|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
Ya•a•
A priori, Yo•
This opens a Pandora's Box of questions concerning the state and perspectives astronomy-astrology in Yo•
Some Egyptologists credit the later Greeks with astrology, insisting that Egyptians and Sumerians were pure astronomers. That just doesn't mesh with the evidence. Egyptians used a sidereal [clock] and associated their guiding star-clusters with various gods of the appropriate seasons (inundation of the Nile, planting, harvesting, etc.).
Some have questioned whether the zodiac had been developed by the time of Yo•gods and goddesses and Hellenist mythology – more than a millennium before the Hellenist civilization emerged to conceive them!
Filtering out a multitude of questionable "researchers" on the internet, a paper (author unidentified) from Ohio State University seems to provide a reasonably scholarly framework. "… Egyptians placed great importance on the sun. Their main god, Amon-Ra, was said to hold the power of the sun. However, the [clock] that the Egyptians used originally was not a solar [clock]. It was lunar, based on the phases of the moon. This [clock] didn't always fit with the seasons, however, so every now and then, an extra month was added" (cse.ohio-state.edu/~wengerk/astro/intro.html).
 |
To the Egyptians, the lunar clock (implying 28 days of four 7-day weeks and 12 lunar months in a year) represented the power of their goddess Hathor, the cow goddess (of "Golden Calf" infamy).
But, as stated, the Egyptians regarded their sun god, Amon-Ra, as the most powerful. Hence, the solar clock, (approx.) 365 days assumed superiority over their lunar clock. However, the need to synchronize the three clocks introduced difficulties – all three years were different. The lunar year was 336 days (12x28), the solar year was roughly 365 days and the sidereal year was, well, most easily divided into 360 days (12, 30-day, months, to achieve a semblance of correlation to the 12-months of 4, 7-day, weeks, lunar clock) plus the 5 days left over.
One sidereal year then approximated to 360° orbit around the sun. So 36 weeks approximated 10° per (10-day) week; with only 5 days variance from the solar clock.
But, uh, 30 day months don't divide by 4 like 28-day lunar months. So, the Egyptians observed 3, 10-day, weeks per month – plus 5 days intercalated annually. This system had the advantage of similarity to their sidereal clock, in which the the procession of star-clusters on the ecliptic across the night sky over the year was simply divided into 36, approx. 10°, 10-day weeks, each implying the power of its particular star-god "ruling" that week. (These gods were in addition to the correlations with the waxing (masc.) and waning (fem.) of the powers of the god and goddesses of the lunar clock and those of the solar clock; conspicuously polytheistic.
Certain gods or goddesses were assumed to be more powerful relative to the characteristics associated with their week and, especially, while the god or goddess was ascending in their, predictable, week – and thus, the most propitious god or goddess to petition at that time. Thus, Egyptians believed it was more effectual to pray to certain gods or goddesses – depending on their (lunar, solar or sidereal) clock.
From this, more than a millennium later, the Greeks would construct astrology.
For Egyptians, the inundation of the Nile was the anchor-point of the year; and Egyptians viewed the Nile as the earthly mirroring of the Celestial Nile, the celestial river of cow milk issuing from their goddess Nut (later morphed into Hathor): our "Milky Way" galaxy. (According to some sources, at certain times of the year, our Milky Way galaxy would appear to extend from Egypt's distant southern horizon continuing straight up into the Milky Way. This would lead to the idea of a celestial boat navigating up the Nile into the Milky Way.)
"Stars rise and set just like the sun does… Because the Earth revolves around the sun, the sun appears to move to the east through the stars. Therefore, eventually the stars that appear to be to the east of the sun will appear to be to the west of the sun, rising just before it does and being visible until sunrise. This is called heliacal rising… The heliacal rising of [Isis or Hathor; symbol cow (Sirius – the "Dog Star")] also marked the [midsummer (10-day) week and Egyptian New Year] when the Nile river would flood and irrigate the farmland that the Egyptian society depended on" (cse.ohio-state.edu/~wengerk/astro/egypt.html).
There is a further association. Gods or goddesses associated with the planting season were assumed to have the power of fertility, creation and the like. "These [week]s also seemed to have a connection to Egyptian funeral rituals. Once a [given week's star cluster] is no longer visible in the night sky, it does not rise heliacally again for seventy days. The Egyptians believed that during this time, the [week's star-cluster god or goddess] had died and was being purified in the Duat, or the underworld. After seventy days in the Duat, the [week's god or goddess] was reborn. Apparently in correlation with that, Egyptian embalmers took seventy days [giving the original, death-reborn, significance to the number 70] to prepare a body for burial" (ibid., Ohio State). And so the Egyptian reasoning went for each of the 36 (10-day) week star-gods of the year, depending on the characteristics of that week / season of the year.
Births, and naming, were popularly associated with one or more of the three (sidereal, solar or lunar) "ruling gods or goddesses" of the (10-day) week, and the infant's attributes likened to the characteristics attributed to that (those) gods or goddesses – the unmistakably polytheistic origins of genethlialogy and the later Greek zodiac and astrology. This is clearly evident in Egypt's extensive usage of theophoric names; e.g., Tut-moses (Toth-incarnate), etc.
Now we have some background to try to understand Yo•
While Ya•a•Hathor worshippers) and the 12 months (and polytheism) they shared.
Yo•gods and goddesses before the Monotheist Creator heralded by his family. We're still waiting for this.
Still, he and his family needed a clock – to keep up with technology – just like everybody else. It would appear that the family rejected the polytheistic sidereal clock and sun-worshiper clock as the most repugnant. A priori, the lunar clock was adopted – and locked in by the bᵊrit of the seven-day Shab•Hathor = Isis (mother of Horus and the "Eye of Ra"), the mother (symbol: cow, supplier of milk) moon-goddess of music, dance, drinking and love – of "Golden Calf" infamy and the origin of the prohibition against oppressing a "convert" for his or her origins – "boiling a kid in its mother's milk".
 |
 |
To minimize the enormous bandwidth consumed by video data (disk space, dictating loading time), as much content as possible is diverted to the text section (below), with the video handling only the parts that cannot be handled as well by text alone. For this reason, videos are archived in YouTube. Ta•na"kh′ selections are read from the Seiph′ër Tor•âh′ ha-Tei•mân•i′, the כֶּתֶר אֲרָם צוֹבָא (Aleppo Codex), an Artscroll Ta•na"kh′ or iQIsa, as appropriate, and pronounced according to No•sakh′ Tei•mân•it′.
|
|
37.5 – וַיַּחֲלֹם יוֹסֵף חֲלוֹם
 350x200.png "Out-of-body") |
Docuvid by Pierre Bourdin, et al., Univ. of Barcelona:  . |
Lots of people dream. You've dreamed. What made Yo•seiph′'s dream different? Where do dreams come from? Why are some dreams good and meaningful while others are bad and lack meaning? Where are "we" – our
 |
| Precuneus of left cerebral hemisphere (BodyParts3D) |
Dealing with these questions requires delving into philosophy and cosmology. Investigating these issues revolves about the role of the brain, for the brain is the ultimate destination of every sensation that the universe can communicate to us through the five senses our bodies are able to perceive. Everything in the universe, in order for us to be aware of it, must be translated into electrical impulses fed into the brain via one or more of our five sense. This is all that it's possible for our "self" to know about our physical universe. Concepts are not physical. Ergo, they can only be derived, via logic (and its abstraction, mathematics), from elsewhere not within the physical universe; from a non-dimensional, non-physical realm.
 |
Anyone who has ever operated an avatar in a computer game (think Lara Croft) will recognize that one soon adapts to "driving" the avatar like a car, like an extension of our "self." Everything not conveyed by our five senses is not physical and not from our physical universe. If an avatar could be completely outfitted with sensors identical to our body and properly transmitted and connected in our brain, then we could, indeed, experience the universe through an avatar. So, apart from the electrical connections, how is our body different from an avatar?
That leads to the question "What, then, constitutes our cognizance? How is you defined?" And beyond that, what is the Prime Cause of the physical universe and Who inhabits the non-dimensional – ergo timeless, more precisely timespaceless – realm?
It's clear that the brain plays a central role in connecting the physical universe, via the body, to "you" ' somehow. But can "you" really reside, confined, inside the brain? There are several aspects that being confined inside the brain wouldn't explain. Even if memory could be encoded at the atomic level, using only a few megapix (million atoms) per image, the memory elements required in a brain to store the data for all of the graphic images we accumulate, and remember, during our lifetime appear to exceed, many times over, the total number of atoms that make up the brain. That's not counting all of our other memories, knowledge processing and emotions; to say nothing of creative thinking and the whole issue of cognition and life. If this knowledge is stored in a non-physical "cloud" elsewhere, then where (particularly since any location contradicts a non-physical realm)??? Beyond that, some accounts of precognitions (.6 second precognition being a relatively proven phenomenon by scientific experiment) and out-of-body experiences, particularly in cases where the brain seem to have been non-functioning, have proven difficult to explain for a person confined inside a brain.
 |
| Singularity |
On the other side of the coin, however, neither concepts nor cognizance is physical. Thus, particularly considering the ease of experiencing out-of-body experiences with today's technology, there is no compelling reason, or evidence, to suggest that the cognizant person is actually inside the brain any more than medieval thinkers considered that the person was in the heart. There is no reason to expect the physical body, including the brain, to contradict the physical laws that govern the rest of the physical universe. More compelling, everything—literally everything—in the universe is hard evidence that there is no exception to the laws that govern the universe. The question of cognizance relative to a physical universe then places our inquiry squarely into the cosmological branch of philosophy. How is the universe related to cognizance and concepts, which came first, and where did each come from? Physicists don't deny a Prime Force, which I like to think of as the Prime Singularity—i.e.
There is no intelligent alternative to explain the intelligent design of the universe beside an Intelligent Designer, the Cognizance corollary to the physical universe that parallels the cognizance corollary to the physical brain. Evolution, though some examples of evolution are substantiated, cannot explain evolving life from a rock, much less evolving something from nothing.
 |
| Electromagnetic multipole fields – Unlike electromagnetic fields, configuring an attractive external force (or set of forces) would, when switched on, create a gravity-like anti-force (or set of anti-forces) within. Perhaps, we are the anti-matter and anti-energy? |
Astronomers and physicists have identified holes in our universe (named "singularities," interestingly) through which matter and or energy andor dark matter and dark energy appear to pass in both directions in and out of our universe – if dark matter or energy even exist (see "Big Bang" below). Either case inescapably implies umbilical cords to some undefined external (beyond where our dimensional universe ends, words fail; non-dimensionals cannot even properly be called things) to our universe, which I refer to as the Prime Singularity—i.e.
Completely separate from the question of why the Prime Singularity created people is the question of why the Prime Singularity would want to create a physical universe and physical living things. In other words, why physical at all? Why didn't the Prime Singularity simply create living beings in His own, non-physical, domain—particularly since cognizance is non-physical? In whatever domain "you" are, it isn't physical.
 |
 Multipole Fields – Applying an attractive force to external circle would create a pulling-apart, introducing reactive forces in the central region that did not exist until the external attractive force was introduced. |
Your cognizance has a physical extension not much different from the extension you feel when you drive a car, pilot a plane or play a computer game. When you're driving, playing a computer game, operating a tool or swinging a tennis racket it seems like an extension of you—and, in a sense, it is. But, you might argue, you can get out of your car, quit the computer game or put your tennis racket in its cover. Ah, but you can also lose a hand and still be "you"; your cognizant self. Your body is, indeed, only an extension of you. Further, since that is true of the physical body, what evidence is there that the brain is any different, beyond its complexity, than the nerves in your hand? Is your hand cognizant? Aside from the brain, muscles and other nerves can be trained to take mental shortcuts, from riding a bicycle to highly honed reactions of athletes; but, except—perhaps—the brain, the body isn't cognizant or capable of thought. Where is the unperceived line between our physical body and our cognizance? Between the physical universe, therefore (since our bodies are a physical part of it), and our cognizance?
All of the evidence points to the conclusion that no such line can be discovered in this physical universe. The evidence is as nearly infinite as humans know how to deal with that there are no exceptions to the physical laws governing the universe. Those who argue against this universe of evidence are victims of argumentum ad ignorantiam. All of this suggests that the line that has to exist somewhere between our cognizance and our physical hand cannot be in our physical brain, or in any other physical element, at all. Rather, the line is between our physical body, including our brain, and the "other (non-physical) domain" that includes our cognizance and ideas, which are external to our physical universe.
 |
Thus, we must think of our brain not as the seat of our cognizance, as traditionally assumed. Rather, the brain must be understood as the transceiver between our physical universe (that includes our physical manifestation, including our brain) and "us," our non-dimensional, cognizant self. This necessarily implies that "you" exist not in your brain as traditionally assumed (and only relatively recently at that), but in the non-physical domain external to our universe. Your senses and body are, indeed, a virtual world in which a non-physical cognizant "you" interacts with the "world." This isn't the result of The Matrix movie. Indeed, I've taught and published this long before the movie was ever conceived. (I'm not suggesting that they got the idea from me. Besides, they've gotten a lot of things wrong, especially having no clue whatsoever about what really underlies the "matrix." Reaching a conclusion along these lines has always been logically inevitable. The only question was how long it would take.)
Recognizing the brain as a kind of inter-domain transceiver between the physical world, including our body and brain, and the non-physical domain implies that death is merely the Intelligent Designer deciding that it's time to switch off that transceiver, leaving the cognitive self unchanged, simply disconnected, permanently, from the virtual physical world. It follows, therefore, that the cognitive person must learn to adapt, if one hasn't learned to do so previously, to the permanent non-physical domain that is, in fact, our permanent domicile.
This leads to the question "What is the distinction, in the non-physical domain (external to our physical universe) between our cognizance and the Prime Cognizance? And this gets us back to the question we set out to answer: where dreams come from.
Yet, we still haven't answered a question we raised earlier, and we need to address that question now in order to continue our reasoning: Why did the Prime Singularity bother creating a physical universe and constrain our cognizance through physical bodies, confining us to the physical domain? And does that necessarily entirely confine us to the physical domain??? (E.g., what about cognizance-to-Cognizance—otherwise known as tᵊphil•âh′—or direct cognizance-to-cognizance—intra-human—communication and non-physical interaction that doesn't go through the physical domain at all???)
The best clue we have to the question of why the Intelligent Designer created cognitive beings is evident in the nature of the cognizance He created, and the most glaring attribute of our cognizance is free will. Free will requires the option to make choices under the exclusive control of our own cognizant being. This would seem to introduce the potential for a contradiction to the pure, orderly and perfect domain of the Intelligent Designer. However, a perfect Intelligent Designer precludes such a contradiction, thus posing a seeming impossibility. That seeming impossibility, however, can be averted by creating a kind of virtual laboratory (to express it in terms we might more easily relate to it) in which free will is enabled while disorder and imperfection are merely simulated. Interestingly, that virtual laboratory exactly describes our physical world!
Yet, even a free-will decision that merely simulates disorder and imperfection in a virtual laboratory, nevertheless, represents an associated disorder and imperfection in the cognizance who has chosen disorder or imperfection and, therefore, within the non-physical domain as well. The resulting disorderly and imperfect cognizance is something that cannot be permitted to blemish the domain of a perfect Intelligent Designer (or He would no longer be perfect). Thus, we may confidently conclude that there is some separation –
To pursue this reasoning about communicating in the non-physical domain requires investigating the parameters for communicating with the Intelligent Designer. As we have demonstrated, connection to the perfect Intelligent Designer presumes no introduction of disorder or imperfection into the domain of the perfect Intelligent Designer. That necessarily implies that the cognitive being with free will must somehow learn to become compatible with the order and perfection of the Intelligent Designer—Tor•âh′ calls this Qo′dësh—in order to connect, i.e. communicate, with Him.
The alternative is being unconnected to the Intelligent Designer, a different (still non-physical) domain.
Therefore, the question, and challenge, is to learn how to become compatible with the Intelligent Designer in order to communicate, to commune, with Him? Tor•âh′ calls this tᵊphil•âh′.
Einstein rightly concluded that the Creator is never malicious. His famous conclusion, however, is simply a logical implication of recognizing an Intelligent Designer. This implies that this Prime Singularity would have made instructions accessible to us that enable us to understand enough to succeed in this virtual exercise. There is only one set of Instructions covering these topics. Readers may be surprised to learn that Tor•âh′ no more means "law" than the qadish is a "prayer for the dead" (another ignorant misconception). The Hebrew word for "Instruction" is Tor•âh′!
 |
Einstein's rebuke of an atheist is consistently ignored by atheists:
"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious." – Albert Einstein
Thus, we find our cognitive—actual—selves, in a "spiritual" (non-dimensional) actuality in the non-physical domain and faced with a dilemma: connection to the Intelligent Designer by aligning our practice to be compatible with His Instruction or a state of disconnection from which, once our transceiver is turned of, there can be no reconnection (to anything). Hell is eternal absolute loneliness in a state of absolute sensory-deprived lost, the penalty for choosing not to be qâ•dosh′.
Seen in this Light, tᵊphil•âh′, fellowship and service to
In this context we can also more easily understand the prohibition against connections such as necromancy and the like; or connections with those who, in their free, will choose not to connect with the Intelligent Designer. Opening a channel of connection with khol precludes a channel of connection with qâ•dosh′. We're not talking here about everyday polite andor business conversations. Of course, we are to be friendly and caring. That's part of reflecting compatibility with the Intelligent Designer, Who epitomizes these traits. But with whichever of the two categories our cognitive selves commune, we preclude communion with the other.
 |
Now we can address the original question: where do dreams come from and why are some dreams good and meaningful while others are evil and lack meaning? Dreams reflect our interactions in the non-physical domain. Our dream world is, after all, non-physical, whether we realize it in our dreams or not; whether we remember what we dreamed, or even that we dreamed. We're cognizant, but we're not in the physical domain. Dreams, even when they are evil and turn out to be contrary to fact, reflect our inter-domain connections and communications. They are indicators of which domain to which we're currently connected—or not properly connected!
Neuroscientists have demonstrated that a person can, by force of his or her "self" – will – (including repetition and meditative-tᵊphil•
Dreams are the training simulator for learning to deal with our true, extra-physical, domicile. This brings up numerous interesting questions; such as: Why do some who seem to be meticulous in keeping every minutiae of rabbinical law have nightmares? The answer is not avoiding that the dreams indicate the inter-domain connections, but, rather, that keeping the minutiae of rabbinical law doesn't equate to qâ•dosh′. In other words, the minutiae of rabbinic fences—adding to Tor•âh′ in contravention of Dᵊvâr•im′ 13.1—doesn't equate to keeping Tor•âh′ as it was given on Har Sin•ai′ (e.g. a pᵊtil′ tᵊkheil′ët in the tzitz•it′, shaving the beard, 10 commandments in the tᵊphil•in′).
On the other hand, we have non-Jews, often in other religions, who report good dreams. Perhaps some come closer to keeping Tor•âh′ as it was given on Har Sin•ai′ than some Jews? It's a critical point to ponder. According to Hi•leil′, Tor•âh′ judges us based on our practice. So if the practice of a non-Jew is closer to the principles of Tor•
But there's a trap, a logical fallacy, that stalks this line of reasoning. Does a good dream, or a dream come true, then indicate that the dream is from communion with the Intelligent Designer? No. Suggest a near-future event just before sleep to enough people with, say, two possible outcomes. Out of the law of probability, approximately half of those who dream about the event will have dreams that predict the outcome. That confirms nothing. Repeat the tests a few times with the same group and, in most cases, the dreamer of the "true" dreams will be different people, approximately half of whose dreams are wrong. Science, and תּוֹרָה, instruct us that such dreams are anecdotal, merely following the laws of probability and are no indicators of any kind of super cognition (
The lesson is that bad dreams seem to be indicative of non-connection with the perfect Intelligent Designer. However, the converse doesn't hold true. Occasional good dreams might just be the law of probability working itself through a series of dreams. It's when dreams are consistently healthy and good that they confirm connection with the perfect Intelligent Designer. Whether the dreams predict the future, or not, is irrelevant—as long as they don't predict wrongly. Yo•seiph′'s dreams were consistently healthy, good and his dreams about the future consistently true; never wrong. That's what was different about Yo•seiph′ 's dreams.
|
|
Why did Ru•veinꞋ argue to throw Yo•seiph′ into a pit? If Ru•veinꞋ's intentions were so noble then why didn't he rather champion the case for Yo•seiph′'s continued freedom? Why didn't Ru•veinꞋ argue not to harm Yo•seiph′ at all? Why didn't Ru•veinꞋ defend Yo•seiph′?
The medieval European Zo•har′ suggests that Ru•veinꞋ realized that
 |
| קֶבֶר Yo•seiphꞋ, ha-Tza•diqꞋ, 2000.10.07 – destroyed and desecrated by Muslim Arab Jihadist "Palestinians" of Arab-occupied |
| קֶבֶר Yo•seiphꞋ, ha-Tza•diqꞋ, burned–again (2015.10.16)–by Muslim Arab Jihadists. And world still learns nothing. |
his brothers, led by Shim•on′ and Lei•wi′ (who had massacred the entire city of Shkhem, today Arab-occupied 'Nablus') had made up their minds to kill Yo•seiph′ and
Therefore,
Questions—often unrecognized—concerning whether gods'?
There could be, in such case, no personal responsibility or accountability. Only 'god' would be responsible, for everything, in such a philosophy. The implication here is that 'god' is blamed for human evils: from the rape or murder of a loved one to the Sho•âh′ (Holocaust).
How many times have you heard "Why did god do that?" Or "Why did god allow that to happen?" The answer, of course, is that
Insertion: 2001.11.28— Today, physicists ponder the ramifications of the contradiction between the quantum universe and relativity. Relativity seems, to them, to hold the possibility of time travel, while quantum physics seems to preclude time travel. We travel in time our entire lives. It's the slowing down of time that corresponds to an increase in velocity that stumps the physicists. If one reaches the speed of light, theoretically time is expected stop. If one exceeds the speed of light, which some physical phenomena do, then, physicists debate, would traveling backward through time result?
And here is the perplexity: if traveling backward through time is possible, then time collapses to a "now" in which the future and past are both simply "now"!
The consequence of this would be that the future already exists. In other words, the future is already determined. This is the ramification: if the future already exists then it's already predetermined and we cannot alter it' we have no free will!
Same class, same kids, same school, (different room, 5th grade 2 years later – 1st class photo), Rio Grande Elementary, 1953. Clint Van Nest is the boy sitting behind the girl with the sign.
I was dealing with these concepts, from a logical rather than mathematical perspective, when I was in second grade' announcing to the total befuddlement of my teacher in Rio Grande, N.J., "Miss Theo" Caldwell, that the stars we see every night may have blinked out of existence millions of years ago, since it takes millions of light years for their light to reach our eyes. Certainly they're no longer where we perceive them to be. I've progressed just a little since second grade.
There are many physical differences between sound and light. Nevertheless, one aspect of the two must remain intact. Consider a jet that breaks the sound barrier, traveling beyond its sound. If the pilot could make an instant stop at his airfield then he could stand on the airfield and listen to himself land. Who would say that the pilot is both standing on the airfield and landing with his sound? Yet, that is the same boneheaded error, merely transferred to light, that is still being advanced by some of the world's most advanced physicists. At any given point, the pilot can be in only one place, irrespective of whether his sound or light may lag or be.
Photonic flash (parallel of sonic boom) aside, does that imply that our pilot who travels faster than light would be invisible? No. People who fly in the Concorde aren't required to switch to hand signals after the sonic boom. (Interesting question for you to ponder or ask your local physics professor: why not?)
Particles traveling faster than the speed of light would mean that we could no longer know that what we see is actually located where we see it. Do we know that now? Consider the electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom. We're long past the time when we should drop our need to liken electrons to orbiting planets or clouds. Learn to think in the abstract' using math equations to fill in gaps rather than blind tunnels of speculation. Math is an essential tool of science. Yet, total reliance on math to the exclusion of thinking (discrete logic) has turned some physicists from being good scientists into becoming, instead, foolish philosophers and theologians reminiscent of a mirror-image of the Middle Ages Church.
If a galactic pilot flew in and landed somewhere, say, an hour ahead of his image, the light source from his destination would illuminate him and he would be seen normally by those on the ground at his destination. Yet, both he and those on the ground would also be able to see his (apparent) ship (with apparent pilot) approaching for the next hour. Yes, the pilot would be able to "see himself coming" but he would not be in two places at once. As the physicists have depicted, his image would indeed be seen in two places at once. He could even be seen at his destination before the image arrived. The boneheaded error is to place the actual pilot in the lagging image instead of where he (or she) really is. Unlike his image, the actual pilot can never be in two places at once. This is why the physicist's equations always crash and burn before the pilot can meet his "other self." There is no other self, only the lagging image catching up.
If the pilot could travel faster than light the only major difference is that he could also see himself land. He would no longer "be" in his image any more than the first pilot would still "be" in his sound. Both sound and light are physical attributes. Neither is identical to "us."
Timespace Time only has meaning relative to the dimensional (physical) universe. Without spinning earth, earth orbiting around the sun, our physical bodies aging and other physical points of reference, there can be no measurement of time. Time doesn't exist outside of the dimensional universe. The physicists are correct that there is only now. There has always been only now. There will always be only now. Everything of the past exists now and everything of the future exists now. But, to the total consternation of the physicists, that doesn't affect our free will.
Think of us as sitting on the needle of a seismograph. The paper rolls underneath of us and we squiggle up and down, recording our ups and downs on the paper as it flows underneath.
Now revert to our usual perspective. When we look down at a seismograph we can see the paper that has already flowed under the pen as well as the paper in the box that has yet to flow under the pen. Time has nothing to do with it. We're in the "now" looking at all of the paper, because we're outside of the restraints of the dimensional universe of the "us" living on the pen of that seismograph.
Some distance "upstream" of "your" pen are the pens of Mosh•ëh′, Avraham Avinu, Yi•tzᵊkhâq′ Âv•i′nu and Ya•a•qov′ – now! From "your" pen you read what "their" pen recorded "millennia" earlier' but is actually going on now. The graph paper flowing by under the pens is the needed "space" that, when combined with the movement of the paper, stitches together the concept of time, and upon which the very existence of a notion of time depends. There is no time independent of space. There is only timespace. Time is nothing more than a sequential record of movements of physical objects in space. Think about how you define time. Remove either physical objects or space and there is neither any means of measuring time nor even way to conceive of time.
Yes, loved ones who have died have only moved "upstream" and out of sight on our seismograph. (Interestingly, physicists have also shown that time is—almost imperceptibly—slower for children and faster for old people. Old people don't slow down' in their own time frame. Yet children, operating in a slightly faster time frame, see old people as if they were in slow motion. This is an acceleration of time over one's lifetime. It would be interesting to ascertain if this acceleration is the same rate of acceleration as the expansion of the universe? Are the "pens" of the seismograph separating from each other (until they're no longer visible to each other at some point – death) at the same rate of acceleration as the universe? Is death merely a "going too far out of time phase" to maintain connection with our physical transceivers (brains) and body? Does exercise and diet affect how the physical body is able to better tune itself to this time phasing?
Nevertheless, praying for the dead is an exercise in futility. A perfect
י--ה can neither change, break His perfect laws or His decision never to interfere with free will (what they decide to record with their pens).If I pull the plug on the seismograph, the graph paper ceases to flow underneath and "time" ceases to exist for all of the pens at once.
Suddenly, you're completely disoriented. You no longer have any means to measure the passage of time. You still squiggle up and down. You don't lose that capability. But it's all in the "now." Time no longer exists for you or your world – and "future" is rendered meaningless. Free will remains, in the "now." It's future-time that ceases to exist, not free will.
With the breakdown of time, mathematical equations turn to meaningless mush as some denominators go to zero and some numerators achieve infinity. When dimensions cease to exist, all mathematical equations dependent upon dimensions, and observations of dimensions, are stripped of any relevance. Only logic continues to apply.
If everything in the dimensional (physical) domain were to suddenly stop then time would no longer exist. In this it can better be understood that there is only timespace. Time has no meaning, and cannot exist, independent of space (dimensions, the physical universe). That's because time is nothing more than an artificial means of sequencing events relative to the dimensions of our physical universe.
But there is also an aspect of this that will be of interest to the physicists and cosmologists. Calculations that suggest that time stops when anything physical achieves the speed of light would, therefore, also suggest that the physical object transverses to the non-dimensional—and timeless—domain!
A "now" that comprises both past and future necessarily implies that Avraham Avinu, for only one example, exists now. Understood in this light, the argument of Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a in NHM
22.23-33 is extraordinary.
Consider our brain as a transceiver between the non-dimensional and dimensional universes. "We" are outside of the constraints of the dimensional world – but everything we know how to relate to is channeled, via our brain to all of the physical senses we perceive, to the constraints of the dimensional world. That channel is disconnected, releasing us into the non-dimensional—timeless—domain, only in death.
That there is a non-dimensional domain complementing our physical universe is also implied by the "black matter" (supposed invisible and undetectable "influences"), or anti-matter, that some physicists and cosmologists still theorize influence the dimensional universe.
I say supposed because "dark matter" will be rendered non-existent when the unexplained "Big Bang" theory is superseded by a Unified Field Theory. Scientists will look back on this folly: "In the 21st century, some scientists still believed that, suddenly, once upon a time, nothing blew up and, voila, the universe existed!" All because when the scientists rewound the mathematics, reversing the development of the universe back to its beginning, they couldn't explain the beginning, vanishing, point – the origin or Prime Cause.
[Since "dark energy" appears to be scientifically unlikely (see "Big Bang"), it would be fitting to label the opposite alternative, external attractive Force, "Light Force"!]
Scientists are beginning to swoop up, and claim for themselves, my "Big Stretch-Apart" theory, which I recognized plainly described in the Hebrew text of the
Ta•na"khꞋ . Rather than nothing magically exploding in a "Big Bang," my "Big Stretch-Apart" theory posits that the universe began as a point (nothing) pulled or stretched apart by an external (not internal), attractive (not repulsive), force – not being pushed apart from within by any "dark" internal forces (which would have had to magically self-generate from nothing). It is the external attractive force applied to the point (nothing) that creates counterforces internally – the forces that compose and power the quarks and atoms of our physical universe.
One can think of a simplified example, placing the opposite poles of four magnets around a point. This would introduce magnetic forces to the point. If these forces were sufficiently strong to pull the point apart, what would it look like? Another little universe of counterforces?
This simultaneously explains the accelerating expansion of the universe as it continues nearing the attractive Prime Force that initially caused the "Big Stretch-Apart".
Meanwhile, scientists are still on the quest for their holy grail – looking for "Dark Matter" to deconflict their "Big Bang" theory with its conundrum of the accelerating expansion of the universe – attempting to salvage their "Big Bang" theory.
When we conjecture that the dimensional universe was generated, and is predominated, by the influences of this non-dimensional domain, then the suggestion that this non-dimensional Domain includes – concurrently now – Av•râ•
hâmꞋ Âv•iꞋnu —and so many other "pens" recording on the fabric of timespace. Consequently, now takes on new, and most concrete, meaning.Physicists have found that the visible universe cannot account for all of the forces that operate our visible universe, that invisible "black matter" (or anti-matter) must, therefore, operate (exerting an anti-gravity force counter-balancing gravity to some degree) on the universe we see; proof that there are influences beyond our visible universe – a non-dimensional (therefore, necessarily timeless: no physical space implies no time) Realm.
For a more in-depth look at these and other discussions of a new critique of fundamental physics theories, see
Even things like many (not all) genetic defects can often be demonstrated to derive from some ancestor, some act of man, not
the Realm of
all evil has been introduced into our environment, at some point, by man (see Sâ•
all evil must be kept apart from the Realm of
 |
 Venn Diagram, Logic Sets – Intersection |
For
(To honor
Every person is responsible, and accountable, for his or her own decisions and actions; for every decision and action. This can only happen when consistent and unchanging rules are applied equally to everyone; with no exceptions—even when individuals sometimes, through no fault of their own, fall victim to the natural laws of the universe. It is a given of our existence, of our birth, our very mortality, that we are all equally vulnerable to the laws of our universe, that none of us are above these laws, nor can anyone be an exception to these laws. Any exception, even one, would demonstrate that the laws of
The obvious next conclusion, which much of the world unthinkingly and unwittingly accepts and lives by, is that it's all out of our hands and we're not responsible so "go for the gusto." According to this philosophy of hedonism and nihilism, forces beyond your control make you do it anyway so the only goal in life is to get what you want, whenever you want, any way you want; doing whatever feels good to you. It's only when people report hearing those forces beyond their control, and/or talking with them, that we begin to recognize the insanity of the premise.
Recognizing the logical implications of this fatalism, how can we be surprised at the behavior of the myriads who throng to this 'wide gate.' For much of the world, this issue is a barrier to their understanding of, and therefore their ability to relate to, the Creator. This evil and hopeless realization is the inexorable destination of all those who compromise the free will which
This consistency was demonstrated in an experiment which you can replicate to your own amazement, conducted over a period of a year, for the case of the Paroh (corrupted to "Pharaoh") of the Yᵊtzi•âh′. You can experience for yourself how
|
|
 |
 Neuroscience: Dreaming Brain Waves |
37.5 – וַיַּחֲלֹם יוֹסֵף חֲלוֹם
"Although the Sages leave it as an open question whether dreams have validity (Ma•
Recently on the Discovery Channel, documentaries have been airing here in Israel on sleep research, focusing largely on dreams. According to these documentaries, the results of many studies all show remarkably similar results relative to one widespread phenomenon: what they have labeled the "Hag" dream. In this dream, their statistics claim that, since the dawn of recorded history, 1 in every 5 persons has, at some point in their life, dreamed of a situation in which they perceive that they have fully awakened, paralyzed, and with an unexplained and unearthly presence in the room which virtually all found threatening and described as evil.
I found the claim of this documentary to be particularly startling since I experienced a somewhat similar dream as a child. In my dream, however, though I was paralyzed with terror (simply due to the alien and inexplicable nature of the presence), and also insist that I was bolted fully—wide-eyed—awake, the presence impressed me as neither threatening nor evil. Rather, this unearthly presence, though terrifying in its inexplicability, was neither threatening nor seemed evil to me. Quite the contrary, despite the terrifying nature of the experience, I found the presence to be more gentle, kindly and reassuring than any earthly presence I've experienced, before or since. And the presence beckoned me, calling me by name three times. In fact, the presence impressed me as so loving that the next morning I asked my Dad and Mom if it had been either of them calling me. Of course, it hadn't been either of them (and there was no one else in the house).
 |
 Night sky 2012.11, Hubble Extreme-deep. Faintest galaxies are 13 billion light-years away (ago). In other words, you see in the night sky where some galaxies were 13 billion years ago – almost back to the birth of the universe, other galaxies where they were 5 or 7 million, 25 thousand years ago, etc. Contrary to your assumptions, the universe has been expanding at an accelerating rate. So, they're no longer there today as you see the light that departed from them, on their way here, long ago. Even the sun or Mars is about 8 minutes ahead of where we "see" it. This is like a blind person insisting where a jet is based on its sound. |
Not wishing to be regarded as more "weird" than I already was (for insisting, to my second grade class, that since the light from stars sometimes took millions of years to arrive here, the stars we see aren't really there anymore), I told no one but my parents, who dismissed it as an unimportant dream. When I grew older, however, I was struck by the similarity of my dream with the account (Shmueil Aleph 3.4-8) of the "calling" of Shmueil.
This leads me to conjecture two theories:
Dreams sometimes and for certain individuals may represent the confluence of our physical universe and body with the spiritual and non-dimensional realm (that is, the brain is a transceiver between the dimensional and non-dimensional domains), and
One's reaction to a non-dimensional holy presence from the "spiritual world" is, then, determined by the kind of presence (compatible or incompatible with Tor•âh′ instruction) as well as one's own orientation to holiness as defined by
People typically perceive whatever they find strange or opposite to themselves as threatening and evil. If one is alien to holiness, then a Tor•âh′-compatible presence will be alien. It is then the holiness of the presence which is threatening and they perceive as "evil". When one who is alien to Tor•âh′ perceives a presence incompatible with Tor•âh′, the unholy person will perceive the unholy presence as like himself—and mislabel the unholy presence as holy. (In this, we find the teaching applicable regarding those who misrepresent evil as good and good as evil.) On the other hand, if one is at home with holiness then a holy presence will exude the warmth of home.
|
|
37:21— Ru•veinꞋ as an example how not to perform a mi•tzᵊw•âh′. "The Sages observe that we learn from this incident [where we find that though Ru•veinꞋ's intentions of saving Yo•seiph′ were good they went unfulfilled] that when a man performs a mi•tzᵊw•âh′ he must carry it out joyously and completely—partial performance doesn't satisfy the criterion of any mi•tzᵊw•âh′."
Let's be real here – lack of joyousness doesn't imply partial performance. When you're struggling, there's no commandment to be joyous during the struggle. One can be joyous after, when appreciating the accomplishment. The bottom line is only whether the
"For, said R. Yi•tzᵊkhâq′ Âv•i′nu, 'had Ru•veinꞋ known that the Tor•âh′ was recording for eternity these verses about his attempted rescue of Yo•seiph′, he would have carried Yo•seiph′ on his shoulders and brought him to his father [instead of allowing him to be cast into the pit].' "
"Similarly, the Sages observe: Had Boaz known that Scripture was recording of him that he was taking the trouble to provide food for Rut, instead of giving her only parched grain [Rut 2:14], he would have fed her fatted calves (wa-Yiqra Rabah 34:8)." (Artscroll, BeReishis, 1 b: 1639-40).
The modern corollary is the axiom: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When doing a mi•tzᵊw•âh′,
Further, "From the fact that the Tor•âh′ publicly acknowledges Ru•veinꞋ's noble intention in attempting to save Yo•seiph′, we deduce that it is proper to publicly acknowledge and record one who performs a mi•tzᵊw•âh′ (Rashba, Responsa 981)" (Artscroll, Ib:1641).
This in no way conflicts with Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a's teaching: "When you do tzᵊdâq• 6:3-4). The doer of the mi•tzᵊw•âh′ should perform the mi•tzᵊw•âh′ innocuously, not motivated by the desire for recognition.
 250x286.jpg "Ceramic Olive-oil Pitcher (cityofdavidstore dot org)") |
 437x500.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Ceramic Olive-oil Pitcher (cityofdavidstore.org) |
The community, however, should magnanimously recognize the performance of the mi•tzᵊw•ot′, not as performed by any person but, rather, a provision of
|
|
38.28-30— Paretz is the forbear of Dawid ha-Melekh and Ribi Yᵊho•shu′a Bën-Dawid. Like Eisav and Yi•tzᵊkhâq′ Âv•i′nu, Yishmaeil and Ya•a•qov′, here the first child to open the womb, Zarakh (shine or radiate forth), is not the chosen child. Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a likely had this type of thing in mind at NHM 20.16.
|
|
3.6 —
אִם-תִּהְיֶה
רָעָה
בְּעִיר
וַ
(if an adversity shall be in a city, then hasn't
Contrary to the apparent contradiction in English, there is no conflict with the passage in Tᵊhil•im′ 92.16: וְלֹא עלתה בּוֹ .
Throughout the ages commentators have debated how this passage should be understood. Artscroll, based on the opinions of many Sages, misinterprets the passage as a rhetorical question that implies fatalism (contradicting Tor•âhꞋ): "Can there be evil in a city that
All commentators base their opinions on their analysis of the introductory pᵊsuq•im′ (2-5). None, however, have noted the necessary relationships in the grouping of analogies; and the logical grouping of analogies is essential to grasping the intended meaning.
The analogies are given in pâ•
 |
 אַרְיֵה |
"Does the male adult-lion roar in the forest,
when it has no prey?
 |
| כְּפִיר |
Does a young male lion gives its voice from its den,
without having seized something?
Does a bird fall in a ground-net
that has no trigger?
 |
 Egyptian bird net snare |
But a net springing up from the dirt,
doesn't it trap absolutely?"
Then the pâ•
"If the sho•
Then if רָעָה befall the city isn't it
Pâ•suq′ 8 then stipulates that this is "Because
Khareid•im′ (quakers, tremblers; Ultra-Orthodox "Costume Jewry," who emulate 19th century C.E. dress and life styles – בְּנֵי עִדָּן חָשׁוּךְ) cite this verse as proof that when something evil befalls fellow Jews it is, therefore (because of this pâ•suq′), because the victims and/or their families and friends have been transgressing Tor•âh′. Their charges cause enormous additional pain to victims, families and friends already in great pain from some tragedy.
Is that what this pâ•suq′ means? A thunderous "no" is in order because such an interpretation contradicts Ta•na"kh′: Tzᵊphanyah 3.5 and Tᵊhil•im′ 92.16.
In the Hebrew, there is no "it" at the end of the sentence. "It" must be understood from the context.
What
In the first case, the only possible interpretation consistent with Tzᵊphanyah 3.5 and Tᵊhil•im′ 92.16 is that
In the remaining case, the previous and subsequent pâ•suq′ both require the warning by His Nâ•vi′, to whom He has revealed the decree of the impending punishment, before the tragedy. Therefore, the only possible interpretation consistent with Tzᵊphanyah 3.5 and Tᵊhil•im′ 92.16 is that
Thus, in either case, it isn't
Thus, the logical integrity of
Prefacing these pesuq•im′, in pᵊsuq•im′ 2-3, we find also a statement of particular interest to Bᵊnei No′akh:
|
|
כי לא יעשה, אדני י--ה דבר :3.7
(ki lo ya•aseh, A•don•âi′ י--ה davar; Because (for) Sir (Lord)
כי אם-גלה סודו אל-עבדיו הנביאים
(ki im-jalah sodo, el-avadav ha-nᵊvi•im′.; Because (for) if (with it) He has revealed His secret, [it was] to His servants/workers, the nevi•im′.
נביאים (nᵊvi•im′) are nearly universally misunderstood. Skipping the oft-ill-supported speculation ("commentary"), "The term נביא (Nâ•vi′), translated in LXX by the Greek word προφητη (propheiteis), is a 'forthteller' and spokesman more than a 'foreteller' and prognosticator" ("Prophets and Prophecy," Ency. Jud., 13.1153).
Noting that προφητης derives from προ (pro; "forth") and φημι (feimi; to speak), the authoritative Vine's Expository Dictionary defines προφητης as "one who speaks forth or openly', a proclaimer of a divine message, denoted among the Greeks an interpreter of the oracles of the gods" (p. 894). A Hellenist perspective, to be sure.
"The pre-classical prophets are referred to by four different names: חוזה (khozeh; visionary), רואה (roeh; seer), איש האלהים (ish ha-Eloh•im′; 'man of Ël•oh•im′') and נביא." (EJ, ibid., c. 1154).
Whichever term is used, though, no 'foreteller' role is guaranteed, Tor•âh′ guarantees (Dᵊvâr•im′ 16.18; 17.9-12; 13:2-6) that there are always among Jews, in every generation, nᵊvi•im′ who fulfill the role of 'forth teller'. There is no promise of a 'foreteller.'
|
|
The question of the non-dimensional realm, discussed in Tor•âh′ section for 5764, was illuminated in a revolutionary way by Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a.
Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a's interpretation of Tor•âh′ was extraordinary. His view was that the Realm of
Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a's revolutionary idea was first proclaimed by his cousin, thought to have been a Qumrân Kha•sid•im′ Tzᵊdoq•im′ and who, Nᵊtzâr•im′ believe, fulfilled the prophecy of Eil•i•yâh′u ha-Nâ•vi′ announcing the coming Mâ•shi′akh.
(Note: the copious and in-depth explanatory notes and documentation, included in NHM, have been eliminated from the quotations herein. Readers are referred to NHM for detailed explanations and documentation.)
 Mi•dᵊbar′ Yᵊhudah (arid-badland-hills of Yᵊhud•âh′, Hellenized to 'wilderness of Judah'). The white hills are sand, not snow. Photograph 1983 by Yirmᵊyahu Bën-David. |
NHM 3.1 records, "In those days Yo•khân•ân′ "ha-Matbil" Bën-Zᵊkharyah Bën-Tzadoq ha-Ko•hein′ came near, calling out in the arid-badland-hills of Yᵊhudah, Israel saying, 'Khizru bi-tᵊshuv•âh′ (Return [to Tor•âh′] in repentance), for the Realm of the heavens has converged with us.'"
Then, in NHMNHM (in English) 4.17, we first hear it from his own lips: "From that time, Yᵊho•shu′a began to call out and to say 'Khizru bi-tᵊshuv•âh′, for the Realm of the heavens has converged [with man].'"
 Har Meiron in the Gâ•lil′. This, not Har Tavor (Hellenized to Tabor), was the site of NHM 17.1-19 Photograph 1993 by Yirmᵊyahu Bën-David. |
He taught this not to gentiles in churches but to Jews in Bat•ei′-ha-Kᵊnës′ët (NHM 4.23). "Yᵊho•shu′a went around the land of the Gâ•lil′ teaching the Qᵊhil•ot′ in the local Bat•ei′-ha-Kᵊnës′ët and reciting the joyful news of the Realm of the heavens and caring for every disease and every sickness among the kinsmen." Reinforcing this (NHM (in English) 10.6-7): "Yᵊho•shu′a sent these twelve forth, having conveyed to them saying, "Don't go off into the way of the goyim, don't even go into an ir [village] of the Sho•mᵊr•on′. Rather, go to the sheep who have been led astray from the house of Israel. Recite to them that the Realm of the heavens has come near."
Note two things in particular:
(in English) 5.19) "For whoever deletes one Oral Law from the Tor•âh′, or shall teach others such, by those in the Realm of the heavens he shall be called 'deleted.' Both he who preserves and he who teaches them shall be called Rib′i in the Realm of the heavens. For I tell you that unless your tzᵊdâq•âh′ is over and above that of the So•phᵊr•im′ [scribes], and of the [probably 'Herodian'] Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•im′, there is no way you will enter into the Realm of the heavens!" and
(in English) 7.20-21) "Every tree that is not producing good fruit is cut out and thrown into the fire. Wherefore, by their fruits, in other words by their Ma•as•ëh′, you shall recognize them. Not everyone saying "ha-Adoni" to me will enter the Realm of the heavens. Rather, he who does the wish of my Father who is in the heavens shall enter into the Realm of the heavens." Notice that he does NOT qualify this with any requirement of believing in him, nor even acknowledge any relevance in beliefs.
 "Natzrat (Hellenized to Nazareth), in the Galil, viewed from the South. Photograph 1983 by Yirmᵊyahu Bën-David. |
Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a—the Mâ•shi′akh—speaks of the Father coming in His Realm (NHM 6.9-10): "Our Father Who is in the heavens, May You come in Your Realm'" He did NOT teach to pray to himself nor in his own name.
This non-dimensional Realm of human cognizance is the source to which earthly manifestations (our physical bodies experiencing our physical universe) are exclusively anchored, connected and dependent. While the non-dimensional realm is infinitely beyond the physical universe, and our non-dimensional cognizance infinitely beyond our physical limitations, the latter is a simulation modeling the former. Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a taught this in (NHM 11.12-17): "Truly, I tell you, among the children of women there has not risen one greater than Yokhâ•
Though the purpose of this earthly realm is for us, who choose to do so in our free will, to learn how to be born into the non-dimensional Realm, those who live in this simulation model (our earthly realm) too often pervert the purpose for which
Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a also teaches that this earthly simulation of the non-dimensional Realm is a realm of cognizance, of knowledge—the keys—that those who understand can impart, in accordance with Ha•lâkh•âh′ and the Beit-Din, to those who don't yet perceive.
NHM (in English) 13.33: "Realm of the heavens is like khameitz, which a woman, having taken, mixed into three liters of dough. It rendered all of the dough khâ•meitz′."
NHM 13.44: "The Realm of the heavens is like a man finding a treasure which had been hidden in a field, and in rejoicing over the material value of it, he goes and sells everything, as much as he has, and buys that field."
NHM 13.45-46: "Realm of the heavens is like a businessman requesting gems of red coral who, having found one invaluable gem, went off and sold everything, as much as he had, and bought it."
NHM 13.47-50: "Again, the Realm of the heavens is like a dragnet thrown into the sea. Gathering from every family of fish, when it was filled, they dragged it up on the bank and, having sat down, they gleaned the good into urns and the bad ones they threw out. Thus shall it be in the conclusion of the world-age. The messengers will go forth and separate out the evil from the midst of the tzadiq•im′ and shall (Dâniyeil 3:6) 'throw them into the midst of a furnace of burning fire.' There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Tor•âh′ awards a portion in hâ-ol•âm′ ha-ba′ to those who DO—practice—the mi•tzᵊw•ot′ to the utmost of their ability, NOT to those who merely, and hypocritically, preach or believe while neglecting their practice. "•mar′ Yᵊho•shu′a [NHM 21.42-43] to [the pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im′ in the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh′], "Did you never read the Scriptures (Tᵊhil•im′ 118:22-23): 'The stone that the builders rejected was for the cornerstone. This was by
Hypocrites who "believed" but didn't DO, rebuked also in Tal• 23.13: "Oy for you, So•phᵊr•im′ and those of the [probably Boethusian 'Herodian'] Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•im′ who advocate that Ha•lâkh•âh′ must be exclusively oral—hypocrites, because you lock up the Realm of the heavens before persons, neither entering yourselves nor allowing those who wish to enter."
In his final teaching, Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a commissioned his followers concerning preserving the Tor•âh′-standard (Ha•lâkh•âh′ according to the Beit-Din) of the Realm (NHM 28.19-20): "Go and watchguard over the authority, prestige and Realm, to ratify all of these things, which I tziv•âh′ [I command], to the qeitz [cut-off] of the age."
Earlier, Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a taught about the future of the Realm (NHM 13.41-43): "The person shall send forth his messengers and they shall uproot from his Realm all who ensnare and those who are doing Tor•âh′-lessness. The messengers shall (Dâniyeil 3:6), 'throw them into the midst of a furnace of burning fire.' There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the tzadiq•im′ shall shine forth as the sun in the Realm of their Father. He who has ears, may he hear!"
Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a interpreted the Scriptures that describe the ultimate manifestation of the Realm in some detail (NHM 24.29-30): "Then, in that same hour after those days, (Yo•eil 4:15-16) 'the sun and the moon shall be obscured and the stars shall collect their shining. Then
|
|
| Tor•âh′ | Translation | Mid•râsh′ Rib′i Yᵊho•shu′a: NHM |
NHM |
||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Because the nation of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil′ is the treasure that ha-Qâ•dosh′, Bâ•rukh′ Hu, demarcated (hivdil) from all of the kindreds, singling her out for Eil, May He be blessed, He chose Yi•sᵊr•â•eil′ to be a holy kindred (am qadosh). Therefore it is said, "And I have demarcated you from the kindreds to be Mine" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•â′ 20.26), that he demarcated them to be holy, like He is holy; that they may mold themselves to His Ways like they sought concerning the verse "and [if] you go in His Ways" (Dᵊvâr•im′ 28.9).
What does it mean "Holy, you're also holy"? What does it mean "Polluted, you're also polluted"? We learned that ha-Qâ•dosh′, Bâ•rukh′ Hu, demarcated Yi•sᵊr•â•eil′ to be conducting themselves by His standards. As it is said, "and you shall make yourselves holy, and you shall be holy" (wa-Yi•qᵊr•â′ 11.44).
And they sought concerning this in tractate Yoma, at the end of the chapter, the one in charge said to them (39.1), The Rabbis taught, "and you shall make yourselves holy, and you shall be holy because I am holy," a man who makes himself holy a little makes Him holy often; a man who makes himself holy down here makes Him holy above; a man who makes himself holy ba-Olam hazeh (in this world-age) makes Him holy in hâ-ol•âm′ ha-ba′ (the world-age to come). And as a direct result, we find that when we are doing good and straightforwardness—then we make holy His great Name. But if, spare us in peace, we conduct ourselves on the contrary—then we profane His Name to our wrongdoing and all of the ugliness, felonious rebellion and profanity remains upon ourselves.
(Translated so far)
|
|
|
 275x254.jpg "Big Stretch-Apart")
 486x449.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small}