Home (Netzarim Logo)

According to the EJ, "the customary rendering of [] is 'to atone for,' or 'to expiate' but in most cases this is incorrect" ("Kipper," [sic] 10.1039)—and certainly "dumbed down," through Hellenization (Greek, i.e., Christianization), to a doctrine of a•vod•âh zâr•âh.

Wipe Away, Wipe Up, Wipe Out, Wipe Off…

"In poetry references, its parallel synonym is (Yirmәyâhu 18.23), or (Yәsha•yâhu 27.9, cf. also the passive form, Yәsha•yâhu 6.7), suggesting that means []." This implication is reinforced by passages coupling with (wa-Yi•qәr•â 14.48, 53) and (wa-Yi•qәr•â 14.52; EJ, loc. cit.).

The more accurate meanings of these terms, derived from Klein's, reveals that conveys ("to blot out, blot away"—"Wipe Up, Wipe Off") and (causing a swerving-back or deviation-back)—and resulting divergence between

  1. the Tor•âh (who swerves or deviates back (a return) from his previous contra-Tor•âh practice – and from Tor•âh—to make tәshuv•âh), on the one hand, and

  2. the (with its penalty of curse, destruction or banishment, as noted earlier and elaborated below), thereby rendering the penitent .

This is corroborated by the regular coupling, in ritual texts, of with and (cf. wa-Yi•qәr•â 14.48, 52-53).

Wipe On…

Some Biblical passages couple with , suggesting that "connotes smearing on a new substance rather than effacing an existent one"—i.e., "Wiping On" (see Nәkhëm•yâh 3.37; Yirmәyâhu 18.23; Shәm•ot 12.23, 27 and Yәsha•yâhu 31.5; EJ, ibid.)

"Wipe on… wipe off."

"… [T]he meaning "to rub off" predominates in the ritual texts, whereas that of "to cover" probably never occurs. This is best illustrated by the of the … Its use is restricted to the [Beit ha-Miq•dâsh]: it is never used on a person. The rites for the healed leper and for the consecration of the [Ko•hein] call for a , but the daubed on them does not come from the but from other animal (EJ, ibid.).

In other Scriptures, by contrast, parallels (Nәkhëm•yâh 3.37; Yirmәyâhu 18.23), as if connotes rather than wiping-off or blotting-up an existing substance. "Linguists have been divided as to which is the basic meaning, since evidence from Semitic cognates can be cited in support of both, mainly from the Arabic for 'to cover' and from the Akkadian for 'to wipe.' But perhaps both these meanings go back to an original common notion of [smear-on or wipe-off]." Since, for examples, or oil may be either wiped-off or smeared-on (thereby "covering over"), these connotations are complementary.Wax on, wax off

Stripped of the Greek with its intrinsic Hellenist misperceptions, this paraphrase of the famous instructions of "Master Miyagi" (the late Pat Morita) to his student, "Daniel-san," in the movie, "The Karate Kid," aptly describe the almost universally misrepresented (Hellenized) and misunderstood Hebrew concept of and its cognate verbal noun, , popularly Hellenized to "atonement."

Transferral Agent

The key to understanding the relationship between the apparent conundrum of "wipe on" and "wipe off" intrinsic in then reduces to their complementary, rather than contradictory, nature as understood by the ancients, converging in the operation (and likely origin of the entire concept framework) of the nid•âh (see mei nidâh) being applied (flowing onto)—"wipe on"—the nid•âh as a death-contaminant-blotting agent (see wa-Yi•qәr•â 17.11) and the agent of transferring away; flushing or washing away (i.e. blotting out or "wiping off") the death-contaminant (thought responsible for the death of the egg), producing .

Vicarious

The theme of a transferal agent is further abstracted, as a vicarious agent of transferral, in the Ko•hein whose death transferred or conveyed , freeing man-slaughterers from exile (bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 35.32-33), the Lәwi•yim (bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 8.19) and the plague-deaths consequent to a•vod•âh zâr•âh transferring or conveying to the remnant of Yi•sә•râ•eil (bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 25.1-15). The Sho•âh, consequent to the apostasy of the introduction of the Reform Movement in late 19th-century Europe—followed by Hitler and the Nazis—is no less an identical example: transferring or conveying for the holy restoration of Yi•sә•râ•eil in 1948 (see Shәm•ot 30.16; bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 8.19; 25.13; ShƏmu•eil Beit 21.1, 3; for other examples of vicarious agents of transfer, see Az•â•zeil and , whose neck was broken, Dәvâr•im 21.1-9).

Symbolism of

Modern physicians and other scientists recognize that the blood absorbs toxins in the body and carries the toxins away for the body to dispose of them. As archeologists discover that ancients, as far back as the Egyptians, practiced rudimentary medicine and surgeries, it isn't far-fetched to suppose that a few basics of the blood, as the "carrier of life," were understood to carry "evil" (demonic life) away as well as carrying support of the (cf. wa-Yi•qәr•â 17.11). Similarly, just as "evil" (demonic forces) were supposed to be contracted—transferred-in to the —by contact or proximity, the same reasoning would conclude that the demonic forces could be transferred-out to by contact or proximity: leaning one's hands on the head of the efficacious and calling upon --, Who is superior to any other, to effect the transfer. Thereafter, the or was either burned (going up in smoke) or otherwise destroyed (e.g., the breaking of the neck of , Dәvâr•im 21.1-9) or banished (as the goat of Az•â•zeil).

This transference of "demonic-evil" from one's own to the of another defines the core of the principle of vicarious . Therein, connects to its noun form: (Shәm•ot 21.30).

To paraphrase EJ (10.1041), making corrections, Having begun as a symbol "blotting-up" by absorption through direct contact or indirect transference (e.g., by proximity), evolved into expiation generally. Thus, the role of all other —whose is not daubed on the qa•rƏn•ot of the Miz•beiakh like the , but is spattered on its (nearly red-hot copper) sides—is to expiate the Tor•âh. This is one of the functions of the ol•âh (wa-Yi•qәr•â 1.4) and the Mi•nƏkh•âh (wa-Yi•qәr•â 14.20), and the sole function of the (wa-Yi•qәr•â 5.16, 18, 26). So, with the Ka•porët, placed over the A•ron hâ-Eid•ut (Shәm•ot 25.17-22); being a feminine abstract noun from , it's probably the feminine counterpart of . Since it also designates ha-Mâ•qom where Mosh•ëh "would hear the Voice addressing him" (bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 7.89), it indicates the par excellence: tәphil•âh (cf. wa-Yi•qәr•â 26.40-41; Dәvâr•im 4.29; Mәlâkh•im Âlëph 8.28-30, 33, 35, 47-48; Tәhil•im 51.19; 141.2).

Essential Principles

Limited Coverage of

Expiatory dealt only with against -- – i.e., an against His Tor•âh—they did not redress wrongs against fellow humans. of Tor•âh that caused injury or damage to humans required first making restitution plus 20% to the victims. Only after having made restitution plus 20% to the human victims did the become eligible to offer an expiatory .

Tәshuv•âh

Tәshuv•âh is a prerequisite for and . Two elements are essential:

  1. Negative Element: ceasing of negative mitz•wot Tor•âh (Yәsha•yâhu 33.15; Tәhil•im 15. 24.4) and

  2. Positive Element: practicing positive mitz•wot Tor•âh (Yәsha•yâhu 1.17; 58.5ff; Yirmәyâhu 7.3; 26.13; •mos 5.14-15; Tәhil•im 34.15-16; 37.27).

There are two disparate types of repentance:

  1. Tәshuv•âh: lit. "return" to Tor•âh. Obviously, only Yi•sә•râ•eil (Yәhud•i or geir) who has previously practiced Tor•âh can "return" to Tor•âh.

  2. For all others, abandonment of contra-Tor•âh doctrines and practices to undertake learning and implementing (practicing) Tor•âh non-selectively as a geir. Tor•âh is an indivisible whole. Selective practice is a constructive rejection of the "unselected" parts, which constitutes a rejection of Tor•âh as an indivisible whole.

The possibility of sacrificial is explicitly denied to the individual who presumptuously transgresses Tor•âh (bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 15.30-31). This, however, does not mean, as many critics aver, that sacrificial is possible only for inadvertent Tor•âh. Presumptuous implies, inter alia, refusal to make tәshuv•âh. To cite but one exception, the is prescribed for that premeditated crime called by the rabbis (wa-Yi•qәr•â 5.20ff; bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 5.5-8). A more correct assertion, then, would be that the KƏhun•âh, in such instance, invalidated sacrificial to the who had not made tәshuv•âh, for the one who "acts defiantly· it is -- Whom he reviles" (bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 15.30). (EJ 10.1041).

From square one it must be recognized that any possibility of is explicitly denied to the individual who presumptuously transgresses Tor•âh (bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 15.30-31. There is no exception to this and every suggestion to the contrary is Displacement Theology, prohibited by Dәvâr•im 13.1-6.

As EJ (ibid.) acknowledges, however, this… does not mean, asBeit ha-Miq•dâsh many critics aver, that is possible only for inadvertent or involuntary (i.e., forced) of Tor•âh′ . The correct understanding is that Tor•âh′  specifically invalidates any attempt at by a of Tor•âh′  who has not made tәshuv•âh, continuing to act defiantly… "it is -- he reviles" (bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 15.30).

"Contrition, therefore, is an explicit sine qua non for []. Furthermore, it is precisely when the [] is deliberate (an ), not accidental, that another penitential requirement is added, namely that the contrition must be openly declared; it must be supplemented by [public, viz., ]—e.g., (wa-Yi•qәr•â 5.5; bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 5.7; cf. wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.21; 26.40).

Even the annual rite for theBeit ha-Miq•dâsh and Yi•sә•râ•eil required that the [Ko•hein Gâ•dol publicly] the willful, deliberate [] of [Yi•sә•râ•eil] (wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.21), while the latter demonstrate their penitence, not by coming to the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh—from which willful, deliberate [] were barred—but by Tzom and . On this day we are to be ascetic (afflicted, denying all else, single-purposed) and especially attenuated (occupying ourselves)—to respond (chant responses) to the call to tәshuv•âh. (wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.29; 23.27-32; bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 29.7).

Thus, contrition for an inadvertent or involuntary [ Tor•âh] plus the added requirement of [public] for a willful, deliberate [] are indispensable requirements for tәshuv•âh, which is the only path leading to and the system, and they differ in no way from the call to tәshuv•âh formulated by the Nәviy•im.

Finally, the prescriptions of the , ordained for cases of calculable loss, to -- stipulate that restitution [plus 20%] must be made to the wronged party (man or Beit ha-Miq•dâsh) before by is permitted. Indeed the prophetic insistence that tәshuv•âh is not an end in itself, but must lead to rectification of the Tor•âh (e.g., Yәsha•yâhu 1.13-17; 58.6-12; Mikh•âh 6.6-8), is merely the articulation of a basic postulate of the system. (EJ 10.1042).

Requisite to the attainment of is tәshuv•âh for the Jew (or the non-selective shouldering of Tor•âh by the goy•im, becoming a geir). Finally, by (i.e., ), including messianic, sanitizes only of those mitz•wot against --. Whereas for of mitz•wot committed against fellow humans is entirely dependent upon seeking forgiveness—including making reasonable restitution (as fixed by a Beit-Din)—from the victim of the . Thus, —including on —is never obtained by many, because they ignore this critical point.

For Yi•sә•râ•eil

Renunciation of Punishment versus

One illustration of this contrast is •mos 7.1-8; 8.1-2). Although Âmos ha-Nâ•vi asks (7.2), nevertheless, -- cancels only the punishment (7.3, 6). This is consistent with the paradigm of Av•râ•hâm's mediation on behalf of Sәdom and A•mor•âh (bә-Reish•it 18.16-33) and Mosh•ëh on behalf of Yi•sә•râ•eil subsequent to the incident of the golden calf-mask (Shәm•ot 32.9-10). These examples imply that --, being Immutable (Malâkh•i 3.6; Tәhil•im 89.35), withholds punishment of Yi•sә•râ•eil for the sake of a min•yân of tzadiq•im. This, too, however, is a withholding of punishment, not a conferral of . Thus, this principle is in complete accord with Yәkhëz•qeil's declaration that each will be judged according to his or her own merit (Yәkhëz•qeil 18.3-4).

Rainbow Rule


Four syntactical constructs of used in the Bible:

  1. (for example, ) ‭ ‬ – 61 instances of meaning "wipe-off an "

  2. Shәm•ot 29.36 Shәm•ot 29.37 Shәm•ot 30.10 Shәm•ot 30.10 Shәm•ot 30.15 Shәm•ot 30.16
    wa-Yi•qәr•â 1.4 wa-Yi•qәr•â 4.20 wa-Yi•qәr•â 4.26 wa-Yi•qәr•â 4.31 wa-Yi•qәr•â 4.35 wa-Yi•qәr•â 5.6
    wa-Yi•qәr•â 5.10 wa-Yi•qәr•â 5.13 wa-Yi•qәr•â 5.16 wa-Yi•qәr•â 5.18 wa-Yi•qәr•â 5.26 wa-Yi•qәr•â 8.15
    wa-Yi•qәr•â 8.34 wa-Yi•qәr•â 10.17 wa-Yi•qәr•â 12.7 wa-Yi•qәr•â 12.8 wa-Yi•qәr•â 14.18 wa-Yi•qәr•â 14.18
    wa-Yi•qәr•â 14.20 wa-Yi•qәr•â 14.21 wa-Yi•qәr•â 14.29 wa-Yi•qәr•â 14.31 wa-Yi•qәr•â 14.53 wa-Yi•qәr•â 15.15
    wa-Yi•qәr•â 15.30 wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.10 wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.18 wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.30 wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.33 wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.34
    wa-Yi•qәr•â 17.11a (to wipe-off an
    )
    wa-Yi•qәr•â 19.22 wa-Yi•qәr•â 23.28 wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.16 bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 5.8 ("which will wipe-off an in [the ram of ‎]
    him")
    bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 6.11
    bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 8.12 bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 8.19 bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 8.21 bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 15.25 bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 15.28 bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 15.28
    bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 17.11 bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 17.12 bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 25.13 (Pin•khas′ ) bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 28.22 bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 28.30 bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 29.5
    bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 31.50 Yirmәyâhu 18.23 Yәkhëz•qeil 45.15 Tәhil•im 79.9 Nәkhëm•yâh 10.34 Div•rei ha-Yâm•im Âlëph 6.34
    Div•rei ha-Yâm•im Beit 29.24

  3. - (including with no trailing preposition) – 14 instances, meaning "bring the agent () that blots-out the into transference proximity and then, in the case of - ha-Miz•beiakh, burn the , which bears the , sending it all up in smoke."

    While the other syntactical constructs are directed inward, to the assuaging of one's inner guilt and paving the way to tәshuv•âh, this construct is oriented outward: to publicly demonstrate remorse to, and assuage the anger of, the victim who was wronged by the .

    Thus, this construct is used abstractly, to remedy an (in contrast to the ) against [a] another person or [b] --. While, in the former case, restitution (+20%) must be made directly to, and demonstrated for, the wronged party; in the latter case, can only be related to representatives, and objects representing earthly parallels, of --. Noteworthy, in neither case does apply to personal of the offering the .

    1. bә-Reish•it 32.21 (wipe-on an -blotting [wiping-off] agent [gift] to cover-over [assuage] Ei•sau);
    2. wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.20 (from the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh);
    3. wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.32 (from the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh);
    4. wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.33a (the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh);
    5. wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.33b (the Ohël Mo•eid and Beit ha-Miq•dâsh);
    6. wa-Yi•qәr•â 17.11b ("given upon the Miz•beiakh… because it is the that, "—exactly like the mei nidâh). In other words, it is the effect of the on one's sapience and reasoning, operating on one's free will—together constituting the —that, by the free will decision of one's sapience, wipes out/away a practice of . (Note that, apart from affecting one's reasoning, physical cannot get "in" one's sapience or free will—the . This is made explicit in the beginning of the pâ•suq: "the is in the "; therefore, not be the reverse.)
    7. ShƏmu•eil Beit 21.3 (wiping-on an -blotting [wiping-off] agent [gift] to cover-over [assuage] the Giv•on•im′  for Sha•ul′ 's in killing them);
    8. Yәkhëz•qeil′  43.20 (wipe-on the -blotting [wiping-off] agent on the Miz•bei′ akh);
    9. Yәkhëz•qeil′  43.26 (wipe-on the -blotting [wiping-off] agent on the Miz•bei′ akh);
    10. Yәkhëz•qeil′  45.20 (wipe-on the -blotting [wiping-off] agent on the bay′ it);
    11. Tәhil•im′  65.4 (You will wipe-on the -blotting [wiping-off] agent of our );
    12. Tәhil•im′  78.38 (wipe-on the -blotting [wiping-off] agent of an );
    13. Mi•shәl•ei′  Shәlom•oh′  16.14 (wipe-on an -blotting [wiping-off] agent [gift] to cover-over [assuage] the king's wrath));
    14. Dâniy•eil 9.24 (wipe-on the -blotting (wiping-off) agent of an ).


  4. , ‭ ‬ 9 instances, meaning "wipe-off an "
    1. Shәm•ot 32.30
    2. wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.11
    3. wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.17
    4. wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.24
    5. wa-Yi•qәr•â 16.6
    6. wa-Yi•qәr•â 9.7a (for yourself)
    7. wa-Yi•qәr•â 9.7b (for the kindred)
    8. Yәkhëz•qeil 45.17
    9. Div•rei ha-Yâm•im Beit 30.18


  5. -, ‭ ‬ 2 instances, meaning "wipe-off an -"
    1. Dәvâr•im 21.8 (wipe-away an for your kindred Yisraeil)
    2. Yәkhëz•qeil 16.63 (in wiping-away an for you, for all you have done)


From the root derive three other connotations (Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English, Yәrushâ•layim: Carta and Univ. of Haifa, 1987, p. 284):

  1. The pu•al, (ku•par) meaning be wiped on/off, wiped away, blotted out.

  2. (kâ•phar; to deny), and

  3. (kâ•phar; to smear over with pitch, besmear)

The proper masc. noun form is . The relationship between The "Wiping-on" (of an -blotting agent) or "Wiping-off" (of an ) and a ransom is evident also in the money required by the military census (Shәm•ot 30.12, 15-16).

Compare and contrast with (pi•dƏyon; ransom, redemption), from the root .

Cognates of include:

Ërëtz Yi•sә•râ•eil

Ërëtz Yi•sә•râ•eil is defiled when Am Yi•sә•râ•eil commits an (of Tor•âh; wa-Yi•qәr•â 18.25, 28; bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 35.33-34; Yәkhëz•qeil 36.17; Dәvâr•im 21.23 and bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 35.33), it causes Ë′ rëtz Yi•sә•râ•eil to "vomit out" Am Yi•sә•râ•eil (wa-Yi•qәr•â 18.28; 20.22). This is confirmed in there being no separate rite by which the land, alone, can be sanctified.

The of Ë′ rëtz Yi•sә•râ•eil is a direct function of the of Am Yi•sә•râ•eil unconnected (contrary to many commentators who don't understand ) to the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh (which symbolizes the Shәkhin•âh of --). When Am Yi•sә•râ•eil commits an , Am Yi•sә•râ•eil and Ë′ rëtz Yi•sә•râ•eil alike become , requiring by means of of Am Yi•sә•râ•eil, thereby restoring the of both, Am Yi•sә•râ•eil and Ë′ rëtz Yi•sә•râ•eil.

Vicarious by merit of a Tza•diq

A particularization of the principle of vicariously conveying by means of the plague deaths (discussed above) is the conveyance of vicarious by the merit of a Tza•diq (e.g., Av•râ•hâm's intercession on behalf of Sәdom and A•mor•âh (bә-Reish•it 18.16-33; see also Shәm•ot 32.9-10 with Tәhil•im 106.23). Note that the direction is one-way: downward, revealing the Will of -- to man; never upward as man's intercessor to the deity. To elevate the Tza•diq to peerage with --, however, is blasphemy prophesied of Dâniy•eil's "11th king" (7.25, Aramaic reads: "he will speak as a peer of the Supreme") and a•vod•âh zâr•âh. While the Tza•diq may appease --, the appeasement and forgiveness are the khein of --, not of the Tza•diq, who is merely the servant of --. Thus, the Tza•diq who conveys vicarious is peripheral, not intrinsic, to the formula for . There are other types of , but there is no Provider of beside --; and it is His khein in affording , none other's.

The power of a Tza•diq to vicariously convey operates vertically as well as horizontally—to posterity. This principle under-girds all of Ël•oh•im's bәrit•ot with Yi•sә•râ•eil: with the Fathers for offspring and the Promised Land (bә-Reish•it 15; 17.1-8; 22.17-18; 23; 35.9-12; Shәm•ot 32.13); with Pin•khas for a priestly line (bƏ-Mi•dƏbar 25.13) and with Dâ•wid for a royal dynasty (ShƏmu•eil Beit 7.12-16).

It is sometimes argued, mistakenly, that Yәkhëz•qeil contradicts these passages (18.3-4)… Of course, it is axiomatic that the Bible is not self-contradicting. Rather, as has been discussed earlier, no is possible for the unrepentant! That includes vicarious via the conduit of a Tza•diq. Rather, Yәkhëz•qeil ha-Ko•hein explained that while the unrepentant would be held accountable for their own , the Tza•diq would not be held accountable—see Yәkhëz•qeil 22.30!

Lә-hav•dil

The contrast between the Tor•âh formula for and, lә-hav•dil, the Hellenist-Christian "plan of salvation" exemplifies the intractable antithesis of these mutually exclusive belief systems:

  1. For Yi•sә•râ•eil and Yәhud•im since Av•râ•hâm—including Ribi Yәho•shua and the Nәtzâr•im, is obtained through the complementary combination of [a] doing one's utmost to keep Tor•âh, according to the Sho•phәt•ei Beit-Din, and [b] making tәshuv•âh. Therefore, is the product of the khein of --, which He promised in His bәrit / Tor•âh, not the product of His Mâ•shiakh"; whereas, lә-hav•dil,

  2. Hellenists (including Zeus and other idol-worshipers) and their Christian offspring must "believe" in / worship a man-god (tracing back to the Egyptian religion but absent in Judaism) for "salvation," displacing any connection to Tor•âh.

Note the absolute absence of any of the Hellenist elements in the Judaic formula.

As our books Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (eWAN), Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-Link (ABNC Live-Link), and The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) clearly demonstrate, Ribi Yәho•shua's teachings are in complete harmony with 1st- century Judaism (Tor•âh according to Halâkh•âh)—which accrues only to those committed to non-selective Tor•âh-observance according to Halâkh•âh.

For the Hebrew term that Christians perverted to conform to their Hellenist concept of "salvation" see yәshu•âh.

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Google+ registered author-publisher
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic