Home (Netzarim Logo)

[Updated: 2017.11.04]

Ribi Ribi in Ta•lᵊmud. In modern publications, written unvoweled with the "helpful " as: .

It is doubtful that sᵊmikh•âh of was conferred subsequent to 70 CE. The Pᵊrush•im-only attempt to convene in Yavᵊn•ëh after the 70 CE destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i neither convened in its rightful location (the no longer existent Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i) nor, because it excluded the Tzᵊdoq•im, was it any longer regarded as a full-fledged Συνέδριον.

Greek Transliterations Of Post-135 CE Hellenist Roman Gentile Church

It is clear that the title, transliterated into Greek in The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) as ῥαββί  (and in Καινής Διαθήκης as ῥαββί and ραββονι) that had occurred within Ërëtz Yi•sᵊrâ•eil and c 20-30 CE, can only refer to , not to Greek-transliterated titles adapted centuries later by Hellenist Roman gentiles of the 4th century Church with their 4th century redacted and Hellenist-syncretized Καινής Διαθήκης.

A priori, the documentation in the ancient mss. sources of The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) and elsewhere documents (see NHM note 23.7.1) that, since Ribi Yᵊho•shua was recognized c 27 CE, and in Yᵊhudâh, the proper title could only have been ''; not Rabi nor Rav. This necessarily implies that Ribi Yᵊho•shua received sᵊmikh•âh directly from the Nâ•si and the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol — far and away greater authority than any rabbinic ordination today!!!

Ribi Yᵊho•shua: Sᵊmikh•âh, Not Min•ūi

The unavoidable conclusion is that The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) documents (note 23.7.1) that Ribi Yᵊho•shua was called by the title of '' – in Ërëtz Yi•sᵊrâ•eil and in the 1st century C.E. This proves that Ribi Yᵊho•shua had impeccable ordination as a Pᵊrush•i Ribi directly from the Nâ•si and the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dolsuperior in authority to any rabbinic authority since 70 C.E.!

In the times of Hi•leil (pop. Hillel, 1st century B.C.E. to beginning of 1st century C.E.) and the patriarchs of Beit-Hi•leil, ordination in Ërëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eil was distinct from ordination in the Gâl•ut (principally Bâvël), with ordination in Ërëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eil carrying clear superiority. "[ (not , see below)] could only be granted by scholars residing in Ërëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eil to scholars present in the Ërëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eil at the time of their ordination… The appellation of [] rabi (Hellenized to "rabbi"; actually , as demonstrated below) is therefore never used for the Babylonian •mor•âim since they did not possess [ (not , see below)], and they have the title [] "rav." As a result, the Babylonian sages were dependent upon their [colleagues in Yᵊhud•âh]. 'We submit to them' was the Babylonian attitude (Pësakh. 51a)" ("Sᵊmikh•âh," EJ, 14:1140-47).

In the time of Ribi Yᵊho•shua, this partriarch was Rab•ân Ja•mᵊl•iy•eil ha-Zâ•qein, grandson of Hi•leil. "According to Acts, Ja•mᵊl•iy•eil was tolerant toward the first [Nᵊtzâr•im, not "Christians" who didn't even come into existence until 135 CE; ybd] and Paul was one of his pupils (22:3)… 'When Rab•ân Ja•mᵊl•iy•eil the elder died the glory of the Tor•âh ceased, and purity and saintliness [lit. "separation"] perished' (Sot•âh 9:15)" ("Gamliel, Rabban," EJ, 7:295-6).

It is clear from this that the (cf. 21.23.2) conferred upon Ribi Yᵊho•shua, previously demonstrated, was conferred by Rab•ân Ja•mᵊl•iy•eil ha-Zâ•qein.

"In Ërëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eil it also became necessary for individual scholars to obtain the consent of the patriarch before ordaining their pupils. On account of the high regard entertained for the patriarchs of the house of Hi•leil, who were the recognized heads of the Jewish community of the Ërëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eil during the centuries subsequent to the demise of Rab•ân Yo•khâ•nân Bën-Za•kai, no ordination was considered valid without the patriarch's consent. The patriarch himself was at first permitted to confer it without consulting the Sanhedrin. Later, the patriarch could only grant the degree in cooperation with the court (TJ, Sanh. 1:3, 19a).

vs.

The term used in the Ërëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eil in the days of the Jerusalem Tal•mud for ordination was []. In Babylonia the designation of (sᵊmikh•ut•â in Aramaic) was retained" ("Sᵊmikh•âh," EJ, 14:1140-47).

Rab•ân Ja•mᵊl•iy•eil ha-Zâ•qein, grandson of the original patriarch Hi•leil, belonged to the 'later' category in which the approval of the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol was obtained. From this it is clear that the ‭ ‬ (21.23.2) conferred upon Ribi Yᵊho•shua not only was conferred by Rab•ân Ja•mᵊl•iy•eil, but in concert with the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol of which Rab•ân Ja•mᵊl•iy•eil was Nâ•si.

This brings us to the question of Ribi Yᵊho•shua's ordination when "the ordination itself, which required the presence of three elders, one of whom was himself ordained, was originally performed by every ordained teacher upon his pupils (Sanh. 1:3; TJ, Sanh. 1:3, 19a)" ("Sᵊmikh•âh," EJ, 14:1140-47) [emphasis added; ybd].

This demonstrates that not only was ‭ ‬ (21.23.2) conferred upon Ribi Yᵊho•shua as a tal•mid of Rab•ân Ja•mᵊl•iy•eil ha-Zâ•qein, but that is, in turn, conferred upon his authentic tal•mid•im—legitimate Nᵊtzâr•im Jews, i.e. recognized by the Beit-ha-Din shël ha-Nᵊtzâr•im (in Ra•a•nana) within Ërëtz Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, of the authentic and historical , and Tan•â, Yᵊho•shua Bën-Yo•seiph Bën-Dâ•wid. (This is confirmed in NHM 10.1.). Again, this explains the events in "Acts" 2.

The documentation clearly demonstrates that, far greater than , Ribi Yᵊho•shua was recognized here as having received from both the patriarch of Beit-Hi•leil "in cooperation with" the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol!!!

This is further corroborated by the following: "The Ta•nâ•im were both scholars and teachers. They expounded the law and taught it to the people in academies and synagogues" ("Tanna, Tannaim," Ency. Jud. 15.800). Holders of were Ta•nâ•im. It's immediately clear how often this is confirmed of Ribi Yᵊho•shua in NHM.

Moreover, if Ribi Yᵊho•shua lacked , he would not have been tolerated as a teacher in the country (NHM 21.23.2), nor in the Bât•ei-ha-Kᵊnësët, much less in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh . This further corroborates that the historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua, in contrast to the syncretized Yësh"u (Jesus) of Christianity, was sho•meir-Tor•âh. This was, understandably, buried by the Hellenist Christian (Roman) redactors who couldn't afford to acknowledge that Ribi Yᵊho•shua was so inextricably linked to Jewish, and Judaic, hegemony.

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

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic

f