The preservation of the masoritic text was very important to ba'alei
ha'mesorah, and these numeric rules were used to preserve the texts in the
most accurate way. The word "Sofer" (scribe) comes from counting the
letters of the Torah "Nikreu sofrim shehayu sofrim ha'otiyot shebatorah"
(Kidushin 30a). Another method of preserving the accuracy of the Torah was
by comparing it to "Sefer Ha'Azarh", a Torah which was kept in the Azarah
(courtyard) of the Temple, and which was considered a flawless Torah. (Moed
Katan 12:2; 3:4; See also Rambam, Hilkhot Tifilin 7:2).
"The numbering of chapter and verse in the Bible was introduced for
Christians (probably early in the thirteen century) by Stephen Langton,
Archibishop of Canterbury" (Notes on the new translation of the Torah by
H.M. Orlinsky, JPS, 1970, pp 20-21) The verses discussed in the Talmud are
not necessarily the same verses used today. In addition, the Talmud itself
notes that there were variations in the devision of verses between Israel
and Babylonia (Kidushin 30a).
R. Moshe Feinstein says that if one reads two long verses for an aliya he
may be OK [according to Halacha, three verses must be read - but a long
pasuk (verse) might actually be two short ones]. R. Feinstein states that
one should make a distinction between long and short pesukim especially in
the second half of the Torah since "ve'hitgalach" is supposed to be the
midpoint of the Torah in pesukim, and we found it in [parashat] Tzav [i.e.,
not in the middle] (Igrot Moshe, Orach Chayim, 1:35).
As to the "Codes" arguments. I do not understand mathematical typology or
statistical numerology, and could not and should not express a view in the
"sceintific" issues involved in the discussion of the codes. I leave that
to mathematicians and statisticians who are qualified to do so. However,
the data (Torah) on which these methods are applied, is flawed in the
lettering AS IT IS STATED IN THE TALMUD ITSELF and quoted above. Therefore,
any analyses of flawed data can produce only flawed results regardless of
its sceintific authonticity.
I think that there can only be two serious explanations for those findings:
a mathematical error, or G-d. G-d gave us the Torah in a format which is
different in the lettering, and therefore the only conclusion which I can
draw is that we have here a mathematical error. As to the argument that the
Masoretic text as we have it today is also G-d's, and therefore the results
are valid on that basis, I have difficulty attributing to G-d the loss of
the original, or any loss. Another issue can be that the flaw of the
missing letters are not significant enough to render the overall results
invalid statistically - that argument has to be dealt with by professional
statisticians, Teiko [the argument cannot be resolved].
Gilad J. Gevaryahu