The Shape and Design of the First Hebrew Letter: Aleph
======================================================

The first letter of the Hebrew alphabet is the letter “Aleph”.

Aleph is shaped, according to kabballistic literature as a combination of two other letters, the vov and the yuhd.

Vov is a tall narrow letter. In forming the aleph, the vov is tilted over, slanying with the top of it closer to the left, and the bottom of it at the baseline further to the right. There is an appriximate 60 degree angle.

Yuhd is a small fascinating letter, with much of its own significance, to be discussed later. In forming the aleph, two duplicates of yuhd are attached to the tilted vov. One yuhd is attached at the top right-hand side, rotated clockwise to attach to the upper third of the right-hand side of the vov. The other yuhd is attached at the lower left-hand side. The lower yuhd is almost upside-down, but corresponding to the angle of the upper yuhd.

Significance of This Shape
==========================
Vov symbolized a connection and relationship of the above, the spiritual realm of the heavens, and the below, the material reality in which we dwell. Vov is also representative of “him-shach-chah”, “drawing down”, from above to below, or “ha-al-lah”, “lifting up”, from below to above.

Parenthetically, vov is actually composed of a yuhd, with an extension from the upper body to the baseline. Actually, all Hebrew letters, relates Kabballistic literature, are derived from the yuhd.

The two yuhds (two parts of the ’yid’) symbolize the two halves of every person. Each person has a heavenly part connected to an earthly part. The goal of the lower earthy part of the person is to draw down and become influenced by the lofty heavenly part (, and as a result become elevated and lift up their being to the heights of the spiritual part).

Beginning of Creation
=====================
Rhe Medrash (a collection of books featuring various explanations of Biblical topics, phrases, episodes, and events) relates that G-d sought a justification for beginning the text of the Hebrew Bible with a certain letter (as we said earlier about the uniqueness of Hebrew which the meaning of every word is most influenced by its first letter). G-d asked then each Hebrew letter to present its case, starting with end of the alphabet.

Each letter tried and failed to present a winning argument. It cited complimentary words that began with that letter. But in counter-argument, a negative word was also sighted. This continued for each letter.

Finally, it was beis’ turn, the second letter of the alphabet. He argued that he should be chosen, because the word, “boruch”, “blessed”, bergins with a beis. And living a life is a blessing like creation itself. Well, it was a convincing argument.

Poor aleph didn’t even have a chance to plead its case. G-d noticed how dejected aleph looked, and consoled him. “Don’t fret, Aleph,” said G-d, “you’ll start the Ten Commandments.” With hearing that, aleph was happy agasin.

The Solid Stance of Aleph Shows Truth
=====================================
The shape of each Hebrew letter is either sturdy and strong, or unbalanced and weak, from a physics standpoint. When a Hebrew letter is shaped sturdy and strong, this is called “emet”, or “truthful”. Similarly, when a Hebrew letter is shaped unbalanced and weak, this is considered “sheker”, or “falsehood”.

The aleph stands up in a balanced manner, sturdy and strong. It is considered a true letter, and even begins the Hebrew word for truth, “emet”.

A typical Aleph - from the popular standard Hebrew font,

Frankruhl.

An Aleph, made up of two rotated yuhds, and a rotated vov - from Merubas, a new Hebrew font design, based upon the famous Vilna-Black typeface of the nineteenth century.

Just few questions, I would be thankful if answered in short:
1. Is Divine/Heaven left or right-handed?
1+Rotates Clockwise or CounterClockwise?!
2. Did Divine/Heaven create One or more writing Systems?!
3. Why did Divine/Heaven make it difficult to Man to understand?!
3+ Or Man was created to do puzzles?!
4. Who Created the other langauges/writing systems? Arabic by Arabs?!
5. Was Man created to read from left to right or right to left?!
5+ From Top to Bottom like Japaneses or Bottom to Top like Rongorongo?
6. Does “smile” smiles in Hebrew? And “Suck” Sucks?
7. Is Hebrew Translitratable?
8. Is Hebrew crosswordable in Flowers?
http://www.wordandnumberpuzzles.com/flowers/WFlowers.htm
9. Did Devil create any script?

Hmmm. In Pirkei Avot (Chapter 5) you have the statement that a lot of miraculous stuff in the Torah was created in twilight before Sabbath of the first week of creation. This includes writing, the stylus, and the actual inscribed Decalogue on rock, siting there since creation for Moses to find. This idea is an effort to solve the problem that the Rabbinic Sages accepted the Greek idea of the Cosmos, or nature according to orderly law. Thus they were uncomfortable with miracles that went against the laws of nature.

Personally, I find it a charming and clever solution, but quite unconvincing. In any case what engraved that was engraved on the sacred tablets is unlikely to have been the Aramaic script that Judaism adopted after the Babylonian exile—as the sages themselves recognize. Thus I find it a stretch to ascribe, even by Mishnaic standards, sacred status to the shapes of the current Hebrew alphabet, derived from the Aramaic rather than even the ancient Hebrew one. And Moses and the Israelites may well have been using another dialect.

Of course, if you go to mystical ideas, you can get anything—or not. I find the Hebrew aleph-bet rather magical, but also the Roman alphabet, which is derived from the capitals of the hated Romans. All scripts in long use have something mysterious and charming about them, in my view.

Air-Spaces In The Shape of the Hebrew Letters
=============================================

Sometimes, Hebrew letters are designed as such as a total or partial enclosure.

Look at the final form of mehm (the mehm that comes at the end of Hebrew word):

Sometimes, there is a small opening, like in the letter tes:

Also, sometimes, there are two openings, like in the letter hei:

Before I continue, let me respond to some remarks:

AzizMustafa,

> Just few questions, I would be thankful if answered in short:
> 1. Is Divine/Heaven left or right-handed?

Kabballistic literature states clearly that “ain smol lemaylah - no left exist above”.

Polarity is based inly in our reality. In the heavenly realm, there is only right (sic).

> Rotates Clockwise or CounterClockwise?!

Direction again assumes dimensions. Heaven is beyond dimension, as dimension was created by Him, like time and space.

> 2. Did Divine/Heaven create One or more writing Systems?!

Our literature inly speaks of Hebrew. Plus super-human qualities found in Hebrew don’t exist in other language systems.

Interestingly, both the Iranians, and the CIA, have invested serious resources to mastering Hebrew and the Talmud in particular, to derive the secret powers of the Israeli. Since this includes mastering Talmud, clearly the aim is not to merely fathom the language of the Israelis.

Furthermore, is it any wonder that the Israelis lead the technology race, even in front of the USA, as their mode of thinking is in Hebrew. For example their latest technology is to remotely disable an anti-missile system, rendering any country in effect defenseless of counter attack. I think that this is the ultimate weapon of deterrence.

Aziz,

> 3. Why did Divine/Heaven make it difficult to Man to understand?!
> 3+ Or Man was created to do puzzles?!

A general principle in Judaism is that G-d created the world for us to do our part, Jew or gentile. Some people call thos, “tikun olam”, making the world a better or ’corrected’ place.

As I understand it, life is not meant to be easy, as we say, “man was created to toil”.

Solving puzzles, putting all the pieces together to form a beautiful picture, surely is a part of this.

We even feel better with ourselves and what we do when it takes effort and requires creativity.

I think that’s what type design is all about.

Aziz,

> 4. Who Created the other langauges/writing systems? Arabic by Arabs?!

People.

Aziz,

> 5. Was Man created to read from left to right or right to left?!
> 5+ From Top to Bottom like Japaneses or Bottom to Top like Rongorongo?

I think that people can do anything that they set their mind to. Each culture created the system best for them.

Aziz,

> 6. Does “smile” smiles in Hebrew? And “Suck” sucks?

I don’t understand your question.

People who speak Hebrew smile and suck; it’s international! :)

Aziz,

> 7. Is Hebrew Translitratable?

It is commonly done.

> 8. Is Hebrew crosswordable...

Check the Israeli newspapers; it’s done every day.

9. Did Devil create any script?

Although Judaism speaks of a human inclination towards doing evil (ie. yetzer harah), and many middle eastern people’s believe in an “evil eye”, the Devil is not a Jewish concept. It’s Christian in origin. I believe also Islam rejects the notion of the devil.

Jewish though does identify an angel with tremendous powers like Christianity’s devil, but this angelic force is described as actually seeking good, and simply tests us to achieve our G-d-like potential. This is a radically different take on the purpose of evil than in Christianity which reduces and limits the power of the Infinite Being of G-d.

William Berkson,

> Hmmm. In Pirkei Avot (Chapter 5) you have the statement that a lot of miraculous stuff in the Torah was created in twilight before Sabbath of the first week of creation. This includes writing, the stylus, and the actual inscribed Decalogue on rock, siting there since creation for Moses to find.

I don’t think that this refers to writing, as writing certainly existed before Moses’ time.

What does it say (Avot 5:6)? Ten things were created on the Sabbath evening, at twilight...the writing...

Our sages tell us that this refers to the writing of the Second Tablets. Although if we peruse the face value of the words, it says merely, “haketav” or the writing, so we would think that it refers to writing in general. However, Jewish people believe in the explanations of their predecessors, and don’t take things at face value.

> This idea is an effort to solve the problem that the Rabbinic Sages accepted the Greek idea of the Cosmos, or nature according to orderly law.

I think that the Rabbinic Sages had much greater insights into knowledge and reality than their Greek counterparts. Why then did so many brilliant minds from among the Greek sages jump ship, and like Ben Hay Hay and Ben Bagg Bagg in Avot (5:21) and become Jewish? If Greek wisdom was to be admired, why was it rejected, and Jewish wisdom prefered?

> Thus they were uncomfortable with miracles that went against the laws of nature.

The Talmud, which was the basis of the thinking of the Rabbinic Sages, is filled with accounts of miracles that went against the laws of nature. To rationalize everything was attempted by the Maskilim in the nineteenth century, but failed. The Rabbinic establishment at the time made every effort to reject this approach. Although Talmudic Judaism appreciates the logic and rationale in the laws of nature, we accept that at times G-d intervenes into nature and does perform miracles, even more often than we recognize.

Is there then a significance between a small opening, like that of a chet, and between a large opening like that of the hei?

Let’s look at the three letter Hebrew word for leavened bread, which we are allowed to eat all year atound, except for Passover. The three letters which make up this Hebrew word of “chometz” are chet, mehm, and the final form of tzaddik (the form of tzaddik which comes at the end of a Hebrew word, known as “tzaddik sofo” or the “longa tzaddik” in Yiddish).

Compare it to another three letter Hebrew word for the kind of flat, unleavened bread, that we are allowed to eat on Passover. This flat bread is known as “matzah”. The three Hebrew letters are mehm, tzaddik, and hei.

What is the difference between the Hebrew words of “chometz” and “matzah”?

The difference between then has to do with an important lesson, reflected in the shape and air-spaces of Hebrew letters.

Both words have a mehm and a tzaddik. They only differ in their third letter, the chet and the hei. Let’s look again at the different shapes of the chet and the hei.

The chet only has one openning below, and not above. It is seeing things in a limited way. This is like leavened bread, which is full of itself, like a self-centered person.

The hei on the other hand has two opennings, one below like the chet, and one close to above, on the left side towards the top.

This shows that it is flexible, much more open-minded, and less full of itself. This is likr the flat unleavened bread of matzah, that we eat on Passover.

In kabbalistic language, this “flatness” is called: “bittul”, while “leavened” is called: “gaavah”.

Bittul allows more to come in, because it thinks less of itself. Gaavah refuses Above (G-d) to enter, because it thinks so much of itself.

Since we should think more about G-d at Passover, and the miracles that He did for us which we describe at the Seder, we are then required to rid ourselves and our property of chometz, and eat only matzah.

William,

> Of course, if you go to mystical ideas, you can get anything—or not. I find the Hebrew aleph-bet rather magical, but also the Roman alphabet, which is derived from the capitals of the hated Romans. All scripts in long use have something mysterious and charming about them, in my view.

I agree that letter forms are in deed very deep representations of something beyong our understanding.

Kabballistic literature call letters like rocks. When you assemble them together, like putting stones together to form a house, letters joined together make words. When the words are arranged together in a logical sequence, the sentences carry intelligence.

Assembled Hebrew letters and words carry with them not only intelligence, but some much higher than intelligence. For example, certain sentences in Hebrew also contain acrostics of other key words in the first or last letters of the words. Sometimes, these acrostics even form one of the very names of G-d, or the name of the author of the poetic prayer. Also, the gematria (numerical equivalent) of all the letters in the sentence equals the values of the gematria of significant concepts. Thos can only be done in Hebrew, even if there os great beauty and intelligence in letterforms, such as Roman/Latin, Georgian, Arabic/Urdu, Armenian, etc.

William,

> Thus I find it a stretch to ascribe, even by Mishnaic standards, sacred status to the shapes of the current Hebrew alphabet, derived from the Aramaic rather than even the ancient Hebrew one. And Moses and the Israelites may well have been using another dialect.

You raise a very valid point, apparently.

Seemingly, the modern-day Hebrew letter forms do not hold the same significance as drawings which were found inscribed in stones, which we attribute to early versions of Hebrew script (or derived from Phoenician script, as it appears from a design viewpoint). If so, since these Hebrew designs are not similar, certainly then Moses and the Israelites were using another dialect that we know as Hebrew.

I disagree with this, though like much of which you presented, they make good tales.

The ancient Dead Sea Scrolls contain hand-scribed Hebrew letter forms very much resembling those of modern Hebrew letter forms.

The Phoenician-like truncated set of Hebrew letter-forms found from stone engravings indicate two things: a) the letters are a limited set, closer to the language used by the Phienicians, and b) the designs do not contain curve-like attributes, and designs most conducive to enraving in stone. Hence, they are not indicative of what Jewish people have commonly used as ink on parchment.

Furthermore, the Talmud relates that a special Hebrew letter form was reserved for holy scripts, like in a Torah scroll, tefillin rolls, or a mezuzah parchment (used to this very day).

Our understanding of the shape and design style of the modern-day Hebrew letter forms are actually not very modern-day at all. Many of the block or square letter forms were thought by most secular scholars to be related to the advent of the printing press over 500 years ago. They were unaware that drawings of hand-scribed Hebrew books featuring block or square letter forms existed prior to the invention of the printing press.

In fact, these thick square letter designs resembled very old drawings of Sephardic origin. Other ancient drawings, similar to the famous Koren type design, created by the late seventies Israeli type designer, Eliyahu Koren. (This is similar to the popular designs of the late Israeli type designer, Tzvi Narkiss, which stringly resemble the hand-drawn posters created in the Warsaw Ghetto of sans serif font designs - something which was not thought to have existed for Hebrew in the forties.)

So, clearly we see that “new” Hebrew designs appear to have been created recently, but in truth are derived from similar drawings of Hebre letter forms from very earlier periods, and perhaps back even to the times of the Bible. This brings into serious question of the historical validity of the ancient letter forms engraved in stone. Perhaps, they are a derivative of the Phoenician script which they resemble?

ישראל,

אז דו מאכסט פון טיפאפײל תורה, טארסטי דאס אױך נישט אין תשעה באב׃

—Joel

GoHebrew, extracting answers from your answers:

1. In the heavenly realm, there is only right (sic).

Direction assumes dimensions. Heaven is beyond dimension.

2. ... I think that this is the ultimate weapon of deterrence.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/06/nasrallahs_speech_hezbollah_ru.p...

3. Man was created to toil... We even feel better with ourselves
and what we do when it takes effort and requires creativity.
5. Each culture created the system best for them.

Save Heavenly Hebrew?! Others were created to toil.

6. I don’t understand your question.

Rewording: Does Hebrew have Synonyms?
BTW: Arabic virtually has not.

7. Hebrew is Translitratable.
Then Judaism is Divinely/Heavenly regardless of the script?!
Otherwise means otherwise.

8. Any link to any Hebrew Flower Crosswords?!
8+ What is the longest word in Hebrew?
BTW, Flower Crosswords are good for 6-letter words or shorter.
Thus more suitable to Arabic — the mother of 6minus-letter words.

9. .. but this angelic force is described as actually seeking good,
and simply tests us to achieve our G-d-like potential.

Was Hebrew created by that good-seeking angelic force or?!
______________________
Thanks with Flowers

This is all interesting. My perspective, as weak as it is, has always been that the mystery schools used folk maps of the CNS, and that the real application had to do with combining various branches of what we now call psychology with initiation to create more fully functioning people. For example, through the study of various archetypes and through initiation the aspirant learns to become all possible minds within the collective human mind and to move with purpose from state to state. This tends to over-write the base level personality and give tools to get around certain limitations that nature and nurture impose. The convoluted nature of the system keeps the knowledge secret to anyone that is not properly instructed and initiated, as the practitioners and keepers tend to believe strongly that they have increased their powers of influence and want to keep these powers concentrated with those that are trusted.

The encoded geometry, in my mind, is very similar to other methods that are designed to exhaust the mind and eventually create a receptive state for the actual experience of learning how the mind can direct the electro-chemical activities in the physical body.

Q: Would the script be a component of a model like the tree, or would the tree be a secondary ideation that incorporated the script?

Israel, I’m having a hard time seeing what these midrashim have to do with the design or use of Hebrew letters.

Also the midrash about matzah and chometz to me seems a little silly. I’m all in favor of being open minded and not arrogant, but it has nothing to do with eating with bread. After all, we eat bread the other 51 weeks, so should be we arrogant except on Pesach? I don’t think the metaphor goes very far.

William,

> I’m having a hard time seeing what these midrashim have to do with the design or use of Hebrew letters.

The discussion is around the topic of the shapes and the design of Hebrew letters.

So far, we’ve basically two types of examples:

a) the first regarding the letter aleph, and how it is formed from three elements, two letters of the yuhd and one other letter the vov.

b) the second regarding the difference between the chet and the hei: the chet only having one opening, symbolizing limited acceptance of G-d, and the hei having multiple openings, symbolizing great flexibility and a willingness to accept G-d.

I think the fact the design of Hebrew letter forms is the subject of analysis clearly shows us that this is significant, to better understand how to correctly form and use Hebrew letters.

> Also the midrash about matzah and chometz to me seems a little silly. I’m all in favor of being open minded and not arrogant, but it has nothing to do with eating with bread. After all, we eat bread the other 51 weeks, so should be we arrogant except on Pesach?

You raise a good question. I recall that in yeshiva, this question was raised also.

The act of eating fluffy bread or flat bread is not the issue. Arrogance and humility result from how we relate towards others, and the manner of importance we reserve for ourselves.

However, our Jewish sages apply to the act of Jewish people not eating bread on Passover, and eating only matzah, this meaning and symbolism. Kabbalistic yeachings add another dimension.

When we eat only matzah and rid ourselves of chometz during the eight days of Passover, this accumulated “bittul” lasts all year around, enabling us to eat chometz (the symbol of arrogance) during the rest of the year, and not be affected by it.

Does this answer your concern?

Joel

> אז דו מאכסט פון טיפאפײל תורה, טארסטי דאס אױך נישט אין תשעה באב׃

Unfortunately, my mother spoke only English to me when I was a child, so my mother-tongue is English, and I don’t understand many Jewish people’s mama-lashon, Yiddish, except some small amount of words.

Hence, please translate your comment.

I’m all in favor of being open minded and not arrogant, but it has nothing to do with eating with bread. After all, we eat bread the other 51 weeks, so should be we arrogant except on Pesach?

But if you can cause the eating of bread to become a sacred act because it triggers and idea! The point is that there is a difference that is recognized every day during the eating of a meal. That sort of ritual works for the xtians as well.

Aziz,

You have a very interesting name, which is derived in Hebrew from the word for ’strength’.

> 1. In the heavenly realm, there is only right (sic).
> Direction assumes dimensions. Heaven is beyond dimension.

I am unsure if this is a comment, or a question.

Having only right, which in kabballistic lingo is not dimensional, but refers not to polarity of right and left, but to a pure kind of simplicity beyond polarity. Differences only come about later when G-d creates physicality and these concept become applicable.

> 3. Man was created to toil... We even feel better with ourselves
> and what we do when it takes effort and requires creativity.
> 5. Each culture created the system best for them.

> Save Heavenly Hebrew?! Others were created to toil.

I don’t think that one language competes against the other. Each language has its unique even superior qualities over other languages.

This blog and special interest section focuses on Hebrew. I have brought to people’s attention interesting aspects of Hebrew type designs, and how these qualities are unique to Hebrew.

I think what might have ticked some people off is to attribute Divine qualities to Hrbrew, as claimed by our ancient Jewish sages. I have tried to show already, and hope to show more, examples that are unique to Hebrew and even have these Divine qualities.

...

> 9. .. but this angelic force is described as actually seeking good,
> and simply tests us to achieve our G-d-like potential.

> Was Hebrew created by that good-seeking angelic force or?!

I tried to explain that Judaism does not have the G-d-like Devil concept. It is a Christian concept which has become incorporated into the western mind and culture. I believe Christianity wrapped this popular notion because the masses related to it well. I believe it originate from an ancient Persian religion.

Judaism’s concept good-seeking angelic force which test people to bring out their potential is not a creative force, be it a script, a language, a recipe, etc.

It is difficult to explain in detail the concept of Hebrew, but since though and souls exist above the creation of angels, the creation of Hebrew is likely also before the creation of angels, as thought requires language.

Does this answer your question?

Aziz,

> 2. ... I think that this is the ultimate weapon of deterrence.

> http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/06/nasrallahs_speech_hezbollah_ru.p...

I am unsure what the purpose of this discussion is. My remark was parenthetical.

As a person from New York city, who witnessed the destruction and clean-up of 9/11 upfront, and as a Jew who lived in Jerusalem at the time of bloody terrorist acts, or one who knew personally countless dislocated Israelis when Nasrallah unleashed an inhumane reign of terror and missiles, I only can say it can not happen sooner for all the evil Nasrallahs in the world to die a painful death and be gone forever.

Again, I truly think the ultimate weapon of peace is that which disables weapons of destruction.

Aziz, you seem to be a reasonable and proud man. You surely agree then that the ultimate strength of a human being is not to destroy one’s enemy, but to change him or her into a trusted friend.

jupiterboy,

> Emphasized I’m all in favor of being open minded and not arrogant, but it has nothing to do with eating with bread. After all, we eat bread the other 51 weeks, so should be we arrogant except on Pesach?

> But if you can cause the eating of bread to become a sacred act because it triggers and idea! The point is that there is a difference that is recognized every day during the eating of a meal. That sort of ritual works for the xtians as well.

I don’t know who xtians are. Are they from Mars or Venus?

Actually, a meal with bread is not just a simple act of eating. Rather, when adjoined with a certain kind of washing of the hands, various blessings, and a dvar Torah (a Torah thought), with salt on the table, our ancient Jewish sages compared it to an act in the Holy Temple.

I don’t know who xtians are. Are they from Mars or Venus?

Now there’s a good question.

Actually, a meal with bread is not just a simple act of eating.

It is for a dog or chimp. And it is for lots of people as well. What you are talking about (excuse my presumption) is the transformation of the mundane or profane into the sacred through initiation and ritual.

jupiterboy,

> the transformation of the mundane or profane into the sacred through initiation and ritual.

Actually, the aim of all the instructions of the Torah are to transforn mundane into the sacred. This is connected to the “lifting up of sparks” to correct the world.

A human meal with bread is one example.

For example, Jacob cut strips of bark to cause the sheep to give birth to striped offspring to achieve what Jewish men accomplish today with Tefillin. In Jacob’s pre-Sinai times, the strips did not have a permanent effect to transforn mundane into the sacred. But today, in post-Sinai times, the placing of Tefillin do have a permanent effect to transforn the mundane leather straps into sacred objects.

The same with ordinary food (if its kosher), which becomes transformed into the substance of a holy meal because of a few simple actions.

Actually

I didn’t intend to imply that ritual and transformation were reserved for eating bread.

So this lifting up of sparks, and lighting of the lamp—how do you interpret these?

jupiterboy,

> So this lifting up of sparks, and lighting of the lamp—how do you interpret these?

They are two distinct things.

The “lifting of sparks” is a kabbalistic concept. Basically, the world which know fell down, like all the other worlds above ours (kabbalistic literature describes our physical world the lowest one, of three other non-physical worlds above it), causing “holy vessels” to be shattered. Hence, there are sparks or pieces of these broken vessels which need to be raised, so they ascend back to the place from whence they came. When we do “mitzvahs”, various good acts, we cause these sparks to be raised. As a result, the ordinary physical objects we use are transformed into sacred objects.

A lighting of a lamp is to illuminate the darkness. When this lighting is done for a sacred purpose, like to light the Sabbath candles, or to kindle the Chanukah lights, then those ordinary physical objects are transformed into sacred objects.

I hope that this is clear.

Even though the Hebrew letters illuminate and contain sparks, I don’t think these discussions can be considered about the meaning of the shapes and design of the Hebrew letters.

Ah yes, this is your blog, and I’ve taken things off in another direction. I was thinking of a particular author that refers to the lifting of the sparks as the lighting of the lamp, but his take on it is that of a physical process where the lighting of the lamp is a culmination of the raising of the sparks—an metaphorical illumination.

I’ll tune in as you continue and try to learn something.

1> ... it can not happen sooner for all the evil Nasrallahs in the world to die a painful death and be gone forever.
2> ... thee ultimate strength of a human being is not to destroy one’s enemy, but to change him or her into a trusted friend.

GoHebrew, (1) or (2)? How?

> I truly think the ultimate weapon of peace is that which disables weapons of destruction.

Peacefully or by more destructive WMD?!

I suspect there is some difference between yanking a plant out by its roots and neglecting to water or feed it.

The Tantrists focus on the worship of Kali. She is a manifestation of time, and her purpose is to destroy so that creation can begin again. Part of the mythology includes the idea that to unleash her power you must accept the lack of discernment in the destruction process. To begin the process of creation, Shiva offers himself, in a way, as a sacrifice by laying down in front of Kali.

This is the Kali Yuga. Maybe the reverent way to endure it is to be ready to lose everything, even one’s religion.

> A lighting of a lamp is to illuminate the darkness. When this lighting is done for a sacred purpose, ... then those ordinary physical objects are transformed into sacred objects.

Thus GoHebrew+Hebrew letters reflect that sacred Light.
But if a mirror is transformed into a sacred object by that light,
will it reflect sacred sunlight? Or the (sun)light is sacred in origin?

jupiterboy,

> Ah yes, this is your blog, and I’ve taken things off in another direction.

It was only because someone made an issue of this did I say that. Sort of a politically correct statenent.

>...a culmination of the raising of the sparks

A purely physical act devoid of purpose or G-dly intent remains only another physical act and not a culmination of the raising of the sparks, to the best of my understanding. I think that it’s simply understood by everyone in this way.

Aziz,

> ... it can not happen sooner for all the evil Nasrallahs in the world to die a painful death and be gone forever.

After 9/11 and the war in Lebanon, any sane human being would agree with me. Only a mentally ill humam being would think these acts are just and good.

Azizm

> > I truly think the ultimate weapon of peace is that which disables weapons of destruction.

> Peacefully or by more destructive WMD?!

I think pacifism doesn’t work. Judaism rejects the notion to turn the cheek, but rather to kill first he who attacks you.

A weapon which disables a country’s missile defemse system is not a weapon of mass destruction. It simply leaves an aggressor impotent to defend itself against counter-attack.

I think it’s a brilliant solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

jupiterboy,

> The Tantrists focus on the worship of Kali. She is a manifestation of time, and her purpose is to destroy so that creation can begin again. Part of the mythology includes the idea that to unleash her power you must accept the lack of discernment in the destruction process.

There us a somewhat similar idea expressed in Jewish mysticism. The world we live in is one of a series of worlds. Each world had to be destroyed to make room for the creation of another. I believe that this is the sixth world, before the last Sabbatical world.

Aziz,

> Thus GoHebrew+Hebrew letters reflect that sacred Light.
But if a mirror is transformed into a sacred object by that light,
will it reflect sacred sunlight? Or the (sun)light is sacred in origin?

Actually the name, GoHebrew, was selected because it was catchy, easy to remember, and available as a domain name.

Most light is not sacred, like lighting a match for a cigarette, or staying out too long in the sun and getting burned.

Light becomes sacred if it serves a good purpose, like to light a stove to prepare a pot of soup for an expectant mother, or to do a mitzvah (as mentioned earlier).

If the person blinded by the darkness can see because of the light, this is sacred light too.

A purely physical act devoid of purpose or G-dly intent remains only another physical act and not a culmination of the raising of the sparks, to the best of my understanding. I think that it’s simply understood by everyone in this way.

Well this is another discussion. From a naturalist perspective, everything is purely physical. I’ve always appreciated those systems of teaching that didn’t banish the body to the backyard like a dirty dog.

> If the person blinded by the darkness can see because of the light,
this is sacred light too.

Even if he/she is your enemy?!
What about the moving shadow (no light) that is created by the light+body?! Which one is sacred? One of them, none, or both?!
By the way, one needs light+mirror+open (eye)s to see one’s own face,
what does it take him/her to see Divine/Heaven and Devil?!

Flowers 4 Profound Typophiles

> Judaism rejects the notion to turn the cheek, but rather to kill first he who attacks you.

Regardless of the attacker’s Religion or Race?! Or Judaism = infallibility?!

> ... simply leaves an aggressor impotent to defend itself against counter-attack.
I think it’s a brilliant solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Or simply leaves an aggressor impotent to attack.
I think it’s a brilliant policy by the Iranians to their invented nuclear crisis.

Interesting information; having Jewish heritage on my father’s side, Hebrew has always fascinated me.

I think, though, that you really need to worry about *not* worshiping the created rather than the Creator. Creation is great, but the Creator is greater. Regardless of how you feel, I hardly think it necessary to view Hebrew as a primitive in God’s creation; after all, He excels in taking what man has made and using it to work His divine plan. God’s Word doesn’t need to be limited by human language, which is so provably fallible and mutable (I mean no respect to any language, least of all Hebrew - I love the system of consonantal roots).

Also, as a linguist, you’re not going to get me to buy your origin of the Hebrew aleph-bet; the relation to other alphabetic forms is too strong, and in any case the Hebrew people weren’t chosen until God spoke to a man of Ur named Abra(ha)m.

Another thing you might want to watch is your claims about Christianity. I’m a Christian, and you offended me when you claimed/insinuated that we Christians believe in a devil who is God’s equal or in some way diminishing to His power. We do not, or at least I and those of my faith do not; that is known as dualism and is rather antithetical to Christianity.

In any case, very interesting information about how Judaism perceives it’s writing system. Please post more; my interest is piqued :D

Oh, and if there’s no direction in heaven, then there can’t be any right, can there? Right is defined in opposition to left. Limitation of human language, I guess. Just had to say something about that, as a left-handed person (who admires Ehud).

Peace,
JT

Just a couple of points of clarification.

Jewish mysticism is not adhered to by all Jews, including Orthodox Jews. I am not Orthodox, but you can be Orthodox and reject Jewish mysticism, and also the distinctive doctrines of Chassidic Judaism.

Israel here is portraying one variety of Judaism, which is genuine and authentic, but in fact most Jews do not agree with it.

JT, putting the Devil equal to God is indeed a heresy in Christianity, the Manichean heresy. But it remains true that in Christianity the Devil is a personal, active force in the world opposing God. And this is quite different from Judaism, which sees good and bad tendencies within every individual, but does not see them as centrally directed and supported by a supernatural figure who opposes God. I haven’t read it, but I believe that Elaine Pagel’s book Satan goes into depth on the history.

Also if you want to take offense at rejection of Christian views, you are going to be offended a lot if you talk to non-Christians. Christianity has the most adherents of any religion, but it remains true that most people in the world know about Christianity and reject it for what they think are good reasons.

@william: Christianity sees good and bad in individuals as well - it is the bad (sin) which makes us human, mortal, and in need of salvation (not to change this discussion too much into a theological debate). The Old Testament books of the Bible mention an actual devil on more than one occasion (need I mention the book of Job?), even if you reject the New Testament (where satan is discussed by name).

In any case, I said “offended” in a bit of a lighter way than you may have taken it; Christians these days are often told to avoid offending those of other religions. And I’d be willing to bet that you’re wrong about most people knowing enough about Christianity to reject it for reasons other than other-ness.

Peace,
JT

JT, “satan” in the book of Job plays the role of a prosecuting attorney, and is not a malevolent supernatural force promoting evil in the world. Christians read Christian doctrine into the book of Job, but it’s not there. If you are interested you can read Pagels on this.

The Jewish concept of the “yetzer hara”, or “bad inclination” and Christian concept of original sin are critically different. In Judaism each person has the power to make the choice between good and bad inclinations. In traditional Christianity people need Jesus to remove the stain of inborn “original sin” and further need Jesus to keep them on the right path against their innate corruption due to original sin. In Judaism there is no original sin and hence no need for a special savior.

As to the beliefs of others, I don’t think you’re right, but I haven’t made a survey. Speaking for myself I am pretty familiar with Christian doctrine and reject it for what I think are good reasons.

Boy, although I do like it, this is not sounding like Modern Typography 1, but Comparative Religion.

Actually, when I went to college, I attended a Comparative Religion course, given by a Southern Baptist minister at Marlboro College in Malboro, Vermont - one of the smallest accredited liberal arts colleges in the world. He proudly declared that he was gay, and the Spiritual Counselor for Linda Ronstadt, who called him every few weeks.

jupiterboy,

> From a naturalist perspective, everything is purely physical. I’ve always appreciated those systems of teaching that didn’t banish the body to the backyard like a dirty dog.

Jewish mysticism attributes as the ultimate status to achieve the union of body and soul, not the denial or destruction of body. However, the goal is supremacy of soul over body, and not how western culture often glorifies the body and mocks the soul.

Aziz,

> Even if he/she is your enemy?!

The ultimate strength is to overpower your enemy and transform him or her into a devoted friend.

Instead of diminishing your strength, you are strengthened by joining forces.

I think if the Israelis and the Arab nations became united as “devoted friends”, a new kind of culture would emerge and eventually become the dominant civilization. Those peoples are Abraham’s descendants, and Western Culture is the product of Esau’s and Canaan’s descendants.

It is unclear who Yafeth’s descendants are.

Aziz,

> What about the moving shadow (no light) that is created by the light+body?! Which one is sacred? One of them, none, or both?!

This is a good question, but I think none.

Actually, this refers to a profound discussion in Jewish Mysticism about the status of darkness.

Is darkness simply the lack of light, or an entity of itself, like evil?

An answer from the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Jzoseh Isaac, suggests that both are true, darkness is the potential of light.

This is somewhat similar to the Jewish concept of what Chistians call the “Devil”.

The inclination of doing evil is intended to bring out our strengths to do good. In Talmudic lingo, this is called: “very good”.

To let this topic go on its intended course, final comment relating to Christianity (although feel free to ask me outside of this thread): (a) In reference to satan in Job: yes, prosecutor, and in fact accuser, but no less tempter and deceiver. (b) If the curses at the end of the story of Adam and Eve don’t speak to original sin, I don’t know what does.

Back on the original topic: So if linguistic sound changes mean Hebrew spoken now isn’t the same as Hebrew spoken in Abraham’s day (if the term applies), does the message stay the same? Is the fault in humans? What’s your opinion?

Peace,
JT

Aziz,

> > Judaism rejects the notion to turn the cheek, but rather to kill first he who attacks you.

> Regardless of the attacker’s Religion or Race?! Or Judaism = infallibility?!

Yes. A basic rule from the Bible is that self-defence is an undesired second choice. The desired first choice is never to allow your enemy to even attack. Rather, destroy him first.

In military terms, it’s called a “preemtive strike”. According to Jewish law, today there would be no nuclear threat from Iran. Rather, a simple choice would be given: “Stop your threats, give up your arms, or be destroyed.” Free choice, very democratic.

The Israelis did this during the Six Day War, and saw miraculous success.

>the curses at the end of the story of Adam and Eve don’t speak to original sin, I don’t know what does.

The curses are of work, death, and pain of child birth. There is no curse of inherited sin, which has to be removed—that is the distinctive thing in Christianity. That is Saint Paul. It’s not overtly in the story; it’s Saint Paul’s interpretation—or rather misinterpretation.

As the Encyclopedia Judaica says, in the Hebrew Bible “Satan”, in so far as he becomes an individual personality, is “in no sense a rival to God.” In Christianity he is a rival to God, though not a fully equal one. This is decisively different. Before you go on telling me and other Jews more about how we don’t understand our Hebrew Bible (which many of us can read in the original), I suggest you read something other than the Christian interpretations.

Abraham probably didn’t speak Hebrew, but Aramaic, as he came from present day Iraq, not further West, where Canaanite—the ancestor of Hebrew, I believe—was spoken. These are all related semitic languages (including Arabic) but are somewhat different. (I saw on TV that there are still Aramaic speaking villages in Iraq.)

By the way, with regard to Israel’s comment that the Dead Sea Scrolls are in script similar to modern Hebrew, that is true. However, that is 1200-1300 years after Moses, and 500-600 years after the exile in (Aramaic speaking) Babylonia. So what script was written on the Tablets of the Ten Commandments is an open question.

jt...,

> I think, though, that you really need to worry about *not* worshiping the created rather than the Creator. Creation is great, but the Creator is greater. Regardless of how you feel, I hardly think it necessary to view Hebrew as a primitive in God’s creation; after all, He excels in taking what man has made and using it to work His divine plan.

Nobody is permitted to worhip the created, but only the Creator.

Nevertheless, divine attributes are endowed in created beings.

Actually, idol worship originated from this, explains Maimonides. Divinity was attributed to created beings that displayed divine attributes, and were worshiped as a result.

However, just as caution is required in order that we not stumble where people have fell before, we also have to be as cautious to ignore G-dly truths or to recognize holiness in people or things in our zealousness to relate only to the Creator.

I think the mistaken backlash against Jewish mysticism, Chaaasidic teachings, and the holiness of tzaddikim (outstanding Torah leaders), is a good example of this error.

jt,

> Also, as a linguist, you’re not going to get me to buy your origin of the Hebrew aleph-bet; the relation to other alphabetic forms is too strong, and in any case the Hebrew people weren’t chosen until God spoke to a man of Ur named Abra(ha)m.

I would be interested to why you think as a linguist that the origin of Hebrew is like other languages: the product of human thinking and mutual agreement of a certain people and culture.

Btw, the status of “chosen” (chosen to devote their lives to doing G-d’s will) was not given to the Hebrews until much later than to the man from Ur Kasdim. Abraham and his adherents, and later his descendants, constituted a tribe. After Abraham taught Isaac, and Isaac taught Jacob, and Jacob taught his childre, only then God saw (actually, G-d foresees everything; so, at that point, it becane clear) that Abraham’s descendant were worthy to this special role and title. Only after Sinai, were the Jews a nation with a task.

jt,

> I’m a Christian, and you offended me when you claimed/insinuated that we Christians believe in a devil who is God’s equal or in some way diminishing to His power. We do not, or at least I and those of my faith do not; that is known as dualism and is rather antithetical to Christianity.

I am sorry if I offended you. It is not my intention. I simply am presenting some ideas, based upon my understand.

I learned that Catholicism presents Divinity as a duality, where G-d’s dominion is sub-divided, with certain G-dly powers allocated to other entities besides to G-d, such as the Devil, Jesus, Mother Mary etc.

This form of Christianity is rejected by traditional Judaism, explains Maimonides, as “avodah zora”.

I know Christianity has many sects, and there are nuances between them.

If the form of Christianity which you adhere to rejects dualism, and embraces pure monotheism, great. We have even more in common.

jt,

> Oh, and if there’s no direction in heaven, then there can’t be any right, can there? Right is defined in opposition to left. Limitation of human language, I guess. Just had to say something about that, as a left-handed person (who admires Ehud).

The concept of “Right” here is not defined by the opposite of right. Rather, “Right” here refers to those qualities which are inherent and unique to it.

I’m also a lefty. I found this difficult to swallow at first. It was a little like male chauvinism... But I got over it.

Israel, Christianity tries to have it both ways. God is both three—plus the heavenly powers of the devil, etc.—and one. Thus you will find both dualistic thinking, and stuff that looks very like polytheism to Jewish eyes, and the claim that they are strict monotheists. In the eyes of both Jews and Muslims, Christianity compromised monotheism.

I think early on the Sages thought Christianity was polytheistic. But by the time you get to Nachmanides (Ramban) he simply says that the doctrines are incoherent, which is probably the soundest view.

But my problem with this thread is that I think your comments on the Hebrew letters, such as the midrash about the chet and hey, are really religion, and don’t have that much to do with letters.

I ought to resist the temptation to post, but as I am very interested in both letters and religion, it’s pretty tempting :)

William B.,

> Jewish mysticism is not adhered to by all Jews, including Orthodox Jews. I am not Orthodox, but you can be Orthodox and reject Jewish mysticism...

Although William you are clearly have a broad base of knowledge, but I beg to very firmly disagree with you.

The most basic belief of Judaism is in the absolute unity of G-d with one Torah, one People, and one Land.

This means that the teachings of the Torah (not the Torah scroll, but the entire body of Torah knowledge) can not be divided into: “this part I fathom, I accept”, and the esoteric part “this part I can not fathom, I reject”.

No Orthodox Jew, or even an intelligent less-observant Jew, can reject Jewish mysticism. The Vilna Gaon is universally accepted leader of non-Chassidic Orthodox Jewry. He himself was a great kabbalist. He rules for all generations that one could not be a rabbi who rules on matters of halacha without having a thoriygh understanding of the kabbalistic implications of his rulings. If non-Chassidic Jews rejected Jewish mysticism, then there would be no way to fulfill the Vilna Gaon’s ruling.

> and also the distinctive doctrines of Chassidic Judaism.

All Chassidic sects follow the teachings of Jewish mysticism, known as Chassidus, or in particular Chabad Chassidus.

The Chassidus developed in depth by the Lubavitcher Rebbes are not on a plane by themselves, subject to be accepted or rejected, like flavors of ice cream.

For example, among the Satmar branch of Chassidism, Chabad Chassidus is regularly studies. The Kausenberger Rebbes, like most other Chassidic leaders, learn it too, though not as in depth as the Satmar Chassidim. I can cite many examples.

Among non-Orthodox or non-observant Jews, there is a very high rate (99.9%) lacking in background in knowing well Torah observances and lifestyles.

I think that this is why Chabad Houses have had unbelievable success in reaching out to many non-Orthodox or non-observant Jews, and even to non-Jews, and after calmly and presenting Judaism is a positive limelight, the response is not rejection, but acceptance. All people relate to kindness, good deeds, morality, and decency. (Chabad’s secret formula for success.)

WB,

> Christianity has the most adherents of any religion, but it remains true that most people in the world know about Christianity and reject it for what they think are good reasons.

I believe Islam is the largest, Christianity is in the middle, and poor little Judaism is in last place, puffing, with aching legs, and thirsty.

> I am not Orthodox, but you can be Orthodox and reject Jewish mysticism, and also the distinctive doctrines of Chassidic Judaism.

With all due respect, this is untrue. No Torah giant would advance this idea. Jewish mysticism was never banished from mainstream Judaism. There were times it was discouraged from study, except by those well versed in Jewish law, married, with children, and of a certain age.

I’m sorry to say there is not a single statement that hints of this. It is merely a view of some non-Orthodox Jews based on misunderstanding, like the notion that Chaasidic Jews make love through holes in sheets to avoid physical contact between husband and wife. When you know little, anything is believable!

WB,

> but in fact most Jews do not agree with it.

This really is not your fault, but this statement is untrue.

There are many Jews who feel very uncomfortable about certain beliefs of Lubavitchers. This is a “political” or “theocratic” issue, but has nothing at all to do with the body of Jewish mysticsm which the leaders of Lubavitch advanced.

When Lubavitchers introduced the “Tefillin Campaign” in the late sixties there was a similar upheaval. How could you urge another non-religious Jew to wrap Tefillin if he didn’t do the ritual washing beforehand?

Lubavitchers have never been phased by controversy. The use it to generate greater publicity.

WB and JT,

> The Jewish concept of the “yetzer hara”, or “bad inclination” and Christian concept of original sin are critically different.

I think that there is a subtle point that it being ignire. According to Jewish mysticsm, this bad inclination is actually a hidden form of good. When we overcome the bad inclination, we bring out an inner strength. As a result, our inclination to good is greater. As a result, we desire to good to a greater degree.

Hence, the subjection of this evil force has a good intent. It wants us to fail in its call, and do what’s right instead.

JT,

> If the curses at the end of the story of Adam and Eve don’t speak to original sin, I don’t know what does.

Again, original sin is a Christian concept; it has no place in Judaism.

Judaism considers procreation and marital relations as beautiful, purposeful, and even holy.

How many people are screwed up because of this false belief. How many sins have been generated out of quilt for basic human emotions.

If Christianity would reform itself again, it would just shuck this one out.

JT,

> So if linguistic sound changes mean Hebrew spoken now isn’t the same as Hebrew spoken in Abraham’s day (if the term applies), does the message stay the same? Is the fault in humans? What’s your opinion?

First, the main discussion is design, not sound: the share of Hebrew letters, not the Hebrew language.

Second, I unaware that Abraham spoke Hebrew then.

Third, do you refer to modern Hebrew spoken by Israelis and others, or Yeshiva Hebrew, spoken and/oe learned from the siddur, Jewish prayerbook, chaters of Mishna, Psalms, or Bible?

Sound is related to the meaning of the shapes of Hebrew letters, as discussed in Jewish mystical literature. The shape and movement of the mouth is the basis for particular shapes and sounds of Hebrew letters.

Does this exist is other languages as well?

> he becomes an individual personality

There is a concept or two of a non-internal “yetzer hora”, where certain acts in nature are attributed to the samech-mehm, or Satan, this powerfil angel, accusers, judge etc.

For example, mainly Sephardic Jews say certain good things, like many children, good health, or much wealth, should not be spoken about at length, “al tiftach peh lesatan” - not to open up Satan’s mouth (to accuse and awaken G-d to test us).

There is a famous tale about how Rabbi Israel the holy Baal Shem Tov was born. The Satan dressed as a tramp, carrying a bag of personal belongings, visit the Baal Shem Tov’s father on the Sabbath, when carrying articles is forbidden. G-d wanted to test his hospitality with this guest, the Satan dressed as a tramp. This guest was rude and obnoxious, but his father still welcomed him kindly and patiently, no matter how the tramp tried to rile him. In the end, Satan blessed his father to have a special son, who turned out to be the Baal Shem Tov.

> like the notion that Chaasidic Jews make love...

Better to ask Dr. Ruth Westheimer about this notion :^) :^)

Israel, according to the Wikipedia article on major religions Christianity is by a wide margin the religion with the most adherents, not Islam.

You can read an extensive list of Orthodox who criticize Jewish mysticism, some of whom reject the authority of the Zohar, including today, here in the wikipedia article on Kabbalah.

I won’t comment further, as these matters are so complicated, and it would be out of place here. Also I’m saving my efforts for my blog over at RJ.org .

William,

> But my problem with this thread is that I think your comments on the Hebrew letters, such as the midrash about the chet and hey, are really religion, and don’t have that much to do with letters.

My view is that the religion element can not be separated from design issues when discussions of Hebrew shapes are made.

I think that there is a strong artistic validity to analyzing the shapes of Hebrew letters, such as the openings in the chet and hei. I think that you do not relate because of your non-traditional leanings, and that these concepts are rooted in Medrash or Kabballah. I don’t think that you can be truly objective.

When I show links between how we say the Hebrew letters and their shapes, you really will protest.

The truth is that this is a fascinating topic, even though we have digressed to issues of religion a lot. Its against my better sense, but I am more against censorship.

> Israel, according to the Wikipedia article on major religions Christianity is by a wide margin the religion with the most adherents, not Islam.

I’ll check it out. It won’t be the first time I’m incorrect.

> You can read an extensive list of Orthodox who criticize Jewish mysticism, some of whom reject the authority of the Zohar, including today, here in the wikipedia article on Kabbalah.

I’ll check it out too. This sounds unbelievable. If they quote some rabbi in Denver, and people who reject cholav yisroel, I just say: nebach. (poor shnook)

> I won’t comment further, as these matters are so complicated, and it would be out of place here. Also I’m saving my efforts for my blog over at RJ.org .

What’s that?

David,

> > like the notion that Chaasidic Jews make love...

> Better to ask Dr. Ruth Westheimer about this notion :^) :^)

Do you have a web address or link?

Maybe, she says that it’s just “projection”, because reform jews have such sad sex lives, they project such things on the chassidim to try to prevent their people from checking out chassidism.

This reminds me of when this chassidic rabbi had a feminist as a guest for the Sabbath. She ranted and raved all through the meal about how women are equal to men. The rabbi just looked at her and commented very calmly: “I know men had a circumcision where a small piece was cut off; but you insisted to get a circumcision too, and that a very big piece get cut off.”

She blushed, and was quiet for the rest of the meal.

I would like to suggest that gohebrew and guiyong are the same person, part of a viral extension of the “Punkt” concept for TypeCon this year. Regardless, it’s really entertaining, keep it coming. Maybe the next character could be one of those handwriting personality analyst types? Perhaps there could also be a Murder Mystery style competition to find out who the man/woman behind the curtain is: I suggest Matthew Carter with a butter knife.

William,

> You can read an extensive list of Orthodox who criticize Jewish mysticism, some of whom reject the authority of the Zohar, including today, here in the wikipedia article on Kabbalah.

I checked it out. Thank you for the embedded links. A real time saver.

Only a few rabbis from long ago opposed Jewish mysticism, but this opposition subsided together with non-Lurianic kabballah.

Only one well-known Modern Orthodox rabbi expressed his opposition; his opinion was never taken seriously.

Everyone includes Jewish mysticism in traditional Judaism. In fact, our concept of G-d and the purpose of fulfilling the Torah is derived from Jewish mysticism. Without it, we sound as if we just don’t know.

Feetthekern,

I am not guiyong, although we were seen together on THAT day sharing a peanut butter sandwich in Battery Park. She ate most of it, so I went to a nearby kosher restaurant afterwards. Good fries!

It was actually Thomas Pinney, holding the meat-cleaver. If you noticed, Carter’s butter knife had butter on ot, and he crumbs on his upper lip. The meat-cleaver had blood on it! And he had a guilty look on his face.

Can you guess which day it was?

Wow, a lot of posts in a row.

So I’m not Catholic; I’m Christian. And original sin has nothing to do with sex unless you’re Constantine. But we’re off that subject, so let’s get back to letterforms.

It’s actually pretty easy to trace the lineage from pictoral-initial systems like hieroglyphics to the Hebrew characters. The general idea is that, as an outgrowth of ideographic/logographic systems, characters came to stand for the initial sound of the words they depicted. Aleph, for instance, and not to pick on this thread, is believed to come from a depiction of an ox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph
Of course, the exact histories are obscure and uncertain, but historical records give linguists good clues as to the origin of writing systems where the language is known.

This goes back to my point about God being greater than physical limitations; if He wants to put special meaning behind writing, He’ll work it out. There’s nowhere in Scripture where God teaches Moses the aleph-bet for writing the Torah; it’s the message that counts. That’s what makes hidden meanings all the more miraculous.

On another note, gohebrew, you said the following:
“Sound is related to the meaning of the shapes of Hebrew letters, as discussed in Jewish mystical literature. The shape and movement of the mouth is the basis for particular shapes and sounds of Hebrew letters. Does this exist is other languages as well?”

Yes, it is known to happen, although I don’t really think Hebrew falls into this category. Writing systems where letterforms are based on phonetics are called featural codes. The prime example here is the Korean writing system, Hangeul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangeul). Each character that represents a sound does so based on phonetic criteria, or so they say.

Of course, this story is contested as well, but that’s another story. In any case, Hangeul is hardly Hebrew.

By the way, have you read about the possibility that the numerical values of Hebrew letters given for a description of a vessel (For us, it’s I Kings 7:24) shows that the ancient Israelites actually had a very close approximation of the value of pi, the ratio of a circle’s diameter to it’s circumference? I find that incredibly cool.

Peace,
JT

> I think if the Israelis and the Arab nations became united as “devoted friends”, a new kind of culture would emerge and eventually become the dominant civilization.

You have to differentiate between Arabs who love the WhiteHouse
and Houses in other Corners of the world from Arabs who love the BlackStone placed at one of the corners of KAABA (the House of Worship)
that was set up by Abraham in Mecca.

Before Islam, when Arab tribes differed as who would put the Black Stone back in its place after rebuilding the House of Worship in Mecca, they agreed to let the first person to enter KAABA to judge between them.

And the grandson of Arbaraham (Mohammed) came in.

Mohammed asked the tribes to bring him a piece of cloth and then step by step:
1. placed the black stone in the mid of that piece of the cloth
2. asked the heads of the tribes to collectively hold that piece of the cloth,
3. took up the black stone and put back it in its place.

That’s what+why KisSinger wants them to forget:
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/02/kissinger-on-iraq-afghanistan-ir...

Sadly most Arabs+Mulims — out of ignorance — are after democracy:
http://www.zackvision.com/weblog/2003/02/muslim-population.html

> Free choice, very democratic?!
Haveanly Religions are above ungodly Democracy.

> Stop your threats, give up your arms, or be destroyed.

> Stop your threats, Forget your arms, and Fear the Destroyer,
the All-Compeller, the All-Magnanimous

>... like the notion that Chaasidic Jews make love through holes in sheets to avoid physical contact between husband and wife

GoHebrew, Is there a deeper physical contact between husband and wife than pentration?!

i didn’t read the entire thread, i’m sorry, it’s too long, but i wanted to say several things.

on the archeological meening of the letter aleph:
first discoveries of hebrew’s origin came out of an archeological dig in “Serabit el-Khadim”, located at the sinai peninsula. a few “hieroglyphs” written on the walls of a cave belonged to a script we call proto sinaitic or proto canaanitic, which was influenced by the egyptian hierogliphs. the inscription said “to baalat”, which meens a kind of sacrificial to “baalat”, the feminin version the canaanite god baal.

letter aleph, as we know it, was a representation of a the first syllabel of the word “ox” (or in canaanite and ancient hebrew - “aluf”, which also means strength).
the letter “bet” represents the first syllabel of the word “house” (or in hebrew “bait”) and it’s proto sinaitic origin is really shaped like the floorplan of the Hebrew nomad’s tent found in archeological digs.

therefor, by the Jeff Benner’s lecture, the hebrew word for father - “av” which is composed of two letters - “aleph” and “bet”, have a symbolic meaning. it is the “strength of the house”.

i really recommend on jeff benner’s site containing a free audio lecture about the ancient hebrew letters, and much more info.

jt_the_ninja said:
“There’s nowhere in Scripture where God teaches Moses the aleph-bet for writing the Torah; it’s the message that counts. That’s what makes hidden meanings all the more miraculous.”

i’m an etheist, but it seems very logical to me that the torah or ten comandments were given oraly from god to moses to the people and priests. i’ve searched in the bible and it says nothing about god giving the entire torah book to moses (and nothing about god dictating it to moses). in Exodus 31:18 god gives the ten commandments and other commandments to moses. by this, he actualy teaches him a “torah”, which also means “doctrine”. it’s reasonable to think that all of the torah books, which has too much errors, was written by scribes and not given to moses by god. think, if you would have a book about your future, wouldn’t you make some changes? there are too many evidences of corrupt priests of the temple. they were closest to the book of books and read it (and also read it to the people), and still continued to mess with god. it doesm’t make sense.

only when the commandments were given to moses by god, he gives moses “two tablets of testimony made of stone”, written in god’s “finger”. so there is no real depiction what was written in those tablets, and in what language. it may be a simple contract between the people of israel and god, it may be the ten commandments, it may be the entire torah, and it may be “the catcher in the rye” by j.d.salinger.
we just don’t know.

we don’t know how literate were the people of israel in this time (wether you call it fact, or legend like i do). maybe moses could be literate because he was raised as an egyptian prince. were the tablets written in egyptian hieroglyphs?

Hey I just had a thought that relates to typography too...do you think there should be a way to make Hebrew fonts display lengthened characters that sometimes appear to make lines even length and to preserve traditional line breaking? How does all that figure into the form of the character?

Peace,
JT

Yaronmius-Maximus,

> the torah or ten comandments were given oraly from god to moses to the people and priests. i’ve searched in the bible and it says nothing about god giving the entire torah book to moses (and nothing about god dictating it to moses). in Exodus 31:18 god gives the ten commandments and other commandments to moses.

According to Jewish tradition (I guess that its recorded then un the Midrash), Moses transcribed the second set of the Ten Commandments in Heaven before he descended down a second time Mt. Sinai. The first set of the Ten Commandments were also transcribed and miraculously engraved in Heaven prior to Moses’ first descent down Mt. Sinai.

According to Jewish tradition (I guess that its recorded then in the Midrash), Moses transcribed the orally-given instructions of the Torah in thirteen copies of scrolls, given to each tribe, and one copy was preserved in the portable ark.

The entire Torah existed only in the form of oral discussions. Many of them existed before the times of Mt. Sinai, among the Levites and the scholars of the various tribes. Josepf for example studied these oral discussions with his father, Jacob. Similarly, even earlier, Isaac went to study in the Shem and Aver’s school. Likewise, certain kabbalistic-like teachings were given in book-like form to Abraham from an angel. Even much earlier, Adam was given a text in a book-like form from another angel.

Many generations later, much od this was transcribed first in the Mishnah, and later in the Talmud and other post Talmudic hand-written books, as detailed by Maimonides. Kabbalistic literature was first transcribed in the the very unclear Zohar, but most explanations remained unwritten.

So, clearly the origins of Hebrew preceded the scholarly discoveries mentioned earlier.

Although these are great discoveries and fascinating theories, in the end these ancient statements from Jewish tradition always prove to be accurate, although it sometimes takes some time.

Like Darwinism, the end of these non-traditional theories is just a chapter in history.

According to this account in the old Jewish Encyclopedia, the pen-written Aramaic script didn’t exist until the fourth or fifth century BCE. Hence it couldn’t have been used, with understanding, on the tablets that Moshe got at Mt. Sinai.

Further, the article cites the fact that the Talmud itself (San. 21a) ascribes the introduction of the Aramaic (called Ashurit, Assyrian) script for writing the Torah to Ezra, seven or eight hundred years after Moshe. Hence it is very unlikely that the quotation from Avot 5 that I mentioned earlier, which says that God created ’the script, the stylus, the tablets’ was referring specifically to the square script you are discussing. The Sages were quite aware that the original Hebrew script was quite different from the then-used square script, which we still use today.

In addition you say that the Kabbalistic sources are “ancient”. But according to the Encyclopedia Judaica, scholarly opinion is pretty much unanimous that the Zohar, at least, was written in the middle ages, in the 13th century, and only pseudonymously ascribed to Shimon bar Yochai of the first century. And Isaac Luria, the great Kabbalist whom you refer to, lived in the 16th century.

Your views here thus seem to be contradicted by both the Talmud and modern scholarship.

Now you are of course perfectly entitled to accept Kabbalist explanations, and say that Moses de Leon, thought to be an author of the Zohar, was channeling Shimon bar Yochai or whatever. But I am surprised that you think people here will simply accept these views of Hebrew script without discussing alternative views. If you want to convince us, you will need to address the historical record.

Also, I must say your dreadful anti-feminist story doesn’t help your case.

However, in any case I would be happy to read the Kabbalistic accounts of the Hebrew letters. Can you cite the references, so we can look them up?

gohebrew said:
“According to Jewish tradition (I guess that its recorded then un the Midrash), Moses transcribed the second set of the Ten Commandments in Heaven before he descended down a second time Mt. Sinai. The first set of the Ten Commandments were also transcribed and miraculously engraved in Heaven prior to Moses’ first descent down Mt. Sinai.”

honorable israel:
this claim is a bit unclear to me.
if i go with your belief of the divinity of the torah (that meens - given by god), then how can midrash, mishna, and jewish traditions (which were obviously written by people) can be a religious fact?
wasn’t the mishna an addition to the torah, written by people, and how can everything that is written by men be equal to the devine?
isn’t believing to the mishna’s man made legends more or equaly to the torah, a heresy? isn’t that “worshiping the created rather than the Creator”?

It took this to mean that even G needs blueline proofs.

Yaron, traditionally in Judaism the Oral Torah also has sacred status, divinely inspired though written by people.

Just checking, I see that the story that God wrote the Torah first and used it as a blueprint to create the world is already in Midrash Rabba 1:1, so it is very old, probably second century or something.

However, traditionally any such “aggadah” or legend does not have to be taken literally and believed. Traditionally, only decisions on ’halacha’ the legal decisions need to be followed.

The question of the Zohar, and Jewish Mysticism, I found this link which gives an orthodox, non -Chassidic take on Kabbala.

I am Reform, so I come to it with an even more critical eye, though with curiosity and openness to learning.

Let’s clarify a basic truth unlining historical dating.

There two aspects to consider:
1) The ideas and concepts of a certain account, teaching, or belief;
2) The transciption of ideas and concepts etc.

These will likely have two dates of origin.

There are ideas and concepts of a certain account, teaching, or belief that preceded their transcription, which occurred many decades or centuries later.

When I refer to kabbalistic though, I refer not to the Zohar.

Similarly, Rabbi Judah the Prince is attributed to transcribing the Mishnah. This was first main attempt to transcribe many teachings of the Oral Law. Nobody suggests that the ideas and concepts recorded in the Mishnah are original. Nobody suggests that the ideas and concepts recorded in the Mishnah did not exist prior to this composition.

Jewish tradition suggests that the Oral Law existed at the time the Torah (the Written Law) was transmitted by G-d to Moses, as I mentioned earlier regarding Joseph reminding his father Jacob that he didn’t forget the last lesson they learned together, and symbolized this by sending the specific gifts prior to their meeting.

Actually, the Oral Law existed even before this, as the Fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Shalom DovBer of Lubavitch, explains in his pamphlet “Kuntres Eitz Chayim” (recently translated in English by Kehot Publication Society www.kehotonline.com) that the Mishnah in a condensed version of older version of the Talmud (the names were obviously different, but the discussion are the same). The older Talmud is a oral explanation of an older Mishnah, a collection of laws about what to do in specific situations.

Eventhough Kumran was much later than this (the old Mishnah and old Talmud), among the Dead Sea Scrolls were found a somewhat different composition of practical laws, mimicking many of the decisions presented in the Mishnah and Talmud.

Although I am a Chassidic Jew and obviously Orthodox, I grew up with a Reform background.

Many (not all) educated Reform Jews are narrow-minded, and refuse to learn a different perspective than their own. In Orthodoxy, we learn that the more you learn, the greater you realize that you know so little, compared to the enormity of what there is to learn. Only when one accepts that there is much more to learn, can one learn more.

William, I found the story of the feminist at the Rabbi’s Shabbat table not anti-feminist; maybe off-color. Clearly, it was not politically correct.