|
The reason this simple page of glossary definitions is ranked so popular with the search engine is because so many people click on our links to these definitions from the content in… the 'Netzarim Quarter' Village web site in Ra•an•anꞋâ(h), Israel at www.netzarim.co.il
The real content is in the 'Netzarim Quarter'! Click on our logo above for an exciting visit to the 'Netzarim Quarter' where you'll learn about Historical Ribi Yehoshua and his original, Jewish, followers before the great Roman-Hellenist apostasy of 135 C.E.—and even more importantly, how you (whether Jew or non-Jew) can follow the historically true, Judaic, Ribi Yehoshua. In Hebrew, his original followers were called the Netzarim (Hellenized to "Nazarenes").
Until Paqid Yirmeyahu researched the Netzarim name and sect and began publishing about it in 1972 in The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) no one in modern times was even aware of the name Netzarim. It stretches credulity that no one in modern times had heard of the Netzarim until Paqid Yirmeyahu published it in 1972… and then, suddenly, everybody figured it out??? Check (and verify) the dates of the earliest works about the Netzarim by the others and you'll see that they are deceiver-plagiarists. Then insist on the person whom ha-Sheim selected to entrust the knowledge, not imposters who falsely call their continuing practice of Displacement Theology "Nazarene Judaism" or directly plagiarize the name "Netzarim."
Because we teach and practice the authentic Judaic teachings of Ribi Yehoshua—not Displacement Theology—we are the only group who have restored the Netzarim to be accepted in the legitimate Jewish community in Israel—genuinely like Ribi Yehoshua and the original Netzarim. Consequently, the 'Netzarim Quarter' is the only web site of legitimate Netzarim / Nazarene Judaism.
Give all the friends you've ever known the chance to know about this exciting site; send them our web site address (www.netzarim.co.il) that opens modern eyes for the first time to the Judaic world that Ribi Yehoshua and his original Netzarim knew, practiced and taught.
טַעַם 
[Updated: 2011.07.26]
 |
 Tei•mân•iꞋ Accent & Cantillation Marks |
taꞋam;
טַעֲמֵי הַמִּקְרָא (ta•am•eiꞋ ha-mi•qrâꞋ) – cantillation, liturgical chant (lit. tastes, or flavors, of the miꞋqrâ). These marks determine the accents and punctuation according to the Oral Tradition of the community, which dictates the traditional meaning, governing the proper interpretation, of the passage.
Each element of the Jewish community has its own tradition for the liturgical chants. The most pristine is טַעֲמֵי הַמִּקְרָא הַתֵּימָנִים (ta•am•eiꞋ ha-miꞋqrâ ha-Tei•mân•imꞋ).
טָהוֹר [Updated: 2006.04.27]
tâ•hōrꞋ;
'תַאג [Updated: 2006.04.27]
 |
Taj;
תַּחֲנוּן [Updated: 2010.07.20]
Ta•khan•unꞋ;
טָלֶה [Updated: 2010.05.20]
 |
| Tâl•ëhꞋ |
Tâl•ëhꞋ;
Before there was paper money, checks, credit cards or banks, a tâl•ëhꞋ served as a donation, or payment of a court-imposed fine, equal in today’s currency (2019), to approx. ₪630 or U.S. $175.
טַלִּית [Updated: 2018.10.04]
 0250x237.jpg "Tzitzit with Pëtil Tëkheilët") |
 1949x1846.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Ta•litꞋ with Tzitz•itꞋ including pëtilꞋ tëkheilꞋët, tied No•sakhꞋ Tei•mân•iꞋ |
Tal•itꞋ;
The modern "Jewish" 4-cornered, poncho-like "prayer shawl", appears to conflate the fringed-kaftan worn by Jews in Biblical times with the sun-protection scarf worn in ancient Egypt, and likely throughout the ancient middle-east, that is still evident in today's Arab غُترَة (ghutrah; head scarf) held in place by an عقال (agal; black goat-hair rope) – see also mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët, tō•tëphꞋët and kip•âhꞋ.
 |
| Arab Ghutrah-agal headdress (Trumps' visit to Saudi-Arabian Palace, NBC News 2017.05.20) |
It is exceedingly rare today to find a tal•itꞋ having tzitz•itꞋ with a pᵊtil tᵊkheilꞋët, as required by Ta•na"khꞋ and, therefore, for Originalist-Orthodox Jews. i.e. Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ. Since I've been wearing this in Israel from 1985, it has become rabbinically acceptable for Orthodox Jews. A few have begun wearing this and the trend is growing. For Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, the tzitz•itꞋ must also be tied according to the No•sakhꞋ Tei•mân•iꞋ.
For a visiting non-Jew to wear a tal•itꞋ invites an undesirable misidentification on two counts.
The tal•itꞋ is the principal sign by which members of the Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët distinguish whether a visitor is a Jew or a non-Jew. This is a necessary device since it is customary to call a visiting Jew up to Tōr•âhꞋ, but not visitors who are non-Jews.
The tal•itꞋ is the principal sign by which unmarried Jewesses of the Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët distinguish whether a visitor is a Jew or a non-Jew. This is a necessary device to discourage socializing with non-Jews that might lead to intermarriage.
Tei•mân•imꞋ boys begin wearing a child-sized tal•itꞋ at the same time as a kip•âhꞋ – from the time they're aware enough, and capable, to keep it on. Thus, the earliest practice does not view the tal•itꞋ as a device for young maidens to distinguish eligible Jewish bachelors from Jewish married men, as practiced today among Sᵊphârâd•imꞋ (and also, I think, Ash•kᵊnazꞋim). This is only one of a number of assimilations through the millennia that need to be restored. 
תַּלמִיד
[Updated: 2017.10.19]
tal•midꞋ,
תַּלְמוּד ( Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ,
There are two Ta•lᵊmūd•imꞋ:
יְרוּשַׁלמִי (Yᵊru•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ): The earliest extant Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ is embedded in the Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊru•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ (as this was during the Gâl•utꞋ from Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim it is, more accurately, the Israeli – geographically Galilean – Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ), redacted c 400 C.E.
בַּבלִי (Ba•vᵊl•iꞋ) Because the Babylonian-assimilated returnees from Babylon carried with them the imprimatur of the Babylonian King, Koresh Jr. "the Great", their Babylonian-assimilated traditions, which they had codified during their Exile in their Babylonian Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ, dominated over the more pristine Biblical Israeli ("Jerusalem") Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ (even that, like the Babylonian counterpart, reflected Assyrian, and later Hellenist, assimilation). When the returned Babylonian-assimilated Jews declared, by authority of the Babylonian King Koresh, Jr., who ruled over YᵊhudꞋâh at that time, that their Babylonian-assimilated traditions, which they codified in their Babylonian Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ, was the law, it was – literally – the (assimilated) law – Babylonian-assimilated, not Tōr•âhꞋ-correct!
Thus, by convention, Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Ba•vᵊl•iꞋ is assumed unless otherwise stated. Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Ba•vᵊl•iꞋ was codified at the end of the 5th century C.E., setting forth the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ handed down by early Jewish Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ of the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ and other Bât•eiꞋ-Din dating back into the 1st century B.C.E.. These record discussion and real-life, practical, day-to-day interpretation and implementation of Tōr•âhꞋ through the court decisions of the various Bât•eiꞋ-Din.
In contrast to the later rabbinic redactions, the initial traditions, c B.C.E. 538, of both the Galilean-Israeli and Babylonian-assimilated Gâl•utꞋ must be recognized as preceding the first rabbis (B.C.E. 166) by almost four centuries; nearly half a millennium. However, even the pre-rabbinic Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ from the B.C.E. sixth century, when the Babylonian Gâl•utꞋ began, is extant exclusively in the rabbinic Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ – i.e., through the later lens of rabbinic perspective and, in the case of, the Babylonian Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ, through the additional lens of Babylonian assimilation.
תָּם [Updated: 2013.05.28]
tâm;
תֹּם, adj. & m.n. (tōm; whole, wholeness, made whole, affirmatively resolved, innocent, innocence, artless, guileless, integrity).
תֻּמִּים (tum•imꞋ, wholesomenesses or affirmative resolutions) combined with the אוּרִים (ur•imꞋ; firelights), pl. of אוּר (ur; firelight), a derivative of אוֹר (ōr; light).
In modern Hebrew, these terms have developed the connotation of naive and unsophisticated.
טָמֵא [Updated: 2006.06.14]
tâ•meiꞋ;
טוּמאָה, also טֻמאָה (tum•âhꞋ) is the noun, contamination or a contaminant. This was understood among Hellenist Jews, via LXX, as αλισγημα (alisgeima; polluted).
תָּמִיד [Updated: 2007.03.07]
Tâ•midꞋ;
תַּנָּא [Updated: 2006.05.01]
Tan•âꞋ,
תנ"ך
[Updated: 2006.05.01]
Ta•na"khꞋ;
In all Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ works, references to Ta•na"khꞋ refer to the original Hebrew and specifically exclude Christian versions, all of which Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) and The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhꞋu (NHM) document are highly Hellenized (i.e. misojudaicized / Christianized through Christian redaction) and are, therefore, inaccurate, and misleading.
תּוֹעֶה [Updated: 2019.01.18]
tō•ëhꞋ (participial adj. & n.); consistently referring to [one who is] straying, back-sliding, mistaking, erring, wandering, rebelling, lost; a strayer or a straying; pl. תּוֹעִים.
תּוֹעָה pl. תּוֹעוֹת
Contrast against hitᵊbō•leilꞋ, kheit, mū•mârꞋ, mᵊshū•mâdꞋ and כְּפִירָה.
טָרֵף [Updated: 2018.06.24]
tâ•reiphꞋ (adj.) —
By halakhic extension, tâ•reiphꞋ includes meat from animals that are halakhically unfit—organically or otherwise, including meat from an animal that hasn't been inspected and slaughtered according to Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
תַּרגוּם [Updated: 2006.04.27]
Tar•gumꞋ;
Tar•gumꞋ Onkelos (Aquila), Aramaic translation of the תּוֹרָה – The provenance of Tar•gumꞋ Onkelos dates to the late 1st – early 2nd century C.E. However, the tradition of the "convert" author of Tar•gumꞋ Onkelos seems to be [a] based on a misreading of "Aquila" and [b] erroneously ascribed to an anonymous Aramaic translation – perhaps even that of ËꞋzᵊr•â (BCE 409-359).
Tar•gumꞋ Yo•nâ•tânꞋ, Aramaic translation of the Nᵊviy•imꞋ – The provenance of Tar•gumꞋ Yo•nâ•tânꞋ is unclear. Passages of Tar•gumꞋ Yo•nâ•tânꞋ are quoted in the Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Ba•vᵊl•iꞋ. The consensus of historians seem to regard Yo•nâ•tânꞋ as a misreading of an abbreviation for Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim, and a Tar•gumꞋ likely developed over a period of time, perhaps originating with ËꞋzᵊr•â (BCE 409-359).
Both Tar•gum•imꞋ were edited, early in the 4th century, by Ba•vᵊl•iꞋ Âmor•âꞋ and head of a yᵊshiv•âhꞋ in Pumbadita, Bâ•vëlꞋ, Rav Yo•seiphꞋ Bar Khiya (d. 333 C.E.).
תַּשְׁלִיךְ [Updated: 2019.10.09]
Ta•shᵊlikhꞋ;
Ta•shᵊlikhꞋ is the name of a superfluous, extra-Scriptural, European REFORM ritual of some Ultra-Orthodox Jews. They recite:"May You fling…" — a ritual of emptying one's (already empty) pockets (of pretend a•veir•ōtꞋ) and pretending to fling them in the sea, a lake or stream. This is based on commemorating the metaphoric (else anthropomorphic) flinging, by י‑‑ה, of real a•veir•ōtꞋ into the sea (Mikh•âhꞋ 7.19).
תַּבְנִית [Updated: 2013.05.07]
ta•vᵊn•itꞋ;
The Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ designed by Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ (43, et al.) was not only never built, but (as Artscroll "Yechezkel" demonstrates is physically and geographically impossible to fit within Israel) was the תַּבְנִית for how the Second Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ was supposed to be, but wasn't, understood—a Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ in the spiritual realm.
According to Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ's תַּבְנִית, the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ was never intended to come down to physical and geographical Israel. Rather, physical Israel—the kindred living in the land of geographical Israel—was intended to ascend regularly to the spiritual Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, interceding on behalf of all mankind as the buffer between the י‑‑ה of Israel and the rest of mankind; the prophesied realm of Ko•han•imꞋ (Shᵊm•otꞋ 19.5-6).
Additionally, this interpretation, alone, overcomes the endless contradictions deriving from interpretations stuck in a physical domain—the Moslem cemetary immediately in front of the East Gate, prophecies of eternal, invulnerable and inviolable nature, and the like.
תְּהִלָּה [Updated: 2006.05.01]
Tᵊhil•âhꞋ, pl. תְּהִלִּים (Tᵊhil•imꞋ);
תֵּימָנִי [Updated: 2020.06.26]
Tei•mân•iꞋ, fem. תֵּימָנִית (Tei•mân•itꞋ), pl. תֵּימָנִים (Tei•mân•imꞋ);
No•sakhꞋ Tei•mân•iꞋ is regarded by most scholars as the least contaminated by external factors in the world. (See, for example, A.Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Music (New York: Schocken, 1967), pp. 22-23, 67.)
Hence, No•sakhꞋ Tei•mân•iꞋ is the most pristine representation on the planet (followed by other Jews of Middle Eastern origin: Iraqi, the closest; then Iranian and other Sᵊpha•rad•imꞋ; loc. cit.) of the pristine Judaism of Har Sin•aiꞋ that MoshꞋëh knew.
The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ were dormant from 135 C.E. until the 1970s. Until they were ousted by gentile Roman "bishops" that year, the only evidence of dispute between the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and Pᵊrush•imꞋ, other than condemning sanctimony, appears to have been with the Roman-collaborating, Boethusian-Herodian "Pᵊrush•imꞋ" loathed by the mainstream Pᵊrush•imꞋ.
The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, lacking our own halakhic tradition since 135 C.E., fill in the lucanae with the most pristine halakhic tradition, least compromised by extra-Judaic influences since Har Sin•aiꞋ, on the planet—No•sakhꞋ Tei•mân•iꞋ. This stands in stark contrast to the Christian tradition of filling in lucanae with post-135 C.E. gentile, Hellenist-Roman mythology and idolatry.
תֵּל [Updated: 2006.04.27]
teil,
תֵּבָה [Updated: 2006.04.27]
teiv•âhꞋ;
תֵּבֵל [Updated: 2008.04.17]
teiꞋveil;
Note: distinguish from תֶּבֶל (tëvꞋël) 1. unnatural contamination or foreign infusion into the natural order. 2. a spice or seasoning – the Aramaic pl., תַּבְלִין, is conventionally preferred instead.
תְּכֵלֶת [Updated: 2019.03.06]
|
| Ta•litꞋ with Tzitz•itꞋ with pëtilꞋ tëkheilꞋët, tied No•sakhꞋ Tei•mân•iꞋ |
 260x200.jpg "Khilazon - Murex trunculus (encyclopedie-universelle.com)") |
 407x313.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Khilazon – Murex trunculus (encyclopedie-universelle.com) |
TᵊkheilꞋët;
What Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ condemned was the fraudulent selling of the far cheaper indigo dye made from the indigo plant, which could not be distinguished from the far more expensive dye made from the Murex trunculus, as the latter and at the latter's price. There is not a word in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ against non-wealthy Jews substituting indigo dye – nor, therefore, any justification for the rabbinic subtraction of the requirement of the tᵊkheilꞋët cord from Tōr•âhꞋ. Indeed, the only 1st century tzitz•itꞋ that archeologists have found – of a soldier of Bar-KokhꞋvâ under the rabbinic supervision of RabꞋi A•qiꞋvâ – was dyed with dye made from the indigo plant, not from the Murex trunculus snail!
פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת (pᵊtil tᵊkheilet) is the thread of indigo-color, which Tōr•âhꞋ commands must be included in the tzitzꞋit.
טְחִינָה [Updated: 2007.02.26]
 |
| Tᵊkhina |
TᵊkhinꞋâh
Mix tᵊkhina, garlic, water, pepper, salt and lemon juice until you get smooth paste. Add water if tᵊkhina is too thick.
תְּנוּפָה [Updated: 2019.08.15]
tᵊnūph•âhꞋ;
תְּפִלָּה [Updated: 2016.01.03]
tᵊphil•âhꞋ, pl. תְּפִלוֹת (Tᵊphil•ōtꞋ); :1. "to judge, arbitrate" or "invoke as a judge" and 2. "to pray."
The verb is always found in the hit•pa•eilꞋ: הִתְפַּלֵּל (hit•pa•leilꞋ; he prayed).
Klein suggests a possible association of the second meaning, to pray, with the verb נָפַל. However, the first and second meanings can easily be seen as one interrelated theme:
the first (judging or arbitrating) being to determine a verdict and
the second (praying) being to "invoke as a judge" in struggling to reach a determination or verdict; i.e., struggling to understand and ascertain direction from י‑‑ה, from His Tōr•âhꞋ – i.e., the revealed רְצוֹן י‑‑ה – as contrasted against asking for something from our own will (our own eyes and our own heart).
This may expose the deeper meaning of hit•pa•eilꞋ – and the deeper meaning of serving י‑‑ה.
To pray is the secondary meaning of פִּלֵּל. The primary meaning is to make a determination, to render a verdict, implying consequent to careful deliberation. Accordingly, for תְּפִלָּה to be successful, one must pray compatibly with, after having given careful deliberation to, Tōr•âhꞋ and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (vide Mish•leiꞋ ShlomꞋoh 28.9).
However, תְּפִלָּה, at this point, is still unfinished and unproductive. Like a warrior preparing himself or herself before going into battle, תְּפִלָּה is the spiritual warriors' pre-combat, self-preparation ritual. A soldier going through the rituals of pre-battle self-preparation has not yet done any fighting at all. Such a soldier is "all parade and no fight" – a useless pretense of a soldier. As cowboys used to say about their imitators, "all hat and no cattle." The same is true of תְּפִלָּה. The תְּפִלָּה isn't finished until the one making תְּפִלָּה is struggling his or her utmost to make it happen. The old adage is potently true: don't bother to pray for deliverance from the storm (again, Mish•leiꞋ ShlomꞋoh 28.9) unless you're rowing for shore. If it's not worth your utmost efforts to make it happen, then you have no right to pray for it. If you're not actively making your utmost efforts to make it happen, then boasting that you are praying, or will pray, for it would be hypocritical.
One who claims to keep Tōr•âhꞋ yet makes תְּפִלָּה without doing one's utmost to carry it (which complies with Tōr•âhꞋ) out and make it happen contravenes Mish•leiꞋ ShlomꞋoh 28.9 – a vain prayer!
Don't be like the Ultra-Orthodox / Kha•reid•iꞋ hypocrites – all ceremonial costume-ritual having strayed from Tōr•âhꞋ. See The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM, in English) note 21.21.1.
טֹטָפֹת (modern תְּפִלִּין) [Updated: 2020.09.06]
 |
Egyptian seshed headband-crown, which featured the uræus pendant centerpiece. The seshed held the khat scarf headdress in place; similar to that found on the mask of  426x640.jpg){kind=small}  423x637.jpg){kind=small} |
Tō•tâph•ōtꞋ (pl.), sing. טוֹטֶפֶת
Unlike later European sunbeam-radiating pointed crowns of the distant future and alien to Middle East cultures, ancient Middle Eastern royalty wore gold, tiara-like seshed-crowns featuring icon-pendants on the forehead, between the eyes. These icon-pendants represented the Divine Powers of their gods believed to be controlled by the wearer. This royal, gold, Middle-Eastern crown served as a living marquee to display the national religious priestly icon(s).
The purpose of the seshed-crown, aside from holding the scarf headdress in place, was to spotlight the uræus miniature god-idol of WadꞋjet ("Eye of HōrꞋus in hieroglyph) on the Par•ohꞋ's forehead, auguring its protection and "divine authority" (later claimed by European royalty as well).
תְּפִלִּין – Directly from Har Sin•aiꞋFor the Hebrews leaving Egypt, however, such idolatry was an anathema. Displacing the idolatrous Egyptian uræus, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, a new-design, gold טוֹטֶפֶת was fashioned featuring a Tzitz framing a gold plaque, in which was– instead – engraved (in proto-Sinaitic Hebrew letters) the Name of י‑‑ה, to hold the new mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët of the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ in place.
The rest of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, to keep their mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët in place on their head, right from Har Sin•aiꞋ fashioned their טוֹטֶפֶת from the same material as the SeiphꞋër Tor•âhꞋ — kâ•sheirꞋ leather. Displacing the idolatrous Egyptian uræus, the Hebrews' version טוֹטֶפֶת featured 4 pouches, 1 pouch for each of the 4 mandated passages. These passages contain and spotlight the Protection, Divine Authority and Tōr•âhꞋ (Life's "Instruction" Manual) of י‑‑ה. The product? תְּפִלִּין!
|
| Ghutrah-agal Arab head scarf (Trump visiting Saudi palace; NBC News 2017.05.20) |
These kâ•sheirꞋ leather טוֹטֶפֶת, i.e. תְּפִלִּין, were worn by Israelis-Jews as an integral part of everyday attire through BCE 9th-7th centuries when pre-rabbinic Babylonian "Sages," assimilating to Babylonian culture and idolatry during their Exile, reformed DërꞋëkh י‑‑ה to relegate the wearing of תְּפִלִּין only during tᵊphil•âhꞋ.
(In an additional, consistent and corroborating assimilation and reform, the Babylonian "Sages" similarly displaced Scripturally-ordained spring-season New Year with the idolatrous Babylonian autumnal New Year, perverting autumn's Scriptural Yōm Tᵊrū•âhꞋ to the idolatrous Babylonian New Year (Hebrew: Rōsh ha-Shân•âhꞋ).
Vestiges of the ancient Middle-Eastern טוֹטֶפֶת that survive today include the Arabic عقال (agal; black goat-hair rope) to keep their غُترَة (ghutrah; head scarf) in place.
To protect the head from chafing under the טוֹטֶפֶת, a buffering undercap was worn. This undercap has survived the millennia as today's kip•âhꞋ and Arabic طاقية (taqiyah; dome). Arabs still wear the undercap where one would expect – under the head scarf (all held in place by the טוֹטֶפֶת). The undercap seems to have simply been left on indoors, like an undergarment for the head. Religious significance continued to reside in the טוֹטֶפֶת, securing the head scarf (today's ta•litꞋ) in place, with the undercap (today's kip•âhꞋ) underneath.
תְּפִלִּין – 1st-2nd Centuries CE – Bar-KōkhꞋvâSince the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ, muting the use of the gold טוֹטֶפֶת by the Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dōlꞋ, the term תְּפִלִּין became the more relevant term, rather than טוֹטֶפֶת.
 |
| Bar-KokhꞋvâ Tᵊphil•inꞋ ≈Actual Size |
Archaeologist יִגָּאֵל יָדִין discovered that the head תְּפִלִּין used by Bar-KokhꞋvâ's men, of the 1st–2nd centuries C.E., included, in one of its scrolls, the עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים. As a backlash to create greater difference from Christian practice, the rabbis instituted a reform, eliminating this passage of Scripture from the scroll.
Thus, from Har Sin•aiꞋ (c. B.C.E. ) to Bar-KōkhꞋvâ (135 C.E.), there are no historically documented changes in the תְּפִלִּין. Aside from the Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dōlꞋ, תְּפִלִּין was the טוֹטֶפֶת of Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, holding their mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët (assimilated and reformed to a ta•litꞋ) in place, with a kip•âhꞋ underneath as an undercap.
 |
 My Har Sin•aiꞋ-faithful תְּפִלִּין
(Enlarge fully for actual size) |
Because todays Orthodox rabbis rigidly limit sō•phᵊr•imꞋ suppliers of scrolls and makers of tᵊphil•inꞋ to these larger boxes, Jews today can only obtain:
) breaking from the original style documented by Bar-KōkhꞋvâ's men,If you believe that Mōsh•ëhꞋ and ancient Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ have an afterlife, who would you have recognize you in your afterlife: Mōsh•ëhꞋ or the modern, Ottoman-ordained Ra•bân•utꞋ? Because they are intractably contradictory on many more issues than these. This is only one of a number of assimilations through the millennia that need to be restored.
תְּפוּצָה [Updated: 2006.04.27]
Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ;
תְּרָפִים [Updated: 2019.12.03]
 Sumerian antediluvian sage (apkallu) 150x420.jpg "teraph Adapa merman fish Dagon ichthus mitre") |
 Sumerian antediluvian sage (apkallu) 235x665.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Tâ•râphꞋ of Dâg•ōnꞋ or Adapa merman (origin of |
 |
| Tâ•râphꞋ: |
Tᵊrâph•imꞋ; gods used to feel watched or protected, for good luck—as well as for healing and divination and, thus, considered priceless (Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ 17.5; 18.17).
Tᵊrâph•imꞋ were usually small, portable, figurine idols similar to the figurines of Yësh"u, "angels" and "cherubs" treasured by Christians today (see bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 31.34; but sometimes life-size, see Shᵊmu•eilꞋ ÂlꞋëph 19.13).
See also Shᵊmu•eilꞋ ÂlꞋëph 15.23; Mᵊlâkh•imꞋ Beit 23.24; Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 21.26 and Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 10.2.
According to Klein, the term Tᵊrâph•imꞋ is of uncertain origin—like its probable stem, תֹּֽרֶף, meaning (PBH, deriving from earlier related origins)
By extension, תֹּֽרֶף refers to the essence and essentials of a contract (i.e., bᵊrit) in contrast to its template—"that part of a document which makes it binding." (Relative to a contract, the שֵׁד is the details.)
It appears likely that תֹּֽרֶף is a cognate of תֳּרֶף, which Klein defines as a poetic variant of תְּרוּפָה, which we know derives from רִפֵּא—for the pagans a function believed to be performed by their tᵊrâph•imꞋ.
תְּקִיעָה [Updated: 2006.04.27]
TᵊqiyꞋâh;
תְּקִיעָה גְדוֹלָה – an elongated tᵊqiyꞋâh (as long as trumpeter can make it, at least 3x the usual length) "Attack!" call (and final blast in the liturgy).
תְּרוּעָה [Updated: 2006.04.27]
TᵊruꞋâh;
Among Jews of 4th century C.E. Europe, the authentic ancient sound of tᵊruꞋâh became shrouded in controversy. European Jews thought that tᵊruꞋâh was a glissando warble-initiated, series of 9 monotonic staccato notes sounded urgently (quickly, typically totaling about 4 seconds). Yet, confusion arose because some, correctly, held that tᵊruꞋâh was the original 3-glissando warble tremolo blast. Thus, tᵊruꞋâh evolved, and was subsequently redefined in Europe, to 9 monotonic staccato notes in quick succession – while the original tᵊruꞋâh is today called shᵊvâr•imꞋ. As a result of this well-documented controversy, both versions were adopted, to be sounded in unbroken succession (the mislabeled, correct sound, first), whereas in ancient Biblical Israel, only what is today called shᵊvâr•imꞋ was heard–and was known as tᵊruꞋâh.
תְּרוּמָה [Updated: 2018.12.13]
tᵊrūm•âhꞋ pl. תְּרוּמוֹת. Contrast with tᵊnūph•âhꞋ (brandished or waved).
Since the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ hâ-Rish•onꞋ – because of the departure of the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ, which never returned (rendering acceptable sacrifices forever impossible), with the accompanying losses of the Mi•zᵊbeiꞋakh and Har ha-BaꞋyit, tᵊrūm•âhꞋ, a priori, typically refers today specifically to the tᵊrūm•âtꞋ khal•âhꞋ set aside for kō•han•imꞋ.
The name of the 6th Tractate of the Order זְרָעִים, in the Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ, To•sëphꞋᵊtâ, and Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ (lacking in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bâ•vᵊl•iꞋ) detailing the laws of tᵊrūm•âhꞋ to be given to the kō•heinꞋ in accordance with Tōr•âhꞋ..
תְּשׁוּבָה [Updated: 2019.05.13]
tᵊshuv•âhꞋ;
Contrary to popular notions among goy•imꞋ, י--ה does not confer ki•purꞋ unconditionally; He requires a demonstrated change in one's life practice—(re)turning to Tōr•âhꞋ—as a prerequisite. As stipulated in the Shᵊm•aꞋ, one is required to keep all of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Tōr•âhꞋ to one's utmost—viz., "with all one's heart, nëphꞋësh and might [lit. "very"]"—"for the purpose of extending your days and the days of your children… like the days of the heavens above the earth" (i.e., eternal life).
Scripture stipulates two "substages" of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ (Ency. Jud., 14.73):
Negative: ceasing a•veir•otꞋ of Tōr•âhꞋ (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 33.15; Tᵊhil•imꞋ 15; 24.4)
Positive: proactively practicing the positive mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ (Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 1.17; 58.5ff; Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 7.3; 26.13; •mosꞋ 5.14-15; Tᵊhil•imꞋ 34.15-16; 37.27)—and wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 5.20-26: י‑‑ה requires making restitution, plus 20%, not merely for damages to sacred property or the mi•tzᵊwōtꞋ, but also including making restitution, plus 20%, to any wronged human beings or their property! י‑‑ה doesn’t provide ki•pūrꞋ for transgressions or damages against people unless this restitution, plus 20%, has been made to the injured persons!
Tᵊshuv•âhꞋ is a matter of free choice. Not everyone chooses tᵊshuv•âhꞋ (and י--ה never overrides one's free will that He bestowed). Thus, only a "remnant" will make tᵊshuv•âhꞋ. "In the teaching of both [Ho•sheiꞋa] and [Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu], on the other hand, the call to turn back is never abandoned. When [Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu] despairs of man's capability of self-renewal, he postulates that [Ël•oh•imꞋ] will provide "a new heart" that will overcome [a•veir•âhꞋ] and merit eternal [ki•purꞋ] (31.32-33; 32.39-40; cf. [Dᵊvâr•imꞋ] 30.6; [Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ] 36.26.27)" (Ency. Jud., 14.74).
The traditional phrase חָזַר בִּתשׁוּבָה (khâ•zarꞋ bi-tᵊshuv•âhꞋ) means "return (to Tōr•âhꞋ-observance) in response."
In recent decades, in which 90+% of Jews have become estranged from rabbinic views and serious and sincere questions have gone unanswered by the rabbis, the retort from modern questioning Jews has become חָזַר בִּשְׁאֵלָה (khâ•zarꞋ bi-shᵊ•eil•âhꞋ; return in question).
One who returns to Tōr•âhꞋ-observance is called a baꞋal tᵊshuv•âhꞋ.
Tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, the "return" to Tōr•âhꞋ-observance, is only possible for one who previously kept Tōr•âhꞋ; i.e. a Jew (or geir), who is from a Tōr•âhꞋ-observant environment and, so, is "returning." (Non-Jews must make ni•lᵊwëhꞋ; cf. The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhꞋu (NHM) 4.17.1 note.)
It's as non-sensical for Goy•imꞋ to speak of a "return" to the Tōr•âhꞋ they've never known as it is for a gentile to speak of being "born again"—implying, in Judaic literature, "as a Jew." As in the 1st century, Goy•imꞋ can interface in the Jewish community only by
טְבִילָה [Updated: 2006.04.27]
 |
 מִקְוֶה |
tᵊvil•âhꞋ;
In the first century C.E., one who practiced and advocated טְבִילָה (tᵊvil•âhꞋ), including one who supervised, witnessed and attested to the validity of tᵊvil•âhꞋ, was called "ha-Mat•bilꞋ" (the מַטבִּיל [Mat•bilꞋ]). (The immersant cannot be touching anything, even clothes or jewelry. The Judaic practice has always been grossly different from the Christian misunderstanding and subsequent perversion of it.)
Today, Jewish men aren't required to have a supervising witness and the woman who supervises tᵊvil•âhꞋ for Jewish women has an entirely unrelated title. Thus, the term Mat•bilꞋ has no accurate and correct parallel today.
Archeology has confirmed the halakhic requirements of the miq•wëhꞋ.
For tᵊvil•âhꞋ to be valid, the Mat•bilꞋ checked (and today's women's attendant checks), inter alia, that nothing—not even a ring, hairpin, dirt under fingernails, or the like—is touching the body (much less another person) during immersion, as well as to ensure that the entire body, including all hair, is completely enveloped in water. This means that tᵊvil•âhꞋ can only be performed entirely nude. Modesty, of course, must also be maintained.
To ensure all halakhic requirements are satisfied so that a tᵊvil•âhꞋ is valid, the מַטבִּיל (and today's women's attendant), who only instructs, inspects and witnesses, must be thoroughly familiar with halakhic requirements.
For numerous reasons, no "baptism" performed by Christians, depicted in their movies, etc.—and a public event in front of an audience—qualifies as tᵊvil•âhꞋ.
TR [Updated: 2006.04.27]
Textus Receptus; "Received Text" (1624 C.E.). The Greek text rendered from the earlier English—'King James Version'—of 1611 C.E. by the Anglican Church of England.
TR occasionally diverges from all early source mss. TR is also known as the Elzevir text.
תִּכּלַאל [Updated: 2008.03.31]
 |
Ti•klalꞋ;
תִּ?ון עוֹלָם [Updated: 2008.10.26]
Ti•?onꞋ O•lâmꞋ
תִּכּוֹן תֵּבֵל (Ti•konꞋ TeiꞋveil; may the civilized-world be measured out, meted out, apportioned, calculated, weighed out)—relative to Hav•dâl•âhꞋ; i.e., to adjudicate-mi•shᵊpâtꞋ differentiating sheep from sheep, rams and billygoats" (NHM 25.32). The meaning of regulate, arrange or fix is Modern Hebrew according to Klein.
This phrase, echoed in the Tei•mân•iꞋ si•durꞋ (Yom Tov Mu•sâphꞋ), derives from the ordained order (first all of hâ-ÂꞋrëtz, "then" the Goy•imꞋ) set forth in Tᵊhil•imꞋ 93.1; 96.10 & Di•vᵊr•eiꞋ ha-Yâm•imꞋ ÂlꞋëph 16.30:
"Tremble before Him all hâ-ÂꞋrëtz,
".
אַף-תִּכּוֹן תֵּבֵל
בַּל תִּמּוֹט
לְתַכֶּן עוֹלָם (lᵊ-ta•kënꞋ O•lâmꞋ; to measure out, mete out, apportion, calculate, weigh out [or "for measuring out, meting out, apportioning, calculating, weighing out"] an o•lâmꞋ),
"…to quickly see the Opulence of Your Strength, causing idols to pass away from hâ-ÂꞋrëtz and the faux-g*ods to be absolutely excised—לְתַכֶּן עוֹלָם in the Kingdom of Shad•aiꞋ…"
Here, Ash•kᵊnazꞋim sidurim read: לְתַקֵּן עוֹלָם (lᵊ-ta•qeinꞋ o•lâmꞋ; to repair an o•lâmꞋ), popularly understood as "repairing [or reforming] the world!!!
תִּקּוּן עוֹלָם (ti•qunꞋ O•lâmꞋ; repairing the world), popularly understood as human (Jewish Kabbalist or Humanist-Reform) efforts to "reform" the world—which contradicts Tᵊhil•imꞋ 3.9; et al. & 118.8-9!!!
The closest Scriptural mention is Qo•hëlꞋët 7.13: "Who can לְתַקֵּן (lᵊ-ta•qeinꞋ; repair) what He has twisted?"
Are humans reforming the world or are Tōr•âhꞋ-keepers, with their nᵊphâsh•otꞋ, establishing the stones of a spiritual Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shelishit in the heavens? Do we look in this world or in hâ-o•lâmꞋ ha-bâꞋ? Surprisingly, many look to peace and all of the fulfillments in this physical world when all of the prophecies describe the spiritual hâ-o•lâmꞋ ha-bâꞋ in which ha-Sheim dwells.
European לְתַקֵּן? Or Biblical (Tei•mân•iꞋ and Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ) לְתַכֶּן?
The Biblically-compatible phrase is תִּכּוּן עוֹלָם (ti•kunꞋ o•lâmꞋ; apportioning the world—i.e., separating the sheep from the goats).
"Times of the Gentiles" [Updated: 2006.04.27]
A Gentile & NT concept; (Lk. 21.20-28 & Rev. 11.1-2). Though not recognized by Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and other Orthodox Jews as authoritative, these passages derive from Dâ•ni•eilꞋ 7.25-27.
The "Times of the Gentiles" began with the banishment of Jews—and usurpation of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ—from Yᵊru•shâ•layꞋim in 135 C.E. and ended with the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 (and of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ in 1985). The celestial sign "in the stars" of Lk. 21.25 was fulfilled in 1994 by the collision of the bride-like comet, Shoemaker-Levy 9 , with the Mâ•shiꞋakh-"star" (TzëdꞋëq). For further information, reference Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC).
תִנֻחָמוּ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם [Updated: 2009.10.11]
Ti•nu•khâm•uꞋ min ha-Shâ•mâꞋyim;
תִּקְוָה [Updated: 2012.12.22]
TiꞋqᵊwâh
טִיּוּל [Updated: 2008.04.17]
Ti•yulꞋ;
תּוֹדָה [Updated: 2020.04.09]
tōd•âhꞋ; also the associated animal sacrifice offering.
הִתְוֵדָּה, he thankfully-confessed.
While the constructs distinguish certain applications, there is no separate and distinct Hebrew term distinguishing "thank" from "confess". It was a single, combined theme.
See also cognate YᵊhūdꞋâh and synonyms bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ and qârᵊbânꞋ
תּוֹעֵבָה [Updated: 2006.04.27]
tō•eiv•âhꞋ, 
תּוֹלְדֹת [Updated: 2012.11.01]
(pl.) tō•lᵊd•ōtꞋ;
תּוֹרָה [Updated: 2020.07.15]
 |
| Tei•mân•iꞋ SeiphꞋër Tōr•âhꞋ |
תּוֹרָה (Tōr•âhꞋ); is the hiph•ilꞋ verbal noun of הוֹרָה, a cognate of מוֹרֶה.
The Christian miso-Judaic (de-Judaizing) assumption of an "Old" or "Testament" implies Displacement Theology and is deeply offensive to any knowledgeable, self-respecting Jew.
Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 17.10-11, echoed by RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa (The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu 23.1-8) and further corroborated by Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, have always demonstrated conclusively that Tōr•âhꞋ has ALWAYS consisted of two elements:
תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב; the first five books of Ta•na"khꞋ, and
תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל-פֶּה; instituted no later than the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ hâ-Rish•ōnꞋ, from which the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ departed, never again to reappear in a physical place — Biblical (i.e. pre-rabbinic) Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.
תּוֹסֶפתָּא [Updated: 2006.04.27]
Tō•sëphꞋtâ;
תּוֹשָׁב [Updated: 2007.03.08]
Tō•shâvꞋ;
צַדִּיק [Updated: 2018.07.09]
Tza•diqꞋ (adj. & m.n.), pl. צַדִּיקִים (Tza•diq•imꞋ); .
When used with the specifier as a title, הַצַדִּיק ( ha-Tza•diqꞋ; "the just") identifies a person as the leader of a branch of pre-Dark Ages Kha•sid•imꞋ. The honorific title of Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" (Hellenized to "James the Just") Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, first Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ and brother of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, is well documented.
צַדִּיקוּת (tza•diq•ūtꞋ) – just, as defined by computational-logic based parsing — that rejects logical fallacies and confirms proper logic by computer, free of human bias, producing proper Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ/Tōr•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ-al-pëhꞋ of Tōr•âhꞋ shë-bi-khᵊtâvꞋ; i.e. truth-based, logic-parsed justness — justice.
Contrast this with "the law" (as a product of lawyers and rabbis) and their legal definition of "justice" they equate to conformance with "the law" – even when the result contradicts truth. Many legal precedents were based on scientific misunderstandings. Yet, the legal principle of stare decisis requires that those often glaringly ignorant precedents be promulgated ad nauseam and the resulting legal compass reset permanently off-course in a futile effort to justify the initial error.
In those limited instances in which legal process diverges from truth and logic, then everything deriving from that erroneous premise, as fruit from the poisonous tree, is ex falso quodlibet! But rabbis cower at the prospect of turning their backs on Dark Ages traditions to face reality, despite the long string of successes, of a myriad of nations, over many millennia, in direct proportion to their basing their legal system on logic-driven (rather than greed/arrogance-driven) application of various parts of Tōr•âhꞋ shë-bi-khᵊtâvꞋ! Dark Ages ignorance, excess and arrogance are the problems. Logic is the solution to rein-in arrogance and excess.
Truth – parsed by computational logic (no longer the traditional philosophical pseudo-logic) – must displace the consequent cascade of increasingly divergent strayings. Instances in which precedents were based on error are relatively limited. The bulk of law and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ/Tōr•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ-al-pëhꞋ are unaffected. Ergo, this will not throw the entire corpus of the law – nor the entirety of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ/Tōr•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ-al-pëhꞋ – into turmoil. Indeed, it will confirm the reasoning of Mōsh•ëhꞋ, the Nᵊviy•imꞋ and the wisest historical rabbis while eliminating cancerous error — and this reveals the True Tōr•âhꞋ shë-bi-khᵊtâvꞋ. But all legal process must be open to questioning even the original mortal premise for validity as defined by the latest knowledge of science and logic – the Laws of י‑‑ה. We must not become prisoners of the Dark Ages mindset!
Secular law among a myriad of nations has long revered logical reasoning and would, accordingly, suffer only relatively minor tremors. In the religious sphere where a Dark Ages mindset, arrogance, xenophobia, racism and casuistry have determined interpretations and ever widening fences, however, there is another side-benefit: tolerance. Computational logic imposes its own limits, clearly restricting itself to well-defined limits. This amounts to a significant retracting of fanatically and cultishly overextended rabbinic claws where, for example, today's Ultra-Orthodox wildly overstate multiple fences and extreme opinions that, in fact, have no basis in the logical application of Tōr•âhꞋ. Where logic refuses to support interpretations, Authority refuses to apply. Humility and recognition of one's own fallibility, imposed by that logical limitation, then ensures that tolerance of other views that may be correct fills that space.
Tragically, under present legal process, only if technical differences can be cited, the impact of the so-called precedent may be slightly blunted. Even then, the original error isn't acknowledged and set right. Thus, over time, errors in the law grow ever more numerous, ever more onerous, ever more malignant and ever more ensconced in an ever more historically distant, scientifically ignorant, mortal origin. Consequently, truth and justice are routinely sacrificed on the altar of stare decisis and, everyday in the rumor, speculation & smear media that now passes for "news", the vitriol borne of multiplying injustices seethes around us! Elitists are above the law!
צַדִּיקוּת, in contrast to rabbinic and "lawyer" casuistries of "the law", is a concept that can never be corrupted nor changed.
Thus, "the law", whether umbilically tied to "secular" stare decisis-driven or "religious" tradition-driven false premises, is in dire need of a legal concept of הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (mundus mutatus) to accelerate the process of acknowledging, correcting and displacing legal precedents that have since proven logically incoherent relative to the current logical understanding of science.
See also cognates tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ, Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ and TzëdꞋëq.
צָנוּעַ [Updated: 2014.12.21]
tzâ•nuꞋa; 
i.e., moderate, prudent, judicious, circumspect.
Originally the antonym of a haughty man, this term has been distorted by Ultra-Orthodox rabbis, to deflect away from their own arrogant and abusive treatment of "lesser Jews" (even including צָנוּעַ Orthodox, whom Medievalist-Europeanist Ultra-Orthodox periodically, and often publicly, dismiss as goy•imꞋ) and other humans. The Ultra-Orthodox rabbis redirected the term to mean "modest" dress for women – as they apply it narrowly, rigorously and boastfully (opposite of צָנוּעַ), thereby deflecting the term to no longer indict them for their haughtiness.
צָרַעַת [Updated: 2013.04.04]
tzâ•raꞋ•at
"R' Hirsch demonstrates at length and conclusively that '[equating צָרַעַת to leprosy is] completely erroneous. Very briefly, he shows that the symptoms of צָרַעַת, as outlined in [this week's portion ], are far different than those of leprosy" ("Vayikra [sic]," Artscroll, ibid.).
This is corroborated in the Encarta '95 Encyclopedia. "In both the Old [sic] and New [sic] Testaments the name leprosy is given to a number of physical conditions unrelated to leprosy. This Hebrew term was later translated as lepros, from which came the word leprosy.
"The earliest symptom is often anesthesia (loss of sensation) in a patch of skin. Because of damage to the nerves, muscles may become paralyzed. The loss of sensation that accompanies the destruction of nerves may result in unnoticed injuries. These may result in secondary infections, the replacement of healthy tissue with scar tissue, and the destruction or absorption of bone.
"The classic disfigurements of leprosy, such as loss of extremities from bone damage or the so-called leonine facies, a lionlike appearance with thick nodulous skin, are signs of advanced disease, now preventable with early treatment" (Microsoft (R) Encarta Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright ( c ) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation).
Some have fancied—dangling castles from a string contrary to all evidence—that מְּצֹרָע is a contraction of מוֹצִיא רַע. However, this clearly wasn't the original connotation because the מְּצֹרָע was well-recognized as having a physical—and natural, not miraculous—malady called צָרַעַת. But if צָרַעַת wasn't leprosy, we must investigate what it was. Then we will have defined the מְּצֹרָע, the person who had צָרַעַת.
By modern scientific standards, the descriptions of צָרַעַת indicate more than one type of affliction. Another of the descriptions, strangely afflicting both skin and walls alike, appears to describe a seasonal fungal, flaky-skin rash that peaks primarily during early spring and late autumn, corresponding with the waxing and waning of dark-gray fungus outbreaks on the inner surface of exterior walls of buildings and other damp spots; thriving during the cooler, wet winters and drying up during the dry heat of the summer months. The same diagnosis and treatment, for both infected walls and skin, demonstrate that the ancients assumed the same infection for both; apparently associating its exchange from walls to skin with the apparent disappearance of the dark-gray fungus from the walls corresponding with the appearance of the skin rash, and vice-versa.
 |
צָרַעַת derives from the verb צֹרַע, which, in turn, parallels the Arabic "sara'a, (= he threw to the ground, threw down), sar` (= epilepsy), [and Old South Arabic] צרע (= to throw down, humiliate)" (Klein's, p.557). This malady periodically threw the victim to the ground, was often triggered by flickering light – as from a fire – and, if not rescued quickly from the fire, resulted in burn injuries that can resemble the symptoms of leprosy, yet from an entirely unrelated cause. Photos are too gruesome to include here, but readers who wish can Google photos of leprosy and burn victims.
What malady throws its victim to the ground, can be triggered by the flickering of a fire and, consequently, often resulted in the victim falling into a fire and receiving burn injuries that can be confused with leprosy? Moreover, notice that "the laws of this צָרַעַת are identical to those of burns in wa-Yi•qᵊr•â′ 13.24-28" (Artscroll 'Vayikra', ibid.).
 |
What malady is triggered by the reflection of the sun on ripples of water, and throws the victim into the water? What malady can, by throwing the victim to the ground, inflict broken limbs, resulting in lameness, and paralysis? Virtually all of the symptoms of leprosy can be imitated by epilepsy. From this, צָרַעַת very clearly seems to include epilepsy. Probably, leprosy and epilepsy were considered different stages, or variations of, the same illness.
Translators and commentators unfamiliar with the Middle East and similar climates could not grasp how to interpret הַבָּשָׂר הַחַי as צָרַעַת in wa-Yi•qᵊrâ 13.15. "Living flesh" or "healthy flesh" is neither contaminated nor a contaminant.
However, there is a parallel phrase in Hebrew, מַיִם חַיִּים, and we know that this means "moving water" in contrast to still water. Thus, all other meanings having been debunked, it seems, a priori, that הַבָּשָׂר הַחַי refers to "the moving flesh." Maturing larvae deposited by a biting fly can cause movement under the skin. We find "moving flesh"—that is contaminated—when a biting fly deposits an egg under the flesh and it begins to mature and move under the flesh, causing "moving flesh."
צָבָא [Updated: 2020.08.06]
 |
| IDF soldiers praying |
Tzâ•vâꞋ;
Contrast this with, and distinguish it from חַיִל, a cognate of חַיָּל.
These terms are all popularly distorted in Christian Bibles as "host" (pl. "hosts") when, PC aside, they mean, and should be understood, not as supernatural "angels," but as an armed force of warriors, i.e. an army.
צה"ל (TzaꞋhal) is the acronym for the צְבָא הֲגַנָּה לְיִשׂרָאֵל (TzᵊvaꞋ Haganah Lᵊ-Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ; Army of Defense for Israel), i.e. the Israel Defense Forces—the IDF.
Ha•gan•âhꞋ derives from the same root verb as mâ•geinꞋ in Mâ•geinꞋ Dâ•widꞋ—shield and, by extension, defense (popularly mistranslated as "star") of Dâ•widꞋ.
צְדָקָה [Updated: 2018.07.04]
tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ;
This cannot be rendered "righteousness" because Christians assume righteousness to be equivalent to right-ness in the sense of "what is right in their own eyes" or according to their Καινής Διαθήκης, rather than as defined by Tōr•âhꞋ.
According to Tōr•âhꞋ, charity is required; ergo, the poor are due such assistance. Therefore, it is not accurately charity, but justice. Thus, the meaning of צְדָקָה has eroded from its Biblical meaning, in a case of selective 'tunnel vision,' to charity.
צֶדֶק [Updated: 2018.07.09]
TzëdꞋëq (m.n.); – Jupiter). Christianized to "righteousness."
TzëdꞋëq has been known from antiquity as a metonym for the Mâ•shiꞋakh. The "star" (as it was then thought to be) that has represented the Mâ•shiꞋakh since ancient astronomy has always, for this reason, been called TzëdꞋëq – the Mâ•shiꞋakh-"star" – in Hebrew.
TzëdꞋëq was also the planet impacted by the "heavenly-angelic-bride" (symbolic of the Bride of ha-Sheim—Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ); the 1994 string of comets that was the greatest phenomenon in the recorded history of the solar system — even surpassing the phenomena that signaled the birth of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (cf. The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu). How could this far more stupendous celestial phenomena, then, not herald the dawn of the Messianic Era? (Cf. also link MalꞋki-TzëdꞋëq and our note "Shoemaker-Levy" in our newsletter archives.)
צְדוֹקִים [Updated: 2018.08.27]
Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ,
"According to most scholars" this term originally referred to Bᵊn-Tzâ•dōqꞋ — a son of Tzâ•dōqꞋ, Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dōlꞋ during the reign of Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh.
During the reign of Hellenist Syrian King Antiochus Epiphanes (BCE 165), Hellenized
These were primarily the Hellenist Ko•han•imꞋ and the wealthy aristocratic class of Hellenist Jews – both of whom collaborated with the Hellenist Roman occupiers.
צֶמַח [Updated: 2019.02.05]
TzëꞋmakh, has evolved in MH: to mean "plant" generally (n. & v.). In BH:, it was sometimes used in the sense of, and in concert with, complementary synonyms expressing רוֹמֵם or הֵקִים by י‑‑ה — and in this sense the rabbinic Sages have long recognized this as a metonym for the Mâ•shiꞋakh.
There are twelve instances of צֶמַח in Ta•na"khꞋ.
 |
 Yâm ha-MëlꞋakh, Sᵊdōm, TzōꞋar, Khë•vᵊr•onꞋ |
 |
 Sᵊdōm-Amōrâh (Bab edh-Dhra) destroyed ca BCE 2350 (Todd Bolen-BiblePlaces.com) |
 |
 Har Sᵊdōm looking NW to NaꞋkhal Tzō•harꞋ |
bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 19.24, 28 – [י‑‑ה] overturned these cities [Sᵊdōm and AōmōrōâhꞋ], with all of הכִּכָּר and with all of the residents of the cities, וְצֶמַח הָאֲדָמָה.
These cities were located on the southern shore of Yâm ha-MëlꞋakh. Despite a number of severe earthquakes, oft-heralded "climatic changes" date from eons before relatively recent (geologically and climatically) Biblical times. Probably only sparse and isolated wild herbs grew there. Even with some primitive irrigation, collecting waters from nearby mountain run-offs, of the seven species, perhaps, the residents may have cultivated small plots of barley and wheat. Accordingly, צֶמַח in this verse likely means wild herbs and grasses (i.e., barley and wheat).
Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 16.7 – To increase כְּצֶמַח of the field…
This clearly refers to wild herbs and grasses (grains).
Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 17.9 – (referring, metaphorically, to Tzid•qi•yâꞋhu, mëlꞋëkh Yᵊhud•âhꞋ, as הַגֶּפֶן; pâ•suqꞋ 7) Will י‑‑ה not cut off … all of the freshly-plucked leaves of צִמְחָהּ she shall wither-up…
Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 17.10 – (referring, metaphorically, to Tzid•qi•yâꞋhu, mëlꞋëkh Yᵊhud•âhꞋ, as הַגֶּפֶן; pâ•suqꞋ 7) upon the garden-beds of צִמְחָהּ she shall wither-up…
Ho•sheiꞋa 8.7 – צֶמַח that doesn't make flour
Tᵊhil•imꞋ 65.11 – … צִמְחָהּ You bless
Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 4.2 – On that day there shall be a צֶמַח י‑‑ה. (נְטַע שַׁעֲשׁוּעָיו, in Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 5.7, refers back to his use of צֶמַח as the Mâ•shiꞋakh in 4.2.)
Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 61.11 – For like the âꞋrëtz puts forth צִמְחָהּ, and like a garden תַצְמִיחַ her seeds, so A•don•âiꞋ ha-SheimꞋ יַצְמִיחַ tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ and praise נֶגֶד all of ha-goy•imꞋ.
Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 23.5 – Behold, the days are coming, declares י‑‑ה, when I will set up for Dâ•widꞋ a צֶמַח Tza•diqꞋ; then a king shall reign, act judiciously and make mi•shᵊpâtꞋ and tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ in the âꞋrëtz.
Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 33.15 – In those days and in that hour, אַצְמִיחַ for Dâ•widꞋ a צֶמַח tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ; then he shall make mi•shᵊpâtꞋ and tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ in the âꞋrëtz.
Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 3.8 – Shᵊm•aꞋ prithee, Yᵊho•shuꞋa ha-Ko•heinꞋ Gâ•dolꞋ – [both] you and your companions who are sitting before you – because they are men of מוֹפֵת, for behold, I am bringing My servant, the צֶמַח.
Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 6.12 – Say to [Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-YᵊhōtzâdâqꞋ ha-Kō•heinꞋ Gâ•dōlꞋ (pâ•sūqꞋ 11)], Thus said י‑‑ה of armies saying, Behold, a man whose name is צֶמַח; ūmitakhꞋᵊtâvꞋ he יִצְמָח and construct the Hei•khâlꞋ י‑‑ה.
צְנִיעוּת [Updated: 2014.12.21]
Tzᵊniy•utꞋ;
צְפַנְיָה [Updated: 2006.04.27]
Tzᵊphan•yâhꞋ;
Tzᵊphan•yâhꞋ is the ninth book of the twelve minor Nᵊviy•imꞋ of Ta•na"khꞋ.
צִיץ [Updated: 2019.01.24]
 |
 Tō•tëphꞋët with Tzitz of Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ in which was mounted the gold plaque engraved – in Proto-Sinaitic, not modern, Hebrew:
" |
Tzitz; – the blossom in which was mounted the gold plaque engraved in Proto-Sinaitic, not modern, Hebrew (much less English):
"
‑‑
"
Displacing the idolatrous neshed & uræus of Egypt, this was the centerpiece of the Tō•tëphꞋët of the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ, which held his mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët in place (Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 28.36-38; 39.30-31).
צִיצִית [Updated: 2017.10.19]
 Shalmaneser III Black Obelisk hair beard dress 0250x134.jpg "cBCE841 Yeihu (Jehu) Shalmaneser III Black Obelisk") |
 Shalmaneser III Black Obelisk hair beard dress 2547x1362.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Obelisk relief c BCE 841 – YeiꞋhu Bën-Yᵊhō•shâ•phâtꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, offers tribute to Assyrian King Shalmaneser III. Earliest extant witness of ancient Israeli attire (with fringes), grooming (hair and beard length/style) – and royal mi•tzᵊnëphꞋët or mi•gᵊba•atꞋ. |
Tzitz•itꞋ;
A wall relief in the palace of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III, c BCE 841, is the earliest depiction of pre-Exilic, i.e. mostly pre-assimilated and the most pristine depiction known, Yᵊhud•imꞋ. This wall relief shows two Yᵊhud•imꞋ, on the right, behind YeiꞋhu Bën-Yᵊhō•shâ•phâtꞋ, MëlꞋëkh Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ (kneeling before King Shalmaneser III, offering a gift with his request for a treaty of alliance with Ma•rᵊdukhꞋ-ian Syria). So far as known today, his two fellow delegates wear proper Sciptural fringed garments and headdress (see kip•âhꞋ) with tᵊphil•inꞋ wound around their upper left forearms (box at the elbow).
|
| Ta•litꞋ with Tzitz•itꞋ with pëtilꞋ tëkheilꞋët, tied Nō•sakhꞋ Tei•mân•iꞋ |
Today, tzitz•itꞋ is also used to denote, more generally, the ArꞋbâ Kᵊnâph•ōtꞋ – either the usual four-cornered garment ArꞋbâ Kᵊnâph•otꞋ proper, which is worn all during the day, or to the tal•itꞋ. The ArꞋbâ Kᵊnâph•otꞋ is generally worn under a shirt, although the more zealous wear a woolen outer version (especially in colder weather). According to bᵊ-Mid•barꞋ 15:37-38, one doesn't fulfill the Mitz•wâhꞋ unless the tzitz•i•otꞋ includes a פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת (pᵊtil tᵊkheilꞋët).
צִיּוֹן [Updated: 2006.04.27]
 |
| Har Tzi•yonꞋ (Hellenized to Mt. Zion) |
 |
| Ir Dâ•widꞋ |
Tzi•yonꞋ;
צוֹם [Updated: 2007.12.19]
 |
Tzōm;
Not-so-observant Jews often wish "Tzōm kal" (an easy fast). However, this is incompatible with Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 58.1-12. The Tōr•âhꞋ-compatible greeting is, rather, "צוֹם מוֹעִיל!" See also Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 31.13 and Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 8.19.
צֹאן [Updated: 2010.05.20]
| |||||||||
Tzōn;
הַצּוֹפֶה [Updated: 2006.04.27]
ha-Tzoph•ëhꞋ;
 |
|
|
 467x339.jpg "parah adumah - Red Heifer (American Brangus, 2012 Grand Champion, Houston)")