Follow-up to Previous Post
For those interested, here's my translation of the code (please correct me if I made a mistake in the translation):
מצור כתום יבלום מאויי ממשל
"A siege of orange will stop the desires of the government"
The words מצור כתום ("siege of orange") appears once in the Torah at an interval of 1390 letters (spanning many Parshiot and even 2 books of the Torah). That same sequence continues to produce יבלום מאויי ("will stop the desires of"). The word ממשל ("government") crosses the sequence with an interval of 5.
The site where this originated (hidabroot.org) seems to say that this may NOT be disengagement-related for a couple reasons:
- The Disengagement is (in their opinion) a done-deal - not what one would term "the desires of the government" - it's already the actions of the government.
- A Pasuk that crosses the sequence is from Parshat Vayigash:
ואת העם העביר אתו לערים מקצה גבול מצרים (And as for the people, he removed them city by city, from one end of the border of Egypt) which may hint to the residents of Gush Katif (on the border of Egypt) being moved to other cities.
Hidabroot.org rather says that this is referring to some future evacuation that the government may want to enact (Has Veshalom). I don't know what it's referring to, but I would not rule out its referring to the current Disengagement. It's not a done-deal. Yeshuat Hashem Keheref Ayin.
Hidabroot.org emphasizes that one must be extremely cautious with predicting based on these codes, and with that I agree. This is especially true when the codes can be interpreted in so many different ways that anyone can make up a code to fit it with the way they want to fit it. The only difference here is that Rav Eliyahu against all logic said that the Disengagement won't happen. Tzadik Gozer Vehakadosh Baruch Hu Mekayaim. We'll see what happens.
posted by yaak @ 7/24/2005 01:33:00 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
This code business is Avoda Zara.
Thanks very much for the translation. As for the "desires of the government" it occurs to me that the real "disengagement" that this government desires is a disengagement from Judaism. Ultimately it is Har Habayit they want to rid themselves of and everything it represents:
Peres: No chance of clinching peace without dividing J'lem
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/603903.html
To anonymous #1, I suggest you do a bit more research into it before passing judgement. It also might help you to look at a definition of avoda zara. You sound like a xian fundamentalist.
There are some valid arguments against Torah codes, but Avoda Zara is not one of them.
I, personally, think that they are something valuable to learn from.
There is no statistical validity to Torah codes. It is like reading the clouds. It is not classical Avoda Zara, indeed. But nowadays that term can only be used loosely, because we do not have the Yetser Hara for Avoda Zara anymore. For the purists: it is Nichush, superstition. Not something to learn from, Yaak. Something to stay very far away from. Assur for a Jew. May HaShem have mercy.
Judaism has concept of "Goral HaGra" which confuses people. The point is that Goral HaGra only works for the Gra...
In other words, there are things that come close to Torah codes that are kosher, but only in the hands of an exalted neshama.
It can be that HaShem speaks to a person through seemingly random events. However, this is personal and and the validity dependent on the spiritual level of the person. It is not for publication, unless the person is a prophet.
Anonymous,
The statistical argument is debatable. I've seen arguments both ways.
Regarding calling it Nihush, I would agree if the code is telling you something in the future AND there was no other outside basis for an idea. Here, this is telling you something for the future, but we have Rav Eliyahu telling you that it's not going to happen. This code is merely an Asmachta BeAlma.
In general, you're right - Tamim Tehiyeh Im Hashem Elokecha - but this is not Kishuf or Nihush, in my humble opinion.
The following is being asked strictly as a question. Where do we find the concept of "Tzadik Gozer" being used in regard to national or international problems. The cases that I am aware of have to due with the health of an individual, or the infertility of a couple. Thank you
Honi Hame'agel comes immediately to mind.
Thank you for your prompt reply regarding Honi Hamagel; however asI recall his great avhievement `was in bringing rain,and not in changing plans of governments.
I don't know why we need to find precedent for the concept BeDavka in national or international problems. If you agree to the concept of Tzadik Gozer, great. If not, don't.
Please tell me what you think a Hiluk is.
Anyways, I do recall that the Hafetz Hayim declared Communism over in 70 years, Vekach Haya.
According to your view there should never have been pogroms etc.; there should always have been a Tzadik to be gozer to protect against them.
But did it actually happen that a Tzaddik was Gozer???
Did a Tzaddik actually say that there won't be a pogrom???
Here, Rav Eliyahu said there won't be disengagement.
You may ask "Well, if it was so easy, why weren't the Tzaddikim gozerim to save their communities?" To this, I don't know. There must be reasons that are unknown to us.
The other way of looking at this is that this is not Rav Eliyahu making a Gezeira. The Moriya site says that Rav Eliyahu has some sort of Nevuah (whatever that means nowadays).
(The site also says "It's not necessary to say that he has Nevuah because of Tzadik Gozer VaHashem Mekayaim")
Post a Comment
<< Home