magnifying glass directed at the fundamental transformation that the Israeli society is going through, shifting personal responsibility, mandated by free-will, to the responsibility of court of law:
(Find complete post at: Why do I Trust the Biblical Prophets??)
Israelite prophets, whose prophecies are everywhere in the Jewish Bible, right left and center, explicitly stated that God, the creator of “The Heaven and The Earth”, had spoken to them.
Should we trust them?
One-way flow of Information is characteristic to black holes. However, it also forms the basic human condition, regarding communicating with “the other side”. Is this similarity coincidental?
(A related podcast: Black Holes and Near-Death Experience (NDE) — A One-way Flow of Information (Podcast) )
Black Hole is a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not escape. There are three different types of black holes: Tiny, stellar or supermassive (Source: NASA NASA: what-is-a-black-hole?). Scientists have found proof that every large galaxy contains a supermassive black hole at its centre. The supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy is called Sagittarius A. It has a mass equal to about 4 million suns and would fit inside a very large ball that could hold a few million Earths.
Near Death Experience (NDE) is a testimony, delivered by individuals who have biologically died, however have been resuscitated to normal life. The testimony delivers the experience an individual went through while the medical team struggles to return that individual to life. NDE is well documented for many years. An example of a recent report of NDE, one of many, is by Shaman Oaks (Jan., 2022):
Man Shocked by What He Saw His Pets Doing in Heaven
There are several features shared by most testimonies of NDE, like “flying” through a black tunnel, total life-review and others.
A basic condition of human life on planet Earth is our total ignorance of where we have come from, or where do we go after we die (if indeed the soul survives the body). This basic life-condition represents to us a unique experience of a one-way flow of information. We are aware of information we produce while we live, or information we are exposed to. Yet we are blocked from any information beyond our life-span, namely, pre-birth or post-death.
A similar statement of our basic human condition may be traced to the first verse of Genesis:
“In the beginning God created The Heaven and The Earth”.
We know much about The Earth (the universe), yet nothing about The Heaven. Indeed, the Bible does not describe the nature of The Heaven, neither does it explicitly refer to it anywhere else in the Jewish Bible, except for the first verse of Genesis (an exception is a single verse, which may be interpreted as describing a hidden two-way communication between humankind and The Heaven (of Genesis 1:1); Find details in this post:
The basic human condition: “Angels of God ascending and descending”.)
These four types of experience (or source of knowledge), accessible to us all, testify to the most fundamental of human condition on Planet Earth:
- Total ignorance of where we came from (pre-birth), and where do we go from here (post-death, if at all);
- Deafening silence (lack of explicit communication) on behalf of the “other side”;
- Supportive testimonies of individuals (NDE), explicitly stating that to preserve free-will, while shaping our life-experience, we are not amenable to glimpses of the “other side” (except, occasionally, via NDE, or messages delivered by uniquely gifted mediums, spiritualists);
- Lack of any knowledge of The Heaven (existence of which is explicitly stated in the first verse of Genesis).
There is one commonality shared by them all:
One-way flow of information.
Information of what play out here, on earth, is known and exposed to the “other side” (as revealed by NDE reports); Yet, we do not receive explicit communication from the “other side”, barring the possibility of a dual-way mode of communication!!!
These features of our everyday experience on Planet Earth share a surprising commonality with the most basic property of black holes — absorbing from the physical universe, as we know it, but never leaking back information, in the form of matter, energy or any other conceivable form of information (dark energy?).
This stunning similarity between the physical properties of black holes (the one-way flow of information), and the most fundamental condition experienced by us on Planet Earth (as expounded earlier), this similarity naturally begs the question:
Do black holes form one-way exit avenues, through which our souls are doomed to pass after we die?
Update: A new free-access article, published 2024 (“Why the Mode Departs from the Mean – A Short Communication“) adds a new dimension to the contents of the post below.
-
Introduction
Is Statistics, a branch of mathematics that serves central tool to investigate nature, heading in the right direction, comparable to other branches of science that explore nature?
I believe it is not.
This belief is based on my own personal experience in a recent research project, aimed to model surgery time (separately for different subcategories of surgeries). This research effort culminated in a trilogy of published articles (Shore 2020ab, 2021). The belief is also based on my life-long experience in academia. I am professor emeritus, after forty years in academia and scores of articles published in refereed professional journals, dealing both with the theory and application of Statistics. In this post, I deliver an account of my recent personal experience with modeling surgery time, and conclusions I have derived thereof, and from my own cumulative experience in the analysis of data and in data-based modeling.
The post is minimally technical, so that a layperson, with little knowledge of basic terms in Statistics, can easily understand.
We define a random phenomenon as one associated with uncertainty, for example, “Surgery”. A random variable (r.v) is any random quantitative property defined on a random phenomenon. Examples are surgery medical outcome (Success: X=1; Failure: X=0), surgery duration (X>0) or patient’s maximum blood pressure during surgery (Max. X).
In practice, an r.v is characterized by its statistical distribution. The latter delivers the probability, P (0≤P≤1), that the random variable, X, assumes a certain value (if X is discrete), or that it will fall in a specified interval (if X is continuous). For example, the probability that surgery outcome will be a success, Pr(X=1), or the probability of surgery duration (SD) to exceed one hour, Pr(X>1).
Numerous statistical distributions have been developed over the centuries, starting with Bernoulli (1713), who derived what is now known as the binomial distribution, and Gauss (1809), deriving the “astronomer’s curve of error”, nowadays known as Gauss distribution, or the normal distribution. Good accounts of the historical development of the science of probability and statistics to its present-day appear at Britannica and Wikipedia, entry History_of_statistics.
A central part of these descriptions is, naturally, the development of the concept of statistical distribution. At first, the main source of motivation was games of chance. This later transformed into the study of errors, as we may learn from the development of the normal distribution by Gauss. In more recent years, emphasis shifted to describing random variation as observed in all disciplines of science and technology, resulting, to date, in thousands of new distributions. The scope of this ongoing research effort may be appreciated by the sheer volume of the four-volume Compendium on Statistical Distributions by Johnson and Kotz (First Edition 1969–1972, updated periodically with Balakrishnan as an additional co-author).
The development of thousands of statistical distributions over the years, up to the present, is puzzling, if not bizarre. An innocent observer may wonder, how is it that in most other branches of science, the historical development shows a clear trend towards convergence, while in modeling random variation, the most basic concept to describe processes of nature, the opposite has happened, namely, divergence?
Put in more basic terms: Why in science, in general, a continuous attempt is exercised to unify, under an umbrella of a unifying theory, the “objects of enquiry” (forces in physics; properties of materials in chemistry; human characteristics in biology), while in the mathematical modelling of random variation, this has not happened? Why in Statistics, the number of “objects of enquiry”, instead of diminishing, keeps growing?
And more succinctly: Where did Statistics go wrong? And why?
I have already had the opportunity to address this issue (the miserable state-of-the-art of modelling random variation) some years ago, when I wrote (Shore, 2015):
“ “All science is either physics or stamp collecting”. This assertion, ascribed to physicist Ernest Rutherford (the discoverer of the proton, in 1919) and quoted in Kaku (1994, p. 131), intended to convey a general sentiment that the drive to converge the five fundamental forces of nature into a unifying theory, nowadays a central theme of modern physics, represents science at its best. Furthermore, this is the right approach to the scientific investigation of nature. By contrast, at least until recently, most other scientific disciplines have engaged in taxonomy (“bug collecting” or “stamp collecting”). With “stamp collecting” the scientific inquiry is restricted to the discovery and classification of the “objects of enquiry” particular to that science, however this never culminates, as in physics, in a unifying theory, from which all these objects may be deductively derived as “special cases”. Is statistics a science in a state of “stamp collecting”?”
This question remains valid today, eight years later: Why has the science of Statistics, as a central tool to describe statistically stable random phenomena of nature, has deviated so fundamentally from the general trend at unification?
In Section 2, we enumerate the errors that, we believe, triggered this departure of Statistics from the general trend in the scientific study of nature, and outline possible outlets to eliminate these errors. Section 3 is an account of the personal learning experience that I have gone through while attempting to model surgery duration and its distribution. This article is a personal account, for the naive (non-statistician) reader, of that experience. As alluded to earlier, the research effort resulted in a trilogy of articles , and in the new “Random identity paradigm”. The latter is addressed in Section 4, where new concepts, heretofore ignored by Statistics, are introduced (based on Shore, 2022). Examples are “Random identity”, “identity variation”, “losing identity” (with characterization of the process), and “Identity-full/identity-less distributions”. These concepts are underlying a new methodology to model observed variation in natural processes (as contrasted with variation of r.v.s that are mathematical function of other r.v.s).The new methodology is outlined, based on Shore, 2022. Section 5 delivers some final thoughts and conclusions.
-
The historical errors embedded in current-day Statistics
Studying the history of the development of statistical distributions to date, we believe Statistics departure from the general trend, resulting in a gigantic number of “objects of enquiry” (as alluded to earlier), may be traced to three fundamental, inter-related, errors, historically committed within Statistics:
Error 1: Failure to distinguish between two categories of statistical distributions:
Category A: Distributions that describe observed random variation of natural processes;
Category B: Distributions that describe behavior of statistics, namely, of random variables that are, by definition, mathematical functions of other random variables.
The difference between the two categories is simple: Category A succumbs to certain constraints on the shape of distribution, imposed by nature, which Category B does not (the latter succumbs to other constraints, imposed by the structure of the mathematical function, describing the r.v). As we shall soon realize, a major distinction between the two sets of constraints (not the only one) is the permissible values for skewness and kurtosis. While for Category A, these fluctuate in a specified interval, confined between values of an identity-full distribution and an identity-less distribution (like the normal and the exponential, respectively; both types of distribution shall be explained soon), for Category B such constraints do not hold.
Error 2: Ignoring the real nature of error:
A necessary condition for the existence of an error, indeed a basic assumption integrated implicitly into its classic definition, is that for any observed random phenomenon, and the allied r.v, there is a typical constant, an outcome of various factors inherent to the process/system (“internal factors”), and there is error (multiplicative or additive), generated by random factors external to the system/process (“external factors”). This perception of error allows its distribution to be represented by the normal, since the latter is the only one having mean/mode (supposedly determined by “internal factors”) disconnected from the standard deviation, STD (supposedly determined by a separate set of factors, “external factors”).
A good representative of the constant, relative to which error is defined, is the raw mode or the standardized mode (raw mode divided by the STD). As perceived today, the error indeed expresses random deviations from this characteristic value (the most frequently observed value).
What happens to the error, when the mode itself ceases to be constant and becomes random? How does this affect the observed random variation or, more specifically, how is error then defined and modelled?
Statistics does not provide an answer to this quandary, except for stating that varying “internal factors”, namely, non-constant system/process factors, may produce systematic variation, and the latter may be captured and integrated into a model for variation, for example, via regression models (linear regression, nonlinear regression, generalized linear models and the like). In this case, the model ceases to represent purely random variation (as univariate statistical distributions are supposed to do). It becomes a model for systematic variation, coupled with a component of random variation (the nature of the latter may be studied by “freezing” “internal factors” at specified values). It is generally assumed in such models that a single distribution represents the component of random variation, though possibly with different parameters’ values for different values of the systematic effects, integrated into the model. Thus, implementing generalized linear models, the user is requested to specify a single distribution (not several), valid for all different sets of the effects’ values. As we shall soon learn (Error 3), “internal factors” may produce not only systematic effects, as currently wrongly assumed, but also a different component of variation, unrecognized to date. It will be addressed next as the third error.
Error 3: Failure to recognize the existence of a third type of variation (additional to random and systematic) — “Identity variation”:
System/process factors may potentially produce not only systematic variation, as currently commonly assumed, but also a third component of variation, passed under the radar, so to speak, in the science of Statistics. Ignoring this type of variation is the third historic error of Statistics. For reasons to be described soon (Sections 3 and 4), we denote this unrecognized type of variation — “Identity variation”.
-
Modeling surgery duration — Personal learning experience that resulted in the new “Random identity paradigm”
I have not realized the enormity of the consequences of the above three errors, committed within Statistics to date, until a few years ago, when I have embarked on a comprehensive research effort to model the statistical distribution of surgery duration (SD), separately for each of over a hundred medically-specified subcategories of surgeries (the latter defined according to a universally accepted standard; find details in Shore 2020a). The subject (modeling SD distribution) was not new to me. I had been engaged in a similar effort years ago, in the eighties of the previous century (Shore, 1986). Then, based on analysis of available data and given the computing facilities available at the time, I divided all surgeries (except open-heart surgeries and neurosurgeries), into two broad groups: short surgeries, which were assumed to be normally distributed, and long surgeries, assumed to be exponential. There, for the first time, I have become aware of “Identity variation”, though not so defined, which resulted in modeling SD distribution differently for short surgeries (assumed to pursue a normal distribution) and long ones (assumed to be exponential). With modern available computing means, and with my own cumulative experience since publication of that paper (Shore, 1986), I thought, and felt, that a better model may be conceived, and embarked on the new project.
Probing into the available data (about ten thousand surgery times with affiliated surgery subcategories), four insights/observations were apparent:
1. It was obvious to me that different subcategories pursue different statistical distributions, beyond just differences in values of distribution’s parameters (as currently generally assumed in modeling SD distribution);
2. Given point (1), it was obvious to me that differences in distribution between subcategories should be attributed to differences in the characteristic level of work-content instability (work-content variation between surgeries within subcategory);
3. Given points (1) and (2), it was obvious to me that this instability cannot be attributed to systematic variation. Indeed, it represents a different type of variation, “identity variation”, to-date unrecognized in the Statistics literature (as alluded to earlier);
4. Given points (1) to (3), it was obvious to me that any general model of surgery time (SD) should include the normal and the exponential as exact special cases.
For the naive reader, I will explain the new concept, “identity variation”. Understanding this concept will render all of the above insights clearer.
As an industrial engineer in profession, it was obvious to me, right from the beginning of the research project, that, ignoring negligible systematic effects caused by covariates (like the surgeon performing the operation), a model for SD, representing only random variation in its classical sense, would not be adequate to deliver proper representation to the observed variation. Changes between subcategories in the type of distribution, as revealed by changes in distribution shape (from the symmetric shape of the normal to the extremely non-symmetric of the exponential, as first noticed by me in the earlier project, Shore, 1986), these changes have made it abundantly clear that the desired SD model should account for “identity loss”, occurring as we move from a repetitive process (subcategory with repetitive surgeries, having characteristic/constant work-content) to a memory-less non-repetitive process (subcategory with surgeries having no characteristic common work-content). As such, the SD model should include, as exact special cases, the exponential and the normal distributions.
What else do we know of the process of losing identity, as we move from the normal to the exponential, which account for “identity variation”?
In fact, several changes in distribution properties accompany “identity loss”. We relate again to surgeries. As work processes in general, surgeries too may be divided into three non-overlapping and exhaustive set of groups: repetitive, semi-repetitive and non-repetitive. In terms of work-content, this implies:
- Work-processes with constant work-content (only error generates variation; SD normally distributed);
- Semi-repetitive work-processes (work-content varies somewhat between surgeries, to a degree dependent on subcategory);
- Memory-less work-processes (no characteristic work-content; For example, surgeries performed within an emergency room for all types of emergency, or service performed in a pharmacy, serving customers with varying number of items on the prescription list).
Thus, work-content, however it is defined (find an example in Shore, 2020a), forms “surgery identity”, with a characteristic value, the mode, that vanishes (becomes zero) for the exponential scenario (non-repetitive work-process).
Let us delve somewhat deeper into the claim that a model for SD should include the normal and the exponential as exact special cases (not merely asymptotically, as, for example, the gamma tends to the normal).
There are four observations/properties, which put the two distributions, the identity-full normal and the identity-less exponential, apart from other distributions:
Observation 1: The mean and standard deviation are represented by different parameters for the normal distribution, and by a single parameter for the exponential. This difference is reflection of a reality, where, in the normal scenario, a set of process/system factors (“internal factors”) produces signal only, and a separate set (“external factors”) produces noise only (traditionally modelled as a zero-mean symmetrically distributed error). Moving away from the normal scenario to the exponential scenario, we witness a transition towards merging of the mean with the standard deviation, until, in the exponential scenario, both signal and noise are produced by the same set of factors — the mean and standard deviation merge to be expressed by a single parameter. The clear distinction, between “system/process factors” and “external/error factors”, typical to the normal scenario, this distinction has utterly vanished;
Observation 2: The mode, supposedly representing the typical constant on which the classical multiplicative error is defined in the normal scenario, this mode, or rather the standardized mode, shrinks, as we move away from the normal to the exponential. This movement, in reality, represents passing through semi-repetitive work-processes, with increasing degree of work-content instability. The standardized mode finally disappears (becoming zero) in the exponential scenario. What does this signify? What are the implications?
Observation 3: For both the normal and the exponential, skewness and kurtosis are non-parametric. Why is that, and what does this signify?
Observation 4: What happens to the classic error, when the r.v moves away from the normal scenario to the exponential? Can we still hold on to the classic definition of error, given that “internal factors”, assumed to generate a constant mode (signal), these factors start to produce noise? How would then error (in its classical sense) be re-specified? Can an error be defined at all?
All these considerations, as well as the need to include semi-repetitive surgeries within the desired model, brought me to the realization that we encounter here a different type of variation, heretofore unrecognized and not addressed in the literature. The instability of work-content (within subcategory), which I have traced to be the culprit for change in distribution as we move from one subcategory to another, could not possibly be regarded as cause for systematic variation. The latter is never assumed to change the shape of distribution, only at most its first two moments (mean and variance). This is evident, for example, on implementing generalized linear models, a regression methodology frequently used to model systematic variation in a non-normal environment. The user is requested to specify a single distribution (normal or otherwise), never different distributions for different sets of values of the effects being modeled (supposed delivering systematic variation). Neither can work-content variation be considered part of the classic random variation (as realized in Category A distributions) since the latter assumes existence of a single non-zero mode (for a single non-mixture univariate distribution), not zero mode or multiple modes (as, for example, with the identity-less exponential (zero mode), its allied Poisson distribution (two modes for an integer parameter), or the identity-less uniform (infinite number of modes); find details in Shore, 2022).
A new paradigm was born out of these deliberations — the “Random identity paradigm”. Under the new paradigm, observed non-systematic variation is assumed to originate in two components of variation: random variation, represented by a multiplicative normal/lognormal error, and identity variation, represented by an extended exponential distribution. A detailed technical development of this methodology, allied conjectures and their empirical support (from known theory-based results) are given in Shore (2022; A link to a pre-print is given at the References section). In the next Section 4 we deliver an outline of the “Random identity paradigm”.
-
The “Random identity paradigm” — “Random identity”, “Identity variation”, “identity loss”, “identity-full/identity-less distributions” (based on Shore, 2022)
The insights, detailed earlier, have led to the development of the new “Random identity paradigm”, and its allied explanatory two-variate model for SD (Shore, 2020a). The model was designed to fulfill an a-priori specified set of requirements. Central among these is that the model includes the normal and the exponential distributions as exact special cases. After implementing the new model for various applications (as alluded to earlier), we have arrived at the realization that the model used in the article may, in fact, be expanded to introduce a new type of random variation, “random identity variation”, which served the basis for the new “Random Identity Paradigm” (Shore, 2022).
A major outcome of the new paradigm is the definition of two new types of distributions, an identity-full distribution and an identity-less distribution, and a criterion to diagnose a given distribution as “identity-full”, “identity-less”, or in between. Properties of identity-less and identity-full distributions are described, in particular, the property that such distributions have non-parametric skewness and kurtosis, namely, both types of distribution assume constant values, irrespective of values assumed by distribution parameters. Another requirement, naturally, is that the desired model includes a component of “identity variation”. However, the requirement also specifies that the allied distribution (representing “identity variation”) have support with the mode, if it exists, as its extreme left point (detailed explanation is given in Shore, 2022). As shown in Shore (2020ab, 2021, 2022), this resulted in defining the exponential distribution anew (the extended exponential distribution), adding a parameter, α, that assumes a value of α=0, for the exponential scenario (error STD becomes zero), and a value tending to 1, as the model moves towards normality (with “identity variation”, expressed in the extended exponential by parameter σi, tending to zero).
Sparing the naive reader the technical details of the complete picture, conveyed by the new “Random identity paradigm” (Shore, 2022), we outline herewith the associated model, as used in the trilogy of published paper.
The basic model is given in eq. (1):
Haim Shore_Equations_The Problem with Statistics_January 26 2022
where R is the observed response (an r.v), L and S are location and scale parameters, respectively, Y is the standardized response (L=0, S=1), {Yi ,Ye} are independent r.v.s representing internal/identity variation and external/error variation, respectively, ε is zero-mode normal disturbance (error) with standard deviation σε and Z is standard normal. The density function of the distribution of Yi in this model (the extended exponential) is eq. (2), where Yi is the component representing “identity variation” (caused by variation of system/process factors, “Internal factors”), CYi is a normalizing coefficient, and σi is a parameter representing internal/identity variation. It is easy to realize that α is the mode. At α=1, Yi becomes left-truncated normal (re-located half normal). However, it is assumed that at α=1 “identity variation” vanishes, so Yi becomes a constant, equal to the mode (1). For the exponential scenario (complete loss of identity), we obtain α=0, and the disturbance, assumed to be multiplicative, renders meaningless, namely, it vanishes (σe=0, Ye=1). Therefore, Yi and Y then both become exponential.
Let us introduce eq. (3). From (2), we obtain the pdf of Zi: (eqs. (4) and (5)). Note that the mode of Zi is zero (mode of Yi is α).
Various theorems and conjectures are articulated in Shore (2022), which deliver eye-opening insights into various regularities in the behavior of statistical distributions, previously un-noticed, and good explanation to various statistical theoretical results, heretofore considered separate and unrelated (like a logical derivation of the Central Limit Theorem from the “Random identity paradigm”).
-
Conclusions
In this article, I have reported about my personal experience, which led me to the development of the new “Random identity paradigm” and allied concepts. It followed my research effort to model surgery duration, which resulted in a bi-variate explanatory model, with the extended exponential distribution as the intermediate tool, that paved a smooth way to unify, under a single umbrella model, execution times of all types of work processes/surgeries, namely, not only repetitive (normal), or non-repetitive (exponential), but also those in between (semi-repetitive processes/surgeries). To date, we are not aware of a similar unifying model that is as capable in unifying diverse phenomena as the three categories of work-processes/surgeries. Furthermore, this modeling effort has led directly to conceiving the new “Random identity paradigm” with allied new concepts (as alluded to earlier).
The new paradigm has produced three major outcomes:
First, as demonstrated in the linked pre-print, under the new paradigm virtually scores of theoretical statistical results that have formerly been derived independently and considered unrelated, are explained in a consistent and coherent manner, becoming inter-related under the unifying “Random identity paradigm”.
Secondly, various conjectures about properties of distributions are empirically verified with scores of examples/predictions from the Statistics literature. For example, the conjectures that Category B r.v.s, which are function of only identity-less r.v.s, are also identity-less, and similarly for identity-full r.v.s.
Thirdly, the new bi-variate model has been demonstrated to represent well numerous existent distributions, as has been shown for diversely-shaped distributions in Shore, 2020a (see Supplementary Materials therein).
It is hoped that the new “Random identity paradigm”, representing an initial effort at unifying distributions of natural processes (Category A distributions), this new paradigm may pave the way for Statistics to join other branches of science in a common effort to reduce, via unification mediated by unifying theories, the number of statistical distributions, the “objects of enquiry” of modeling random-variation within the science/branch-of-mathematics of Statistics.
References
[1] Shore H (1986). An approximation for the inverse distribution function of a combination of random variables, with an application to operating theatres. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 23:157-181. DOI: 10.1080/00949658608810870 .
[2] Shore H (2015). A General Model of Random Variation. Communication in Statistics- Theory and Methods, 49(9):1819-1841. DOI: 10.1080/03610926.2013.784990.
[3] Shore H (2020a). An explanatory bi-variate model for surgery-duration and its empirical validation. Communications in Statistics: Case Studies, Data Analysis and Applications, 6(2):142-166. Published online: 07 May 2020. DOI: 10.1080/23737484.2020.1740066
[4] Shore H (2020b). SPC scheme to monitor surgery duration. Quality and Reliability Engineering International. Published on line 03 December 2020. DOI: 10.1002/qre.2813
[5] Shore H (2021). Estimating operating room utilisation rate for differently distributed surgery times. International Journal of Production Research. Published on line 13 Dec 2021. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2021.2009141.
[6] Shore H (2022). “When an error ceases to be error” — On the process of merging the mean with the standard deviation and the vanishing of the mode. Preprint.
Haim Shore_Blog_Merging of Mean with STD and Vanishing of Mode_Jan 07 2022
The deeper meaning and implications of the biblical Hebrew Shamayim (Sky; A post of same title may be found here ):
(Related podcast: “Shamayim” — The Most Counter-intuitive Yet Scientifically Accurate Word in Biblical Hebrew (Podcast) .)
The word Shamayim in Hebrew simply means Sky (Rakia in biblical Hebrew; Genesis 1:8):
“And God called the Rakia Shamayim, and there was evening and there was morning second day”.
Rakia in biblical Hebrew, like in modern Hebrew, simply means sky.
So why, in the first chapter of Genesis, is the sky Divinely called Shamayim?
And why, according to the rules of biblical Hebrew, is it fundamentally counter-intuitive, yet, so scientifically accurate?
The word Shamayim comprises two syllables. The first is Sham, which simply means there, namely, that which is inaccessible from here. The second syllable, ayim, is a suffix, namely, an affix added to the end of the stem of the word. Such suffix in added, in Hebrew, to words that represent a symmetric pair of objects, or, more generally, to words that represent objects that appear in symmetry. Thus, all visible organs in the human body that appear in pairs have same suffix, like legs (raglayim), hands (yadayim), eyes (einayim) and ears (oznayim). However, teeth, arranged in symmetry in the human mouth, though not in pairs, also have same suffix. Teeth in Hebrew is shinayim. Other examples may be read in my book at Chapter 5.
Let us address the two claims in the title:
- Why Shamayim is counter-intuitive?
- Why is Shamayim so scientifically accurate?
The answer to the first claim is nearly self-evident. When one observes the sky, at dark hours, the observed is far from symmetric. So much so that the twelve Zodiacal constellations had to be invented, in ancient times, to deliver some sense to the different non-symmetric configurations of stars that to this day can be observed by the naked eye in the sky.
Yet, despite the apparent non-symmetry observed in the sky, the Divine chose to grant the sky a word indicative of the most fundamental property of the sky, as we have scientifically learned it to be in recent times, namely, its symmetry (as observed from Plant Earth), or its uniformity (as preached by modern cosmology).
To learn how fundamentally uniform (or symmetric) the universe is, the reader is referred to Chapters 5 and 7 of my book, and references therein. Another good source to learn about the uniformity of the universe, as observed via telescopes and as articulated by modern science, is the excellent presentation by Don Lincoln at Wondrium channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRQvp3XPH_s
Note the term Desert, addressed in the lecture. The term is used, in modern cosmology, to denote the uniformity of the universe at the Big Bang (“In the beginning”).
Surprisingly, the words, Tohu Va-Vohu, describing the universe “in the beginning” (Genesis 1:2), are also associated with desert, as they are employed elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.
Consider, for example Jeremiah (4:23, 26):
“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was Tohu Va-Vohu…I beheld and, lo, the fruitful land has become the desert…”.
Refer also to Isaiah (34:11).
So:
- Shamayim is counter-intuitive and at odds with the picture, revealed in ancient times to the naive observer, our pre-science ancestors;
- Shamayim yet accurately describes current scientific picture of the universe, as formed in the last hundred years or so, based on cumulative empirical data (gathered via telescopes), and based on modern theories of the evolution and structure of the universe.
Articulated more simply:
Whatever direction in the sky you point to, Shamayim states that it is all the same, contrary to what the naked eyes are telling us, in conformance with what modern science is telling.
Personal confession, mind boggling…
In a recent post (and an accompanying podcast), we have shown that Erev and Boker, in Genesis creation narrative (Genesis 1), do not represent “Evening” and “Morning”, as commonly interpreted, and as traditionally assumed. Rather, these two words represent, respectively, two states — one of “Mixture”, Erev, the other of its opposite, Boker (outcome of sorting out the mixture into its constituents, namely, a state of “non-mixture”).
Does Yom in Genesis 1 mean “Day” (as commonly translated into English)?
Or perhaps the word, as used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, has a more general meaning, denoting, simply and non-specifically, “Period of time”?
To answer this intriguing question, we inspect verses in the Jewish Hebrew Bible, where Yom is used. The latter appears therein, with variations, no less than 2291 times. Naturally, in most cases Yom, and its variations, represent “Day”.
But…not always and not necessarily so.
We find out that in a considerable proportion of the verses, Yom simply denotes “Period”, whether in the future (future period, “in/on that day”) or currently (present period, “to this day”). We note that “Time”, in the common sense, does not appear at all in the Bible (where it rarely does appear, it means exclusively a specified point in time, like in “appointment time”). Therefore, “Day” is used instead to denote unspecified period of time. No other meaning can possibly be attached to the word, as it appears and being used in those verses.
Here are a few examples:
[1] “…he is the father of Mo’av to this day” (Genesis 19:37-38);
[2] “The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and Jehovah alone shall be exalted on that day” (Isaiah 2:11);
[3] “And it shall come to pass on that day that Jehovah shall beat out his harvest from the strongly flowing river to the Wadi of Egypt, and you shall be gathered up one by one, O Children of Israel” (Isaiah 27:12);
[4] “In that day shall the Lord of Hosts be a glorious crown, beautiful wreath for the remnant of his people” (Isaiah 28:5);
[5] “For the day is near, the day of Jehovah is near, a day of clouds, a time of doom it shall be for the nations” (Ezekiel 30:3);
[6] “In that day people will come to you from Assyria and the cities of Egypt, even from Egypt to the river, and from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain” (Micha 7:12);
[7] “On that day Jehovah will be one and His name One” (Zechariah 14:9).
The third of three papers on modeling, monitoring and control of surgery times has just been published. Links to all three papers are given below.
Most recent paper, published on line Dec. 13, 2021, introduces a new methodology to estimate operating-room utilization-rate for differently distributed surgery-times: http://10.1080/00207543.2021.2009141
Second paper, published on line December 03, 2020, introduces a new methodology to monitor surgery duration, using Statistical Process Control (SPC): https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.2813.
First paper, published on line, May 07, 2020, develops a new statistical model for surgery time: https://doi.org/10.1080/23737484.2020.1740066.
An innovative new interpretation of Genesis well-known verse and how it comports with modern science (relate to post here)
(Related podcast: “And There was Evening and There was Morning” (Genesis 1) — A Different Interpretation (Podcast) .)
The known verse from the first chapter of Genesis appears therein, not surprisingly, six times.
The two central words of the verse, which confer on it its meaning, are Boker (morning in biblical Hebrew) and Erev (evening). However, their order of appearance in the verse is bizarre:
“…and there was evening and there was morning one day” (Genesis 1:5).
This is logically flawed (and same applies to all other five variations of the verse). The correct articulation should be:
“…and there was morning and there was evening one day”.
Perhaps the verse is misconstrued by us? Is there an alternative interpretation that may remove the logical flaw, inherent to current interpretation?
In this post (and the allied podcast), we offer a new interpretation. The latter integrates well with the creation narrative, as unfolding in Genesis 1, and, astoundingly, it also comports well with current scientific knowledge of the Big-Bang and its aftermath.
Ultimately, the new interpretation also explains why the same two words, Erev and Boker, stand for “evening” and “morning”, respectively, in traditional interpretations of the verse.
We base the new interpretation on a basic root analysis of the two words, and support it by numerous other verses in the Jewish Bible, where same roots appear in a context utterly divorced from the traditional meaning as “evening” and “morning”; yet, in context that is consistent with the new interpretation.
Therefore, both Erev and Boker, and their respective roots, are hence forth discussed with no relationship whatsoever to their acceptable meanings as evening and morning, respectively.
We start with Erev.
This word, and other words of same root, appear over 150 times in the Bible. The Hebrew root of Erev corresponds to E.R.B, in English. Most times, the root is associated with “evening”, but not uniquely so. Another common usage relates to mixing, or mixture. Thus, Erev-Rav (literally, “much mixture”) stands for a mixture of tribes, Arov stands for a mixture of animals (one of the Ten Plights of Egypt), and Le-itarev means to mix together.
In other words, Erev, in biblical Hebrew, simply means mixture.
Not surprisingly, the time of day when darkness starts crawling over earth, is also called Erev in Hebrew.
Let us next consider Boker.
Traditionally, the word means morning. We might be astonished to learn that its root is tightly linked to Erev, when the latter is interpreted as mixture. Furthermore, as we shall soon realize, the root of Boker diametrically represents the opposite of Erev, when the latter is interpreted as mixture.
Let us analyze usage of the root of Boker (B.K.R) in various biblical Hebrew words.
The grammatical structure of Boker is the same as Chodesh (month, in Hebrew). The verb associated with Chodesh is Le-Chadesh, meaning to renew. One may understand why month in Hebrew implies renewal, since the Hebrew calendar is based on the lunar (moon-based) month, with some periodical adjustments to keep it in tune with the solar calendar (sun-based calendar).
Similarly, the respective verb, associated with Boker, is Le-Vaker. Among other related meanings, Le-Vaker in biblical Hebrew means to seek out, namely, to make something that is mixed distinct and separate. For example (from Collins Concise Dictionary): “She sought out her friend from among the crowd”.
A typical example for the use of Le-Vaker, sharing same root with Boker, is found in Leviticus. The verse describes donation of an animal to be sacrificed to Jehovah. The verse addresses the donor and relates to his animal donation (Leviticus 27:33):
“He must not seek out (Lo Ye-Vaker) the good from the bad or make any substitution. If he does make a substitution, both the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.”
In other words, if the donated animal is defective, impaired in some way, the donor must not distinguish the good from the bad, or make substitution, so that the sacrifice includes only good parts of the animal. The latter must be sacrificed in its totality.
Similarly, refer to Leviticus 13:36, or Ezekiel 34:11-12.
We realize that, according to the new interpretation based on root analysis, Erev and Boker are inherently connected, diametrically representing two opposite states. Erev describes a state of mixture; Boker describes a state that is the outcome of sorting out the mixture into its individual constituents, rendering them distinct, “separate from the crowd” (the mixture). In short, Boker describes a new state, where constituents of the mixture stand each on its own, materializing to full fruition as a result of the act of bakarah (seeking out the ingredients of the mixture).
With this new insight, based on root analysis of the two words Erev and Boker, the well-known verse, “and there was evening and there was morning”, acquires a completely new meaning. It may more precisely be re-articulated as follows:
”There was mixture (Erev), and then there was non-mixture (Boker)”, a new state where the mixture is dissolved, sorted out into its individual constituents.
We again note that the traditional interpretation, “And there was evening and there was morning one day” (and other versions of same verse) are logically flawed. The morning appears before the evening (to define a day), not the other way around. With the new interpretation, this logical flaw disappears since time is appropriately preserved.
Is the new interpretation consistent with the general description of creation, as unfolding in Genesis creation narrative?
Indeed, very much so.
In Genesis creation narrative, as unfolding in the first chapter of Genesis, the word “create” (Bara), appears not six times, as might be expected, but only twice. It first appears in Genesis 1:1 as an overall statement of all that have been created:
“In the beginning Elohim created the Heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1).
The second time creation is mentioned in Genesis creation narrative relates to the human species (Genesis 1:27):
“So Elohim created Mankind, in His own image, in the image of Elohim created He him, male and female He created them”.
One may wonder:
If creation had happened “In the Beginning” (Genesis 1:1), and then on the sixth day (Genesis 1:27), what has the Divine being engaged in the rest of the six days, where creation is not at all mentioned?
The surprising answer is embedded in the two words, Erev and Boker, based on their new interpretation, based on their root analysis.
In the other days, when no creation is specified, Genesis creation narrative describes, individually for each day, how Elohim, by Divine utterance, has turned Erev (a state of mixture) into Boker (a state of non-mixture, individual parts sorted out from the mixture).
In other words, in most of the creation narrative of Genesis 1, the Divine separates the mixture, created “in the beginning”, into its distinct individual elements, materializing them from the uniform mixture, into which they were initially embedded.
How does this interpretation comport with modern science?
Indeed, surprisingly well.
The two words, Erev and Boker, as newly interpreted, are extremely consistent with how the Big-Bang and its aftermath, in the first few seconds of existence, are currently described by science.
A central element in this description is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). This radiation is a relic of the Big-Bang and its immediate aftermath. The uniformity of the radiation across the universe testifies that in the “Beginning” the universe was extremely uniform.
This uniformity is echoed in the Bible, describing the just created physical world (“The Earth”; Genesis 1:2):
“And The Earth was without form and void (Tohu Va-Vohu)..”.
Using root analysis of the two Hebrew words, Tohu and Vohu, let us make sense of this verse and find out what it really conveys.
Science describes the first few seconds after the Big-Bang as extremely uniform. Nothing is yet distinct, there is no information to observe. This scientific description is reflected in Tohu and Bohu. The Bible describes the just created world as being in a state that whatever an observer at the time would observe, he or she will be bewildered (Li-Tehot, to wonder; Hebrew verb linked to Tohu). Also, the imaginary observer would look around purposelessly (Li-vehot; Hebrew verb linked to Bohu). Both descriptions allude to an observer, bewildered and looking around purposelessly. Why? because there is no information, nothing to observe that might help making sense of the observed (just as in a desert).
We have come to the end of our exploration journey regarding creation of The Earth, as alluded to in Genesis 1. We realized that in most days of creation, the Divine sorted out, by uttering a Divine command, that which was created “In the beginning”.
We address the second creation, that of humankind (on the sixth day of creation; Genesis 1:27).
Humankind was not created when God created “The Heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1), or the word “created” would not be repeated describing creation of Mankind (Genesis 1:27).
Since creation first alludes to “The Heavens and the Earth”, and only later to Humankind, we, human beings, are doomed to repeat, in our own life, the same process, as described regarding The Earth in the first five days of Genesis creation (and some also on the sixth day) .
According to the creation narrative, the physical world (The Earth) has moved, from one day to the next, from a vague mixture (Erev, Tohu Va-Vohu) into its visible distinct constituents (Boker), turning the potential into observable reality.
We, human beings, who were separately created, are doomed to repeat the same process as The Earth.
Exercising free will, we are doomed to sort out the hidden faceless mixture, residing within us from infancy, into observable, distinct and separate personality and character.
Once we do that, transforming the potential, lurking within us in a mixture form, into the “I”, or “Me”, which we have grown up to become;
Once we do that, then, and only then, may we offer our own creation, our own non-mixed unique self, to the world, to be of benefit to the rest of humanity, and to all other creatures living on the surface of Planet Earth.
This post considers various paths to Holiness, suggested in the past, and contrast them with the biblical way.
(Related podcast: “Becoming Holy” — The Bible Prescription (Podcast))
The desire to become holy, as a means to ascend to higher spiritual dimensions, is as ancient as human civilization.
But what does it mean to become holy? How do you become holy?
Several paths to holiness have been offered in the past. These include.
Path 1. Seclusion in an isolated place, disconnected from human beings.
Path 2. Refrain from talk (keeping silent) for an extended period of time.
Path 3. Pursuing the path of a Nazarite (including abstinence from the other sex and from alcohol).
Path 4. Adoption of certain dietary menus to cleanse the body, hopefully leading to holiness.
What is the Bible prescription to becoming holy?
It indeed departs appreciably from all the paths just described.
However, it is exact. And it is specific.
The Bible delivers a prescription to becoming holy in the form of ‘Do’s and ‘Do-not do’s. These are scattered throughout the Bible (particularly, in Torah and the prophets). Yet, it is described in detail, in a concentrated fashion, in a certain segment of the Jewish Torah, generally referred to, in Jewish tradition, as Parashat Kedoshim (Segment “The holy ones”).
The prescription starts with a Divine assertion, repeated, nearly verbatim, close to the end of the Parashah.
Here is the opening verse (Leviticus 19:1):
“And Jehovah spoke to Moses saying, speak to all the congregation of the Children of Israel and say to them: “Holy shall you be because holy am I, Jehovah your God”.
In a verse, prior to the end of the Parashah, the same assertion is repeated (Leviticus 20:26):
“And you shall be holy to me for holy am I, Jehovah…”.
Throughout the Parashah, the signature of the Divine is repeated, time and again, at the end of a set of ‘Do’s and ‘Do-not do’s, as if to remind the listener (or reader), of their Divine source:
“I am Jehovah”.
(For example, Leviticus 19:16).
In this post (and the accompanying podcast), we concentrate on a certain small segment of ‘Do’s and ‘Do-not do’s. They are not related in particular to the Israelites (as are, for example, dietary Kashrut commandments). These ‘Do’s and ‘Do-not do’s are of a universal value, applicable to all aspiring for holiness in their lives.
We refer to verses 16 to 18 of Leviticus 19. They represent some of the ‘Do’s and ‘Do-not do’s, prescribed by Torah as a path to holiness in Chapters 19 and 20. We start with the ‘Do-not do’s.
Do-not do 1 (Verse 16):
“Do not walk around offering your merchandise of slander”.
(Expressed in four words, in the original biblical Hebrew).
In short, do not engage in slander.
We note that slander, in biblical terms, means telling un-pleasant truths about a fellow human being. This is a profound diversion from modern judiciary systems, where slander exclusively means telling un-pleasant lies, about a specific individual or about a group of people. According to Torah, these do not constitute slander. These are simply lies, or falsehoods. In Torah terms, slander exclusively relates to telling truths, unpleasant or embarrassing as they may be.
Do-not do 2 (Verse 16):
“Do not stand still, while your fellow human-being is in a potentially threatening blood-shedding situation. I am Jehovah”.
(First sentence expressed in five words, in the original biblical Hebrew).
Do-not do 3 (Verse 17):
“Do not hate your fellow human-being in your heart”.
Do-not do 4 (Verse 18):
“Do not do wrong in return for wrong-doing committed unto you”.
In short, do not take revenge.
Do-not do 5 (Verse 18):
“Do not reserve resentment”.
We note, that resentment may lead to revenge. This is comparable to coveting (subject of the Tenth Commandment), which may lead to stealing. The Torah commands, in both cases — Eliminate the root-cause: Resentment that may lead to revenge; Coveting that may lead to stealing.
We proceed to the “To do” list in the same small segment (Leviticus 19:16-18).
Do 1 (Verse 17):
“Reproach your fellow human-being lest you carry his sin, on your account”.
In the original Hebrew text, a different interpretation is also possible.
“Reproach your fellow human-being lest he carries a sin, due to you”.
In other words, because you have refrained from reproach, when one was needed, your fellow human-being may carry a sin, namely, become a sinner.
Do 2 (Verse 18):
“Love thy neighbor as yourself. I am Jehovah”.
Five ‘Do-not do’s and two ‘Do’s in a very small segment of Divine prescription to becoming holy. These are a small representative sample.
To become truly holy, the Divine prescription, as articulated in Torah and in the prophets, need to be learned in depth, and then re-learned, and re-learned again. Until this prescription is practiced on a regular basis.
Once this happens, the prescription is engraved as a way of life, the ‘Do’s and ‘Do-not do’s are absorbed to become like second nature.
In the language of Torah, a ‘Do-not do’, which has formerly been observed as Divine command that needs to be fulfilled, is now replaced with “Not being able to do” (for example, Deuteronomy 21:16).
An aspiring individual, wishing to be holy, then no longer merely fulfills a Divine commandment: “Be holy, for I, Jehovah, am holy”.
Rather, he, or she, becomes God-like.
To become like God is an ancient desire. It had formerly been expressed, in Torah, in a perverted way, by Adam and Eve, who desired to be like Elohim (Genesis 3:5). To be Elohim-like means to resemble the Creator, namely, dominate nature.
This time, same desire, to be like God, is expressed differently, materializing the right way. It is expressed as a desire to become Jehovah-like via becoming truly holy.
Why becoming truly holy, Torah fashion, implies becoming Jehovah-like?
Because,
“I, Jehovah, am holy”.
Kavod in Hebrew means honor, respect. But Moses requested of God to show him Jehovah’s Kavod. What does that bizarre request mean? It turns out that …
“Kavod – the most peculiar word in biblical Hebrew” (Podcast-audio)
What does “Truth” stand on? How do we tell truth from falsehood?
The Hebrew Alphabet conveys to us the essential ingredients of truth.
We denote these:
The Three Pillars of Truth.
What are they?
Why is there free-will?
What are the necessary and sufficient requirements for free-will to be exercised?
How do we make decisions within the two worlds, comprising our lives, the “World of Law-of-Nature” and the “World of Randomness”?
These questions and others are addressed, supported by excerpts from the Bible.
What happens to a society, governed by democratically-elected representatives, subject to humanly-created law?
Is this guarantee that atrocities not be committed?
Here are three stories from Scripture, involving three biblical heroes:
King Abimelech, King David, Abraham.
The stories are seemingly non-related. In fact, they convey a single common message. What is this message?
Jewish Kosher laws, seemingly arbitrary and devoid of any possible rational justification, in fact are based on a very deep principle of how we should conduct our lives to maintain health, spiritually and physically.
What is this principle?
Below you may find a link to a new entry in Wikipedia, written by me sometime ago (now accepted to be published):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_methods_for_surgery_duration
(Related post: Shorty*: What Do We Know of God? )
The detailed answer, based on the Jewish Hebrew Bible (Torah, the prophets), on in-dept analysis of biblical Hebrew words and traditional Jewish interpreters — may surprise you:
The answer to this intriguing question may surprise you. The true meaning of the Eighth Commandment, according to traditional Jewish scholarship, is not what it appears to be.
So where prohibition on stealing, in the common sense of the word, does appear in the Ten Commandments?
Find details in this podcast:
“In the beginning God created The Heavens and The Earth” (Gen. 1:1). Are these two worlds apart, or are they communicating with one another?
A single verse in Torah may deliver a clue, thereby defining for us a most basic human condition.
Three biblical stories expressing same state-of-mind as today’s prevailing culture (English, narrated by a female voice):
A series of thirteen videos of lectures on robust design (quality engineering), delivered by me to graduate students from industry at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (Summer, 2014).
The initiative to record these lectures came from a female student, pregnant at the time, who was unable to attend the lectures.
here is the link:
Kavod in Hebrew means honor, respect.
But Moses requested of God to show him Jehovah’s Kavod.
What does that bizarre request mean?
It turns out that the word Kavod, in biblical Hebrew, hides much more than meets the eye, especially in view of modern science.
“Kavod – the most peculiar word in biblical Hebrew” (English; female voice):
(a post by same name may be found on this blog)
The following is an excerpt from a forthcoming entry in Wikipedia (the Free Encyclopedia):
“In 1994, Haim Shore sued Motorola, in an American court, for failing to publish the much publicized “Six Sigma Encyclopedia of Statistical Tools”, to which he volunteered eight modules that were reviewed by Motorola University (Six-Sigma Research Institute) and accepted for publication. Modules contributed by about two hundred other authors, mostly contributing each a single module or two, were also not published. Though Shore lost the case (Shore vs. Motorola), the verdict triggered an intensive debate within academia that resulted in several publications, where the term “Rough Justice” reigned supreme.”[1]
Relating to this case[2], Stewart Macaulay, law Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School (spouse of the late attorney Jacqueline Macaulay (1932-2000), who had led the litigation against Motorola), writes (footnote 5, p. 54):
“The price of the position I take in this article is that I have to accept that sometimes judges will use their discretion to reach results that I think are outrageous. Shore vs. Motorola was for me an unhappy example”.
References
[1] Linzer, Peter (2001). Rough Justice: A Theory of Restitution and Reliance, Contracts and Torts. Section IV: Haim Shore’s Case Against Motorola. With Commentary by Caroline N. Brown. Wisconsin Law Review (Published by the University of Wisconsin Law School), 3:695-794.
[2] Macaulay, Stewart (2003). The real and the paper deal: Empirical pictures of relationships, complexity and the urge for transparent simple rules (pp. 51-102). An article in (book): Implicit Dimensions of Contract: Discrete, Relational, and Network Contracts. International Studies in the Theory of Private Law. Editors: David Campbell, Hugh Collins, John Wightman. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 1847312179, 9781847312174.
Comment: First item in references list is accesible below:
( See also: Jehovah – God of History? )
In the First Commandment, conveyed by the Divine to the Israelites in Mount Sinai, God “introduces” Himself not as creator of “the Heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1), but as ruler of History.
This complies with Jewish tradition, which asserts that God continuously engages in human affairs, in the history of the created, to implement the unknown and humanly-unknowable Divine Design (refer to my related post: “And Elohim Saw Ki Tov” (“that it was good”)” (Gen. 1) — A Different Viewpoint).
The First Commandment starts:
“I am Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2).
In compliance with this tradition, of Jehovah as God of History, Kabbalah claims that each verse in Torah corresponds to a single Hebrew-calendar year, and the verse consecutive (serial) number in Torah is indication of the Hebrew year, to which the content of the verse relates.
The above is based on introductory comments by Rabbi Benjamin Blech in a lecture of February, 1-st, 2021, a link to which is given below.
In this short post, we list verses from Torah (including some from the afore-cited source), with possible links to historic events that have occurred the same Hebrew year, as the verse serial number. We pursue Rabbi Blech comment that these cannot and should not to be used to predict the future; first, because the full historic significance of a Torah verse can only be comprehensively comprehended only post-factum (namely, after the Hebrew-calendar year, to which the verse supposedly refers, is already part of history); Secondly, because human prophesizing, lacking explicit Divine inspiration and authorization, goes against the most fundamental condition of human existence, namely, Free Will.
Here are some examples (from Rabbi Blech presentation and else):
- Historic Event: Nazi Germany executing the “Final Solution” (Holocaust still in full swing, 1944; Jews uprooted from their place of residence to Concentration Camps, mostly in other countries); Hebrew-calendar year: 5704 (1944); 5704-th verse in Torah: “And Jehovah uprooted them from their land in anger, and in fury and in great wrath and cast them into another land, as it is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:27);
- Historic Event: End of World War II (also end of Holocaust, now revealed in its full dimensions, with lingering question mark in the minds of people-of-faith – “where was God??”); Hebrew-calendar year: 5705 (1945); 5705-th verse in Torah: “The hidden belong to Jehovah, our God, and the revealed are for us and for our offspring forever, that we may do all the words of this Torah” (Deuteronomy 29:28);
- Historic Event: Founding of the State of Israel; Hebrew-calendar year: 5708 (May, 1948); 5708-th verse in Torah: “Then Jehovah your God will restore you from your captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples that Jehovah your God has scattered you” (Deuteronomy 30:3);
- Historic Event: Mass Jewish immigration to the State of Israel during its first 3 and a half years of existence, mostly from Moslem Arab countries (“Some 688,000 immigrants came at an average of close to 200,000 a year… As approximately 650,000 Jews lived in Israel at the time … this meant in effect a doubling of the Jewish population”; Source: site of The Jewish Agency for Israel); Hebrew-calendar years: 5709 (1949) – 5712 (1952); 5709&5710-th verses in Torah: “If your outcasts be at the ends of the earth, from there will Jehovah your God gather you and from there will He fetch you; And Jehovah your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it, and He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers” (Deuteronomy 30:4-5);
Comment: Based on lecture of Feb 1, 2021:
Kabbalah: Can It Predict the Future? (Ft. Rabbi Benjamin Blech)
My new paper, published on line 03 December 2020. The paper introduces a new methodology to monitor surgery duration, using Statistical Process Control (SPC). It may be found at: https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.2813.
This is the second in a series of three papers addressing surgery duration. The first paper, published on line 07 May 2020:
An explanatory bi-variate model for surgery-duration and its empirical validation
It may be found at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23737484.2020.1740066.
A third paper, addressing estimation of operating-room utilization-rate for differently-distributed surgery times, is under review.
A new post on The Blogs of The Times of Israel:
Jewish biblical prophets continuously relate to the era of free-will as temporary, not everlasting. I have referred to it previously and provided quotes form the Bible (for example, here and here).
Two major conclusions of these sources (and others) are these:
- Free-will is temporary;
- You cannot have free-will coupled with the certainty that God exists. The latter, by definition, deprives you of absolute free-will.
A poor analogy (yet herewith pursued) is when one wishes to commit an offence against state law, knowing the police is all around. This knowledge deprives you of absolute free will. There are limitations imposed by the ruler of the environment where you exist. Visible presence of the keepers of the law limits free-will. And a limited free-will, logically and by definition, is no free-will.
What is the most outstanding outcome of the pandemic (apart from threat to one’s own existence)?
“Social Distancing“
Fellow human beings no longer represent a focus of desire that one wishes to draw close to (whether for favorable, moral, intentions or otherwise). Rather, your fellow human beings pose a threat, a trigger for a fright and then flight (“Social Distancing”).
What does that imply?
We are forced to be on our own — alone with our own tribe (cessation of international traffic), alone with our own family (when state lockdown is imposed), or not-alone with our own self (when individual isolation is imposed). We are then forced to learn our own nature — exercising introspection, learning who we really are, who our family are, what keeps our tribe together.
There is another aspect to how the pandemic forces us to limit our absolute free-will. We no longer have the absolute freedom to “Escape from Freedom” (to borrow a term from Erich Fromm’s book of same title). No longer can we rely on society to think for us (via mass communication channels), making decisions for us, choose for us. Barring absorption in society via “social distancing”, escape from freedom becomes harder to pursue.
A plague in biblical Hebrew is Dever, from the root “to speak”; Not much different from Davar or Diber (the biblical Hebrew singular for The Ten Commandments, Dvarim or Dibrot, respectively; find details in another post on this blog).
If we consider the plague, this lesson in modesty for humankind, as:
- A Divine signal to prepare for things to come;
- A Divine signal to be on our own, stop being confused by the society around us, concentrate on our own very “Life Condition”;
If we consider the plague that way, does current pandemic imply that in the near future a catatonic change in our perception of reality is about to happen?
(“For then I will convert to peoples a purified language; that they all call upon the name Jehovah to serve Him shoulder to shoulder”; Zephaniah 3:9)
***************************
- shorty* is a short post
This post displays a collection of Hebrew songs that most touch me. The collection is divided into six groups:
[A] Mourning Holocaust; [B] Mourning the Fallen of Israel (confined mainly to the most devastating — War-of-Independence, 1948-1949; Yom-Kippur War, 1973); [C] Songs of Faith and Prayer; [D] Solemn; [E] Songs of Eretz-Israel; [F] Just Cheerful and Beautiful;
And a Tip, no words needed…
For some, for lack of preference for one performance over another, I display several for same song.
*********************************************************
[A] Mourning Holocaust:
- הסדר האחרון בגטו ורשה
(“The Last Passover Seder of Warsaw Ghetto”)
- “Going to Caesarea” (“Eli, Eli”; “My God, My God”) (Written by an Israeli paratrooper, Hana Senesh, on a mission to rescue Jews in Europe in World War II, caught and executed by the Nazis, with others). Singer — Nechama Hendel:
- “The Village is on Fire” (“Ha’ayarah Bo’eret”). A most moving song, sung by Meital Michaeli (first) and Dorit Reuveni (second below). Written by a Polish Jewish poet, Mordechai Gvirtig, in 1938, in response to the pogrom in the Jewish community of Pshitik, March 1936. This poem is widely considered as an alert to the upcoming Holocaust, and as a prophetic poem: “Brothers, our village is on fire…it will consume us all…and you are watching from afar…embracing yourselves…not delivering the needed help”:
[B] Mourning the Fallen of Israel (mainly, War-of-Independence, 1948-1949; Yom-Kippur War, 1973):
- “Bab-El-Wad”. Singer — Yafa Yarkoni (1948 War): https://youtu.be/Jqsmy_ZQ7II
- “Reut” (Comradeship). Singer — Esther Ofarim (1948 War).
- “Ve-Netane Tokef” (From Rosh Hashanna & Yom Kippur Prayers; Making a chilling link between the judgement of all living, executed on Yom Kippur according to Jewish tradition, and those who lost their lives in defense of Israel in the Yom-Kippur War). Performed by The Gevatron – Israeli Kibbutz Folk Singers. Soloist — Hanoch Albalek (two versions).
- “We are from the same village” (“…now you are beyond the fence…”). Singers — Arik Sinai (first link), Shai Abramsom (second link), Lehakat Pikkud Merkaz (IDF singing group) . Yom Kippur War (Written by Neomi Shemer, 1966; Has become national symbol for the agony of the Yom Kippur War, 1973):
- “Lu Yehi” (“Let there be”). Singer — Chava Alberstein. Yom Kippur War (Written by Neomi Shemer, 1973; Has become national symbol for the agony of the Yom Kippur War, 1973)
- “Al Daat Ha-Makom” (combining verses from Job and Genesis and Jewish prayer; the story of two Israeli soldiers, carrying same name, killed on the same day, and the tragic chain of errors that followed, breaking the news to the families). Singer — Miri Aloni (Lebanon War):
[C] Songs of Faith and Prayer:
- Rachem (“Have Mercy”). Singer — Jacob Shweki: https://youtu.be/hLQ0yOuwbmI?list=FLGSRFy4_td_fwDJgpWw0Qmw
- Rachem (“Have Mercy”). Singer — Avraham fried: https://youtu.be/4HBNyj6KVxo?list=FLGSRFy4_td_fwDJgpWw0Qmw
- “Ana Be-Choach”. Singers — Hallel Group, with Meirav Brener:
- “Ana Be-Choach”. Singer — Dikla Chachmon Orbach:
- “Ha-Ben Yakir Li” (“My son, dearest”). Performers — Shai Abramson and The Gevatron, with The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra: https://youtu.be/c2jOE45pxj8?list=FLGSRFy4_td_fwDJgpWw0Qmw
- “Shema Israel Elohay”. Singer — Sarit Hadad: https://youtu.be/HQlRrrReua0
[D] Solemn:
- National Anthem (from Israel Central Ceremony, opening Independence-Day Celebration): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMwSlp7I7IQ&list=FLGSRFy4_td_fwDJgpWw0Qmw&index=275&t=0s
- “Jerusalem of Gold” (written by Neomi Shemer, A short while prior to the breakout of the 1967 war). Singer — Shuli Natan:
- “Jerusalem of Gold”. Singer — Ofra Haza:
[E] Songs of Eretz-Israel:
- Ruthi (“Li Kol Gal..”). Singer — Arik Einstein:
- “I have a Kineret” (“Sea of Galilee”). Singer — Aril Lavi:
- “On the seashore of Kineret”. Singer — Arik Einstein:
- “The Song of the Valley” (On Emek Israel, the Valley of Israel). Singer — Arik Einstein: https://youtu.be/Tbs8VFNdFpU
- “There were Nights” (on the Jordan Valley; a love story). Singer — Esther Ofarim:
- “Kalaniot” (plural of the name of an Israeli plant, Kalanit; Used also to be a nickname for British soldiers, during British mandate over Palestine prior to the re-birth of Israel, because of the color of their hats). Singer — Shoshana Damari:
[F] Just Cheerful and Beautiful:
- “Hevenu Shalom Alechem” (“We have brought a greeting of peace upon you”). Performers — The Jerusalem Academy of Music and Dance: https://youtu.be/mZ_nbinWkvE?list=FLGSRFy4_td_fwDJgpWw0Qmw
- “Hava Nagila” (“Let us be gleeful”). Performers — André Rieu and his group:
- “Shnaim” (“Two”). Singers —Rita and Shlomo Artzi:
Tip: The Lonely Shepherd — André Rieu & Gheorghe Zamfir:
Categories
New “Haim Shore Blog” Launched
The new site, at haimshore.blog (same domain address as the outgoing site), is based on a new up-to-date WordPress theme, rich with new editorial opportunities and features.
The new site contains all posts, pages, videos and podcasts of the former blog (“Professor Haim Shore Blog”). The latter had been off the net at end of August, 2020.
I have just updated my list of publications (as of January 2025).
Most recently, I have been engaged mainly in modeling process time, in general, and surgery time, in particular. Also, I have authored a four-part mini-series for Wiley’s “Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online”.
These and other research efforts are reflected in publications of the last six years (2020-2025).
The list is periodically updated, with the most recent from January 2025:
List of Podcasts produced by Professor Haim Shore or second or third parties (list does not contain “Reads of the Bible”, which may be accessed here ):
[1] Talk of Avinoam Ben-Mordechai with Haim Shore (originally published, July, 4th, 2020; Produced by Avinoam Ben-Mordechai; Part 1 of 2):
[2] Talk of Avinoam Ben-Mordechai with Haim Shore (originally published, July, 11th, 2020; Produced by Avinoam Ben-Mordechai; Part 2 of 2):
[3] Posts from Haim Shore blog (English):
3.1 “Kavod – the most peculiar word in biblical Hebrew” (female voice):
3.2 “World is My Own and I have Made Myself” – A Tale of Two Cultures (Podcast-audio):
Three biblical stories expressing same state-of-mind as today’s prevailing culture (English, narrated by a female voice):
3.3 Basic Human Condition: “Angels of God Ascending and Descending” (Gen. 28:12; Podcast-audio):
“In the beginning God created The Heavens and The Earth” (Gen. 1:1). Are these two worlds apart, or are they communicating with one another? A single verse in Torah may deliver a clue, thereby defining for us a most basic human condition.
3.4 “Do not steal” – Is it in the Ten Commandments?
The answer to this intriguing question may surprise you. The true meaning of the Eighth Commandment, according to traditional Jewish scholarship, is not what it appears to be.
So where prohibition on stealing, in the common sense of the word, does appear in the Ten Commandments?
Find details in this podcast:
3.5 What do we know of God? (Podcast-audio)
Based on the Jewish Hebrew Bible (Torah, the prophets), on in-dept analysis of biblical Hebrew words and on traditional Jewish interpreters, the detailed answer may be somewhat unexpected:
3.6 “Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19). Why? (Podcast-audio)
Jewish Kosher laws, seemingly arbitrary and devoid of any possible rational justification, in fact are based on a very deep principle of how we should conduct our lives to maintain health, spiritually and physically.
What is this principle?
3.7 “Only, no fear of God in this place” (Gen. 20:11; Podcast-audio)
What happens to a society, governed by democratically-elected representatives, subject to humanly-created law?
Is this guarantee that atrocities not be committed?
Here are three stories from Scripture, involving three biblical heroes:
King Abimelech, King David, Abraham.
The stories are seemingly non-related. In fact, they convey a single common message. What is this message?
3.8 Free Will — The Act of Separating and Choosing (Podcast-audio)
Why is there free-will?
What are the necessary and sufficient requirements for free-will to be exercised?
How do we make decisions within the two worlds, comprising our lives, the “World of Law-of-Nature” and the “World of Randomness”?
These questions and others are addressed, supported by excerpts from the Bible.
3.9 The Three Pillars of Truth (Lessons from the Hebrew Alphabet; Podcast-audio)
What does “Truth” stand on? How do we tell truth from falsehood?
The Hebrew Alphabet conveys to us the essential ingredients of truth.
We denote these:
The Three Pillars of Truth.
What are they?
3.10 “Becoming Holy” — The Bible Prescription
This podcast (and the accompanying post) consider various paths to Holiness, suggested in the past, and contrast them with the biblical way.
3.11 “And There was Evening and There was Morning” (Genesis 1) — A Different Interpretation (Podcast)
An innovative new interpretation of Genesis well-known verse and how it comports with modern science.
3.12 “Shamayim” — The Most Counter-intuitive Yet Scientifically Accurate Word in Biblical Hebrew (Podcast)
The deeper meaning and implications of the biblical Hebrew Shamayim (Sky).
3.13 Black Holes and Near-Death Experience (NDE) — A One-way Flow of Information (Podcast)
One-way flow of Information is characteristic to black holes. However, it also forms the basic human condition, regarding communicating with “the other side”. Is this similarity coincidental?
3.14 Why Trust Bible Prophets?? (Podcast)
Israelite prophets, prophecies of whom are everywhere in the Jewish Bible, right left and center, explicitly stated that God, the creator of “The Heaven and The Earth”, had spoken to them.
Should we trust them?
3.15 How Israel Transformed from a Land of Common-Sense to a Bastion of Formalities (Podcast)
A magnifying glass directed at the fundamental transformation that the Israeli society is going through, shifting personal responsibility, mandated by free-will, to the responsibility of court of law.
3.16 Punishment vs. Guidance — Explaining Adverse Outcome of Well-intentioned Behavior (Podcast) “Why Bad Things Happen to Good People?” A somewhat original insight to an age-old mystery.
3.17 Is Torah Divinely Inspired? (Podcast)
Three research efforts that have found shared patterns between scientific models of physical reality, the Hebrew Bible and biblical Hebrew:
3.18 Agag, Haman the Agagite, Gog, Magog, Gag — What binds them all together? (Podcast)
On the general concept of “Roof” in the Hebrew Bible, and what does it really signify:
3.19 Why Predictions of Surgery-Duration are So Poor, and a Possible Remedy (Podcast)
Accurate prediction of surgery-duration is key to optimal utilization of operating theatres. Yet, current predictions, based on best available statistical and AI techniques, are highly inaccurate. This causes operating rooms worldwide to operate in a sub-optimal mode. Based on personal experience, supported by recently published three peer-reviewed articles, we believe that the poor state-of-the-art of current predictive methods for surgery-duration is traceable to a single cause. What is it? What is the remedy?
3.20 Where Statistics Went Wrong Modeling Random Variation? (Podcast)
To-date, there are thousands of statistical distributions published in the Statistics literature. This seems insane. Perhaps the gigantic number of distributions indicates that we are wrong in how we model random variation, as observed in nature??
Where Statistics Went Wrong Modeling Random Variation (Podcast)
3.21 “Diber” or “Dever” – Two Modes of Divine Dialogue with Humankind in a World of Free-Will (Podcast)
The Ten Commandments, in their original biblical Hebrew, are — Ten Devarim, or Ten Dibrot (the singular of which is Diber). No commandment is mentioned! What is the deep significance lurking behind this bizarre phenomenon?
“Diber” or “Dever” – Two Modes of Divine Dialogue with Humankind in a World of Free-Will (Podcast)
3.22 How I Repaid Maccabiah for Saving My Father from the Holocaust (Podcast)
The story of my father, participating in the first Maccabiah (1932), how his life was spared, and how I repaid my debt.
How I Repaid Maccabiah for Saving My Father from the Holocaust (Audio-podcast)
3.23 Why a Jewish Rabbi wondered that Sun in Hebrew not named Eretz? (Podcast)
Living in the period of the Geo-Centric worldview, a Jewish Rabbi wondered (claimed) that it is the sun that should be named Eretz (Hebrew for Earth). With the later science-based shift towards the Helio-Centric worldview (Sun is “still”, Earth is “running” around it), biblical Hebrew once again proved to describe accurately physical reality.
Why a Jewish Rabbi wondered that Sun in Hebrew not named Eretz? (Podcast)
3.24 Hebrew Bible Mathematical Precision (Podcast)
The podcast demonstrates the precision of the original Hebrew-Bible text, and how occasionally the original sense is lost in translation:
3.25 How Will the Jews Re-gather Into Their Ancestral Homeland? – Jeremiah Prophecy (Podcast)
3.26 Four Major Bible Messages (Podcast)
Messages, delivered throughout the Bible, about the relationship of the Jewish people to the Divine:
3.27 The Hidden Message of the First Chapter of the Bible (Podcast)
Are we witnessing the end of a chapter in human history, to be replaced, suddenly, by a completely different chapter?
3.28 How We Perceive Ourselves and What Can We Become — The Story of Moses (Podcast)
A discussion of Devarim (Hebrew word), as pertaining to the humble Moses, presenting himself to God as “a man of no Devarim”.
3.29 Glila, Galut, Geula, Gilui, Galilee, Golan, Gal – What binds them all together? (Post/Podcast)
On the general concept of Gal (Wave) in biblical Hebrew and in the Bible, and how it is reflected in Jewish history and in current End-time scenarios.
Glila, Galut, Geula, Gilui, Galilee, Golan, Gal – What binds them all together? (Post/Podcast)
3.30. גְּלִילָה, גָּלוּת, גְּאוּלָה, גִּלּוּי, גָּלִיל, גּוֹלָן – מה קושר את כולם יחד? (Podcast)
המשמעות של המלים “גג” ו-“גל” בעברית המקראית ובמקרא והקשרלאחרית הימים:
גְּלִילָה, גָּלוּת, גְּאוּלָה, גִּלּוּי, גָּלִיל, גּוֹלָן, (Podcast) מה קושר את כולם יחד
Categories
Free-Will? — Flowchart Answer
The question of whether we are endowed with free-will is as old as human civilization. In this post, we offer a new perspective to this question — addressing it via a series of consecutive questions, located at decision-points of a flowchart.
Each answer directs us to a different path on the flowchart. Some answers land us at a dead-end. This requires regressing back to the recent decision-point, re-thinking our earlier decision (answers that landed us at a final-point on a path in the flowchart). Once we reach a final decision-point, which answers accurately the question (do we have free-will?), we are assured that the answer is well-founded, adopted only after all other options have been carefully explored, examined and rejected (or not, dependent on circumstance).
The flowchart includes Ovals (marking beginning or end of a path in the flowchart), Diamonds (decision-points) and Rectangles (steps in the flowchart). Other symbols commonly used in drawing process flowcharts are not needed. For each decision-point (diamond) — a question is asked. Each rectangular — provides an answer, addressed in detail below.
The questions forming the decision-points in the flowchart indeed form three filters, that only after we have “succeeded” passing them, can we be assured of the validity of our final conclusion, confidently asserting whether we entertain free will or otherwise.
The flowchart is now displayed, followed by comments relating to each of the decision-points (represented in the flowchart by ovals).
Enjoy the journey!
Professor Haim Shore Blog_Free Will Flowchart_June 14 2020
As we may now realize, the general structure of the flowchart comprises three fundamental questions/filters. They are:
- Scientific?
- Faith?
- Optimization?
We now address each filter, what it means and what are its implications, regarding the basic question:
Do we exercise free will?
- Scientific?
A scientific theory, or scientific claim, requires that a criterion be provided how this claim can be rejected, falsified. For example, an acceptable criterion is that if a scientific theory predicts a certain outcome (obtained from experiment, or from sheer observation of nature, where “experiments” are hard to manipulate, as in cosmology), and if this predicted outcome fails to realize — that alone may collapse a scientific theory, invalidate it.
Is the claim “Humankind has free will” scientific? Since this claim relates not to humankind as a collective, this question reduces to the following:
Can we predict human response to any given Free-Will situation?
The answer is a resounding — No.
Human conduct can be predicted, to a certain degree, only regarding the collective, not individuals. Furthermore, given that randomness is part of nature, observed all around us, we never know whether the unpredictability of human response to given free-will situations is the result of nature randomness, observed everywhere in nature, or due to existence of individual free-will.
In short: The claim that human beings have free-will is not scientific, not falsifiable. We need to regress back to the decision-point and select a different path on the flowchart, which lands us at the next filter;
- Faith?
This question relates to a single issue (for members of the monotheistic faiths):
Do you believe in God?
If positive, do you believe in the Divine source of the Bible, and consequently, in the truth of the Bible?
If the answer is again yes, then we have to decide that human beings do have free-will, as individuals, because this is a theme asserted endlessly in the Bible (refer to two quotes, from Torah and the prophets, in a most recent post, here). This ends our journey — Yes, there is free-will because that is what the Bible preaches, in all forms and shapes, and we believe in the Divine source of the Bible.
If we are non-believers, or agnostic — we need again to regress to the most recent decision-point, choose another path that leads us to the last filter;
- Optimization?
Many free-will situations are not really what they look like. Often, these are just optimization situations, ego-centered decision scenarios, where the ego attempts to optimize the outcome of its decision. For example, what would I gain and lose from pursuing this path and not another? We then choose the optimal path for which the net gain is maximal. This scenario is typical to most decision scenarios we encounter in everyday life. Therefore, one cannot say that the situations, where the ego optimizes its response, are indeed free-will situations. They are merely optimization scenarios, the simplest of which can be answered by a computer (refer to an earlier post, discussing these points more extensively, here).
What then characterizes free-will situations?
These are decision-points in life, where we can act, on ethical grounds, against our ego and our best interest, to achieve ethical goals that do not necessarily benefit us. Examples:
- Risking one’s life in battle to rescue fellow soldier;
- Persisting in resuscitating a patient, undergoing heart failure, even though an acceptable standard for exercising such effort has long-ago been surpassed;
- Sharing food with fellow human beings in conditions of extreme food scarcity;
- Ego-free donation.
All these scenarios, few drops in an ocean of possible scenarios that one may conceive of, demonstrate exercising ego-free free-will decisions, based on ethical principles, even when these may go against self-interest and self-preservation. An old Jewish idiom comes to mind (in the original language of Chazal, tractate Avot 4:1):
“Who is a hero? — Him, who overcomes his desire”.
(Tractate Avot, or Pirkei Avot, “Ethics of the Fathers”, is a tractate of the Mishna, part of Talmud, which details Torah’s views on ethics and interpersonal relationships; A modern day PC translation would probably read: “Who is a hero? — Him/her, who overcomes her/his desire”.)
This end-point in our journey teaches us a powerful lesson:
We are not born natural free-will individuals.
We have to work on it, nourish it, grow it throughout our lives, in order to free ourselves of the suffocating grip of the ego, to subdue it to ethical moral principles.
Only then — may we exercise ethical principles and ethical judgement in our conduct, in our negotiations with fellow human beings, capable of converting optimization decisions (ego-centered decisions) into free-will decisions.
Then, and only then, do we become liberated free individuals, capable of exercising free-will out of free-will-decision.
(Related podcast:
“Diber” or “Dever” – Two Modes of Divine Dialogue with Humankind in a World of Free-Will (Podcast) )
The Ten Commandments, in their original biblical Hebrew, are — The Ten Devarim, or Ten Dibrot (the singular of which is Diber); The Holy of Holies, where the tablets with the Ten Commandments were held in the first and second Jewish temples, is — Dvir; A plague is — Dever‼ All these share a common root in biblical Hebrew — D.B.R (ד.ב.ר).
The main use of this root in Hebrew is a verb… to Speak‼
What???? What is going on here?? Who is speaking to whom?
And how are these most central precepts of Judeo-Christian civilization linked to such a simple everyday verb… “to speak”?
This post answers in detail all these questions, and some.
And the answers are astounding‼
We have formerly addressed, at length, Bible distinction between “say” and “speak“. This distinction is particularly of high significance when it comes to Bible description of God “saying” and God “speaking“. Read, for example, here.
Let us start with a brief review when, in the original Hebrew Bible, God “says” and when does God “speak”. The Hebrew Bible is highly consistent here. The distinction is simple:
- When God says — this is a monologue; No human response is expected (even though such is sometimes given). An implication of this is that when God says — this is a command; And a command from the Divine is fulfilled, to the letter; No space here for human free-will;
- When God speaks — this is the start of a dialogue, between Jehovah and a member, or members, of humankind; This is a dialogue typified by recognition, and acknowledgement, of the availability of free-will to the latter (humankind).
Let us address two major “episodes”, described in detail in the Bible — Genesis Creation (of “the heaven and the earth”; Genesis 1); and Divine giving of the Ten Commandments, via Moses, to the Israelites, on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land.
In the Hebrew biblical descriptions of these two episodes, when does God say and when does God speak? Let us learn.
Genesis 1:3:
“ויאמר אלוהים יהי אור ויהי אור”
- “And God said Let there be light and there was light”.
In Hebrew, the Ten Statements by which God had created the Heaven and the Earth are Asarah Maamarim; Singular — Maamar, of same root, A.M.R (א.מ.ר), as Le-Emor, namely, to say.
God keeps “saying” throughout Genesis Creation narrative, not ever “speaking“. You scan Genesis further on, and you do not find a single instance of God speaking. God is always saying — to Adam and Eve, to Cain and Hebel, and even to Noah, prior Noah’s flood.
Where, in the Bible, does the Divine stops saying and for the first time starts speaking to humankind? The answer is amazing: The first time God speaks to humankind, indeed starting a dialogue between the creator and the created (never ceased since) is after the old corrupt generation of human beings perished in a flood (Noah’s flood), and “New World Order” is finally established‼
Is this a sheer coincidence, that this dialogue starts concurrently with Divine promise, regarding Noah’s flood — “Never again”? Let us read the first Divine speak in the Bible:
- “And God spoke to Noah, saying: Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and the wives of your sons with you” (Genesis 8:15).
And then, immediately thereafter, Divine assurances:
- “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, for the impulse of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis, 8:21).
We move to another historic event, receiving of The Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai by Moses. The Ten Commandments are supposed to be the shield, which God provides humankind to protect against “the impulse of man’s heart that is evil from his youth”. But are these really Ten Commandments? Are there at all Ten Commandments in the Bible?
We read the introductory verse preceding the detailed reading of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-14):
שמות כ:1: “וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר:”
- “And God spoke all these words…” (Exodus 20:1).
In the original Hebrew — no commandment‼ Just God speaking. Extremely strange. What did God speak? In Hebrew— Dvarim:
- “And God spoke Kol Ha-Dvarim Ha-Eleh…” (Exodus 20:1).
However, Dvarim is not “words”. This is an inaccurate translation. In biblical Hebrew, Dvarim is plural of Davar! What is Davar (singular of Dvarim)? The noun of to speak, namely, Davar is simply a verbal utterance, with same root as to speak, implying a dialogue between God and mankind. Alternative forms, which one may find in the Hebrew Bible, are Diber or Dibra. In modern Hebrew, based on Jewish tradition — Aseret Ha-Dibrot. This, in an unfortunate wrong English translation, has become the Ten Commandments‼ But commandments they are not, just Dvarim.
All three forms found in the Bible, Davar, Diber, Dibra, originate in the same root, meaning — to speak; meaning — dialogue between Heaven and Earth, between the Divine and us, the created, mere mortals on the face of Planet Earth.
We will shortly explain why in a world of free-will the Ten Commandments cannot possibly be called such. But let us first ask a required question: Perhaps this notation for the Ten Commandments is still a coincidence! Perhaps in other verses of Exodus, the Ten Commandments are “correctly” specified, namely, as Commandments?
We move to another chapter in Exodus, to find out that the Ten Commandments are addressed, yet again, as Aseret Ha-Dvarim:
- “… And He wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten Dvarim” (Exodus 34:28).
Now, may be Exodus uses the name incorrectly, but in others books of Torah, the Ten Commandments are at last specified “correctly”, as commandments. We move on to the final book of Torah, named in the original Hebrew, not surprisingly… Dvarim (Deuteronomy):
- “And He declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to do, Aseret Ha-Dvarim, and he wrote them upon two tablets of stone” (Deuteronomy 4:13); Note that the speaker, Moses, is careful to say that God commanded the Israelites to do the covenant, not the Ten Commandments!
In the next chapter, Deuteronomy (5:6-18), the Ten Commandments are repeated by Moses (with slight variations to Exodus), reciting them before the assembled congregation of the Israelites, prior to entering the Promised Land. What is the closing verse? How does Moses conclude reading the Ten Commandments to the Children of Israel?
We read, Deuteronomy (5:19):
- “These Dvarim Jehovah spoke to all your assembly in the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness with a great voice which was not heard again..”
No commandment‼ Later in the same book, Deuteronomy Ch.10, Moses talks about receiving the tablets the second time, after he had broken the first ones, yet again referring in the same identical and consistent way to Aseret Ha-Dvarim, no commandments:
- “And He wrote on the tablets, according to the first writing, the Aseret Ha-Dvarim, which Jehovah spoke to you in the mountain out of the midst of the fire…” (Deuteronomy 10:4);
Obviously, when Moses refers directly to the Ten Commandments (not to the covenant), God spoke them, he never commanded Moses, or the Israelites‼
Last example, for use of same root, D.B.R, is the Hebrew for The Holy of Holies, the most sacred space in the temple, where only the High Priest was allowed in, and then only once a year, in the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). How is Holy of Holies denoted in Hebrew? Dvir‼ (mentioned 16 times in the Bible). Again, a derivative of… to speak‼
Why this bizarre way of presenting The Ten Commandments, always and without exception, as resulting from God speaking, never God saying, which would necessarily imply God commanding? How is it that in the original Hebrew, God never commands (“say”) the Ten Commandments?
In other words: What is the root of this mystery and what is lurking behind it? Why the Ten Commandments are not Divine Command, always Divine speech?? The answer:
Free Will
This answer needs clarification. It is twofold, however both components are tightly linked to free-will. They complement one another.
First, note that the Ten Commandments, by definition, cannot be Divine commandments. Calling the Ten Commandments such is contradiction in terms. In Genesis creation narrative, when God commands — this is always fulfilled, to the letter. If God said “Let there be Gravity”, then there would be Gravity, and we, mere mortals, have no freedom to decide whether we wish to comply with it‼
Can we say the same about the Ten Commandments, that being Divine commandments they are invariably fulfilled? When God spoke to the Israelites “Thou shall not murder” (Sixth Commandment), apparently it is not a command for if it were — it would always be fulfilled. Therefore, the Ten Commandments are “only” a Divine declaration, God speaking, within God’s dialogue with humankind.
The second answer is also tightly linked to free-will. A famous Rabbi was once asked (a well-known question):
“Can God create a rock that heavy that even God cannot lift??”
The rabbi shrewdly answered:
“Yes, He already did. It is called Free-Will‼”
Torah, and later the Hebrew prophets, never tire of repeating this message, in no uncertain terms — that we have free-will, and we are free to choose whether to pursue the Ten Commandments, and derivatives thereof; However, we need to remember that this is what God wishes of us, this is what He expects of us to be. Our first answer was that the Ten Commandments cannot be Divine command because if they were — they would always be fulfilled. The second reason, complementing the first (why God spoke the Ten Commandments) is Free-will. In Torah, existence of free-will, granted by God to humankind, is left, right and centre. It is declared therein in no uncertain terms:
דברים ל:15: “ראה נתתי לפניך היום את החיים ואת הטוב, ואת המות ואת הרע”;
דברים ל:19: “העדותי בכם היום את השמים ואת הארץ החיים והמות נתתי לפניך, הברכה והקללה, ובחרת בחיים למען תחיה אתה וזרעך”;
English translation, respectively:
- “See, I set before you today life and that which is good; and death and that which is bad” (Deuteronomy 30:15);
- “I call Heaven and earth to witness this day against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; Therefore, choose life that both you and your seed may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).
Likewise, Hebrew prophets repeatedly insist:
מיכה ו:8: “הגיד לך אדם מה טוב ומה אדוני דורש ממך כי אם עשות משפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת עם אלהיך”
- “He has told thee, O man, what is good and what does Jehovah requires of you but to do justice and love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).
God has bestowed upon us free-will; It is up to us to decide whether we are willing to pursue the Ten Commandments, or, alternatively, to ignore them.
Let us summarize:
Divine commandments, as revealed in Genesis Creation, are not subject to free-will. Law-of-Nature demands total compliance. Since God said these commandments, they represent Divine monologue. No dialogue, no communication. Conversely, The Ten Commandments — they were spoken by God, they are part of a dialogue, God speaking to humankind, expressing what the Divine desires of us. Now it is for us to decide‼
The next required question is this: Why do we have free-will?
If the Ten Commandments are, in the original Hebrew, Ten Dibrot, expressing God speaking (Elohim Medaber, not God saying or commanding), so that free-will is maintained — Why do we NEED free-will? What is the purpose?
There is only one answer: We are here to create ourselves, to give ourselves a form. Each of us is given an opportunity to shape up his or her own world, and this requires free men and women, each maintaining free-will. In abundance…
In Hebrew, when a person has passed away you say: “Ha-Lach Le-Olamo” – literally “Went to his world”! This idiom derives from Qohelet (Ecclesiastes):
קהלת 12:5: “כי הלך האדם אל בית עולמו, וסבבו בשוק הסופדים”
- “…The man goes to the home of his world, and the mourners go about the streets” (Ecclesiastes12:5);
We, Earth-bound mortals, are doomed to have free-will because it allows us, each, to create and shape up our own specific and special world — via the thoughts that we think, the decisions we take, the words we utter, the deeds that we do. Brick by brick, each of us build our own world; And when we die, this is the world that we are going to dwell in. Bible’s idea and truth, explicitly stated‼ (not my own personal interpretation).
To build our own personal world, our future “home” after we die, free-will is essential. The Ten Commandments are, therefore, not Divine commandments but Divine declaration that God has spoken to us, within his communication to humankind, so that our own personal world, that which we keep creating while alive, be for us a deserving hospitable home, once we die.
How is all these connected to current pandemic? to a plague, Dever (derived from same root as Diber)?
There are two legs to Divine communicating with humankind, God speaking to us, maintaining a dialogue. God speaks to us via the Ten Dvarim (singular of which is Davar), but also through Dever, identically written, somewhat differently pronounced. What is Dever? A plague, that under special circumstance may turn into a pandemic.
Both Davar and Dever derive from same root as “to speak”‼
Could we conceive of a more bizarre link as that between the Ten Commandments and a pandemic? What is this link signalling to us?
Inescapably, it signals to us that as the Ten Commandments is Divine communication — God speaking to us — so is a plague, Dever. And both, put together, signal to us a choice, a simple choice — Either Diber (Ten Commandments) or Dever (bearing the consequence of going astray from the Aseret Ha-Dibrot). This theme is endlessly repeated by the prophets, linking Dever (plague) to Diber (member of the Ten Commandments).
The Bible refers to Dever (49 times) always as a tool in the hands of God to send his punishment for ignoring His Dvarim. Biblical prophets (mostly Jeremiah and Ezekiel) enumerate three adverse Divine responses to human iniquities (violating the Ten Dvarim): “Sword, Famine, Plague”:
The sword (Cherev), Famine (Raav), Plague (Dever).
These are major punishments that Jehovah “sends”, or “judges with”, or “strikes with”, humankind gone astray; And the plague, Dever (like Diber, Commandment), would always remind us, reading the Bible in Hebrew, the double-message of Divine communication with human beings — Both Diber and Dever are Divine speaking, maintaining a dialogue with us not as a collective, but as individuals. The Ten Commandments are all pronounced, in the original Hebrew, as Divine call to the individual. They all are articulated in the singular. A plague is no different: It is striking the individual, not the collective or the community, as in an earthquake (‼). And it is up to each of us, as individuals of free-will, to choose — Diber or Dever:
- Divine Monologue: “Say” — Law-of-Nature; No free-will; Total compliance;
- Divine Dialogue: “Speak” — Randomness, granting Free will; and a choice— The Ten Commandments (Diber) or Plague (Dever).
This is our life; this is the basic structure of the world that we are doomed to create for ourselves, while alive; and to dwell in thereafter, ever after‼
Forecasting surgery-duration (SD) accurately is a pre-condition for efficient utilization of operating theatres. An explanatory model may provide a good tool to produce such forecasts.
In this post, I deliver essential details of a new article, published recently in a peer-reviewed journal (Shore, 2020; see details below). A new explanatory model for SD is developed, and empirically validated, using a database of ten-thousand surgeries, performed in an Israeli hospital.
The new publication indeed complements a previous article on the same subject, published by me over thirty years ago (Shore, 1986; see details below).
One may realize that this article in practice presents a general model for performance-time of any of the three possible categories of work-processes: Repetitive, semi-repetitive and non-repetitive/memoryless. However, applying the model does not require specifying in advance which category the work-process belongs to. This becomes apparent as a result of data analysis.
Part of the Abstract and a link to the new article are provided below (please share).
Enjoy it!
Article title: An explanatory bi-variate model for surgery-duration and its empirical validation
Journal: COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS: CASE STUDIES, DATA ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS
DOI (press to read full Abstract and References):
https://doi.org/10.1080/23737484.2020.1740066
Limited-number free downloads (please download only if seriously interested):
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/WRXV8ECTHJJTPNYTM8UE/full?target=10.1080/23737484.2020.1740066
Other statistical applications on this blog (sample);
How to Use Standard Deviations in Weighting Averages?
Response Modeling Methodology Explained by Developer
Response Modeling Methodology — Now on Wikipedia
SPC-based monitoring of ecological processes (Presentation, Hebrew)
SPC-based Monitoring of Fetal Growth (Presentations)
ABSTRACT (partial)
Modelling the distribution of surgery-duration has been the subject of much research effort. A common assumption of these endeavours is that a single distribution is shared by all (or most) subcategories of surgeries, though parameters’ values may vary. Various distributions have been suggested to empirically model surgery-duration distribution, among them the normal and the exponential. In this paper, we abandon the assumption of a single distribution, and the practice of selecting it based on goodness-of-fit criteria. Introducing an innovative new concept, work-content instability (within surgery subcategory), we show that the normal and the exponential are just two end-points on a continuous spectrum of possible scenarios, between which surgery-duration distribution fluctuates (according to subcategory work-content instability). A new explanatory bi-variate stochastic model for surgery-duration is developed, which reflects the two sources affecting variability— work-content instability and error…
Reference:
Shore, H. 1986. “An Approximation for the Inverse Distribution Function of a Combination of Random Variables, with an Application to Operating Theatres.” Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 23 (3):157–181.
(Related podcast: Why Trust Bible Prophets?? (Podcast) )
Israelite prophets, some represented in the Jewish Hebrew Bible, have claimed to have received messages from God. Why should I trust them? Why should we trust them?
Why should I believe the Jewish prophets, declaring they only served as a conduit, so to speak, to the Word of the Divine, and not any number of lunatics making claims of a similar nature, some even judged by society (justifiably, based on science) to merit access to specially dedicated institutes, wherein one lives, free of charge, under strict medical care?
The Hebrew for Bible is Tanakh, acronym for first letters of the three parts of the Jewish Bible: Torah, Nevi’im (Prophets), Ketuvim (Writings). In fact, the Jewish Bible is “awash” with writings of prophets. According to Jewish tradition, “the number of prophets in the era of prophecy was double the number of Israelites who left Egypt (600,000 males). Only 55 prophets are recorded, because they said prophecies that have relevance for future generations and not just for their own generation” (Wikipedia, entry “Prophets in Judaism”).
What was the era of prophecy within the ancient Jewish nation?
Prophecy existed therein for many generations, spanning nearly nine centuries — starting with the biblically-declared prophet, Moses (14th-13th century BC, possibly 1391-1271 BC; refer, for example, to Numbers 12:4-8), ending with prophet Malachi (possibly Ezra the scribe, active in the years following the reconstruction of the Second Temple in 536 BC, namely, fifth century BC; Malachi is believed to be pseudonym since it means — “My Messenger”, a word implied in the last chapter of the book of Malachi: “Behold, I will send you Elijah, the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of Jehovah”, Malachi 3:23).
Given the long time span of active prophesizing by thousands of Israelite prophets, and the public acknowledgement at the time, by authoritative rabbis (as recorded by Jewish tradition; see references in the afore-cited source) of termination of Jewish prophecy with prophet Malachi; Given that in all recorded prophecies (as expounded in the Jewish Bible), the prophet explicitly claims that God spoke to him, or through him; Given our current knowledge of the vast, indeed gigantic, dimensions of the universe (a humbling experience, unknownst to past generations); And, finally, given the acknowledged non-existence of prophecy ever since Malachi within the Nation of Israel (as previously alluded to);
Given all that:
Why should I believe prophecies in the Bible, delivered by human beings (Jewish prophets) “arrogant” enough to explicitly claim that God spoke to them, and that they conveyed the Word of the Creator of all that exists, “The Heavens and The Earth” (Genesis 1:1)??
Put more bluntly: Wherefrom did Jewish prophets draw the audacity to speak in the name of God?
I have been personally struggling with this important question for an appreciable part of my life; and I arrived at some important conclusions. I wish to share them with you. I emphasize, however, that I address herewith only prophecies in the Jewish Hebrew Bible, with which I am well acquainted.
How can one relate to a human being, claiming to deliver the word of God, in other words, claiming that God spoke to him or her?
The response can be tagged into one of three possibilities:
- A False Prophet, knowingly lying;
- A False Prophet, deceived by his own imagination (whether mentally-ill, or captured by an ego-explosion that led to a distorted perception of reality);
- A True Prophet.
The Bible relates to the possibility of a false prophet in no ambiguous terms: “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he gave you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, Let us go after other gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not obey the words of that prophet…” (Deuteronomy 13:2-4).
These verses obviously attest to the wide prevalence of the phenomenon of prophecy among the Israelites already on their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. For example, Moses responds to Joshua, his servant (Numbers 11:29): “…Are you envious for my sake? would that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets and that Jehovah put his spirit upon them”. In Jewish tradition, Moses, who led the Israelites on their way to the Promised Land, is considered the greatest of the Jewish prophets, apparently relying on explicit verses in the Torah (conveying a message from the Divine):
“Not so with my servant Moses, for he is the entrusted one in all of my household” (Numbers 12:7).
Later prophets were marked not by giving signs or doing wonders (relate to earlier quote about a possible signature of a false prophet), but by producing prophecies intended to be fulfilled either in the prophet’s own time, or intended for later generations (as most biblical prophecies are, having “relevance for future generations”). In fact, the main mission of true Israelite prophets in ancient times was not predicting the future, but to warn about possible future consequences, if the Children of Israel continued with their mal/unethical behavior. In other words, Israelite prophets in ancient times were social messengers, destined to warn about moral decay, deterioration, either in the public sphere or in the personal domain; Warning about consequences for abandonment of moral standards, as the latter are preached in the Torah.
What then distinguish Israelite prophets in biblical times, rendering their writings, their prophecies for the future, credible?
There are certain personal traits to biblical prophets, which make them credible and distinct from supposed prophets (past and current). We address these in the following four sections:
1. Personal Integrity; 2. Humility; 3. Escape and suffering, finally — resignation (to mission); 4. Sophistication.
1. Personal Integrity (virtues)
Jewish prophets grew in a Jewish culture that cherished and glorified personal virtues, as implied from the roots and core of that culture, the Ten Commandments and the biblically-declared Covenant between Jehovah and his people (“Jehovah’s people”; refer to earlier quote from Numbers). The main core of Jewish prophecies is not predicting the future (although some are), but rather warning in the public square about future consequences of violating morality standards, as expounded in Torah. The prophets had a social message, not a presumptuous message that they saw the future clearer than anyone else because God had spoken to them. This trait is standing up, in full view, from every single word of every single chapter of every prophecy.
The emphasis on justice, equality, help to the poor and the helpless (like widows, orphans, migrants, slaves), keeping moral employment-standards (paying on time, paying fairly, ensuring rest-days for all), personal righteousness, they were all embedded foremost in every single message of the prophecies, right, left and center.
Reading these social messages by the prophets, constantly calling for exercising, in the public domain as well as in the private, the moral commandments of God — Can one even conceive of these prophets as some esoteric group of people, exercising some gigantic plot of deception, passing on from one generation to the next over nine centuries??
(see a recent archeological validation of the existence of prophets in ancient Israel — a Seal of Isaiah, discovered in excavations in the City of David, Jerusalem, attributed to Prophet Isaiah).
One of the most preached virtue by Jewish prophets is humility.
2. Humility
Humility is a pre-condition, indeed a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for Divine revelation. To be attuned to Godly messages, indeed to be close to God, one needs to prepare an “empty vessel”, capable of receiving Divine messages, absorbing and then retain them for public pronouncement. This is impossible when the soul, the psyche, is filled-to-overflow with the ego, its aspirations and its desires. Therefore, Torah and the prophets endlessly emphasize the humility of Jewish biblical heroes, prophets or non-prophets, prophet Moses in particular:
Abraham: “And Abraham answered and said, behold now, I have taken upon me to speak to the Lord, and I am dust and ashes, what if the number of righteous be five less than fifty, will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?..” (Genesis18:27-28);
Moses:
- “And Moses said to God who am I that I shall go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt” (Exodus 3:11);
- “Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than all men that were on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3);
Isaiah: “The spirit of Jehovah God is upon me because Jehovah anointed me to announce good tidings to the humble…” (Isaiah 61:1);
Micha: “He has shown you, O man, what is good and what does Jehovah demand of you, but to do justice, and love grace and walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8);
King David: “But I am a worm and no man, a reproach of men and despised by people” (Psalms 22:7).
Such preached humility of Jewish prophets or Jewish biblical figures should be contrasted with conduct, revealed by written sources of other supposed prophets (Jewish or non-Jewish), who, over centuries of written history, had used claims of Divine revelations in order to boost objectives of extremely egoistic or ego-centered nature, like conquering land, or conquering people (read enslaving), or stealing souls of people.
3. Escape and suffering (physically, emotionally, spiritually); finally — resignation (to mission)
Escape from mission, suffering for the mission and often paying dearly for the mission. As a general rule, biblical prophets were unwilling reluctant messengers of God. And they expressed their anxiety of the mission, their reluctance to fulfill the assignment and their suffering for it in any number of different ways — by escape, by expressing personal displeasure with the “Mission from Hell”, or by expressing resignation to mission, knowing full well that the latter was seeded with social outcast, often accompanied by physical torture inflicted by the public or by state authorities (usually the king).
How did the prophets know?
Well, nobody desires to be told, morning and evening, how bad their conduct was and how to correct it, hearing all the while of the devastating consequence for failure to do that. But that was the essence of the message that the prophets were required to deliver to their brethren Israelites, family or non-family; and they knew exactly what the personal consequences may be, reacting by escape, anxiety and often by expressing a personal sense of injustice for suffering for implementing the Divine assignment.
Here are some examples of escape from mission and suffering (physically, psychologically or spiritually), finally resignation.
3.1 Escape
Moses: “And he said, O Lord, I pray thee, send by the hand of whoever you will send” (Exodus 4:13);
Jeremiah: “And I said, Ah Jehovah God! Behold, I cannot speak for I am a child” (Jeremiah 1:6);
Jonah: “But Jonah rose up to flee to Tarshish from Jehovah…” (Jonah 1:3).
3.2 Suffering physically
Jeremiah: “..and Jeremiah the prophet was imprisoned in the courtyard of the guard , which was in the royal palace of Judah, for Zedekiah king of Judah has imprisoned him there, saying, why do you prophesy, saying, Thus says Jehovah I am about to hand this city over to the king of Babylon…” (Jeremiah 32:2-3).
Micaiah: “The king of Israel then ordered, “Take Micaiah and send him back… and put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely”; And Micaiah said, if you ever return safely, Jehovah had not spoken through me…” (1King 22: 26-28).
The City of Nob (city of the priests): “The king then ordered Doeg “You turn and strike down the priests.”; So Doeg the Edomite turned and struck them down. That day he killed eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod. He also put to the sword Nob, the town of the priests, with its men and women, its children and infants, and its cattle, donkeys and sheep” (1 Samuel 22:18-19; Note that these verses refer to a related vulnerable group, the priests).
3.3 Suffering psychologically
Jeremiah: “O Lord, correct me but only with justice, not in your anger lest you reduce me to nothing” (Jeremiah 10:24);
Elijah: “Elijah was afraid and ran for his life. When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he left his servant there, while he himself went a day’s journey into the desert. He came to a broom tree and sat down under it and he wished to die and said: “I have had enough, O Lord, take my soul for I am no better than my ancestors”” (1 Kings 19:3-4; Reminder: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and the dreadful day of Jehovah”, Malachi 3:23).
3.4 Suffering spiritually
Abraham: “…Should not the Judge of all the earth do justice?” (Genesis 18:25);
Jeremiah: “Righteous would thou be, O Lord, that I bring a case before thee, yet I will reason justice with you: Why does the way of the wicked prosper, at peace are all that deal treacherously?” (Jeremiah 12:1).
3.5 Resignation (after experiencing the “wrath” of God)
Isaiah: “On that day you shall say: “I praise thee, O Lord, for being angry with me; Your anger has turned away and you have comforted me” (Isaiah 12:1);
Jeremiah: “You know, O Lord,… how I suffer reproach for your sake; when your words came, I ate them, and they were for me joy and my heart’s delight for I am called by thy name, O Lord, God of hosts” (Jeremiah 15:15-16).
Clearly, unlike claims of an egoistic nature articulated by false prophets (past and present), biblical Jewish prophets were reluctant to fulfill their mission, to comply with their assignment. They were aware of the personal hardship expecting them for antagonizing the public, for telling listeners to their prophecy to change their behavior or else…prophecy realized.
4. Sophistication (content-wise and linguistic-wise; as revealed in Jewish biblical-Hebrew prophecies)
Reading prophecies in their original biblical Hebrew is a hard task, even for a layman like me, born in Israel and brought up by the essentially secular Israeli education system. The reason that prophecies in the Bible are hard to understand is their high level of sophistication, both in content and in language. This renders understanding prophecies an extremely arduous task, demanding, throughout generations of Jewish scholarship, numerous Bible interpreters that would lend some sense to the often incomprehensible text (from the Mishna, initiated and edited mainly by Judah the Prince (135-217), to well-known interpreters, like Rashi (1040-1105) and Malbim (1809-1879), up to present day).
Two Examples:
Example 1:
“The least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation; I am Jehovah, in its time will I hasten it” (Isaiah 60:22)
This verse, addressing end-time scenario, obviously contains a logical contradiction: Will this occur on its assigned time (“in its time”), or will God expedite it? The interpretation, commonly accepted in Jewish scholarship: If the Israelites at the time be non-deserving (in terms of adhering to the Covenant between God and its people) — “in its time”; Otherwise (Israelites deserving, Covenant preserved) —”I will hasten it”.
And the whole traditional interpretation relying on two biblical Hebrew words: “Be-Ita Achishenah“. Two words‼
One may not expect a disturbed person, claiming to hear and deliver the Word of God, to conceive of such a sophisticated articulation of a Divine message‼
Example 2:
“Son of Adam, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem “Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper” (Ezekiel 26:2).
However, the last sentence above is expressed in the original Hebrew by two words only: Imalah Ha-Chareva (literally, “I will be filled by the ruined one”).
What does that mean?
The Gemarah (part of the Talmud) often addresses the relationship between Israel and the Kingdom of Edom (represented in Jewish tradition by the Roman Empire and its derivatives). Tyre is the ancient Tzor (nowadays a Lebanese city), and it appears in the Bible with the letter Vav (the sixth in the Hebrew alphabet) or without (as in the above verse from Ezekiel). A common interpretation in Jewish tradition is that Tzor (with Vav missing), represents the Roman Empire. Therefore, this verse implies that the two, the pagan Roman Empire culture and the Israelite culture, cannot both prosper at the same time. Again, an interpretation accompanying Jewish scholarship over many generations, based on only two words in Ezekiel.
Summary
The length of time prophesizing existed within the Israelite nation (nine centuries); the core values of the Jewish culture (with the Ten Commandments and the Covenant at its core); the essence of the prophecies (preaching moral values); prophets’ testimonials of their dis-pleasure with the assignment imposed on them by God (even before birth, Jeremiah 1:4), or testimonials of their suffering for executing the mission; and finally, the sophistication of the prophecies (both in content and in language);
All these have given me a high degree of confidence in the validity and truth of the words of the Israelite biblical prophets; as they have given trust and much faith to my Jewish ancestors, for over two millennia.
The name of the rapidly spreading epidemic, now becoming pandemic, the Coronavirus, may be read as biblical-Hebrew in two modes:
- As an original Hebrew word (it is not!); In that case one may wonder— What would the biblical-Hebrew root of this word be?
- “Translated” into biblical-Hebrew (namely, the word Crown); In that case one may ask— What is the biblical-Hebrew root of this word, or other Hebrew words originating in the same root or a permutation thereof?
As have happened often before (relate to chapter 19 in my book, and read also here and here), names originating in non-Hebrew languages surprisingly often tend to carry significant meaning in the Hebrew language, namely, embody meaning directly related to the essence of that which the non-Hebrew word stands for. A typical example from the Torah is Pharaoh, known to be a real historic figure (ruler of Egypt in ancient times). When considered as a Hebrew word (it is not!), the root of this word gives rise to various words implying acts of violence. For example, the biblical Hebrew Praot (Judges 5:2) has routinely been used, in modern Hebrew, to describe pogroms, namely, unrestrained maiming and killings of Jews (in exile). Such acts were probably also executed during Pharaoh reign, when Jews were slaves to the king (as described in Exodus).
Let us address individually each of the two options to relate to “Corona” (namely, as originally biblical-Hebrew, or relate to its biblical-Hebrew translation).
1. “Corona” as originally biblical-Hebrew
Several Hebrew words have structure similar to Corona. Ignore, temporarily, the letter “a” (later to be addressed as a suffix). The word “Coron” has similar Hebrew words of the same structure. We have in Hebrew Svivon, derived from the root S.B.B, and we have Shomron, derived from the root S.M.R. When words represent names of places, adding “a” as a suffix (in Hebrew, the letter Hei), implies in biblical-Hebrew “in the direction of”. For example, “I go Shomrona” means “I am going to Shomron“.
So, were “Coron” a biblical-Hebrew word, what would its root be?
In the same manner that we have determined the roots of Shomron or Svivon, the root of “Coron” would be K.R.H, which gives rise to such words as Mikreh (coincidence), Karah (occurred; also cold (n.)) and Keri. The latter is of particular importance. In the Bible, it appears seven times in Leviticus, Chapter 26, and only there. I have discussed this word at length in my book (Section 3.3), and, more generally, the concept of “Randomness” in biblical-Hebrew and in the Bible. In Leviticus (26), God warns the Children of Israel that if they walk with Him in keri (pretending everything that occurs is accidental, random), then He will walk with them with the wrath of keri, punishing them seven times over for their transgressions. The Torah repeatedly warns, here and elsewhere, against pursuing a worldview that all that one experiences in life is coincidental (rather than an act of the Divine – “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice?”, Gen.:18:25). The biblical embodiment of this worldview is Amalek, who had waged war against the Children of Israel on their way to the promised land (Exodus 17:8). When Moses leaves his instructions to the Children of Israel, prior to his departure, he requests that they remember Amalek who “has occurred to you”, while you, the Israelites, were somewhat like Amalek at the time, “tired and exhausted and not God-fearing” (Deuteronomy 25:17-18).
It is indeed stunning that the World Capital of this worldview (“all is coincidental”) is:
- The country where the ruling culture has totally expelled (from amidst its population) God and worshippers of God;
- The country ruled by the most secular regime on Planet Earth (deriving its legitimacy from the ruling Chinese Communist Party);
- The country that has originated one of the most devastating pandemics the human species has ever witnessed (this post is written while the epidemic is evolving into a pandemic, based on the prevailing prognosis regarding its future evolution).
And the name of the virus, originating that pandemic, rings like, well, …coincidence.
2. “Corona” and Crown in biblical-Hebrew
Assuming that the name Corona has indeed originated in Crown, we inspect its translation into biblical-Hebrew, Keter. The root is K.T.R, a permutation of which is K.R.T. The latter root originates numerous words, which appear no less than 285 times in the Jewish Hebrew Bible. The plain and straightforward meaning of the Hebrew verb Li-Chrot is to cut, like cutting-off branches of a tree, or cutting trees. From this, the meaning of the word expanded to mean also annihilate, or destroy, or perish. Examples:
- “I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut-off (lo ikaret kol basar od) by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth” (Genesis 9:11);
- “Because he has despised the word of Jehovah, and has violated His commands, that soul shall utterly be cut-off (hikaret tikaret), his iniquity shall be upon him” (Numbers 15:31);
- “…and all that harbour iniquity shall be cut-off (ve-Nichretoo)” (Isaiah 29:20).
We realize that the non-Hebrew “Corona”, translated into Hebrew and its biblical-Hebrew root permutated, produces an accurate description of the final effect of this pandemic.
Pandemic in Hebrew, Dever, from the root D.B.R. This root gives rise to various verbs and nouns associated with… speaking, either human or Divine. Thus, the Ten Commandments are the Ten Dibrot; And “a thing” is Davar (implying that all result from Divine speaking). In the desert did the Divine speak to humans (Ten Commandments given to the Israelites, through Moses, in the Sinai desert). Desert in biblical Hebrew — Midbar.
This pandemic, Dever, has taught a world, built on the model of the Tower of Babel (“..let us build us a city and a tower, whose top reaches to The Heavens, and make us a name..”, Genesis 11:4) — this pandemic has taught the world a painful lesson in humility. With cessation of international aviation, the adored “Global Village” has noisily smashed into hundreds of separate, nearly disconnected, villages scattered upon the face of all the earth: “And Jehovah scattered them abroad from there upon the face of all the earth..”, Genesis 11:8.
An ancient biblical story and a current historic event — describibg a similar world transformation; sharing the same final outcome…
Final quotes from prophets Isaiah and Zechariah, describing the Final Judgement at End-Times:
“Go, my people, enter your rooms and shut the doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until indignation is overpast. For, behold, Jehovah is coming out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; The earth shall disclose the blood shed upon her, and shall cover no more her slain.” (Isaiah 26:20-21)
“And it shall come to pass”, declares Jehovah, “that in the whole land two parts in it shall be cut-off (ikaretoo), perish; but the third shall be left in it. And I will bring the third through the fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name and I will answer them…” (Zechariah 13:8-9).
And then:
“Jehovah will be king (“Crown”) over the whole land;
On that day Jehovah will be one and his name One.”
(Zechariah 14:9)
- Shorty is a short post
*****************************************************************
Comments:
[1] This comment is added in response to readers’ questions about permutation of K.T.R (root of Keter, “Crown”) into K.R.T (root of Karet, “Cut-off”). In Kabbalah, Keter is the first (uppermost) of the Ten Sephirot, describing “Divine superconscious Will that is beyond conscious intellect” (Wikipedia, entry “Sefirot”). In Jewish tradition, distortion (permutation) of the right order of the root-letters of a biblical-Hebrew word, related to the Divine, may generate words representing the harmful, the undesirable. Thus, for example, Tom (completeness, righteousness; a two-letter word) becomes, permutated, Met (a deceased person; a two-letter word); Osher (riches, abundance), permutated, becomes Resha (evil). In the orderly alphabet, Emeth (truth; a three-letter word) appears in the correct order, however the three letters of Sheker (lie, falsehood) appears as a permutation of the correct order (read more here).
[2] A while after this post went on-line, I came across a most recent talk by Rabbi Sacks, who, not surprisingly, also discusses at length the meaning of the central biblical Hebrew concept, addressed in this post— Keri. You may wish to view this talk to learn in more depth this term and its implications:
Corona pandemic and the biblical Keri_Talk by Rabbi Sacks_March 26 2020
[3] A most inspiring talk by Rabbi Elyahu Kin: “In the Shadow of the Corona Virus” (English; Hebrew subtitles):
In the Shadow of the Corona Virus_Talk by Rabbi Kin_April 3 2020
[4] The Coronavirus pandemic, denoted by WHO (World Health Organiztion) — COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease-2019), is indicative of, sounds like — Kavod (a stunning insight by Avinoam Ben-Mordechai); Read a separate post about Kavod here here.
In a recent video ( Hebrew, English), produced by Oren Evron, he expounded his astounding findings connecting the first verse of Genesis (in its original Hebrew) to Pi (π).
A short version (5 mins.) may be found here (English; Hebrew captions, needs activation).
I detail herewith, for the benefit of the English-speaking readers, some of the findings in the Hebrew version (in a very concentrated fashion). The essence of Oren Evron’s findings is the abundance of links between various numbers, traditionally associated with the first verse of Genesis, and patterns embedded in the first 628 digits (after the decimal point) of Pi.
Biblical-Hebrew first verse of Genesis:
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ
We introduce Evron’s findings in the same order, as appearing in the video, with minor modifications, as deemed fit for this post. We start with some obvious numbers, associated with the structure of Genesis first verse, and then proceed to the less obvious (the new findings).
Numerical values associated with first verse in Genesis:
- Number of words — 7;
- Number of letters — 28;
- Sum of gematria values for all seven words — 2701;
- Sum of gematria values of first letter in each word — 22 (average per first letter: 22/7=3.14..);
- Gematria value of the Hebrew word Torah is 611;
- Small gematria is traditionally defined in Jewish scholarship as the sum total of the gematria values of individual letters comprising the word, with the zeros deleted; for example, the letter Yod (10) is counted as 1, the letter Resh (200) as 2 and so on. Accordingly, small gematria of the biblical-Hebrew word Torah — 17; Small gematria of the first verse of the Bible — 82;
- According to Jewish tradition, Torah preceded the “beginning of the universe” (Be-reshit, “In the beginning”, the first word in Genesis 1:1). We replace the letters, comprising Be-reshit, by the respective letters in the Hebrew alphabet preceding them (except Aleph, the first in the Hebrew alphabet, which cannot be replaced). The gematria values of these six new letters sum up to 611, which is the gematria value of the word Torah (again, traditionally believed to precede Be-Reshit);
Associations between first verse in Genesis and Pi:
- Sum of first 611 digits in Pi (after the decimal point) — 2701 (611= gematria for Torah; 2701= gematria of first verse in Torah)!!;
- We repeat, with small gematria, the same “exercise”, as done earlier for “regular” gematria, to find out that in Pi, sum of the first 17 digits (after the decimal point) is equal to 82‼ ;
- The 611 digits of Pi, starting with the seventeenth (namely, the last to represent Torah, in small gematria, in Pi), sum up to… 2701, again‼ ;
- The 611 digits of Pi, starting with the digit after the seventeenth (the last to represent Torah, in small gematria, in Pi), sum up to… 2701, yet again‼ ;
- The findings above (#2 and #4) imply that the first 628 (17+611) digits of Pi, after the decimal point, are divided in two non-overlapping consecutive sets: The first set relates to small gematria — 17 digits (=Torah) summing up to 82 (=first verse in Torah); The second (consecutive) set relates to regular gematria — 611 digits (=Torah) summing up to 2701 (=first verse in Torah)‼;
- Incredibly, this structure has a mirror image reflected when counting in reverse: starting with the 628th digit and counting backward, we obtain for the first 17 digits a sum total of 82; Counting further back we obtain for the remaining 611 digits a sum of 2701‼
These mind-boggling findings by Oren Evron represent about 24 minutes from the complete video (lasting about 63 minutes).
A Mathematica program, in a PDF file, verifying Oren Evron’s findings, as detailed in this post, may be downloaded here:
Haim Shore_Verification of Links between Pi and Genesis first verse_Evron’s Findings_January 19 2020
A reninder about the importance of Pi: It appears in numerous scientitifc formulae, including the normal (Gauss) distribution and Einstein’s fundamantal equation of General Relativity. In other words, Pi is a basic building block of the universe.
(reference to my own two findings about the relationship between Pi and the first verse of Genesis my be read here)
Following the sin of eating of the forbidden fruit, God asks Adam (original Hebrew followed by English):
וַיֹּאמֶר מִי הִגִּיד לְךָ כִּי עֵירֹם אָתָּה הֲמִן-הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לְבִלְתִּי אֲכָל-מִמֶּנּוּ אָכָלְתָּ
(בראשית ג: י”א)
“And He said: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”
(Genesis 3:11)
The Hebrew word marked in red comprises three Hebrew letters:
{Hei (ה), Mem (מ,ם), Nun (נ,ן)}
Note that two of the letters appear in two forms: the first (read right to left) — as regularly written; the second — as it appears at the end of a Hebrew word (there are altogether five such Hebrew letters).
Surprisingly, the same word, marked in red above, appears in exactly same form (though pronounced differently) elsewhere in the Bible. This is the name of a biblical hero, Haman, who had “the privilege” of being the first person on Planet Earth to conceive, publicly declare and actively planning executing the “Final Solution” on the Jewish people. The book of Esther relates how Haman had initiated a plot to murder all Jews in all provinces of the kingdom of the Persian King Ahasuerus: “Letters were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate all Jews, young and old, women and children, in one day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar … And the king and Haman sat down to drink” (Esther 3:13, 15). How very familiar…
Jewish Bible scholars failed-not noticing the astounding similarity between the above two words, similarly written but pronounced differently, while carrying absolutely different meanings:
” “המן מן התורה מנין? שנאמר (בראשית ג, יא) “המן-העץ “
(תלמוד בבלי, חולין קל”ט-ב)
“Haman from the Torah, how do we know that? As it is written (Gen. 3:11) “the tree of which” (Babylon Talmud, Hulin, 139-2).
It is an incredible coincidence that Haman found his death by being hung on a tree (Esther 7:10), while tree is mentioned, adjacent to “his name”, in Genesis 3:11.
The incredible coincidences, however, do not end there. They only start there…
Observing appearance of the last two letters in Haman’s name, “M” and “N” (adjacent to one another, when written in Hebrew), in names of historic foes of the Jewish people, those plotting to annihilate the Jewish people or its modern-day representative, the State of Israel — that combination of letters is incredibly represented therein, disproportionately and abundantly. Furthemore, the same order of the letters, as in Haman, is preserved throughout, without exception.
Examples:
- Haman;
- Nazi Germany;
- Eichmann (Nazi officer in charge of executing the Final Solution (exterminating six million Jews) in Nazi Germany);
- Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (father of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and its first Supreme Leader, 1979-1989);
- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Second Supreme Leader, 1989 to present);
- General Qassim Soleimani (chief architect of Iranian expansion in the Middle East, arch-terrorist assassinated via targeted-killing by USA, Friday, January 3 (US time), 2020).
A direct linkage between the sin of Adam and Eve (relating to God by Elohim, neglecting Jehovah), and its ultimate products — Haman, Eichmann and Soleimani.
(refer also to Hebrew Samech and Its Occurrence in Names of Jewish-Nation Enemies)
(Related podcast: “Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19). Why? (Podcast-audio))
This verse appears thrice in the Bible (additionally in Exod. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). It serves cornerstone for a large portion of Jewish dietary Kosher laws (regarding cooking and eating), forbidding mixing together meat with dairy products.
What is the logic behind this seemingly non-sensical fundamental tenet of Jewish way-of-life, setting the latter apart from all other peoples of the world (including followers of Islam, which comes closest to the Jewish Kashrut rules)?
The succinct answer is this:
Judaism is extremely strict about total separation of Life from Death.
And whenever an eventuality may occur, that the two may even remotely overlap or intermingle — a tall separating wall is constructed in Jewish law to ensure that this never happens. In that sense, Jewish Kashrut laws are just one instance in a sea of like-wise laws, ensuring that a Jew, strictly pursuing Moses Law (as specified succinctly in the written Torah and explicated in Oral Torah, later expounded in the Talmud), will never be exposed to scenarios, where Life and Death accidentally intermingle.
The origin for this total and strict separation is probably best articulated in the Divine commandment:
“I call this day to witness against you the heaven and the earth — I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore, choose life that both you and your seed may live” (Deut. 30:19).
And the choice of Life over Death requires strict separation between the two, as reflected in numerous Jewish laws (we will elaborate on some soon).
Why eating meat with dairy products, with no time separation between the two, implies intermingling of life and death?
The answer is straightforward:
- Eating meat is the result of killing an animal; This means Death;
- Dairy products are derived from milk, originally created to assist life, namely, the growth of the just born; This means… well, Life.
Therfore, meat and dairy, associated with death and life, respectively, cannot be mixed and concurrently consumed.
Finally, we note that killing animals, in order to eat meat, had been permitted by the Divine only after realizing that “the impulse of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21). Following Noah’s own initiative to sacrifice some of the animals that kept him company just now, for the last hundred and fifty flood-days (Gen. 8:20), God concludes that “the impulse of man’s heart is evil”; Consequently, a permit is now granted: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; As green herb have I given you all” (Gen. 9:3).
Where else do we see the same underlying principle of Jewish life, total separation of Life from Death, so that one may more easily be led to “choose life that both you and your seed may live “?
Here are some examples:
- “But flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Gen. 9:4); This requires, by Kashrut laws, washing away all traces of blood from the meat prior to cooking; An egg with stains of blood inside likewise is not edible;
- A Jewish cemetery is surrounded all around by a tall wall, strictly and explicitly separating the living from the dead; and when a Jew leaves the cemetery, he washes his hands, demonstrating symbolically and stating in no unclear terms that spiritually no “traces” of the dead remain on his body when he departs the cemetery;
- There is a set time for a mourning period (“Shivah”); This ensures that subsequently the deceased would not psychologically and spiritually intervene with the living;
- Judaism strictly forbids contacts with the dead via spiritualistic conferences; The living are not supposed to talk to the dead: “A man or a woman that is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death; they shall be stoned with stone, their blood-guiltiness is upon them” (Leviticus 20:27);
- A woman at the end of her menstrual cycle is forbidden sexual contact with her spouse; The former (menstrual period) marks life-potential not realized, the departure process of a potential life-generating egg, not consumed, now dead; The latter (sexual contact) is associated with live sperm, marking potential for generating life; The two are strictly forbidden from unholy mixture via time-concurrency: “Also thou shalt not approach to a woman in the impurity of her menstrual flow to uncover her nakedness” (Leviticus 18:19).
All these examples, regarding Jewish living in accord with Moses law, point to a deeper principle, prevalent throughout the Jewish faith:
Everything that one thinks and speaks (orally or by other means), everything that one does, our behavior in its totality – these are all spiritually meaningful. They have a spiritual effect on our soul, and they ultimately return like a boomerang to affect our lives (favorably or otherwise). In Hebrew, the arbitrary, seemingly meaningless, “Thing”, is Davar, deriving from same root as “speak” (Daber). All that we encounter in life “speak” to us— no “Thing” is insignificant.
Jewish laws, at first looking arbitrary, devoid of any rational justification, like “Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk”, now acquire new very deep meaning:
We realize that violation of these laws, implying intermingling of Life and Death in our own every-day life, may affect our spiritual well-being; Ultimately, this will also be affecting our well-being physically.
From the Preface to the book:
“This compendium of essays is divided into three parts:
- Part I: On God, Bible and biblical Hebrew
- Part II: Personal Lessons on Life;
- Part III: Personal Lessons on Statistics.
I hope that reading the book the reader may benefit from these words of wisdom and experience, wisdom of mainstream Bible scholars, past and present, and my own cumulative life experience.”
Amazon link to the book (soft-cover) :
Haim Shore_Words of Wisdom and Experience_Paperback Sep 2019
We wish to calculate a weighted average of a set of sample averages, given their standard deviations. How do we do that?
The objective is to find a weighting factor, alpha, that minimizes the variance of the weighted average, namely (for two averages):
Minimum { Variance[ (α)Average1 + (1-α)Average2 ] }
We first calculate the variance to obtain (Var is short for Variance; samples for averages assumed independent):
Variance[ (α)Average1 + (1-α)Average2 ] =
= α2 Var(Average1) + (1-α)2 Var(Average2) .
Differentiating with respect to alpha and equating to zero, we obtain:
(2α)Var(Average 1) – 2(1-α)Var(Average 2) = 0, and the optimal alpha is:
α* = var(Average 2) / [ var(Average1) + var(Average2) ] ,
where: var(Average)= variance/n, with n a sample size.
We may wish to adapt this reply to specific needs. For example, for three averages we have:
Variance[ (α1)Average1 + (α2)Average2 + (1-α1-α2)Average3 ] =
= α12Var(Average1) + α22Var(Average2) + (1-α1-α2)2 Var(Average3)
To minimize this expression, we differentiate twice, with respect to α1 and to α2. Equating to zero we obtain two linear equations in two unknowns that may be easily identified:
(2α1)Var(Average1) – 2(1-α1-α2)Var(Average3) = 0,
(2α2)Var(Average2) – 2(1-α1-α2)Var(Average3) = 0,
or:
α1= v3 / [v1 + v3 + (v1v3)/v2]
α2= v3 / [v2 + v3 + (v2v3)/v1]
where vi is Var(Average i) (i=1,2,3).
Since “in general, a system with the same number of equations and unknowns has a single unique solution” (Wikipedia, “System of linear equations”), extension to a higher number of averages (m>3), is straightforward, requiring solving a system of m-1 linear equations with m-1 unknowns.
(This post appears also on my personal page at ResearchGate)
(Related podcast: “Only, no fear of God in this place” (Gen. 20:11; Podcast-audio)).
Law and Order is cornerstone for a civilized society. Is this enough for survival of a society, characterized by “only there is no fear of God in this place” (Gen. 20:11)?
Law may be formed, imposed and preserved by a brutal dictatorial regime. Human history is awash with such regimes, past and present. But what happens when Law and Order is maintained by democratically-elected representatives, forming “government of the people, by the people, for the people” (Gettysburg Address, Nov. 19, 1863)? Does this guarantee a civilized society, where morality laws are not rampantly violated?
The Bible painstakingly tells us, in great detail, two stories. They seemingly are non-related. Yet, they are amazingly look-alike; And they share the same conclusion regarding what happens when Law and Order is preserved, yet “there is no fear of God in this place”.
The first story is that of Abraham and Sarah, moving temporarily to reside in the Philistine city of Gerar. Abraham, fearing for his life because of Sarah’s beauty, introduces her as his sister (Gen. 20:5). This triggers the king of Gerar, Abimelech, to “take her” (Gen. 20:2). God appears in the dream of the night to tell King Abimelech that he would die because he took a woman who had a spouse. Then there is a dialogue between God and Abimelech, all within the same dream, and the king is repentant and apologetic (“in the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands have I done this”, Gen. 20:5). At the end of the dream, God tells the king that He knows that what Abimelech had done was innocently done, therefore he prevented the king sinning against God (by not letting him touch Sarah). Therefore, the king would not die.
Let us be reminded that the apologetic King Abimelech, who apologizes to God, is same king of fame — “I know not who has done this thing, neither did thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it but today” (Genesis 21:25-26).
Abraham is obviously aware that, Law and Order notwithstanding, when fear of God is non-existent, Sin and Apology goes hand in hand. So, when King Abimelech finally asks Abraham why he had lied about Sarah, his spouse, “…that you have done to me deeds that ought not to be done” (Gen. 20:9), Abraham replies:
“..because I said to myself only there is no fear of God in this place and they will slay me for my wife’s sake” (Gen. 20:11).
In other words: “I, Abraham, fully understand your concept of Law and Order (“deeds that ought not to be done”). Yet, I was still anxious for my own personal survival because “there is no fear of God in this place“.
In the immediately adjoining Chapter 21, the scenario that Abraham was fearfully envisioning, sin under the auspices of Law and Order, came to full fruition:
“And Abraham reproached Abimelech for the well of water which Abimelech’s servants had plundered” (Gen. 21:25); and sure enough, King Abimelech, of fame “you have done to me deeds that ought not to be done“, namely, Law and Order, replies: “I know not who has done this thing, neither did thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it but today” (Genesis 21:25-26).
“Law and Order”? — Sure, yet crime is acceptable because “ONLY there is no fear of God in this place”.
The second story is that of King David, Bathsheba and her late husband, Uriah the Hittite, “lawfully” dispatched to be killed in combat so that King David could lawfully take the pregnant Bathsheba for a wife.
Here is the story in brief. King David, walking around on the roof of the king’s house, see Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite, bathing; he calls for her and lie with her (2 Samuel 11:1-4). Learning that Bathsheba has become pregnant, King David first attempts, in vain, to convince recruited soldier, Uriah, to retire to his home and sleep with his wife, Bathsheba. Failing to do that, David ultimately sends Uriah to the battle front, where war is raging between the Israelites and the people of Amon: “..David wrote a letter to Joab…, saying, “Place Uriah in the front line of the fiercest battle and withdraw from him so that he might be struck down and die”, “…and some of the people, among David’s servants, fell, and Uriah the Hittite also died” (2 Samuel 11:14-15, 17). Law and Order, as pronounced by the king, is preserved, and the written command of King David is carried to the letter. But that was not right in the eyes of God (“…the thing that David had done was evil in the eyes of Jehovah”, 2 Samuel 11:27). Therefore, via prophet Nathan, a clear message is sent to the king, in a way that would not risk the reproaching prophet’s life. First, Nathan is telling the king a story, the story of the Poor Man’s Lamb (Second Samuel 12:1-4). It tells about a poor man, who had a single lamb, whom he nourished like his own daughter. Yet, when a rich man had a guest, he was reluctant to take of his own flock and instead took the poor man’s lamb to prepare a feast for the rich man’s visitor. King David, in rage, declares his verdict: “The man that has done this is worthy to die” (2 Samuel 12:5). And Nathan replies: “…You are that man…” (2 Samuel 12:7). David repents in the right way. He is not saying “I have sinned”, instead stating clearly: “I have sinned to Jehovah” (2 Samuel 12:13). Absence of fear of God now replaced by fear of God, once the Divine is revealed via Prophet Nathan.
This scene is an exact replicate of the two former scenarios, taking place hundreds of years earlier (according to biblical chronology), regarding King Abimelech:
- Fear of God in full view — when God is revealed to King Abimelech, in the “dream of the night”, the king repents;
- Fear of God vanishes — when God is not revealed, the internal restraint to avoid sin vanishes with it; This results in utter absence of repentance on King Abimelech part, and what remains is only social politeness and political correctness: “I know not who has done this thing, neither did thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it but today”.
Contrast these scenarios with how Abraham is displayed throughout Genesis.
Righteous Abraham does not need constant Divine revelation to respect the command of God. He pursues the word of God even when Divine command is contrary to the essence of Abraham own biological self-preservation, contrary to the essence of his spiritual self-preservation (the belief in the righteousness of God) — the mission towards Isaac sacrifice.
Abraham fully understands that even when Law and Order is the law of the land, fully preserved and maintained under the umbrella of human morality (“you have done to me deeds that ought not to be done“), this is no guarantee that atrocities not be committed under the full authority of the humanly-created law (or democratically-created law, in today’s terms).
Why?
Because…
“Only there is no fear of God in this place”.
(see a related post at: “And the Earth” (Genesis 1:1) Delivers the First Seven Decimal Digits of Pi )
Pi digits are generally considered to be random (as judged by statistical testing). Are they??
First ten Pi digits are: p=3.141592654… (Last digit rounded).
In the last few weeks, my good friend, Oren Evron, producer of most videos about my research on the Bible and on biblical Hebrew, has been engaged finding links between Pi and the first verse of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 1:1):
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
Likelihood values for his results (their probability to occur randomly) have been generated via extensive computer-simulation studies (conducted by him). His findings are astounding. A video detailing these has now been published by Oren Evron (Hebrew, English):
Code of Creation (Part 1; Hebrew) Oren Evron Nov 29 2019
Code of Creation (Part 1; English) Oren Evron April 13 2020
Code of Creation (Part 2; Hebrew) Oren Evron Jan 2022.
You may read about Pi in Wikipedia, entry: Pi. See also an earlier post on this blog:
Fibonacci series, Pi, Golden Ratio — Simple Relationships
To-date, the digits of Pi (a transcendental number) have been considered random. Are they?
Adding to Oren Evron Research, I display in this post my own contribution, one of two (the other may be read here ). Both are not included in Oren’s videos.
Consider the first ten digits of Pi (last digit not rounded):
{3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9, 2, 6, 5, 3}.
Next, observe word lengths (number of letters in a word) for the seven Hebrew-words comprising the first verse of the Bible (Genesis 1:1):
{6, 3, 5, 2, 5, 3, 4}.
We realize that the second sequence is contained in the first, namely, the second series is a subset of the first series (taken from Pi), comprising 70% thereof. Only three digits in the first series (marked black) are not in the second. Conversely, all digits in the second series (with their exact frequencies) appear in the first.
(Comment: Reading the second series as Hebrew, from right to left, we obtain (read from left to right):
{4, 3, 5, 2, 5, 3, 6};
This is incredibly close to the order that these digits appear in the first ten digits of Pi; In fact, one needs only two changes, swapping first 3 with 4 and moving 6 before 5, to preserve the original order of these digits, as they appear in the first ten digits of Pi!!!).
How probable is this result (second series contained in the first)?? What is the likelihood for this finding to occur randomly?
We have conducted a computer simulation, in which the computer randomly generated a million sets of ten digits (each digit with probability 0.1 (10%) to be selected). We then counted the number of sets that contained exactly the second set (by exactly we mean including frequency, for example, if “5” appears twice in the second set so it is in the simulated set).
Based on this simulation experiment, we have obtained for the probability of the second set to be exactly contained in the first to be 0.0019 (0.2%), namely, for a significance level of half a percent (0.5%), a statistically meaningful result (“significant result”). By conventional norm in scientific research studies, this is a highly significant result, indicating that the finding is probably not coincidental.
This result, on its own, might be considered by some as “cherry picking”. Combined with Oren Evron’s new findings, as displayed in his latest movie (English version expected soon), any claim of “cherry picking” becomes baseless — the link between the first verse of Genesis and physical reality (as represented by Pi) is now an established scientifically-observable fact.
- Another of Oren Evron’s videos — Findings of Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh about a relationship between Fibonacci and biblical Hebrew (Hebrew; For English, activate captions!):
Fibonacci in the Torah – Genesis Golden Ratio
- Links between Pi and Fibonacci numbers (post on this blog):
Fibonacci numbers, the associated Golden Ratio and Pi appear abundantly in all phenomena of nature, from the very small to the very large. In this post, we deliver simple relationships between these three that allow their simple calculation, either exactly (Golden-Ratio and Fibonacci terms) or to high accuracy (Pi).
The start of the Fibonacci series (first seventeen terms) is:
{0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, …}.
A Fibonacci number is obtained by adding the last two terms preceding it in the series, for example, 55 is the sum of 21 and 34.
As the length of the Fibonacci series increases, the ratio between two consecutive Fibonacci numbers converge to the Golden Ratio. Simple exact expressions to calculate the Golden Ratio (denoted herewith Φ, capital of φ) and its reciprocal (denoted herewith φ, small Φ) are Eq. [1] and Eq. [2] (refer to PDF downloadable file below).
Employing Φ and φ, a simple formula for the k-th term in a Fibonacci series is given in Eq. [3]. Note that F(0)=0.
A formula that combines Fibonacci numbers and the Golden-Ratio (Phi = Φ =1.618…) delivers a compact expression for π (Eq. [4]).
For example, for n=3: F(2n+1)=F(7)=13.
Inserting in this equation the formula for a Fibonacci number in terms of the Golden-Ratio, as given earlier, we finally obtain a formula to calculate Pi in terms of the Golden-Ratio (Φ) and its reciprocal (ϕ) (Eq. [5]).
This formula delivers highly accurate values for π even for relatively small upper summation limit of n.
Below are values of π obtained for different upper summation values:
“Exact” Pi value (π): 3.141592654…
{Upper summation limit, calculated π}:
{{5, 3.141148432}, {6, 3.141739012}, {7, 3.141543509}, {8, 3.141609399}, {9, 3.141586881}, {10, 3.141594663}, {11, 3.141591949}, {12, 3.141592902}, {13, 3.141592565}, {14, 3.141592685}, {15, 3.141592642}}.
We realize that already for upper summation limit of 14 — exact value of Pi to seven decimal points is obtained‼
Playing Pi (π) and Phi (Φ, Golden Ratio) on the piano:
- Song from π! (reproduced 2015; with Sheet Music/HQ Download):
- Song from π! (original, 2011):
- What Phi (Golden Ratio) Sounds Like (reproduced 2012):
- What Phi (Golden Ratio) Sounds Like (original, 2011):
Partial Source for this post: Castellanos D. Rapidly Converging Expansions with Fibonacci Coefficients 1986; Fibonacci Quarterly 24: 70-82.
(Related podcast: Basic Human Condition: “Angels of God Ascending and Descending” (Gen. 28:12; Podcast-audio) .)
The Bible starts with a succinct description of all that there is:
“In the beginning God created The Heaven (“Ha-Shamayim“) and The Earth (“Ha-Aretz“)” (Gen 1:1).
This seven-word verse (in the original Hebrew) delivers four messages:
- There is God; * There is creation; * God and His Creation are separate (pantheism is false); * There is a point in creation when time started (“In the beginning”);
However, there is an additional most important fifth message:
* There are two worlds apart: The Earth and The Heaven.
In the rest of Genesis creation narrative (Chapters 1 and 2), “The Heaven” is not addressed ever again. Genesis describes only that which is visible, or potentially visible, to humankind — “The Earth” (more specifically, the universe). As part of the description of the six days of creation of The Earth, the narrator relates to two separate parts of the universe (“The Earth”):
- That part that God calls heaven (“The” omitted) — “and God called the sky (Rakia) heaven (Shamayim)…”, Gen. 1:8;
- That part that God calls Earth (“The” omitted) — “and God called the dry land (Yabashah) Earth (Eretz)…”, Gen 1:10. However, The Heaven (Ha-Shamayim) is not repeated again, neither described nor implied. When alluding to Shamayim, Genesis 1 refers only to Rakia-Ha-Shamayim, as if to emphasize that this is not Ha-Shmayim of the first verse of Genesis.
These two worlds, The Heaven and The Earth, are they communicating with one another?
The Bible is mostly mute about it. Existence of free-will for the human species cannot co-exist with the explicit and undeniable knowledge that The Heaven does exist, that it influences our experiences in life and that… it responds to our decisions.
This should be contrasted with our explicit knowledge of The Earth (the scientifically observable universe), governed by law-of-nature. The latter allows us knowing, or potentially knowing, how “it influences our experiences in life and respond to our decisions“. For example, we know well in advance how nature would respond if we have decided, out of free will, to jump from the rooftop of a highrise.
So, is the Bible indeed utterly mute about communication between The Heaven and The Earth? Is there such communication at all?
There are stories of communication between the Divine and human beings, either one-way communication, like the Ten-Commandments, or two-way communication, like biblical stories of dialogues between the Divine and human beings (“…perhaps ten shall be found there? And He said: I will not destroy for the sake of the ten”, Gen 18:32). Yet, these stories relate to direct communication between man and God, not between “The Earth” and “The Heaven”, both created (according to the first verse of Genesis). Also, they are not as compelling as Law-of-Nature — You believe these stories or you do not. Same cannot be extended to Law-of-Nature:
Free-will is preserved, maintained and protected with regard to possible “dialogues” between human beings and The Heaven — these are completely invisible to us; Free-will is not so with regard to “dialogues” between human beings and Law-of-Nature (The Earth) — these are visible to us in their entirety.
Areas in our lives that are not subject to Law-of-Nature are areas where free-will is exercised. These are the areas where The Earth and The Heaven communicate. However, to preserve free will, Scripture is mostly mute about this communication‼
There is one exception — a single verse in the Bible that describes, in a very vivid way, the basic condition of humankind, namely, the untold and intuitively unrecognizable continuous dialogue, maintained by us all, between The Heaven and The Earth:
“And he dreamed and, behold, a ladder set up to The Earth and its top reaches to The Heaven; and behold angels (Malachim) of Elohim ascending and descending on it” (Genesis 28:12).
To fully understand this verse, and the function of ladder in Jacob’s dream, let us be reminded what “Angel” (Malach) is in biblical Hebrew — a messenger (human or non-human), dispatched for an explicit purpose, to deliver a certain message or to perform a certain task. Examples:
- “The Lord God of The Heaven, who took me from my father’s house… He shall send his angel (Malacho) before thee…” (Genesis 24:7);
- “And Jacob sent messengers (Malachim) ahead of him to his brother Esau in the land of Seir, the country of Edom” (Genesis 32:3);
- “The angel (Ha-Malach), who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads…” (Genesis 48:16);
- “And there came a messenger (Malach) and said…” (Job, 1:14).
We realize that same word, Malach, serves in Scripture to describe delivery of two sorts of “messages” — one via words, another via actions; Also, same word, Malach, is used for both human and non-human messengers.
In view of the new insight about the meaning of Malach, what does it mean that messengers are ascending and descending on a ladder that connects “The Earth” and “The Heaven”?
There can be a single interpretation:
“Messages” are being exchanged between the two worlds, explicitly declared to exist in the first verse of the Bible — “The Heaven” and “The Earth”‼
These messages are being exchanged, unknowingly to us, continuously; And they are delivered by us by thought, by word and by action. Wishes that we express, prayers that we pray, acts of grace and righteousness, or, conversely, acts of evil, these are all “messages” sent by us, via “ascending messengers”, to “The Heaven”; Experiences we go through, which look to us random and not the outcome of interference of Law-of-Nature, these are “messages” sent back to us, by “descending messengers”, from “The Heaven”.
And these experiences, from the realm of “randomness”, where free will reigns supreme, unconstrained by Law-of-Nature, these are doomed to remain unexplainable so long as free-will is preserved and the Divine is hidden, hiding also His hiddenness (“aster astir panai“, Deuteronomy 31:18).
There are three well-known symbols signifying that same idea, an ongoing dialogue between The Heaven and The Earth.
- God relates to the rainbow, a bow aimed to Heaven from Earth, as a reminder, a message, sent to Him from humankind and all living beings on earth: “I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be a sign for the covenant between me and the Earth; Whenever I bring clouds upon the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and all living creatures of every kind, so that never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life” (Genesis 9:13-17);
- In the most well-known symbol of the Jewish faith, the Magen David, there are two triangles: One aimed from Earth to Heaven, another directed from Heaven to Earth;
- The pyramids of Egypt are similarly built as a triangle directed from earth to heaven.
In Conclusion:
The most basic condition of humankind is existence of a dialogue between “The Earth” and “The Heaven”, the two parts of creation alluded to in the first verse of the Bible (and only there). This dialogue is maintained via two channels:
- A visible dialogue between all living creatures and Law-of-Nature; The latter, unexplainable but well described (by science), is all observable; In this “Dialogue”, Law-of-Nature is forced on us for full compliance — no compromise, no freedom of choice;
- A hidden dialogue, partially visible to us in the sense that only “messages” from The Earth may be recognizable; By contrast, to preserve free will, messages from The Heaven are invisible, incomprehensible to us; Yet, not always and not completely:
-
- At times, they may be deduced, providing explanation to our experiences as Heavenly response (descending angels) to our own “messages” (ascending angels);
- At other times, they may not even be deduced, doomed to remain hidden and utterly unexplainable (“..and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy”, Exodus 33:19; “Why bad things happen to good people”).
- Shorty is a short post
What is the true meaning of Genesis creation “Days” — Are these regular days?
This has always been to me an extremely bizarre question. Yet, it has been a recurring subject in comments of viewers watching videos that describe my data-based research on Genesis Creation narrative.
Two common answers to what “Day” means in Genesis creation rely on terms and quotes from Scripture. We deliver these answers in the form of claims:
Claim I — Genesis “Day” is a regular 24-hours day (due to appearance of the basic components of a regular day, namely, “Evening” and “Morning”):
This claim is based on the use, for each creation day, of two Hebrew words — Erev (Evening) and Boker (Morning) — as in: “..and there was evening and there was morning one day” (Genesis 1:5).
I believe that this common interpretation of the meaning of Erev and Boker is misplaced. In the original biblical Hebrew, the two words can be differently interpreted. Erev indeed means evening but also mixture, for example, a mixture of people from different tribes, a mixture of people living in the desert or a mixture of different animals:
- “And a mixed multitude (Erev Rav) went up also with them…” (Exodus 12:38);
- “And all the kings of Arabia (Arav) and all the kings of the mixture of people (Erev) that dwell in the desert” (Jeremiah 25:24);
- “And Jehovah did so and there came a dense swarm of gnats (Arov) into the house of Pharaoh…” (Exodus 8:20).
Similarly, Boker derives from a root that means the opposite of mixture or chaos, namely, separation of the elements of a mixture into its individual components, instituting control and order:
- “He must not pick out (Yevaker) the good from the bad…” (Leviticus 27:33);
- “As the lookout (Ke-vakarat) of a shepherd after his flock, when he is with his sheep that are strayed, so will I look after (Avaker) my sheep and will rescue them from all the places that they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness” (Ezekiel 34:12).
In modern-day Hebrew, Bakarah simply means… control‼
Thus, “and there was Erev and there was Boker” simply conveys a description of a transition from a state of chaos, where all is mixed together, lacking distinguishable elements that render control feasible, to a state of distinction, order and control.
How incredibly scientific and up-to-date‼
From these two basic terms, Erev and Boker, two additional biblical Hebrew words, evening and morning, were later derived to indicate, respectively, a state of half-darkness, where things are not clearly visible and distinguishable from one another (Erev, evening), and a state of full light, when all is visible, distinct from one another and fully controllable (Boker, morning).
Claim II — Genesis “Day” is equivalent to a thousand years:
This claim relies on a single verse from Scripture, taken literally:
“For a thousand years in your eyes are like a day that has gone by and like a watch in the night…” (Psalms 90:4).
Incredibly as it seems, this claim is pursued and adopted by many (as judged from viewers’ comments).
My statistical analysis, as described in detail in my book and as presented in popular terms in the 71-minutes video, clearly indicates that a “Day” in Genesis creation story is equivalent to 3.0007 billion years‼
But does Scripture state anywhere that Genesis creation “Days” are no regular days??
Surprisingly, the answer is a resounding Yes‼
Let us carefully read the following verse from Deuteronomy and understand what it implies:
“For ask now for first days, long before your time, from the day that God created man on the earth…” (Deuteronomy 4:32).
This verse explicitly states that “first days” had started with the creation of man, namely, the sixth day of Genesis creation‼!
This verse is in conformance with the Jewish lunar-month-based calendar, which counts years from the day of creation of man, when the first lunar cycle is believed to have started, namely, the sixth day of creation. Furthermore, the verse is also compliant with the well-documented Jewish tradition that man was created on the fourteenth hour of the sixth day (find details in this post). As may be learned therein, this “minor” detail (“fourteenth hour”) serves to calculate average lunar-month duration to an accuracy of five decimal points (29.53059 days vs. NASA’s value of 29.530589 days).
In conclusion:
Deuteronomy 4:32 explicitly states that “first days” had started with the creation of “man on the earth”, implying that Genesis creation days are no regular days!
****************************
* Shorty is a short post
The Hebrew Midah Keneged Midah (Measure for measure) expresses a basic tenet of the Jewish faith (and others) that there is universal Divine Justice prevailing in the world (“..Would not the Judge of all the earth do Justice?”, Gen. 18:25). For each mal-behavior there is Divine reaction, and acts of grace, kindness and righteousness are divinely rewarded. Furthermore, Heavenly Judgement is delivered in same coin as earthly action (expressed also in divine commandment for quantitative equivalence while exercising human judgement — “..an eye for an eye..”; Leviticus 24:20). This equivalency, between earthly action and heavenly reaction, allows earth-bound human beings to create a link between the two, thereby gaining opportunity for Tikkun (“Correction/Repair” to one’s own spiritual virtues). A similar concept in non-monotheistic faiths is Karma (or Cause and Effect Law).
Numerous verses in Scripture relate to the link between one’s action and the experiences that follow:
- “Sow for yourselves by righteousness, reap the fruit of grace…; But you have ploughed wickedness, you have reaped iniquity.” (Hoshea 10:12-13);
- “Does God pervert judgement? and does the Almighty pervert justice?” (Job 8:3).
In this post, I address an offense and its Divine punishment, as they appear in an extremely short chapter in the Torah, Numbers 12 (verses 1-16). This chapter describes a single episode of Moses’ siblings, Miriam and Aharon, leveling unfounded accusations at Moses, and the immediate divine response to their slander. All in all, this chapter is a lesson on how Divine Justice is operating. However, the nature of the sin is not at all clear-cut from the text. And here my interpretation of Numbers 12, although relying on commonly accepted traditional interpretations, still departs considerably from the “Bottom Line” delivered therein. Furthermore, in this post I will also address the reasons why I believe Jewish interpreters in the past were blind to “Elephants in the Room” (two, not one!) — obvious lessons that Numbers 12 conveys, which past generations chose to ignore, either purposefully or out of unfortunate sheer blindness to the true nature of the sin, with which this chapter begins:
“And Miriam and Aharon spoke harshly to Moses about the Kushite woman that he had taken, for he had taken a Kushite woman” (Numbers 12:1).
As I will show in this post, this verse may be differently read (in the original Hebrew), which grants this verse a completely different meaning (relative to traditional interpretations and translations). This gives the whole chapter, Numbers 12, a completely new perspective, which is reflected in the title of this post.
The post is divided into four parts:
- Displaying major verses from Numbers 12 and related questions;
- Explanation of two central terms that appear in the text (Kushite and Pitom);
- Traditional Jewish commentary on Numbers 12;
- The new interpretation.
*********************************
-
Major verses from Numbers 12 and related questions:
- The Sin (skin-color issue?): “And Miriam and Aharon spoke harshly to Moses about the Kushite woman that he had taken, for (Ki) he had taken a Kushite woman” (Numbers 12:1; Explanation of Kushite follows);
- Jehovah say suddenly (?!): “And Jehovah said suddenly (Pitom) to Moses, to Aharon and to Miriam “Come out you three to the Tent of Meeting”, and the three of them came out” (Numbers 12:4; About the difference between “say” and “speak” in biblical Hebrew read here; Explanation of Pitom follows);
- The Punishment (skin disease): “And the cloud was removed from the Tent and, behold (Hineh) , Miriam is leprous like snow; and Aharon turned to Miriam and, behold (Hineh), leprous” (Numbers 12:10);
- The Prayer (Moses Prays to God for Miriam healing): “And Moses cried out to Jehovah, saying: El Na Refa Na Lah (O God, heal her, I pray thee)” (Numbers 12:13).
Several questions arise from this obscure text:
- What was Miriam and Aharon reproaching Moses about? (no explanation given!);
- Why did God say suddenly? (a bizarre way to describe God initiating a monologue targeted at a certain group of people, Moses’ siblings);
- What is so important telling us that “Aharon turned to Miriam”, realizing she was sick??
- Why was only Miriam punished with leprosy, while Aharon, an accomplice to the supposed sin, seems to be spared?
While detailing our new interpretation to this bizarre chapter (Numbers 12), we will attempt some answers to these questions. However, our focus in this interpretation will always be, as suggested by the title, Divine Justice.
-
Explanation of two central terms that appear in the text (Kushite; Pitom and Hineh)
Kushite
Kushite literally means, in biblical Hebrew, a female of Kush descent. Kush was Noah’s grandson, one of Ham’s sons (“The sons of Ham: Kush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan”, Genesis 10:6). After Kush is named the land of Kush, “an ancient kingdom in Nubia, located at the Sudanese and southern Egyptian Nile Valley” (Wikipedia, Kingdom of Kush). Descendants of Kush were idol worshippers, probably bearing the curse of Noah to become slaves (a curse originally extended to Kush’s brother, Canaan; Genesis 9:25). Apparently, the Kushites (descendants of Kush) had an external signature (dark skin), which set them apart from other ancient residents of the Land of Israel. This is why the Bible often refers to Kushites addressing their skin color, for example: “Can a Kushite change his skin, or the leopard his spots? so may you do good, you evil-practitioners” (Jeremiah 13:23).
Scripture also refers to the fact that the Kushites were slaves, or, alternatively, to the fact that, being dark-skinned, they would not intermingle with other residents in the ancient Land of Israel. According to Jewish prophets, both are desirable characteristics for God’s people:
* Be dedicated servants to God (this idea is realized in various Hebrew names, like Obadiah (“Slave to God”), and Arabic names, like Abdullah or Abdallah);
* Be separate from other peoples.
Prophet Amos expresses this explicitly:
“Are not you, Israelites, the same to me as the sons of Kushites? declares Jehovah…” (Amos 9:7).
In modern-day Hebrew, the term Kushi (male), or Kushit (female), has gained a status similar to Negro (in the US), namely, a derogatory term for black-skinned people of African descent, whose ancestors were slaves (in the US). Numbers 12 seemingly addresses the same issue, unfolding with the associated Divine Judgement, as the new interpretation, expounded below, attests to.
Two good sources about Moses wife, Zippora, and interpretations about whether the Kushite woman was Moses second wife, or the text indeed refers to Zipporah, first and possibly only wife, may be found in Wikipedia (entry Zipporah) and in site: thetorah.com (Moses and the Kushite woman).
Pitom (suddenly) and Hineh (behold)
Of all twenty-five verses in the Bible, where Pitom appears — with variations — nowhere else does God suddenly “say”!! However, there are two other verses, both pronounced by prophets, where Jehovah acts suddenly (Pitom) — Isaiah (48:3) and Malachi (3:1): “I send my messenger, and he shall clear the way before me; and suddenly shall come to his temple the Lord, whom you seek; and the messenger of the covenant, whom you yearn for, behold (Hineh), he has come, says the Lord of hosts”, Malachi (3:1). This verse apparently refers to the ultimate Divine Judgement at end times, as described by the prophet. Note, that as in Numbers 12 (see verses displayed earlier, Section 1), where “suddenly” (Pitom) is accompanied by “behold” (Hinei), so are the two linked together here (in this verse).
We will elaborate later on the significance of Pitom, and show that God acts suddenly in this chapter not once (as may be deduced from the single appearance of Pitom), but twice, as may be deduced from the additional related word, Ve-Hineh (“and behold”), which appears twice in the chapter to express surprise at the sudden and unexpected immediate appearance of Divine punishment.
After God suddenly summons Moses, Miriam and Aharon to get to the Tent of Meeting, the rest of the chapter (verses 5-16) delivers:
- God’s description of the unique status of Moses as a prophet (unparalleled by any other Jewish prophet);
- Punishment of Aharon and Miriam: According to Jewish interpreters, both were punished with leprosy, however Aharon immediately recovered: “..and Aharon turned to Miriam and, behold (Hineh), leprous” (Numbers 12:10); This explanation relies on the understanding that Aharon was reluctantly “dragged” into this incidence by Miriam because in the original Hebrew text: “And Miriam and Aharon spoke harshly to Moses..” (Numbers 12:1), the word “spoke” is bizarrely in the singular feminine, implying that Miriam played major role in this incident;
- Aharon apology to Moses, asking for forgiveness;
- Moses prayer and Miriam’s seven days recovery (out of Israel camp), whereupon the people of Israel moved from Hazeroth and camped in the wilderness of Paran.
-
Traditional Jewish Commentary on Numbers 12
Major Jewish interpreters of the Bible, among them Rashi (1040-1105) and Malbim (1809-1879), relate to the whole chapter (Numbers 12) as a single continuous story. They agree that the Kushite woman was Zipporah, Moses’ wife, daughter of Jethro (Exodus 2:21), of Midian descent (Midian was one of six sons of Abraham and Keturah, Genesis 25:2). Since Midian was a tribe of the desert, Rashi assumes that descendants of Midian were also dark-skinned and he states about “Kushite woman” (referring to Zipporah): “The written states that all acknowledge her beauty, just as all acknowledge the blackness of a Kushi” (in biblical Hebrew Kushi is for male, Kushite for female). Thus, Rashi acknowledge that there is a skin-color issue here; however, he interprets the reproach to Moses entirely favorably to Miriam, who supposedly is attempting to defend a basic right of the Kushite woman in her marriage life with Moses (as we will soon learn).
And what was Miriam’s reproach to her brother (according to Rashi, based on a quote from Rabbi Nathan)? That Moses abstained from his wife Zipporah (not fulfilling his duties as a husband) so as to be available to God’s word (namely, after being in God’s presence for forty days on Mount Sinai, Moses has become a Godly person, not engaged in regular earthly activities). Miriam and Aharon are not convinced (that Moses should abstain) — they were also receiving God’s word, yet not ever forbidden from having sexual relationship with their spouses: “And they said: “Has Jehovah indeed spoken only with Moses? He has spoken also with us! And Jehovah heard.” (Numbers 12:2).
Jehovah then suddenly intervenes (“and Jehovah suddenly said to Moses, to Aharon and to Miriam…”). Rashi explains that the latter two were both engaged with their spouses at the time, thus learning first-hand what it means when Jehovah suddenly talk and you are unavailable to hear his word. And what is God’s response to Miriam and Aharon claiming that they are also prophets, namely, receiving the word of God? Here is a present-day variation of God’s response, articulated somewhat sarcastically: “Kids, calm down ¾ you, or anyone else, are nowhere near the status of Moses, my faithful servant prophet; How dare you compare and not being fearful to reproach my servant?!!”.
Or, with the exact wording from Scripture:
“Not so with my servant Moses, for he is the entrusted one in all of my household” (Numbers 12:7)…”Why then were you not fearful to speak harshly to my servant Moses?” (Numbers 12:7).
-
The New Interpretation (my Commentary)
4.1 Two elephants in the room
There are two elephants that traditional interpretations somehow failed to notice, which require some exploration. We describe these by two intriguing questions:
- Question 1: Numbers 12 begins with a verse that seems to be related to skin color (the Kushite woman), and ends with skin-related verses (Miriam’s leprosy). How is it that no link had ever been observed/established, by Jewish faith-bound Bible interpreters, between the two “stories”? (only link addressed in Jewish scholarship is the claim that Miriam exercised slander and punished for slander; No reference to the bizarre link to skin, of both the sin and its punishment, as displayed in Numbers 12);
- Question 2: If we accept that Kushite woman was indeed Moses second wife (the most reasonable interpretation to Numbers 12:1), and that the reproach to Moses, by his siblings, was that Moses had sexually abandoned her (becoming a Godly man, after being on Mount Sinai for forty days to receive the Torah), how is it that Aharon and Miriam ignored the other wife, Zipporah? And if, to the contrary, Zipporah is the Kushite woman (as interpreted by Rashi and others), why the use of a misleading and possibly derogatory term (Kushite woman) instead of the known name, Zipporah?
4.2 Four basic facts
We start this needed re-exploration of Numbers 12 by first establishing some basic facts. Based on these facts and a new mode of reading of Numbers 12:1, we articulate two claims regarding the real meaning of Numbers 12, and then expound four principles underlying Divine Justice (as we understand them from Scripture, in Numbers 12 and elsewhere):
- Basic fact 1: The Kushite woman is not Zipporah: There is no way that Zipporah, of Shem descent, would be denoted in the Bible a Kushite woman, namely, a descendant of Kush, namely, of Ham descent (both Shem and Ham are children of Noah); Furthermore, Zipporah has already been introduced as Moses wife. The claim that the Kushite woman is not Zipporah is supported by a known Jewish interpreter, rabbi Shmuel Ben Meir (Rashbam, 1085-1158), a leading French Tosafist and grandson of Rashi. He also mentions an ancient Hebrew tradition that Moses was king of Kush for forty years and that he had taken a queen. Note that this interpretation is contrary to Rashi’s, addressed earlier. Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra, or simply Ibn Ezra (1089–1167), a contemporary of Rashbam, repeats this story.
- Basic fact 2: Aharon and Miriam reproach to Moses was not about absenteeism: If it was so, and accepting Basic Fact 1 (see above), then the reproach to Moses would extend to Zipporah, but it did not;
- Basic fact 3: The sin and the punishment are both skin-related: Given the emphasis in Jewish faith on sin and punishment being of same sort (in quality and in quantity, as we elaborated on earlier), one can hardly ignore the link between the sin (reproach to Moses, not specified in the text) and the punishment (very explicitly specified!!);
- Basic fact 4: Jehovah reproaches Aharon and Miriam for reproaching Moses. What is the essence of the Divine reproach? Moses is my entrusted servant and he knows good and evil better than anyone else (“Not so with my servant Moses for he is the entrusted one in all of my household”); Why do you think that you know better than him right and wrong so that you can reproach him?? (“Why then were you not fearful to speak harshly to my servant Moses?”); Note that the Divine reproach does not address at all the essence of Aharon and Miriam reproach to Moses; This remains mysterious and unknown, that is, unless we depart from traditional reading of the key verse Numbers 12:1.
4.3 Principles of Divine Justice
Several principles, supported by biblical verses, underlie our commentary:
- There is Divine Justice: “..Would not the Judge of all the earth do Justice?” (Gen. 18:25);
- Divine Justice may be delayed: Since Divine Justice is comprehensive, it is often not immediate (like violating law of nature) — sin, or, conversely, acts of grace and righteousness, may be belatedly responded by Divine justice: “..Jehovah’s Judgments are true, they are righteous altogether” (Psalms 19:10). In other words, Divine Justice should not be perceived individually, regarding that act or another, in which case Jehovah’s judgments may occasionally seem unjust (“Why bad things happen good people?”); Rather, it is the “sub-total” of Divine Justice that is just because “Jehovah’s Judgments…are righteous altogether“;
- Divine Justice aims to teach; and learn you may only when “Action and Reaction” are linked in our mind, namely, being comparable: This basic principle of Karma (law of cause and effect) is pursued by the Jewish faith. It is articulated by the fundamental biblical commandment: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot; Burning for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:24-25). Oral Torah, believed to be delivered to Moses with written Torah, translates this commandment into human terms, namely, offender pays the offended the money-equivalent of the offense suffered. As demonstrated earlier (in opening paragraph of this post), numerous verses in the Bible relate to the link between one’s decisions (resulting in feel, speak or action) and one’s own experiences in life.
- Divine Justice, unlike law of nature, is not automatic — It is often mitigated by Hashgacha Pratit (Divine Providence), which may be humanly unexplainable: “..I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and show mercy on whom I will show mercy. And He said, thou cannot see my face for no man shall see me and live” (Exodus 33:18-20).
Given these basic facts (4.2), and these Divine Justice principles (4.3) we may now address the opening questions (4.1) and detail our new interpretation of Numbers 12.
4.4 The detailed Commentary
We start by making two claims:
- Claim 1: Based on a common interpretation of the key word Ki, the first verse of Numbers 12 should be differently read and translated:
Traditional interpretation (one mode of reading the text in its original Hebrew):
“And Miriam and Aharon spoke harshly to Moses about the Kushite woman that he had taken, for (Ki) he had taken a Kushite woman” (Numbers 12:1).
With this interpretation, the last part of the verse, starting with Ki, is told by the narrator as a statement of fact;
New interpretation (another, as justifiable, mode of reading the text in its original Hebrew):
“And Miriam and Aharon spoke harshly to Moses (about the Kushite woman that he had taken) that (Ki) he had taken a Kushite woman” (Numbers 12:1).
With this interpretation, the last part of the verse, starting with Ki, delivers the contents of the reproach by Miriam and Aharon. In other words, the Ki word does not mean “for” (thus preceding statement of fact by the narrator), but rather “that” (preceding detailing of the reproach, as pronounced by Miriam and Aharon). Such interpretation of Ki is not at all rare in the Hebrew Jewish Bible, for example: “..why did you not tell me that (Ki) she was your wife?” (Genesis 12:18).
This interpretation sheds new light about the nature of the reproach. No longer is this a mysterious non-explainable one, which requires guessing as to its true nature (as Rashi and others did). Rather, there is an explicit statement: “Our dear brother Moses, why have you married a Kushite woman?”.
- Claim 2: Numbers 12 is a demonstrative tale of how Divine Justice is exercised in world affairs:
The reproach to Moses by his siblings should now be put in a wider context. It was common practice among ancient Israelites, the monotheists (believers in one God), not to inter-marry pagan worshippers. This is often addressed in the Torah, for example:
- When Abraham desires a wife for his son, Isaak, he makes his loyal servant swear to him that he (the servant) “not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live” (Genesis 24:3);
- Esau takes two wives of the Hittites (local people), “and they brought grief to Isaak and Rebekah” (Genesis 26:34-35);
- “And Isaak called Jacob… and said to him:” You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. Arise go to Padan-aram, to the house of Bethuel, your mother’s father, and from there take to yourself a wife from the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother” (Genesis 28:1-2).
Obviously, the common practice was marrying within the tribes of Israel. Moses deviated from this practice, obviously marrying two — Zipporah (of Midian descent, Exodus 2:21), and later, as made clear in this chapter (Numbers 12) also a Kushite woman (of Kush descent). Thus, the reproach for marrying the Kushite woman (outside of the tribes of Israel) aimed at a current event. This straightforwardly explains why Zipporah is not mentioned — marriage to Zipporah had occurred many years earlier, and therefore was not anymore presently relevant.
However, Miriam does not refer to the Kushite woman by name, but calling her by descent, obviously aware of her skin color (as we have learned from other verses in the Bible, where Kushite people are addressed). This should be contrasted with how the Bible refers to Zipporah, Moses’ first wife — always by name (Examples are Exodus 2:21, 4:25, 18:2).
Thus, Miriam was offensive both to the Kushite woman, referring to her by her skin color rather than by name; and to Moses, thinking she knows better whether Moses should have married the Kushite woman. The Divine response to Miriam is two-fold:
- First: God clarifies — Moses knows good and evil better than any, including Miriam and Aharon; How dare you preach to him? (Numbers 12: 7-8);
- Second: You, Miriam, referred to the Kushite woman by her skin-color, rather than by name; Same will be done to you — the people of the Tribes of Israel would refer to you not by name but by the condition of your skin, namely, referring to you as the leprous woman; and this unexpectedly (“behold”, Hineh) starts with your closest, your brother Aharon: “…and Aharon turned to Miriam and, behold (Hineh), leprous” (Numbers 12:10). The reader might be aware that the verse could be differently articulated, mentioning Miriam by name, like: “…and Aharon turned to Miriam and, behold (Hineh), Miriam was leprous”. But this is not what the text says — “Miriam” is eradicated: the narrator no more relates to her by name, just by “the leprous woman” (Metzuraat). Divine Justice promptly applies, unexpectedly (behold, Hineh), and it is delivered in the same coin as the sin.
Finally, given the new interpretation, based on the above two claims, why Pitom and Hineh?
The Divine talks to us in all manners of “talk”, sometimes with words only, often otherwise, with calamities and mishaps (like wars and diseases) that befall human beings (Sons-of-Adam, Bnei Adam): “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me so that when he twists his ways, I will reproach him with the rod of men and with such plagues as befall Bnei Adam” (2 Samuel 7:14).
And Divine “talk” to us, we humans, is more often than not — SUDDEN!
This lesson is true whether mode of Divine talk to us is words (“And Jehovah suddenly said…”, Numbers 12:4), or when Divine “talk” is implemented via other modes of communication, “as befall human beings”. This universal lesson is taught to us in Numbers 12 not once but twice:
* First time: Jehovah suddenly says to all three, Moses, Aharon and Miriam, to get to the Tent of Meeting, where He calls the latter two to separate from Moses (Numbers 12:5) so that they listen to him speaking about Moses’ unique status as a servant of God (Numbers 12:6-8);
* Second time: Miriam suddenly catches leprosy; So sudden and unexpected this incident is that Miriam and Aharon both are in a state of shock. By double use of the word Hineh, the biblical narrator excels in describing the unexpected nature of this “sudden” event, to Miriam as well as and to Aharon (the reader may recall from earlier quotes that Scripture often combines Hineh, behold, with Pitom, suddenly):
“And the cloud withdrew from over the Tent, and, behold (Hineh), Miriam was leprous, as white as snow; And Aharon turned to Miriam, and, behold, leprous” (Numbers 12:10).
With this new interpretation in mind, relying basically on a different read of Numbers 12:1, and perceiving Numbers 12 as basically a display of Divine Justice in action, the last remaining difficulty is this:
Jewish scholars have attempted, throughput history, to beautify the story about the Kushite woman (as demonstrated in the summary of current commentary). However, they ignored the two elephants in the room, thereby reducing considerably the validity of their interpretation.
Why was that?
We believe that the fundamental motive was not to taint “too much” the images of Aharon and Miriam, siblings of Moses, with whom Jehovah spoke too (“Has Jehovah singly spoken only with Moses? Has He not spoken also to us?…”, Numbers 12: 2).
However biblical text, here as always, spares no effort to present reality as it is, without camouflage.
The story of the Kushite woman, where the Bible is shown to spare no effort in exposing blemishes of character to some of the most cherished heroes of the Jewish faith, thereby demonstrating to us what Divine Justice is —
This story should serve as inspiration to us all‼
We, who aspire to equality and dignity for all human beings, should relate to each not by number, by skin color, or by any other visible characteristic that one may happen to possess or be associated with!
ALWAYS RELATE TO HUMAN BEINGS BY NAME ONLY.
Has Faust’s Mephistopheles name originated in the Hebrew Bible?
“In a letter to Carl Zelter of November 30, 1829, Goethe admitted that he had no idea what the name Mephistopheles means nor where it came from.”
So starts a somewhat forgotten article by the late Professor Yehuda T. Radday (1913-2011), a research colleague and good friend of mine, who headed the Department of General Studies at Technion (Israel Institute of Technology). In his fascinating article of 1997*, attached herewith, Radday painstakingly demonstrates why both historically (via a thorough literature review), and by analysis of what the three figures represent in the respective literature (Mephistopheles in Goethe’s Faust; Mephiboshet and Achitophel in Second Book of Samuel), Mephistopheles is probably a combo of the names of the two biblical figures, both contemporaries of King David.
The idea of writing this post came to me at an intermission in a concert I attended that included Schoenberg music. A friend of mine reminded me of Schoenberg’s link to the well-known Goethe’s composition Faust (find details in The Doctor Faustus Dossier (Arnold Schoenberg, Thomas Mann, and Their Contemporaries, 1930-1951).
Recalling that my late research colleague and close friend, Y. T. Radday, had summarized his research about the possible (and intriguing) source of the name of Faust’s central figure, Mephistopheles, I have decided to write this post.
Radday’s article is attached below:
Radday Y.T._Mephistopheles – Biblical-Hebrew Name_1997
Comment: The letter S is added twice to Mephistopheles, not appearing in either Mephiboshet or Achitophel (in their Hebrew original). In Medieval Demonology, Mephistopheles is one of the seven chief devils (and the tempter of Faust). It is an interesting coincidence that the added letter, S, not appearing in the original biblical names, corresponds to the Hebrew letter Samech, which represents, in biblical Hebrew, evil forces!! See details in my post:
The Significance of the Hebrew Samech and Its Occurrence in Names of Enemies of the Jewish Nation
Personal comment: Yehuda Radday passed away concurrently with the victims of September, 11, 2011, while in Israel. Let this post be in honor of his memory.
****************************
* Radday, YT (1997). Mephistopheles — A Biblical Hebrew Name? . Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies / דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות , 243*-252*. Published by World Union of Jewish Studies.
Categories
Viewership of This Blog (Statistics)
Readership Statistics of “Professor Haim Shore Blog” (as of June, 29, 2019)
Number of Posts: 85 ;
Total views: 71,951 ;
Views Distribution (According to Year (recent two) and leading Countries):
| Year | ||
| Country | 2018 | 2019 (Jan.-June) |
| USA | 5812 (60.2%) | 2802 (69.5%) |
| Israel | 2349 (24.3%) | 320 (7.9%) |
| United Kingdom | 383 (3.9%) | 156 (3.9%) |
| Canada | 378 (3.9%) | 237 (5.9%) |
| Australia | 253 (2.6%) | 152 (3.8%) |
| South Africa | 237 (2.4%) | 179 (4.4%) |
| Brazil | 235 (2.4%) | 184 (4.6%) |
| 9647 | 4030 | |
Most popular Post (3192 views; published Feb., 16, 2018):
Kavod — The Most Peculiar Word in Biblical Hebrew
Second most popular (1745 views; published Nov.,21, 2016):
The Three Pillars of Truth- Lessons from the Hebrew Alphabet
The Priestly Blessing, or priestly benediction (Birkat Cohanim), is the blessing delivered by the priests in synagogues on Sabbath, holidays and else. Its source is Leviticus 9:22. Deuteronomy (10:8, 21:5) mentions Aaron or the other priests blessing the Israelites. Further details may be found on Wikipedia (Priestly Blessing).
The blessing itself is specified in Numbers (6:24–26). Here it is in its original Hebrew:
יְבָרֶכְךָ יהוה וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ; יָאֵר יהוה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וִיחֻנֶּךָּ; יִשָּׂא יהוה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם
Adding the two sentences that serve as prelude and conclusion to the Priestly Blessing (not traditionally considered part of the blessing), we obtain (Numbers 6:23-27):
:אמור להם
;יְבָרֶכְךָ יהוה וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ; יָאֵר יהוה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וִיחֻנֶּךָּ; יִשָּׂא יהוה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם
ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם.
Plotting the number of words in successive sentences, {2,3,5,7,8}*, as function of time, we obtain a typical S-shaped graph:
Haim Shore_ S-Shaped Priestly-Blessing
An S-shaped plot is typical to the penetration process into the market of a new product, and, more generally, to any diffusion process (find details, for example, in Shore and Benson-Karhi, 2007).
As it turns out, the mathematical structure of the Priestly Blessing (in terms of progressive word count) reflects a pattern similar to that of a diffusion process!
This implies a powerful lesson that Torah conveys:
Divine blessing is materialized gradually, S-Shaped —
Be patient! Let God’s blessing take its effect !!!
*******************************
* Probability of this orderly sequence to occur by random is 1/120.
Reference: Shore H, Benson-Karhi D (2007). Forecasting S-shaped diffusion processes via response modeling methodology. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58(6):720-729. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602187
In a recent video by Prager University (“Why God is HE“), Dennis Prager offers some insightful answers.
Here is my comment, as posted therein:
“In the relationship between the Creator and the created — God is always the “Giver”, humankind is always the “Receiver”. In all cultures of the world, the Giver is masculine, the Receiver is feminine. There are good reasons for that, psychological, biological, cultural and historical. And that is the only reason God is invariably referred to in Jewish Hebrew Bible as masculine.”
In this post, I wish to expand on this comment.
In all bi-lateral interactions that one may observe in the world, there is a giver and a receiver. Occasionally, the two sides to the interaction play a double role (as both giver and receiver). Furthermore, there is never a morally preferential, or superior, position to the one over the other. When a sexual interaction results in pregnancy both giver and receiver are equal partners.
Oddly enough, in biblical Hebrew, where nouns are either masculine or feminine, the distinction between “Giver”, as masculine, and “Receiver”, as feminine, is to a large extent maintained (though not as a generally prevailing rule).
Here are some examples:
Givers of heat, light and water — sun (Shemesh), moon (Yareach), star (Kochav), rain (Geshem) — are all masculine (Shemesh is occasionally addressed also as feminine);
The Receivers — Earth (Eretz), land or soil (Karka, Adamah) — are feminine;
However, Afar, of which Adam was formed (“And Jehovah Elohim formed man afar min ha-adamah (grains from the soil)”, Gen. 2:7) is interestingly masculine;
Central parts of the body that deliver to the body — central command, blood, food, oxygen — are all masculine (brain, heart, mouth, nose);
Parts of the body that receive:
- From within the body — neuro-commands, blood, food, oxygen (hands & legs, kidney, stomach (Kevah), lung);
- From outside the body — sound, light, objects to grip (ears, eyes, fingers),
are all feminine;
Angel in biblical Hebrew (Malach, deliverer of messages) is masculine;
“State of Peace” delivers peace to its partners (Shalom, masculine); “State of War”, like black hole, always receives, never delivers (Milchamah, feminine).
And what is “World” in its relationship to humankind?? (hint, deliverer…)
******************************
- Shorty is a short post
In the good olden days, the cost for bringing “Reality” into our living room via mass-media news outlets fell mostly on government and partially on the consumer. Not anymore. The model for delivering news to the customer has fundamentally changed; And a new mass-media model has emerged that has devastating effect on individuals and society, such that most of us most probably are not aware of.
News communication has technologically progressed through time — from radio (and newspapers) to television, to cable and satellite and finally to Internet. As news communication changed its face technologically, another fundamental change has taken place — the consumer ceased to be the main source of revenue for the operation of mass-media news providers. A new model was born — news channels provide content free-of-charge, and advertisement fills the void created by the removal of the traditional major sources supporting operation of mass-media news outlets.
This change, conveying “Reality” to the consumer mixed with ads, has since its inception been exercising devastating effect on how we perceive reality. Suddenly Reality, as reflected to us from the screen (or from the newspaper), is no longer “pure reality”. Instead, it is delivered to us in a mixed form — Reality combined with Temptation, facts of life colored by constant seduction to consume products and services.
What does this unholy marriage of reality and temptation do to our psyche?
Reality and Temptation are addressed by two different parts of our psyche: I and Ego (respectively). Once the formers are mixed on the screen, blurred beyond distinction (where reality becomes temptation and temptation reality), the latter become confused — “I” and “Ego” are inter-mixed, subconsciously no longer able to discern clearly which is which. This causes I to lose its grip on reality, and its control over Ego to be weakened, resulting in devastating consequences to us both as individuals and as members of a civilized society.
I discuss “Ego” and “I”, their inter-relationship and how that affects our ability to exercise free-will, elsewhere on this blog. Let me summarize here succinctly: The “I” mediate between us and reality. It is the ultimate decision-maker within us that allows free-will choices, some of moral and ethical nature, at times going even against our own self-interest, as embodied by the “Ego”. Conversely, the latter is that part of our psyche striving for self-preservation. It does so via various egocentric feelings (like hate, pride, anger, aggression, envy and desire), leading to egocentric actions (like chasing money), ultimately resulting in egocentric outcomes that satisfy ego’s needs (physical needs, like hunger or sex, psychological needs, like the need for security via accumulating property, or social needs, like needs of social benefits or positions of power and control).
What happens to us when reality and temptation, as reflected from the screen, are mixed together so that psychologically distinguishing between them, as we “consume” content delivered by news outlets, becomes ever harder and harder?
A major outcome is that no longer are we able to observe reality clearly and objectively, discerning where reality ends and temptation begins. We start to experience a distorted reality — “Reality” becomes a gigantic seduction. The ultimate decision-maker, “I”, loses its ability to make decisions out of free-will, based on humanistic principles that may be at odds with the “Ego”. “I” no longer control “Ego”, to the contrary, it becomes subjugated to “Ego”. A distorted artificial reality forms — “Taking” and “Consuming” become the dominant motivating forces in how we conduct our life and in how we perceive reality and our life within it. Free-will is extinguished and becomes irrelevant. “Optimization” becomes our sole modus operandi.
But mistaking Reality for Seduction and Temptation has a greater, more devastating outcome. Weakening of control of “I” over “Ego” increases rates of crime and severity of crime (like mass shooting). When reality is no longer perceived as ruled by ethical principles and humanistic or religious believes (when “I” dominates) and only experienced as temptation and seduction — egocentric sentiments become sole players in our psyche. Thus, when we are angry all else vanish from the conscious mind. Anger then becomes a dominant presence in our conscious world, unchallenged by other emotions or considerations. Mass-shooting then becomes a highly likely occurrence.
To avoid this confusion, caused by ads bombarding our psyche as-nauseum, certain “arrangements” are sometimes being installed and practiced. In my home country (Israel), advertisement is barred on certain days of the year, either by state law or by free choice. On Memorial Day, dedicated to remembering the Fallen of Israel (in wars or in terrorist actions), mass-media channels do not deliver ads. The people of Israel then gain the opportunity to solely focus on the reality in which Israel exists, remembering the painful price we had to pay for its survival and for our liberty. On Shabbat (the Jewish holy day of the week), at least one channel in Israel has minimized ads, letting non-religious listeners enjoy Shabbat free of seduction and consumerism.
In Western democracies, current state law and regulation do not acknowledge the correlation between excessive advertisement and increased crime. Therefore, no restrictions are placed on advertisement agencies and on mass-media news outlets to limit the damage they cause to the conscious world of individuals and to society at large.
Perhaps it is high time this had changed.
*************************************************
* This post may now be read also on The Times of Israel.
* Shorty is a short post
Professor Haim Shore Lecture on RMM (Response Modeling Methodology), delivered at Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, Auburn University, USA; March 6 2006.
Comprehensive literature review may be found on Wikipedia:
Wikipedia: Response Modeling Methodology
Links to published articles about RMM on ResearchGate:
Haim Shore_ResearchGate Page_Response Modeling Methodology (RMM)_
PowerPoint Presentation:Shore_Seminar_Auburn-Univ_March 2006
PowerPoint Presentation:Shore_Seminar_Auburn-Univ_March 2006_2
“Free will” is an essential component of our lives as humans. It refers to common decision scenarios, when we confront multiple choices and one has to be selected. A philosophical question then often arises:
Are we, human beings, free to make our own choices, out of free will? Or are we always just “optimizing”, selecting that which is, or seems to be, best for us?
What is the difference between free-will choice and “optimization”?? And how are these related to two major components of our psyche — “Ego” and “I”?
Observing and studying the centuries-old debate for and against “free will”, one realizes that participants to this debate often do not grasp the true nature of free-will. Once this is cleared and clarified (by answering the above questions), the debate of whether free will exists largely becomes irrelevant and redundant.
What is “optimizing”?
An “Optimization decision” scenario occurs when all factors that may affect our decision are external to our free will and independent of it (or optimization, which always aims to benefit the ego and its needs, could not have taken place). Our behavior in such decision scenarios is therefore purely deterministic, devoid of free will; In fact, a robot, fed with the correct data, could have made the decision for us, possibly even better than we do (since a robot expectedly does not commit errors).
What, then, is the essential ingredient that renders a choice situation from one of optimizing to an exercise of free-will?
The answer is simple:
A “free-will” scenario is one where our ego is made irrelevant to the choice we make.
In other words, in a “free will” scenario, created out of our own free will, all factors affecting our decision are within us, under our control, subject to the ultimate decision-maker within our psyche, the “I” (not to the ego).
What differentiate the “I” from the “Ego”?
The “I”, exercising free will, may decide on giving; The ego, by its very nature, decides only on “taking” (NEVER on giving).
This is perhaps why Jewish prophets so often refer to the Divine as the ultimate embodiment of “I”. Here is prophet Isaiah:
“I am I am Jehovah and besides me there is no deliverer” (Isaiah 43:11); “..I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6); “..I am He, I am the first, I am also the last… (Isaiah 48:12); “I I have spoken, Indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and he shall succeed in his way” (Isaiah 48:15).
And this is the ingredient by which to judge whether a choice scenario is a “free will” one:
A free-will scenario always contains a moral and ethical element — Will we act against our own interest, against our own ego, to benefit others? Will we decide to give instead of take? Will we decide to love (give) instead of hate?
Or, in the original language of Chazal (tractate Avot 4:1):
“Who is a hero? — Him, who overcomes his desire”.
(Tractate Avot, or Pirkei Avot, “Ethics of the Fathers”, is a tractate of the Mishna that details Torah’s views on ethics and interpersonal relationships; A modern day PC translation would probably read: “Who is a hero? — Him/her, who overcomes her/his desire”.)
Given these perspectives regarding “free will” and its relationship to the two main ingredients of our soul, the “Ego” and the “I”, a powerful lesson may be learned:
Qualifying a decision scenario as free-will (“I”-related), and acquiring the necessary sensitivity to distinguish it from an “optimization” decision (ego-centered one) — these are first essential steps towards genuine personal growth, moral development and personal maturing.
*****************************
* Shorty is a short post
The ancient biblical Philistines engaged in various kinds of “dialogue” with the Jewish nation for millennia, starting, historically, with Patriarch Abraham and ending with King David. However, as related in Scripture, they were relevant, engaged with the Jewish nation, even much later in forms and shapes that remind us of prophesies for days-to-come.
First mention of the Philistines appears in a bizarre verse, where, following the Great Flood, descendants of Noah are enumerated, one by one (“Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth”, Genesis 10:1). The sons of Ham are Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan (Genesis 10:6). Then comes a detailed enumeration of grandsons, amongst them the seven sons of Mizraim (also Hebrew for the land of Egypt):
“Mizraim gave birth to Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehavim,.., and Patrusim and Kasluhim, out of whom came the Philistines, and Kaftorim” (Genesis 10:13-14).
Rashi (1040 –1105), a most revered Jewish interpreter of the Jewish Hebrew Bible, probably wondered at this bizarre sentence (about the Philistines) in the middle of a detailed list of brothers (sons of Mizrayim). He comments, based probably on Midrash Rabah (Bereshit 37, 5):
“From both they came out since Patrusim and Kasluhim used to swap their wives, one with the other, and out of them came Philistines”.
Rabbeinu Behaye (1255 – 1340) further explains that the source for biblical Philistines were ancestors born bastards (namely, descendants of a mother not married to the biological father); And the reason for that was mutually-agreed invasion of privacy between the two brothers, Patrusim and Kasluhim.
Rashi’s non-conventional interpretation had been pursued by other Jewish interpreters. This interpretation probably leans, to a large extent, on the meaning of the biblical Hebrew root both for the name of the people (Philistines) and their region in Canaan, Philistia (Pleshet in Hebrew), where the Philistines dwelt prior to the arrival of the Israelites to the Promised Land, and a long period of time thereafter.
This Hebrew root is:
P.L.Sh (פ.ל.ש).
Originally, this root means “penetrate, “dig through”, “go from end to end”. A natural derivative gives rise to various Hebrew words, verbs and nouns, having one meaning in common:
“Invade”; “trespass”; “Get hold of that which is not yours”; “Seize illegally”.
Indeed, when one observes the various “dialogues”, more precisely violent encounters, that the Philistines had with the Jewish nation, starting with Patriarch Abraham and ending with their final defeat by King David, there is a common thread that connect them all — “Invasion”, namely, seizing illegally, or claiming to own, or wishing to possess, that which is not yours; And “that” may stretch from wives, to water wells, to spring water, to land (territory), and ultimately to important strategic assets of a foreign nation (the Israelites) — leaders, judges, members of the royal family, and finally even to the holiest object of the Jewish faith (at the time), the Ark of the Covenant.
Following are verses from Scripture that tell these encounters (between the Philistines and the Jewish nation), each preceded with a title that summarizes the significance of that encounter as an embodiment of an unlawful invasion (Plishah).
- Seizing wife — Sarah, Abraham’s wife, seized by Abimelech, King of Gerar, King of the Philistines (Genesis 26:8):
“And Abraham said of Sarah, his wife, she is my sister; and Abimelech, King of Gerar, sent and took Sarah” (Genesis 20: 2);
- Seizing an existing well — Abraham breaking the news to the “innocently ignorant” Abimelech that his servants had seized a well dug by Abraham’s people:
“And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of the well of water which Abimelech’s servants had violently taken away; And Abimelech said, I know not who has done this thing, neither did thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it but today” (Genesis 21:25-26);
- Nearly seizing wife (again..) — Rebekah, Isaac’s wife, nearly seized by Abimelech, King of the Philistines:
“And Abimelech said, what is this you have done to us? One of the men nearly has laid with your wife and you would have brought guilt upon us” (Genesis 26: 10);
- Unlawfully separating one from his lawfully-owned property — Philistines “deactivate” existing water wells, dug by Abraham’s servants:
“And all the wells that his father’s servants had dug in the days of Abraham, his father, the Philistines stopped up, filling them with earth” (Genesis 26:15);
- Claiming to possess water of a newly found spring — Philistines claiming spring water found by Isaac’s servants:
“And Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and found there a well of springing water; And the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac’s herdsmen, saying, the water is ours; So, he named the well Esek because they quarreled with him; And they dug another well and they quarreled over it too so he named it Sitnah” (Genesis 26:19-21);
Comment: Esek appears only here, however Eshek, derived from same root, means robbing; Sitnah appears elsewhere (Esra 4:6), where it probably means extremely negative false slander; In modern Hebrew Sitnah simply means hatred;
- Denying lawful owner taking hold of its property — The Philistines delaying the Israelites from reaching the Promised Land
“And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near, for God said lest the people repent when they see war and they return to Egypt; And God led the people around through the way of the wilderness to the Red Sea” (Exodus 13:17);
During Joshua’s wars to conquer the Land of Israel, Pleshet, the land of the Philistines, with its five main cities, were not conquered:
“Now Joshua was old and of advanced age and Jehovah said to him: You are old and of advanced age and there remains yet very much land to be occupied; This is the land that yet remains — All the regions of the Philistines…” (Joshua 13:1-2)
The Bible explains why the Philistines (and some other nations) were not conquered during Joshua’s wars to occupy the Promised Land:
“That through them Israel would be put on a trial to find out whether they keep the way of Jehovah to walk in them as their forefathers did keep them or not” (Judges 2:22); See also Judges 3:1-4.
Violent encounters with the Philistines therefore continued for a very long period of time, all remarkably characterized by symptoms of invasion, namely, “seizing that which is not yours”.
- Invasion of privacy and consequently unlawful seizure of a major strategic asset of a foreign nation (Israel) — The Philistines approach Samson’s two women (first wife, and after murdering her — a Philistine concubine); Then capturing, by deceit, the Israeli leader (a judge and a worrier):
(7a) The Philistines approach Samson’s wife secretly (invasion of privacy), subsequently killing her:
“And it came to pass on the seventh day that they said to Samson’s wife: Entice your husband that he may declare to us the riddle lest we burn you and your father’s house with fire…” (Judges 14:15);
Samson’s wife complied, yet had not escaped the fate assigned to her by the Philistines:
“..and the Philistines went up and burnt her and her father with fire” (Judges 15:6);
(7b) The Philistines approach Samson’s concubine (Delilah) secretly:
Nearly same narrative (invasion of privacy) repeats with Samson’s concubine (Delilah), whom the Philistines approach, unknowingly to Samson:
“And the lords of the Philistines came up to her and said to her: Entice him and find out wherein his great strength lies and by what means may we prevail against him that we may bind him and torture him; And we will give you, every one of us, eleven hundred pieces of silver” (Judges 16:5);
(7c) The Philistines capture Samson:
Having approached Samson’s concubine (Delilah) secretly, the Philistines now seizing by deceit the Israeli leader (judge and worrier):
“And the Philistines took hold of him, and gouged out his eyes; and they brought him down to Gaza and bound him with bronze chains and he was a grinder in the prison” (Judges 16:21);
- Unlawful seizure of the holiest object of the Jewish nation — The Philistines taking hostage the Arch of the Covenant
This event happened once in history and never again. There is no historic evidence, either in the Bible or in archeological findings, that the Arch of the Covenant has ever left Jerusalem, even during or after the destruction of the first Jewish Temple (586 BCE) or the second (70 AD). Yet, the Philistines captured this central artifact of the Jewish faith during one of their aggressive encounters with the Israelites, while the latter were dwelling in the Promised Land:
“So the Philistines fought and Israel was defeated and they fled every man to his tent, and there was a very great slaughter and there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers; and the Ark of God was captured and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Pinchas, died.” (1 Samuel 4: 10-11);
- Unlawful seizure of a major strategic asset of a foreign nation — The Philistines kill the royal family (King Saul and his sons) and mutilate the bodies and hang them for display
“Thus, Saul died with his three sons and all those of his house died together” (1 Chronicles 10:6; the full story is unfolding in I Chronicles 10:1-10).
In between these major historic events, the Philistines routinely invaded countless times the land occupied by the Israelites. Examples:
- “Now the Philistines had come and made a raid in the valley of Rephaim” (1 Chronicles 14:9);
- “The Philistines also had invaded the cities of the lowland and of the Negev of Judah, and had taken Beth-Shemesh, Aijalon, Gederoth, and Soco with its villages, Timnah with its villages, and Gimzo with its villages, and they settled there” (2 Chronicles 28:18).
The final defeat of the Philistines was inflicted by King David, after which they no longer harassed the Kingdom of Israel:
“David therefore did as God had commanded him and they struck down the army of the Philistines from Gibeon even as far as Gezer. Then the fame of David went out into all the lands; and Jehovah brought the fear of him upon all the nations” (1 Chronicles 14:16-17).
What was the final destiny of the Philistines? — The great flee from Canaan into the desert
For 300 years, from 900 to 600 BC, the Assyrian Empire expanded, conquered and ruled the Middle East, including Mesopotamia, Egypt, the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, and parts of today’s Turkey, Iran and Iraq. The final stage of the Assyrian empire began in 745 BC, when Tiglath Pileser III took the throne. Tiglath Pileser III received an empire in a slump with a demoralized army and disorganized bureaucracy. He took control and began reorganizing all aspects of the empire from the army to the bureaucracy to re-conquering rebellious provinces. Following Tiglath Pileser III, the Assyrian empire was ruled by Shalmaneser V, Sargon II and Sennacherib. Sennacherib’s reign (705 to 681 BC) welded the empire into an even greater force, and he conquered provinces in Anatolia, Judah and Israel, even sacking Jerusalem. Sennacherib moved the capital of Assyria to Nineveh.
(Source: History on The Net — The Assyrian Empire, the most powerful empire in the world)
Based on Scripture and some archeological findings, the culprit for the final disappearance of the Philistines was the Assyrian Empire. This empire regularly displaced peoples residing in the territories they had conquered, swapping them with another people as to minimize the likelihood of a rebellion of the local occupied population against the foreign occupier.
The most known example for that are the lost Ten Tribes of Israel.
The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian monarchs, Tiglath-Pileser III (Pul) and Shalmaneser V. The later Assyrian rulers, Sargon II and his son and successor Sennacherib, were responsible for finishing the twenty-year demise of Israel’s northern ten-tribe kingdom, although they did not overtake the Southern Kingdom (Judah; Jerusalem was besieged by Sennacherib, but not taken). The tribes of the Northern Kingdom were forcibly relocated and resettled by Assyria, later to become known as the Ten Lost Tribes. Though captivities began in approximately 740 BC (or 733/2 BCE according to other sources), in 722 BCE, nearly ten to twenty years after the initial deportations, and after a three-year siege started by Shalmaneser V, the Northern Kingdom of Israel, ruled at the time by King Hoshea, is conquered by Assyrian king Sargon II, taking the kingdom’s ruling city Samaria. The biblical account below summarizes these events:
* “And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day.” (1 Chronicles 5:26);
* “In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and he took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria.” (2 Kings 15:29);
* “Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents. And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison. Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years. In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.” (2 Kings 17:3–6);
* “And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria and put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes: because they obeyed not the voice of Jehovah their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of Jehovah commanded and would not hear them, nor do them.” (2 Kings 18:11–12);
(Source: Wikipedia, entry Assyrian Captivity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_captivity).
The practice of the Assyrian Empire to dislocate local populations had consequences for the peoples residing in the Land of Israel and around it. When the king of Assyria, Sennacherib, son and successor of Sargon II, came with a huge army to conquer the Southern Israel Kingdom, Judah, with its capital Jerusalem, other local peoples, realizing what prior Assyrian rulers had done to the Ten Tribes of Israel, fled to the desert to mingle with the Ishmaelites, assuming rightly that the Assyrian Empire had no desire to rule the desert. Among the fleeing were the Philistines, residents of Pleshet.
Echoes to the massive flee from Canaan appear in several Hebrew Jewish sources. For example:
“Rabbie Yossi says: “When Sennacherib came to Eretz Israel, all the peoples in the surroundings of Eretz Israel saw his camp and they became very fearful and they fled each man from his place, for it is said: “For he has said, “By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples, and plundered their treasures, and like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants” (Isaiah 10:13). And they entered the desert and intermingled with the Sons of Ismael, and they were ten peoples in total, as it is said: “The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites; Moab and the Hagrites; Gebal and Ammon and Amalek; Pleshet with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assyria also has joined with them..” (Psalms 83:6-8)”;
(Source: Pirkei de-Rabbie Eliezer 44).
Interestingly, the term “Arav” appears several times in the Bible, relating to the region south east of Canaan, and the rulers of this region are named Kings of Arav (similarly to today’s King of Saudi Arabia). Examples are Isaiah 21:13, Jeremiah 25:24 and Ezekiel 27:21. All these Jewish prophets, mentioning Arav, lived during Sennacherib’s failed attempt to conquer Jerusalem (and the great flee from Canaan that preceded that) or thereafter. The biblical Hebrew source of Arav is:
A.R.V (ע.ר.ב)
This root gives rise to various Hebrew words, all having one meaning in common — to intermingle, to mix together. For example, day and night are mixed together in the Erev (Evening).
Thus, the various verses in the Jewish Hebrew Bible that relate to “Arab” implicitly mirror the great flee from Canaan of the ten peoples residing therein and thereabouts, and ultimately mirror the mixing together of these peoples with residents of the desert, the Sons of Ishmael. The Philistines, therefore, vanished from Canaan while fleeing from Pleshet to mingle with the Ishmaelites in the land of Arav (Arabia in English). This Jewish tradition, which perceives the Arab nation as formed out of intermingling of the ten peoples with the Ishmaelites (the original tenants of the desert) perhaps may help explain why present-day Arab people encounter difficulties maintaining and preserving distinct and separate viable nation states.
Finally, Psalms 83, quoted earlier as echoing the Great Flee from Canaan, is worth re-reading, in depth and in full, as it includes, probably, some hints for current affairs and perhaps also for days-to-come. This “Psalm of Asaph” is a prayer for the Jewish people against its enemies; And what do these enemies aspire and conspire to achieve?
The known double-plot — against the Jewish nation and against its possession of Eretz Israel — is made explicit in Psalm 83, echoing what by now, millennia later, may be termed “Same old story”:
“Elohim, do not keep silence, do not turn deaf and do not be still, Oh God; For, behold, thy enemies make an uproar, and they who hate thee have lifted up the head…They take crafty counsel against thy people and conspire together against thy treasured ones; They have said, “Come and let us wipe them out as a nation that the name of Israel be remembered no more.” For they have consulted together with one mind, against thee do they make a covenant…that they say “let us seize for our possession the pastures of God” (Psalms 83:2-13).
********************************************************
This post is largely based of lectures by Rabbi Yinon Kalazan:
Back in 1993 I was a visiting professor on sabbatical at the then Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement of Wisconsin University, Madison (co-chaired at the time by the late George E. P. Box (1919-2013) and Soren Bisgaard (1951-2009)). On Friday mornings the offices in the building, where the center was located, were mostly empty, and so was the affiliated huge parking lot. One stormy and snowy Friday, I drove to my office at the Center and parked my car in the (nearly empty) parking lot. I went all the way to the building entrance only to be alerted by the guard that one of the rear wheels of my car crossed the white line. I was politely but firmly requested to re-park properly. Grumblingly I complied.
Later, I thought at length about this incident. It was clear to me that such could not have happened in Israel, the seemingly lawless country where drivers routinely cross parking lines, even when this may deprive someone else of a scarce parking space. It was also clear to me why such an incident could have happened in the US but probably not in my home country. With the large-sized population that the US is, no law-and-order could have been maintained unless all members adhere strictly to the democratically formed laws and regulations; And to ensure that— strict enforcing of the law is needed, even when occasionally it contradicts simple and straightforward common sense (as was the case with my ill-fated parking).
Contrast this with my home country, Israel. With its relatively small-sized population, where everyone knows everyone else, Israel has until recently been a land of common sense and personal responsibility, where state-regulating of human inter-relationships was scarcely needed, just as no formal laws are required to regulate relationships within a healthily managed family. The void created by absence of formal regulations for human inter-relationships had been filled, in the just born Israel, by simple and straightforward common sense and a strong sense of personal responsibility. These, I believe, later provided some of the “Infrastructure” for the pop-up of the “Start-up Nation”.
Another example, still current, for the distinction between the two cultures/countries, stemming in my judgement from the same source (population size and other sources, soon to be elaborated on), is personal profiling at airports. While strictly forbidden in the US, Israel Airports Authority, with relevant governmental security agencies, have analyzed real data to ascertain what characterizes a potential terrorist, and accordingly has developed a system of personal profiling that delivers unequal treatment to people boarding a flight. Common sense, supported by evidence provided by statistical analysis and expert opinions, has again gained upper-hand while defying an accepted norm (“all human-beings are created equal”), often reflected in the formality of the law.
Those times, when inter-relationships among members of the Israeli society were “regulated” by common sense and personal responsibility, those days seem to have changed dramatically in recent years. For me personally, this was brutally and suddenly manifested some years ago when the Knesset (Israeli parliament) passed a law that required employers to provide chairs for employees serving at exit payment counters. That such a law was needed was for me a source of great sadness and disappointment; And the start of a thought process regarding the transformation that Israel is being currently going through.
How has this happened? How has Israel transformed from a land of common sense and personal responsibility to a fortress of formal law and regulation?
There are four sources for this transformation.
The first turning point, I believe, was the judiciary revolution, implemented one-sidedly by the Israeli Supreme Court, starting in the early eighties of the last century. Probably the immediate trigger for this revolution was the loss of trust on the part of the Israeli public in the ability of its leadership to provide personal security (namely, taking correct decisions facing the active animosity of Israel’s neighbors). With the disaster of the Yom Kippur War (1973), and later the entanglement of the IDF in Lebanon following the First Lebanon War (1982), loss of public trust in Israeli leadership created leadership vacuum into which the then president of the Israeli Supreme Court stepped, implementing gradual historically well-defined changes that drastically shifted the balance of power between the legislative and the judicial branches of government. Good reviews of these developments have been recently delivered by Tel-Aviv University Law Professor Daniel Friedman and by radio host Yoram Sheftel (both Hebrew).
Concurrently with this re-balance of distribution of power, various new legal concepts started to appear that have migrated responsibility for inter-relationships amongst members of the Israeli society from the personal sphere to the formal comfortable environment of the court of law. Time-honored concepts, representing recognized violation of the law, like rape, stealing and bribery (via transfer of money), have been enormously expanded in the form of new ambiguous concepts like “sexual harassment”, “Deception” and “Breach of Trust”, traditionally considered to reside in the realm of morality-oriented human relationships. Possible deviations from accepted social norms suddenly could find repair not in the realm of personal responsibility, human inter-relationships and common sense, but rather relegated to the judicial system, where loosely-defined concepts could unrestrainedly and loosely be implemented in order to bring individuals before a court of justice. An over-riding term in this new world order is Ha-Kol Shafit (“All is judgeable”, namely, any issue can be brought before the Supreme Court).
To appreciate the severity of this development, the shift from personal responsibility to the dominion of state-law, one needs only view Israeli news bulletins on main Israeli TV outlets: One often sees individuals being interviewed, with face covered and voice distorted, spewing out personal recriminations (against other individuals), which, instead of being straightened-out where they belong, namely, in the realm of personal responsibility and responsible inter-relationships, ultimately find their way to a court of justice.
But there is another deeper source for the transformation that the Israeli society has undergone, escaping from common sense and personal responsibility to the safe and re-assuring warm shelter of the formalities of the law. That source had already been well articulated long ago by the Jewish psychologist and intellectual Erich Fromm (1900-1980) in his book Escape from Freedom (known in Britain as Fear of Freedom).
With the cumulative fatigue in the Israeli society of the on-going struggle with the active animosity of its Arab neighbors, near and afar, a certain desire for escape-from-freedom, escape from making free-will choices, has taken root. Its most apparent manifestation is the growing desire to treat moral free-will decisions the same way that one treats “Law of Nature”. We all live in two worlds, the “World of Law of Nature”, where law violation is immediately penalized (try defying the gravitation law‼), and the “World of Randomness”, where no law of nature is seemingly active so that free-will can be exercised. Human relationships mostly belong to the latter. When we relinquish the authority to make decisions regarding human inter-relationships to state law, we move free-will decisions from the “World of Randomness”, where they belong, to an artificially created duplicate of the “World of Law of Nature”— the “World of State Law”, where no free-will needs to be exercised. Thus, state law is inserted into a sphere where it does not belong, the “Randomness” sphere, eliminating the need to exercise free-will. How convenient and comfortable, in the age of the smartphone and the fading need for personal contacts, to treat human relationships and personal moral decisions as though they are subject to some “Law of Nature”, only this time in the form of “State Law”.
Escaping into the shelter of state law and regulation, where someone else makes decisions for us according to how much the latter have been violated, this transition into escapism has transformed the Jewish state from a land of common sense to a bastion of formalities, where personal morality, free-will and common sense are substituted by state law.
There is a fourth dimension to this transformation (besides the judicial revolution, the fatigue generated from neighbors’ animosity and the human-natural escapism from free-will). The Jewish people has, throughout history, been willingly bound by its covenant with the Divine, as articulated in the Torah and later continuously repeated by the Jewish prophets: “And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation…” (Exodus 19:6); “You are my witnesses, says Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen…”..”therefore you are my witnesses, says Jehovah, and I am God” (Isaiah 43:10,12). A dramatic change has occurred in the eighteenth century and later, with the enlightenment movement in Europe that emphasized reason and science, and with the Jewish emancipation, when Jews finally were recognized as entitled to equality and to citizenship rights.
As a result of these and some other factors that played role in the secularization of the Jewish people, most Jews in Israel today conduct a secular way of life. Under the umbrella of the Jewish faith, there is Divine demand to conduct moral life associated with free-will: “I call heaven and earth to witness this day against you that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse, therefore choose life that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19). With this Divine command, for moral personal relationships out of free choice, vanishing (in Israeli secular society), what is the alternative for the secular Jew? The solution is genius: Treat decisions you have to make in the “World of Randomness”, where free-will should be exercised, as though they belong in the “World of Law”, albeit not “World of Law of Nature” but rather “World of State Law”. This elegant and all-encompassing solution, a pale substitute to the Divine command, allows the non-believing Jew escape from personal freedom-of-choice, mandated within the Jewish faith, into the comfort of non-free-choice, as it exists in the world of “Law of Nature” and mimicked via “Law of State”.
A good illustration for the escape from “Divine Command” into “State Command”, exercised in the secular Israeli society (and indeed in all Western democracies), is provided by a comparison of slander laws in the two spheres (Jewish faith and a Western-style democracy). While Jewish law defines slander as negatively talking truth about a third side (Leshon Ha-Ra), state law defines slander as making negative false assertions (about a third person). Personal moral responsibility, empowered as Divine command (Torah slander), is replaced by state-law slander, a variant of “Deception”, as a legitimate basis for a legal procedure. Personal responsibility in human inter-relationships gives way to the formality of the law.
These four sources, the judicial revolution, fatigue from the need to make free-will choices confronting the on-going animosity of neighbors, and a resort to escape-from-freedom, strengthened within the Israeli secular society by abandoning the Divine command to exercise personal moral free-will (“therefore choose life”), all these developments have transformed Israel, from the land of common sense and personal responsibility, it once was, to the embodiment of state-law formalities that, to a large extent, it currently is.
Recognizing this reality may be a first step towards a desirable reverse transformation.
****************************************
This post appears on Times of Israel:
It is given below (for better readability).
_______________________________________________________________
The response to this intriguing question/title may surprise you — “Do Not Steal” does not appear at all in the Ten Commandments; At least, not in the conventional sense.
Jewish scholarship has unanimously agreed, throughout the generations, that the Eighth Commandment (“Do not Steal”) refers solely to “stealing souls”, namely, capturing (taking hostage) of fellow human beings. Rashi (1040-1105), the most revered of Jewish Bible commentators, starts his explanation of “Do not steal” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17) in no ambiguous words, consistent with how the Talmud perceives this commandment:
“The written speaks of one who steals souls”.
This interpretation relies on the position of this commandment relative to the two preceding ones, the sixth commandment (“Do not murder”) and the seventh (“Do not commit adultery”); However, it mostly relies on other verses in the Torah, where the concept of “stealing a person for sale” is addressed. For example (bold mine):
- “He that steals a man and sells him, and found in his hand, shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:16);
- “If a man be found stealing a soul of his brethren of the Children of Israel and deals with him as a slave, or sells him, then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from amongst you” (Deuteronomy 24:7).
This teaches us of the severity of the Eighth Commandment (“Do not steal”), implying thereby that “Do not steal” in the Ten Commandments could not possibly relate to stealing of property.
Does this imply that prohibition on stealing in the conventional sense, namely, stealing property, does not appear in the Ten Commandments?
Not exactly‼
True, Torah does not explicitly prohibit stealing (in the conventional sense). But it alerts us against harmful one-sided human relationship, the real root-cause of stealing, which may, often inevitably and inescapably, lead to “stealing”:
“Coveting, or desiring, that which is not yours”.
Therefore, the Torah prohibits coveting, root-cause of stealing, in the most expansive and all-inclusive sense of the word (the Tenth Commandment):
- “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maiden servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s” (Exodus 20:14);
- “Neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor’s wife Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s house, his field or his manservant or his maidservant, his ox or his ass or anything that is thy neighbor’s” (Deuteronomy 5:18).
******************************
* “Shorty” is a short post
This post displays links to mass-media reports about Professor Haim Shore research on the Bible and on biblical Hebrew (English and Hebrew only; based on Internet search).
All reports not initiated by me (except for the pioneering report, the 2009 Jerusalem Post’s) :
- Computer Points to Single Author for Genesis_The New York Times_November 8 1981
-
Mere Coincidence or Divine Truth?_Yocheved Miriam Russo_December 3 2009
-
The Scientific Foreknowledge of the Jewish Sages_Rabbi Adam Jacobs_January 13 2012
-
Coincidences in the Bible_Dr. Claude Mariottini (Professor of Old Testament)_January 17 2012
This post describes surprising commonalities in personal physical traits, middle names and biographies of two pairs of figures — a biblical pair (Ishmael and Esau) and current-day political pair (President Obama and President Trump). Hard to believe!
Who was Ishmael?
“Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, bore him no children and she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar. And Sarai said to Abram: “Behold now, Jehovah has restrained me from bearing, I pray thee, sleep with my maidservant, perhaps I can build a family through her; and Abram obeyed to Sarai’s voice…and Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave his son’s name, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael” (Genesis 16:1-2; 16:15);
Who was Esau?
“Isaac prayed to Jehovah on behalf of his wife, because she was barren, and Jehovah answered his prayer and his wife Rebekah became pregnant… When the time came for her to give birth, behold, there were twins in her womb. The first to come out was red all over like a hairy garment, and they called his name Esau; After that came out his brother, and his hand grasping Esau’s heel, and he called his name Jacob” (Genesis 25:21,24-26).
In Jewish tradition, descendants of Ishmael are identified with followers of the Islam faith; Descendants of Esau are identified with followers of the Christian faith. Both assertions are rooted in Jewish sources, based on verses that appear in the Jewish Hebrew Bible (particularly those of the Jewish prophets).
Two descendants of Ishmael and Esau, respectively, play a major role in how Jewish scholarship has perceived the relationships being shaped-up throughout history between the Jewish people and followers of Islam and Christianity:
* Kedar, second son of Ishmael:
“These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth, the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel,..” (Genesis 25:13); “These are their generations: The firstborn of Ishmael Nebaioth, and Kedar, and Abdeel…” (1 Chronicles 1:29);
* Amalek, grandson of Esau, son of Eliphaz (the second son of Esau):
“And Esau’s son, Eliphaz, also had a concubine named Timna, who bore him Amalek..” (Genesis 36:12); “The sons of Eliphaz: Teman and Omar, Zepho and Gatam, Kenaz and Timna and Amalek” (1 Chronicles 1:36).
In Genesis 36:40-43, heads of families belonging to descendants of Esau (Alufim) are enumerated, name by name. The tenth on the list is Magdiel (literally, “Increasing God”). Rashi (1040-1105), the most revered of Jewish Bible interpreters, explains “This is Rome” (referring to the ancient Christian Roman Empire and its historic derivatives).
In this post, we outline stunning common features shared by Ishmael and Esau, on the one hand, and, respectively, the 44th and 45th presidents of the United States — Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) and Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946).
The post is divided into four parts:
- Common personal physical traits;
- Middle names (of President Obama and President Trump);
- Continents and countries of origin (parents or grandparents);
- Birthplace of ancestors
(all personal data below, on the lives of the two presidents, are extracted from Wikipedia)
1. Common personal physical traits
* Ishmael: The Bible does not specify that Ishmael was dark-skinned. Probably he was for two reasons:
- His biological mother, Hagar, was Egyptian (namely, of African descent);
- His second son, Kedar, has a name that its root in biblical Hebrew means.. dark or become darkened. This meaning appears in seventeen different words in the Jewish Hebrew Bible. Examples:
- “For this shall the earth mourn and the sky above be darkened (Ve-Kadrou Hashamayim)..” (Jeremiah 4:28);
- “Before them the earth shakes, the sky trembles, the sun and the moon are darkened (Kadarou)..”, “The sun and the moon are darkened (Kadarou)..” (Joel 2:10, 4:15, respectively);
The same meaning regarding Kedar is also imparted by the following verse from Song of Songs (1:5):”Dark I am, yet lovely, O daughters of Jerusalem, dark like the tents of Kedar, like the tent curtains of Solomon”. Tent, in biblical Hebrew, often means family, like in (Jeremiah 30:18): “Thus said Jehovah, Behold, I will bring back the captivity of Jacob’s tents and have mercy on his dwelling places..”.
* Esau: As the quote above regarding Esau implies (Genesis 25), Esau was probably red-headed.
* President Obama: Dark-skinned;
* President Trump: Red-headed (see Wikipedia, entry: “List of redheads”; note that list is sorted by first name).
2. Middle names (President Obama and President Trump)
* Ishmael: As noted earlier, in Jewish Bible-related scholarship descendants of Ishmael are followers of Muhammad (founder of the Islamic faith). As testified by Maimonides (1135 or 1138 to 1204), in his letter to the Jews of Yemen, Muhammad himself was a descendant of Kedar, second son of Ishmael. Let us address the related name Hussein. Wikipedia assets that “This name was not used in the pre-Islamic period and is recorded to have been first used by the Islamic prophet Muhammad when he named his grandson Hussein ibn Ali, saying he had been commanded to do so by Allah through the archangel Gabriel”;
* Esau: As noted earlier, in Jewish Bible-related scholarship descendants of Esau are followers of Jesus Christ (source of the Christian faith). Let us address the related name John. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (entry “John”), addresses eight religious figures that are central to the development and maintenance of the Christian faith, among them, “John the Baptist (died c. 30 AD), regarded as a prophet and the forerunner of Jesus Christ; John the Apostle (c. 30 AD), one of the twelve apostles of Jesus; John the Evangelist, assigned author of the Fourth Gospel, once identified with the Apostle; John of Patmos, the author of the Book of Revelation, once identified with the Apostle; John the Presbyter, a figure either identified with or distinguished from the Apostle, the Evangelist and John of Patmos; Pope John, several popes”.
In other words: The names Hussein and John are deeply embedded in the founding figures of the Islamic faith and of the Christian faith, respectively.
* President Obama: His middle name is Hussein;
* President Trump: His middle name is John.
3. Continents and countries of origin (parents or grandparents)
* Ishmael‘s biological parents, Avram and Hagar, were born in two different continents: Avram was born in Asia (Terach, Avram’s father, lived in Ur Kasdim, modern day Iraq); Hagar, the Egyptian, was born in Africa;
* Esau‘s parents, Isaac and Rebecca, were born in two different countries (regions), in the same continent, Asia: Isaac was born in Canaan; Rebecca was born in Aram Naharaim, modern day Iraq (Genesis 24:10). Both regions are on the same continent, Asia;
* Obama‘s parents were born in two different continents: His father, Barack Obama Sr. (1936-1982), was born in Kenya, Africa; His mother, Ann Dunham (1942-1885), was born in Wichita, Kansas, USA, North America.
* Trump‘s grandparents were born in two different countries, in the same continent, Europe: “Trump’s ancestors originated from the German village of Kallstadt in the Palatinate on his father’s side, and from the Outer Hebrides in Scotland on his mother’s side. All of his grandparents and his mother were born in Europe” (Wikipedia, entry “Donald Trump”).
4. Birth place of ancestors
* Esau: A descendant of Esau is Amalek (see references in the Bible, as earlier quoted). Amalek represents the ultimate anti-thesis to the Jewish faith. While all monotheistic faiths believe that every occurrence on Earth is in the hands of the Divine (“All is in the hands of God except for the fear of God”), Amalek philosophy is that all is coincidental, random (read reference to this point in my book “Coincidences in the Bible and in biblical Hebrew”, subsection 16.2 and also Example 2 in subsection 3.3). A descendant of Amalek is Haman Ha-Agagi (Haman the Agagite), namely Haman of Agag descent (Esther 8:3, 9:24). Agag was the king of Amalek, obviously a descendant of Amalek (1 Samuel 15:8). Haman, a descendant of Amalek, had plotted “to destroy, to kill and to annihilate all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, namely, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to take the spoil of them for plunder” (Esther 3:13)…and the king and Haman sat down to drink…” (Esther 3:15).
However, this time the plot to exterminate the Jewish people in “One day” was thwarted.
The term Germamia appears in the Talmud (Gemara, Megilla 6b), where Rabbi Yitzak explains a verse from Psalms (140:9), stating, based on oral Jewish tradition, “this is Germamia of Edom”. Rashi (1040 –1105), a most revered Jewish interpreter of the Hebrew Jewish Bible, has made this statement by Rabbi Yitzak, over half a millenium later, more explicit: “Germamia is name of a kingdom and it is from Edom”.
The Gra (Vilna Gaon, 1720-1797) and Rav Yaakov Emden (1697-1776) suggested that Germamia was a spelling mistake, caused while manually copying the Talmud from generation to generation, and that the correct word is Germania. This implies that the Gemara is speaking not of some unidentifiable nation, as Rashi suggested at the time, but of the very well-known nation of Germany (Germania in modern-day Hebrew). It is a long held Jewish tradition, starting with the Gra, that descendants of Amalek intermingled into the German nation, which is perhaps the reason Rav Chaim Zonnenfeld refused to meet with Kaiser Wilhelm II in Jerusalem, during the latter’s visit to Eretz Yisrael in 1898.
It is indeed hard to digest that this nation, some of whom are (according to long held Jewish tradition) descendants of Amalek, grandson of Esau, has succeeded in a plot against the Jewish nation, where Haman (a biblical figure, a descendant of Amalek) had failed. It is perhaps no less astounding that a name, similar to modern day Germany, is mentioned in that part of Gemara dealing with Esther, the book of the Bible where the story of Haman and his plot against the Jewish nation is unfolding.
In conclusion, we note here that in this post we have included only “Commonalities” that have passed the test of political correctness, and also such that do not constitute, in any shape or form, a possible offense to either presidents.
President Obama and President Trump, during their tenure, respectively, as presidents of the United States, have been continuously monitored by the international media, with a magnifying glass, with regard to their relationship to current-day ultimate representative of the Jewish people — the State of Israel.
This post may teach us that perhaps there may be some good hidden reason for that.
Link to my new post on The Times of Israel Blogs:
Personal Rebellion — Re-balancing “Judge” and “King”
In this new book, “Words of Wisdom and Experience”, I have assembled posts published on “Professor Haim Shore Blog” starting July, 2010. The e-book will periodically be updated as more posts are added (see list of books on Professor Haim Shore books on Amazon)
From the Preface to the book:
“This compendium of essays is divided into three parts:
- Part I: On God, Bible and biblical Hebrew
- Part II: Personal Lessons on Life;
- Part III: Personal Lessons on Statistics.
I hope that reading the book the reader may benefit from these words of wisdom and experience, wisdom of mainstream Jewish Bible scholars, past and present, and my own cumulative life experience.”
A link to the book on Amazon:
Categories
Shorty*: What Do We Know of God?
*Shorty is a short post
This eternal question has been the focus of human endeavors for millennia. Prophet Isaiah delivers a succinct answer to it, describing his vision of the Seraphim crying to each other, saying:
“…Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh (Holy, Holy, Holy) is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his Kavod (Glory)” (Isaiah 6:3).
Based on this verse from the Bible, a Jew prays several times a day in the most sacred part of the daily prayer (Tefilat Shmona-Esre): “You are Kadosh and your name is Kadosh”.
However, the English translation of Kadosh (holy) fails to deliver the full scope of the meaning of the Hebrew-language root K.D.S (ק.ד.ש), source of Kadosh. When a Jewish groom marries his loved one, he recites under the Bridal Canopy (Chuppah), as he places a ring on her finger:
הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לִי בְּטַבַּעַת זוֹ כְּדַת משֶׁה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל
(“With this ring, you are consecrated (Mekudeshet) to me according to the law of Moses and Israel”).
The translation is somewhat misleading: there is no intention to state that the bride becomes sanctified, or holy. Rather, that the bride becomes separated, namely, unavailable and inaccessible to other men. Indeed, when we examine various biblical uses of the root K.D.S, this interpretation keeps resurfacing. For example:
“And you shall be holy (Kedoshim) to me for I the Lord am holy (Kadosh) and have separated you from the peoples to be mine” (Leviticus 20:26).
Kadosh simply means separated.
But what does it mean that God is separate? Separate from what?
The first verse of Genesis says it all:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
With these seven non-ambiguous Hebrew words, the Bible declares, in its first verse, that pantheism (“God and the world are one”) is null and void:
In the beginning, God has created the spiritual world (“Heavens”) and the physical world (“Earth”); Therefore, God cannot be part of the created. God is separate (Kadosh) and beyond.
This fundamental tenet of the Jewish faith is well rooted in the Torah and in various Jewish interpretations delivered by Jewish rabbis over the ages. Let us address two examples:
Example [1]: One of the Hebrew names for God is “The place (Ha–Makom)”. This bizarre term originated in the following verse, part of the Divine response to Moses request “Show me thy glory (Kevodchah)” (Exodus 33:18):
“And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place with me and thou shall stand upon a rock…; and I will cover thee with my hand while I pass by and I will take away my hand and thou shall see my back but my face shall not be seen” (Exodus 33:21-23).
Jewish rabbis explain the “place”:
(שהוא מקומו של עולם, ואין עולמו מקומו” (בראשית רבה סח, ט”
(“That He is the place of the world, but not the world His place”; Bereshit Rabbah 68:9).
Example [2]: By similar vein:
“..I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee…And He said, thou cannot see my face for no man shall see me and live” (Exodus 33:18-20).
In other words: Seeing God (“my face”) is impossible while we live. No knowledge of God Himself is possible.
We now understand why the Seraphim in Isaiah’s vision turn to God by His most important and significant name, Kadosh, namely separate and beyond His creation.
And that is all we know about God.
Humans cannot know anything else. All other biblical Hebrew names for the Divine, supposedly describing God, are indeed mere coins for observable modes of Divine leadership, via which God sustains and manages His creation; And these modes are all observed post factum, as accurately conveyed in the Bible (“thou shall see my back but my face shall not be seen”).
We, mere mortals, have to make do with this important message and fundamental distinction, expressed so explicitly by the very first verse of Genesis (and repeated elsewhere as we have demonstrated):
God is not part of the world. There was creation: God created the non-physical (“Heavens”) and He created the physical (“Earth”). Therefore, God is Kadosh (separate) and His name is Kadosh.
In this post I attach a selection of my “Posts”, published in Maariv La-Noar during the period 1963-1965, when I was 16 to 18 years of age.
Maariv La-Noar is a youth journal, affiliated to Maariv, one of the largest dailys in Israel. Its readership are youngsters aged 14-18, and when I was that age it appeared weekly. The journal was supported by a team of volunteering youth-correspondents, some of whom were later to become professional journalists, play directors and even politicians (like Yossi Beilin).
I was one of this team, and as team members we were periodically assigned missions, like conducting interviews, writing opinions on certain topics of the editor’s choice and else.
A major section in Maariv La-Noar was Niv Alumim, where teenagers could write short items on a subject of their choosing, provided it was potentially of interest to others (like nowadays “Posts”, a concept not yet known at the time).
Attached below is a selection of these “Posts”, written by me during 1963-1965:
(Related post: The Hidden Message of the First Chapter of the Bible )
This famous verse from the first chapter of Genesis, referring to parts of Creation, appears therein, with variations, six times. It appears a seventh time as the act of Creation is drawn to its conclusion:
“And God saw everything that He has made, and, behold, Tov Meod (“it was very good”)” (Genesis 1:31).
These translations from the original biblical Hebrew, and as the original verses have been universally interpreted over the generations, both within Judaism and outside, are probably incorrect on three counts:
- They are inherently illogical and inconsistent;
- They constitute desecration of the Divine and defamation of God’s name;
- They are inconsistent with numerous other verses in the Hebrew Jewish Bible, where Ki Tov is interpreted differently, however with a unique and consistent meaning.
In this post, we first explain these three seemingly outrageous claims. Later we detail our own personal understanding of what these verses of Genesis 1 really mean. Finally, we address the astounding lesson that the Torah attempts to convey to us in its detailed tale of the Divine act of Creation, accompanied by “God has seen Ki Tov” or “God saw… and behold Tov Meod”.
We start with the first claim: Why are traditional interpretations of these verses illogical and inconsistent?
To understand this, we need to perform a formal analysis of what “Good” really means. First, note that Genesis “Good” is devoid of any moral judgment. “God saw the light that it was good” (Gen. 1:4) does not carry any moral perspective; Rather, “Good” here resembles, and is indeed compatible with, the definition of “Good” as used in quality engineering (which is my profession). To declare a produced item (or delivered service) “Good”, we require that two conditions/requirements be met:
- That the item conforms to certain pre-conceived and precisely-articulated technical specifications;
- That said specifications conform to all requirements that the product has been designed to fulfill.
When at least one of these conditions is violated— the item at hand cannot be denoted “Good” (though in traditional quality-control parlance it may be called “conforming” if it satisfies the first condition). With regard to both requirements, denoting “something” as “Good” is senseless, and inherently illogical and inconsistent, if there is no standard to compare it with.
Does God have a standard for “Good”, so that He can declare, regarding His creation— Ki Tov (“that it was good”)?
This is a preposterous suggestion. Our very concept of God implies that God is source for all “Goodness”. This is clearly validated, in an extreme fashion, in the Torah, as God responds to Moses request: “Show me your Kavod” (“Show me thy glory”; Genesis 33:18). The Divine response:
“…I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of Jehovah before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and show mercy on whom I will show mercy… (Exodus 33:19-20)
“God”, by definition, does not have a standard by which to judge whether “something” He has created, or has done, is good or otherwise; Especially so given that all that exists is, per Genesis, the result of Divine creation. Interpreting, indeed translating, from biblical Hebrew that “God saw that it was good” is therefore senseless and utter nonsense!!
This brings us to the second claim, tightly connected to the first: If our concept of God as source of all goodness holds true, then the idea of God judging the created as “Good” constitutes, by an inescapable logical conclusion, desecration of the Divine and defamation of God’s name.
We will address the third and last claim, articulated earlier, while working out what we believe is the correct interpretation of the current (wrongly translated) “Elohim saw that it was good”. To do that, we look for other verses in the Jewish Hebrew Bible that are carrying formal resemblance to the verses in Genesis, or use the exact same non-conventional combination of the Hebrew words— Ki Tov.
We start with analyzing what “God Saw” really means. We first note that interpreting “God saw” in Genesis as a standalone, linguistically separate from what follows (Ki Tov; Gen. 1: 10, 12, 18, 21, 25), this phenomenon is not at all rare in the Jewish Hebrew Bible. It appears in multiple other verses, where a certain human action is attributed to God without specifying the object of the action. Examples:
- “…I will now go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry that has reached me, and if not, I will know” (Genesis 18:20-21); Know what?
- “And God saw the children of Israel and God knew.” (Exodus 2:25); Knew what?
In these verses and others, human actions are attributed to the Divine without specifying what was the object of the Divine action. Therefore “God saw”, without qualifying words of what God saw, is consistent with other verses in the Bible.
Secondly, addressing the “humanized” Divine seeing, we recall at least four instances where “God saw”:
- “Va-Yar Jehovah (and Jehovah saw) that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that all the impulse of the thoughts of his heart was evil all day long” (Genesis 6:5);
- “And Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men were building” (Genesis 11:5);
- “And Jehovah said, because the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is very grievous, I will now go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry that has reached me, and if not, I will know” (Genesis 18:20-21);
- “And Jehovah said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry…” (Exodus 3:7);
In these particular verses, God is looking over the affairs of humankind, ultimately resulting in Jehovah’s intervention to correct that which had been twisted by human actions. These verses are obvious examples of Divine Providence, the Divine watching to see what transpire in His creation, and as needed intervenes.
Why should “God saw” in Genesis Creation be interpreted differently, even though this time Divine Providence applies not to human actions but to parts of Creation of Heaven and Earth and, finally, to Creation as a whole?
Thirdly, and most importantly, we search for other instances where the unique combination Ki Tov appears. The latter appears in the Bible (apart from Genesis 1) sixteen more times, all in a single idiom, with variations. Examples:
- “O give thanks to Jehovah Ki Tov (“for He is good”); for His steadfast love endures forever.” (Psalms 107:1; 136;1; Chronicles 1 16:34);
- “And they sang responsively in praising and giving thanks to Jehovah Ki Tov (“for He is good”); for His steadfast love endures forever…” (Ezra 3:11);
- “ ..and praised Jehovah, saying, Ki Tov (“for He is good”); for His steadfast love endures forever…” (Chronicles 2 5:13);
- “ ..they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement.. and praised Jehovah, saying, Ki Tov (“for He is good”); for His steadfast love endures forever” (Chronicles 2 7:3);
- “Halleluiah (“Praise God”) Ki Tov (“for He is good”), sing praise to our God for it is pleasant…” (Psalms 147:1).
We realize that when the combination Ki Tov appears elsewhere in the Jewish Hebrew Bible, preceded by a mention of “God”, it invariably has one meaning: “For God is good”. Furthermore, in all these instances Ki Tov appears in a sentence having common structure, namely, a first part relating to God, a second part comprising only the two words— Ki Tov. And these qualifying words refer to the present goodness of God. Consistently.
Why should Ki Tov be interpreted differently in Genesis creation story?
The implication of the new interpretation is staggering. Let me explain why.
Jewish scholars have consistently and insistently preached, throughout centuries of Bible-based Jewish scholarship, that there are two sorts of leadership by which God leads His world:
* Via Law-of-Nature (Genesis 8:22; This leadership is denoted Elohim);
* Via Divine intervention (looking over what transpires in His world and occasionally intervenes in real-time, as the above four examples about Noah’s flood, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorra and Exodus testify; This leadership is represented by Jehovah).
Furthermore, Jewish rabbis have continuously insisted that Divine leadership is ever-present in the created, and if Elohim-Jehovah stopped sustaining His world— all would return to “nothingness” in a blink of an eye. Put differently: God is sustaining creation every single moment, and if He ceased “seeing” His creation, the whole world would collapse at once into Tohu va-Vohu (“without form and void”). Wikipedia, in entry “Divine Providence”, asserts that rabbinic literature, and in particular classical Jewish philosophers, “maintain that divine providence means that God is directing (or even recreating) every minute detail of creation”. The new interpretation of Ki Tov in the first chapter of Genesis obviously is consistent with that credo and support it.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Jehovah is not mentioned explicitly anywhere in describing Genesis creation— God appears therein explicitly only as creator (Elohim). But Jehovah is always there, looking over his creation. With the new interpretation of Ki Tov in Genesis 1 (the only logical and self-consistent possible), a new insight is gained and a powerful lesson:
“God saw, Ki Tov” testifies to the ever presence of Jehovah-Elohim, looking over His creation from the beginning (Be-Reshit), and ever thereafter, because of His goodness (Ki Tov). And when creation is taken in its totality, “behold, Jehovah-Elohim is Tov Meod”.
Comment.
The last verse of Genesis 1 reads (Verse 31):
“And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good..”.
This verse seems to defy everything written in the post.
It is not.
The reason is that this is an inaccurate translation of the original Hebrew text. An accurate translation is:
“And God saw all that He had done, and behold, very good..”.
Why an accurate translation is important? For two reasons:
1. In Judaism there is distinction between four “Worlds”: “World of Atzilut“, “World of Creation“, “World of Making (Forming)“, “World of Doing“. Prophet Isaiah details this distinction in his prophecy (Isaiah 43:7 and elsewhere):
“All that is called by my name and for my glory have I created it, have I made it, yea, I have done it”.
We, human beings, live in the worlds of making and doing. The original Hebrew text (Genesis 1:31) refers specifically to doing (not making).
2. In the original Hebrew text (Genesis 1:31), there is no indication that “very good” refers to what God had done (the word “it” does not appear therein). Therefore, I am of the opinion that here, as in previous verses of Genesis 1, “good” and “very good” refer only to God, from a human perspective.
And in compliance with the new interpretation presented in the post..
A new post on Times of Israel:
Link to podcast-audio:
“Kavod – the most peculiar word in biblical Hebrew” (Podcast-audio)
Kavod in modern Hebrew means honor, respect or glory. A person may show Kavod to his fellow human being, and a military medal of honor, bestowed unto a military service person, is a medal of Kavod (Ot Kavod).
The word appears in the Jewish Bible no less than 199 times. Numerous times it appears therein in the same sense as in modern spoken Hebrew. Examples:
- “Akhan, My son, give, I pray thee, respect to Jehovah, God of Israel..” (Joshua 7:19);
- “And on that day it shall come to pass that the glory of Jacob shall fade..” (Isaiah 17:4);
- “The Heavens declare the glory of God..” (Psalms 19:2).
Yet, this is only one sense with which Kavod appears in the Bible and it is not the most frequent one. A more frequent usage does not relate at all to the created giving glory to the Creator. Rather, it relates to Kavod as intrinsically linked to the Divine. And here we encounter the impossible combination of words:
Jehovah’s Kavod.
What does that mean?
Jewish bible interpreters have attempted, throughout the ages, to impart plausible meaning to this bizarre idiom; however, they have always relied on the traditional sense of “honor” or “respect” or “glory”. In most Bible translations (from biblical Hebrew), “Jehovah’s Kavod” translates into “Jehovah’s glory”.
As we shall soon realize, all those interpretations fall short of satisfactorily explaining most usages of this combination of words in the Jewish Hebrew Bible.
Thus, we are left helpless figuring out and imparting any sensible meaning to this bizarre expression; That is, until we scrutinize instances where it appears, and try to integrate these with scientific knowledge we currently possess about the universe. Once we do that, stunning amazement and deep appreciation for Jehovah’s Kavod follows.
Let us start with a few examples:
- When Moses expresses desire to learn of Jehovah’s ways in leading His world, he asks: “Please show me Kevodcha” (“Your Kavod”). The Divine response: “..I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and show mercy on whom I will show mercy. And He said, thou cannot see my face for no man shall see me and live” (Exodus 33:18-20);
- Prophet Isaiah explains why the world exists (seemingly the only time the Bible relates so explicitly to this question): “All that can be named, by My Name and for my Kavod I have created it, I have formed it, I have even made it” (Isaiah 43:7);
- Prophet Isaiah delivers an account of his vision, hearing the Seraphim crying to each other, saying: “…Holy , Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his Kavod” (Isaiah 6:3).
How can we settle the first example with the last, while they seem so much at odds and unrelated to one another?
In the first example, Moses obviously requests to learn how the Divine is leading His world. While the response Moses gets is unsatisfactory (“I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious”), the Divine response affirms that what Moses really desired in his request (“Show me your Kavod”) is to learn the ways by which God is leading His world. No reference whatsoever to God’s glory, as the latter is seemingly implied by the last example!!
Jewish tradition makes a reasonable distinction between two types of Divine leadership of the universe: By Law-of-Nature and by Divine Intervention (often explicitly expressed on a personal level as Divine Providence, or Hashgachah Pratit).
The former, Law-of-Nature, relates to the Ten Divine “sayings” of Genesis Creation narrative (Genesis 1). Later, after Noah’s flood, God re-assures humankind that Law-of-Nature exists and that it is ever-lasting: “While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night would not cease” (Genesis 8:22).
The latter, Divine Intervention, relates to divine intervention in the world to exercise a system of justice: “..Would not the Judge of all the earth do Justice?” (Gen. 18:25). However, this Divine intervention is mitigated by Divine graciousness and mercy, as the former quote of God’s response to Moses has shown. Furthermore, leadership by Divine intervention is not restricted to the confines of Law-of-Nature; Occasionally, it operates contrary to Law-of-Nature, as the Ten plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7:20-12:30) testify.
Let us assume that indeed Jehovah’s Kavod is an overall term for the two basic Divine leaderships of the universe: By Law-of-Nature and by Divine intervention.
Is there indication for Law-of-Nature in Jehovah’s Kavod?
Is there indication for Divine intervention (or Divine moral code) in Jehovah’s Kavod?
Expressed differently: Can one find evidence, within the term itself, that Jehovah’s Kavod indeed represents the double-faceted Divine leadership of the world?
Surprisingly, the answer is a resounding YES.
Let us address the former first. As quoted earlier, prophet Isaiah describes his vision of Seraphim crying to each other, saying: “the whole Eretz is full of his Kavod.” (Isaiah 6:3). However, as addressed in my book (Section 14.1, p. 201), Eretz (earth in biblical Hebrew) implies either “world” or “Earth”. Given current scientific knowledge, we may therefore re-translate Isaiah thus: “..Holy , Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole universe is permeated with his Kavod.” (Isaiah 6:3).
Is there any hint in Jehovah’s Kavod for Law-of-Nature, something that, by modern science, permeates the whole universe?
We can think of one answer only:
The gravitation force!! (in modern spoken Hebrew, force of Kevidah).
By Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the gravitation field, generated by any celestial mass (like galaxies and stars), determines the most fundamental properties of the four-dimensional space-time, as we experience it in daily life and as we observe throughout the universe via astronomy, aided by scientific theory (Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, with succeeding derivatives up to the present Super-string theory). There is indeed nothing else that we can state permeates the whole universe.
And how do we, mere Earth-bound mortals, experience gravitation force?
By feeling that every physical object, large and small, is heavy, carries weight. We nowadays are aware that this sensation of physical articles being heavy is due to gravitation force. That is how we experience it in our every-day life. Additionally, by modern science, we have learned that the gravitation force (indeed gravitational field) determines the fundamental properties of the four-dimensional space-time continuum, in which we live, and the gravitational field indeed permeates the whole universe.
So:
- If Jehovah’s Kavod expresses modes of Divine leadership of the universe (as Moses used the term in his request to God, “Show me thy Kavod”);
- And if one of the two modes of leadership, by Jewish tradition, is Law-of-Nature;
- And if per modern science, the most central and fundamental force-of-nature to determine the basic properties of the space-time continuum, permeating the whole universe, is the gravitation force;
Given all that, does Jehovah’s Kavod in any way points to the gravitational force???
Amazingly, Biblical Hebrew makes the impossible and implausible link between two utterly non-related concepts: Jehovah’s presence in the world via Law-of-Nature, and the most basic force of the universe, the most influential on observed Law-of-Nature, only known by modern science— the gravitation force.
Heavy, in biblical Hebrew, is Kaved (same root as Kavod, implausible as this may sound). Examples (altogether 41 instances of Kaved in the Bible imply heavy):
“Behold, tomorrow about this time I will rain heavy hail, the like of which has not been in Egypt since its foundation until now” (Exodus 9:18,24);
“And now my father had burdened you with a heavy yoke and I will add to your yoke..” (1 Kings 12:11).
We finally address the second question, put forward earlier:
Is Jehovah’s Kavod also indicative of Jehovah’s leadership via Divine intervention, imposing the set of moral Divine commandments via a system of justice operating within the confines of free-will?
The answer is similar to that for the previous question: As Jehovah’s Kavod indicates a major Law-of-Nature (Gravitation Law), so it hints at a major Divine commandment, the fifth commandment, which starts with Kabed (meaning honor):
“Kabed thy father and thy mother” (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16).
We summarize:
- Jehovah’s Kavod, mostly wrongly interpreted to-date as Jehovah’s glory, has been shown in this post to really mean, consistent with Jewish tradition, Jehovah’s double-faceted leadership of the universe;
- It is completely incomprehensible why biblical Hebrew should link “glory” with… ”heavy” (as both derive from same linguistic root);
- Aided by modern science, and pursuing the new interpretation of Jehovah’s Kavod, an incredible link has been established between Kavod and Kaved (both emanating from same biblical Hebrew root);
- Consistent with the new interpretation, Jehovah’s Kavod is appropriately indicative of both force of gravity (leadership by Law-of-Nature) and of the Ten Commandments (leadership by Divine intervention).
Personal confession: Mind boggling…
Comments:
Comment [1] (added April 28, 2019): The three-letter Hebrew root of Kavod (and related words) is “כ.ב.ד” (K.B.D). The gematria value of this root is the same as Jehovah (26). This is perhaps further evidence that Kavod in biblical Hebrew is indeed a general term for all modes by which the Divine manifests its presence in the world.
Comment [2] (added June, 17, 2020): The Coronavirus pandemic, denoted by WHO (World Health Organiztion) — COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease-2019), is indicative of, sounds like — Kavod (a stunning insight by Avinoam Ben-Mordechai); Read a separate post about the pandemic here.
Comment [3] (added June, 19, 2020): In the most prominent biblical demonstration of Divine intervention in the affairs of humankind (Divine leadership, Kavod), the Ten Plagues of Egypt, the word Kavod, with variations, appears Ten Times (within only three chapters!). Five times the word describes, as adjective, four of the plagues (“natural” disasters), stating that they were “heavy”; the other five times, Kavod describes Pharaoh’s “heavy” heart, refusing “Let My People Go”. Here is the list in Exodus (Chapter: Verse):
{ (8:11), (8:20), (8:28), (9:3), (9:7), (9:18), (9:24), (9:34), (10:1), (10:14) }.
Biblical Hebrew offers a fundamental distinction between “Say” and “Speak”. The difference put them worlds apart:
- In “Say” one sends a message in one direction; There is no expectation of a response. “Say” implies sending contents that no doubt will be accepted (by listeners) or implemented. Kings and absolute rulers “Say”. They do not speak. An example: “And God said let there be light and there was light” (Genesis 1:3);
- In “Speak” one sends contents in expectation of a dialogue with the receiver of the message. “Speak” implies an expectation of a listener that reacts and responds. An example: “And God spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am Jehovah” (Exodus 6:2). One wonders why the repetition of “Speak” and “Say”. But there is no redundancy. First— a message is sent to the reader that God started a dialogue with Moses. Then the message itself is said by the supreme ruler.
A byproduct of this distinction, an expression of the unique role of “speak” in biblical Hebrew, is Davar (thing). The latter derives from same root as “speak”. This sends a powerful message that every “thing” in the universe is intended to speak to us. Nothing is “message-less”. All have meaning. And that message speaks unto anyone who wishes to listen and maintains a constructive dialogue with the world and all that it contains. A good example is God Jehovah forming “out of the ground” “every beast of the field and every bird of the air” (Genesis 2:19), bringing them to Adam “to see what he would call them and whatever the man called every living creature that was its name” (Genesis 2:19). Thus, names are not senseless combination of letters but rather expressions of the essence of that which is named. And same goes to every Davar in the universe, defined by a certain combination of letters in biblical Hebrew.
Having elaborated on the distinction between “Say” and “Speak”, one may monitor the evolution of the dialogue of the Divine with mankind. Witnessing the different forces of nature and their seemingly unpredictability (for example, the seemingly random trajectories of the stars in the sky), ancient generations had no choice but to believe that they are helpless living creatures under the control of forces that they cannot understand or maintain dialogue with. The main message of the Torah is that this perception is fundamentally flawed, and it gives a timeline for the evolution from an “incomprehensible world” to a world, the creator of which wishes to listen and to respond.
Certain time-points mark the transition from the one to the other. First, Jehovah God calls unto Adam “Where are thou? (Genesis 3:9). But Adam prefers to hide and not to maintain a dialogue with the Divine because Adam, like most humanity nowadays, does not like anyone to tell him what he is allowed to do and what he is allowed not. This led to a perception of the world as rule-less, in ancient times, or as intervention-less (by the Divine), and ruled only by the mathematical laws of nature, as revealed to us by modern science. But in truth, nothing has fundamentally changed in the basic condition of humankind: Only the randomness of a chaotic world, as perceived by our ancestors, has been replaced by a rule-full world, as described by modern science. But with non-explainable randomness notwithstanding, randomness of a different sort. Seemingly randomness of the observed world of ancient times has been replaced by the inexplicable randomness of current laws of science. For example: The phenomenon of the constant speed of light, as well as the very value of the latter, both remain as mysterious and as random and inexplicable today as were directly observed natural phenomena of ancient times. Seemingly randomness has migrated from the directly observable natural phenomena to the non-observable, but just as random and inexplicable, laws of nature, as articulated by modern science.
To demonstrate to the struggling human species that not all is indeed random and that there is a monitoring authority that is not subject to laws of nature, yet wishes to start a dialogue with us, human beings, the ten plagues of Egypt were initiated and carried out by messengers of the Divine, Moses and his older brother Aaron (starting at Exodus 7:20). The ten interventions of the Divine, as unfolding in Exodus, were meant by Torah to send a single message— The Divine is maintaining a dialogue with us, mere mortals. If only we listen. This dialogue is succinctly summarized in Jacob’s dream (Genesis 28:12):
“And he dreamed and behold a ladder set up on the earth and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it”.
We are reminded that in biblical Hebrew “angel” is malach, namely, a messenger whose only function is to carry a message or carry out a message. For example: “But there came a messenger (“Malach”) to Shaul, saying, “Make haste and come, for the Philistines are raiding the land” (1 Samuel 23:27).
This lends Jacob’s dream a whole new interpretation: Every human being sends messages to Heaven of his/her wishes and desires. Most often, these messages are not expressed explicitly, but at times they do (as in prayer). These messages are “processed” and sent back down to Earth in corresponding Divine messages, to be executed by “descending messengers of God”.
How does Torah make explicit this dream, making clear that the dialogue between Heaven and Earth is a living reality?
By showing that the Divine intervenes in all that occurs on planet Earth, at times even via violating laws of nature.
This had occurred with the ten plagues of Egypt. And to Pharaoh, who had initially stated “Who is Jehovah that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not Jehovah, nor will I let Israel go” (Exodus 5:2), ten Divine interventions sent a clear message, causing Pharaoh to change his stance:
- First, acknowledging Jehovah as a judge of the Earth (“..I have sinned this time: Jehovah is righteous and I and my people are wicked”; Exodus 9:27);
- Eventually, by letting Israel go out of Egypt to worship their Jehovah God, but with a little request: “..Rise up and get you out from among my people, both you and the children of Israel and go serve Jehovah, as you have said, ..and be gone and bless me also” (Exodus 12:31-32).
The ten Divine interventions in Egypt had started, indeed made possible, the process of a dialogue between heavens and earth. Now ten Divine “says” of creation, of the first chapter of Genesis, followed by the Divine seeking a dialogue with humankind (“Where are thou?”), then ten interventions demonstrating that the Divine is not subject to the rule of nature, eventually culminating in ten Divine “speaks”, as manifested in the Ten Commandments:
“And God spoke all these things (Dvarim), saying: “I am Jehovah thy God, who has brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slaves; Thou shall have no other gods beside me.” (Exodus 20:1-3)..”..Thou shall not murder Thou shall not commit adultery Thou shall not steal Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor” (Exodus 20:13).
Below are links to three items moved here from my page on ResearchGate (RG).
The reason for this is that RG weekly summarizes view-statistics of academic units at universities for public display. Since my research on the Bible and biblical Hebrew was conducted privately (not at the department with which I am affiliated at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev), I felt it appropriate that items related to this research would be publicly displayed only on my personal blog.
The decision to move these items to my personal blog is my own. No individual, either within the university or otherwise, has requested me to do so.
Calculation of Average Duration of Lunar Month Based on Ancient Jewish Tradition
- September 2014
- DOI: 13140/RG.2.2.32156.90244
- In book: Hamahapach 4, Edition: 4, Editors: Rav Zamir Cohen
Abstract
This is a contribution (pre-print, in Hebrew) to the upcoming book “Hamahapach 4” by Rav Zamir Cohen (of Hidabrut organization). It shows how, based on ancient Jewish tradition, average duration of lunar month can be calculated to be 29.530594 days vs. NASA’s value of 29.530589 days.
הידברות_משך חודש הלבנה הממוצע על פי היהדות_חיים שור
מקריות בתורה ובלשון הקודש
- May 2013
- In book: Hamahapach 3, Edition: 3, Chapter: Coincidences and Statistics in Torah and in biblical Hebrew, Publisher: Hidabrut, Editors: Rav Zamir Cohen, pp.298-305
Abstract
In this chapter, Prof. Shore describes in popular terms (in Hebrew, with plots) his method of research regarding possible links between numerical values of a set of related biblical Hebrew words and a major physical property shared by all objects that the words represent. More details may be found in: “Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew” by Haim Shore (iUniverse, 2012, 2nd edition). The book may be downloaded free as a PDF file at Haim Shore’s personal blog: “haimshore.wordpress.com”.
הידברות_מקריות בתורה ובשפת הקודש_חיים שור
Coincidences in the Bible and in biblical Hebrew (Three Chapters)
- November 2012
- Edition: 2nd Edition, Publisher: iUniverse
Abstract
This document contains three chapters from Haim Shore’s book: “Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew” (2012, iUniverse USA, 2nd Ed.). The three chapters mostly relate to the statistical aspects of the research results displayed in the book. The book in its entirety may be downloaded, as a PDF file, at: “Professor Haim Shore Blog”. (http://www.haimshore.wordpress.com)
Haim Shore_Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew_2nd Revn_Three Sample Chptrs_2012
The essence of being human is exercising free will. This is the act by which we continuously create ourselves and form our personality and character.
The Divine has created mankind (“So God created mankind in his own image…”, Genesis 1:27); but He has also formed it (“And the Lord God formed mankind of the dust of the ground…”, Genesis 2:7). We, human beings, whether we wish it or not, are doomed throughout our lives to repeat, via exercising free will, the two acts of creating (establishing a solid link between soul and body, while we grow) and forming.
What is the needed environment for human beings to be able to exercise their free-will?
There are two conditions (necessary and sufficient):
[1] Existence of “Good” and “Bad” mixed together (as in “The Tree of Knowledge, good and bad”, Genesis 2:9);
[2] Hidden-ness of God and the concealment of God’s hidden-ness.
Prophet Isaiah delivers succinct and stunning expression to the existence of the first condition:
“That men may know from the rising of the sun to its setting that there is none besides me— I am Jehovah and there is no one else; Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating the bad, I Jehovah am doing all these” (Isaiah 45:6-7).
Note that creating (“something from nothing”) precedes forming ((“imprinting form on the created”), just as forming precedes making. Yet prophet Isaiah sets absence of light (darkness) and the bad (the harmful, the evil) at a level higher than that of light— the former were created, the latter was “just” formed.
Existence of the second condition, a daily human experience revealed in countless debates on whether God exists, is evidenced both by biblical Hebrew and by the Bible. In biblical Hebrew, “World” (Olam) derives from same root as all Hebrew words pointing to concealment. Examples: Ta’aluma (Mystery); He’almut (disappearance); Ne’elam (unknown (noun), as in an algebraic equation); Alum (secret, adj.). In other words, the whole world is testimony to the hidden-ness of God. Prophet Isaiah repeats same motive:
“Indeed, thou are a God who hides thyself, O God of Israel, savior” (Isaiah 45:15).
Concealment of God, however, is itself concealed (“Does God exist?”):
“And I will surely hide my face on that day…” (Haster Astir; Deuteronomy 31:18).
The repeat of same root twice (in two consecutive words) is traditionally interpreted by Jewish scholars as implying concealment of the concealment, an integrated fact of life that we all have probably experienced at one time or another throughout our lives (“Does God exist?”).
Having studied the two conditions for the existence of free-will, the next question to ask is:
What are the limitations to exercising free-will and what does the latter entail?
We continuously live in two worlds, intermingled and most often inseparable and indistinguishable from one another: “World of Law-of-Nature” and “World of Randomness”. We can exercise free-will only in an environment that allows choice, namely, in the “World of Randomness”. Unlike in the “World of Law-of-Nature”, where external constraints force us to behave in certain ways (and not others, namely, no free choice is available), in the “World of Randomness”, where randomness prevails, we are free to exercise whatever our heart desires. It is only then, in the “World of randomness”, that we become an agent of our own free will.
What exercising free-will is comprised of? It comprises two actions:
– Separating;
– Choosing.
We need to separate “Good” from “Bad”, before choosing. Most often in our daily lives, the good and the bad are intermingled to a degree that the two can rarely be told apart; Therefore, we need to separate before choosing. God created darkness (per prophet Isaiah), thereby allowing the good and the bad in our world to co-exist, mixed. Consider the biblical Hebrew word for “evening” (as in “…and there was evening and there was morning…”; Genesis 1:5, for example). The Hebrew word derives from same Hebrew root used for mixing (as in “mixture”). The “Tree of Knowledge good and bad” also implies mixed together. In biblical terms, one may allegorically assert that we all have eaten of “The Tree of Knowledge, good and bad”, where “Good” and “Bad” are mixed together in the same fruit. And since then, “Good” and “Bad” have become intermingled in our body and soul, delivering us our mission in life to grow and mature and create ourselves and form our personality and character, all via the process of separating (“Good” from “Bad”) and then choosing.
The act of separating (good from bad) is two-folded and it is expressed differently in the two worlds we inhabit:
- In the “World of Law-of-Nature”, we need to separate “good” from “bad” because absent this separation we may choose the “bad”, thereby harming our well-being and possibly even endangering our life. Thus, buying fruit in the supermarket, we are careful to separate good apples from the bad ones (rotten apples) so that we can then make the correct choice of purchasing good apples only, benefiting our health and well-being. Separation is also inherent to many of our bodily processes (like in the kidney);
- In the “World of Randomness”, the act of separating good from bad (or “good” from “evil”, as commonly used in biblical parlance) is a much harder task. Unlike in the “World of Law-of-Nature”, where science assists us in forming clear distinction and separation between the good and the bad, we do not easily, clearly and immediately differentiate between the two in the “World of Randomness”. Let us demonstrate with a simple example. I am selling a used car, aware that the car carries a certain defect. I can inform the buyer about it or I can inform her not. In the latter case, the thinking goes like this: “I have allowed the buyer to inspect and check the car thoroughly, have I not? However, the defect was not exposed. It is the buyer’s responsibility to identify the defect, not mine, is it not?”. Such thinking testifies to the daily blurring, in the “World of Randomness”, of “good” and “bad” (or “good” and “evil”, in biblical terms). Therefore, Jewish Torah explicitly instructs: “Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor GIVE a stumbling block to the blind…” (Leviticus 19:14). In other words, one cannot hide behind an argument like the one just articulated. It is the seller’s responsibility to turn the blind into non-blind by alerting the buyer to the car’s defect.
Once we understand the act of separation in the two worlds, and grasp the role of science in assisting us separating in the “World of Law-of-Nature”, how do we separate and choose right in the “World of Randomness”?
Moses, speaking to the Children of Israel on behalf of the Divine, set to them clear separation and clear choice:
* Separation: “Behold, I have given thee this day life and the good, and death and the bad” (Deuteronomy 30:15);
* Choosing: “I call upon heaven and earth to witness this day against you that I have set before thee life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).
Is free-will an endowment of the human species, granted to it for eternity?
Not according to Scripture. The free-will act bestowed on humankind, that of separating and choosing, has a limited life-span. It is not eternal. Time will come when God will reveal Himself and then free-will, by definition, will be no more:
“For then I will convert the peoples to a non-confounded language that they all call upon the name of Jehovah to serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Zephaniah 3:9);
“And Jehovah will be king over all the earth; on that day Jehovah will be one and his name One” (Zechariah 14:7).
Furthermore, not only the task of separating and choosing no longer be in the hands of mankind; At End-Times, the Divine will conduct a process of separation of His own; However, the separation process will not be between “Good” and “Evil” (as the latter exists in the “World of Randomness”), but rather between the righteous and the evil (who exist amidst humankind):
“I will also turn my hand against thee, and will purge away your dross as with lye and remove all thy alloy” (Isaiah 1:25);
“Therefore, thus says the Lord of hosts: Behold, I will smelt them and try them…” (Jeremiah 9:6);
“As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall you be melted in the midst of it…” (Ezekiel 22:22);
“I will bring the third part through the fire, and refine them as one refines silver and test them as one tests gold…” (Zechariah 13:9);
“But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like the washers’ soap; and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver…” (Malachi 3:2);
“Many will be purged, and purified and refined…” (Daniel 12:10).
A possible linkage between biblical Hebrew and physical reality is discussed in this new video, based on lecture delivered by Professor Haim Shore at Bar-Ilan University, November 2015, now with English captions:
Biblical Hebrew Linkage to Physical Reality -Prof. Haim Shore (Hebrew with English captions)
Prophet Ezekiel is prophesying on doomsday destiny of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and on doomsday destiny of Egypt’s ego-centered culture, of which Pharaoh is top representative. Ezekiel quotes the life-philosophy of that culture:
“Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great crocodile who couches within the midst of his streams, who has said “Yeor is my own and I have made myself” (Ezekiel 29:3).
What is the message conveyed by the prophet?
Yeor is biblical Hebrew for the Nile river, source of life that flows throughout Egypt and has enabled, throughout history, flourishing Egyptian civilization and human habitation, even though rain is rare in this geographical region. There is seemingly no need in this region for the grace of the Divine to live (have water). The constantly flowing Nile provides that commodity aplenty throughout the year and no prayer to the Divine for life-giving rain is required. The immediate consequence is this: “Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, nor will I let Israel go” (Exodus 5:2).
Not surprisingly, the life-giving Yeor had been raised by ancient Egyptians to the level of Deity, as told to us by historians of ancient Egypt. Prophet Ezekiel succinctly summarizes the underlying philosophy of the supreme being of Egypt, King Pharaoh: Not only has he raised himself to the level of Deity (“I produced myself”) but he has also made the world in which he lived, the Nile river (“the world of the great crocodile”) his own (“Yeor is my own”). Contrast this with the prevailing Scripture principle: “How manifold are thy works, O Jehovah, in wisdom have you made them all” (Psalms 104:24).
The Land of Israel is diametrically at odds with the Land of Egypt. And the Torah finds it necessary to explicitly state the essential difference in the physical reality encountered by human beings living in the two regions:
“For the land, into which thou go to possess it, is unlike the land of Egypt… where you sow thy seed and water it with thy foot, as in a garden of vegetables; The land, which you transit into to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, by rain of heaven would thou drink water” (Deuteronomy 11:10-12).
Two regions, naturally (but not necessarily) leading to two cultures: One culture expressing no faith in the Divine (“I have produced myself”) or in Divine intervention (“World is my own”); Another based on inherent faith in the Divine and in Divine intervention.
The story of Pharaoh is not singular in the Bible. In fact, its underlying theme resurfaces in three different variations (as will be expounded soon). The background “story” differs between variations. Yet, the underlying theme remains the same, and this same theme has re-surfaced as a major guiding principle in today’s prevailing culture, contrary to what a simple fact-finding exploration might have taught us.
After nearly five hundred years of modern science (starting with its initiators, like Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and Isaac Newton (1642-1727)), and accompanied by advances in technology that have immensely improved our well-being (and occasionally also our “bad-being”), humankind has not moved one iota closer to solving the fundamental mysteries of human existence on Earth, mysteries that confront us every single day of our lives:
* Why are we here?
* Where have we come from and where are we going to (if at all)?
* Why does the world exist?
* How has the universe come into being out of nothing?
* Is there God?
Yet, advances in science and technology (modern day “eating of the fruit of knowledge”) have blinded us to this grim reality and hid it from our vision. Consequently, we find ourselves today unknowingly in the same state-of-mind as were Adam and Eve, as were the builders of the Tower of Babel, as was Pharaoh, king of Egypt:
* Adam and Eve wished to eat of the fruit of knowledge to be Elohim-like (knowing law of nature, thereby controlling nature); Yet they ignored the true name of God, Jehovah-Elohim, which conveys the double-faceted leadership of the Divine in our world. The narrator of the story of the Forbidden Fruit repeats this double-name no less than eleven times, using no other name for the Divine; Yet Eve and the Serpent relate only to Elohim. For not desiring at all to be also Jehovah-like, Adam and Eve were doomed to be expelled from the Garden of Eden, with the Serpent, which can never advance in a straight-line, becoming their permanent escort;
* The people of the city of Babel, led by Nimrod (literally meaning “Let us rebel”; Genesis 10:9-10), have just developed new technologies to rule nature and have proven them viable: “And they said to one another, Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly; And they had brick for stone and slime had they for mortar” (Genesis 11:2). Once the people of Babel have become aware of their newly acquired technological capabilities, allowing control of nature, the immediate aftermath of this realization is not unlike modern day response to current-day scientific and technological advances: “Let us build us a city and a tower whose top reaches Heaven” (Genesis 11:4);
* Pharaoh: “Yeor is my own and I have made myself” (Ezekiel 29:3).
Three biblical stories telling same story in three varieties. They all convey same human condition in which we find ourselves today (only to the extreme), resulting in an identical response:
“World is My Own and I have Made Myself”
**********************************
*Shorty is a short post
How does Scripture relate to killing scenarios (human beings, animals, within and in between) — “Human beings killing human beings”; “Animals killing animals”; “Human beings killing animals”.
What does the Bible declare about all these killing scenarios, at present and in future??
****************************************
Human beings killing human beings. Is this natural?
The Bible is very definite: No!!! And there is cost to be paid!! Scripture provides verses aplenty to drive this home. Examples:
* “Whoso sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has He made man” (Genesis 9:6)
* “Thou shalt not murder…” (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:13)
* “ ..nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:4).
*****************************************************
Animals killing animals. Is this natural?
The Bible is very definite: No!!!
At present, “animals killing animals” is natural, not an anomaly; However, this is so merely for a limited time, just for the time being!!
“Animals killing animals” is, per Scripture, a display of evil, unacceptable and against Divine will. Therefore, in future, when “things” finally fall into their (correct) place, peace prevails and world order restored to its natural course, cruelty of predators (“animals killing animals”) would disappear and predators become plant-eating animals; Or, alternatively, predators themselves would be extinguished from the surface of Earth, leaving to survive only “non-evil” animals:
* “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid…the lion shall eat straw like the ox; the sucking child shall play on the hole of the cobra and the young child put his hand on the viper’s nest; They shall neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the water covers the sea” (Isaiah 11:6-9);
* “Wolf and lamb shall feed together and the lion shall eat straw like the ox and dust will be a serpent’s bread” (Isaiah 65:25);
* “And I will make with them a covenant of peace and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land… “ (Ezekiel 34:25);
*****************************************************
Human beings killing animals. Is this natural?
* “And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed that is upon the face of the whole earth and every tree having fruit yielding seed to you it shall be for food” (Genesis 1:29);
* “..replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Genesis 1:28; refer also to Genesis 9:2);
* “…I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the impulse of man’s heart is evil from his youth…” (Genesis 8:21); And soon thereafter: “Every moving thing that is alive shall be for you to eat; Like the green plants am I giving you all” (Genesis 9:3).
****************************************************
*Shorty is a short post
Below are links to three videos, produced by Avi Ben-Mordechai, following our three-hour talk during the meeting that took place at the office of the university:
Episode 1: https://youtu.be/BnNpyurCTq4
Episode 2: https://youtu.be/25-qKaLqLzk
Episode 3: https://youtu.be/GprBVEYNEsw
Episode 1 maintains a certain line-of-thought conveyed to the viewer from beginning to end. The other two comprise short excerpts from our talk about various subjects that came up during the conversation.
No pre-publication review of the produced videos had been done on my part.
I am indebted to Avi Ben-Mordechai for kindly allowing me to post these videos in public on my YouTube personal channel.
From this post, direct access to Professor Haim Shore posts on The Blogs of The Times of Israel:
My Posts on The Times of Israel.
Enjoy!
Response Modeling Methodology (RMM) is now on Wikipedia!! RMM is a general platform for modeling monotone convex relationships, which I have been developing over the last fifteen years (as of May, 2017), applying it to various scientific and engineering disciplines.
A new entry about Response Modeling Methodology (RMM) has now been added to Wikipedia, with a comprehensive literature review::
Response Modeling Methodology – Haim Shore (Wikipedia).
Introspection of what is occurring within us as we become angry with one we care about delivers best possible opportunity to move from perceiving others as “It” to a corrected perception as “Thou”; Moving from perceiving the not-me as “Ego-Other” to a corrected perception as “Non-Ego Other“.
Some terms in the opening paragraph needs explanation and for that I relate to the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber (1878-1965 ), whose philosophy revolves around two fundamental concepts describing how one may relate to all that surround him/her: “You” (Ata/At) and “That One” (Ha-Laz); Or, in Buber’s terminology, two types of relationships between “I” and the external world:
“I-Thou” and “I-It”.
Since my twin concepts, “Ego-Other” and “Non-Ego Other”, somewhat overlap with those of Buber, I would first explain the two pairs of concepts and then relate to how extremely instrumental they are regarding Tikun (“Correction”), achievable when we become angry with someone we care about; And then, by extension, the Tikun that may prevail in all of our relations with other human beings, including perhaps even those that we “do not so much care about”, namely, total strangers.
Buber distinguishes between two modes of relating to the world around us— “You” and “That One” (in Buber’s parlance, “Thou” and “It”), and he had repeated this distinction on numerous occasions. To understand it more deeply perhaps it is best to quote from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource):
Martin Buber “is best known for his 1923 book, Ich und Du (I and Thou), which distinguishes between “I-Thou” and “I-It” modes of existence…In his later essays, he defines man as the being who faces an “other” and constructs a world from the dual acts of distancing and relating.” Buber’s philosophy “is based on a distinction between two word-pairs that designate two basic modes of existence: “I-Thou” (Ich-Du) and “I-It” (Ich-Es). The “I-Thou” relation is the pure encounter of one’s whole unique entity with another in such a way that the other is known without being subsumed under a universal. Not yet subject to classification or limitation, the “Thou” is not reducible to spatial or temporal characteristics. In contrast to this, the “I-It” relation is driven by categories of “same” and “different” and focuses on universal definition. An “I-It” relation experiences a detached thing, fixed in space and time, while an “I-Thou” relation participates in the dynamic, living process of an “other”… Buber characterizes “I-Thou” relations as “dialogical” and “I-It” relations as “monological.” In his 1929 essay “Dialogue,” Buber explains that monologue is not just a turning away from the other but also a turning back on oneself (Rückbiegung). To perceive the other as an “It” is to take others as classified and hence predictable and manipulable, objects that exist only as part of one’s own experiences. In contrast, in an “I-Thou” relation both participants exist as polarities of relation, whose center lies in the between (Zwischen).”
The concept of the dual relations, “I-Thou” versus “I-It”, is not much different from the dual concept introduced by me in explaining the underlying Five Principles of the Ten Commandments: A “Non-Ego Other” and an “Ego-Other”. Therein I wrote, explaining the meaning of these complementary terms (as used throughout the post):
“To understand the concept of “Non-Ego Other”, it is perhaps best to define the opposite. An “Ego other” is a human being whom one considers an extension of his/her own ego. The epitome for an “Ego other” is a slave. However, “Ego other” may appear in more obscure forms, where the potential exists, like a personal assistant, a subordinate (at work), one’s own child or a spouse. All forms of “Ego other” are morally wrong.”
To merge together the above two definitions of the dual-relation that exists in all forms of our relating to the outside world (human beings included), we summarize it as follows:
- One may relate to another human being as equal to one’s own self. In that case, you perceive the other as whole human being, “Thou” or “Non-Ego Other”, who is deserving of all privileges deemed as inalienable rights to your own self. Two chief consequences of that relationship are “Love thy neighbor as yourself” and “Do not do unto others that which is hateful to you”;
- Or one may alternatively relate to another human being as extension of the ego in the sense that, as we use our hands and legs and voice and other parts of the body to achieve various goals that satisfy the ego, we likewise use other human beings for same purpose. The “Ego-Other” then becomes part of the inventory of means and ways available to the ego to achieve its goals. In that relationship, the “I” is detached from “You”, who then becomes “It”; And the “Non-Ego Other” becomes an ”Ego-Other”.
The best time to witness the two relations co-exist, co-habituate though in the process of replacing one by the other, is when we become angry with one we care about. This is the best time, indeed an opportunity, to realize the difference between “You” and “It”, “Non-Ego Other” vs. “Ego-Other”, so that we may practice, from within ourselves, to eliminate, in each pair, the latter for the former.
What happens to us when we become angry with someone we care about?
First: Detachment. We emotionally detach ourselves from our partner to an “I-You” dialogue so that a replacement, an “I-It” monologue, takes its place. Once detachment is achieved, a process characteristic to “I-It” relation starts: We label, we classify, we become alienated from the “It” while comparing it to other “It”s, and we start considering means and ways to achieve the ego’s objectives against the one who, just a moment prior, has served as “You” in an “I-You” dialogue. The partner to that dialogue, the former “Non-Ego Other”, suddenly becomes an “Ego-Other”, a subject to the ego’s desires through which to achieve its goals (probably of an aggressive nature).
Needless to assert, once again, that a Tikun starts to take place when we eliminate from our inventory of modes of relating to others the “You-It” relationship, the “Ego-Other” perception of our partner to communication and the subject to our responses; And the Tikun is completed once we revoke “I-You” relations with all living entities surrounding us so that only “I-You” relation exists; and only a “Non-Ego Other” is experienced by us in relating to others, and in determining our responses to all forms of communication received by us.
Experiencing the transformation that takes place within ourselves as we transition from a state of “I-You” to a state of “I-It”, from feeling equal to the* “Non-Ego Other” to experiencing the other as an* “Ego Other” (a legitimate target for the ego’s goals), this experience constitutes best opportunity for a personal transformation.
And that transformation may be achieved when, and if, we witness with wide-open eyes the two sorts of relations, the “I-Thou” and the “I-It”, as within ourselves the latter suddenly start replacing the former when we suddenly become angry.
______________
* A widely-known joke about British males is that when British husbands relate to their wives they would utter “The wife”, but otherwise it is “My car”. An excellent opportunity for Tikun..
I do not take responsibility for the authenticity and truth of that joke. However, I can personally bear witness for some grain of truth in it as I once realized, watching on TV an interview with a Royal Navy officer that had served far away from home and asked what he missed most…
**********************************
*Shorty is a short post
The culture of the desert is perhaps the best allegory for the conditions that may ultimately lead to the development of a culture of hatred in human society. The ego operates in two modes:
* Expressing free will (with all its variants);
* Realizing (implementing) free will.
Among others, emotions are an expression of free will. Having the potential to control our emotions by struggling with them and possibly modify them, emotions are part and parcel of the repository of modes by which free will expresses itself. Two potentially devastating expressions of free will are hatred and anger.
Where do they originate?
Anger has been the subject of much discourse in Jewish and non-Jewish scholarship (within science or otherwise), and it seems to be generally accepted that anger is the ego’s major response to blocking/ignoring free will in its two modes of operandi:
- When the ego is obstructed in expressing its free will, either by threat of severe penalty or by rejection by fellow human beings. Typical examples are when the ego believes certain knowledge about reality to be true and significant others reject it as false; or when one’s ego, with all varieties of its expressions, is ignored (by display of indifference);
- When the ego is obstructed in accomplishing its free will, for example, when a certain repair is required (within ourselves or outwardly) and the ego is incapable of accomplishing this repair (Tikun in Hebrew).
Controlling pride is conducive to controlling anger.
Where does hatred originate?
While hatred obviously may be associated with anger, or follow anger, it is a distinct and separate emotion that may express itself detached from any feeling of anger. To understand hatred, I believe that one needs go no farther than understanding the fundamental meaning of “Desert” as epitome for separation (lack of communication) and the resultant hatred.
Why is “Desert” the epitome for a potential culture of hatred?
Living in “Desert” implies living in separate communities, extremely isolated from one another due to harsh nature conditions. In such circumstances, daily communication between communities is rare and hard to come by. This generates a separation between “Us” and “Them”, between “Us” and “Not us” fellow human beings affiliated to “Not us” communities. In an environment of extreme isolation between communities, a sense of suspicion towards the “others”, the “Not us”, is rampant. Lack of daily communication between isolated communities tends to form a natural sense of suspicion and distrust between “Us” and “Them”, a remnant of which we may still see nowadays in the common gesture of hugging each other upon meeting. This gesture, already referred to in Genesis (29:13), originally expressed a fundamental sense of distrust where the hug aimed at finding out whether the seemingly amiable person, who has just arrived to the “Us community”, carried a hidden sword at his back. The hug thus became a sort of ancient extreme vetting, to borrow a modern-day term.
In such an environment of isolation and hostile nature conditions, where lack of daily communication between isolated communities tends to create a culture of suspicion and distrust towards the “Not us”, the path is short to a potential culture of hatred. The ego’s path to acknowledging, being aware of, respecting and accommodating free-wills of “Not us”, this path is blocked. Lack of daily communication may ultimately lead to unrestrained hatred towards the “Other”, embedded in a potential culture of hatred.
The Hebrew language fully support this interpretation for the source of hatred:
- Mount Sinai, where Torah was given to the ancient Israelites, has in Hebrew a connotation of hatred (Sinah in Hebrew). This triggered the following assertion by a Jewish rabbi: “Why Mount Sinai? that this is where hatred descended (unto the world)” (Babylonian Talmud, Masechet Shabbat, Ch. 9).
- Probably not coincidentally, Hebrew for “Other” (Acher) and “Back” (Achor), share the same root in Hebrew. Since Achor is that part of the body that one can see only when the face cannot be seen, the Hebrew language links “back” to “other” and denotes the latter— Acher, namely, the one whose “face” (Panim, written like Pnim, “inside”) cannot be accessed (probably due to lack of communication).
In recent years, communication between human beings, unhindered by “Desert” conditions, has become a major platform for reducing hatred worldwide. One can now more fully appreciate the major shift taking place in human history with the advent of modern day easily accessible personal communication. This development has served to attain a major objective in the evolution of the human species on Earth: Reducing hatred originating in “Desert” due to lack of communication, and allowing fellow human beings accessing each other and consequently acknowledging each other’s own free wills.
Does living in “Desert”, in separation between “we” and “them”, necessarily lead to cultures of hatred, such as currently witnessed in various parts of the world where communities do actually dwell in desert?
Not necessarily. Observe what Rabbi Akiva (50-132) considered as the departure point for studying the whole of Torah: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”, this is the essence of Torah; all else is interpretation”. This culture of love combined with justice and righteousness had originally formed, contrary to human nature, in “Desert” conditions, literally in the desert, in the Sinai desert.
A major and important lesson may be learned:
Communities separated by “Desert” are not doomed to live in a culture of hatred. With today’s available communication, overcoming a culture of hatred and modifying it in a fundamental way is a relatively easily accessible option. Carriers of cultures of hatred, leaders of cultures of hatred, only need to summon up their free will to apply the much-needed transformation so that “Desert”, as a way of living, may once and for all be eradicated from the face of the earth.
*Shorty is a short post
Is Third Day in Genesis Creation narrative the same as other Days?? My statistical model for Genesis creation links the scientific time-scale (in terms of billions of years since Big-Bang) to Genesis narrative (in terms of “Days”). However, Third Day narrative had been excluded from the data used in the statistical analysis that led to the final highly-significant statistical model.
Why was that?
The answer is straightforward: Genesis narrative for Third Day (Genesis 1:9-13) implies that Earth and all vegetation (plants, trees, grass and else) had preceded formation of the sun and the moon on the fourth day (“and God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night”, Genesis 1:16).
This seems strange and defies current scientific knowledge. Thus, the mystery remains: If all other Genesis “Days” fit nicely (in the statistical model) with current scientific knowledge, what is special about Third Day that it does not?
I have long been tormented by this question, which seems to undermine and defy the notion that Genesis Creation is a faithful description of the timeline of modern science (as has been validated via the highly-significant statistical model). But then I was reminded of a known idiom, repeatedly uttered by Jewish sages:
“Torah spoke as in human language” (“דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם”).
What this idiom implies is that although Torah source is Divine it does speak in human terms so that humans can understand Torah and relate to it.
To realize how this idiom is relevant to the “Third Day Quandary”, let us be reminded of the prevailing world view throughout ancient times, in fact until the time of Copernicus (1473-1543). The prevailing view was the geocentric model (also known as Geo-centrism, or the Ptolemaic system; In what follows we pursue Wikipedia, “Geocentric model”). This model reigned supreme for over 1500 years of human history, and it had served as cornerstone description of the cosmos in numerous ancient civilizations, such as those of Aristotle and Ptolemy. According to this model, the sun, moon, stars, and planets all encircle Earth (“geo”), therefore Earth is the center of the universe.
Two observations supported this idea:
- The sun appears to revolve around Earth once per day. While the moon and the planets have their own particular motions, which change over time, they also appear to revolve around Earth about once per day. The stars appeared to be on a celestial sphere, rotating once each day along an axis through the north and south geographic poles of Earth;
- Earth does not seem to move from the perspective of an Earth-bound observer; it appears to be solid, stable, and unmoving.
(refer, however, to page 118 in my book, where I describe why Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel (1437-1508) expressed objection to the geocentric model, based purely on his logical analysis of the root of the Hebrew word for Earth).
Geocentrism (Ptolemy’s geocentric model) stayed unchallenged in Western culture until the 16th century, when, through the synthesis of the theories of Copernicus and Kepler, it was gradually superseded by the current scientifically validated Heliocentric model (Sun-centered model) of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler.
Genesis Third Day description is realization of the geocentric world view, prevailing in ancient times. If the sun and the moor rotate around Earth, the latter must have been formed earlier than the former. There is no other way to describe creation and remain faithful to the intuitive geocentric view. Thus, Genesis Third Day narrative had become a prerequisite for Genesis creation to preserve any semblance of reliability. Being consistent with the then prevailing geocentric world view, Torah ensured that the ancient Israelites would have accepted it as of Divine origin and not reject it outright as utterly false. Just try to imagine Torah telling ancient Israelites that the sun and mood, rotating Earth, had been formed prior to Earth. Would Torah then be acceptable to them? “Torah spoke as in human language”.
Is there any signature to the Third Day, pointing to it as somewhat unlike all other days?
I believe there is: This is the only day where the words “and God saw that it was good” appear twice. This is in stark contrast to the “routine” employed in all other days, where Torah expresses this idea in its typical succinct way, namely, stating this only once.
This unique feature of the Third Day perhaps has a mission: Telling us that this description of events, supposedly taking place on Third Day, intends to speak to us in the then humanly comprehensible language. But only for a limited period of time, that is, until the emergence of the scientifically validated Helio-centric world view.
Exclusion of Third Day events from the data, used to derive the highly significant statistical model, thus seems to be corroborated and completely justified.
******************************************
*Shorty is a short post
Job feels he is righteous and has done no harm. Why bad things happen to good people?? What ultimately gives Job comfort?
The first of the Ten Commandments reads:
“I am Jehovah, your Elohim, who have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, of the house of slaves” (Exodus 20:2).
This commandment looks more like a declaration:
- There is God;
- There is Divine Providence (Hashgacha Pratit: “For His eyes are upon the ways of man, and He sees all his goings”, Job 33:21).
What then transforms this “declaration of facts”, “description of reality”, into a commandment?
“Why bad things happen to good people” is an ancient quandary that has occupied the minds of thinking people for millennia. We have likewise addressed this issue in this post. As related therein, perhaps the ultimate source to address this issue is the biblical book of Job, not coincidentally attributed to Moses. The story of Job is well known:
“In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1). Furthermore, he had a family and much property so that “…this man was the greatest of all the men of the East” (Job 1:3).
Alas, one day the angels came before Jehovah, among them Satan, and the latter challenged the Divine that Job is “blameless and upright and fears God and shuns evil” (as described by God; Job 1:8) only because Job was protected and blessed by God (Job 1:9-10). God then delivers Satan the permission to harm Job any way he wished (“all that he has is in thy power”) except for taking Job’s soul (Job 1:12). Thus, Satan was allowed by God to test Job so that all may realize whether Job, despite all “bad things” that had befallen him, remained faithful to his former self.
Following description of the “bad things”, three of Job’s friends come to visit him “to mourn with him and to comfort him” (Job 2:11). The multi-sided dialogue that then develops, between Job and his friends, is in essence a debate on whether “Bad things happen to good people”. Job holds on to his basic conviction that he is “blameless and upright and fears God and shuns evil” and therefore he is helpless to explain all the harm that has befallen him. The friends defy this claim and elaborate on why it is illogical and impossible to assume that the perfect God would allow this to happen, therefore concluding that Job probably is not “blameless”, as he pretends to be.
Job remains unconvinced and therefore also uncomforted.
What then ultimately comforted Job?
Throughout Scripture, a single theme keeps resurfacing: “The ways by which Jehovah leads his world are unknown to us and therefore humanly unexplainable”.
Examples:
- “I will be Whoever I will be” (Exodus 3:14)
- “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (Exodus 33:19)
- “And Moses said to Jehovah…show me thy way that I may know thee” (Exodus 33:12-13), and Jehovah said “you cannot see my face for no man shall see me and live...” (Exodus 33:20); Therefore, “thou shall see my back and my face shall not be seen” (Exodus 33:23). Re-phrased: One may witness the results of Divine leadership and intervention in the world; these, however, cannot be explained (predicted) in advance, neither can they be explained post-factum. These results remain only to be witnessed!
The debate between Job and his friends comes to an abrupt conclusion when Jehovah intervenes in the debate. The essence of God’s explanation for “Why bad things happen to good people” is a genuine mystery:
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4)
Obviously, this does not constitute a satisfactory answer to the basic question. Surprisingly, Job is now comforted and he expresses this explicitly:
“I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now that my eye has seen you I abhor myself and am comforted for the dust and ashes” (Job 42:5).
(Note that “dust and ashes” are signs of mourning, as mentioned early on in Job 2:12.)
Job had not received an answer to the basic question “Why bad things happen to good people”. Yet, once God has spoken to him, Job is comforted. He understands that there is Divine Providence and there is no more room for the basic question— silence is the right response (“..and Aharon kept his silence”, Leviticus 10:3).
We, mere mortals, are not privileged as was Job. We are “doomed” to exist in a universe of free will, and the latter cannot co-exist with the certainty that God exists and that there is Divine Providence. Either we have free will or we know for certain that God exists. Both, by definition, cannot co-exist. Job, once being exposed to God speaking to him, is no more a man of free will. We are.
The first of the Ten Commandments, outwardly looking like a mere declaration of facts, is in fact a commandment that demands of us the ultimate expression of free-will:
“Out of free will I accept as faithful description of reality existence of Elohim-Jehovah; Out of free will I accept as faithful description of reality existence of Divine Providence (Hashgacha Pratit)”.
*********************
*Shorty is a short post
Categories
“Opening Hours” — In Israel and Abroad
A comparison of “Opening Hours” in Israel and abroad would leave you virtually breathless!!
“Opening hours”, when we, Israelis, are getting service, is a phenomenon unique to the Start-up Nation, not to be seen or heard-of anywhere else in the world.
To realize the existence of this unique phenomenon, we have assembled in this post examples of opening-hours in the USA and in England and then display, for comparison purposes, some examples from Israel. All data appearing in this post are net-based.
Accordingly, the post is divided into three parts: Examples from outside Israel (“The World”), examples from Israel and conclusions.
We emphasize that this post does not intend to slander Israel but rather shed light on an issue that needs drawing attention to and correcting (as I describe at the concluding paragraphs).
[1] “The World” (Mon-Fri always uniform):
USA (Generally): Monday through Friday— 9.00-17.00
Examples:
* Bank of America (https://locators.bankofamerica.com/ca/losangeles/):
Mon-Fri: 9:00am-6:00pm; Saturday: 10:00am-2:00pm; Sunday: Closed.
* Florida Government (Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles; https://www.flhsmv.gov/locations/gadsden/); Mon-Fri: 8:00am-5:00pm
* US Post Office (https://www.hoursinfo.com/us-post-office/brooklyn/4844522/): Mon-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
ENGLAND (Generally): Monday through Friday— 9.00-17.00
Examples:
* U.K. Post Office (http://www.londontown.com/LondonInformation/Useful_Numbers/Post_Office/3dae/opening-times): Mon-Fri: 9am-5.30pm; Sat: 9am-1pm;
* HSBC (Bank http://www.thewatergardensharlow.com/stores/hsbc.aspx): Mon-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm; Sat: 9.00am-2.00pm; Sun: Closed. (Tues, starts at 9.30 am).
* National Insurance (https://www.gov.uk/apply-national-insurance-number): Mon-Fri: 8.00am-6.00pm.
[2] ISRAEL
Post Office:
* Beer-Sheva (branch 271): Sun, Mon, Wed, Thu: 8.30-14.00, 16.00-18.00; Tue: 8.30-14.00; Fri: 8.30-12.30
* Haifa (713): Sun, Thu: 8.00-12.30, 15.30-18.00; Mon, Wed: 8.00-12.30, 15.30-20.00; Tue, Fri: 8.00-12.00
* Raanana (695): Sun, Tue, Thu: 8.00-20.00; Mon, Wed: 8.00-13.30; Fri: 8.00-12.00.
Israel Electric Corporation: Sun-Thu: 7.30-14.30; Fri-Sat: Closed.
National Insurance (Bituach Leumi; “All” relates to service dealing with all subjects; “Some” relates to a partial list of some subjects):
* Ashdod: Sun, Tue, Thu: 8.00-12.30 (All); Mon, Wed: 15.00-17.00 (some)
* Jerusalem: Sun, Tue, Thu: 8.00-12.30 (Some1); Mon: 15.00-17.00 (Some2)
* Karmiel: Sun: 8.00-12.30 (Some1); Sun, Tue, Thu: 8.00-12.30 (Some2); Mon, Wed: 15.00-17.00 (Some3)
Discount (Bank):
* Netanya (branch 156): Mon, Thu: 8.30-13.00, 16.00-18.30; Tue, Wed: 8.30-14.00; Fri: 8.30-12.30, Sun: Closed
* Jerusalem (321): Sun: 8.30-13.00; Mon, Thu: 8.30-13.00, 16.00-18.30; Tue, Wed: 8.30-14.00; Fri: Closed
Leumi (Bank):
* Eilat (999): Sun: 8.30-13.45; Mon, Thu: 8.30-13.00, 16.00-18.15; Tue, Wed: 8.30-13.45; Fri: Closed
* Tiberias (970): Sun: 8.30-14.00; Mon, Thu: 8.30-13.00, 16.00-18.15; Tue, Wed: 8.30-14.00; Fri: Closed
The list of this insane mish-mash of public-serving opening hours across institutes, but unbelievably also within, can go on and on..
Hello Israeli parliamentarians, hello senior managers:
Are you listening?
To the pain and irritation, waste of time and energy that this mish-mash is causing the Israeli public, in general, but, more importantly, to numerous individuals not savvy in surfing the net, who reach public-serving offices, hoping to get service only to find closed doors;
Are you at all listening??
************************************
Comment: This post may also be read on The Times of Israel:
“Opening Hours” – In Israel and Abroad
In this post, I deliver a broader biblical perspective on why Israel, the Jewish State, is continuously monitored by “the world”, notwithstanding the mayhem (“Fog”) all around.
Written some time before recent UN Security Council resolution that renders “Israeli settlements” in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem illegal, the resolution makes this post even more relevant.
Published in The Times of Israel, the post is linked below (if you wish to share, please do so directly via the linked Times of Israel post; thank you):
This post outlines the five general principles at the core of The Ten Commandments.
The Ten Commandments are a wakeup call unto the ego to acknowledge the existence of “the other” and develop appropriate (moral) relationships with “non-ego” others:
The Five Principles of the Ten Commandments_Nov 2016
Comment: Since this post first appeared, I was asked what “Non-ego other” means (see first principle). To understand the concept, it is perhaps best to define the opposite. An “Ego other” is a human being whom one considers an extension of his/her own ego. The epitome for an “Ego other” is a slave. However, “Ego other” may appear in more obscure forms, where the potential exists, like a personal assistant, a subordinate (at work), one’s own child or a spouse. All forms of “Ego other” are morally wrong.
(Related podcast: The Three Pillars of Truth (Lessons from the Hebrew Alphabet; Podcast-audio)
Truth is a sublime concept. But what does it stand on? What are the required ingredients for something to be “Truth”? The Hebrew Alphabet delivers us three pillars to tell truth from falsehood.
Observing the two words Emeth (Truth) and Sheker (Falsehood/lie), as their letters appear in an orderly sequence of the Hebrew Alphabet, teaches us powerful lessons on what constitute “Truth”.
Emeth is written in Hebrew: אמת
Sheker is written in Hebrew: שקר
The letters of these words appear emphasized in the sequence of orderly Hebrew Alphabet below (read from right to left; letters in parentheses are “final letters”, appearing only as last letters of words):
Emeth:
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ(ך) ל מ(ם) נ(ן) ס ע פ(ף) צ(ץ) ק ר ש ת
Sheker:
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ(ך) ל מ(ם) נ(ן) ס ע פ(ף) צ(ץ) ק ר ש ת
Based on these two sequences, three observations are called for that define the three pillars of “Truth”:
Pillar 1: Completeness
The letters of Emeth (Truth) “scan” the whole spectrum, from first to last of the Hebrew Alphabet, with the middle letter appearing exactly as a middle term in the sequence. By contrast, the Hebrew letters for “Falsehood” are concentrated together in a small segment of the sequence, conveying an impression of “Half-truth”, of an incomplete picture.
The tendency to make judgements or general assertions based on partial truths produces the worst form of falsehood. Partial truths contain seeds of truth, thus conveying an impression of truth when such is non-existent. This renders it difficult, at times impossible, to tell truth from non-truth. We judge a person based on a single wrong deed or utterance, ignoring a lifetime of righteous and fruitful deeds. We take part of a sentence, or paragraph, to slander someone ignoring the context and the true meaning of the complete pronouncement.
The book of Psalms regards “Completeness” as main feature of truth, which we have to account for observing and attempting to understand Divine righteous intervention in the world:
“Judgments of Jehovah are true (Emeth), they are righteous altogether” (Psalms 19:10).
Only in its totality may one appreciate Divine judgement as righteous. Components of that judgment, on their own, do not constitute righteousness; and only when taken altogether may these components be regarded as Emeth.
Pillar 2: Correct Order
The letters of Sheker appear in a perverted order in the sequence above, unlike the correct order of appearance of Emeth.
Falsehood is often generated, and truth violated, by placing “things” not in their correct order. Violating correct order can appear in all forms and shapes. When two warring parties are engaged in war, and we ignore the correct order of events that have “rolled” the parties into a state of war, or at times portraying real events, however in a perverted order of occurrence – we create falsehood (lie). Interchanging cause and effect, calling cause effect and calling effect cause, displaying thereby an incorrect cause-effect relationship, also obscure truth and generate falsehood. When a person blames his business partner for a certain adverse reaction to his own conduct, portraying his own conduct as reacting to that reaction (rather than as a trigger for the latter), he is engaged in creating falsehood. Preserving correct order is an essential ingredient for preserving truth.
Pillar 3: Supportive Evidence
Observing the two sets of Hebrew letters that constitute Emeth and Sheker, one discerns a major characteristic that tell them apart: The letters of Emeth look stable, well rooted in the ground (as shown by two “legs” or by a horizontal base, as in the middle letter). Conversely, all letters of Sheker seem shaky, not well rooted in the ground, two standing on one leg and a third (the first letter) “prone” to swing from one side to the other. Observing these letters an impression is conveyed of instability, as though the letters do not really have anything to support them. One is led to the conclusion that lack of evidence, grounded in reality, is main feature that distinguishes “truth” from “falsehood”, Emeth from lack thereof.
In conclusion: The Hebrew Alphabet teaches us that to tell truth from falsehood one needs only examine and confirm to what degree do the three essential ingredients of truth prevail; to what degree do Completeness, Correct order and Evidence permeate given descriptions of world affairs.
**********************************************
This post may also be downloaded:
Categories
Ha-Tikvah (“The Hope”)
Listening to the Israeli Anthem Ha-Tikvah (“The Hope”), performed in public, has always touched me deeply. Listening to it, I see a people, the Jewish people, that three millennia and a half ago had opted to strive to be not just like Elohim (God as creator), resulting most recently in a “Start-Up Nation”, but to be also like Jehovah (God of justice, love and grace). And for attempting to bequeath this “delusional” aspiration (be Jehovah-like) to the nations of the world, it has suffered so much at their hands— in expulsions, persecution and ultimately genocide.
The link below shows singing Ha-Tikvah at the conclusion of Israel’s national ceremony, taking place at Mount Hertzel in Jerusalem, which marks the opening of festivities of Israel’s Independence Day (taking place the following day):
Israeli Anthem Sung at Conclusion of Independence Day Ceremony
(Related podcast: Punishment vs. Guidance — Explaining Adverse Outcome of Well-intentioned Behavior (Podcast) )
“Why Bad Things Happen to Good People” is an age-old mystery that has plagued humankind for millennia. Understanding and contrasting the two principal explanations, the Punishment and Guidance principles, may be key to better understanding adverse outcome for well-intentioned behavior.
Perhaps the ultimate source to address this issue is the biblical book of Job, not coincidentally attributed to Moses (see following paragraph). Jewish prophets (like Jeremiah) also turned their attention to the seemingly “Lack of Justice” that befalls “good people” and had “grumbled” this sentiment to the Divine. As this year’s Yom Kippur is upon us, I attempt in this post a possible solution, with a simple example. Naturally, the solution offered is not scientific, probably also not entirely original. Yet it is presented in this post as an article of faith that I believe is supported by my life-long personal experience.
Moses, wondering how God leads the world, asks: “I pray Thee show me thy glory” (Exodus 33:18). Part of the detailed response is: “…I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (Exodus 33:19).
This response is made more explicit in God’s response to King David, after the latter has expressed wish to build a temple. God’s response, via prophet Natan: “..I will raise up your off-spring to succeed you .. He is the one who will build a house for my Name .. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me who, on perverting his ways, I would reproach with the rod of man and such plagues as befall the sons of Adam” (2 Samuel 7:12-14).
Using “Pervert” as implying walking a twisted path (instead of a straight one) is further pronounced by Job, who uses same Hebrew root (as in the preceding quote): “..I have sinned and perverted that which was straight and it profited me not” (Job 33:27).
Jeremiah, like Job, also cries out to God: “Righteous are Thou, O Lord, that I would plead my case with Thee yet I will reason matters of justice with Thee; Why does the way of the wicked prosper, at ease are all those dealing in treachery?” (Jeremiah 12:1).
For people of faith, who have abandoned the anti-biblical credo that “When randomness reigns all is coincidental”, the ancient quagmire of “Why well-intentioned behavior may lead to adverse outcome” may lead to one of two seemingly mutually-exclusive explanations:
Punishment vs. Guidance.
The Punishment interpretation is, I believe, a disruptive relic from our childhood. For some of us, the punishment/reward belief-system, instilled in us in childhood, has taken hold of our adult perception of reality and how we interpret unexplainable adverse personal experiences (internal, like physical pain or sickness, or external). Via parents and teachers who administer a system of rewards and punishments, we are conditioned in childhood to defend ourselves against harm and seek gratifying experiences. The fundamental moto of childhood education is: “Good things happen to good children” and “Bad things happen to bad children”. This system is active both in the child’s experience of the physical world and of the social world. It is hoped, by agents of education, that the reward/punishment system would instill in the educated child correct patterns of behavior that would spare her/him harmful effects caused by violating “Law-of-Nature” (like falling from a high place), while concurrently leading to appropriate integration into the prevailing social system. Growing up, some grown-up “children” of faith continue to believe that same reward/punishment system reigns supreme in all gray areas of our lives, where we are helpless providing logical explanation for adverse outcomes resulting from well-intentioned decisions and actions. People of faith then tend to resort to irrelevant past decisions or actions, explaining current adverse outcomes as belated Divine Punishment for those past events.
The Guidance principle (“Hashgachah Pratit”) is an alternative explanatory principle. It claims that to understand why “Bad things happen to good people” one should not look to past irrelevant events but rather to the present and occasionally also to the future. What matters is not past decisions and actions but rather the final outcome of the “bad” experience. This outcome is invariably the best explanation for current unpleasant experiences. The road to destiny may not always be straightforward, it might take longer than expected and perhaps even be painful; but it would eventually lead to destiny, embodied by the final outcome. What that outcome is may not always be immediately clear. It may at times require some deep personal investigation and even patience. But once the major outcome is clarified, a sense of relief and perhaps even internal joy may indicate to us that, indeed, guidance is there available to us at all times. If we only properly attune our spiritual and practical antennas to receive the clues..
There are three main reasons for why “Bad things happen to good people”:
[1] Past bad choices that we have made, when straight roads were still open to us and “shouting” clues delivered to us to choose correctly or rightly; Yet we have ignored those clues, chose wrong and “perverted that which was straight”.
[2] Straightforward paths to destination do not exist (irrespective of our past decisions): Occasionally, only twisted ways are available to reach destination. An example for this scenario is given later on.
[3] Divine scheme: This at times requires that what humanly seems humanly-adverse, needs to occur in the grand scheme of things. Yet it remains completely incomprehensible to us:
- “I will be Whoever I will be” (Exodus 3:14)
- “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious” (Exodus 33:19)
- “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4)
For people of unshaken faith, the Holocaust is first and foremost in what may come to mind.
For those of us who believe that no reward/punishment system is active in the universe, only Guidance, the ultimate principle is this:
Look not into the past for irrelevant choices that you have made. Instead, look into the present, and at times also into the future. Find out what ultimately transpired following “Bad Experience”, what was the major consequence and final outcome. Soon enough, you would learn to realize that this outcome is the best possible explanation. At times, the searched for major outcome may be elusive or lie in the distant future; But ultimately you will find out, to your great surprise, that Guidance is much more prevalent in your life than you ever thought possible.
Is there no punishment at all, according to Scripture? Of course not. Punishment recurs often both in the Torah and in reproaches for un-righteous conduct leveled at the Israelites by the biblical prophets. Yet Punishment is not contradictory to Guidance. Rather, it is a particular mode by which Guidance materializes. Here too an effort is required to search for the final outcome of the “punishment” in order to fully comprehend what the destiny has been in the first place. “Punishment” is realization of Guidance, to be understood merely by observing end-results like improvement in character and in patterns of communicating with others. Prophet Isaiah takes this position to its extreme: “On that day you shall say, I give thanks to three, O Lord, for being angry with me, your anger has turned away and thou does comfort me” (Isaiah 12:1).
Looking back at actual major outcomes of life-events to reveal Guidance in action is clearly indicated in part of God’s response to Moses request: “I pray thee show me thy glory” (Exodus 33:18). God’s response:
“I will make all my goodness pass before thee…Thou cannot see my face for no human being would see my face and lived…I will put thee in a cleft of the rock and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by; and I will take my hand and thou shall see my back but my face shall not be seen” (Exodus 33:19-23).
The principle of “looking back” at what ultimately transpired could not be more clearly pronounced. Pain and sorrow, “Bad things”, are invariably intermediate results preceding the ultimate, final and major outcome delivered by Guidance. And that major outcome is always good.
For several days I have prepared several elaborate examples to Guidance from my own life experience and experiences of others to which I have been witness. I have eventually decided to scrap them all. In current public atmosphere, where agents of public opinion feel that they live, due to recent scientific and technological breakthroughs, in the era of the Tower-of-Babel (“Let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach to heaven”; Genesis 11:4), any insinuation of Guidance may be a subject for ridicule. Therefore, I will do with a simple trivial example from my own recent experience. That example may be perceived as an allegory to larger events, as shall be elaborated later on.
An Example: “At last, a parking space”
The following is a real occurrence that I have recently experienced. Some weeks ago, Ruth and I were driving in Haifa towards a certain restaurant. A “bad experience” then unexpectedly happened – I missed a turn. Annoyed and frustrated, I had to drive some extra miles until I was able to return back (to the missed turn). I have finally arrived at the restaurant to find out that there were no available parking spaces around. Worst still, in that area where parking was possible no car-waiting spaces were available at all times. This meant that if a parking space had not become available right upon arrival your chance of finding parking space was extremely slim. We left the place heading home when I had decided to give it another trial. Back near the restaurant, at the exact moment of arrival, a single parking space suddenly became vacant. “Timing is all”. It immediately dawned on me that had the “Bad experience” of missing the turn not occurred, the final major outcome (available parking space exactly on arrival) could not have taken place. An article of faith? Obviously. But to a degree also statistically (evidence) based. To my family and close friends, who have traveled with me in my own car, finding parking space, where none seems possibly available, has become a highly-esteemed “expertise”, particularly given absence of any prior training…
What is the allegory? A long way, possibly loaded with intolerable delays, may at times be required to arrive at the right timing to the desired outcome of Guidance.
The Guidance principle, namely, looking at final results in order to understand the driving force, may well be applied responding to the eternal question:
Why do we live?
To comprehend the purpose of life one needs only look around and learn what has transpired during his/her own life-time. That which one observe is that for which one lives:
Connecting to reality (directly observable or otherwise); Experiencing reality, learning from it and passing on the learned lessons to others; Associating with fellow human-beings and with other living beings, communicating with them and assisting them to fulfill their own life destiny; Loving and being loved;
And to top it all: We are here to constantly make decisions out of free will (available to us whether we are completely free or otherwise).
These, taken together, constitute the ultimate destiny of life: Learn, develop and with the power of love overcome our inherent separated-ness.
Judge and King define in a fundamental way two extreme states of the human condition. Judge has no free-will of its own. All Judge does is comparing its experience (internal and external) to pre-specified standards in order to determine appropriate punishment, based on observed degree-of-compliance; King is free-will bound by no law and nobody, accountable to none.
Judge, devoid of free will, believes that source of morality is exclusively external, originating in the Divine (or any recognized/adopted historic authority). Individual human intelligence, wisdom and experience have no part in formulating precepts of morality. King, devoid of faith in any external authority that would limit its liberty, believes that the sole source of morality is humankind, more specifically, human beings exercising their free-will, their wisdom and good judgment.
Judge imposes structure, defines “identity”; King strives to express its will within the confines of that identity.
Human history is permeated by constant struggle between the two extreme states.
Examples for “Judge” are “ideologies” that have attempted, throughout history, to repress free-will of individuals and nations and subjugate them to the “ideology”. Examples:
- Religions’ regimes, imposed by ruling establishments like the inquisition in Spain of the Middle-Ages;
- Twentieth-century political ideologies that sought no compromise with individual freedoms, like Communism and Nazism;
- Present-day extreme forms of Islam (“Submission” in Arabic).
Example for “King” is present-day Liberal Democracies of Western Civilization, holding dear that one is free to do whatever one’s heart desires (“King”) so long as it harms none (a little taste of “Judge”).
The struggle between “Judge” and “King” permeates every aspect of our lives:
- We experience the restrictive “Law-of-Nature” (“Judge”), which punishes for violations; But we also experience randomness (source for “King”), where we may exercise unhindered our free-will ;
- We experience the restrictive state’s regulations and laws (“Judge”); But we also experience (in democracies) areas where state law does not apply so that “King” can reign supreme;
- From within we are both a “Judge”, judging ourselves and others according to a set of standards that we pursue (partly unconsciously); But we are also “King”, expressing our own free-will and desires, occasionally allowing others exercise the same..
The Torah is well aware that “Judge” and “King” need to co-exist so that they accommodate one another to bring about a blessed compromise. Being well aware that leaving any out would result in catastrophic extremism, the Torah specifies in painstaking detail the system-of-law, judges and officers, that the Children of Israel should have but hurriedly specifies, in a balancing act, that a king is also needed:
“Judges and officers shall thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God gives thee throughout thy tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment..” (Deuteronomy 16:18);
and immediately thereafter (Deuteronomy 17:15):
“..thou may appoint a king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose..”.
“Judge” and “King”— “Submission” vs. “Liberty”; “Nature” vs. “Randomness”; “Law” vs. “Free-will”
The struggle between “Judge” and “King” has reached mammoth proportions in recent decades, resulting in ISIS (the “Judge”), on the one hand, and projection of the rainbow colors onto the While House (the “King”), on the other hand.
Will 3rd World War be waged between the ultimate “Judge” and the ultimate “King”??
*************************************************
- An excellent talk (in Hebrew) about the distinction between “Judge” and “King” and its implications and ramifications is Rabbi Haim Dynovisz (רב חיים דינוביץ):
A new provocative and interesting trailer by Mr. Oren Evron, about his widely viewed one-hour movie:
“The Torah – Math Unveils the Truth”:
Oren Evron – “Math Unveils the Truth” (3-minute Trailer)
With Hebrew subtitles:
עם כתוביות בעברית:
Oren Evron – “Math Unveils the Truth” (3-minute Trailer; Hebrew subtitles)
The forbidden fruit, in Adam and Eve Genesis narrative, carries a double message for our time.
As humans we experience two worlds: The “World of Law-of-Nature” and the “World of Randomness”. Violating law in the former incurs immediate penalty. In the latter world, we are uncertain of the consequence of our decisions and therefore it is in this world solely that we may exercise free will. I have addressed this distinction at some length previously (for example, here and here) and therefore will not elaborate on it further here.
The relevance to our days and time of the sin of eating of the forbidden fruit, as described in Genesis (3: 1-19), had been discussed by me in a separate post. Here I expand on that and address the double message conveyed by the story of Adam and Eve eating from the forbidden “Tree of Knowledge, Good and Bad” (Etz ha-Daat, Tov ve-Ra), or “Good and Evil” (as commonly translated, erroneously in my opinion).
Studying present-day relevance of the forbidden fruit, particularly with regard to the two worlds, as just described, reveals stunning new insights. Let us start by elaborating on the true meaning of the Hebrew Daat (knowledge).
There are two modes of learning (obtaining knowledge), which in biblical Hebrew are denoted by two separate terms: One may learn by absorbing new information, utterly dis-associated from the source of knowledge; or one may learn (and know) by experiencing, by connecting to the source of knowledge. An example for the first mode is conducting research on the Internet. No personal experiencing of the subject of learning is involved. An example for the latter mode is touring a mountainous area, as a result of which one is acquainted, connected, knowing by personal experience, the visited area.
The Bible is permeated aplenty with the distinction between “Acquiring knowledge” (Haskalah) and “Knowing by Experiencing”, or “Knowing by Connecting” (Daat). For example, prophet Jeremiah calls, in the name of the Divine: “Thus says Jehovah: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him that glories glory in this – Haskel (“Acquiring knowledge”) and Yadoa Oti (“Knowing Me”) that I am Jehovah exercising grace, justice and righteousness in the land, for in these I delight”, so says Jehovah” (Jeremiah 9:22-23). And elsewhere in the Bible: “He who keeps the commandment shall experience no evil thing (Lo yeda davar ra); and a wise man’s heart would discern (“Yeda”) both time and method” (Ecclesiastes 5:5). And similarly: “And Adam once more knew (Va-yeda Adam od) his wife and she bore a child and she called his name Shet” (Genesis 4:25). Likewise, in modern day Hebrew we wish a bereaved family Lo tedeo od machov (“You shall know pain no more”). Knowing here is devoid of any of the common sense reserved for knowledge, but everything to do with personal experiencing.
Given these sources and others, it is essential that we take note that the forbidden tree is not a tree of wisdom, neither a tree of understanding or of advice. No. This is a tree of “Knowing by Experiencing”, Etz ha-Daat, which spells a two-stage learning process: First we experience and then we internalize that experience so that we are capable of telling apart the “bad” from the “good”. The first stage of the learning process is prone to pain and suffering because only after experiencing the “good” and the “bad” may one tell them apart. Not a moment earlier. Adam and Eve, not privy to the agony associated with experiencing the “bad”, are eager to eat of the forbidden fruit noticing only the end result— that they will be like Elohim (God as creator). In modern day parlance, such a fake imaginary process of learning is called “Instant Learning”
But what is “Good” and “Bad”?
Given the two worlds that we constantly experience in our lives, the “World of Law-of-Nature” and the “World of Randomness”, it is obvious that one needs to specify “Good and Bad” in terms of both worlds. Not coincidentally, the narrator of the story of the sin of Adam and Eve already relates to the Divine only by the double name, Elohim-Jehovah, imparting the two aspects of leadership that the Divine exercise in His world: Leadership by Law-of-Nature (scientifically exposed, “public” leadership by the creator, Elohim); and the hidden, concealed leadership by Jehovah in the world of free-will, in the seemingly “World of Randomness”. There is perhaps no better demonstration for the latter than the famous dialogue between Abraham and Jehovah:
“And Abraham drew near and said:” Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? .. Shall not the Judge of all the Earth do justice?”; And Jehovah said: “If I find in Sodom fifty just men within the city then I will spare the whole place for their sakes” (Genesis 18:23, 25-26).
But fifty righteous men were not found, neither ten. And the people of Sodom were puzzled, probably to their last moments, why the world is so random and unexplainable. As were probably the residents of the corrupt “Sodom-like” ancient Pompeii, destroyed by random by mother-nature at 79 AD.
“Good and Bad” in the story of eating of the forbidden fruit therefore carries double meanings: “Good” and “Bad” in the physical world, which is governed by “Law of Nature” (imprinted on nature by Elohim, the creator); and “Good” and “Bad” in the “World of Randomness”, governed by “Law of Justice and Grace” (emanating from Jehovah, ultimate source of morality):
“For thus says Jehovah, creator of the Heavens, he is the Elohim that has formed the Earth and has made it”; Isaiah 45:18).
The double message of the “Tree of Knowledge” sounds loud and clear for our times:
Message 1: Not all that can be experienced in the physical world, in the “World of Law-of-Nature”, is allowed.
There is a spiritual dimension to our existence as human beings that imposes limitations on our behavior in the physical world and on what we may experience. Eating of the “Tree of Knowledge”, supposedly the most natural and beneficial thing to do, is not without boundaries. And once these are crossed, seemingly without inflicting physical harm, the spiritual dimension may adversely be affected, ultimately causing harm also in the physical world (due to loss of ability to exercise free will in the “World of Randomness”). This realization may at times be extremely excruciating and agonizing. Ask any ex-alcoholic, or ex-narcotics-addict, who had gone through rehabilitation, and you may get a faint idea what the process of “knowing by experiencing” may look like once the spiritual dimension of our existence is ignored.
(Again we note that Adam and Eve’s idea is limited, nearly contrary to reality: According to their perception, eating of the forbidden fruit would educate them how to distinguish “the bad” from “the good” in the physical world so that they would instantly be Elohim-like; all the while being unaware of the pain and suffering that this prolonged learning process, ignoring the spiritual dimension, may entail.)
Message 2: To live life fully, it is not sufficient to distinguish “Good” from “Bad” within Law-of-Nature only.
The “World of Randomness”, where free-will is exercised, has its own “Good” and “Bad”, decided by the “Law” that prevails in this world (law of morality, grace and righteousness; or law of Karma, as preached in some religions). And that law, relating to our spiritual dimension, should be heeded, learned and internalized no less than the “visible”, scientifically validated, Law-of-Nature, that we are so intent and careful on pursuing every single moment of our lives on this planet.
Categories
Shorty*: “Speak Hebrew and Be Righteous”
Speaking Hebrew one is led, perhaps unconsciously, to adhere to the basic concepts and tenets of Jewish tradition, in particular “Be Righteous!”. In this shorty, I demonstrate this by addressing seven Hebrew words (having five different philological roots). In all examples, it is assumed that different words sharing same root must somehow be inter-related (even though outwardly the compared words seem not to be sharing anything in common). We emphasize that these examples do not relate to Gematria, which assumes that two words sharing a numerical value must somehow be inter-related.
The first two examples appear in detail in my book.
Example 1: “Sin” is not the result of evil but rather an aberration due to missing the target (“Sin” and “Miss” share same root in Hebrew)
Example 2: There are three modes of standing before God:
“Thanking”, “Acknowledging”, “Admitting” (a sin).
They all share same philological root in Hebrew, giving rise to the single Hebrew verb Le-Hodot (which imparts respective meanings to all three modes of relating to God).
Examples 3 and 4: “Thing” in Hebrew is Davar (derived from same root as “to speak”, Le-Daber); “Object” in Hebrew is Chefetz (meaning also “Will” or “Wish”).
The obvious implication for a Hebrew-speaking user of these “generic” words is unconscious acknowledgment that all that exists is the result of God’s will and speak. Genesis creation narrative could not have been more explicit!!
Example 5: “Resentment” (or “Grudge”) is in Hebrew Tinah ; Tin is Hebrew for “Silt” (mud that sinks to the bottom of the pool).
The Hebrew language educates: Resentment is like silt. The latter rests silently at the bottom of the pool, nearly undetected, until the pool’s water is disturbed. The mud then rises up to blur and obscure all that shape up under the surface of the water.
Likewise, resentment can be hidden from view (even your own) until triggered into action. Once activated, old grudges rise up to blur and obscure all that is shaping up inside your psyche, rendering your soul non-transparent. This results in distorted vision of reality, in impairing relationships with family and friends and ultimately in poor judgement in decision-making scenarios.
The Hebrew language advises:
Resentment stains your soul, therefore it is impure and unholy; Be righteous by letting go of old grudges; Get rid of resentment!!
*******************************************
* A “Shorty” is a newly invented word for a new idea or thought, expressed as “shortly” as possible..
Categories
Shorty*: The Human Desire to be like God
At the core of all human endeavors is the burning desire to be like God. The desire is already expressed in the third chapter of Genesis: “For God knows that on the day you eat of it” (of the Fruit of Knowledge) “then your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as God..” (Genesis 3:5).
But what does it mean to be like God?
The serpent expresses it explicitly: “You shall be like Elohim, knowing good and bad” (Genesis 3:5) (Elohim is Hebrew for God as the creator).
Jewish prophets have incessantly preached differently:
“I am Jehovah speaking righteousness, I declare things that are right” (Isaiah 45:19) (Jehovah is Hebrew for God as source of morality and virtues).
Human history is the tale of nations and individuals seeking to be as powerful as Elohim via dominating resources (whether of knowledge, of humans beings (erroneously perceived as resource) or of physical properties).
Human history is also a tale of nations and individuals ignoring the message of the Jewish prophets that to be like God also means to be like Jehovah
(all the while concurrently harming the carriers of this inconvenient message).
********************************
* A “Shorty” is a newly invented word for a new idea or thought, expressed as shortly as possible..
This presentation addresses the key question of whether biblical Hebrew is intrinsically linked to physical reality. Delivered at Bar-Ilan University, I explain in this lecture the methodology employed and demonstrate with some statistical results.
:”הרצאה בעברית שניתנה באוניברסיטת בר-אילן במסגרת יום עיון של ארגון “המטרה אמת
Is There Association Between Biblical Hebrew and Physical Reality? (Hebrew)
With English captions:
PowerPoint file used in the lecture (and some more) is linked below:
קובץ PP שנעשה בו שימוש בהרצאה (וקצת יותר) בקישורית שלהלן:
Prof Haim Shore Presentation at Bar-Ilan Univ_Hebrew-English_Nov 2015
בפוסט זה אני מראה כי ניתן לחשב אורך חודש ירח ממוצע על פי שני מושגים ידועים ביהדות מקדמת דנא: בהר”ד ו-וי”ד (מופיעים, למשל, בכתבי רמב”ם ועוד).
החישוב נעשה על ידי הצבת משוואה אלגברית פשוטה ופתרונה על סמך המידע שמספקים שני המושגים שהזכרתי (ואלה בלבד!).
השוואת הפתרון לערך שנמסר באתר של סוכנות החלל האמריקאית (NASA) מראה סטייה של:
0.000005 ימים.
פרופ שור_משך ירח הלבנה הממוצע על פי בהרד ו-ויד_המהפך 4_הרב זמיר כהן_הידברות_2014
המאמר המקושר נתרם לספרו של הרב זמיר כהן מארגון הידברות: “המהפך 4” (2015).
פוסט נפרד מציג אותו חישוב, אם כי בצורה מקוצרת מעט, באנגלית (In English)
Genesis Creation vs. modern cosmology— are their timelines compatible? (accounting for their different time-scales). Statistical analysis is employed in this post to examine this question.
Below are links to two new video clips (English/Hebrew), produced by Mr. Oren Evron. Each lasts about ten minutes and both aim to answer the following question:
Are Genesis Creation timeline and that of modern cosmology compatible, after all?
The findings shown are evidence-based, namely, results of data-based statistical analysis, which is addressed in detail (mostly in non-technical terms).
English version:
Genesis Creation vs. Modern Cosmology – New Scientific Findings (English)
Hebrew version (גירסה עברית):
Genesis Creation vs. Modern Cosmology – New Scientific Findings (Hebrew)
Spanish version:
Genesis Creation vs. Modern Cosmology – New Scientific Findings (Brazilian Portuguese)
Refer also to the videos page on this blog:
In this post I show that at present-day and age we witness a replay of the biblical sin of Adam and Eve.
We, as humans, entertain free will. This is made possible since our submission to the Law-of-Nature is not total. There are isolated islands in our lives where randomness prevails, allowing us to do whatever our heart desires, with apparently no moral consequences and no penalty due to violating some punishable law.
For example, we cannot decide to jump out of the window of a fifteenth floor of a high-rise because penalty would be immediate and ultimately catastrophic to our very survival. No free will here. Conversely, we may decide whether we wish (or wish not) to join a certain group of people for a shared activity with seemingly no devastating consequence, irrespective of which course of action we may have decided to pursue.
In summary, without ever so defined, our lives comprise two worlds intermingled with one another and generally indistinguishable from one another: The world of the “Law of Nature” and the world of “Randomness”. Our ability to exercise free will is conditioned on the existence of the latter; however we are prevented from exercising free will within the confines of the former.
Let us rephrase this assertion in biblical terms. The two seemingly unrelated and independent worlds, that of “Randomness” and that of “Law of Nature”, both originate in one source, which the Bible relates to as “Jehovah-Elohim”. Jehovah is source of the law of morality that prevails in the world of randomness. Elohim is source of physical creation and of Law-of-nature, within whose confines creation conducts itself since the beginning of time, at the Big Bang.
From its inception, humankind has aspired to be like God. But in what sense?
As the sin of Adam and Eve is described in the third chapter of Genesis, the serpent seduces Eve, explaining to her why it would have been beneficial to eat of the “Fruit of Knowledge”:
“For Elohim knows that on the day that you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be like Elohim, knowing good and bad” (Genesis 3:5).
In other words: Gaining knowledge, by eating of the Fruit-of-Knowledge, aims at becoming like Elohim, knowing the Law-of-Nature that would grant us knowhow of that which is beneficial to us (“Good”) and that which is not (“Bad”). The burning desire is dominance over nature (including dominance over other human beings), but not the study of Law-of-Morality, which prevails in the “World of Randomness”, concealed from us so that we may exercise free will.
For that sin, the sin of wishing to know Elohim (source of Law-of-Nature), and not Jehovah-Elohim (the complete and all-encompassing manifestation of God’s leadership of his world, which is also the only name for God used by the “objective” narrator), Adam and Eve are subject to expulsion from the Garden-of-Eden.
Knowing Elohim with the objective of being Elohim-like implies knowing Law-of-Nature and gaining dominance over nature and people. Murdering another human being is the ultimate expression of dominance over nature as a result of the desire to be as powerful (and as “Great”) as Elohim.
An individual calling “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is greatest”), while taking someone else’s life in an act of murder, commits the exact same sin as that of Adam and Eve, only taken to the extreme:
“I know Elohim (since I know Law-of-Nature)” → “Therefore I have gained dominance over nature” → “Therefore I am Elohim-like” → “Therefore I have Elohim’s privilege to take your life away”.
All wrong!! And on many counts.
The privilege to take away one’s life does not belong to Elohim but to Jehovah Elohim. Alone.
And no amount of knowledge of Elohim, supposedly leading to a state of being God-like, provides complete knowledge unless complemented by the knowledge of Jehovah and his law:
“And now, Israel, what does Jehovah, your Elohim, requires of you but to fear Jehovah, your Elohim, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve Jehovah, your Elohim, with all thy heart and with all thy soul” (Deuteronomy 10:12).
The history of the human race is marked by committing, over and over again, the exact same sin of Adam and Eve: Gaining knowledge about Law-of-Nature, originating in Elohim, with utter lack of interest in knowing Law-of-Morality, originating in Jehovah.
The stated mission, indeed the role, of the Jewish nation in the world is to declare in the public square:
“The free will that you experience in the “World of Randomness” is an illusion. As there is Law-of-Nature there is also Law-of-Morality. These are not two separate worlds, one governed by Law-of-nature and another governed by.. nothing.”
And days are coming, when all will know, and aspire to know, not only Elohim but also Jehovah:
“Behold, days are coming, says Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Yehudah”,…, “and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says Jehovah” (Jeremiah 31:30-33).
“Allahu Akbar”, followed by murder, is present-day ultimate replay of the ancient sin of Adam and Eve. The latter have produced first human attempt at separating Elohim from Jehovah, learning the ways of the former (leading by Law-of-Nature), while ignoring, and neglecting to learn, the ways of the latter (leading by Law-of-Morality).
Days are coming, prophesizes prophet Jeremiah, when this artificial separation of the two worlds will be no more.
**********************************************************
This post may also be read at Times-of-Israel:
Present-day Replay of the Sin of Adam and Eve
Two new video clips (Hebrew/English), each about ten minutes long, have recently been produced by Mr. Oren Evron. In these I explain, in plain language, the basic principles underlying my research on the Jewish Hebrew Bible and on biblical Hebrew. Below is the English version:
Two other videos (English/Hebrew) focus on Genesis creation narrative:
English:
Hebrew :
In this post I address Equality, an originally Jewish value that has lately returned in the form of a sacred cow, which tends to distort observed reality.
“Equality”, an ancient Jewish value that has of late been “imported” back to the Jewish state in a distorted, largely reformed and deformed form, has since wreaked havoc on our ability to view reality as it is and to arrive at balanced and educated decisions.
In this post, I deliver three examples and address their implications.
A link to The Blogs on The Times of Israel:
Haim Shore_“Equality – the Sacred Cow”_The Times of Israel_August 14 2015
A PDF file of this post is attached:
Haim Shore_Equality-The Sacred Cow_Post in The Times of Israel_August 14 2015
Participants to this meeting were, besides Rav Ginsburgh, Rav Samuel Yaniv, Mr. Pesach Melamed, Mr. Oren Evron and me.
A recording of part of the meeting (in Hebrew), addressing “Tov ve-Rah” in the Hebrew Bible and much more, is linked below (with permission):
A most intriguing finding, addressed in Oren Evron’s movie, is the nearly perfect correlation found for the trio of words, {moon, Earth, sun}, between the Hebrew gematria and the English Agrippa-Key gematria.
Although a table of Agrippa-Key may be easily reached via the Internet, we comply herewith with a request made by a viewer of this blog and present the Agrippa Key in the table below:
What do we mean by “Two books of the Divine” and their “Scientific Linkage”? In this post, I discuss the significance of my research about the Jewish Hebrew Bible and biblical Hebrew.
Since my research findings were first published in a book (Shore, 2007) and later, when these findings had become more widely spread due to Oren Evron’s movie (Evron, 2014, 2015), I have received mixed responses, extending from complete apathy, to attempts to explain away the findings by attributing them to ancient Earthly civilizations that somehow possessed modern scientific knowledge, up to sincere and true appreciation of the implications of the findings as alluding to the divine origin of biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Torah.
In all these responses, one element seems to have been missing, and that is the inevitable conclusion emerging from the new discoveries:
The two books of the Divine are scientifically linked.
What do we mean by “the two books”?
Since its primary inception at the historic event of receiving the Ten Commandments by Moses at Mount Sinai, Judaism has consistently emphasized the two aspects of the Divine, as experienced by humans: God as creator of the cosmos and Law of Nature (Genesis 1:14, 8:22), and God as source of morality and its dictates.
Those two percepts of the Divine correspond to our own personal experience as concurrently living in two worlds:
* “The World of Law of Nature”, where free will is not feasible since violating law of nature results in immediate, apparent and non-miraculous penalty;
* “The World of Randomness”, where apparently no law exists with adverse consequence for its violation, wherefore we are free to act as we please.
Example for the first world (“Law of Nature”) is jumping from the 100th floor of a high-rise, where ignoring (“violating”) gravity results in immediate unambiguous “penalty”; An example for the second world (“Randomness”) is responding to a beggar’s plea for money, where we exercise free will on how to react, with seemingly no apparent consequence and no implication to our own personal destiny (irrespective of how we have responded).
The Ten Commandments, relevant only to the “World of Randomness”, where free will can be exercised, convey to us the “news”:
By word of the Creator, you are not completely free to act as you please.
Our own personal experience of the world as allowing free will, however only to a confined degree, namely, only in “The world of randomness”, this personal experience is expressed in biblical Hebrew in two concepts of the Divine, as creator and as source of morality. These concepts are epitomized in two names for the Divine, which repeatedly appear throughout the Hebrew Jewish Bible:
Elohim and Jehovah
(Please relate to my talk with Avi Ben-Morechai, accessible on this blog).
Prophet Isiah explicitly reference these two names and what they stand for:
“For thus says Jehovah that created the heavens, Elohim himself that formed Earth and made it, he has established it, not a wasteland created He it .. I am Jehovah and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:18).
The two books of the Divine, corresponding to these two names, are the physical cosmos, subject of investigation by modern physics, and Hebrew Torah. These two books have heretofore been perceived as unrelated to one another (at least not scientifically). For example: To this day, well known physical constants, like the speed of light or the electromagnetic charge of an electron, are accepted by modern physics as given. Furthermore, it is accepted that there is no scientifically established theory to determine these constants, apart from stating that if these constants were minutely changed the cosmos as we know it would not have been in existence (see lengthy discussion of this issue, for example, in Wikipedia, entry “Fine-tuned Universe” and references therein).
Obviously, no one ever linked these physical constants to biblical Hebrew.
The scientific new discoveries have changed this perception. They lead unavoidably to the conclusion that numerical values of biblical Hebrew words represent quantitative values of major physical properties of objects that the words stand for. For example, Eretz (Earth in Hebrew) represents Earth’s geometrical properties (like diameter and surface area) but also Earth’s mass, all of which are major physical properties of Earth. The scientifically unexplainable nature of the physical constants, alluded to earlier, become explainable in light of the new scientifically established discoveries: The speed of light (a physical constant) is what it is because light in Hebrew is Or, with a numerical value of 207 (which, by proper change of scale, converts into the physical speed of light).
By establishing the deep significance of the numerical values of Hebrew words, namely, their relationships to actual physical properties observed in the cosmos, the two worlds experienced in our lives, the “World of Law of Nature” and the “World of Randomness” (where apparently no law prevails unless one regards the Ten Commandments and their derivatives), these two worlds are scientifically unified and experienced as originating in one source. At the same time, the two books of the Divine, “Law of Nature” and “Law of Morality”, Elohim and Jehovah, respectively, no longer are experienced as separate “entities”: One subject to scientific enquiry; the other existing as a controvertible article of faith.
Rather, physical reality and morality are experienced as stemming from a single source.
With this, an ancient prophecy starts to begin to have its imprint on the annals of human history:
“..On that day Jehovah will be one and his name One” (Zechariah 14:9).
********************************************
Comment: Above post may be downloaded as a PDF file:
In this post, the amazing coincidence associated with planet Saturn (probably the biblical Hebrew Teman) is described.
An outstanding finding of my statistical analysis of biblical Hebrew is that numerical values of Hebrew names of planets linearly correlate with physical properties of the planets. A special issue that is often raised by curious viewers of Oren Evron’s movie is how have I determined names of individual planets. I explain this in detail in my book, and it is also addressed in the movie.
In this post, I wish to address in particular the name of Saturn, which had been assigned the biblical Hebrew Teman. Since the latter is referred to in the Hebrew Jewish Bible as either a southern land (for example, Zachariah 6:6), or simply as indicating “South” (for example, Deuteronomy 3:27), one may wonder how have I reached the conclusion that this word (Teman) probably denotes also a name of a specific planet (Saturn).
This conclusion had been reached similarly to how I have reached the conclusion that the Hebrew Shachar, “dawn” in modern Hebrew, is a name of a planet (conclusion compatible with traditional well known Jewish interpreters, like Metzudat-David and his son Metzudat Zion; relate to Section 8.3.5 in my book). In the case of Shachar, my conclusion had been reached based on a verse in Song of Songs: “Who is she that appears like Shachar, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, majestic as the stars in procession” (Song of Songs 6:10). One can hardly refrain from concluding that Shachar here implies also a celestial object, though which one remains to be specified.
By similar vein, let us read Job (9:9): “Who makes Ash, Ksil and Kimah and the chambers of Teman“. (all italicized words are biblical Hebrew). Rashi, a most revered Jewish interpreter, interprets Ksil and Kimah as known stars (“Mazalot”; planets, as known today, were unknown at Rashi’s time). Metzudat-David relates to all first three names as known stars. Let me emphasize: Not constellations of stars but individual stars.
Is there a good reason why Teman should not also denote a star name (a planet name, given today’s scientific knowledge)?
As it turns out, based on my quantitative analysis, the most probable candidate for Teman, as a name of a planet, is Saturn (find details in my book, Section 8.3.5). Therefore, this is the biblical Hebrew name I have assigned to Saturn.
Here comes the amazing surprise (coincidence):
Saturn is a southern planet (as seen from the northern hemisphere). It has an orbital period of 29.5 years (the time it takes to complete a revolution around the sun). If our conjecture is true and Saturn is indeed Teman, it is most extraordinary to find out that as Teman denotes in Hebrew both a southern planet and the concept of South, so the English Saturn and Southern are pronounced nearly identically (though written differently).
How unexpected!!!
(This interesting coincidence about the similarity of “Saturn” and the English “South” was brought to my attention by the movie producer, Oren Evron; I thank him for this insight.)
Pursuant to recent introduction of Oren Evron’s English-version movie: “The Torah – Math Unveils the Truth”, a document of questions and answers (Q&A) is linked herewith:
Q&A with Prof Haim Shore (English)_Movie_The Torah-Math Unveils the Truth_Feb 2015
Link to the movie:
A while ago I was approached by Mr. Oren Evron, who had suggested to produce a movie based on findings from my research on the Bible and on biblical Hebrew (as these are described in my book).
I happily accepted but clarified that my input to the production of the movie will be restricted to ensuring that my research findings are appropriately presented (from the scientific and the statistical perspectives).
The result is a fabulous high-quality movie, which presents, in a straightforward and easy-to-understand fashion, the findings and their profound significance.
A link to the channel, where the movie is posted, is given below:
“The Torah – Math Unveils the Truth” (English)_by Oren Evron_Feb 2015
A link to the movie with built-in Hebrew subtitles is given below:
הסרט עם תרגום מובנה לעברית:
“The Torah – Math Unveils the Truth” (English-Hebrew)_by Oren Evron_Feb 2015
Since studying as an undergraduate student at the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology) and learning, for the first time in my life, that randomness too has its own laws (in the form of statistical distributions, amongst others), I have become extremely appreciative of the ingenuity of the concept of statistical distribution. The sheer combining of randomness with laws, formulated in the language of mathematics not unlike any other branch of the exact sciences, fascinated me considerably, young man that I was at the time.
That admiration has all since evaporated as I have become increasingly aware of the gigantic number of statistical distributions, defined and used within the science of statistics to describe random behavior, either of real-world phenomena or of sample-statistics embedded in statistical-analysis procedures (like hypothesis testing). I realized that unlike with modern-day physics, engaged to this day in the unification of the basic forces of nature, the science of statistics has failed to carry out similar attempts at unification. What the latter implies for me is derivation of a single universal distribution, relative to which all current distributions might be regarded as statistically insignificant random deviations (not unlike a sample average is a random deviation from the population mean). Such unification has never materialized, or even been attempted or debated, within the science of statistics.
Personally, I attribute this failure at unification to the fact that current foundations of statistics, with its basic concepts like probability function, probability density function (pdf) or distribution function (often denoted cumulative density function, or CDF), have been established back in the eighteenth century to derive various early-day distributions. These foundations have not been challenged ever since. Some well-known mathematicians of the time, like Jacob and Daniel Bernoulli, Abraham de Moivre, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Pierre-Simon Laplace and Joseph Louis Lagrange have all used those basic terms of statistics to derive specific distributions. However, the basic tenets underlying formation of those mathematical models of random variation have not been challenged to this day. Central amongst these tenets is the belief that random phenomena, with their associated properly-defined random variables, have each its own specific distribution. That tenet remained intact and unchallenged to this day. Consequently, no serious attempt at unification has ever become the core objective of the science of statistics. Furthermore, no discussion of how to proceed in the pursuit of the “universal distribution” has ever been conducted.
My sentiment about the feasibility of revolutionizing the concept of statistical distribution and deriving a universal distribution, relative to which all current distributions may be regarded as random deviations, has changed dramatically with the introduction of a new non-linear modeling approach, denoted Response Modeling Methodology, RMM). I have developed RMM back in the closing years of the previous century (Shore, 2005, and references therein), and only some years later I realized that the “Continuous Monotone Convexity (CMC)” property, part and parcel of RMM, could serve to derive the universal distribution, in the sense described in the previous paragraph. (Read about the CMC property in another post in this blog).
The results of the new realization are two articles (Shore 2015, 2017), one of which has already been published and the second currently under review (see references here).
More recently, I have reached new insights regarding the “Universal Distribution”, the result of ongoing research on predicting and statistical control of surgery time. This research effort has produced the new “Random Identity Paradigm”, described and explained in various published resources. Some of these are detailed below (for others refer to references therein):
Novel approach to model process time_Haim Shore (January 2024, Free Access)
Why the mode departs from the mean — a short communication (CIS, Free Access).
Why the Mode Departs from the Mean (Post on this blog)
בפוסט זה מוצגות שאלות ותשובות עם פרופ. שור על מחקריו בתורה ובלשון הקודש. עם העלאתו ליו-טיוב בדצמבר 2014 של סרטם של אורן עברון ואמיר ירון (“תורת ישראל – המתמטיקה חושפת את האמת”), נשאלו שאלות רבות על הממצאים המוצגים והמשמעות שלהם. השאלות והתשובות, במסמך שלהלן, מנוסחות באופן פופולרי ככל האפשר, בתיאום עם יוצרי הסרט:
מסמך שאלות ותשובות עם פרופסור שור_דצמבר 2014
קישורית לחזרה לסרט באורך מלא (עברית):
“תורת ישראל – המתמטיקה חושפת את האמת”_אורן עברון ואמיר ירון (עברית)
:(קישורית חזרה לסרט, גירסה מקוצרת (אנגלית, כתוביות בעברית
Math Unveils The Truth! Torah is of Divine Origin (English, Hebrew subtitles)
Categories
Videos (Hebrew, English)
This post provides links to videos on Professor Haim Shore scientific research (Quality and Reliability Engineering; Bible and biblical Hebrew). Videos include also my public appearances (personal interviews, research conferences, study workshops, university lectures).
Except for the self-produced Lecture Series on Robust Design (Quality Engineering), all other videos (including titles, as given below) were produced by third parties. Language of communication is indicated in the name of the link. A link to Shore’s YouTube podcasts: List of Professor Shore’s YouTube Podcasts .
1. Bible and biblical Hebrew
One-on-One with Avi Ben Mordechai and Haim Shore (three half-hour episodes)
המתמטיקה חושפת את האמת ‒ התורה ממקור אלוהי (אנגלית, תת כותרות בעברית)
Math Unveils The Truth! Torah is of Divine Origin (English, English subtitles)
TOL Program 21 065 Haim Shore 01 (English)
Is There Linkage between Biblical Hebrew and Physical Reality? (Hebrew)
Is There Linkage between Biblical Hebrew and Physical Reality? (Hebrew, English captions)
Genesis Creation vs. Modern Cosmology – New Scientific Findings! (English, English captions))
!!בריאה לפי בראשית ולפי המדע – תואמים?? – ממצאים חדשים מדהימים
Professor Shore Bible Findings Simplified!! (English, English captions)
The Torah: Math Unveils the Truth (Trailer, Produced by Oren Evron)
Interview with Rav Zamir Cohen of Hidabroot and Prof. Haim Shore (Hebrew)
2. Quality and Reliability Engineering
SPC-based monitoring of ecological processes (Presentation, Hebrew)
Lecture Series on Robust Design (Quality Engineering, Hebrew)
Experts Panel—Stories of Success and Failure in Quality Improving Projects (Hebrew)
3. Statistics (theory and practice)
Response Modeling Methodology (RMM), Explained by Its Developer (video, English)
A while ago, I was approached by Mr. Avi ben Mordechai, owner and operator of “Torah on Location“, a by-subscription-only Internet-based platform for studying Torah, aired from Israel. Avi had suggested that we met for a talk about subjects of my choosing related to my study of Torah and biblical Hebrew, and that this talk would be videoed and be displayed on “Torah on Location“.
The results of this talk are several half-hour episodes, to be displayed on “Torah on Location”.
According to an agreement between Avi and me, one of these episodes would be displayed, open to the public, on YouTube.
A link to this episode is given below:
Talk of Avi ben Mordechai (“Torah on Location”) with Prof. Haim Shore
Categories
Antisemitism and “Killing the Messenger”
How is “Killing the Messenger” associated with antisemitism?
On October 1892, Asher Tzvi Ginzberg (1856-1927), also known by his pseudonym Achad-Haam, published an article in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz. The title of the article was: “Half a Comfort” (Chatzi Nechamah). The article was published half a century after the Damascus blood libel, and in it Achad Haam tries to extract a useful lesson from the anti-Semitic blood libel (if one can be extracted at all). He denotes this lesson: Chatzi Nechamah. Achad Haam hoped that his Chatzi Nechamah would help Jews worldwide to cope with the devastating psychological effects of constant vilification of the Jews as part of the acceptable Anti-Semitic “General Agreement” (in his words; today’s “General Consensus”).
In the article, linked below, I offer an additional “Half a Comfort”, to complement that of Achad Haam:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/anti-semitism-and-killing-the-messenger/
This article may also be downloaded as a PDF file:
This post shows how average lunar month may be algebraically calculated, accurate to five decimal points, from two ancient Jewish concepts, Baharad and Ve-Yad, associated with Written Torah (Genesis) and Oral Torah, respectively.
The average duration of the lunar (moon-based) month is, according to NASA site, 29.530589 days. Jewish tradition offers two concepts, basic to the Jewish calendar:
Baharad and Ve-Yad.
Both are related to an “attempt” to include the six days of creation (no regular days by any account) in the regular Jewish calendar. This is done by defining an imaginary year that preceded the start of the first lunar renewal in the Jewish calendar (starting, according to Jewish tradition, with the completion of the creation of Adam).
In the article, linked below, I show that these two concepts alone, Baharad and Ve-Yad, are sufficient to obtain a solution to an algebraic equation, which implies that the average duration of the lunar month is 29.530594 days (a deviation of 0.000005 days from the value cited at NASA site).
Haim Shore_Average Length of Lunar Month Calculated from Genesis and Jewish Tradition_Oct 2014
Same article appears in Hebrew in a separate post.
The Hebrew letter Samech often occurs in names of enemies of the Jewish Nation, in the Bible and else. Is this a coincidence?
Samech, the fifteenth in the Hebrew alphabet, seems to be one of the most peculiar (and significant) letters in the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish history, past and present. Here is why:
On February 4th, 2013, I was interviewed, together with Rav Zamir Cohen of the Hidabroot not-for-profit organization, on the significance of my research results both from the scientific and the Jewish perspectives.
A link to this interview, posted on Hidabroot web site, is given below:
“Torah and Mada” – An Interview with Rav Zamir Cohen and Prof. Haim Shore (Hebrew)
In this post I display a link to a series of videoed lectures (Hebrew), delivered to graduate students at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev during Spring Semester of 2014.
The trigger for videoing the lectures was a request from a female student, who could not attend the lectures (due to pregnancy). Later it had occurred to me that the videoed lectures could serve a wider purpose of exposing quality engineers and technicians in Israel to the robust design approach.
The series of lectures covers Taguchi approach to robust design, Orthogonal Arrays used to design needed experimentation, use of EVOP (Evolutionary Operation) to optimize a working (operative) process and finally Response Surface Methodology (RSM).
A link to all lectures is provided below. Each episode is about an hour long (though original lectures are each three-hour long). Links to supportive materials are also provided below.
Prof. Haim Shore Lectures on Robust Design (Hebrew) – Channel
A new in-depth interpretation of the sin of Adam and Eve.
The story of the sin of Adam and Eve, as it is unfolding in the third chapter of Genesis, is well known. Simplistically summarized, the story relates how God had forbidden Adam from eating of the Tree of Knowledge, good and bad, warning him that ”on the day that thou eat of it thou shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Seduced by the serpent, Eve, Adam’s madam, defies God’s command and also convince Adam to join the party. As a result of the sin, God imposes custom-made penalties on the serpent, the woman and the man, and expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden lest they also ate from the Tree of Life and would live forever (Genesis 3:22-24). The whole story of the sin begins at Genesis 2:15-17 and ends at Genesis 3:1-24.
Numerous interpretations have been offered for this story. The article below offers a new and innovative interpretation:
Haim Shore_Adam and Eve-What was the Sin? What was the Cure?_A Current-day Interpretation
A PDF file of this article may be downloaded here:
Prof Haim Shore_Adam and Eve_What was the Sin_ What was the Cure_ The Times of Israel_Sep 2014
“And Elohim spoke to Moses and said to him: I am Jehovah” (Exodus 6:2). I consider this bizarre verse, with two names for God, one of the most important verses in the Torah. In this blog entry, I explain why.
The exact verse, as it appears in common English translations, is:
“And God spoke to Moses and said to him: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:2).
As seen above, the original Hebrew indeed uses two different names for God: Elohim and Jehovah. Why use in this short verse two different names and how is this significant?
The linked article below addresses this question.
Haim Shore_God spoke to Moses and said to him I am God_April 2014
Reading ancient Jewish texts, one is often bewildered at the seriousness with which Jewish scholars, as well as other individuals of faith, have addressed words and verses in the Hebrew Bible, in ancient times as well as at present. For example, if the same word appears in two different locations in the Bible, in seemingly unrelated contexts, the general attitude in ancient Jewish interpretations of biblical text is that probably some hidden message in conveyed, which should be uncovered, about the linkage between the different usages of a seemingly identical word.
A famous example is the word “איכה”, spelled the same but pronounced differently and also carrying different meanings in Genesis (3:9), where it means “Where art thou?”, and in Lamentations (1:1), believed to be written by prophet Jeremiah, where the same word means, in today’s everyday parlance, “How come?” (Like in: “How come you are still here?”).
One is naturally tempted, or inclined, to relate to this careful analyzing of the meaning of each word and verse in the Hebrew Bible, and the meticulous exploration of hidden meanings in them or in their mutual relationships, as excess and exaggeration of people of faith, who believe in a Divine source for the Hebrew Bible.
Is this inconceivable that the Hebrew Torah had been written with occasional random selection of words and phrases, not unlike one may find in any typical human text? Why treat each word so seriously?
In other words: Have not Jewish scholars, in their lengthy explanations of every single word and verse in the Hebrew Bible, somehow crossed the fine line of reasonable interpretation of sacred text?
The purpose of this blog entry is to demonstrate the mathematical precision of the Torah text. This precision often leaves one stunned at the high level of attention-to-detail displayed by Torah words and their inter-relationships. This knife-sharp precision of expression cannot but arouse respect for Torah text, even for non-believers. Accordingly, none of the four examples, to be expounded below, relates in any way to articles of faith but only to the exactness of expression, which leaves one doubtless about what biblical Hebrew text, words sentences or verses, intended to convey.
Example 1: “And there was evening and there was morning the first day” (Genesis 1:5)
This is the common verse that one may find in English translations of the Hebrew Bible.
Alas, this is not what is written therein!
In 1993-1994, I had spent a year in Madison, Wisconsin, where I was a visiting professor at the invitation of the local branch of the Wisconsin University. A few days after arrival to Madison, I went to a local bookstore to purchase an English version of the Hebrew Bible. I made up my mind in advance that I would buy only a translation that fulfilled a certain criterion I had set in advance: that the fifth verse of Genesis was properly translated. I had to examine several different translations before finding a single version, where the verse appeared correctly translated:
“And there was evening and there was morning one day”.
Why is “one day” kosher and “first day” is logically impossible?
Answer: You can denote something “first” when, and only when, it appears at first position of an orderly sequence of objects. When there is yet only one object, it is nonsensical to denote it “first”, even if other objects may join at a later time. The Torah makes it no secret that the days of creation happened consecutively, in an orderly succession. Therefore, one cannot logically denote the first day of creation “first” when there was not yet a second day, a third day and so on.
“First day”, or “Day one”, are logically wrong; “One day” is correct, and this is how it appears in the Hebrew Bible.
Mathematical precision!
Example 2: “Thou shall love thy neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18)
This is one of the most well-known verses of the Bible. Alas, this is not what is written in the Hebrew text. A common joke of young Israelis:
Friend 1: “Tell me, A fisherman, does he love fish?”
Friend 2: “Of course he does”;
Friend 1: “So why does he eat them?”
The source of the joke humor (agreeing that one exists..) is that the same word, “love”, is employed in two divorced senses. When one asks his friend “Do you love wine?” and “Do you love your child?” the meanings imparted are incompatible with one another. One loves wine because it satisfies her needs. When same question is asked about one’s own child it implies total readiness to satisfy someone-else’s needs, the child’s needs. The first love implies taking. The second love implies unconditional giving. And when one gives it is most often expressed with the qualifying “to”, like in: “The money was given to the needy”.
The Hebrew Torah, in an obvious effort to clarify that the intended meaning is “Love in order to give”, rather than “Love in order to take”, formulates the command to “love thy neighbor” as follows (literal (word-for-word) translation):
“Love to thy friend as yourself”.
Interestingly, this is the sole chapter in the whole of the Hebrew Bible, where this bizarre combination of “love to” appears (it re-appears in verse 34 of same chapter). Apparently, when a command is given in the Torah, the language of the law should be clear-cut, as in a legal document, leaving no space for confusion.
Mathematical precision.
Example 3: “If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile towards me, then in my anger I will be hostile towards you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over” (Leviticus 26:27-28)
Here the various translations diverge mainly because the word that is at the heart of these verses, Keri, appears only in this chapter (several times) and nowhere else in the Bible. Furthermore, Keri is not explained and is hard to comprehend based on relevant context. So naturally interpretations diverge but they all imply rebellion against God.
But what does “rebellion against God” mean?
In my book I dedicate a whole section to how the Bible, and Torah in particular, relate to randomness (therein, Section 3.3). The key word here is Keri, the root of which is K.R.H, shared by all words relating to randomness or to “occurring by random”. In fact, the Hebrew Karah (meaning occurred) and the English counterpart sound alike.
Employing this insight, the above verse can be literally translated from the Hebrew origin thus (my literal translation):
“If in spite of this you would not obey my laws and walked with me in Keri, then I would walk with you with the wrath of Keri, and would also be tormenting you seven times over for your sins”.
The original Hebrew contains only 19 words (versus 41 for both alternative interpretations displayed earlier). Therefore some further explanation is due. “Walk with God” appears earlier in the Torah, for example: “and Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:9). It means, simply, that Noah related to God, with no further qualification. Apparently, taking account of the Hebrew root of the word Keri, “walking with God in Keri” implies a belief that God’s code for leading his world is completely incomprehensible to humans and therefore it looks to humans as random. God’s response: If you hold on to this belief, that whatever occurs to humans is independent of their own conduct, then I will punish you with further randomness. In other words, if you do not believe that Divine Justice prevails in how the Divine “manages” the world (like in “why bad things happen to good people?”), then I will burden you with further randomness so that you will be tormented by turning blind to how Divine justice permeates world affairs. Your belief in randomness will thus transform into a self-fulfilling prophecy, tormenting you seven times over by your inability (or lack of will) to establish linkage between your own conduct and whatever happens to you.
In nineteen words, selecting a magically focused single word, Keri, the Bible conveys precisely the idea intended.
Example 4: “Thou shalt not… put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14)
The English translation of the original Hebrew verse, and as it commonly appears in various English versions of the Bible, distorts the original meaning of the Hebrew text. The latter appears, bizarrely one may add, with the word “give” rather than “put”, namely:
“Thou shalt not… give a stumbling block to the blind” (Leviticus 19:14)
This lends the verse a whole new meaning; and Jewish scholars painstakingly interpreted it using a panoramic view of the basic idea the text intends to impart.
I have addressed this verse in great detail, based on traditional Jewish scholarship, in Section 1.3.3 of my book.
(Book downloadable free in this blog, at About).
Conclusion
The four examples intended to deliver a taste of the mathematical precision with which the Hebrew Bible succinctly conveys ideas and information. These examples may hopefully generate deeper understanding of why Jewish scholars have traditionally attributed so much importance to the exact articulation of every verse and word in the Bible; and why the Hebrew Bible has so meticulously been duplicated (copied) from generation to generation in order to guarantee that the exact wording of the Bible be preserved and that the mathematical precision of biblical text not be lost.
As a result, current day Bible continues to serve, as it did in the past, a source of inspiration and of guidance to humankind.
*********************************
This post is downloadable in PDF format at:
Haim Shore_Mathematical Precision of Biblical Hebrew_April 2014
Categories
Morality and the Speed of Light
What does morality have to do with the speed of light? In this blog entry, I explain why I believe a fundamental property of the fabric of the cosmos, the constancy of the speed of light, is a prerequisite not only for the scientific study of nature but also for the existence of absolute (non-relative) morality.
Find details in the article linked below.
A letter to Significance (July 2014), addressing an often asked fundamental question: Why use an average?? This letter was written by me in response to a letter published in Significance by Tom King (February issue, p. 46), in which the writer conveys his (bad) experience when he asks undergraduate students and colleagues : “Why do we calculate averages?”.
Why use an average_A letter to Significance Magazine_Haim Shore_March 2014
The letter, as published in Significance, is linked below (titled “Average Differences”):
Haim Shore_Why Use an Average_Significance Magazine_V 11(2)_p 45-46_July 2014
In a workshop about recent advances in the application of statistical methods to quality engineering and management, conducted in March of 2013 by the Open University of Israel, I have delivered a presentation (Hebrew) about SPC-based modeling and monitoring of ecological processes. The lecture was based on my recently published article:
Shore, H. (2013), Modeling and Monitoring Ecological Systems—A Statistical Process Control Approach. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int.. doi: 10.1002/qre.1544
A link to the presentation is given below:
Haim Shore_SPC monitoring of ecological processes_Open University_March 2013
This post delivers an in-depth analysis of the significance of the statistical term Significance Level (in response to an article in Significance Journal).
In a focus article that has appeared in Significance magazine (October, 2013), the author Mark Kelly delivers an excellent review of what “luminaries have to say” regarding the proper significance level to use in statistical hypothesis testing. The author thence concludes:
“No one therefore has come up with an objective statistically based reasoning behind choosing the now ubiquitous 5% level, although there are objective reasons for levels above and below it. And no one is forcing us to choose 5% either.”
In a response article, sent to the editor of Significance, Julian Champkin, I have made the point that, unlike the claim made in the original article, there is an obvious method to determine objectively the optimal statistical significance level. While the editor accepted my article, he declined to include the detailed numerical example therein since “Your illustration, though, is a little too technical for some of our readers – we have many who are not statisticians, and we try to keep heavy maths to a minimum in the magazine.”
In a further (unanswered) e-mail to the editor, I have suggested a solution to the editor’s concern and stated that “Personally I feel that there are many practitioners out there who could benefit from this simple practical example and get aware that engineering considerations are part and parcel of hypothesis testing in an engineering environment. I often feel that these engineers are somewhat neglected in the statistics literature in favor of pure science.”
Based on my own experience of over thirty years of academic teaching to industrial engineering undergraduates, I feel that it is important that individuals working in an engineering environment understand that the view point expressed in Kelly’s article in the Significance magazine, which is quite prevalent, is not accurate in all circumstances.
With this in mind, the originally submitted article, titled:
“What is the significance of the significance level?” “It’s the error costs, stupid!”
is linked below:
Haim Shore_What is the significance of the significance level_Response to Significance_March 2014
On March, 6, 2014, my research team delivered a seminar (in English) at the Soroka Medical Center, describing our ongoing research project in modeling and monitoring fetal growth. The research team includes, besides myself, Dr. Diamanta Benson-Karhi (from the Open University) and Professor Asher Bashiri (from Soroka and Ben-Gurion University).
Concurrently, our graduate student, Mrs. Maya Malamud, had concluded her thesis and delivered a presentation (in Hebrew) during her final exam session.
Both presentations are now accessible here (in PDF format):
Haim Shore_SPC-based Monitoring of Fetal Growth_Presentation (English)_March 2014
Maya Malamud_Fetal Growth Study_Final Exam Presentation (Hebrew)_March 2014
Article published in Quality Ebgineering:
This book was self-published back in 1992 (2nd edition in 1995). A unique feature of the book is that each page is structured as a separate slide, which may be integrated into a presentation. Related theoretical material is deferred to the appendices.
The book had gained popularity in Israel in institutions, academic and otherwise, where courses, or workshops, in quality engineering had been taught.
It may now be downloaded free here (with bookmarks that allow easy access to each chapter):
What is the linkage between the science of statistics and “Stamp Collecting”? More than you can imagine.. This blog entry (with the linked article and PP presentation) was originally posted, for a restricted time period, on the Community Blog of the American Statistical Association (ASA), where the linked items were visible to members only. The blog entry is now displayed, with the linked items, visible to all.
This is the fourth and last message in this series about the consequences to statistical modeling of the continuous monotone convexity (CMC) property. The new message discusses implications of the CMC property to modeling random variation.
As a departure point for this discussion, some historic perspective about the development of the principle of unification in human perception of nature can be useful.
Our ancestors believed in a multiplicity of gods. All phenomena of nature had their particular gods and various manifestations of same phenomenon were indeed different displays of wishes, desires and emotions of the relevant god. Thus, Prometheus was a deity who gave fire to the human race and for that was punished by Zeus, the king of the gods; Poseidon was the god of the seas; and Eros was the god of desire and attraction.
This convenient “explanation” for the diversity of nature phenomena had all but disappeared with the advent of monotheism. Under the “umbrella” of a single god, ancient gods were “deleted”, to be replaced by a “unified” and “unifying” almighty god, the source of all nature phenomena.
And the three major monotheistic religions had been born.
The “concept” of unification, however, did not stop there. It was migrated to science, where pioneering giants of modern scientific thinking observed diverse phenomena of nature and had attempted to unify them into an all-encompassing mathematics-based theory, from which the separate phenomena could be deduced as special cases. Some of the most well-known representatives of this mammoth shift in human thinking, in those early stages of modern science, were Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and Isaac Newton (1642-1727).
In particular, the science of physics had been at the forefront of these early attempts to pursue the basic concept of unity in the realm of science. Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937), known as the father of nuclear physics and the discoverer of the proton (in 1919), made the following observation at the time:
“All science is either physics or stamp collecting”.
The assertion, quoted in Kaku (1994, p. 131), intended to convey a general sentiment that the drive to converge the five fundamental forces of nature into a unifying theory, nowadays a central theme of modern physics, represented science at its best. Furthermore, this is the only correct approach to the scientific investigation of nature. By contrast, at least until recently, most other scientific disciplines have engaged in taxonomy (“bug collecting” or “stamp collecting”). With “stamp collecting” the scientific inquiry is restricted to the discovery and classification of the “objects of enquiry”, particular to that science. However, this never culminates, as in physics, in a unifying theory from which all these objects may be deductively derived as “special cases”.
Is statistics a science of “stamp collecting”?
Observing the abundance of statistical distributions, identified to-date, an unavoidable conclusion is that statistics is indeed a science engaged in “stamp collecting”. Furthermore, serious attempts at unification (partial, at least) are rarely reported in the literature.
In a recent article (Shore, 2015), I have attempted a new paradigm for modeling random variation. The new paradigm, so I believe, may constitute an initial effort to unite all distributions under a unified “umbrella distribution”. In the new paradigm, the “Continuous Monotone Convexity (CMC)” property plays a central role in deriving a general expression to the normal-based quantile function of a generic random variable (assuming a single mode and a non-mixture distribution). Employing numeric fitting to current distributions, the new model has been shown to deliver accurate representation to scores of differently-shaped distributions (including some suggested by anonymous reviewers). Furthermore, negligible deviations from the fitted general model may be attributed to the natural imperfection of the fitting procedure or being perceived as realization of random variation around the fitted general model, not unlike a sample average is a random deviation from the population mean.
In a more recent effort (Shore, 2017), a new paradigm for modeling random variation is introduced and validated via certain predictions about known “statistical facts” (like the Central Limit Theorem), shown to be empirically true, and via distribution fitting, via 5-moment matching procedure, to a sample of known distributions.
These topics and others are addressed extensively in the afore-cited new article. It is my judgment that at present the CMC property constitutes the only possible avenue for achieving in statistics (as in most other modern branches of science) unification of the “objects of enquiry”, as these relate to modeling random variation.
In the affiliated Article #4 , I introduce in a more comprehensive fashion (yet minimally technical) an outline of the new paradigm and elaborate on how the CMC property is employed to arrive at a “general model of random variation”. A related PowerPoint presentation, delivered last summer at a conference in Michigan, is also displayed.
Haim Shore_4_ASA_PP Presentation_Feb 2014
References
[1] Kaku M (1994). Hyperspace- A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps and the Tenth Dimension. Book. Oxford University Press Inc., NY.
[3] Shore, H. (2017). The Fundamental Process by which Random Variation is Generated. Under review.
“Outrage in Afghanistan” and a similar, almost concurrent, one in Israel. Sheer historic coincidence??
In his Talking Points on “Bill O’reilly Factor” (Fox News), February 13, 2014, the anchor, Bill O’reilly, related to the outrageous release, by President Karzai of Afghanistan, of 65 convicted Taliban terrorists, who have killed or maimed Americans.
In a response comment, posted on the same day at Foxnews blog, I wrote:
“Whence the surprise that Americans have to furiously witness release of Taliban terrorists, who have killed Americans, if only a few months ago Israelis had to furiously witness the American administration forcing the Israeli government release Palestinians terrorists, who have murdered Israelis? (check the two numbers!)”
In this post I detail the two parallel cases, which have surprisingly occurred no more than six months apart.
On August 2013, the Israeli Cabinet agreed on a four-stage process by which 104 Palestinian prisoners will be released as part of a “confidence-building” measure aimed to boost renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. This decision was taken after US Secretary of State John Kerry, in his efforts to persuade the Palestinian side to re-embark on peace talks with Israel, posed two possible (one may say impossible) options for the Israeli government: To cease construction in Jewish villages and towns beyond the green line (Israel pre-1967 war borders) or release Palestinian terrorists, convicted in due judicial process in the Israeli Justice System.
All of the prisoners slated for release were convicted for terrorism against Israel before the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993; most were directly involved in the murder of Israelis and many were serving life sentences. On August 13, 2013, Israel released the first group of 26 convicted Palestinians terrorists. Another group of 26 were released October, 30th, and another group of 26 prisoners on December 31st, 2013.
By February of 2014, altogether 78 convicted Palestinian prisoners were released from Israeli jails in accordance with the decision of the Israeli government. (a fourth group was slated to be released April, 2014).
On February, 14th, Afghan President Hamid Karzai ordered the release of 65 captured Taliban terrorists who were supposed to be tried for crimes against civilians in their own country. These killers have also been linked to the deaths of 32 Americans and allied troops according to the U.S. command. This decision by Karzai was termed by Bill O’reilly “An Outrage in Afghanistan”.
The parallelism, between US conduct towards the State of Israel and supposed consequences to the US, is the subject of several books, published recently, all pursuing a single paradigm: “As America Has Done to Israel…”.
Examples:
McTernan, J. (2008). As America Has Done to Israel. Whitaker House.
Kroening, W. R. (2008). Eye to Eye: Facing the Consequences of Dividing Israel. About Him. Revised Edition.
The above current historical coincidence may be just that (or not).
Categories
List of Posts
This page lists all posts in Professor Haim Shore blog (by category). Press any item in the list to access the linked post.
( Podcast list in Section 7; Bible Reads in Section 8, also here; Link to Shore’s YouTube podcasts: List of Professor Shore’s YouTube Podcasts; Link to Shore’s Authorized Publications List: Professor Haim Shore Authorized Publications List ; Amazon link to Shore’s book, with most posts of this blog: The Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Science and Their Inter-relationships: A compendium of essays, 2010-2023)
1. Statistics
- Most Read Articles of All Time
- Re-defining Error within the Random Identity Paradigm (RIP; Pre-Print)
- Review of an Accepted Paper (“Why the Mode Departs from the Mean”)
- Why the Mode Departs from the Mean (Published, Open Access)
- Why the Mode Departs from the Mean
- New Article at ENBIS-22 Special Issue
- My Four-Part Mini-Series Now on Wiley StatsRef Online
- Why the Mode Occasionally Departs from the Mean?
- Tutorial on Response Modeling Methodology (RMM)
- “Quality by Design” – Lectures (Hebrew) Delivered to Engineers from Israel Industry
- Where Statistics Went Wrong Modeling Random Variation
- Where Statistics Went Wrong? And Why?
- Response Modeling Methodology (RMM) Explained by Its Developer (video, English)
- Response Modeling Methodology – Now on Wikipedia
- The Universal Distribution
- Statistics and “Stamp Collecting”
- CMC-Based Modeling – the Approach and Its Performance Evaluation
- The “Continuous Monotone Convexity (CMC)” Property and its Implications to Statistical Modeling
- Why is the Box-Cox transformation so effective?
- The Significance of the Significance Level
2. Bible and Biblical Hebrew
- What is “The Chosen People”? Do the Jews Benefit from It? Do They Have a Choice?? — Bible Answers
- The True Meaning of the First Commandment
- Jehovah – God of History?
- Amos Prophecy about Damascus, Gaza, Tyre (Lebanon), Teman (Yemen), Ammon (Jordan) – In a Single Chapter
- “Comfort, comfort my people” (Isaiah, 40:1) – Post/Podcast (English/Hebrew)
- Gal in… Exodus
- גְּלִילָה, גָּלוּת, גְּאוּלָה, גִּלּוּי, גָּלִיל, גּוֹלָן, (Podcast) מה קושר את כולם יחד
- גְּלִילָה, גָּלוּת, גְּאוּלָה, גִּלּוּי, גָּלִיל, גּוֹלָן, גָּל. מה קושר את כולם יחד
- Glila, Galut, Geula, Gilui, Galilee, Golan, Gal – What binds them all together? (Post/Podcast)
- Divine Justice — In Midwater and in Midair
- Bible on “Two-State Solution”, on Shedding Jewish Blood “In Their Land”, and the Final Outcome
- Shorty: How We Perceive Ourselves and What Can We Become — The Story of Moses
- The Hidden Message of the First Chapter of the Bible
- Four Major Bible Messages
- How Will the Jews Re-gather Into Their Ancestral Homeland? – Jeremiah Prophecy
- Which of the Ten Commandments Forbids Taking Hostages?
- Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew (Book, 3rd Ed.)
- The Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Science (A New Book)
- “And the Earth” (Genesis 1:1) Delivers the First Seven Decimal Digits of Pi
- Why a Jewish Rabbi wondered that Sun in Hebrew not named Eretz (Earth)?
- A Succinct Description of Current Status of Israel
- Shorty: When was an Earlier Climate Change and What Caused it?
- How to Build a GAG (Roof) in Two Steps
- Agag, Haman the Agagite, Gog, Magog, Gag — What binds them all together?
- Is Torah Divinely Inspired?
- Values of Hebrew Day-Names in Genesis 1 Represent Ordinal Positions
- “Shamayim” — The Most Counter-intuitive Yet Scientifically Accurate Word in Biblical Hebrew
- In biblical Hebrew — “Yom” is not necessarily “Day”
- “And There was Evening and There was Morning” (Gen. 1) — A Different Interpretation
- “Becoming Holy” — The Bible Prescription
- God of History and Verse Number in Torah
- Shorty*: The Pandemic — Divine Signal for End of an Era of Free-Will (??)
- “Diber” or “Dever” – Two Modes of Divine Dialogue with Humankind in a World of Free-Will
- Why do I Trust the Biblical Prophets??
- Linkage between Torah First Verse and Pi — Some of Evron’s Findings
- “Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19) — Why??
- “Law and Order”? — Sure, “only no fear of God in this place”
- Pi First Digits and Genesis First Verse
- Shorty*: The Basic Human Condition — “Angels of God Ascending and Descending” (Gen. 28:12)
- Shorty*: Are Genesis Creation “Days” Regular Days?
- Divine Justice and Skin-Color Discrimination (Numbers 12)
- Faust’s Mephistopheles and Biblical Figures Mephi(boshet) and (Achi)tophel
- Shorty: The Mathematical Structure of the Priests Blessing
- Shorty*: Why “God is He” in biblical Hebrew??
- Who Were the Philistines, Why Were They So Named, Where Did They Vanish?
- Shorty*: Where “Do Not Steal” Appears in the Ten Commandments (!?)
- Shorty*: What Do We Know of God?
- “And Elohim Saw Ki Tov” (“that it was good”)” (Gen. 1)— A Different Viewpoint
- Kavod- The Most Peculiar Word in Biblical Hebrew
- First, Ten “Says” (Creation); Then Ten “Acts” (of Divine Intervention); Finally, Ten “Speaks” (Commandments)
- Items Moved from ResearchGate
- Free Will— The Act of Separating and Choosing
- Shorty*: “World is My Own and I have Produced Myself” – A Tale of Two Cultures
- Shorty*: Scripture on “Animals Killing Animals”
- One-on-One with Avi Ben Mordechai and Haim Shore – Three Half-hour Episodes
- Shorty*: Why Genesis Third Day is Unlike the Rest?
- Shorty*: What Ultimately Comforted Job?
- The Five Principles of the Ten Commandments_Nov 2016
- The Three Pillars of Truth- Lessons from the Hebrew Alphabet
- אורך חודש ממוצע על פי בהר”ד ו-וי”ד בלבד
- Shorty*: Judge and King-“Submission” vs. “Liberty” ; “Nature” vs. “Randomness” ; “Law” vs. “Free-will”
- New 3-minute Trailer About “Torah – Math Unveils the Truth” by Oren Evron
- Present-day double message of the forbidden fruit
- Shorty*: “Speak Hebrew and be Righteous”
- Shorty*: The Human Desire to be like God
- Is There Linkage between Biblical Hebrew and Physical Reality? (Video; Hebrew, English captions)
- Genesis Creation vs. Modern Cosmology – A Statistical Analysis!
- Present-Day Ultimate Replay of the Sin of Adam and Eve
- Prof. Shore’s Bible Findings – Simplified (New Short Videos, Hebrew/English)
- “Good and Bad” and “Good and Evil” – Recording of meeting with Rav Ginsburgh and Rav Yaniv (Hebrew)
- Agripa Key for English Alphabet Gematria
- The Planets Example – the Case of Saturn
- The Two Books of the Divine and Their Scientific Linkage
- Q&A with Prof. Shore (English)
- New Movie on Prof. Shore’s Biblical Research Findings (English)
- Q&A with Prof. Shore (Hebrew)_שאלות ותשובות עם פרופ. שור על מחקריו בתורה ובלשון הקודש
- Hebrew-English presentation on the Bible and on biblical Hebrew (with color graphics)
- New Articles Related to My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew
- An Interview with the Author in the Jerusalem Post (Dec., 4th, 2009)
- “God spoke to Moses and said to him: I am God”
- The Mathematical Precision of Biblical Hebrew
- Adam and Eve – What was the Sin? What was the Cure?
- Average Length of the Lunar Month Calculated from Baharad and Ve-Yad
- Interview with Rav Zamir Cohen of Hidabroot and Prof. Haim Shore (Hebrew)
- Talk of Avi ben Mordechai (from “Torah on Location”) with Prof. Haim Shore (from Ben-Gurion University)
3. Fetal and Child Growth: Modeling and Monitoring
- Modeling and Monitoring Fetal Growth
- RMM-based Modeling of Child Growth
- SPC-based Monitoring of Fetal Growth (Presentations)
4. General Statistical Applications
- Why the Mode Occasionally Departs from the Mean?
- Modeling and Forecasting Surgey-Time (published article, now Free Access)
- Tutorial on Response Modeling Methodology (RMM)
- “Quality by Design” – Lectures (Hebrew) Delivered to Engineers from Israel Industry
- Why Surgery-Duration Predictions are So Poor, and a Possible Remedy
- My Trilogy of Articles on Surgery Times – Now Complete (Published)
- Predictive Methods for Surgery Duration (new entry in Wikipedia)
- SPC Scheme to Monitor Surgery Duration (new article)
- An explanatory model for surgery-duration
- How to Use Standard Deviations in Weighting Averages?
- Fibonacci series, Pi, Golden Ratio — Simple Relationships
- Determining measurement-error requirements to satisfy statistical-process-control performance requirements (Presentation, English)
- Total Quality, Quality Control and Quality by Design (Book, in Hebrew)
- SPC-based monitoring of ecological processes
- Why use an average??
5. Current Historical Coincidences
- Jehovah – God of History?
- Wildfires in California
- What does “Kamala” mean in Biblical Hebrew?
- Divine Justice — In Midwater and in Midair
- Scores of Projectiles Launched on Israel with No Casualties?? — Not for the First Time
- “As America Has Done to Israel…”
- A Succinct Description of Current Status of Israel
- God of History and Verse Number in Torah
- Shorty*: Coronavirus in biblical-Hebrew (??)
- Signature of Evil — “M” and “N” Combination in Names of Willing Executioners of the Jewish People (Bible perspective)
- “Ishmael&Esau” vs. “Obama&Trump” — Stunning Commonalities!
- “An Outrage in Afghanistan”; and One in Israel
- The Significance of the Hebrew Samech and Its Occurrence in Names of Enemies of the Jewish Nation
6. General
- King, Judge and… Quality Inspector (on Judicial Reform)
- Most Read Articles of All Time
- Hamas and Nazi-occupied Theresienstadt Ghetto – Find the Differences
- On the Direct Line from a Scientific Theory of Nature to “The Final Solution”
- Book (3rd Ed., 2023) Now Available for Free-Download
- The Built-In Conflict Within the Jewish Culture
- The Most Famous Eulogy for An Israeli Youngster Murdered by an Arab — When? Where?
- Current Detoxification of Israeli Society
- How I Repaid Maccabiah for Saving My Father from the Holocaust
- Shorty: When was an Earlier Climate Change and What Caused it?
- Lectures on Robust Design (13 Episodes, Hebrew)
- “Rough Justice” – The Case of “Shore vs. Motorola” in an American Court
- Quality Control and Review — Two Concepts Confused by Israel Supreme Court
- Hebrew Songs I Love
- New “Haim Shore Blog” Launched
- Professor Haim Shore Authorized Publications List
- Free-Will? — Flowchart Answer
- “Words of Wisdom and Experience” (now in paperback)
- Viewership of This Blog (Statistics)
- Shorty*: The True Significance of the New Mass-Media Model
- Shorty*: Free will?? — Only when the “Ego” is subjugated to “I”
- How Israel Transformed from a Land of Common Sense to a Bastion of Formalities
- Mass Media Reports on Haim Shore Bible Research
- Personal Rebellion — The Act of Rebalancing “Judge” and “King”
- New Book — “Words of Wisdom and Experience”
- My “Posts” as a Teenager (1963-1965; Hebrew)
- Micromanagement by the Unelected Judicial Branch of the Elected Executive Branch
- Shorty”: “Anger” – Best Opportunity for Transition from “Ego other” to “Non-ego other”, from “I-It” to “I-Thou”
- Shorty*: Desert as Epitome for a Potential Culture of Hatred
- Access to my Posts on Times of Israel
- “Opening Hours”—In Israel and Abroad
- Fog Over Israel — World Disconnected (?)
- Ha-Tikvah (“The Hope”)
- “Equality” – The Sacred Cow that Distorts Observed Reality
- Videos of Prof. Shore’s Public Appearances (Hebrew, English)
- Morality and the Speed of Light
- Lecture Series on Robust Design (Quality Engineering)
- Antisemitism and “Killing the Messenger”
7. Podcasts (Audio; Also, Section 8 below)
- גְּלִילָה, גָּלוּת, גְּאוּלָה, גִּלּוּי, גָּלִיל, גּוֹלָן, (Podcast) מה קושר את כולם יחד
- Glila, Galut, Geula, Gilui, Galilee, Golan, Gal – What binds them all together? (Podcast)
- How We Perceive Ourselves and What Can We Become — The Story of Moses (Podcast)
- The Hidden Message of the First Chapter of the Bible (Podcast)
- Four Major Bible Messages (Podcast)
- How Will the Jews Re-gather Into Their Ancestral Homeland? – Jeremiah Prophecy (Podcast)
- Hebrew Bible Mathematical Precision (Podcast)
- Why a Jewish Rabbi wondered that Sun in Hebrew not named Eretz? (Podcast; Spanish)
- Why a Jewish Rabbi wondered that Sun in Hebrew not named Eretz? (Podcast)
- How I Repaid Maccabiah for Saving My Father from the Holocaust (Audio-podcast)
- “Diber” or “Dever” – Two Modes of Divine Dialogue with Humankind in a World of Free-Will (Podcast)
- Where Statistics Went Wrong Modeling Random Variation (Podcast)
- Why Predictions of Surgery-Duration are So Poor, and a Possible Remedy (Podcast)
- Agag, Haman the Agagite, Gog, Magog, Gag — What binds them all together? (Podcast)
- Is Torah Divinely Inspired? (Podcast)
- Punishment vs. Guidance — Explaining Adverse Outcome of Well-intentioned Behavior (Podcast)
- How Israel Transformed from a Land of Common-Sense to a Bastion of Formalities (Podcast)
- Why Trust Bible Prophets?? (Podcast)
- Black Holes and Near-Death Experience (NDE) — A One-way Flow of Information (Podcast)
- “Shamayim” — The Most Counter-intuitive Yet Scientifically Accurate Word in Biblical Hebrew (Podcast)
- “And There was Evening and There was Morning” (Genesis 1) — A Different Interpretation (Podcast)
- “Becoming Holy” — The Bible Prescription (Podcast)
- The Three Pillars of Truth (Lessons from the Hebrew Alphabet; Podcast-audio)
- Free Will — The Act of Separating and Choosing (Podcast-audio)
- “Only, no fear of God in this place” (Gen. 20:11; Podcast-audio)
- “Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19). Why? (Podcast-audio)
- What Do We Know of God? (Podcast-audio)
- “Do Not Steal” – Is it in the Ten Commandments? (Podcast-audio)
- Basic Human Condition: “Angels of God Ascending and Descending” (Gen. 28:12; Podcast-audio)
- “World is My Own and I have Made Myself” – A Tale of Two Cultures (Podcast-audio)
- Biblical Divine Modes of Communication (Podcast-audio)
- Biblical Concepts in Light of Modern Science (Podcast-audio)
- “Kavod – the most peculiar word in biblical Hebrew” (Podcast-audio)
8. Bible Reads (Audio; Hebrew; Hebrew/English PDF; An updated list is here)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Isaiah; Chps. 61, 62; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible (Genesis, Ch. 1; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- “Let Us Wipe Them Out So That the Name of Israel be Remembered No More” (Reading Psalm 83; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading From Torah (The Ten Commandments and Kedoshim Portion; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Why Did the Jews Go into Exile? How Would They Return? (Reading Jeremiah Prophecy, Ch. 16)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (End-time Vision by Isaiah, Ch.2, and Michah, Ch.4; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Zephaniah; Chp. 3; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Isaiah; Chps. 43, 45; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Ezekiel; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Malachi; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Zechariah; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Joel; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Jeremiah; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- Reading the Bible Prophets (Isaiah; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)
- “Comfort, comfort my people” (Isaiah, 40:1) – Post/Podcast (English/Hebrew)
In the last several years (indeed since October, 2010), I have been engaged, with a team of researchers, in collecting data and constructing a new approach to modeling and monitoring fetal growth. The modeling approach is based on Response Modeling Methodology (RMM; see at Wikipedia), a new modeling approach that I have been developing in the last decade or so. The monitoring approach is based on modern principles of Statistical Process Control (SPC), more specifically, SPC-based monitoring of non-linear profiles.
With me in the research team is Dr. Diamanta Benson-Karhi, the initiator of this research effort (from the Open University of Israel), Prof. Asher Bashiri (of the Soroka Medical Center, affiliated to Ben-Gurion (BG) University), and, until recently, Mrs. Maya Malamud, who has just concluded her MSc studies, conducting research and supervising several undergraduate final-project teams in my department at BG University.
A first published document, describing the methodology developed within this research effort, is to appear in the June issue (2014) of Quality Engineering, a journal affiliated to the ASQ (American Society for Quality).
Update (June, 24, 2024): Here are links to the two published papers:
- Diamanta Benson-Karhi, Haim Shore, Maya Malamud. Modelling Fetal-Growth Biometry with Response Modeling Methodology (RMM) and Comparison to Current Models. Article. January 2017. Communication in Statistics- Simulation and Computation. DOI: 10.1080/03610918.2017.1280160
- Haim Shore, Diamanta Benson-Karhi, Maya Malamud, Asher Bashiri. Customized fetal growth modelling and monitoring-a statistical process control approach. Article. July 2014. Quality Engineering. DOI: 1080/08982112.2013.830742
The continuous monotone convexity (CMC) property, unique to Response Modeling Methodology (RMM), delivers a versatile platform for modeling fetal (pre-birth) and child (post-birth) growth.
In the linked article, now under review, we use real data to model child growth and compare the resulting growth curves to those obtained via generalized additive models for location, scale and shape (GAMLSS).
Haim Shore_Stepwise modeling of child growth with RMM_Feb 2014_2
This post explains the central role of Continuous Monotone Convexity (CMC) in Response Modeling Methodology (RMM).
In earlier blog entries, the unique effectiveness of the Box-Cox transformation (BCT) was addressed. I concluded that the BCT effectiveness could probably be attributed to the Continuous Monotone Convexity (CMC) property, unique to the inverse BCT (IBCT). Rather than requiring the analyst to specify a model in advance (prior to analysis), the CMC property allows the data, via parameter estimation, determine the final form of the model (linear, power or exponential). This would most likely lead to better fit of the—estimated model, as cumulative reported experience with implementation of IBCT (or BCT) clearly attest to.
In the most recent blog entry in this series, I have introduced the “Ladder of Monotone Convex Functions”, and have demonstrated that IBCT delivers only the first three “steps” of the Ladder. Furthermore, IBCT can be extended so that a single general model can represent all monotone convex functions belonging to the Ladder. This transforms monotone convexity into a continuous spectrum so that the discrete “steps” of the Ladder (the separate models) become mere points on that spectrum.
In this third entry on the subject (and Article #3, linked below), I introduce in a more comprehensive fashion (yet minimally technical) the general model from which all the Ladder functions can be derived as special cases. This model was initially conceived in the last years of the previous century (Shore, 2005, and references therein) and had since been developed into a comprehensive modeling approach, denoted Response Modeling Methodology (RMM). In the affiliated article, an axiomatic derivation of RMM basic model is outlined and specific adaptations of RMM to model systematic variation and to model random variation are addressed. Published evidence for the capability of RMM to replace current published models, previously derived within various scientific and engineering disciplines as either theoretical, empirical or semi-empirical models, is reviewed. Disciplines surveyed include chemical engineering, software quality engineering, process capability analysis, ecology and ultra-sound-based fetal-growth modeling (based on cross-sectional data).
This blog entry (with the linked article given below) was originally posted on the site of the American Statistical Association (ASA), where the linked article was visible to members only.
On January 6th, 2014, I have delivered a talk that carried the title, as displayed above.
The talk was given in the framework of a workshop organized by the Open University of Israel (see details at the bottom of the opening screen of the presentation). It was based on my article of 2004:
Shore, H. (2004). Determining measurement error requirements to satisfy statistical process control performance requirements. IIE Transactions, 36(9): 881-890.
A link to this presentation, in PDF format, is given below:
The lecture (in English) may be viewed at:
In a previous post in this series, I have discussed reasons for the effectiveness of the Box-Cox (BC) transformation, particularly when applied to a response variable within linear regression analysis. The final conclusion was that this effectiveness could probably be attributed to the “Continuous Monotone Convexity (CMC)” property, owned by the inverse BC transformation. It was emphasized that the latter, comprising the three most fundamental monotone convex functions, the “linear-power-exponential” trio, delivers only partial representation to a whole host of models of monotone convex relationships, which can be arranged in a hierarchy of monotone convexity. This hierarchy had been denoted the “Ladder of Monotone Convex Functions.”
In this post (and Article #2, linked below), I address in more detail the nature of the CMC property. I specify models included in the Ladder, and show how one can deliver, via a single model, representation to all models belonging to the Ladder (analogously with the inverse BC transformation, a special case of that model). Furthermore, I point to published evidence demonstrating that models of the Ladder may often substitute, with negligible loss in accuracy, published models of monotone convexity, which had been derived from theoretical discipline-specific considerations.
This blog entry (with the linked article given below) was originally posted on the site of the American Statistical Association (ASA), where the linked article was visible to members only.
This presentation expounds on various research findings given in my book: “Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew” (Shore, 2 Ed., 2012).
The book is now available for free download at this blog’s home page (“About“).
Presentation is divided into eight parts:
- “Laban – the Case of a Lost Identity” (Ch. 15 in the book; in Hebrew);
- “Chance” and “Cold” – two separately developed scientific concepts of entropy that are actually one (and also expressed by a single word root in biblical Hebrew; Ch. 3 in the book; Hebrew);
- Average lunar month according to Jewish sources (Ch. 18 in the book; Hebrew; See also separate blog entry on the subject);
- “When a sample of observations are aligned on a straight line”: “A parable” about measuring temperatures on both Celsius and Fahrenheit scales (Ch. 23 in the book; English);
- Relationships between numerical values of sets of Hebrew words and related physical traits (three consecutive examples with color plots; Hebrew-English):
- Example 1: Time-cycles (“Day, Month, Year”; Ch. 12 in the book);
- Example 2: Celestial diameters (“Moon, Earth, Sun”; Ch. 8 in the book);
- Example 3: Velocity (“Light, Sound, Standstill” or “Lightening, Thunder, Silence”; Ch. 21 in the book);
- Results from a computer simulation study aimed to estimate probabilities (Hebrew);
- The planets example (An extensive example of relationships of size-sorted physical traits of celestial bodies to numerically sorted biblical names; Hebrew-English);
- Genesis creation story – A statistical analysis (English);
To watch the PDF file in presentation mode, open with Adobe Reader and then go to: View -> Full Screen Mode. To manipulate slides click mouse-left to advance and mouse-right to retreat to previous slide.
Prof Haim Shore presentation_Bible and biblical Hebrew research_March 2016
In this new blog entry, I deliver links to three new documents related mostly to the statistical analyses associated with my research on the Bible and on biblical Hebrew:
1. Three chapters from my book: “Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew”. These chapters mostly address the statistical perspective of my research work, as expounded in the book. Bookmarks may assist navigating between chapters:
2. An article in Hebrew, published recently in “Ha-mahapach 3”, by Rav Zamir Cohen of Hidabrut Oganization.
הידברות מקריות בתורה ובשבת הקודש
3. An article invited by Rav Zamir Cohen for the upcoming book “Ha-Mahapach 4”. The article explains how average lunar month duration can be calculated, from ancient Jewish sources (including the Hebrew Bible), to be 29.530594 days vs. NASA’s estimate of 29.530589 days.
Comment: Read my latest peer-reviewed article on the subject (2023): 10.1002/9781118445112.stat08456
The Box-Cox transformation and why is it so effective has intrigued my curiosity for many years. I have had the opportunity to talk both to Box and to Cox about their transformation (Box and Cox, 1964).
I conversed with the late George Box (deceased last March at age 94) when I was a visitor in Madison, Wisconsin, back in 1993-4.
A few years later I talked to David Cox at a conference on reliability in Bordeaux (MMR’2000).
I asked them both the same question, I received the same response.
The question was: What was the theory that led to the derivation of the Box-Cox transformation?
The answer was: “No theory. This was a purely empirical observation”.
The question therefore remains: Why is the Box-Cox transformation so effective, in particular when applied to a response variable in the framework of linear regression analysis?
In a new article, posted in my personal library at the American Statistical Association (ASA) site, I discuss this issue at some length. The article is now generally available for download here (Article #1 below).
Link to an interview with professor Haim Shore, about his statistical analysis research of the Bible and biblical Hebrew, on The Jerusalem Post (Dec. 4th, 2009) :
An Interview with the Author in the Jerusalem Post (Dec., 4th, 2009)
Haim Shore Blog 