|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
 |
 350x197.jpg "Israeli cowboy Golan Heights (Photo AP Ariel Schalit)") |
 640x360.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Israeli cowboy Golan Heights (Photo AP Ariel Schalit) |
Anyone who has watched many western TV shows or movies knows what a range war is. This is a war that breaks out over a land dispute; often between ranchers and farmers. Planted fields and pasturing animals don't mix in the same plot of land. Disputes between farmers and ranchers have often led to bloodbaths.
The Nile was a constant source of irrigation that replenished the topsoil every year when it flooded. The fertile strip irrigated by the annually flooding Nile, only about 6-8 km (4-5 mi.) wide along each bank, was prime farmland. There was no room for ranchers.
North, in the Delta (where the Hebrews were concentrated), the situation was different. The Nile strips fed the Egyptians. The Delta, by contrast, was the world's breadbasket – Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim's greatest export.
The entire Delta was a garden cornucopia. There was enough land to satisfy farmers and even a limited number of ranchers as long as the ranchers were few, kept small and contained within a limited area.
Only nobility could afford to eat cattle, goat or sheep. The average Egyptian's meat was limited to chicken, duck and fish. Therefore, there was little demand for ranchers and a lot of ill feeling toward them by the agrarian population.
Sometime, long before the arrival of the Hebrews, there had been a decisive range war between Egyptian farmers and ranchers—and the ranchers had lost. Thus, Egyptians despised, loathed and hated ranchers; and that's what the Hebrews were: ranchers—sheep, goat and cattle ranchers.
 199x68.gif "Hieroglyph: Gesem-Kesem (Goshen)"){kind=small}
? 
? Ραμεσση?The region of GōꞋshën described in bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 47.4, 6 & 11 is somewhat vague. However, it is clear that GōꞋshën refers to the Egyptian Delta in northern (Lower) Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim and, more specifically, to the eastern region of the Delta.
 |  cartouche base 150x100.jpg "Qantir - foot of Rameses II (originally 10m-33ft tall), cartouche in base") |  150x115.jpg "Dyanet (Tanis)") |
 |  cartouche base 800x533.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} |  300x230.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} |
| c BCE 1654 Pi- c BCE c BCE - renamed Pi- Final Compilation of Tor• Later renamed again to Avaris, Today ⇒ 2 km [1¼ mi] south of Qantir | c. BCE 1060 – After Nile branch running by Pi- | |
Chronologically, Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ joined Yo•seiphꞋ in Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim c. B.C.E. 1754 (my Chronology of the Tanakh, from the "Big ðÈèÈä" Live-LinkT 
).
However, GōꞋshën remained mostly undeveloped grazing lands until Par•ohꞋ Amun-hotep Sr. died leaving no heir and a new Egyptian commoner who didn't know about Yo•seiphꞋ, General Tut-moses Sr., became mëlꞋëkh-cum-Par•ohꞋ, taking the throne name, Ah-kheper ka-Ra.
The new Par•ohꞋ coerced the geir•imꞋ Ha•birꞋu, by means of an onerous tax on Ha•birꞋu, to work for the Egyptian government as corvées in order to pay off their tax debt. Thus, shortly before the birth of Moses (c. B.C.E. 1700), in his second regnal year, Par•ohꞋ Ah-kheper ka-Ra Tut-moses Sr. forced the Ha•birꞋu to build his principal depot-city, and regional capital—Pi-Tōm.
It wasn't until centuries after the death of Par•ohꞋ Ah-kheper ka-Ra Tut-moses Sr., however, that Par•ohꞋ Ra-moses Jr. the Great reigned (c. B.C.E. 1450)—and changed the name of Pi-Tōm to Pi-Ra-moses. Several centuries later, the branch of the Nile that serviced Pi-Ra-moses dried up, after which the Egyptians moved the city, stone-by-stone, 30 km (18⅔ mi) south to a city on a different branch of the Nile, Dyanet (modern Tanis), dropping the "Pi" to become known simply as Ra-moses (much later Hellenized to "Rameses").
The final codifier of úÌåÉøÈä, c. B.C.E. 400, then had to document for his contemporary readers an ancient city in GōꞋshën, which hadn't been known by its original name (Pi-Tōm) for more than a millennium, identifying the city, which had been entirely moved 30 km south from its original location 6 centuries earlier, by its contemporary name, Ra-moses, so that readers of his day would know the location of the city of Pi-Tōm, which they had built, more than a millennium before the final codification of Tor•âhꞋ!
úÌåÉøÈä was, at first, an oral proto-history handed down for many generations, beginning with "âdâm." At first, there was only the Oral úÌåÉøÈä. Finding "Rameses" mentioned in úÌåÉøÈä proves that some parts of the Oral úÌåÉøÈä were codified (or at least edited) some time after the reign of Par•ohꞋ Ra-Moses—corrupted to "Rameses." Contrary to the simplistic assumption of many scholars, it does not imply that the
 |
| "Moses" |
|---|
"Moses" was an Egyptian name appended to the name of a god, meaning "incarnate" (e.g., Ra-moses means Ra-Incarnate"). The Par•ohꞋs considered themselves to be incarnations of their gods. Hence, Ra-moses meant "Ra-" (the Egyptian sun-god) incarnate." Moses was adopted into the royal family of Tuth-Moses. Tuth (also "Tut" and pronounced "Toot") was the Egyptian moon-god of magic and scholars. Hebrews were prohibited from uttering the names of false gods. So, deleting Tuth, which they were prohibited from uttering, from Tuth-Moses, Hebrews called him simply "Moses".
Par•ohꞋ regarded the Hebrews as a to•eiv•
To•eiv•âhꞋ is something that generates extreme revulsion. The most oft used term in the Bible for "hate" is ùÒÈðÅà, which ranges from mild dislike to an intensity of hatred only slightly less than to•eiv•âhꞋ. Thus, the range of usage of ùÒÈðÅà demonstrates that, at least in its extreme connotation, "hate" is often a misleading translation. A couple of citations from Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ make it clear that the range of meaning for ùÒÈðÅà includes eschewal, which is less intense than hatred. Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 1.22 asserts that "fools ùÒÈðÅà knowledge." Yet, fools generally don't care much about knowledge either way. Fools neither love nor hate knowledge with any passion; they merely eschew it. Similarly (13.24), "He who restrains his rod ùÒÈðÅà his son" and (29.24), "He who shares-loot with a thief ùÒÈðÅà his own nëphꞋësh." Common sense dictates that, in most cases, the parent who refrains from disciplining his or her child just doesn't care about the child; not even enough to hate the child. Similarly, one who shares in the loot with a thief doesn't "hate" his own nëphꞋësh; he prefers the loot over it. In other words, he eschews his own nëphꞋësh to prefer the loot.
The difference is also evident in the LXX Greek, where μισεω (miseo) is rendered for ùÒÈðÅà. The same range of meaning is evident for μισεω (see The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) note 5.43.4). The compound form in English, miso-, means hatred of… (in contrast to -phobe, which means fear of…).
Recognizing this range of meaning throws new light on many passages in which ùÒÈðÅà makes much more sense understood as "eschew" rather than "hate." (Although, one must keep in mind that, in other passages, the more passionate "hate" can also be intended.)
ùÒÈðÅà is the antonym of preference. That is, when one eschews one thing it is in preference to some other choice. Thus, when you choose a in preference to b, you have ùÒÈðÅà b—and you may find yourself in violation of a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ prohibiting the ùÒÈðÅà of b. Example (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•oh′ 8.13): "The reverence of
 |
| Cartouche cylinder of Par• |
Since Ya•a•qovꞋ blessed Par•ohꞋ, despite Par•ohꞋ considering him a to•eiv•âhꞋ, how much more so we must bless those who merely ùÒÈðÅà us?
Ya•a•qovꞋ is the exemplar for how we are to relate to just and gracious goy•imꞋ today, including whatever goy•imꞋ happens to be in power, none of whom could be in power without His acquiescence. Though the recipients of unpalatable historical facts and documentation may often not perceive education to be a blessing, Ya•a•qovꞋ's example of blessing even those who eschewed him—even considered him to be a to•eiv•âhꞋ—is our goal.
Since we are to bless those goy•imꞋ whose practice approaches úÌåÉøÈä standards, how much more so should Yᵊhud•imꞋ be blessing fellow Yᵊhud•imꞋ who do their utmost to keep úÌåÉøÈä—even despite disagreements over interpretation? Who should be better able to disagree without being disagreeable? Who should be more çÆñÆã than kha•sid•imꞋ? More compassionate? More understanding? More tolerant? Who should be further distanced from lᵊ
The example of Ya•a•qovꞋ, clearly, is the basis for the teaching of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa to "bless those who eschew you" (for which, see the "•
In your daily practice (walk), constantly check your own practice to be sure that you're radiating the best possible blessing to those around you, educating them to úÌåÉøÈä as gently and compassionately as you know how. Be a blessing to those with whom you come in contact.
Bless their heart.
It's what we do. (If any Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ doesn't yet know how to bless properly, learn without delay.)
(Perhaps, when people ask what the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ stand for we should respond, "We bless people who do their best to be just, compassionate, caring, and loving. In other words, we bless people who do their best to practice úÌåÉøÈä.")
|
|
 |
46.27 – ëÌÈì-äÇðÌÆôÆùÑ ìÀáÌÅéú éÇòÂ÷Éá
"All of äÇðÌÆôÆùÑ" (singular) "was 70"???
This succinctly expresses how
This is the theme underlying both the monotheism of Avraham Avinu, requiring all Israel, Jew and geir, to unite in adherance to the one úÌåÉøÈä, and underlying Mosh•ëhꞋ's adoption of the Beit-Din system which requires all Israel to adhere to one faith with one set of standards ensuring unity, the glue which held, and continues to hold, the Jewish people—those who are authentically Jewish—together as one ðÆôÆùÑ.
The fractious nature of the plethora of different strains within Orthodox Judaism manifests itself in the bitter strifes playing themselves out in Israeli and Jewish newspapers daily: between and among khareid•imꞋ, between khareid•imꞋ and mainstream Orthodox, between Orthodox and non-Orthodox, between Israeli and Galut Jews and between religious and secular Jews.
In Judaism, one is known by his Ma•as•ëhꞋ.
One thing we can depend upon is that all of those engaged in such strifes, leshon ha-ra, mo•tziꞋ sheim râ and sin•atꞋ khi•nâmꞋ aren't practicing úÌåÉøÈä! It is exactly these whom Ribi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, and Tal•mudꞋ (Ma•
|
|
46.31-34 – ëÌÄé-úåÉòÂáÇú îÄöÀøÇéÄí ëÌÈì-øÉòÅä öÉàï:
Yo•seiphꞋ's deliberate strategy of presenting his father's tribe of relatives as a úÌåÉòÅáÈä, and having them settled apart from mainstream îÄöÀøÇéÄí, are clear examples of the early recognition of the threat of assimilation / acculturation—a threat which would one day be realized through
Yo•seiphꞋ therefore took the initiative of informing Par•ohꞋ that his brothers were øÉòÄéí, so that he would have them settle in the out-of-the-way region of GōꞋshën ëÌÄé-úåÉòÂáÇú îÄöÀøÇéÄí ëÌÈì-øÉòÅä öÉàï:
Yo•seiphꞋ chose his words carefully to achieve this desired goal of obtaining an isolated province for their home (Malbim; ArtScroll Bereishis I(b).2029).
Khidushei ha-Rim remarks that Yo•seiphꞋ was thereby establishing a precedent of Oral proto-úÌåÉøÈä—proto-
On the other hand, Yo•seiphꞋ specifically instructed that this Hebrew tribe not be presented, nor present themselves, as poor, ignorant or primitive. Rather, Yo•seiphꞋ presented them, and instructed that they present themselves (pâ•suqꞋ 34), as àÇðÀùÑÅé îÄ÷ÀðÆä. By extension, îÄ÷ÀðÆä was often extended to apply to ownership of herds because, lacking modern banks, herds were, in those parts and times, the essence of wealth and ownership. But the core meaning is ownership of possessions.
Despite being a culturally-demeaned occupation in the eyes of the Egyptians, this nucleus Hebrew tribe were men of means, wealth, affluence and respect, whose forefathers were widely esteemed (cf. bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 23.6). They were neither primitive, poor, so heavenly minded ('frummer than thou') they were no earthly good, nor ignorant. They had demonstrated by their wealth that they understood how to be successful in the world (not isolated and alienated from the world). Now they were to refine the technique of how to succeed in the world —
Without becoming so heavenly minded ('frummer than thou') that they were no earthly good, and
Without becoming acculturated into the world, i.e. without assimilating.
|
|
37.28 — "Then äÇâÌåÉéÄí shall know that I am
This passage doesn't read áÌÅéú îÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ, which would refer explicitly to the physical building. In all cases where îÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ describes the îÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ of the Messianic Era, it refers to the îÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ whose stones are the nᵊphâsh•otꞋ of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì; no longer a physical building as in ancient times.
|
|
Circa B.C.E. 583, 136 years after the exile & deportation of the 10 Tribes of Israel in B.C.E. 722, and about 3 years after the destruction of éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí in B.C.E. 586, ).
The Sages cite primarily sin•
For millennia the tragic fact has been confirmed ad nauseum that some, by the operation of their free will, will never learn. Still today, one who insists on eliminating lᵊ
The solution lies in two areas: respecting the other party's right to their views (even to be wrong; as long as they aren't causing harm) and education to the one ðÆôÆùÑ: úÌåÉøÈä, not as redefined by Romans, but as originally defined at Har
Whether estranged Jew or gentile, you can become part of the one ðÆôÆùÑ of Israel—if you are willing to educate yourself and shed every false belief and deception in order to make a personal commitment to live the rest of your life according to úÌåÉøÈä. Learn how you can get started right now in our Distance Learning. Jews can matriculate via the link in our
Life is short, sometimes shorter than we expect. Don't waste another moment. Rush right over to the appropriate ministry and get started now. You're invited!
|
|
As we learned in the 2004 úÌåÉøÈä section, úÌåÉøÈä requires, by the example of Ya•a•qovꞋ, that we bless those who eschew us. This teaching echoed by RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM 5.43-44) is thoroughly grounded in úÌåÉøÈä—like ALL of his authentic teachings.
Just as Ya•a•qovꞋ blessed the Par•ohꞋ who eschewed him, Yᵊhud•imꞋ of every generation have followed his example in rendering to the person in power what is his. Never was this more clearly stated than when the Boethusian family of the Herodian Pharisees sought to entrap RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. First, they subtly challenged him by publicly acknowledging that he was afraid of no man and could not be biased by fear of any man. Then, they asked him whether or not Yᵊhud•imꞋ should support the Roman occupiers by paying taxes to them. If RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa answered no, then they would arrest him and the Romans would imprison him or execute him for rebellion and incitement. If RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa answered yes, then he would be showing that he was a sanctimonious hypocrite no different from those he condemned, who, indeed, did fear the Romans and endorsed the Roman occupation. The Boethusian family of the Herodian Pharisees thought they had RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa check-mated.
The Boethusian family is documented in Tal•mudꞋ as the very worst of the Hellenist Herodians, who were, in turn, the wealthy, aristocratic, Hellenistic, Roman-sympathizing "black sheep" of the Pharisees—ostracized by the mainstream Pharisees—the denomination that included RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa saw through their lame attempt at entrapment and knew úÌåÉøÈä and the example of Ya•a•qovꞋ blessing Par•ohꞋ.
 Har ha-BaꞋyit Southern entrances and exits—Triple Gates (exits), where RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was delivering this exegesis. Photograph 1983 by Yirmᵊyahu Bën-David. |
According to what was written in úÌåÉøÈä, •marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM 22.15-22), "Why do you test me, you hypocrites? Show me a coin for paying taxes." When they offered him a Roman coin he said to them, "After whom is the icon on this coin struck, and whose is the likeness on this coin?" When they answered "For Caesar," •marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, "So, return to Caesar things that are for Caesar, and to Ël•oh•imꞋ things that are for Ël•oh•imꞋ." RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's answer left the Hellenist Boethusian-Herodian Pharisees nonplussed.
Blessing people, including those who eschew us, is no mere suggestion. It's a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ. As stated in the 1999 úÌåÉøÈä section, in Judaism, one is known by his Ma•as•ëhꞋ. Indeed, one's portion in hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ is dependent upon doing one's utmost ("with all one's heart, all one's nëphꞋësh and all of one's utmost"—the Shᵊm•aꞋ) to practice the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä.
This contrasts with Christianity, which alleges that one's eternal welfare depends solely upon belief. Only passing mention is given to "fruits." Blind faith in a single and unique man-god who is the exclusive savior-connection to a single god, making practice superfluous, is documented in paganism at least from the Egyptian Par•ohꞋ, Akhen-Aten. He decreed that, beyond being the traditional man-god like all earlier Par•ohꞋs, he was also the sole intermediary to the single god—Aten the sun god! This tradition was picked up by the Greeks with their name for the sun god, Jupiter, and subsequently picked up by the Hellenist (Greek) Romans in the image of their sun god, Zeus.
Practicing one's faith versus the Hellenist Roman, and idolatrous, notion that faith alone "saves" has been the greatest difference between Judaism and paganism at least since the giving of úÌåÉøÈä to Mosh•ëhꞋ on Har Sin•aiꞋ and, almost certainly, since Av•râ•hâmꞋ. The post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans simply transferred their blind faith in the idol of their favorite "god," Zeus-on-a-throne, to their new Hellenist-Christian innovation—the Roman Zeus-on-a-stick—unlike any other Hebrew name ending in ayin—Ιησους (Iæ-Sous), which became Jesus.
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, by contrast, taught neither faith nor belief alone. •marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM 7.16), "You shall know them by their Ma•as•ëhꞋ. Wherefore, by their fruits, in other words by their Ma•as•ëhꞋ, you shall recognize them. Not everyone saying 'adoni' to me will enter the Realm of the heavens. Rather, he who does [i.e. practices] the wish [which is the mitzwah Torah] of my Father Who is in the heavens shall enter the Realm of the heavens. In that day, many will say to me, 'Adoni, adoni, didn't we prophesy in your name? Didn't we throw out demons in your name? Didn't we do many signs for your name?' Then I will attest to them, 'I never knew you. (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 6.9) 'Turn aside from me all doers of crookedness.'"
This is further confirmed in other teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa concerning "fruits." He drew the analogy of the heart of those hearing úÌåÉøÈä being like soil upon which seed falls. Of four types of soil, only one merited approval. •marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM 13.23), "The good soil upon which the seeds fell, is one who hears the Saying, understands it, and is producing fruit'" "Producing," not "once produced"—much less never produced.
Note that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa specified "Saying," not "Writing." RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa specified the Oral Law—and not just any Oral Law (of the Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ or pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ). RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was a RibꞋi, i.e. a Pharisee teacher of úÌåÉøÈä. RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa explicitly specified Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa also showed the remarkable acumen to notice that the logic of wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 19.18, "Love your companion as yourself ," applies to producing fruit in the same way as in requiring the wealthy young noble use his wealth to help those around him (NHM 19.16-26). úÌåÉøÈä is a Treasure and those around us who lack this Treasure are in dire need of learning about úÌåÉøÈä. Their eternal livelihood depends upon the practitioners of úÌåÉøÈä, though we are merely senior apprentices to
"Apprentice" is a providential choice of words. Paganism coaxes one into a pretend world in which "belief" is all that matters. It's ok to do what you want because, "if you believe," you'll be forgiven and saved anyway. It doesn't really matter if one doesn't practice and produce. One can be a spiritual sloth and—supposedly—still be saved. But does
If the practitioners of úÌåÉøÈä don't share this Treasure that 3.10), "Therefore, every tree which is not producing good fruit is being cut out and thrown into the fire."
•marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM 5.16), "Let your Or [Light, i.e. úÌåÉøÈä] shine thusly before man so that they may see your good Ma•as•ëhꞋ, which are praises and kâ•vodꞋ for your Father who is in the heavens."
|
|
| úÌåÉøÈä | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM) |
NHM |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
|
|
Section Aleph—
Everyone who looks at the Yom ha-Din (day of litigation) will be able to dominate his inclination toward wrong and his passions, and not come into the hands of aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä.
As we recite by rote in tractate Avot, pereq 3 (mishneh 1—"Aqavya Bën-Mahalaleil says'"): "And before Whom you will give a future din wᵊ- kheshbon'" (an idiom meaning "accounting," lit. litigation and calculation/bill)
Further, it is memorized in tractate Batra (the përꞋëq about selling a ship—78.2), RabꞋi Shmu•eil Bar-Nakhmani said, RabꞋi Yo•khân•ânꞋ said, What is written? "Therefore the rulers said, 'Come to Kheshbon''" (a bill or calculation; bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 21.27-30).
The "rulers" are the rulers over their passions. "Come to Kheshbon"—Come and we will calculate the kheshbon of the world-age: the lack of a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ against its wage, the wage of a aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä against its wage.
'Let it be built and let it be planned.' If you do thusly it will be built ba-Olam ha-zeh (in this world-age) and it will be planned la-Olam ha-ba (for the world-age to come).
The 'City of Sikhon'—If a man sets himself like this city, that follows after genteel conversation' what's written after that? "For a fire goes forth from Kheshbon.' The fire goes out from the mekhashbin (those who are calculating their kheshbon) and it consumes whoever aren't mekhashbin.
'The flame from Sikhon-ville' is from tzadiq•imꞋ-ville (Saints-ville) who recited, "Sikh•imꞋ (conversationalists).
'It consumed Ar [capital] of Moav.' This is the follower of his passion, like this city that followed after [its passion of] genteel conversation.
Participants [i.e. idolaters] of the high-places (altars) of Arnon.' These are the crude.
'Wa-niram' (and their lamp)—the wicked said, ein ram (there is no height).
Kheshbon was destroyed—its kheshbon of the world-age was destroyed.
"Until Divon"—It tarried until yavo din (litigation [day] should come).
"And we devastated until [the village of] Nophakh"—until a flame went forth that caused Nophakh to cease to exist.
"Until [the village of] Meidva"—'until the nᵊshâm•âhꞋ [of the wicked] shall de•iv' (grieve); or, as some say, 'Until he has done what he who poses the question did' [Aramaic meaning unclear]
Section Beit—
The first kha•sid•imꞋ< heroically overcame their inclinations toward wrong, not letting their nëphꞋësh become contaminated by aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä. As we find with Yo•seiphꞋ ha-Tza•diqꞋ, that he didn't want to hearken to any interest of the lady [of his master], Potiphar's wife.
As memorized in tractate Yoma (the përꞋëq telling them about the person-in-charge; 35.2)'
(Translated so far)
|
|
|