Categories
General Historical Coincidences My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

What is “The Chosen People”? Do the Jews Benefit from It? Do They Have a Choice?? — Bible Answers

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).

Categories
General

King, Judge and… Quality Inspector (on Judicial Reform)

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
General

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 Applications6(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 Methods54(5), 1391–1396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2024.2337069

 

Categories
General Podcasts (audio)

“Let Us Wipe Them Out So That the Name of Israel be Remembered No More” (Reading Psalm 83; Hebrew; Hebrew/English text; Post/Podcast)

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:

Categories
General

On the Direct Line from a Scientific Theory of Nature to “The Final Solution”

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.   

Categories
General Historical Coincidences My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

Bible on “Two-State Solution”, on Shedding Jewish Blood “In Their Land”, and the Final Outcome

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”.

    Categories
    General Historical Coincidences

    Scores of Projectiles Launched on Israel with No Casualties?? — Not for the First Time

    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):

    Dr. Abitbol on the Iranian Attack (Interview; Hebrew)

    Categories
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    Book (3rd Ed., 2023) Now Available for Free-Download

    “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:

    PW to Open Book File

    Amazon link:

    Haim Shore. “Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew” (3rd Ed, Sep., 2023). Amazon.com

    Categories
    General

    The Built-In Conflict Within the Jewish Culture

    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.

    Categories
    General

    The Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Science (A New Book)

    My new book has just been published on Amazon.

    It is available both as paperback (14$) and Kindle e-book (5$):

    The Bible, Biblical Hebrew, Science and Their Inter-relationships: A compendium of essays, 2010-2023: Shore, Haim: 9798864516973: Amazon.com: Books

    Please rate, comment. Thank you.

    Categories
    General

    The Most Famous Eulogy for An Israeli Youngster Murdered by an Arab — When? Where?

    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?).

    Categories
    General

    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.

    Categories
    General General Statistical Applications

    “Quality by Design” – Lectures (Hebrew) Delivered to Engineers from Israel Industry

    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:

    Categories
    General

    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”.

    Categories
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    How to Build a GAG (Roof) in Two Steps

    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”.

    Categories
    General Podcasts (audio)

    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:

    Categories
    General Shorties

    Black Holes and Near-Death Experience (NDE) — A One-way Flow of Information

    (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?

    Categories
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    “And There was Evening and There was Morning” (Gen. 1) — A Different Interpretation

    (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.

    Categories
    General

    “Rough Justice” – The Case of “Shore vs. Motorola” in an American Court

    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:

    Peter Linzer_Shore vs. Motorola_Rough Justice_2001

    Categories
    General

    Quality Control and Review — Two Concepts Confused by Israel Supreme Court

    A new post on The Blogs of The Times of Israel:

    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/quality-control-and-review-two-concepts-confused-by-israel-supreme-court/

    Categories
    General

    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.

    All registered subscribers were automatically migrated to the new site.

    I hope you like the new site —

    messages and content !

    Categories
    General

    Authorized Haim Shore Publications List (updated 2025)

    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:

     

    Categories
    General

    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.

    Categories
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    “Thou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exod. 23:19) — Why??

    (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.

    Categories
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    “Words of Wisdom and Experience” (now in paperback)

    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

    Categories
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    “Law and Order”? — Sure, “only no fear of God in this place”

    (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”.

    Categories
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew Shorties

    Shorty*: The Basic Human Condition — “Angels of God Ascending and Descending” (Gen. 28:12)

    (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
    Categories
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    Divine Justice and Skin-Color Discrimination (Numbers 12)

    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:

    1. Displaying major verses from Numbers 12 and related questions;
    2. Explanation of two central terms that appear in the text (Kushite and Pitom);
    3. Traditional Jewish commentary on Numbers 12;
    4. The new interpretation.

    *********************************

    1. 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.

    1. 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.
    1. 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).

    1. 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.
    Categories
    General

    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

    Categories
    General Shorties

    Shorty*: The True Significance of the New Mass-Media Model

    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

     

    Categories
    General Shorties

    Shorty*: Free will?? — Only when the “Ego” is subjugated to “I”

    “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

    Categories
    General Historical Coincidences My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    Who were the Philistines? Why Were They So Named? Where Did They Vanish?

    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).

    1. 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);

    1. 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);

    1. 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);

    1. 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);

    1. 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;

    1. 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”.

    1. 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);

    1. 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);

    1. 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:

    The Philistines_Rav Yinon Kalazan_Nov 1 2014

    The Philistines_Rav Yinon Kalazan_Dec 18 2018

    Categories
    General

    How Israel Transformed from a Land of Common Sense to a Bastion of Formalities

    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:

    Haim Shore_TimesofIsrael_How Israel Transformed from a Land of Common Sense to a Bastion of Formalities_January 27 2019

    It is given below (for better readability).

    _______________________________________________________________

    Categories
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    Mass Media Reports on Haim Shore Bible Research

    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) :

    What’s in a Name Dr. Aryeh (Arnie) Gotfryd August 2017

    Categories
    General

    Personal Rebellion — The Act of Re-balancing “Judge” and “King”

    Link to my new post on The Times of Israel Blogs:

    Personal Rebellion — Re-balancing “Judge” and “King”

     

    Categories
    General

    New Book — “Words of Wisdom and Experience”

    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
    General

    My “Posts” As Teenager (1963-1965; Hebrew)

    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:

    Haim Shore_Maariv La-Noar_1963 to 1965

    Categories
    General

    Micromanagement by the Unelected Judicial Branch of the Elected Executive Branch

    A new post on Times of Israel:

    Haim Shore_Micromanagement by the Unelected Judicial Branch of the Elected Executive Branch_Feb 25 2018

    Categories
    General

    Free Will— The Act of Separating and Choosing

    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).

     

     

     

     

    Categories
    General

    Access to My Posts on The Blogs of The Times of Israel

    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!

    Categories
    General Shorties

    Shorty*: “Desert” as Epitome for a Potential Culture of Hatred

    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

    Categories
    General

    “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

     

    Categories
    General Historical Coincidences

    Fog Over Israel — World Disconnected (?)

    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):

    Fog Over Israel-World Disconnected (?)_Dec 23 2016

    Categories
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    The Five Principles of the Ten Commandments

    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.

    Categories
    General

    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

     

    Categories
    General

    Punishment vs. Guidance — Explaining Adverse Outcome of Well-intentioned Behavior

    (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.

    Categories
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    Present-Day Double Message of the Forbidden Fruit

    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
    General My Research on the Bible and Biblical Hebrew

    Present-Day Ultimate Replay of Sin of Adam and Eve

    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

     

    Categories
    General

    “Equality” – Sacred Cow that Distorts Observed Reality

    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

    Categories
    General

    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

    Determining measurement-error requirements to satisfy statistical-process-control performance requirements (Presentation, English)

    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)

    Categories
    General

    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:

    Haim Shore_Antisemitism and Killing the Messenger_Oct 2014

    Categories
    General

    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.

    Haim Shore_Morality and the Speed of Light_April 2014