The other thread discussing mekubalim has inspired me to raise a question that has concerned me for some time.

In short, what words might have been used by early kabbalists or in the Zohar or any other source, which describes multiple people doing related things at the same time?

In our modern era of multi-processor computers, or race conditions just missing a call that transfered to voice mail, and trying to call them back while they are leaving a message on our voice mail, its natural to us.

Sailors used semaphores as flags on sail masts to signal matters, and in the Beis HaMikdash there were apparently flags used to signal when to respond to a bracha within the same room to which one was yotzei, however one could not hear from a distance, and probably also a propogation delay of sound relative to the sight of the flag.

But what words would chazal have used to describe these types of synchronization problems?

Here's why I ask:

Rav Aryeh Kaplan zt"l in his book on Jewish Meditation describes concurrent meditation where by multiple meditators migh contemplate the same object, for example an apple, and with their enhanced perception in a meditative state, each could visualize even the far side of the apple, which is hidden from view through normal visual perception.

Rav Aryeh Kaplan zt"l in his book on Sefer Yetzirah further mentioned deep meditation, where a meditator might elevate an object beyond the level of Mind (whatever that means) such that it ceases to exist in this world.

Obviously one can then ask, what happens if a group of deep-capable meditators sit around the same object, such as in the first case, and one or more of them "go deep" such that the object ceases to exist, what do the others, the "less deep" meditators, perceive at that same time?

For example, do they maintain a meditative lock on the object, and still perceive it while it doesn't exist?

If the deep mediator, with a writer's lock on it, and who have permission to modify the object before putting it back into the world, can the read-only meditators perceive the object being changed?

Or perhaps they can only perceive that it changed out from under them, something like a deja-vu?

Regardless of how it works, my initial inquiry is simply to know the right lingo to use, and to question whether they described being curious about these types of problems.

For me, I don't think I'd ever have thought of these problems without taking computer science classes in concurrent software.

And I might not have thought about possible ramifications of the problem were it not for Star Trek dealing with transporter locks, and the effect of an enemy kidnapping a ship's captain midstream.

But perhaps I would have had another occasion to contemplate how it is the Aron Kodesh could be perceived to take up space within the Kodesh HaKadoshim, yet measurements from one side to it, added to measurements from the other side to it, present a physical paradox, or singularity.

I mention this case because it may well be an example of how an object that was created within our 3D world can become elevated above our world, yet we can still perceive it to be in this world, even while we have indications that it has been elevated.

Just as the Bush was perceived to be burning yet was not consumed, or just as a Voice could be perceived to be coming from a position between the Chruvim, it seems we have plenty of occasions where aspects of these oddities could have been described by Chazal.

But its not clear whether they would have had occasion to be bothered by the concurrency aspect.

With all due respect to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan-- whose primary purpose in writing about these topics was to spark interest in Torah Judaism-- these types of topics are not the ones most likely to help us enhance our davening or other mitzvah observance.
In so far as an elementary Kabbalistic idea might further our fear of Heaven, it could have a place in the Beis Medrash.
Otherwise, it should not be our interest.

quote:

it could have a place in the Beis Medrash.
Otherwise, it should not be our interest.

If before the fact this might be the case, what can be done after the fact once someone has been exposed to this inquiry?

Are there any examples of concurrency / race conditions in the gemara which could be used to find lingo used by chazal in resolving concurrency problems?

Here are a couple of possibilities:

• Maimer by Yevamos as mentioned in a footnote to Gemara Kedushin early on - that far away brothers willing to perform yibum would send a gift which if accepted would render her ineligible for yibum from any other brother -- this solves a concurrency problem (multiple eligible redeemers), does anyone comment about the concurrency problem? Boaz' solution to a similar problem by Rus is described, but its not the general case of multi-way concurrency.
  
• when the gemara says "bas acheir" - "at one time" - is this a type of concurrency problem?
  
• when the gemara says "toch kidei dibbur" - "at one expression" - is this a type of concurrency problem?
  

Regardless of whether Rabbi Globus would have made the choice to publish commentary on these works, and especially given that the inquiry requires no specific discussion of the kabbalistic concepts...

Is there no way to discuss whether Hebrew or Aramaic discussions by Chazal or early Kabbalists had words they used which we can now see can address these modern problems in computer science?

quote:

these types of topics are not the ones most likely to help us enhance our davening or other mitzvah observance.

With all due respect to Rabbi Globus, I think the next time we might find ourselves in the back of a large shul not sure whether we can rely upon indications that the chazan has said a bracha to which we should respond, we might now remember the "flags" of the Beis HaMikdash and be comforted that we have a rabbinic enactment of a "semaphore" procedure by which we know we can respond to the bracha even if we are not sure we heard it enunciated.

And thus learning this subject may well enhance our davening and mitzvah observance!

I would like to share an article discussing the Torah and Kabbalistic view on synchronicity. Believe it or not, it is connected to the Rosh Hashanah custom of dipping apples in honey.

It is written by Rabbi Mechael Chayim Siegelbaum, who finds that synchronicity is called Igulim, or "circular light", in the language of Kabbalah. Although this material is not exactly the type of Torah learning that I usually delve into, I found it very interesting, and pertinent to the topic, I think. It appears below.

Signs and Omens

On Rosh Hashana, there is a popular custom to eat an apple dipped in honey. We learn it from the following gemorrah:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת הוריות דף יב/א
תנו רבנן אין מושחים את המלכים אלא על המעיין כדי שתמשך מלכותם שנא' ויאמר המלך להם קחו עמכם את עבדי אדוניכם [וגו'] והורדתם אותו אל גיחון אמר רבי אמי האי מאן דבעי לידע אי מסיק שתיה אי לא ניתלי שרגא בעשרה יומי דבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים בביתא דלא נשיב זיקא אי משיך נהוריה נידע דמסיק שתיה ומאן דבעי למיעבד בעיסקא ובעי למידע אי מצלח אי לא מצלח לירבי תרנגולא אי שמין ושפר מצלח האי מאן דבעי למיפק [לאורחא] ובעי למידע אי חזר ואתי לביתא אי לא ניקום בביתא דחברא אי חזי בבואה דבבואה לידע דהדר ואתי לביתא ולאו מלתא היא דלמא חלשא דעתיה ומיתרע מזליה אמר אביי השתא דאמרת סימנא מילתא היא [לעולם] יהא רגיל למיחזי (למיכל) בריש שתא קרא ורוביא כרתי וסילקא

The Rabbis taught that kings are only anointed near a spring, in order to perpetuate their reign. As the Torah states, “The King said to them, ‘Take with you my servant, your lord, (etc.) and bring him down to the Gichon.”
Rebbe Ami stated: one who wishes to know if he will live out the year or not, let him place a candle during the Ten Days of Repentance in a room where there are no drafts. If the candle continues to burn, we know that he will continue to live. One who wants to start a business and needs to know if he will be successful or not should raise a chicken. If it grows fat and beautiful, he knows that he will succeed. One who is about to set out on a journey and wants to know if he will return home or not, let him stand in an unlit house. If he sees a shadow of a shadow, then it is known that he will return home.
This is not necessarily correct (ponders Rebbe Ami to himself). Perhaps (in the case where he fails to see the shadow of a shadow) he loses faith and begins to doubt and this brings about a decline in his “mazal”? (And therefore he never returns. That is to say, not because seeing the shadow or not predicts the future, but rather, it is the psychological reaction of the person which causes a change in his mazal, which determines the future.)
Abaye stated: Now that you have concluded that a sign really can affect the future, (by increasing or decreasing a person’s faith or emunah) let everyone be regular to eat on Rosh Hashana: gourd, beans, leek and beets.

Abaye champions this second approach of Rebbe Ami, which understands simonim as producing a psychological effect. A sign can either strengthen or weaken a person's faith and emunah in Hashem. It is the amount of confidence one has that Hashem is constantly protecting, guiding, and helping him, which determines how robust the divine influence- the mazal- will surround that person. Therefore, decides Abaye, one should perform signs that are likely to strengthen one's emunah, especially eating the simonim for Rosh Hashana. At the beginning of the New Year, when each person’s mazal is being determined in heaven, let him eat symbolic foods which provide a sign of hope and blessing, in order to improve his mazal. Abaye, however, doesn’t relate to Rebbe Ami’s first assumption, where it would seem that not only can symbolic activity influence the coarse of future events, such as anointing the king by a spring, but can also be utilized to read reflected therein, the still dormant course of future events. Abaye doesn’t deny that there may be truth to this, for otherwise, why would one be encouraged by seeing a good sign? If there were no objective truth in it, then a sign could confer no psychological benefit. Even though there may be truth to these methods, the gemorra cautions us from relying on them for determining the future or as a guide to action, since a bad sign can become a self fulfilling prophecy. The Torah commands us explicitly to refrain from this:

ספר ויקרא פרק יט
לא תאכלו על הדם לא תנחשו ולא תעוננו :

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף סה/ב
תנו רבנן מנחש זה האומר פתו נפלה מפיו מקלו נפלה מידו בנו קורא לו מאחריו עורב קורא לו צבי הפסיקו בדרך נחש מימינו ושועל משמאלו אל תתחיל בי שחרית הוא ראש חודש הוא מוצאי שבת הוא תנו רבנן לא תנחשו ולא תעוננו כגון אלו המנחשים בחולדה בעופות ובדגים:
The Rabbis taught some examples of the prohibition of fortune-telling: one who looks for significance in the fact that the bread fell from his mouth, his walking stick dropped, his child calls him from behind his back, a raven calls to him, a deer ran across his path, a snake appeared on his right side, a fox on his left side, or who says, "don't start with me first." The prohibition of divination refers to those who prognosticate by observing weasels, birds, or fish. (Sanhedrin 65b)

Thus we are prohibited from using simonim for determining the future or deciding what action to take. Only, as Abaye taught, may we try to see signs of blessing in order to increase our emunah.. The Rambam writes:

רמב"ם הלכות עבודת כוכבים פרק יא
מי שאמר דירה זו שבניתי סימן טוב היתה עלי, אשה זו שנשאתי ובהמה זו שקניתי מבורכת היתה מעת שקניתיה עשרתי, וכן השואל לתינוק אי זה פסוק אתה לומד אם אמר לו פסוק מן הברכות ישמח ויאמר זה סימן טוב כל אלו וכיוצא בהן מותר הואיל ולא כיון מעשיו ולא נמנע מלעשות אלא עשה זה סימן לעצמו לדבר שכבר היה הרי זה מותר.
One who says this house which I built is a good sign for me, this woman whom I married, this animal which I bought is blessed from the time I bought it or one who asks a child to tell him which verse he learned and rejoices if it sounds like a blessing and says this is a good sign- this is permitted since he does not allow it to determine or dissuade his actions but only as a sign for himself regarding what already was – this is allowed.


The question arises regarding the permissibility of "modern" day techniques such as throwing the sticks of the I Ching, interpreting the pattern of tea leaves at the bottom of one's cup or dealing Tarot cards. Clearly if one relies on such methods in order to determine one's future course of action, it is prohibited. On the other hand, if such methods are used only for getting insights into one's personality, or seeing a good sign for the future, there may be room for leniency.
However, there is at least one form of divination, besides the Urim and Tumim, which is sanctioned by the Rabbis: the גורל הגר"א (Lottery of the Vilna Gaon). Briefly, this requires going from one verse in the Tanach to another using acronyms. The verse which is eventually arrived at through this method has been used to determine future action, even being relied upon to permit women whose husbands were missing in war to remarry. Is this perhaps because it has more power to discern the present reality and enable one to undertake a specific course of action than the forbidden methods?
Carl Jung, in his discussion of the I Ching, explained its validity by what he called "synchronicity". What happens in the microcosm, reflects what happens in the macrocosm. All that is necessary is to interpret the signs correctly. This same principle could underlie those methods of divination which perceive patterns of meaning in the formations of birds, fish and clouds. Why should the Torah forbid reliance upon synchronicity? According to the Leshem, there would seem to be much truth to this idea:
All 6,000 years, including all the developments and their orchestration… all the details… must be included together and united with their roots which are the 4 yesodot (the spiritual roots of the four states of existence- energy, gas, liquid and solid). Therefore, these yesodot surround, encompass and include the whole universe. These include all the details of every individual generation and all the details of all the generations put together. Thus, Hashem arranged that the 4 yesodot should exist for as long as the world lasts. This enables all the details of all the generations to be unified together. (Leshem, p.72 ספר הדעה)

We see from here that the universe is an organic whole. Every detail completes a unity with every other detail. Indeed within every detail is reflected the unity of the whole. Certainly this arrangement supports the working of synchronicity. From the microcosmic event, can be deduced the macrocosmic course of events. Why should the Torah prohibit reliance on this principle? The Leshem refers to this form in which Hashem establishes the innate and continuous properties of a world as עגולים or circular light. If this were the only determining factor in the development of the world, synchronicity would be completely true. Our entire universe, however, is only a microcosmic revelation of the upper spiritual worlds. The light which comes down to our physical universe, from the holy and supernal realms of Creation is "other worldly". This is אור ישר the straight light.

All the properties of the upper world are represented in the אור ישר הכללי of each particular world. It is the essential sustenance and main foundation of the lower world. For, whenever worlds interface, the central foundation of the lower world derives and, is drawn down from the lowest extremity of the upper world. Within this lowest extremity is hidden all the properties of the upper realms. It becomes the אור ישר of the lower world. . .. אור ישר extends from the ultimate heights of all the worlds and descends to the deepest depths. Therefore, it can be understood that every world has two foundations. The עגולים organize the particular aspects of that world, whereas the אור ישר bears the imprint of the upper worlds. The straight light stands within the circular light like a square within a circle. (Leshem,ספר הדעה p. 72-3)

The Torah forbids us to rely solely upon the עגולים – the immediate factors of our local reality- for determining the future course of events. Hashem has blessed the Jewish people by bestowing upon us the Torah, which possesses the keys to reveal more of the אור ישר and thereby to change the world in which we live. However fixed and given may seem our reality, it is our connection with the upper worlds, which enables us to help the Creator steer the course of history towards the ultimate rectification and unification of all the worlds. Thus, our Father Avraham, could not give birth according to his natural, born condition. Only because Hashem raised him above the stars, could a miraculous transformation occur. This is also what King Solomon stated:
וְאֵין כָּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת השמשַ (קהלת א:ט)
There is nothing new under the sun. (Eccles. 1:9)

Under the sun there is nothing new, but from above the sun there is change and renewal. With this idea, we can start to understand the permissiblity of the גורל הגר"א (Lottery of the Vilna Gaon). Infused with the words of Torah, it is more than synchronicity and provides a window to the upper worlds. This must also be our intention when we eat the simonim on Rosh Hashana: to bring down within ourselves and our world, the blessed influence of above. The sound of the shofar as well, is like an open channel. Through it, the breath connects with the innermost, supernal realms, and draws them down, allowing their vibration to be heard in this world as the physical sound.

Thank you for the article Rabbi Globus. I find it most interesting. I'd like to point out to Rob a couple things that may or may not be computer helpful and answer some questions posed.

As regards reality, it must vary, by definition, for each individual. Many of us have gone through moments of time when we have projected or been projected into a generally accepted non-reality and yet it may have felt real to us. "It was so realistic." "I felt like I was there." Or the less wanted examples, "Doctor, I'm always being followed." "I'm a top secret space cadet with super powers."

What is reality? Each of us must decide what our reality is. Mostly, we can decide our own, but sometimes, it is out of control. Yet, even then, in reality, we are deciding our own, uncontrolled reality.

So, what does this mean? First, the apple's reality as mentioned in an earlier post. Was it gone? For one person, it was. Can different realities coexist? They do. "The reality is...." "That's not real." "Can't you see that the cloud looks like the Mona Lisa?" Individual perception makes coexistence a reality.

So what about computers? Virtual reality. If one person in a crowd has a laptop and views something on the screen, does that mean it's real to everyone else that can't see? What if one scans a drawing onto the net, so someone around the world can see it, but the original is on the scanner. Are they both real?

What does this mean to Torah? Simply, learning Torah tells us what's real, to believe or not; do or not, how to live, learn and conduct ourselves properly and what isn't proper and when it isn't. As one ascends in learning, greater revelations become available, adding to our base of information and abilities. These become reality for the Torah Jew, because they are the ultimate reality, Emes. We can imbue our souls and lives with it, so that we automatically know that to do, say, not do, etc. So much so, that we can know what reality is even if we don't know or understand anything about it, simply because HaShem gave it to us. "Naaseh V'Nishmah"(Shemot 24:7). It's what every Jew can have as their baseline comparison. Emes.

Even when, R"L, one's mental capacities are compromised and altering their mental and physical processes, most of the time, what one's learned allows them to automatically act in proper ways. Of course, there are various times and conditions that limit or change functionality, but when a Torah scholar becomes the one affected, we are still to treat him as the scholar he was. Why?, because he is still the repository of Torah. This is explained as being similar to a posul sefer Torah. We still give the same kovid to it, even though we can't use it as we did before. Why? Because it from HaShem and imbued with kedusha.

Torah creates an everlasting reality. A yardstick to measure all there is in life. Even so, we each are responsible for making our own proper reality based on Torah and each of us will be different, because each of us is unique. Each of us is a world. And each of us had the world made only for us. That's reality. Really!

I don't agree with Barukh Meir's blurring of the distinction between the thing-as-experienced with thing-in-itself. But that aside...

It's interesting to note that in Jewish terminology, existence is phrased in terms of the thing-as-experiences. For example, the Rambam opens his code telling you that there is a First Matzui, and He is mamtzi everthing that is nimtza. The word "nimtza", which is used to mean existence, is from the root /m-tz-a/, to find. Experience.

When something is real enough to have impact, we say is has "mamashus". Or we say that something is mamash exciting, where in English it would be "really and literally exciting". The word itself, though, literally means "tangibility".

Perhaps this is because halakhah exists to change the person following it. "The person is made [nif'al] according to his actions [pe'ulaso]", as the Chinukh often says. Thus, the reality that the halachacist must address isn't the objective abstract existence, the one experienced and shapes the person.

-mi