Do you think the author of the Zohar didn’t think of the remarkable invention of counting the letters of the Torah one by one?

Do you find it acceptable that from the time of the Zohar to our days about half the letters of the Torah have disappeared?

We have many scrolls written in the generations said to be those of the writing of the Zohar (even if you reject that, you only put off the time of the writing of the Zohar) and the citations of verses brought there match what we have [aside from copyist errors here and there]. The chances of such a revolution happening (within less than 2000 years) without us seeing the intermediary steps in the vast Torah literature is minimal.

Anyone who can read knows that the author of the Zohar was smart enough to think of this.

All that remains, then, is to understand the intent of the holy words. What did they hint at? And this–in my opinion–really does not belong to academia, unless it has a higher source than one who has the holy spirit, etc.



Thank you,



David

Dear David,



The Zohar wrote that there are 600,000 words to match reality to his world view, as is the way of the religious.

It is not strange that he said what he did, without checking and counting, for that is their way: many times they make things up.

Were this the only case I would have tried to explain his words some other way, but since religious people are used to saying things without checking them and this has become part of their culture, it is reasonable to suppose that this statement, too, is made up and not checked.

Some examples:

1. 39 activities forbidden on the Sabbath to represent the 39 times the word melacha appears in the Torah (Shabbat 49a) though the word actually appears 47 times (see the portion of Vayakhel.

2. The doe’s womb is narrow, and when she kneels to give birth a snake bites her and expands her womb (Bava Batra 16a). See The Conversation of the Sages is Naught but Lewdness….

3. Rav Huna the son of Tutrata said: Once I went to a place where animals of various species mate, and I saw a snake mating with a turtle. After a while, a dangerous poisonous snake was born of the union (Chulin 127a).

4. Chezkiyah said: Poultry have no lungs (Chulin 57a).

There are many other examples, as you will see when you read our words on our site. Therefore I conclude that wherever the Sages spoke nonsense it does not indicate depth and wisdom, but nonsense and an evil spirit.

From the collection of many examples you learn about the specific. If you see someone who says something many times without checking or verification, do not trust his word in the future.



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Thank you for your honest approach.

Just tell me why make convoluted interpretations when straight ones are possible?

Quite the contrary. I told you that a careful reading of the Zohar, and now I will add a careful reading of the books of the Rishonim, Amoraim, Tanaaim, and prophets, will show us vast knowledge, because anyone who ever learned a page of Gemara sees that those who wrote it knew the Scriptures backwards and forwards, what is written and what is read, and even one who has not learned understands that those who were the great scholars of the Jews, known to be a smart nation, had to (at least) be intelligent and wise. And now, the more you give such clear examples (whose oddity you don’t even need to explain) so will the puzzlement about you increase, a single failure, nu…but such a long list of silly mistakes? This screams out ‘interpret me’ (in the plain meaning).

The Gemara is mainly arguments about every jot and tittle in the Torah — what they mean — and afterwards others organized them into the Shas. Did these people not know to count to 47? They couldn’t open a bird and check?

I have read a lot of the contents of the site, and I must note that something important is missing here. Aside from asking and refuting, there also must be alternative answers for all the questions raised. This question of mine isn’t the only one.



Thank you,



David

Dear David,



So our conversation won’t be as between deaf people, let me ask you a question:

Do you accept reason, rationality, and academic methodology as the main bases of your lifestyle?

Please try to answer this question briefly and to the point.



Daat Emet

Dear Richard,



In the Zohar it is written that there are 600,000 letters in the Torah, though there are really only about 304,805 letters.

In the Talmud (Kiddushin 30a) it is written that the letter vav of the word gahon (Leviticus 11:42) is the middle letter of the Torah when, in fact, the letter aleph of the word hu (Leviticus 8:28) is the middle letter of the Torah. It is 94 verses farther back.

For more details on the versions of the Torah see Pamphlet 9 and the essay The Variety of Torah Texts.

What is interesting in this embarrassing topic is how the “academic” religious people deal with reality.

I will bring as example what we wrote on the portion of Shelach: the rabbi and researcher Margaliot Reuven (thus is he listed by the Encyclopedia Hebraica), who even won the Israel Prize for his life’s work in 1957. In his book [“Scriptures and Mesorah (Anthology of Research), Essay 12, ‘Number of Letters in the Torah’] he brings the Zohar Chadash at the end of Song of Songs: “Aleph, bet, gimmel…reish shin tav these are the letters which add up to 600,000″ and the Megaleh Amukot, “Each person in Israel’s soul has one of the 600,000 letters in the Torah.”

Rabbi Margaliot asks how this can be, since there are only 304,805 letters. He answers, “We know that between each letter there must be space, as there must be between words; there is also space between open and closed sections, etc. and all these spaces are added into the count. Those who say the Torah scroll is the whole parchment, which includes 600,000 characters spoke correctly.”

But what can we do if the Zohar attributes great importance to the holy letters but never said a word about the holy spaces , and on this matter specially wrote aleph, bet and mentioned each of the letters by name until the letter tav and did not count nor even mention the spaces? The Zohar certainly did not write “aleph, space, bet space…tav space…add up to 600,000.” We can ask Rabbi Margaliot which are the souls who have spaces and not letters, and what the rule is for those souls who have “the spaces between letters” — is their level higher or lower than the souls of those who are the “spaces between words”? There is no limit to the absurd and nonsense.



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Do you think the author of the Zohar didn’t think of the remarkable invention of counting the letters of the Torah one by one?

Do you find it acceptable that from the time of the Zohar to our days about half the letters of the Torah have disappeared?

We have many scrolls written in the generations said to be those of the writing of the Zohar (even if you reject that, you only put off the time of the writing of the Zohar) and the citations of verses brought there match what we have [aside from copyist errors here and there]. The chances of such a revolution happening (within less than 2000 years) without us seeing the intermediary steps in the vast Torah literature is minimal.

Anyone who can read knows that the author of the Zohar was smart enough to think of this.

All that remains, then, is to understand the intent of the holy words. What did they hint at? And this–in my opinion–really does not belong to academia, unless it has a higher source than one who has the holy spirit, etc.



Thank you,



David

Dear David,



The Zohar wrote that there are 600,000 words to match reality to his world view, as is the way of the religious.

It is not strange that he said what he did, without checking and counting, for that is their way: many times they make things up.

Were this the only case I would have tried to explain his words some other way, but since religious people are used to saying things without checking them and this has become part of their culture, it is reasonable to suppose that this statement, too, is made up and not checked.

Some examples:

1. 39 activities forbidden on the Sabbath to represent the 39 times the word melacha appears in the Torah (Shabbat 49a) though the word actually appears 47 times (see the portion of Vayakhel.

2. The doe’s womb is narrow, and when she kneels to give birth a snake bites her and expands her womb (Bava Batra 16a). See The Conversation of the Sages is Naught but Lewdness….

3. Rav Huna the son of Tutrata said: Once I went to a place where animals of various species mate, and I saw a snake mating with a turtle. After a while, a dangerous poisonous snake was born of the union (Chulin 127a).

4. Chezkiyah said: Poultry have no lungs (Chulin 57a).

There are many other examples, as you will see when you read our words on our site. Therefore I conclude that wherever the Sages spoke nonsense it does not indicate depth and wisdom, but nonsense and an evil spirit.

From the collection of many examples you learn about the specific. If you see someone who says something many times without checking or verification, do not trust his word in the future.



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Thank you for your honest approach.

Just tell me why make convoluted interpretations when straight ones are possible?

Quite the contrary. I told you that a careful reading of the Zohar, and now I will add a careful reading of the books of the Rishonim, Amoraim, Tanaaim, and prophets, will show us vast knowledge, because anyone who ever learned a page of Gemara sees that those who wrote it knew the Scriptures backwards and forwards, what is written and what is read, and even one who has not learned understands that those who were the great scholars of the Jews, known to be a smart nation, had to (at least) be intelligent and wise. And now, the more you give such clear examples (whose oddity you don’t even need to explain) so will the puzzlement about you increase, a single failure, nu…but such a long list of silly mistakes? This screams out ‘interpret me’ (in the plain meaning).

The Gemara is mainly arguments about every jot and tittle in the Torah — what they mean — and afterwards others organized them into the Shas. Did these people not know to count to 47? They couldn’t open a bird and check?

I have read a lot of the contents of the site, and I must note that something important is missing here. Aside from asking and refuting, there also must be alternative answers for all the questions raised. This question of mine isn’t the only one.



Thank you,



David

Dear David,



So our conversation won’t be as between deaf people, let me ask you a question:

Do you accept reason, rationality, and academic methodology as the main bases of your lifestyle?

Please try to answer this question briefly and to the point.



Daat Emet

You’ve complicated things for me a bit. What exactly is the definition of academic methodology?

I think I’m pretty rational when I determine that rationality is limited. Anyone with eyes in his head sees that not everything can be understood and there are hidden things.

Reason is my guiding light, and I want to add that one must be careful not to let external influences affect straight reason.

Another clarification: Reason can never investigate itself nor rationality itself, but they can definitely know their limits and that there is more behind it.



Thank you,



David

Dear David,



Let me ask a different question:

Is your faith the basis and reason the handmaiden to your faith, or is reason the basis with belief just capriciousness?

To make myself clearer, I will define the difference between faith and reason.

Reason is a universal human property: Japanese, Chinese, Australian, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, and Jew all have a single, unified reason. Moreover, reason is forced upon man and he may not ignore it. The laws of physics and math force us to accept them with no distinction as to religion, race, or sex.

Faith is an individual property and the area of the individual alone.

Faith has no method or consistency which allows it to be judged by reason. It can be verified against reason and it can be seen if it stands up to rational criteria.

You wrote, “I think I’m pretty rational when I determine that rationality is limited.” That is true, but any subject which crosses the line of reason and goes beyond its boundaries cannot be discussed using rational tools.

Remember: Daat Emet discusses things using only rational tools.



Sincerely,



Daat Emet