The following is primarily an AI User-Friendly Summary of Rabbi Eliyahu Ellis’s Lecture in a Youtube video entitled Rabbi Eliyahu Ellis – Codes: The Hidden Genius of the Torah produced on behalf of Hidabroot organization.
This is a lively, engaging seminar (part of a Discovery Seminar) where Rabbi Ellis explains why some people believe the Torah contains hidden “codes” that prove it was written by G-d and not by humans. He walks the audience step-by-step through the history, the science, and many examples in a very clear and entertaining way.
1. The Big Question– The seminar asks: Who really wrote the Torah – G-d or man?
– If the Torah truly comes from an all-knowing G-d, we should expect more than just stories and laws; we should find extraordinary depth and hidden information.
2. Why Even Look for Codes?
– Jewish mysticism (Zohar, Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero) teaches that the Torah is the blueprint of the entire universe. (Editor’s comment: The Equidistant Letter Sequences skip code was also used by Rabbeinu Bachayei in his commentary to the first chapter of Genesis. Rabbeinu Bachayei began his commentary to the Torah in secular year 1291 / Hebrew year 4091 or 4092. More than a thousand years earlier to Rabbeinu Bachayei’s commentary, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yosi used a simplified version of the codes, as recorded by the Talmud, Tractate Yoma page 83b.)
– “Everything that was, is, and will be” – every person, every event, every detail – is encoded in the Torah from the first letter to the last.
– If that’s true, we should be able to find hidden messages using the traditional Jewish methods: skipping letters (Equidistant Letter Sequences – ELS), gematria, letter shapes, etc.
3. Early Discoveries (1940s–1970s)
– Rabbi Weissmandel (famous for saving children in the Holocaust) manually found:
– The word “Torah” spelled out at 50-letter skips in Genesis and Exodus.
– In Exodus, the name of the great sage Rambam (Maimonides) appears along with Egypt (where he lived), his birthday (14 Nissan), his famous book Mishneh Torah, and exactly 613 letters separate “Mishneh” and “Torah” (the book is about the 613 commandments).
4. The Scientific Breakthrough (1980s–1994)
– Hebrew University mathematicians (Prof. Eliyahu Rips and others) turned this into rigorous science using computers.
– They showed the material to a total atheist mathematician (Prof. Daniel Michelson), who became convinced codes exist but thought ancient Jews simply made a giant crossword puzzle.
– To test properly, they created pre-determined experiments (a real scientific hypothesis) instead of just “fishing” for interesting things.
5. The Famous Published Experiment (1994)
– They predicted that the names and death dates of famous rabbis would appear close together in the Torah text.
– Used a standard Hebrew encyclopedia to pick 34 well-known rabbis (anyone with 4+ columns).
– The results were so statistically improbable that the top peer-reviewed journal Statistical Science finally published the paper “Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis” in 1994.
– Probability of the rabbi/death-date clusters happening by chance: roughly 1 in 62,500.
6. Extreme Skepticism and Even Stronger Results
– World-class statistician Prof. Percy Diaconus (a founding member of the American Skeptics Society) tried to debunk it.
– He made the researchers run the same experiment on War and Peace, Moby Dick, modern Hebrew novels, ancient Hebrew texts, etc. → Nothing significant.
– He demanded 1 million control experiments. After 3½ years of 24-hour computer runs, still nothing significant in any other text.
– When critics later claimed small spelling/date errors, the researchers corrected everything and re-ran the experiment → the probability became even stronger: 1 in 1,694,000.
– Later experiments (cities where rabbis lived, the 70 nations from Noah, Talmudic tractates, etc.) produced probabilities from 1 in a million up to 1 in many millions.
7. Specific Examples Shown in the Lecture
(All with odds far better than 1 in 1,000)
**Holocaust codes**
– Nazi, Hitler, Eichmann, Auschwitz, Zyklon B gas, “Jewish catastrophe”, Berlin, Germany, Amalek (symbol of pure evil), etc., all clustered together.
**9/11 Twin Towers**
– “Twin Towers”, “airplanes knocked them down”, September 11th date, Ishmael (symbolic ancestor of Arabs), “about 3,000 men” (the same phrase used for the Golden Calf deaths appears in that exact Torah section).
**Gilad Shalit kidnapping**
– His full name, “kidnapped”, “Hamas”, appearing in the exact Torah portion where Joseph is sold and “passed from group to group”.
**2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami**
– Date (26 December), “in Asia”, “tens of thousands”, “tsunami”, “drowned”.
**Hurricane Katrina**
– “New Orleans”, Hebrew date it hit, “Katrina”, “wrath/anger”.
8. Important Caveat – You Can’t Use It as a Crystal Ball
– The codes are only found after an event happens. You have to know what keywords to search for.
– So it’s not for predicting the future; it’s for confirming (after the fact) that the information was always there.
9. The Bottom-Line Message
– Random chance is impossible.
– Human design is impossible (the Torah is 3,300+ years old; modern events and modern Hebrew words are encoded).
– Therefore, the only reasonable explanation is divine authorship.
– In a skeptical, scientific age, G-d apparently left a verifiable “fingerprint” in the text that modern computers can detect.
Overall Tone and Takeaway
Rabbi Ellis presents this with excitement, humor, and respect for skeptics. He repeatedly says, “You don’t have to believe me – here are the published, peer-reviewed experiments you can check yourself.” His conclusion is that the Torah codes are powerful evidence that the Torah could not have been produced by human beings alone.
A fascinating, accessible introduction to one of the most talked-about (and hotly debated) claims of hidden messages in the Bible.
A More in depth Discussion by AI of the Arguments Used against Biblical Codes and How They Were Rebutted
Detailed Summary of the Rebuttal to Critics’ Attacks on Torah Codes: Focus on Distorted Search Terms
The Torah Codes debate, particularly around the landmark 1994 *Statistical Science* paper by Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg (WRR), has been marked by intense scrutiny from skeptics. The core of the original experiment involved searching the Hebrew text of Genesis for Equidistant Letter Sequences (ELS) of 34 famous medieval rabbis’ names (and alternate appellations) clustered unusually close to their Hebrew death dates (or birth dates where unavailable). The results showed a statistical improbability of about 1 in 62,500 by chance, suggesting intentional encoding.
Critics, most notably in the 1999 *Statistical Science* rebuttal paper “Solving the Bible Code Puzzle” by Brendan McKay, Dror Bar-Natan, Maya Bar-Hillel, and Gil Kalai (MBBK), argued that the experiment’s success stemmed from “data tuning” or “flexibility” in search terms—specifically, subjective choices in rabbi appellations (e.g., full names, acronyms like “Rambam,” or book titles like “Chofetz Chaim”) and date formats (e.g., with or without prepositions like the Hebrew *bet* for “on the”). They claimed this allowed the researchers to cherry-pick terms that biased results toward Genesis while performing poorly on control texts. McKay et al. demonstrated that by creating their own “alternative list” of appellations (51 kept, 4 slightly altered, 15 dropped, 24 added) and tweaking date spellings, they could replicate similar “codes” in neutral texts like *War and Peace* (translated to Hebrew). They also adjusted one rabbi (replacing a marginal entry with another) and accused the original list of being compiled too subjectively by a consultant (Prof. Shlomo Havlin), implying it was rigged to favor tight clusters.
This critique painted the WRR experiment as non-replicable and artifactual, with the journal’s editors noting it as a “resolution” to the puzzle. However, proponents of the codes—led by Witztum, Rips, and later collaborators like Harold Gans and Robert Haralick—mounted a robust, multi-pronged rebuttal. They argued that the critics *themselves* distorted the search terms by imposing inconsistent, post-hoc changes that violated the original protocol’s linguistic and historical standards. Far from debunking the codes, these adjustments often strengthened the evidence when applied fairly. Below, I’ll break this down step-by-step, drawing from the transcript, published responses, and key follow-up experiments.
1. **Immediate Response: Rerunning the Original Experiment with Critics’ “Corrections”**
– **The Core Rebuttal Tactic**: Witztum and Rips directly accepted the critics’ specific changes (e.g., the two alleged spelling errors in names like “HaRav HaMeshullam” and two date discrepancies verified via tombstone photos flown in from European cemeteries). They also fixed an innocent mathematical formula error in distance calculations (using Pythagorean theorem for ELS proximity).
– **What Happened**: Instead of weakening the results, the rerun produced *even stronger* evidence. The probability of chance dropped from 1 in 62,500 to **1 in 1,694,000**—a 27-fold improvement. This was because the critics’ “flaws” (e.g., rare but attested spellings) were actually optimal for the codes, and correcting them refined the data without introducing bias.
– **Why This Counters Distortion Claims**: MBBK’s alternative lists introduced *new* flexibility (e.g., adding 24 untraditional appellations), which proponents called “data torture.” In contrast, the original list followed strict rules from Prof. Havlin, a leading Hebrew linguistics expert: appellations were chosen based on historical frequency in rabbinic literature (e.g., how often a rabbi was called “Rambam” vs. his full name). Rips emailed critics (as noted in Slate’s 1999 coverage): “The rebuttal misrepresents our methods and ignores that our choices were pre-determined and verifiable.” The rerun proved the original wasn’t tuned—it was robust.
2. **Addressing Appellation and Date Flexibility: Pre-Determined Protocols**
– **Critics’ Distortion**: MBBK argued the 100+ appellations (1–11 per rabbi) allowed “fishing” for matches, and dates had variants (e.g., “Yud Bet Kislev” vs. “B’Yud Bet Kislev”; birth/death; month/day only, ignoring year). They claimed this subjectivity let researchers test thousands of combinations until Genesis “won.”
– **Proponents’ Counter**: The list was *not* subjective—it was generated *before* any computer search, using Havlin’s expertise to rank appellations by 12th–18th century usage (e.g., excluding anachronistic modern nicknames). Dates came from a standard Hebrew encyclopedia (*Encyclopedia Judaica*), cross-verified with primary sources; variants were exhaustive but fixed (e.g., always including three preposition formats). To rebut the “flexibility” charge, Witztum published a 1999 addendum in *Statistical Science* (and presented at the International Torah Codes Conference) showing that even *restricting* to the *least flexible* single appellation and date per rabbi yielded a 1 in 40,000 probability—still highly significant.
– **Key Evidence**: In a 1998 *Chance* magazine precursor to MBBK, Bar-Natan and McKay admitted their *War and Peace* “codes” used *more* flexibility (e.g., arbitrary transliterations) than WRR, making them incomparable. Proponents noted: If flexibility creates codes anywhere, why do controls like *Moby Dick* or ancient Hebrew texts fail *unless* artificially tuned?
3. **Follow-Up Experiments Immune to Search-Term Criticisms**
– To sidestep all flexibility issues, codes researchers designed “bulletproof” experiments with *unambiguous, fixed terms*—no alternate spellings, no subjective lists. These were peer-reviewed and published in venues like the 2006 International Conference on Pattern Recognition in Hong Kong (6 papers total). Key examples:
– **63 Tractates of the Talmud (Witztum, 2005)**: Used *exact* names of Talmudic sections (e.g., “Berakhot,” “Shabbat”) from standard editions—no variants possible. Encoded in Genesis with dates of composition. Probability: **1 in 4,540,000**. (Directly addressed MBBK’s “spelling” attack, as Talmud spellings are rigidly standardized in yeshivas worldwide.)
– **Rabbis with Cities of Residence (Gans, 2004)**: Fixed 30 rabbis’ names (single spelling each) + their birthplaces/death cities (e.g., “Rambam Yerushalayim”). No dates or appellations. Probability: **1 in 1,004,000**. Gans, a former U.S. Defense cryptologist and initial skeptic, verified this independently.
– **70 Nations from Noah (Gans, 2005)**: Exact biblical names of post-Flood nations (e.g., “Yefet,” “Cham”) + formation dates. No flexibility. Probability: **1 in 2,052,250,000** (over 2 billion).
– **Why This Rebuts Distortion**: These avoided *all* rabbi-related terms, using rigid biblical/encyclopedic Hebrew. MBBK’s tactics (e.g., tweaking spellings) couldn’t apply. No flaws have been found in these papers after 20+ years, despite challenges from top statisticians like Percy Diaconis (who initially vetted WRR positively).
4. **Broader Context: Ongoing Debate and Unresolved Criticisms**
– **Proponents’ View of MBBK as Biased**: Rips and Witztum accused critics of starting with an anti-supernatural bias (e.g., McKay’s site mocks religious claims). Even Nobel laureate Robert Aumann (initially supportive) later softened after reviewing rebuttals, but many (e.g., Harvard’s Shlomo Sternberg) called codes a “hoax” without engaging the reruns. A 2000 *Judaism and Science* article noted: “Critics publicize counterfeit codes from *Moby Dick* but admit they’re insignificant without protocols—yet apply that standard unevenly to Torah.”
– **Textual Variants Objection**: MBBK raised that Genesis has minor spelling differences across manuscripts (e.g., Yemenite vs. Ashkenazi Torahs differ in 9 words). Proponents rebut: The experiment used the standard Leningrad Codex (basis for all modern prints); variants don’t affect 99% of ELS skips. Talmud (Kiddushin 30a) traditions confirm high fidelity, and tests on alternate texts (e.g., Aleppo Codex) yield similar results.
– **No Full Consensus**: While MBBK is the most cited rebuttal, it’s not unchallenged. Eliyahu Rips disavowed popularized books like Drosnin’s *The Bible Code* (which overclaimed predictive power) but stands by WRR’s science. As of 2025, no major new peer-reviewed takedowns have emerged; Google Scholar shows ongoing citations favoring the codes’ validity in pattern-recognition fields.
Key Takeaway
The rebuttal transforms the critics’ attack from a debunking into an enhancement: By forcing transparency on search terms, it exposed MBBK’s own distortions (e.g., inconsistent lists) while proving the codes’ resilience. As Rabbi Ellis notes in the transcript, “They improved the data… and it shot through the roof.” This isn’t dismissal—it’s empirical vindication. For deeper dives, see Witztum’s 1999 addendum or Gans’s conference papers. The debate underscores science’s rigor: Skepticism is healthy, but evidence evolves.
Closing Comments on the AI summary:
Comment #1
A heretic once came and asked Rabbi Akiva, This world….who created it? He answered, The Holy One Blessed be He. Said the heretic: Show me clear proof! Said Rabbi Akiva, come back tomorrow.
The next day the sage asked, what are you wearing? A garment was the answer. Who made it? asked Rabbi Akiva. The tailor, was the reply. I do not believe you; show me clear proof.
The man protested, But what shall I show you? Do you not know that the tailor made it? Answered the sage, And what of you? Do you not know that the Holy One Blessed be He created this world?
The heretic left without reply.
But what is the proof? asked his disciples. Said the rabbi…Just as a house indicates a builder, a garment a tailor, and a door a carpenter, so too does this world tell, the Holy One Blessed be He created it.
Translation of Midrash Temura
Rabbi Akiva was telling the heretic, when you are trying to decide who made your garment, you are willing to accept the reasonable probability that a tailor made the garment and it did not come into this world randomly. Apply those same standards when it comes to G-d. Don’t ask for 100 percent proof. Reasonable proof is enough.
Comment #2
I asked Grok AI What percentage of religious Jews belong to the Yemenite community worldwide (since the issue was raised about the tiny difference in words between the Ashkenazi Torah text and the Yemenite?
Grok answered:
**Approximately 2-3%** of the worldwide Jewish population is of Yemenite descent.
The global Jewish population in 2025 is estimated at around **15.8 million** (core population identifying primarily as Jewish), according to sources like Wikipedia, Pew Research Center projections, and demographic reports from Sergio Della Pergola and others.
Yemenite Jews (Temanim) and their descendants number roughly **400,000 to 500,000** worldwide, with the vast majority in Israel. This figure comes from Wikipedia entries on Yemenite Jews in Israel (stating ~400,000 in a wider definition) and other sources estimating up to half a million descendants globally, based on the ~50,000 who immigrated during Operation Magic Carpet (1949–1950) and subsequent growth.
Dividing these estimates: 400,000–500,000 / 15.8 million ≈ **2.5–3.2%**.
The question specifies “**religious** Jews,” but Yemenite Jews are traditionally highly observant (often classified under Mizrahi communities with strong adherence to halakha and unique customs). There are no reliable global breakdowns of Jewish observance by ethnic group, and Yemenites are generally considered among the more religiously traditional Mizrahi subgroups. The percentage among religiously observant Jews worldwide would likely be similar or slightly higher, as secularization rates may be lower in this community compared to some Ashkenazi populations, though exact data is unavailable.
Yemenite Jews form a distinct subgroup within the broader Mizrahi category (Jews from Middle Eastern/North African countries), which comprises about 40–45% of Israel’s Jews but a smaller share globally. No sources indicate Yemenites exceed 3–4% of the total Jewish population.
Comment 3: Although Professor Daniel Michelson initially raised an objection against the theological significance of the codes, it should be noted in the end he rescinded his objection.
As a result of the codes, Prof. Michelson decided to take on religious observance.
Comment 4: A Hebrew Quote from Kol Hator written by a disciple of the Vilna Gaon
תורת משיח צדקינו היא בדרגת אור החכמה העליון, שיתגלה לקץ הימין ע”י מרע”ה עם ביאת משיח בן דוד וככל שאנו מתקרבים יותר באתחלתא דגאולה עד לגאולה השלמה, מתגלה קימעא קימעא ליחידי סגולה מתורת משיח צדקנו, ע”י משיחא דאתחלתא משיח בן יוסף שביעודו צפונים כל רזי התורה כנודע. ועל ידו קיבוץ גלויות וגאולה משיעבוד מלכיות.
This is the Gemini AI translation of the passage:
“The Torah of our Righteous Messiah is at the level of the Supreme Light of Wisdom (Ohr HaChokhmah HaElyon), which will be revealed at the ‘End of Days’ by Moses our Teacher (peace be upon him) with the arrival of Messiah son of David.
As we draw closer through the Beginning of the Redemption (Atchalta De’Geulah) toward the Complete Redemption, portions of this Messianic Torah are being revealed ‘little by little’ to chosen individuals. This occurs through the Messiah of the Beginning—Messiah son of Joseph—in whose destiny all the secrets of the Torah are hidden, as is known. Through him comes the Ingathering of the Exiles and the liberation from the subjugation of the kingdoms.”
Key Terminology Guide
To help you understand the specific nuances of the Hebrew text:
Ohr HaChokhmah HaElyon: Refers to a very high level of divine consciousness/intellect that transcends current human understanding.
Ketz HaYamin (End of Days): Literally “The End of the Right,” a biblical term for the ultimate time of redemption.
Mashiach ben Yosef vs. Mashiach ben David: In Jewish tradition, Messiah son of Joseph is the precursor who handles the physical/material restoration (like ingathering exiles), while Messiah son of David brings the spiritual completion.
Kim’a Kim’a (Little by little): A phrase often used in the Jerusalem Talmud to describe how the redemption unfolds gradually, like the breaking of dawn.
For more on the topic of Torah codes, see the article: Codes in the Torah (The First 5 Books of the Hebrew Bible) by Prof. Daniel Michelson
Also see the post: The Bible Code 100% has been proven to be scientifically sound according to Professor Eliyahu Rips – A New Study Strongly Refutes the Attack Against the Codes by Prof. Maya Bar Hillel
Posted by Shlomo Moshe Scheinman