Vayishlach
Yemenite Weekly Torah Reading (Netzarim Israel)

`וַיִּשְׁלַח`
(bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 32.4—36.43) `בראשית ל"ב ד'—ל"ו מ"ג`
bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 36.40-43 :(Ma•phᵊtirꞋ) `מפטיר`
Torâh	Haphtârâh	Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua	Mᵊnorat ha-Maor

5767 (2006.12)

Note: YouTube, upon being acquired by Google, deleted our account and our videos – leaving a host of phonies calling themselves "Netzarim."

5764 (2003.12)

Jews have been demonized more than any other people. In the tradition of Bâ•lâqꞋ (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 22.4-23.11) and Hâ•mânꞋ (Ës•teirꞋ 3.6-8), beginning in 135 CE with the Hellenist Roman expulsion of Jews from יְרוּשָׁלַיִם and the consequent establishment of the Christian Church, Eusebius and other founding historians of the Church document that Christians demonized Jews as "those who have been blinded and rejected by ~~god~~, blindly following the law of sin and death and servants of Sâ•tânꞋ." Misojudaics resurrect the same arguments periodically, reaching a zenith in the Sho•âhꞋ. It is, thus, both incomprehensible and inexcusable for Jews to resort to the same evil – demonizing our cousins, the Arabs (or even Christians or Christian Jews, for that matter).

Winged Nike of Samothrake Louvre BCE 190

Source of "angels": Defaced Hellenist ~~goddess~~ of victory idol – Winged ~~Nike~~ (Louvre, B.C.E. 190)

Yet, if the medieval Jewish commentators' interpretation of this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ are correct in holding that the מַלְאָךְ of Ei•sauꞋ was, contrary to the explicit declaration in Ta•na"khꞋ, a "heavenly angel," then the following reasoning, as found in the Artscroll Stone Edition Ta•na"khꞋ (Note 32.25-32), results:

"The struggle with the angel. This confrontation was a cosmic event in Jewish history. The [C.E. through Dark Ages] Rabbis explained that this 'man' was the guardian angel of [Ei•sauꞋ] (RashꞋ"i), in human guise. The [C.E. through Dark Ages] Sages teach that every nation has an angel that guides its destiny as an 'intermediary' between it and ~~god~~. Two nations, however, are unique: Israel is ~~god~~'s own people and just as Esau epitomizes evil, so his angel is the prime spiritual force of evil—Sâ•tânꞋ himself. Thus, the battle was the eternal struggle between good and evil, between man's capacity to perfect himself and Sâ•tânꞋ's determination to destroy him spiritually."

But such demonization of any goy, or goy•imꞋ, as servants of Sâ•tânꞋ isn't compatible with the teachings of תּוֹרָה. ‭ ‬ י--ה also blessed Ei•sauꞋ—does י--ה thus endorse, by a blessing, servants of Sâ•tânꞋ though י--ה can do no evil? Such thinking isn't logically valid and must be rejected outright.

The correct and logical interpretation of this pâ•suqꞋ causes the problem to evaporate. Tor•âhꞋ teaches that the struggle between good and evil orbits the concept of YeiꞋtzër hâ-ra, with a Sâ•tânꞋ being the human prosecutor – not a "fallen angel" – at a given time and event.

We noted back in the 5753 (1992.12) pâ•râsh•âhꞋ (below) that "angels" isn't a valid rendering for מַלְאָךְ. In fact, "angels" are an extension of the polytheism motif dating back into our sojourn in Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim (B.C.E. 1897-1467—Chronology of the Tanakh, from the "Big נָטָה" Live-Link^T and promulgated by the Greeks in Hellenism, the Romans in Christianity and the Jews in Qa•bâl•âhꞋ.

The trivial questions, propelled by ignorance of Biblical perspective, combined with a penchant for superstitious fabling, are easily answered by rendering מַלְאָךְ as a human messenger throughout Ta•na"khꞋ.

Q: Who, then, is the מַלְאָךְ, representing Ei•sauꞋ, with whom Ya•a•qovꞋ wrestled?: A: Ta•na"khꞋ reads (32.25) וַיֵּאָבֵק אִישׁ עִמּוֹ – אִישׁ, not מַלְאָךְ. Thus, Ta•na"khꞋ confirms that the interpretation of מַלְאָךְ when found elsewhere in connection with this account is אִישׁ, an adult human male, not a fairy-tale "angel" relic of polytheistic idolaters.
Q: Why did Ya•a•qovꞋ ask the name of the אִישׁ with whom he wrestled if it was his brother?: A: Throughout the Middle East in those days, men were awarded honorific names for especially heroic deeds – witness, inter alia, Av•râ•hâmꞋ (né Av•râmꞋ) and SârꞋâh (née Sâr•aiꞋ) and עֵשָׂו aka שָׂעִיר (Pâ•râsh•atꞋ To•lᵊd•otꞋ). The practice is also widely attested in Mi•tzᵊr•ayꞋim. עֵשָׂו was an outdoorsman tribal chief and noble who wouldn't be defeated by a "nobody" little brother. He knew that anyone who could defeat him either had previously already earned an honorific title or deserved one now. So he asked his little brother if he had attained an honorific title while in Iraq. When his little brother replied with only his born name, עֵשָׂו granted him an honorific name, יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Q: Why, then did Ya•a•qovꞋ ask the name of his big brother?: A: The flip-side of the conversation, the complementary—and corroborating—reason. Ya•a•qovꞋ has just been granted an honorific name and he asked, then, by what honorific name Ei•sauꞋ was known. As the defeated party, however, Ei•sauꞋ asked "Why do you ask such a silly question? To rub it in?"
Q: Why was the אִישׁ afraid of dawn?: A: Interpreting אִישׁ as an extra-earthly being that was afraid of the dawn (32.27) suggests, in addition to a connection to the morning star (Lucifer = Mesopotamian idol ~~Ishtar~~, see Sâ•tânꞋ), which disappears at dawn, a hint of the vampire myth; clearly superstitious. There is, however, a simple explanation (having no connection to vampires or Sâ•tânꞋ) why Ei•sauꞋ was concerned about the dawn. Ei•sauꞋ was the powerful outdoorsman head of a clan, a nobleman. It wasn't proper for him to be seen as one of a couple of dirty, bloody night brawlers, and even worse to be a dirty, bloody night brawler defeated by his little brother. Like their subsequent peoples, Ei•sauꞋ and Ya•a•qovꞋ were noblemen who greatly regarded their sense of honor, personal integrity—and pride. Ei•sauꞋ wanted to get away from there and clean up.
Q: With such concerns, why would Ei•sauꞋ and Ya•a•qovꞋ agree to one-on-one combat?: A: As we see with the later instance of Dâ•widꞋ and גָּלְיָת, deciding a conflict by two representative champions was preferred to the killing of many people on both sides, often including women and children, in a full battle. Ya•a•qovꞋ noted his concern (32.8-12) and had sent his own מַלאָכִים (again corroborating that מַלאָכִים are human messengers, not "angels") to arrange this alternative to full conflict (32.4). Hearing the report, however, that Ei•sauꞋ is approaching with four hundred armed men rather than alone, Ya•a•qovꞋ is well justified in being concerned.
Q: Why, then, after the one-on-one match does Ya•a•qovꞋ continue to be afraid of Ei•sauꞋ's band (33.1ff)?: A: Prudence.
Q: If Ya•a•qovꞋ had only defeated Ei•sauꞋ, then why did Ei•sauꞋ name him יִשְׂרָאֵל commemorating that he had prevailed with Eil (Ël•oh•imꞋ) as well as man (32.29)?: A: Conversely, why stipulate "and man" if it wasn't a man? Messengers of Ël•oh•imꞋ and י--ה weren't always called messengers (מַלאָכִים). Just as one might announce a representative of Microsoft as "Hey, Microsoft is here"; so, too, messengers of Ël•oh•imꞋ or י--ה were often referred to simply as Ël•oh•imꞋ or י--ה (see, inter alia, bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 18). Like Ya•a•qovꞋ, Ei•sauꞋ, was also a son of Av•râ•hâmꞋ and, as head of a clan, a nobleman. Noblemen, probably regarded, in the same way, as messengers of Ël•oh•imꞋ, were sometimes referred to in Ta•na"khꞋ as Ël•oh•imꞋ. (However, there's no upper and lower case distinction in Hebrew.) So, like other noblemen of his day, Ei•sauꞋ was regarded, and regarded himself, as properly representing Ël•oh•imꞋ. In defeating Ei•sauꞋ, therefore, Ya•a•qovꞋ had conquered both Ei•sauꞋ the Ël•oh•imꞋ and Ei•sauꞋ the man, thereby earning the honorific appellation יִשְׂרָאֵל.

Thus, there was no extra-earthly angelic "spiritual force of evil—Sâ•tânꞋ himself" anthropomorphically personified as a man wrestling with Ya•a•qovꞋ. Neither demonization of Arabs nor any angelic battle between good angels leading good nations against evil angels leading evil nations is justified. It is all in our hands relying solely upon the direct help of the Prime Singularity to Whom every intelligent and logical inquiry into cosmology inevitably leads—י--ה, not any fairy-tale heavenly battle of "angels." The superstition of evil angels who could mount a battle against the Almighty is a remnant of polytheism.

5760 (1999.11)

The pâ•râsh•âhꞋ for this coming שַׁבָּת has applications for

those seeking to bring themselves into harmony with the teachings of Ribi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, which are derived from תּוֹרָה, and
the present and future of יִשְׂרָאֵל in the Middle East.

מִילָה

‫34.15 –אִם תִּהְיוּ כָמֹנוּ, לְהִמֹּל לָכֶם כָּל-זָכָר:

Qever Yoseiph, Shkhem Arabs standing on (1st time, 2000.10.07)

קֶבֶר Yo•seiphꞋ, ha-Tza•diqꞋ, 2000.10.07 – destroyed and desecrated by Muslim Arab Jihadist "Palestinians" of Arab-occupied ShᵊkhëmꞋ (Hellenized, then Arabized, to "Nablus"), celebrating on its ruins with their "Palestinian" flag.

קֶבֶר Yo•seiphꞋ, ha-Tza•diqꞋ, burned–again (2015.10.16)–and again by "Palestinian" Muslim Arab Jihadists. And world still learns nothing.

In the Hebrew, כָמֹנוּ is cantillated with a זָקֵף קָטָן, a disjunctive, marking a minor division of a pâ•suqꞋ—a pause like a comma. This sets apart the clause "becoming like us, …" emphasizing the clause and implying more than mere circumcision. Rather, "becoming like us" implies shedding the already-evident assimilationist influences of Arab-occupied ShᵊkhëmꞋ. While the implication is implicit, the full meaning is disclosed explicitly in 35.1-5—i.e., full conversion.

עָרְלָה

Checking the etymology of עָרְלָה, Klein notes the connection by which the verb עָרַל was metathesized from the Tei•mân•iꞋ רעל (Klein, pp. 486 & 622). The concept of a dangling 'obstructing excess' is equally applicable to the first three years' produce of fruit trees requiring pruning, as well as foreskin requiring 'pruning' (rather than attempting to find figurative interpretations of foreskin applying to fruit trees) – both likely designed after the agricultural practice to eliminate the unuseful from sapping vitality that could, instead, be better directed to increasing fruitfulness.

The term עָרְלָה more accurately refers to "dangling excess," where "dangling" is similar to staggering or reeling, like a puppet dangling on a string. According to Artscroll Bereishis (Ib.1482), "The term עָרְלָה, familiarly rendered foreskin, has the more literal meaning of surplusage." This is according to commentary of Medieval Sages. עָרְלָה also refers to the first three years' produce of fruit trees which תּוֹרָה requires (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 19.23-25), dangling to be regarded as excess to be pruned away.

Ram•ba"nꞋ noted that bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 17.11 stipulates "flesh of your [עָרְלָה], which refers to the flesh which obstructs [the free flow of holy seed]: there is no expendible [sic] flesh in the body which obstructs and covers a limb other than the 'flesh that covers the male organ.'" (Artscroll, Ia.570). Ram•ba"nꞋ was clearly unaware of eyelids and lips.

Adding the phrase "to circumcise for you each male" emphasized that the commitment must be complete, even including circumcision. Circumcision isn't the beginning of the process of conversion. Rather, when done according to Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (medical circumcision isn't valid for the בְּרִית, it is the final and completing seal in our body of the בְּרִית, conferring full citizenship in יִשְׂרָאֵל as a Jew. (Tevilah [immersion] follows conversion. Tevilah is primarily a spiritual cleansing which, for the new convert, signifies being born as a Jew, for the first time as a Jew (not being "reborn" as something they never were in the first place). Tevilah is required before the new convert is permitted to enter the community.) The certain implication of יִשְׂרָאֵל's requirement was that each male would be required to convert—including circumcision.

Did the inhabitants of ShᵊkhëmꞋ (currently Arab-occupied 'Nablus') fulfill this condition? The answer, and precedent for the rabbis' view of intermarriage and greed relative to prospective converts today, is found in 34.23 as the inhabitants of ShᵊkhëmꞋ schemed: "Their property, their possessions, and all of their livestock, won't it all be ours?" Here we find two primary precedents of invalid conversion: intermarriage and avarice.

Arab-occupied ShᵊkhëmꞋ [Hellenized, then Arabized, to 'Nablus'] – QëvꞋër Yo•seiphꞋ after destruction by "Palestinian" Muslim Arabs, 2000.10.07.

Lacking insight, the Sages have wrongly assumed "Whatever the evils of the townspeople, [יִשְׂרָאֵל's] sons had made them a condition—and broken it!" (Artscroll, ibid., p. 1484). But it was the inhabitants of ShᵊkhëmꞋ who were being deceitful, with no intentions of meaningful conversion, seeking only intermarriage and wealth with the intentions of taking everything from יִשְׂרָאֵל—which clearly came to the attention (probably by Din•âhꞋ) of Shim•onꞋ and Lei•wiꞋ. The condition had been (34.17) that if the inhabitants of ShᵊkhëmꞋ didn't complete conversion "we will take our daughter [who had been detained in the house of ShᵊkhëmꞋ, the "most respected prince" of their people] and go," i.e., by force.

Understood in this light, Ya•a•qovꞋ's remarks in 34.30 can only be a statement of factual realism as a prelude to planning their next step, not a rebuke: "You have stirred up trouble for me, making a stink for me among the inhabitants of ShᵊkhëmꞋ."

5759 (1998.12)

Examination of the Patriarch's plan for interfacing with the goy•imꞋ is both obvious and yet enlightening. Though Shim•onꞋ and Lei•wiꞋ broke this agreement, which Ya•a•qovꞋ disapproved and for which he chastened them, the agreement was sincere on the part of Ya•a•qovꞋ and his other sons, and is, despite Shim•onꞋ's and Lei•wiꞋ's aveir•âhꞋ of תּוֹרָה, the universal pattern for Judaism to relate to the goy•imꞋ of all ages. Unfortunately, the pattern of proselytizing was broken under the sword of the Romans/Christians, was never resumed under the sword of the Arabs, and has been relegated to "lost history" among the Jews.

Rainbow – Binyamin, יִשְׂרָאֵל

We find in this agreement the absolute beginning of the development of the minimum requirements for conversion, which eventually developed into the Seven Noakhide Laws. Here, these conditions are stated in their most infant and general form, in 34.15: אִם תִּהְיוּ כָמֹנוּ. This phrase is demarcated by the disjunctive cantillation trop, זָקֵף קָטָן—implying a sequence of two events, rather than a single event. This general condition is then followed by לְהִמֹּל לָכֶם כָּל-זָכָר—an obvious reference to conversion.

There is a remarkable continuity from then to the first century C.E., when the first recorded mention of a list of laws for geir•imꞋ appears as a list of four categories formulated by the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Beit-Din ("Noachide Laws," Ency. Jud., 12.1190) in Ma•avar 15.20!!! The earliest recorded documentation of the Seven Noakhide Laws demonstrates that they were set down by the Beit-Din of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ!!! (For a good insight into the era, see Louis H. Feldman, in the Biblical Archaeology Review, '86.09-10, pp. 58ff, as well as our first two introductory books.)

The continuity extends unbroken to the present, where the Seven Noakhide Laws still remain the minimum threshhold requirements to be accepted as a novitiate in a תּוֹרָה learning program leading to eventual conversion. And conversion, in turn, is still marked by circumcision as defined in this pâ•râsh•âhꞋ by Ya•a•qovꞋ himself.

Thus, Ya•a•qovꞋ himself established the pattern which Judaism must follow in establishing proper relations with the goy•imꞋ. (See again Feldman, as well as our first two introductory books.) The challenge is to bring today's Shim•onꞋ and Lei•wiꞋ of the Jewish community into a state of תּוֹרָה-observance so that this goal can be achieved.

5758 (1997.12)

Conversion without Tᵊvil•âhꞋ? No Rabbis?

34:15-16 — "However, in this will it be suitable for you, if you will become like us, circumcising all of your males." This is clear evidence that conversion to Judaism was required, and confirmation of the antiquity of the prohibition against intermarriage. Awareness of the principle of conversion at this early time – even before the exile in Egypt and the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ – is corroborated in pâ•suqꞋ 16: "and we will become לְעַם אֶחָד ".

תּוֹרָה refrains from explaining only those things that were clear and obvious to readers of that day. The part of conversion that caused the debility of the inhabitants of ShᵊkhëmꞋ (today's Arab-occupied 'Nablus') was obviously circumcision. That is why circumcision is emphasized rather than spelling out the remaining rules of conversion, which were irrelevant to this episode.

That the inhabitants of ShᵊkhëmꞋ were later killed is evidence that their "conversion"—for the purpose of marrying Din•âhꞋ, not as part of adopting the tribal religion of Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ—was a sham, not constituting genuine conversion and, so, was unacceptable – from the start. This was a rejection of an attempt by ShᵊkhëmꞋ to impose their acceptance on Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ under threat of war (see also כְּלֵי חָמָס, below), not a retroactive "reversal" of their imposed faux "conversion." This incident formed the basis why Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (and Orthodox rabbis) prohibits conversion for the purpose of marriage.

Havdâl•âhꞋ Tei•mân•itꞋ

Ha•dasꞋ is the spice – no European-castle spicebox. A sprig of myrtle is preferred but any fragrant herb or spice satifies Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ.

Demarcating between those in the brit and those not in the brit is a manifestation of the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ recalled in every recitation of Havdâl•âhꞋ (Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 42.20):

לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַקֹדֶשׁ לְחוֹל

The unanimous view of the Sages, in assuming that Shim•onꞋ and Lei•wiꞋ had required only circumcision rather than conversion, reflected their own Medieval perspective, not the Biblical mores of ca. B.C.E. 1915. Thus, the Medieval Sages maintain, when the inhabitants of ShᵊkhëmꞋ kept their part of the agreement, Shim•onꞋ and Lei•wiꞋ broke their word, "stirring up trouble" and "creating a stink" for Ya•a•qovꞋ. However, the Medieval interpretation fails to explain the events.

In those times, to have sex with an unmarried woman – for the purpose of effecting marriage – was one of several conventional and accepted methods of effecting marriage, especially among the poor and in outlying areas. Incidents such as this with Din•âhꞋ (but not involving intermarriage) were routinely dealt with by payment of an agreed sum of money in exchange for the maiden's father, executive for the maiden's family, granting his daughter in marriage. There is no basis for annihilating the inhabitants of a city for such a matter, nor for ascribing such evil to Shim•onꞋ and Lei•wiꞋ. The primary problem wasn't that ShᵊkhëmꞋ had sex with Din•âhꞋ; that could have been remedied by marriage – if the union had been within the bounds of the בְּרִית (i.e., the tribal religion of Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ). The primary problem was that ShᵊkhëmꞋ was outside of the בְּרִית and, despite intermarriage being prohibited, imposed an improper incident with a Yi•sᵊrâ•eil•itꞋ that "violated" – destroyed – her reputation.

Neither does Ya•a•qovꞋ's response justify the Sages' negative view of Shim•onꞋ and Lei•wiꞋ. Ya•a•qovꞋ observes that the incident had "stirred up trouble" and "made a stink" for him among the Kᵊna•an•imꞋ.

We also find that Ya•a•qovꞋ's reaction (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 34:30 & 49:5) merely finds their action excessive —bullying—not an evil or malevolent war crime. The translation of bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 49:5 is widely acknowledged as particularly problematic. Ya•a•qovꞋ describes Shim•onꞋ and Lei•wiꞋ not as murderers but merely as כְּלֵי חָמָס .

Medieval perspective also leaves the final term (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 49.5), מְכֵרֹתֵיהֶם, widely disputed and unresolved. Reading it as "weapons" is forced by the preconceived need to read it as "weapons," not by any compelling contextual or etymological factors. The etymology derives either from

מְכוֹרָה/מְכוּרָה, which, in turn, derived from כָּרָה, or
directly from כָּרָה.

Thus, in either case it refers to the "original digger [of a well]," or origin—not "weapon."

So Ya•a•qovꞋ's remark reads: "Shim•onꞋ and Lei•wiꞋ are brothers, utensils of bullying from their inception/origin." They were heavy-handed, but Ya•a•qovꞋ's remark in no way intimates that they were evil or unjust.

5753 (1992.12)

"And Ya•a•qovꞋ sent מַלאָכִים before him to עֵשָׂו"

If we are to accept the traditional rendering of מַלאָכִים as "angels" then we must render it uniformly here too. This pâ•suqꞋ emphasizes that the users and writers of this term understood מַלאָכִים as "messengers," whether of one another or of י--ה. Just as Ya•a•qovꞋ sent human beings as מַלאָכִים, so, too, מַלאָכִים of י--ה were often understood as human beings acting as messengers of י--ה. If readers will try to understand מַלאָכִים more in this light, these very real events will begin to be more understandable and less like fables and fairytales for children and the superstitious ignorant.

הפטרה

(Haphtâr•âhꞋ; resolution, wrap-up, dismissal) Tei•mân•itꞋ Bal•ad•itꞋ:

עובדיה

The Haph•târ•at′ Tei•mân•it′ and Sᵊphâ•râd•it′ is Ovad•yâhꞋ,
not the Ash•kᵊnazꞋit Ho•sheiꞋa 11.7 – 12.12.

5760 (1999.11)

According to RashꞋ"i, O•vad•yâhꞋ was a convert from among the Εd•om•imꞋ (Artscroll, Tᵊrei A•sarꞋ, p. 268). The Sages held that the subject of O•vad•yâhꞋ's prophecy, Εd•omꞋ of his previous (pre-conversion) life, though literally today an Arab clan in southwestern Jordan, Ë•domꞋ prefigured Rome and, therefore, its offspring – Christianity (e.g., loc. cit.). A more modern update would suggest that Εd•omꞋ, then, is grandfather to Islam.

Archeological Remnant of Original 1st-century C.E. Netzarim Beit K'nesset on Har Tziyon

Har Tziy•onꞋThe foundations of "David's Tomb" on Har Tziy•onꞋ in יְרוּשָׁלַיִם incorporate the ruins of the original, first-century, Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët, in which Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" prayed with the original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and convened the first Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Beit Din. Tradition holds that Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh—representing the Mâ•shiꞋakh—rests within (cf. Biblical Archaeology Review, 90.05-06, XVI.3, p. 16ff).

‫17 –וּבְהַר צִיּוֹן, תִּהְיֶה פְלֵיטָה וְהָיָה קֹדֶשׁ;

Traditional translations choose to ignore the תְּבִיר marking צִיּוֹן, necessitating a pause after the word, and forcing "there shall be refuge and there shall have been קֹדֶשׁ" to be interpreted as a single phrase.

The same passage prophesies that יִשְׂרָאֵל will inherit those who have been her host nations. This leaves יִשְׂרָאֵל with no need of a refuge. To the contrary, it is to be (15 & 18) Ei•sauꞋ and כָּל-הַגּוֹיִם who will be forced to "drink of the cup" (16) and in need of this refuge and קֹדֶשׁ—namely, קֹדֶשׁ that is accessible only through the תּוֹרָה of יִשְׂרָאֵל.

תּוֹרָה proclaims (cf. Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-Link^T (WAN) and Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-Link^T (ABNC) that such קֹדֶשׁ, which is accompanied by refuge, is possible only via either conversion or attachment to Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage יִשְׂרָאֵל as geir•imꞋ (not the pretend, Displacement Theology, pseudo-Judaism of Christian, i.e., "Messianic," Jews).

Thus, it is in the figurative, not literal, sense that יִשְׂרָאֵל is to be a flame consuming the straw. We can see the beginnings of this already, as יִשְׂרָאֵל has become a dominant force in the hi-tech world and the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ are demonstrating the intellectual, scientific and logical superiority of תּוֹרָה over the religions of the goy•imꞋ and Ei•sauꞋ. This shall one day be so complete that (18) "there shall be no remnant to Beit-Ei•sauꞋ, for י--ה has spoken."

"And where was the decree pronounced?," RashꞋ"i asked, rhetorically (Artscroll, ibid., p. 278). "Where it is stated" (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 24.19): "Then he [the Mâ•shiꞋakh, cf. 24.17] shall descend from Ya•a•qovꞋ; and he shall eliminate the vestige [of Ë•domꞋ, cf. 24.18] from the city." All goy•imꞋ will either be enlightened and enter the bᵊrit to become either Jews or geir•imꞋ (henceforth no longer goy•imꞋ) or eliminated from יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.

5759 (1998.12)

‫18 –וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה שָׂרִיד לְבֵּית עֵשָׂו, כִּי י--ה דִּבֵּר

(Then the House of Ei•sauꞋ won't have a remnant, because י--ה has spoken).

No wicked `שָׂרִיד` to bend knee, swear & convert to `תּוֹרָה`?

Jewish Proselytization

The ArtScroll Editors of The Twelve Prophets, Vol. 1, Obadiah, translated שָׂרִיד as "survivor." However, "remnant" is equally valid and reveals a radically different alternative to the total eradication of אֱדוֹם – variously interpreted as Arabs or Rome / Christianity but, today, more likely, additionally refers to Islam. A hint is found toward the end of the עָלֵינוּ

‫… וְכָל בְּנֵי בָשָׂר יִקְרְאוּ בִשְׁמֶךָ, ‫ לְהַפְנוֹת אֵלֶיךָ כָּל רִשְׁעֵי אָרֶץ. ‫ יַכִּירוּ וְיֵדְעוּ כָּל יוֹשְׁבֵי תֵבֵל ‫ כִּי לְךָ תִּכְרַע כָּל בֶּרֶךְ תִּשָּׁבַע כָּל לָשׁוֹן. ‫ לְפָנֶיךָ י--ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יִכְרְעוּ וְיִפּׂלוּ. ‫ וְלִכְבוֹד שְׁמָךְ הַגָּדוֹל יְקָר יִתֵּנוּ, ‫ וִיקַבְּלוּ כֻלָּם עוֹל מַלְכוּתֶךָ ‫ וְתִמְלוֹךְ עֲלֵיהֶם לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד. ‫ כִּי הַמַּלְכוּת שֶׁלָּךְ הִיא…

The עָלֵינוּ demonstrates that יִשְׂרָאֵל historically understood שָׂרִיד to mean that the living remnant of Ei•sauꞋ would convert to תּוֹרָה, still living – not eradicated – but no longer attached to (i.e., a remnant of) Ei•sauꞋ.

When we look back to Judaism of the 1^st century C.E., however surprising it may seem to many, the historical records clearly document that Judaism was a very successful evangelistic, proselytizing and missionary-oriented religion, attracting novitiates to תּוֹרָה in great numbers.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the words of the עָלֵינוּ suggest that we should be busy en-Light-ening the world with תּוֹרָה—like our Patriarchs and ancestors did.

It also requires only a moment's reflection to recognize, as RibꞋi Hi•leilꞋ realized: that a new novitiate to תּוֹרָה could never absorb everything needed to become entirely תּוֹרָה-observant "while standing on one leg." That realization, and its consequent discussion and debate regarding the establishment of a minimum threshhold set of requirements (finally resulting in the Seven Noakhide Laws), inspired this famous phrase. (See again Feldman.)

The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ view is that the reference to עֵשָׂו = Εd•omꞋ having no remnant refers not to any physical eradication, but rather to the winning of their hearts away from the religion of עֵשָׂו = Εd•omꞋ—prophesying of post-6^th century C.E. Islam—to תּוֹרָה, so that they find refuge in Har Tziy•onꞋ (pâ•suqꞋ 17). Thus, it is more likely the religion of עֵשָׂו = Εd•omꞋ that will no longer have a remnant.

This is exactly the direction taken by the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, focusing on demonstrating the historical authenticity, and the logical and scientific superiority, of Judaism over Christianity and/or Islam—whichever may be regarded as Εd•omꞋ.

This is corroborated also in pâ•suqꞋ 21: "And מוֹשִׁעִים shall ascend Har Tziy•onꞋ לִשְׁפֹּט – as defined by a Pᵊrush•imꞋ-heritage (not a Displacement Theology phony) Beit-Din.

5753 (1992.12)

This is one of the most powerful pârâshot dealing with the יִשְׂרָאֵלi-Arab situation that began with the Roman destruction of the Jewish Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ in 70 C.E. and the Roman expulsion of the Jews from יְרוּשָׁלַיִם in 135 C.E.

17—"And upon Har Tziy•onꞋ there shall be refuge, and there shall be קֹדֶשׁ; and the house of Ya•a•qovꞋ shall inherit his inheritance."

The Har Tziy•onꞋ of תּוֹרָה and the Har Tziy•onꞋ (corrupted to "Mount Zion") of today are two different mountains. The title changed from one mountain to an adjacent mountain over several centuries. (There was also a third. All three are adjacent to one another in יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.)

Palace of David ha-Melekh in Ir David excavated by archeologist Eilat Mazar

Palace of Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh in Ir Dâ•widꞋ, excavated by archeologist Ei•latꞋ Ma•zarꞋ. In the background, across the valley on the far hill, is Arab-occupied Silwan.

Today, Har Tziy•onꞋ is the mount due west of hâ-Ir hâ-A•tiq•âhꞋ, on the south side of the Ancient ["Old"] City.

In the days of Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh, however, Har Tziy•onꞋ was what is today known as the עֹפֶל, immediately south of Har ha-BaꞋyit and included what is today עִיר דָּוִד. Today, Arab-occupied "Silwan" spreads over the genuine Har Tziy•onꞋ. Jews returned to the area beside Bᵊreikh•at′ Shi•loꞋakh several months ago.

אמר ריבי יהושע

(Â•marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa)

מתתיהו בעברית

Ma•tit•yâhꞋu bᵊ-Ivᵊr•itꞋ; Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhꞋu —
NHM

(Redacted, Christianized & corrupted to 4^th-century "Matthew")

5760 (1999.11)

Arab-occupied Beit-Lekhem (Hellenized to 'Bethlehem')

bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 35.19:

‫וַתָּמָת רָחֵל; וַתִּקָּבֵר בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶפְרָתָה, הִיא בֵּית לֶחֶם:

בֵּית לֶחֶם is also where Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu prophesied (ca. B.C.E. 627; for datings see my Chronology of the Tanakh, from the "Big נָטָה" Live-Link^T) referring to the future Babylonian Exile (B.C.E. 586), and, additionally, presaging an event associated with the still future Mâ•shiꞋakh beyond that (31.14):

"Thus said י--ה, 'A voice is heard בְּרָמָה—wailing, bitter weeping, Râ•kheilꞋ weeps for her children; she refuses to be consoled for her children, for they are gone.'"

In this pâ•suqꞋ, Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu uses אֶפְרָתָה to refer back to אֶפְרַיִם in pasuq 31.8:

"With weeping they will come, for I have been a Father to יִשְׂרָאֵל, and אֶפְרַיִם is בְּכֹרִי."

Avoiding Messianic Connotation Incurs Impossible Contradiction

When distinguished from יִשְׂרָאֵל, as in this pâ•suqꞋ, בְּכוֹר of י--ה consistently refers to the Mâ•shiꞋakh (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 89.21-38 and Zᵊkharyah 8.10-12). Commentators seeking to avoid the messianic implications have misconstrued Scripture by asserting that אֶפְרַיִם "refers to the nation." However, if אֶפְרַיִם is יִשְׂרָאֵל in this pâ•suqꞋ then יִשְׂרָאֵל, used earlier in the same pâ•suqꞋ, has to refer to a different יִשְׂרָאֵל—exposing the self-contradiction of the false interpretation: who, then is the real יִשְׂרָאֵל?

A priori, this pâ•suqꞋ prophesies that בֵּית לֶחֶם is where the Mâ•shiꞋakh would be born!

We find this fulfilled in NHM 2.18:

"Then Herod the Great, having seen that he had been spurned by the astrologers, was outraged with indignance. Having sent forth, he eradicated all of the boys who were two years old and under (according to the time which he had precisely ascertained from the astrologers) in בֵּית לֶחֶם and in all of its borders. Then it was fulfilled which was spoken through Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ (31:14-15) saying,

"Thus said י--ה, 'A voice is heard בְּרָמָה—wailing, bitter weeping, Râ•kheilꞋ weeps for her children; she refuses to be consoled for her children, for they are gone.'"

B.C.E. 175 – Hellenization of Ko•han•imꞋ

The Original Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa

In the 5764 (2003.12) תּוֹרָה section (above), we saw that commentators have wrongly applied the term Sâ•tânꞋ broadly to Arabs.

Beginning with Yᵊho•shuꞋa ("Jason") Bën-Shim•onꞋ 'ב Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ in the second century B.C.E. (see the KhaꞋnukh•âh section in our Calendar page) and continuing through the first century C.E., the Qum•rânꞋ Kha•sid•imꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ, the Biblical Kohan•imꞋ, who had been exiled from the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ, called the succession of Ko•han•eiꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ who followed Yᵊho•shuꞋa ("Jason") Bën-Shim•onꞋ 'ב Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ the Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa. These were the "High Priest" successors of "the" Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa, Yᵊho•shuꞋa ("Jason") Bën-Shim•onꞋ 'ב Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ, who officiated in and controlled the apostate Hellenized "Second Temple." These Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa are more properly described as pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ.

Succeeding Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa

Other references in the literature cite a Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa at various different times, demonstrating that they referred to more than one. Clearly, all of the Hellenist successors to Yᵊho•shuꞋa ("Jason") Bën-Shim•onꞋ 'ב Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ, which was every successor until the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ , were regarded as Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa.

Reading NHM 4.1-11, one has to ask, Who (other than a Hellenist) would (NHM 4.1-7) seek religious miracles from RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as a sign that he was the Mâ•shiꞋakh? Who (other than the "High Priest") had authority to take him to the highest point of the Second Temple (4.7)? Who, but someone in bed with the Roman occupiers, could offer (4.8) RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa legions, kingships and governments? And who (other than a Hellenist collaborating with Roman occupiers to rule over the Jews) would desire RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa to "play ball" with the Hellenists? Who (other than a Hellenist Sadducee High Priest labeled as a Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa) would require (4.9) the support of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa in bowing down to him in recognition of his supposed religious authority?

The answer to all of these questions is conspicuous: the Sâ•tânꞋ who was trying to negotiate RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa to compromise and recognize his religious authority was not some mythical red demon with horns and a tail but the pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ successor of the Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa who officiated as the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ in the first century! In NHM 4.1-11, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa applied the term Sâ•tânꞋ to the then well-known appellation Ko•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa (the "Hellenist Sadducee High Priest") of his day – and that is a significant part of why they railroaded RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa on false charges and collaborated with the Roman occupiers to execute him.

5771 (2010.11)

אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ

תּוֹרָה

Translation

Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM

NHM

bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 35.19

And Râkh•eilꞋ died; and she was buried on the way toward Ëph•râtꞋâh, that is Beit LëkhꞋëm.

Then Herod the Great,^2.1.2 having seen that he had been spurned by the astrologers,^2.1.3 was outraged with indignation. Having sent forth, he eradicated all of the boys who were two years old and under (according to the time which he had precisely ascertained from the astrologers)^2.1.3 in Beit LëkhꞋëm and in all of its borders. Then it was fulfilled^5.17.3 which was spoken through^2.17.1 YirmᵊyâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ^11.9.1 [31:14-15] saying, ¹⁸

"A voice was heard in Râm•âhꞋ—wailing and bitter weeping, Râkh•eilꞋ weeping for her children because they are gone."

2.17-18

מְנוֹרַת הַמָּאוֹר ל"ג

Mᵊnor•atꞋ ha-Mâ•orꞋ by Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Abuhav

Translated by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu & Yâ•eilꞋ Bën-Dâvid.

("The [Seven-Branched] Candelabra of Light"), The Teimân•imꞋ Yᵊhud•imꞋ' Ancient Halakhic debate, Corrupted into the Zo•harꞋ & medieval Qa•bâl•âhꞋ

At Beit-ha-KᵊnësꞋët Morëshët Âvot—Yad Nâ•âmi here in Ra•a•nanꞋâ(h), יִשְׂרָאֵל, liturgy for a regular שַׁבָּת concludes with one of the members reciting the following portion of Mᵊnor•atꞋ ha-Mâ•orꞋ by Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Abuhav

Part 1 (of 3)

All of the תּוֹרָה, from the head of the scroll until its end, was given from the Mouth of ha-Qadosh, blessed be He, to Mosh•ëhꞋ, peace be upon him. And all that is said in it is from the Ma•as•ëhꞋ (doing/making) of the Merkavah (vehicle, pop. "chariot"; i.e. of Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ), and from the Ma•as•ëhꞋ of bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ, and the generations of the four foundations and the power of the quarries, and the plant of the earth, and the essential psyche and the educated psyche.

It's all said from the Mouth of Valor [i.e. י--ה] to Mosh•ëhꞋ, peace be upon him. And their quality and their essence and their power and their action and the absence of damaged parts of them [the letters], was all written in תּוֹרָה, explicitly or implicitly, in words or in gimatriyas, or in the shape of the letters that are written according to their Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, or those that change in form or are twined or crooked, or in their burrs or in their crowns; as it is memorized in tractate שַׁבָּת [of Tal•mudꞋ], the "RabꞋi Aqiva said" chapter (89.1): RabꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Lei•wiꞋ said, When Mosh•ëhꞋ ascended to the height he was found [by a malakh] for ha-Qadosh, blessed be He, Who was tying the crowns on the letters. He said to him, Mosh•ëhꞋ, Don't they say "Shalom" where you come from? He said before Him, Master of the world-age, Should a slave say "Shalom" to his Rabbi? He said to him, You had [the answer, i.e. the תּוֹרָה with all of its intricacies] to help Me.

Part 2 (of 3)

Part 3 (of 3)

(Translated so far)