|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
)Everyone knows that the people whom Mōsh•ëhꞋ brought out of Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim in the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ was Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, right? But who comprised Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ? Were they a people anachronistically defined by the post-Holocaust, Nuremburg Trial (i.e. Nazi definition) and subsequent rabbinic internalization and adoption—REdefinition (reform!)—of being born of a “Jewish” (i.e. Judean) parent or mother (excluding the other tribes)?
Principally, of course, these were the I•vᵊr•imꞋ, who had immigrated from Iraq (i.e. Bâ•vëlꞋ) to the NëgꞋëv of Kᵊna•anꞋ before being driven by a famine to sojourn in the fertile Egyptian Delta. By the end of their long sojourn in the Nile Delta, the I•vᵊr•imꞋ had been assimilating into the idolatrous culture of the Egyptians for some 4 centuries—for which they would be repeatedly punished for clinging to Egyptian idolatry (e.g. the Gold Calf-mask of Hât-HōrꞋ) long after the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ.
On the other hand, Mōsh•ëhꞋ also welcomed and included an òÅøÆá øÇá.
?While apologists strive to retroactively force him into a monogamous mold, the historical account records that Mōsh•ëhꞋ was polygynously intermarried to two women: a Mi•dᵊyân•itꞋ (Tzi•pōrꞋâh) and an unnamed Kūsh•itꞋ—neither of whom were I•vᵊr•itꞋ!!! Ergo, whether they were the same woman as some modern theologians would like, or not, Mōsh•ëhꞋ, himself a Lei•wiꞋ, was intermarried!
This racist-religious arrogance and sanctimony, that one’s personal Ultra-Orthodox purity translated to the Will of é‑‑ä, was the core underlying QōꞋrakh’s claim to enjoy preferred Divine Favor and “Ultra-Orthodox” superiority over Mōsh•ëhꞋ.
Yet, é‑‑ä empowered Mōsh•ëhꞋ, not QōꞋrakh, who, along with his supporters, were destroyed by é‑‑ä!
 |
 Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•iꞋ sawing off limb he’s sitting on |
Over the intervening millennia, the lesson of QōꞋrakh has dimmed in the collective memory of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. QōꞋrakh’s legacy has been resurrected in today’s sanctimonious Orthodox rabbis who, like QōꞋrakh, are determined to rule over modern Jews (Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ), while cutting-off today’s Diaspora òÅøÆá øÇá.
 |
 |
16.5 – åÀàÅú, àÂùÑÆø éÄáÀçÇø-áÌåÉ éÇ÷ÀøÄéá àÅìÈéå:
 |
| ðÇúÀáÌÇ"â 1 terminal reception sign reads: Bᵊrukh•imꞋ ha-Bâ•imꞋ lᵊYi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ (Welcome to Israel; lit. "Blessings on Those-Coming to Israel"). See more photos in our virtual "Welcome" Center (click in navigation panel at left). |
| 1 ðÀîÇì úÌÀòåÌôÈä áÌÆï-âÌåÌøÀéåÉï (Bën-GurᵊyonꞋ Airport) |
"… and whomever, whom He shall choose He will cause to approach Him".
On the last evening of a vacation to Israel with my wife, Karen, in 1983, about to return home to Florida, "I remember on the bus back to Bën-GurᵊyonꞋ [airport] looking at the lights in the apartments and wishing I could be in any one of them rather than leaving' At night when I look out at the lights in the apartments I remember that night on the bus back to Bën-GurᵊyonꞋ and thank é--ä that tonight I am standing in one of those windows." ("One man's search," Jerusalem Post Magazine, 1990.07.27, p. 10f).
I still do.
In fact, often when I drive to get my computer repaired [update 2012: now we walk, no more car, too expensive here], walk downtown on an errand and the like I still marvel that I'm really here in Israel, and thank é--ä that today I am driving [riding in a bus or taxi] or walking in Israel.
With countless Christian Jews and other assorted gentile Christians clawing and clamoring to crown themselves the leader representing their version of Jesus, I still marvel at how, without my really trying, I one day discovered – after an exhaustive but fruitless search for a Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ to follow – that é--ä had placed me where I am, showed me there was no one then following RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as the Mâ•shiꞋakh in good standing in the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Jewish community except me, and dropped the mantle from the last Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ in the authentic Jewish community—the 15th Pâ•qidꞋ Yᵊhud•âhꞋ ha-Tza•diqꞋ, back in 135 C.E.—on the only Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage follower of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa in the Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage community—me. It was a moment in which the proportions of the historic task were daunting and humbling. While others were self-proclaiming themselves great leaders in Christianity I was asking, "Why me? How can I do this? I'm just a man." But é--ä showed me in His úÌåÉøÈä that Mosh•ëhꞋ also had to deal with the same feelings of inadequacy (Shᵊm•otꞋ 3.11).
I am reminded of this theme every year when we read pâ•râsh•atꞋ QōꞋrakh, who epitomizes the person who self-proclaims himself to be the leader, or if that's not possible syncretizes a historical figure into a more desirable version and the redacts the history, rather than accepting the leader, for whom é--ä has seen fit to open doors, smooth paths, provide opportunities and lead into the position of Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage authority.
 |
The QōꞋrakhs of the world, defying the leader who was placed in position by é--ä, arrogantly and defiantly self-proclaim themselves and their own quack displacement theology that empowers themselves – defining a cult – rather than point people, not to their own authority but toward the Authority of úÌåÉøÈä and é--ä.
 |
 BBC video 2011.10.10 – Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ spit on an eight year old Orthodox elementary schoolgirl, calling her a ôÌÀøåÌöÈä (whore), a æåÉðÈä (slut-prostitute) and a ùé÷öò or ùé÷ñò" (assimilated German – namely, Yiddish – for "detestable goyah girl"); according to mother, Hadassah Margolis (dossim.com/ContentPage.aspx?item=352). They also assault an Orthodox rabbi (blue shirt) for being moderate – Beit ShëmꞋësh, Israel  |
QōꞋrakhs have reincarnated unendingly throughout the ages. Particularly notable from the Dark Age are the QaꞋbâl-ists, who produced the false Mâ•shiꞋakh, ShaꞋbᵊtai TzᵊviꞋ. Today's reincarnation of the 1st century C.E. Roman-collaborating, Hellenist-mired Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ are the secular-collaborating, European Medievalism-mired Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ. Whereas, in the 1nd century C.E., the Qum•rânꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ identified themselves as Sons of Light in contrast to the Hellenist-mired Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ, whom they identified as sons of Darkness, today's Ultra-Orthodox (aka Kha•reid•imꞋ), are belligerently and incorrigibly anti-science and anti-education – willfully and defiantly, sons of Darkness by choice.
 |
| Calling the 2nd-4th century Christian-syncretized counterfeit by a Hebrew name doesn't change the idol. The historical 1st century Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi was not Christian! |
But QōꞋrakhs are not limited to the Jewish community. The major offspring displacement theology, lᵊ-ha•vᵊdilꞋ, Christianity, is founded on a re-purposed version of the Romans' native Zeus – a Hellenized counterfeit christ idol that syncretized the Hellenist messianism of the "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate with the Romans' native Hellenist mythology – displacing the authentic, historical, Pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa with their Hellenist re-purposed idol – Jzeus (Jesus)!
To corroborate their re-purposed, displacement theology Jzeus idol, history (Hegesippus) documents that, no earlier than 142 C.E. and no later than 168 C.E., the Hellenist Romans began ἐποιησάμην the matching succession of Greek Επισκοπος ("popes") – to similarly displace the first ôÌÈ÷Äéã ðÀöÈøÄéí Ya•a•qovꞋ ha-Tza•diqꞋ and succeeding pᵊqid•imꞋ. Christians swallow all of this displacement theology that flies in the face of hard evidence. While Christianity claims that their ἐποιησάμην Greek first Επισκοπος ("pope"), "St. Peter," died in Rome, the bones of Shim•onꞋ "KeiphꞋâ" Bar-YonꞋâh, at this very moment, still rest in an ossuary (photo) marked with his name, in the Har ha-Zeit•imꞋ Tomb Complex in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim – not Rome!
In today's Christian community, today's QōꞋrakhs range from charlatan "Netzarim" poseurs, pseudo-"Messianic" Christian Jews, "Royal Nazarene Great Sanhedrin," Christian popes and priests, evangelists, and preachers; all offspring of the Hellenist Romans, who managed to wrest control by force in 135 C.E. and delude the entire world that the authority vested in the first Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ of the Jews (Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ ha-Tza•diqꞋ) be displaced, instead, to Hellenist Romans and their ἐποιησάμην Greek Επισκοπος ("popes") rather than accept the authority of é--ä and His øåÌçÇ äÇ÷ÉãÆùÑ delegated from Har Sin•aiꞋ.
Through historical perversions and incompetencies, and not infrequently through blatant deception, these modern QōꞋrakhs rely upon verbal sparring, polemicizing – routinely relying on raw slander and smearing – and clawing; attempting to force their way into the earthly counterpart of the eternal Realm of é--ä, rather than enter through ShaꞋar ha-Tzar (the "Difficult Gate"—cf. The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) 7.13-14) of legitimacy and earning recognition in the Orthodox Jewish community as a Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ. RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, too, rebuked the QōꞋrakhs of his day as "[pseudo-religious predators] who are breaking [the earthly institutions of the Realm of é--ä and] preying upon it" (NHM 11.16).
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa recognized, and probably based this teaching on, the principle of Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 4.6: "'Neither by valor nor by force, but by My øåÌçÇ,' â•marꞋ é--ä of armies."
The demise of QōꞋrakh portends the ultimate destiny of all who are like him, simulating—counterfeiting— úÌåÉøÈä through "æÉðÄéí oneself by úÌåÌø after one's own heart and one's own eyes" (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.39-40)—creating a Displacement Theology.
The QōꞋrakhs – and their followers – are usually incorrigible, but you needn't be among his followers who were swallowed alive into the pit (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 16.33).
|
|
ðÀùÒÄéàÅé òÅãÈä, ÷ÀøÄàÅé îåÉòÅã àÇðÀùÑÅé-ùÑÅí: —16.2:
 |
| Photograph from summit of Har Kar•komꞋ looking toward Har Kha•rozꞋ, showing intervening valley where Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ camped. |
"… noblemen of the eyewitness-convocation, those called of appointed celebrities"
The rebellion of QōꞋrakh and his supporters—the "important" and "politically correct" VIPs and celebrities of the day—and its consequences, are well known and oft-taught. However, it isn't usually pointed out (as it is, to their credit, in the Stone Ta•na"khꞋ) that this was no mere uprising of laity or the masses. QōꞋrakh was a Lei•wiꞋ like Mosh•ëhꞋ. He was supported by a significant number of well-known leaders of Israel.
When a usurper wannabe cannot elevate himself or herself to the level of the leader empowered at the pleasure of é--ä, what alternative does (s)he always follow? Their tactic is invariable and as close to eternal as mortals get: if you can't raise yourself to their level, try to drag them down to your level. They ask, "Who appointed you leader? What makes you worthy of being leader? Why do you represent yourself to be above the others? You're no better than anyone else?"
Where does Scripture record that Mosh•ëhꞋ made any claim to be better than anyone else? To the contrary, Scripture records that Mosh•ëhꞋ was the meekest of men. That Mosh•ëhꞋ was the leader designated and commissioned by é--ä in the absence of any such claim strongly suggests that é--ä's choice of Mosh•ëhꞋ was based on qualities unrelated to any claim to be better than anyone else. In fact, this suggestion is later confirmed in the handing down of úÌåÉøÈä at Har Sin•aiꞋ in which the necessary qualities of leadership were recorded (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.2-6).
In an attempt to displace Mosh•ëhꞋ and bring him down to his own level, QōꞋrakh and his îÄéï Mosh•ëhꞋ with ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò. The Hebrew verb "impugn" is ùÒÈèÈï!!!
16.3 — ?åÌîÇãÌåÌòÇ úÌÄúÀðÇùÒÀàåÌ This question implied that Mosh•ëhꞋ's and A•ha•ronꞋ's (the verb is pl.) only claim to leadership was self-proclaimed—lifting himself up. Self-proclaimed divine selection by Mosh•ëhꞋ would have been no more compelling than QōꞋrakh's claim. Thus, QōꞋrakh was impugning Mosh•ëhꞋ in an attempt to bring him down to QōꞋrakh's level.
Discerning between one who is self-proclaiming and one commissioned by é--ä is as simple as determining:
to whom é--ä has opened doors and
whether they regard themselves as authority or point to a standard authority.
Whom had é--ä placed in the household of Par•ohꞋ to learn everything about leading a nation, military strategy, developing powerful political contacts both in Egypt and among the tribes of the Sinai – Mosh•ëhꞋ or QōꞋrakh? Whom had é--ä arranged to develop an intimate knowledge of the terrain, water and resources of the Sinai – Mosh•ëhꞋ or QōꞋrakh? Whom did é--ä arrange to have the finest education the world's superpower, Egypt, could offer – Mosh•ëhꞋ or QōꞋrakh? Whom did é--ä arrange to have the finest military training the world's superpower could offer – Mosh•ëhꞋ or QōꞋrakh? Whom did é--ä arrange to receive the most intimate, albeit pagan, religious knowledge in the known world – Mosh•ëhꞋ or QōꞋrakh? Start counting the many things that é--ä arranged to be particular to Mosh•ëhꞋ. Every one of these distinguished Mosh•ëhꞋ, as the one whom é--ä selected, from QōꞋrakh, who sought to elevate himself.
And who, by contrast, offered nothing but their own naked assertions—i.e., self-proclamations—and opinions of equally unknowledgeable celebrities? é--ä had placed one in authority while the other sought to displace him based on his own self-proclamations and the support of equally unknowledgeable, politically correct, celebrities.
We can all read the outcome of QōꞋrakh's ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò. Yet, today, we see the same kind of ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò—baseless misrepresentations and false innuendos, at a machine-gun pace with shotgun precision, being proliferated by Jewish religious leaders, and especially self-appointed, hate-mongering Jews calling themselves "anti-missionaries," as well as religious-politicians—all this today at a magnitude that might have 'scared straight' even QōꞋrakh himself.
 |
Today's QōꞋrakhs frequently claim that anything that is critical of them is ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò. Some QōꞋrakhs even claim that only calumny that is true qualifies as ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò, that lies are ok!!! That is diametrically wrong.
That which is demonstrably true is a valid judgment and can only be included as ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò when it is not essential to the communal good; in other words, when it's no more than gossip.
That which is a lie is slanderous, typically malicious, ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò. In fact, today's QōꞋrakhs surpass the evil of the original QōꞋrakh by exceeding the evil of ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò, committing îåÉöÄéà ùÑÅí øÇò.
The primary litmus tests are [a] whether the information is true or false and [b] whether there is constructive and reasonable cause to warn the community and, if so, who in the community needs to be warned.
Those who represent good as evil and vice-versa violate úÌåÉøÈä. Charging, for example, that a person "loves" practicing ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò is itself presuming to judge the ëåðä (kawân•âhꞋ) of the heart, the spirit. Such a charge concerning the heart of the impugned, though unprovable, leaves the victim defenseless. How can the victim prove what is or isn't in his heart? Such a charge of ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò is itself an instance of ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò! When it is based on a misrepresentation (i.e., no ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò has occurred), it is a particularly virulent—and currently popular and pervasive—form of character assassination—which the Sages equate to murder because the murder of a person's reputation is murder of the person. Lies, misrepresentations and innuendos of false implications comprise the ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò of QōꞋrakh. To avoid ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò, the misstep of QōꞋrakh, one must exercise the greatest caution:
to avoid judging the heart / spirit (intentions / kawân•âhꞋ) of another,
to ensure that one adheres to demonstrable truth—substantiated facts, not unfounded assertions or charges, and
that there is a genuinely justifiable reason to communicate such fact(s).
Compounding his transgressions, what was QōꞋrakh judging? Mosh•ëhꞋ's kawân•âhꞋ, his heart. One can, and is commanded to, judge results and actions. They're hard facts—fruits—which can be verified or established. At the least, when someone has been wronged, actions must be judged. But only é--ä can look into the heart and see a person's kawân•âhꞋ. Because mortals cannot look into the heart of the victim to confirm or refute such a charge,
ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò against a person's heart and spirit cannot be refuted. Victims are helpless against ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò, especially from the mouth of a populist, VIP, celebrity or authority. No man can give another a peek at, or a print-out of, his heart to prove his innocence. There is no defense against
ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò directed at a person's kawân•âhꞋ—against his spirit. In logic, such a charge is a fallacy called ad hominem. When the Spirit of that victim is the øåÌçÇ äÇ÷ÉãÆùÑ—i.e., the Spirit of úÌåÉøÈä—then such
ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò is particularly grave (NHM 12.30-37).
In the 1st century C.E. RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa taught about
ìÈùÑåÉï äÈøÇò directed against the øåÌçÇ äÇ÷ÉãÆùÑ. And what were the circumstances that induced this teaching? A rival Pᵊrush•imꞋ group (a priori, most likely the Boethusian "Herodians" often mistaken for Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ; cf. NHM note 22.16.1), judged what could only be in RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's heart (since there were no witnesses to the contrary)—viz. in what Name he cast out demonic-forces (NHM 12.22-45 with respective notes, especially 12.31.0). RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's teaching here elaborated the lessons of Eili (Shmueil Aleph 3.14 where see 2.25-26) and QōꞋrakh.
|
|
16.14 — The cantillation, which determines the correct punctuation, doesn't support any of the popular English translations. The cantillation is perplexing and its meaning difficult to fathom. This may be the reason why there is no mention of the strange phraseology in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ.
The pâ•suqꞋ is cantillated to read "(nor) have you given them an heritage of field and vineyard;
16.14 – äÇòÅéðÅé äÈàÂðÈùÑÄéí äÈäÅí; úÌÀðÇ÷ÌÅø ìÉà ðÇòÂìÆä:
(The eyes of those men, [though] you may gouge-out we will not ascend).
See this same verb-object combination at Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ 16.21.
This is a seemingly strange way to phrase the pâ•suqꞋ. Yet, the cantillation confirms this, not any of the traditional English variations, is the correct phraseology. The pause after "those men" is required by the disjunctive tᵊvir. There is no further pause until the end of the sentence. The pause in the English after úÌÀðÇ÷ÌÅø is not justified from the Hebrew. In other words, the cantillation dictates that the only pause must come between "the eyes of those men" and "you may gouge-out."
 250x326.jpg "Mirrored Eyes of Horus") |
 480x625.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} |
What does that mean?
To analyze the stich, I'll designate the resulting second part of pâ•suqꞋ 14 as 14b, which is then further split into two phrases: (14b1) äÇòÅéðÅé äÈàÂðÈùÑÄéí äÈäÅí (the eyes of those men) and (14b2) úÌÀðÇ÷ÌÅø ìÉà ðÇòÂìÆä (you may gouge-out we won't go up)."
The phrase "the eyes of those men" is intriguing. We recently discussed the seven eyes in the vision of Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ Bën-Bë•rëkh•yâhꞋ Bën-Id•oꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ.
In this pâ•suqꞋ it is reasonably clear that Dâ•tânꞋ and Avi•râmꞋ were saying by this idiom that the eyes of the men were fixed on the aforementioned fields and vineyards. Pause, as if the speaker might have been pointing to the fields and vineyards.
It was the materialistic fixation or focus—the "eyes"—of the men that they accused Mosh•ëhꞋ of planning to figuratively gouge-out, dig or erode; i.e., literally, excising the materialistic bent—which Dâ•tânꞋ and Avi•râmꞋ also shared.
 |
 "Eye of Providence"Annuit Cœptis Novus Ordo Seclorum |
Accordingly, they refused to be any part of destroying their hedonistic "eyes" – symbolism tracing back to their exile in Egypt – by going up to support Mosh•ëhꞋ.
The tᵊvir forces the reader's attention to the symbolism of "eyes."
From this we can better understand the straightforward symbolism of Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ Bën-Bë•rëkh•yâhꞋ Bën-Id•oꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ in equating the seven lamps on the Mᵊnor•âhꞋ, not to seven "churches" as the Hellenist Roman goy•imꞋ—Christians—redacted, but to seven eyes—the focus of the Jew, whether worldly or oriented to é--ä, on illuminating family and the surrounding world with úÌåÉøÈä each of the seven days of the week.
|
|
 |
17.2 — "åÀéÈøÅí the censers from the flames, and disperse the àÅùÑ yonder, for they have become ÷ÈãåÉùÑ."
How did they become ÷ÈãåÉùÑ?
When an apostate makes an offering, even of prayer, it is a úÌåÉòÅáÈä (Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ ShᵊlomꞋoh 28.9), not something ÷ÈãåÉùÑ. The answer to this enigma is found in pâ•suqꞋ —
16.35 — "then an àÅùÑ went forth from é--ä and consumed [them]." This was an àÅùÑ ÷ÉãÆùÑ, rendering ÷ÈãåÉùÑ—i.e. purifying, refining— whatever it burned.
With respect to 17.5, the Hebrew phrase rendered "stranger" is àÄéùÑ æÈø, not àÄéùÑ âÌÅø. In the context of offering incense for making expiation, all—even Jews—who aren't genealogically documented descendants of A•har•onꞋ are classified as a æÈø and prohibited from offering incense before é--ä.
17.12 – åÇéÌÄúÌÅï àÆú-äÇ÷ÌÀèÉøÆú åÇéÀëÇôÌÅø òÇì-äÈòÈí
Here is one of the instances in which ëÌÇôÌÈøÈä is accomplished [a] vicariously and [b] without blood qor•bânꞋ, demonstrating that there is more than one means of ëÌÇôÌÈøÈä. (Contrary to an oft-argued premise, this doesn't demonstrate that this ëÌÇôÌÈøÈä can substitute for blood ëÌÇôÌÈøÈä, however, since blood ëÌÇôÌÈøÈä also continued to be required in addition.)
18.2 (& 4) — "And also your brothers of the staff of ìÅåÄé of the tribe of your fathers, cause to approach Me, åÀéÄìÌÈååÌ you.
Again, "stranger" in pᵊsuq•imꞋ 4 & 7 is æÈø not âÌÅø.
18.15 — "and the firstling of äÇèÌÀîÅàÈä livestock you shall redeem [with money]." When a donkey, camel or horse was redeemed, did that magically change the donkey, camel or horse into a kâ•sheirꞋ cow, goat or sheep?
The same principle applies to redemption of the firstborn males of Israel. This pâ•suqꞋ directs that the firstborn of äÈàÈãÈí be redeemed with money. Elsewhere, úÌåÉøÈä stipulates that the one úÌåÉøÈä applies to Yᵊhud•iꞋ and âÌÅø alike. Taken together, this implies that âÌÅøÄéí are also to redeem their firstborn month-old males with money—but this shouldn't be construed as magically changing the redeemed child from a âÌÅø into a Yᵊhud•iꞋ.
This analogy holds also for the firstborn of the kâ•sheirꞋ animals parallelling the firstborn of all Yᵊhud•imꞋ. They are ÷ÈãåÉùÑ, and belong to é--ä. Indeed, all firstborn Yᵊhud•imꞋ would have to be taken away from their parents permanently and given to the Ko•han•imꞋ for the service of é--ä—except that é--ä has taken the ìÀåÄéÌÄéí as a substitute in their place. His willingness to accept a substitute-replacement also establishes the precedent for the Mâ•shiꞋakh as vicarious substitute-replacement for the entire sacrificial system—which was never more than a úÌÇáÀðÄéú symbolism for things in the heavens in the first place. See also discussions in pâ•râsh•atꞋ úÌÀøåÌîÈä (1995.02), pâ•râsh•atꞋ Khuq•atꞋ (1995.07), our 1995.08 newsletter back issue dō•arꞋ section), pâ•râsh•atꞋ Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ (1995.09) and our newsletter back issue of 1995.10 (Yom ha-Ki•pur•imꞋ).
After the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, the îÇòÂùÒÅø and úÌÀøåÌîÈä formerly owed to the ìÀåÄéÌÄéí and Ko•han•imꞋ were regarded as owed to the teachers of úÌåÉøÈä. In 18.21 & 24 é--ä declares, concerning what was due the ìÀåÄéÌÄéí, " all of the îÇòÂùÒÅø of Israel for an inheritance."
"ðÈúÇúÌÄé," said é--ä.
One can give only what belongs to him; one can allow only what one has the power to authorize or withhold.
The îÇòÂùÒÅø never belongs to anyone else! That's why withholding of îÇòÇùÒøåÉú or úÌÀøåÌîåÉú belonging to é--ä is defined by Ma•lâkh•iꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ as ÷ÈáÇò é--ä (Ma•lâkh•iꞋ 3.8)—of something that belongs to Him.
Note (2002.05): There can be no equivocation concerning withholding that which belongs to é--ä. RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa confirmed this in contrasting the meritoriousness of meticulous attention to the îÇòÂùÒÅø against the hypocrisy of neglecting "the more kâ•vodꞋ things of úÌåÉøÈä: adjudication-of-Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, khësꞋëd and ëm•un•âhꞋ" (NHM 23.23-25).
On the other hand, I can't help wondering if greed on the part of øÉòÄéí äÈàÁìÄéìÄéí (cf. Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 11.17) has contributed to no one pointing out that since the principle of pi•quꞋakh nëphꞋësh can override the highest priority in úÌåÉøÈä (keeping ùÑÇáÌÈú) then how much more so this principle must apply to the îÇòÂùÒÅø and úÌÀøåÌîÈä!
úÌåÉøÈä requires that one who must choose between buying food for his or her family or paying the îÇòÂùÒÅø or úÌÀøåÌîÈä is required by úÌåÉøÈä to provide food for his or her family.
The problem comes not only from the extreme of øÉòÄéí äÈàÁìÄéìÄéí not acknowledging the application of pi•quꞋakh nëphꞋësh to îÇòÂùÒÅø and úÌÀøåÌîåÉú, but also, at the opposite extreme, the abuse of this principle in withholding that which belongs to é--ä to pay for something hedonistic, like a TV or a long list of other non-essentials. Every gray area in between these extremes must be carefully measured by this criterion.
|
|
16.14 – äÇòÅéðÅé äÈàÂðÈùÑÄéí äÈäÅí; úÌÀðÇ÷ÌÅø ìÉà ðÇòÂìÆä:
(The eyes of those men, [though] you may gouge-out we will not ascend).
The only other instance of this verb-object combination in Ta•na"khꞋ occurs at Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ 16.21, where it describes gouging-out the eyes of Shi•mᵊsh•onꞋ. Gouging out the eyes was the method of transforming enemies into helpless slaves, blind and completely dependent upon their taskmasters. This is one of the connections to the Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ (Shᵊmu•eilꞋ ÂlꞋëph 11.2).
In other words, QōꞋrakh and his îÄéðÄéí argued that they wouldn't follow Mosh•ëhꞋ even under threat of turning them into helpless slaves by gouging out their eyes; besides, if Mosh•ëhꞋ did the worst, gouging out their eyes, then they couldn't follow him. So, it just wasn't going to happen and, they insinuated, there was nothing Mosh•ëhꞋ could do about it.
16.23 — "Go up from around the îÄùÑÀëÌÈï of QōꞋrakh, Dâ•tânꞋ and Av•i•râmꞋ." The use of îÄùÑÀëÌÈï implies that QōꞋrakh, Dâ•tânꞋ and Av•i•râmꞋ had begun setting up a îÄéï. This command is reinforced in 16.21, employing the imperative äÄáÌÈãÀìåÌ, the verb used in instructing Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 10.10): "åÌìÂäÇáÀãÌÄéì áÌÅéï äÇ÷ÉÌãÆùÑ åÌáÅéï äÇçÉì."
This new îÄéï of QōꞋrakh, Dâ•tânꞋ and Av•i•râmꞋ was premised on the baseless allegation – presenting no evidence – that Mosh•ëhꞋ's intent was to äÄùÒÀúÌÈøÅø over Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ.
To justify their own îÄéï, QōꞋrakh, Dâ•tânꞋ and Avi•râmꞋ accused Mosh•ëhꞋ of wanting to rule over them. A ruler takes what he wants from the people over whom he rules. But, Mosh•ëhꞋ answered, he hadn't taken so much as a donkey from them, and hadn't wronged the first one of them.
 |
 Waterfall at Ein GᵊdiSome waterfalls were dammed with a rock during the rainy winter season. Moving and replacing the rock would produce, then retain, water during the dry season. é--ä commanded Mosh•ëhꞋ to vocally order an aide, not visible below, to move the rock, leaving the credit for the unseen neis to é--ä, not to move the rock and bring credit to himself. |
Probably every tal•midꞋ is aware that Mosh•ëhꞋ was punished severely, being prohibited from entering ËrꞋëtz Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ, for disobeying é--ä by striking a rock to produce water when he had been instructed merely to speak to the rock.
Above we read that Mosh•ëhꞋ obeyed without hesitation when é--ä instructed him to lᵊ-ha•vᵊdilꞋ between ÷ÉãÆùÑ (himself and the qâ•hâlꞋ who were following him), on the one hand, and the îÄéï of QōꞋrakh, who were khol, on the other.
What may be less obvious is that Mosh•ëhꞋ was twice honored for declining to obey a command of é--ä—in the tradition of Ya•a•qovꞋ Âv•iꞋnu wrestling with the Ma•lâkhꞋ é--ä (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 32.25ff). Discerning when to decline and when to obey is determined by which serves not one's own desires, but furthers the Work of é--ä.
In Shᵊm•otꞋ 32.10, é--ä commanded to Mosh•ëhꞋ, åÀòÇúÌÈä äÇðÌÄéçÈä ìÌÄé, My fury will be upon them, I will consume them and make you a great goy." But Mosh•ëhꞋ didn't leave it be for é--ä, as é--ä had commanded. Instead, Mosh•ëhꞋ interceded for Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ, pleading on their behalf—and providing the paradigm of an intercessor for Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ.
Likewise, we see the same ta•vᵊn•itꞋ in this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ. In 17.10, é--ä tells Mosh•ëhꞋ, "äÅøÉîÌåÌ îÄúÌåÉêÀ äÈòÅãÈä äÇæÌÒàú , I will consume them in a moment." As before, Mosh•ëhꞋ declines the command of é--ä.
What is the difference between 16.21, where Mosh•ëhꞋ obeyed in separating himself, and Shᵊm•otꞋ 32.10 and bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 17.10 where Mosh•ëhꞋ declined, refusing to separate himself?
The first instance involved sectarianism – îÄéðÄéí. A part of the kindred were contravening úÌåÉøÈä, self-proclaiming their own authority in rebellion against the authority ordained by é--ä, and seeking to lead Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ astray after them.
The last two instances both involved abandoning the entire kindred of Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ.
Moreover, it may be instructive that Mosh•ëhꞋ obeyed the admonition to make an Ha•vᵊdâl•âhꞋ, but refused to "let it be" or "to elevate himself" above the kindred as QōꞋrakh had alleged—even at the command of é--ä!
úÌåÉøÈä promises (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 18.5) that Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ shall live in the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ (an instruction in this life, necessarily supplemented by the promise for ha-O•lamꞋ ha•baꞋ)—not die in them. This passage is the basis from which the principle of pi•quꞋakh nëphꞋësh is inferred. This is another way of saying, "Don't be so heavenly minded that you're no earthly good!" There is no contradiction between earthly good and heavenly good. Good is good and evil is evil, irrespective whether it's earth or heaven.
The lesson Mosh•ëhꞋ teaches here, by his own example, is the principle of pi•quꞋakh nëphꞋësh applied to Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ as òÇí àÆçÈã, above the individual This stands directly opposite the modern democrat-"ish" assumption (not intrinsic to democracy) that the individual is paramount above the community or people – the "me" culture of hedonism (subsuming materialism) with its inherent implication of renouncing moral values that stand in the way of "me" hedonism. Both extremes, government over people and people above government, must be constrained by moderation. How far people have strayed from the "Bible" that Mosh•ëhꞋ and RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa knew!
When a îÄéï of Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ strays—becomes apostate and cancerous, that îÄéï must be cut off in order to preserve the faithful. But when òÇí àÆçÈã, Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ as a goy, is threatened existentially, the promises of é--ä to Av•râ•hâmꞋ Âv•iꞋnu, Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Âv•iꞋnu and Ya•a•qovꞋ Âv•iꞋnu, promises that remain eternal and immutable, come to the fore—even though é--ä's command would have restored the people from Mosh•ëhꞋ as easily as He had from Av•râ•hâmꞋ.
 |
| Timespace continuum (Spiral Galaxy M64, Hubble Telescope) |
The tal•midꞋ must realize, as Mosh•ëhꞋ did, that:
the command was a test (cf. Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.4-5), demonstrating the falseness of QōꞋrakh's allegations, and
While it's challenging to grapple with being outside the constraints of time, é--ä, being outside of timespace and, therefore, pre-knowing Mosh•ëhꞋ's innermost heart, also pre-knew his decision.
é--ä could not have been courting the possibility of contradicting His earlier promises. The doctrines of an immutable é--ä (Ma•lâkh•iꞋ 3.6) cannot be contradictory.
One might, otherwise, venture that this imperative of é--ä broke the unbreakable rule that é--ä can neither be wrong nor irresponsibly angry.
However, when one considers that é--ä isn't constrained to our confines of timespace it becomes evident that é--ä was aware of the outcome before He presented the test to Mosh•ëhꞋ. If He had really been angry, knowing that Mosh•ëhꞋ would plead Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ's case, é--ä would have simply consumed Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ on the spot rather than presenting the test to Mosh•ëhꞋ.
Instead, however, the test demonstrated, both to those present and posterity, the úÌÇáÀðÄéú of the faithful øåÉòÅä offering the ultimate qor•bânꞋ as a worthy øåÉòÅä öÉàï—himself. Would a faithful øåÉòÅä place himself between the flock in his care and the owner of the flock who, in anger, would destroy his flock? Mosh•ëhꞋ stood in the breach.
In RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's day, he noticed the lack of worthy øåÉòÄéí willing to stand in the breach (NHM 9.35-38), with consequent judgment (NHM 25.31-40).
In the 1st century, all three îÄéðÄéí – [1] Qum•rânꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ, [2] Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ and [3] Pᵊrush•imꞋ – called each other îÄéðÄéí. By the close of the 3rd century C.E., however, Roman informer, Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ poseurs, assimilating into Hellenist Roman Christianity, earned exclusive notoriety to the derogative, îÄéðÄéí.
By the close of the 20th century, endless news reports have well documented, and continue to document, that today's Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•imꞋ, routinely presuming to override and change the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ in Ta•na"khꞋ, are far more sanctimonious and high-handed blasphemers (see last week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ, Shᵊlakh, bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.30-31) than the Roman collaborating and assimilated Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ of the 1st-4th centuries C.E. or even QōꞋrakh himself (!)—and consider the demise of today's øÉòÄéí äÈàÁìÄéìÄéí in light of Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 19.1; Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ chap. 34; Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 10.21; 23.1-8; 3.15 and Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 11.16-17 (øÉòÄé äÈàÁìÄéì).
|
|
QōꞋrakh was the grandson of Qᵊ•hatꞋ, the family of ìÀåÄéÌÄéí designated to border the îÄùÑÀëÌÈï on the south side.
16.3 – is rendered in English, "and they gathered themselves together'." This misses the full meaning of the Hebrew åÇéÌÄ÷ÌÈäÂìåÌ. This is from the same shorꞋësh as ÷ÈäÇì and ÷äéìä. Here, the first displacement theology îÄéï is recorded—and é--ä's response.
How do îÄéðÄéí begin? They argue that the authority that was designated from Har Sin•aiꞋ "is presumptuous because everyone in the ÷ÈäÇì (Christians broaden this to argue "the Church") is holy and é--ä is among them too—so why do you lift yourself up above the ÷ÈäÇì of é--ä?" Then we read how Mosh•ëhꞋ arranges for é--ä, not his own polemics, to vindicate his personal responsibilities and accountabilities.
What was é--ä's reaction to the argument of the îÄéðÄéí? He commanded that the true ÷ÈäÇì separate itself from the îÄéðÄéí, which they did, and then He destroyed the îÄéðÄéí.
QōꞋrakh is the prototype of today's îÄéðÄéí and displacement theologies. This incident teaches us the consequences of rebellion against úÌåÉøÈä – reality, according to the historical documentation of the earliest extant interpretations of the Beit Din and in conformity with discrete logic and the latest science. This implies logical and scientific updates, as needed, to the most pristine tradition from Har Sin•aiꞋ on earth – which is the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ of the Tei•mân•imꞋ.
Consequent to the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ and the influences of forced apostasies (first Christianity and then Islam), the wheels began to come off as the three major îÄéðÄéí of the 1st century began to splinter under rabbis who presumed to override and relinquish those elements of Tor•âhꞋ shë-bikh•tâvꞋ that were claimed by "superseding" Christians, in order to differentiate Jews from Christianity. Then, during the Dark Ages, the plethora of îÄéðÄéí went off the rails into magic (Qa•bâl•âhꞋ) and superstitions, particularly in Medieval Europe.
 |
 Ra•a•nanꞋâ(h), Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ |
Scholarly consensus holds that the Tei•mân•iꞋ Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (which is more similar to Sᵊphâ•râd•iꞋ tradition than to Ash•kᵊnazꞋi tradition, but isn't part of the Sᵊphâ•râd•iꞋ tradition) is the most pristine Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, least changed from Har Sin•aiꞋ by external influences, on the planet. Accordingly, adhering to úÌåÉøÈä mi-Sin•aiꞋ requires beginning with this most pristine core of Tei•mân•iꞋ Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ and fine-tuning it to the most modern understandings of logic and science (including archeology) applied to documented history.
Because the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ insist on beginning with this most pristine tradition, we rely principally on Tei•mân•iꞋ Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, fine-tuned to the most modern understandings of logic and science (including archeology) applied to documented history, to fill the lacunae not covered by RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa the Mâ•shiꞋakh – exclusively in NHM – to faithfully restore the ancient Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ as it was handed down to Mosh•ëhꞋ by é--ä at Har Sin•aiꞋ and promulgated by the Beit Din hâ-Jâ•dolꞋ.
This approach routinely conflicts with the Medieval – anti-science and anti-history – "rabbinic approach" of the Ultra-Orthodox. Therefore, the tal•midꞋ must exercise extreme caution when evaluating the assumptions, premises, reasoning and teachings even of Orthodox rabbis (while dismissing summarily the far greater apostasies of the non-Orthodox and goy•imꞋ – namely, Christians and Muslims). Additionally, the tal•midꞋ must resolutely defend practices that, while condemned by some rabbis, remain within the purview of the interpretations "mi-Sin•aiꞋ" according to historical documentation, logic and science. This routinely means defending some practices widely perceived as non-Orthodox (most notably, the use of electricity and music on ùÑÇáÌÈú).
These are the reasons why Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ are not permitted to retain any religious connections outside of Tei•mân•iꞋ and a moderate form of Orthodox Judaism. In locations where it isn't viable to pray in one of these, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ is charged with developing – and leading – a mi•nᵊyânꞋ faithful to these criteria.
|
|
Reading the English, it is impossible to tell that, in 17.5 and 18.4, "stranger" does not refer to a âÌÅø. Rather, the Hebrew is àÄéùÑ æÈø in 17.5 and æÈø in 18.4. Though æÈø may look a lot like âÌÅø to the uninitiated, they are no more related than dog and fog.
 250x125.jpg "5 sheqel coin") |
 600x300.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} |
As a product of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ, every firstborn male of Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ – "of man and animal" – belonged to the Ko•han•imꞋ (18.15). The îÇòÂùÒÅø of kâ•sheirꞋ animals as well as of fruits, vegetables and grains were given to the Ko•han•imꞋ directly unless prevented by distance (in which case money was substituted). Firstborn children were redeemed from the Ko•han•imꞋ for five shᵊqal•imꞋ. Today the five shᵊqal•imꞋ, or its equivalent in silver coins, is donated to an Orthodox mi•nᵊyânꞋ. This is the Pi•dᵊyonꞋ ha-Bein. For non-kâ•sheirꞋ animals, monetary contributions were substituted.
|
|
16.3— What is QōꞋrakh's argument? That "all of the qâ•hâlꞋ of Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ is ÷ÈãåÉùÑ and é--ä is among them" too. So why should Mosh•ëhꞋ and A•ha•ronꞋ and his descendants, the Ko•han•imꞋ, be regarded any higher than the Lᵊwi•yimꞋ, or even greater Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ? We hear this in the QōꞋrakhs of today: "What makes so-and-so more connected to God than me" (or "my clergy")?
His premise was correct. All Israel was ÷ÈãåÉùÑ and é--ä was among them too.
 |
(Gate, Circuit & "Truth Table") |
But QōꞋrakh's logic was faulty, and logic is the father of mathematics and science. Mathematics is one language for expressing logic. In championing rationalism – logic – against irrationalism of the mystics, and in corroboration of Shᵊm•otꞋ 23.2, Ram•ba"mꞋ acknowledged the overarching worldly authority of logic.
This is no mean observation. Judaism recognizes logic as the overriding factor determining the proper interpretation of Scripture and consequent determinant of correct Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
QōꞋrakh's logic was non sequitor (i.e., it, quite literally, does not compute). Why é--ä had placed A•har•onꞋ and the Ko•han•imꞋ above the ìÀåÄéÌÄéí was the jurisdiction of é--ä. He is not required to explain His choice to men. The ones chosen need not, and sometimes may not, know themselves why they were chosen. Yet, the Mâ•shiꞋakh (anointed) of é--ä was (as QōꞋrakh and the rest of his îÄéðÄéí soon discovered the hard way) properly grounded in Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ and not to be overturned by the ambitious or opportunistic.
|
|
This past week I received a prayer request from a person outside of the fold of Israel and RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, asking for health and peace of heart. Most any Christian, and probably most any rabbi, would have dutifully rattled off a few words and forgotten about it. But úÌåÉøÈä teaches differently.
Notice in this week's Ha•phᵊtâr•âhꞋ (12.23) that Shᵊmu•eilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ recognizes his responsibility to pray solely and exclusively for Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ – not those who choose to remain outside of the fold! "Rather, I shall instruct you in the good and proper path"!!!
This places the higher priority on the petitioner's eternal well-being rather than the expected – and personally easier – recitation of a vain placebo that takes the Name of é--ä profanely (see my paper, Profaning the Holy Name Unawares). How routinely people drown themselves by unthinkingly doing what is expected by peers as "socially acceptable," "proper etiquette" and "politically correct."
Unlike Christian allegations that é--ä requires perfect observance, úÌåÉøÈä requires only that one do his or her utmost to keep úÌåÉøÈä non-selectively. Read MikhꞋâh 6.8!
But those like QōꞋrakh who, to the contrary, rebel against leaders é--ä has placed in authority are destined not to receive abundant blessings and answered tᵊphil•otꞋ, but rather the demise described of QōꞋrakh and his îÄéðÄéí. So, if you follow the wrong cleric, you remain accountable for doing so.
As I read the prayer request, it said nothing about desiring health in order that the petitioner could continue studying how to keep the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä—"that you shall live in them"—or to continue studying úÌåÉøÈä in our Kha•vᵊr•utꞋâ.
Not being in a proper relationship with a Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Beit-Din, this person was, at best, selectively úÌåÉøÈä-observant (since úÌåÉøÈä requires subordinating "one's own eyes and one's own heart" to the authority of the Beit-Din from Sin•aiꞋ – which this person, clearly, was not doing).
 |
 Consuming Fire (Carmel 2010.12.03 AFP hâ-ÂrꞋëtz) |
Therefore, it's clear how to "see by one's fruits, that is their works"—"You shall recognize them by their Ma•as•ëhꞋ (NHM 7.16)—that the person isn't (non-selectively) úÌåÉøÈä-observant. "Every tree that is not producing good fruit is cut out and thrown into the àÅùÑ" (NHM 7.18).
And what does Ta•na"khꞋ stipulate concerning the tᵊphil•otꞋ of someone who isn't úÌåÉøÈä-observant? In Christianized versions, the citation describing the tᵊphil•otꞋ of Christians—including the Southern Baptists who questioned whether Jewish tᵊphil•otꞋ are heard—is found at "Proverbs" 28.9!
The reason for Ta•na"khꞋ's harsh words concerning tᵊphil•otꞋ from outside Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ is that the decision to be outside of Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ, not doing one's best to keep úÌåÉøÈä non-selectively, is the exercise of that persons free will – for which they are accountable! It's a voluntary, deliberate and wilfull rejection of (at least some part of) úÌåÉøÈä, and the voluntary, deliberate and wilfull rejection of é--ä's Instruction is a voluntary, deliberate and wilfull rejection of Him! How dare such a person offer up any prayer other than repentance to begin obeying úÌåÉøÈä non-selectively! Tᵊphil•âhꞋ must be preceded by the commitment to keep é--ä's úÌåÉøÈä non-selectively—the prayer of repentance and commitment. Even this prayer is consigned to Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ ShᵊlomꞋoh 28.9 unless it is preceded by action—making a beginning to keep úÌåÉøÈä non-selectively and as interpreted by a valid, competent and Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage Beit-Din (not according to "one's own eyes and heart"—who, likely, can't even read it).
|
|
| úÌåÉøÈä | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
|---|---|---|---|
| bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 18.31 | Regarding îÇòÇùÒøåÉú received by the ìÀåÄéÌÄéí in the various cities and villages from Beit Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ, after the ìÀåÄéÌÄéí, in turn, had given îÇòÇùÒøåÉú of it to the Ko•han•imꞋ: And you may eat it in every place, you and your household; because it is your wage in exchange for your work in the OꞋhël Mo•eidꞋ. The ìÀåÄéÌÄéí lived in a number of special cities throughout ËꞋëtz Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ. This passage clarifies that they weren't confined to eating these îÇòÇùÒøåÉú within the confines of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, as applied to some of the sacrifices. |
In every ir 2.23.0 and in every suburb 10.11.1 you enter, inquire diligently 2.8.1 regarding who in it is worthy and stay 10.11.2 there until you go forth.
This marks the contrast between the guidelines for the maintenance workers (ìÀåÄéÌÄéí), who were physically tied to, and periodically required to commute to, the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, and the emerging shᵊlikh•imꞋ Pᵊrush•imꞋ, who were not physically tied to or ritually dependent upon the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ like the ìÀåÄéÌÄéí and Ko•han•imꞋ before them. While the ìÀåÄéÌÄéí and Ko•han•imꞋ were oriented inward within the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ the emerging shᵊlikh•imꞋ Pᵊrush•imꞋ were oriented outward, bringing úÌåÉøÈä to the masses of Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ. This difference enabled the Pᵊrush•imꞋ to survive the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ while the ìÀåÄéÌÄéí and Ko•han•imꞋ both lost their only raison d'être, leaving the Pᵊrush•imꞋ as the sole remaining authority and bearers of úÌåÉøÈä. |
10.11 |
|
|
The Mᵊnorat ha-Maor section addresses differences with one's øá. For Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ a more basic question: who is your øá?
•marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (NHM 23.8): "Don't wish to be called RibꞋi, for you have one Tan•âꞋ, and you are all brothers."
And (NHM 5.19)!
"Whoever deletes one Oral Law from the úÌåÉøÈä, or shall teach others such, by those in the Realm of the heavens he shall be called 'deleted.' Both he who preserves and he who teaches them [the Oral Laws] shall be called øá in the Realm of the heavens."
|
|
Though ùäçåì÷ (shë-hakholeiq; one may differ, differentiate, create a schism or îÄéï; from the root verb çì÷—khâlaq, apportion, divide) from any man, this causes all of the wrong in the world-age. He who differs from his rav commits an â•wonꞋ, causing the failure of the world-age—and this is considered as if he differed from the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ.
As we have memorized (the çì÷ [Differentiate] chapter of Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 110.1): '•marꞋ Rav Khasᵊd•âꞋ, Everyone who differs from his rav is as if he differs from the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ. As it is said, "in their quarreling with é--ä (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 26.9).
•marꞋ RabꞋi Kham•aꞋ Bar-Khan•in•aꞋ: Everyone who does/makes a mᵊriv•âhꞋ (dispute) with his rav is as if he does/makes it with the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ, as it is said, 'These are the waters of Mᵊriv•âhꞋ (Disputation—ibid. 20.13).
•marꞋ RabꞋi Kham•aꞋ Bar-Khan•in•aꞋ: Everyone who thunders-with-rage at his rav is as if he thunders-with-rage at the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ, as it is said, 'Not against us do you grumble, but against é--ä (Shᵊm•otꞋ 16.9).
•marꞋ RabꞋi A•vaꞋhu: Everyone who suspects his rav is as if he suspects the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ, as it is said, 'And the kindred spoke against Ël•oh•imꞋ and Mosh•ëhꞋ (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 21.5).
(Translated so far)
|
|
|