|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
18.9 – åÇéÌÄçÇãÌ éÄúÀøåÉ
 |
 The Two Ruling Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis – neither of which is a Chief Rabbi. (Is this ill-concealed mutual contempt, exposing their lack of tzᵊniy•utꞋ?) |
Unlike the Ultra-Orthodox rabbis of Costume Jewry, who are idolized as inerrant, I'm fallible like
This little difference in a vowel ðÄ÷ÌåÌã is the difference between åÇéÌÄçÅãÌ and åÇéÌÄçÇãÌ – the reading confirmed in both the
The dâ•
Similar usage of this term is found in Ta•na"khꞋ only at Tᵊhil•
éÄúÀøåÉ, having become convinced that
Consequently, attempts to justify Mosh•ëhꞋ accepting advice (18.17f) from a "goy priest" are entirely inappropriate, and lᵊshonꞋ hâ-râꞋ against éÄúÀøåÉ—who was a Yᵊhudi.
Mosh•ëhꞋ could hardly have not had éÄúÀøåÉ in mind when he relayed the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ not to mix khâ•lâvꞋ with bâ•sârꞋ.
 |
Ahhh, but read more closely. "Mixing" ISN'T the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ that Mosh•ëhꞋ relayed. The mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ is (Shᵊm•
That is, correctly, interpreted to also imply not mixing
It's self-evident that it's impossible for a non-Jew to learn and apply úÌåÉøÈä instantly; in, literally, no time. That means there had (and has) to be a period of transition during which the candidate learns, putting úÌåÉøÈä in practice as he or she learns it. Clearly, the candidate isn't a convert during the learning period. Immediately after the conversion, the individual is NO LONGER a convert, but a Yᵊhudi.
There is a clear transitional period during which the candidate is keeping úÌåÉøÈä increasingly yet only partially (see Lewis H. Feldman, The Omnipresence of the god-Fearers, Biblical Archeology Review, 86.09-10, pp. 58-69). Shortly before the first century C.E., the rabbis, for the first time, prohibited pᵊrushi Jews from having any contact with gentiles. This created a new situation in which it became impossible for a non-Jew to learn the essentials of úÌåÉøÈä because gentiles weren't permitted to have any contact with the only teachers of úÌåÉøÈä—Jews. To provide for gentiles who desired to become úÌåÉøÈä-observant and become Jews, the rabbis created a special status, Geirei Toshâv, for gentiles who expressed their commitment, before a Beit-Din, to learn and practice úÌåÉøÈä non-selectively and become a Jew.
This candidate is more than a gentile—his or her commitment to keep úÌåÉøÈä non-selectively having been accepted by a Beit-Din permitting him or her to interrelate in the Jewish community in order to learn and implement úÌåÉøÈä—but less than a Yᵊhudi. During this transitional period of becoming increasingly úÌåÉøÈä-observant, the candidate was classified as a Geir Toshâv. This is the Scriptural definition of a Geir Toshâv. When the Geir Toshâv achieved non-selective úÌåÉøÈä-observance, in practice no different from a typical Yᵊhudi, the candidate then converted, at which point he became a Yᵊhudi—NO LONGER A geir, of any sort.
A few geirei Toshav were unable to convert at that point, most because of a marriage to a spouse unwilling to keep úÌåÉøÈä and some because of fear of (physical) circumcision. This is what the argument against requiring circumcision for a place in hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ was all about. Circumcision was required to become a Yᵊhudi, but, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ beit din ruled, geir•imꞋ who achieved the same level of úÌåÉøÈä-observance in their practice as the typical Yᵊhudi merited a portion in hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ the same as a Yᵊhudi. There was an obvious need, however, to distinguish the geir who had achieved the same level of practice as a Yᵊhudi from the Geir Toshâv, To satisfy this need, which they had created by their decision, the Netzar•imꞋ beit din then created a status for which there is no previous documentation: the Geir tzëdꞋëq, who was, in all respects except circumcision like a Yᵊhudi. Being uncircumcised imposed several limitations on the Geir tzëdꞋëq.
Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ is explicit and unequivocating that the Yᵊhudi(t) who converted is never to be reminded that (s)he converted. So it's a aveir•âhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä to call a Yᵊhudi(t) either a convert or a geir!!!
During the learning period, the candidate was called in Hebrew a âø úåùá (Geir Toshâv; resident-alien). He or she was resident because he or she lived in the Jewish community in order to learn how to live according to úÌåÉøÈä. This can be seen in the Sages of Tal•mudꞋ. Due to Christian persecutions that ended conversions for centuries, however, rabbis have been subsequently unable to understand the original context and, therefore, to what âø öã÷ (geir tzedeq; just or righteous alien) could then refer. They had become so distant from, even intensely antagonistic to, the Jewish evangelization and proselytization of Biblical times that they no longer realized that sometimes non-Jews who come to úÌåÉøÈä, because of marital status of medical considerations, cannot qualify to convert. Still, and again contrary to modern rabbis, úÌåÉøÈä requires non-Jews to keep úÌåÉøÈä even though they don't convert, declaring that the one úÌåÉøÈä is for Jew and geir (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.16, 29).
Armed with this information, we can now answer the initial question. To a geir, what was his or her mother if not his or her native ethnicity? What, then, is his mother's
éÄúÀøåÉ converted, and we can rest assured that there were those who attacked éÄúÀøåÉ's "butt-in-ski" advice coming from an "Arab convert," to which Mosh•ëhꞋ responded with the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ not to boil a kid in its mother's
Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ teaches that mere physical performance isn't sufficient to observe a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ. One hasn't observed a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ if he or she performed the mechanics lacking ka•wân•âhꞋ. Without the conscious and deliberate ka•wân•âhꞋ of remembering (to the utmost of one's ability) to avoid discrimination against the Yᵊhudi(t) who converted, one isn't keeping this mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ. There are many religious Yᵊhud•imꞋ today who separate
Not boiling a kid in its mother's
 |
 |
18.25-26—"Then Mosh•ëhꞋ selected valiant men from all of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, and he gave them to be heads over the kindred: ministers of thousands, ministers of hundreds, ministers of fifties and ministers of ten. åùôèå (wᵊ-shaphtu; and they judged-as-shopht•imꞋ, judges of a Beit Din) the kindred in every season'"
Of the many important points this raises, I will point out two this week:
Ten is the minimum acceptable number in a Jewish community. If you don't live in a community of at least 10 religious Jews you will, when you complete your transition to úÌåÉøÈä-observance, eventually have to make an attempt to pray in an Orthodox min•yânꞋ that will accept you praying with them – or (more likely) market, advertise, educate and develop a
Which came first, Tor•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ•alꞋ pëh and the
Codes of law have always developed within some judicial court system which developed first. There probably isn't any example of a great code of law developing without a court system within which the code of law could operate.
pâ•râsh•atꞋ Yi•tᵊr•ōꞋ records the establishment, by Mosh•ëhꞋ, of the first
While the record of the establishment of the
Thus, it was part of Tor•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ•alꞋ pëh that was codified into Tor•âhꞋ shë-bi•khᵊtâvꞋ for stability, not Tor•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ•alꞋ pëh which was "added" to Tor•âhꞋ shë-bi•khᵊtâvꞋ!!!
The pre-ñÄéðÇé proto-Tor•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ•alꞋ pëh tradition developed over time, dating all the way back to Eiver (the first Habiru / Hebrew (cf. bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 10.21, et al.). This proto-Tor•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ•alꞋ pëh tradition continued to develop and evolve, being continuously refined by Sheim (the first Semite), NoꞋakh and thereafter by each of the tribal leaders of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. Thus, 12 (actually 13) versions were applied among the Hebrews / Habiru during our enslavement to Egypt. The slavemaster was the only authority. No one had yet worked out a single, unified, code of justice for all of the tribes of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ—that would operate to sew Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ together into one unifed òí (am; kindred). This is the function, and essential, function of úÌåÉøÈä that, for Jews—Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT has proven—has always meant the combination of Tor•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ•alꞋ pëh and Tor•âhꞋ shë-bi•khᵊtâvꞋ. Either without the other has always been incomplete.
Hence, before äÇø ñÄéðÇé, "every man did what was right in his own eyes." But this personal interpretation independent of the authority of the Beit-Din was outlawed by úÌåÉøÈä from the time of the Yetziah (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.39 et al.).
What has distinguished the Hebrews / Habiru / Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ / Judeans / Jews from other peoples ever since äÇø ñÄéðÇé has been the sine qua non of non-selective keeping of úÌåÉøÈä as interpreted by the
 |
ôÌÄùÑúÌÈä ëÌÅäÈä Live-LinkT  (see Yᵊsha• |
While the results have been drowned in "Jewish" spin, all polls over the past few years are clear, consistent and agree. There are many people today who identify themselves as Jewish. Many of these also identify themselves as a Jew. Orthodox rabbinic Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ defines a Jew as one who is either born of a Jewish mother or has converted under Orthodox auspices and, in either case, hasn't converted to another religion.
Non-Orthodox definitions include those born of a Jewish father and, beyond that, anyone who identifies himself or herself as a Jew. This definition includes not only Christian Jews but even gentile Christians who take their "spiritual Jewishness" seriously.
Those who accept non-Orthodox, extra-Biblical definitions aren't concerned about extinction because there are millions who satisfy these invalid definitions of a Jew. Without úÌåÉøÈä, however, there would be no such thing as a Jew. úÌåÉøÈä defines the Jew, and úÌåÉøÈä stipulates that a Jew is one who does his or her utmost to keep the Bᵊrit. According to úÌåÉøÈä, the Bᵊrit is NOT circumcision. Circumcision is merely the sign of the Bᵊrit. Bᵊrit means pact, and each party to a pact must fulfill his or her obligations in order to obtain the benefit promised by the other party.
The Bᵊrit in úÌåÉøÈä requires each person to do his or her utmost to practice the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ.
One who isn't doing his or her utmost to practice the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ doesn't satisfy the Bᵊrit and, therefore, is explicitly defined by úÌåÉøÈä as not a party to the Bᵊrit and in need of making tᵊshuv•âhꞋ and obtaining ki•purꞋ in order to restore his or her inclusion in the Bᵊrit—with its accompanying portion in hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ" (ôÌÄùÑúÌÈä ëÌÅäÈä Live-LinkT
When outsiders, i.e., goy•imꞋ, claim to have different interpretations, selective observance, or different authority than what Mosh•ëhꞋ instituted in this pâ•râsh•âhꞋ their claim is, by definition, Displacement Theology—is a specious sham; and their doctrines are counterfeit.
|
|
18.19 – åÄéäÄé àÁìÉäÄéí òÄîÌÈêÀ; äÁéÅä àÇúÌÈä ìÈòÈí, îåÌì äÈàÁìÉäÄéí, åÀäÅáÅàúÈ àÇúÌÈä, àÆú-äÇãÌÀáÈøÄéí àÆì-äÈàÁìÉäÄéí:
(English translations seem confused how to render this so I'll add a fairly literal translation: So may Ël•oh•
 |
How was this accomplished?
We live in the generation in which self-actualization, psychology and social "science" has conflicted with documented history, physics, astronomy and the Singularity. [2002.01: The major networks' news organizations well understand their audiences. For this reason, their take on their "liberal" audience is instructive, providing insight into society. As veteran CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg suggests in his book, Bias, "news coverage is premised upon the liberal idea that humans are basically good and that there is no absolute right or wrong. Liberals also hold that virtually all problems can be solved by negotiations, and deny the reality of evil or the idea of relentless conflict" (Jerusalem Post book review, 2002.01.25, p. B13).] The self-actualization of the social "scientists" would have everyone believe that "god" is in the eye of the beholder, that there is no absolute truth. Everyone's opinion is "Gospel," borne of "the Spirit" and carries the same validity as any other opinion or claim. The social scientists would have modern—"liberal-modernist"—society believe that there are no hard facts, no evidence and no logic, merely opinions—and, no matter how irrational, everyone's opinion is, therefore, equally valid.
However, just as historical documentation is physical evidence that cannot be imagined away, physics and astronomy dictate a rational and ordered universe of fact, reality, evidence, and logical understanding leading to the Singularity as the Prime Cause of the 'Big Bang.' The real world, and universe, of the Creator leaves no room for the chaos and an intellectual anarchy of embracing everybody's opinion as equal. Nor, as Einstein noted, does the ordered universe indicate a capricious Singularity. Rather, the Singularity, or Creator, is the ultimate Omni-Scient, scientific and logical to absolute perfection, never self-contradictory, never chaotic, never capricious—and, therefore, never illogical.
 |
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
It is, then, absolutely impossible that the Singularity would have left the world to their countless, and usually irrational, own opinions. This implies that the Creator would have left His imprimatur somewhere in history endorsing His set of expectations for His creatures. All we have to do is look through the historical record to find a set of circumstances so unusual that it flags one's attention to the revelation of the Singularity to humankind. Searchers are spread across the spectrum from the search for Atlantis to ancient mariners and UFOs.
The key question is how to know when one has found the right key. And the answer is deceptively simple—the key must satisfy three requirements:
The revelation event must be accompanied by the Singularity's "Manual of Instruction" (or the event fails to flag attention to the all-important instruction) and
For the candidate "Manual of Instruction" to be authentic, genuinely given by the perfectly logical Singularity, the "Manual of Instruction," after filtering human-introduced error, must reflect perfect logic.
There cannot be conflicting versions of a Singularity's "Manual of Instruction." Contradictions within a Perfect Singuilarity is a logical impossibility.
While there are many other complementary arguments, this is sufficient to expose the theory of everyone's opinion being equally valid about "god" as a crock. It should be obvious from a completely different perspective: spiritual anarchy cannot possibly produce a unified people of the Singularity! úÌåÉøÈä has been teaching this since the time of äÇø ñÄéðÇé. It's recited everytime we recite the Shᵊm•aꞋ:
bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.39 – åÀìÉà úÈúåÌøåÌ àÇçÂøÅé ìÀáÇáÀëÆí åÀàÇçÂøÅé òÅéðÅéëÆí, àÂùÑÆø-àÇúÌÆí æÉðÄéí àÇçÂøÅéäÆí
The translation, then, is: "And don't explore after your heart and your eyes, after which you prostitute yourselves." Ergo, following one's own heart and one's own eyes—under the self-deception of "following the spirit," [or a negotiated egalitarian, ecumenical or liberal-modernist position]—is explicitly prohibited by úÌåÉøÈä.
Moreover, what, immediately before this pâ•suqꞋ, does úÌåÉøÈä instruct we should do? "Remember all of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ of
Who makes the decision concerning interpretation of the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ? The system is ordained in this week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ: the system recommended by éÄúÀøåÉ and implemented here by the Mosh•ëhꞋ: the Beit-Din system which has continued uninterrupted ever since!!!
The assertion that the chaos of ["liberal modern"] spiritual anarchy could replace the divinely ordained orderly Beit Din system is blatantly foolish.
We need only to back up to pâ•suqꞋ 30 to discover the penalty for refusing to follow úÌåÉøÈä as interpreted by this
|
|
 |
 äÇø ñÄéðÇé (aka äÇø ëÌÇøÀëÌÉí, in the Israeli ðÆâÆá). Note cleft in rock. Several mountains in the Sin• |
18:1-5 – éÄúÀøåÉ was a Ko•heinꞋ of Mi•dᵊyân′—the area immediately south and southeast of Yâm ha-
This area is nowhere near the most popular "Exodus" routes advanced by tradition-bound scholars. Yet, we find äÇø äÇàÁìÉäÄéí located here in the Israeli ðÆâÆá, not in today's ñÄéðÇé peninsula. äÇø äÇàÁìÉäÄéí was most likely regarded as the observation point distinguishing îÄãáÌÈø ñÄéðÇé from îÄãáÌÈø ôÈÌàøÈï. Thus, it was also called äÇø ñÄéðÇé.
 250x149.jpg "Senna (Cassia senna)") |
 300x179.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} |
 |
 Map: ñÄéðÇé, |
I concur with maverick archaeologist Emanuel Anati (The Jerusalem Post Magazine, 87.03.27, p. 14-15) that äÇø ñÄéðÇé is today's äÇø ëÌÇøÀëÌÉí, and almost certainly named after the saffron-colored flowers of the ñÀðÆä that Mosh•ëhꞋ saw (Shᵊm•otꞋ 3:2-4 & Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 33:16). In a breeze, the ñÀðÆä appears from a distance to be on fire, the low-lying pale yellow blossoms moving in waves like the yellow flames of a grass fire—which neither Anati nor anyone else connected to äÇø ñÄéðÇé or äÇø ëÌÇøÀëÌÉí until I made the connection in The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English).
18.9 – åÇéÌÄçÇãÌ éÄúÀøåÉ
It's reasonable to think that Mosh•ëhꞋ's Mi•dᵊyân•it′ wives had earlier converted to ãÆøÆê
As Mosh•ëhꞋ did then for his non-Jewish father-in-law, so also now, relating what
|
|
I taught this pâ•râsh•âhꞋ to Yâ•eilꞋ 's class at Ariel Orthodox elementary school here in
18.16 — "And I make known the
We learn at least three things from this:
there is more than one úÌåÉøÈä;
these úÌåÉøÈäs existed before Mosh•ëhꞋ received the
these úÌåÉøÉú are distinguished from àÆú-çË÷ÌÅé äÇàÁìÉäÄéí (i.e., laws legislated by a Beit Din).
As Rav noted in Ma•
We acknowledge the authority of the Oral complement of úÌåÉøÈä (i.e. mi•shᵊpâtꞋ plus
ëÌÀúÈá ìÀêÈ (write to yourself!) – úÌåÉøÈä ùÑÆáÌÄëúÈá and
òÇì-ôÌÄé (according to My mouth, orally) – úÌåÉøÈä ùÑÆáÌÄòÇì-ôÌÆä
However, the particular argument in ).
The chronology suggests that Av•râ•hâmꞋ initially began the detailing of the evolving úÌåÉøÈä, all of which was at that time still being transmitted exclusively orally. The developing úÌåÉøÈä was instituted at least from the time of Sheim, and probably from •dâmꞋ.
Av•râ•hâmꞋ omits case law precedents: mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ (post-Biblical term = Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ). This suggests that a unified court system methodically promulgating case law evolved subsequent to Av•râ•hâmꞋ.
By the time of Mosh•ëhꞋ, the system had evolved into a complex and unwieldy, still exclusively oral, awkward system that had to be at least partially codified in order to ensure continuity among the various courts that éÄúÀøåÉ was suggesting Mosh•ëhꞋ establish.
In fact, this consideration likely precipitated the consolidation and codification of úÌåÉøÈä ùÑÆáÌÄëúÈá at äÇø ñÄéðÇé. Av•râ•hâmꞋ's laws comprised oral mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ (divinely ordained religious-oriented "commandments") and oral
By the time of Mosh•ëhꞋ, these had been complemented by oral mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ (case law judgments rendered by Mosh•ëhꞋ and, following the implementation of éÄúÀøåÉ's suggestion, the various
So, what constitutes the two úÌåÉøÉú? I suggest that two pre-ñÄéðÇé úÌåÉøÉú are prefigured in frequent pairings encoded in Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ, e.g. 1.7: çÈëÀîÈä and îåÌñÈø. See also Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ 15.33: éÄøÀàÇú
Translators of Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ often confuse, blur and equate çÈëÀîÈä with áÌÄéðÈä. This implies:
| îåÌñÈø | + | çÈëÀîÈä |
| ? ≡ ? | ||
| îåÌñÈø | + | áÌÄéðÈä |
However, çÈëÀîÈä and áÌÄéðÈä are neither equivalent nor interchangeable. Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ 23.23 corroborates this, suggesting that çÈëÀîÈä, îåÌñÈø and áÌÄéðÈä are encapsulated in their hypernym, àÁîÆú.
The converse then states that áÌÄéðÈä must be added to çÈëÀîÈä and îåÌñÈø, as a necessary ingredient, to produce àÁîÆú.
This, in turn, implies that, when áÌÄéðÈä is lacking, çÈëÀîÈä and îåÌñÈø, alone, fall short of àÁîÆú – suggesting that áÌÄéðÈä is often the essential ingredient whose distortion or omission perverts àÁîÆú. In other words, where àÁîÆú appears to be perverted, even though çÈëÀîÈä and îåÌñÈø seem to be properly in place, the likely fertile facet to focus on in beginning one's investigation and analysis would be to challenge the asserted, or missing, áÌÄéðÈä.
 |
 |
The deliberate rejection of áÌÄéðÈä is the conspicuous shortcoming in the casuistry of Ultra-Orthodox (
Thus, pre-ñÄéðÇé úÌåÉøÉú comprised îåÌñÈø and çÈëÀîÈä, compiled and codified on äÇø ñÄéðÇé by
The inclusion in the Biblical definition of all three elements, çÈëÀîÈä plus îåÌñÈø plus áÌÄéðÈä, to qualify as àÁîÆú rules out the ecumenism of everyone's opinion being equally valid with no absolute truth – something úÌåÉøÈä explicitly prohibits.
At äÇø ñÄéðÇé, Mosh•ëhꞋ consolidated all of the tribal oral traditions (Shᵊm•otꞋ 24.4; Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 27.3, 8; Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 31.24), including mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ up to that time, in our úÌåÉøÈä ùÑÆáÌÄëúÈá
Only the future, continually accumulating, case law of the Beit-Din—logically grounded in çÈëÀîÈä + îåÌñÈø + áÌÄéðÈä = àÁîÆú, i.e. mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ (modern Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ) was left to oral transmission.
Whether this, too, could be codified was a question argued principally between the Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ (corrupted to 'Sadducees'; pro-codification and anti-oral transmission) and Pᵊrush•imꞋ (corrupted to 'Pharisees'; pro-oral transmission) in the time of
Five centuries later the Pᵊrush•imꞋ finally recognized the need to codify mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ again (Mosh•ëhꞋ codified it to his time), resulting in the Tal•mudꞋ.
So our úÌåÉøÈä ùÑÆáÌÄëúÈá contains all of the àÁîÆú = çÈëÀîÈä + îåÌñÈø + áÌÄéðÈä; the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ,
úÌåÉøÈä ùÑÆáÌÄëúÈá (namely,
Such interpretation intractably contradicts Tor•
has no support in the Tal•
The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ categorically reject the doctrine that any human can override úÌåÉøÈä ùÑÆáÌÄëúÈá. If any human could override úÌåÉøÈä, then the Christians and the Muslims can both be right! Far worse,
The alien reference in Tal•
The idea of violating úÌåÉøÈä, even in the short term, to preserve or guard úÌåÉøÈä in the long term is a conspicuously self-contradicting falsehood; nothing more than a transgressing of úÌåÉøÈä.
|
|
Until this time, the Israeli Justice System was based on the Tribal-Patriarchal pattern. The current patriarch of each clan and tribe exercised unchallenged, dictatorial, authority; executing purchases, sales, pacts with neighbors, and the like. In discussing the development of the justice system, the Patriarchs are mentioned only in connection to their mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ, some of which perpetuated laws handed down from as far back as EiꞋvër, Sheim and
With his ascendance to power Mosh•ëhꞋ assumed judiciary authority causing diminishment of the the jurisdiction of the tribes and tribal patriarchs, thereafter limited to minor disputes and petty offenses. More serious disputes and criminal offenses were referred to Mosh•ëhꞋ personally. As a consequence, Mosh•ëhꞋ's court docket quickly became increasingly overloaded; so backlogged that most of
éÄúÀøåÉ suggested that Mosh•ëhꞋ establish local Magistrate Courts for every ten families to handle petty matters. Over every five of these Magistrate Courts there was to be a District Court. There would be a Regional Court over every two District Courts. Supreme Courts were to be established over every 10 Regional Courts. Then Mosh•ëhꞋ would judge matters that were too difficult for the Supreme Courts. This was the embryo of today's Beit-Din system.
When
Cities having 120 or more inhabitants established áÌÈúÌÅé ãÌÄéï ÷ÀèÇðÌÄéí (small or little courts of law). Each of these intermediate courts comprised 23 Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ.
Finally, the Israeli Supreme Court, comprising 71 Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ and chaired by the Ko•heinꞋ ha-Ja•dolꞋ, was called the áÌÅéú-ãÌÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì (the big court of law). This body continues the tradition of the 70 elders (Shᵊm•otꞋ 24.1) plus a tie-breaker, if needed, in the
The Beit Din hâ- 5.22; 10.17 and 26.59.
Non-Jews are more familiar with the Beit Din hâ-
The Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) accounts that have come down to us through Christian hands exhibit blatant inaccuracies contradicting reliable Judaic sources.
 |
Beneath the red dot:: Located on the balcony at the SE corner of the inner court of the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ , the Beit Din hâ-Jâ•dolꞋ , which supervised all of the lesser Bât•eiꞋ -Din throughout the land, convened in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Green dot: ñÉøÈâ – 1.5m high stone lattice preventing goy•imꞋ from approaching any closer. See also diagrams in the Suk•âhꞋ ÂlꞋ ëph page of our Museum. Photographed © 1985 by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u Bën-Dâ•widꞋ at the Holyland Model site, Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋ yim |
"The tannaitic sources, however, depict the [Beit Din hâ-
Settling questions of priestly genealogy was also within the province of the [Beit Din hâ-
The mi•shᵊpâtꞋ of the Beit Din hâ-
At least some of the references in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) refer to lesser συνέδριον, the Bat•eiꞋ-Din qᵊtan•imꞋ of 23 Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ that "also sat in the [Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ] precincts in [Yᵊrushâlayim] ([Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion] 11.2 [Yad. Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion] 1.3)." (EJ 4.720). "There were three (
The chain of development from antiquity to present remains unbroken:
from the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ of NoꞋakh, Sheim, EiꞋvër, Av•râ•hâmꞋ, Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ Âv•iꞋnu, Ya•a•qovꞋ and Mosh•ëhꞋ to the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ of today, and
from the judicial system implemented by Mosh•ëhꞋ to today's
The judicial systems of the U.S., England and other modern countries are based on the ancient Israeli system.
The Chamber of Hewn Stones was a cabin-Iike structure built on the southeastern corner of the courtyard wall, overlooking the òÆæÀøÇú éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì. Situated between áÅÌéú àÇáÀèÄéðÇñ (where the incense was prepared, named after the family in charge of preparing the incense) and the Chamber of Cake Makers, and perched almost directly above the
At the beginnings, and perhaps endings, of each session these fragrances were mixed with the aroma (and occasionally some smoke) of qor•bân•otꞋ, being offered just below them, wafting through the courtroom. Drifting in the windows of the courtroom one could hear the sounds below, of the
Whenever a
|
|
òÂùÒÆøÆú äÇãÌÄáÌÀøåÉú are found in éÄúÀøåÉ. Unlike
This ñÄãÀøÈä begins åÇéÌÄùÑÀîÇò éÄúÀøåÉ
The future tense here is proleptic, suggesting a future perfect action. Telling éÄúÀøåÉ (personifying all non-Jews who hearken – in the words of
"If you [Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ] will hearken intently to My Voice, then you will watchguard My bᵊrit and you [Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ] shall be My own treasure from among the goy•imꞋ, for all the earth is Mine. And you [Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ] shall be to Me a Realm of
|
|
Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 7.13-16 makes it clear that 9.1-6 refers to the son of •khâzꞋ. However, for commentators to suggest that, therefore, it doesn't refer to the Mâ•shiꞋakh is ludicrous. If all passages were treated in that manner there would be no concept of Mâ•shiꞋakh! Such a simplistic and superficial interpretation would require that
On the other hand, the passage has been at least as thoroughly abused by Christians.
Both positions carefully and adamantly ignore essential parts of 9.6: "for most of the ministry and peace there will be no cut-off, upon the throne of Dâ•widꞋ and upon his kingdom, to adjust it and sustain it in mi•shᵊpâtꞋ and Tzedaqah from now until the age."
This cuts two ways:
|
|
9.6b –
òÇì-ëÌÄñÌÅà
ãÈåÄã
åÀòÇì-îÇîÀìÇëÀúÌåÉ,
ìÀäÈëÄéï
àÉúÈäÌ
åÀìÀñÇòÂãÈäÌ,
áÌÀîÄùÑÀôÌÈè
åÌáÄöÀãÈ÷Èä
îÅòÇúÌÈä
åÀòÇã-òåÉìÈí,
÷ÄðÀàÇú
Thus, this translates to: "upon the ëÌÄñÌÅà of Dâ•widꞋ and upon his kingdom, to be preparing it and sustaining it in mi•shᵊpâtꞋ and in tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ, from here-and-now until the age; zealotry [inspired by]
The notion of a century-later, Roman-fabricated, Hellenist misojudaic "christ"-idol doing the diametric opposite of this—directly contradicting these Biblical requirements as "displaced" by "grace" (Displacement Theology)—is the exact definition of the prophesied arch-enemy the Christians call "the antichrist"!!! Identifying Jesus, is "the antichrist"!!!
|
|
Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 9:5-6, indeed, has immediate historic context, in the time of Khi•zᵊq•i•yâhꞋ ha-
The Masoretic Text reads éÆìÆã éËìÌÇã.
Av•râ•
Arguments against the latter fly in the face of much more corroborative evidence (discussed below) and are strictly a modern innovation of 20th century CE "anti-missionary" hate-mongers unknown in earlier Judaism.
The (Aramaic) Tar•
The oldest extant source of Yᵊsha•
 |
| 1QIsa 9.5-6. For interactive photo explaining each word by hovering the cursor on it, go to our History Museum, select the "Mashiakh" page, click the first "Burning Issues" button and scroll down to click on the "Yeshayahu 9.5 (6)" link |
The Sages, including Tal•mudꞋ, have consistently recognized (e.g., Tar•
Only R. Singer tries to render Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 9:5-6, with no basis in the text, in mixed tenses: [a child] "has been born" in the past tense with the rest of the verse in the present (authority is; name is called), as if – contradicting Tar•
In his analysis of Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 9:5-6, R. Tovia Singer, in addition to ignoring Tar•
The child of Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu's time didn't fulfill the next pâ•suqꞋ (9:6), and the Mâ•shiꞋakh, therefore, has to be the intended fulfillment of 9:5-6 as well as 7:13-14: "To increase the Ministry, and never-ending peace, upon the Seat of Dâ•widꞋ, and over his Realm, to prepare it, and to support in mi•shᵊpâtꞋ and in tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ, from now and until forever; Zeal, of
The comma after "Zeal" is indicated by the úÌÀáÄéø accent (beside the vowel under the à) in ÷ÄðÀàÇú. This emphasizes, and somewhat separates, the noun "÷ÄðÀàÈä" – insinuating the Mâ•shiꞋakh (who personifies the ÷ÄðÀàÇú
Counter-missionaries often argue that they reject RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa on the grounds that he didn't establish this everlasting peace on earth. This argument is a two-edged sword, cutting in both directions: neither did the child that R. Singer claims has fulfilled the pâ•suqꞋ! The only answer lies in becoming knowledgeable about the Mâ•
This is a good place to review Zᵊkhar•
To support his anti-messiah interpretation of "no savior except Me," Singer cites Ho•
 |
 Original äÇø |
Yet, Tor•
There can be no îåÉùÑÄéòÇ different from the îåÉùÑÄéòÇ defined by úÌåÉøÈä and
òåÉã (e.g., Would you like more?)
àÇçÅø (e.g., Would you like something else?)
Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 42.8 & 48.11 both make it clear that Jesus, who is different from, lᵊ-ha•vᵊ
With this knowledge of Hebrew in hand, R. Singer has missed the clincher! When he quotes Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 45.21 he fails to note that the Hebrew prefaces this with the statement:
Not only can there not be any Ël•oh•imꞋ àÇçÅø, there cannot even be òåÉã Ël•oh•imꞋ peer beside Him!!! (See also Dân•iy•
This categorically rules out the Trinity. The Trinity concept can be defended only in English (and, perhaps, in the Hellenized LXX), but is precluded in the real—Hebrew—Ta•na"khꞋ.
Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu continues that He is " Eil Tza•
This understanding of Ho•
While
Yet, ShᵊlomꞋoh makes it clear that
With respect to Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 8.23—9.3 see NHM 4:13-16 w/4.15.1. For Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 11.1 see NHM 2:23 w/notes. For Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 7.14 (1-7 & 10-16) and Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ 30.18-20 see NHM 1.20-23 w/notes.
One pâ•suqꞋ that R. Singer and I will agree on completely is Tᵊhil•imꞋ 146:3!
|
|
"I got into a big fight with my dad. He said I was 'disrespectful' and he was going to 'teach me some respect.'"
If you're a young adult in your late teens or early twenties, often even later, then you've experienced this conflict between your right to dignity and kâ•vodꞋ in your own right versus a parent's views that you're not showing him (or her) the kâ•vodꞋ that he (or she) is due. Doesn't the Bible say you must have kâ•vodꞋ for your father and your mother?
If you're a parent of a young adult in your late teens or early twenties then you've been beset by a child that is developing his or her own direction in life; different from what you think your child's path should be. Doesn't the Bible say a child must have kâ•vodꞋ for his or her father and mother?
Well, yes—but bear in mind that this mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ is given in úÌåÉøÈä—to Jews who keep úÌåÉøÈä. úÌåÉøÈä is rejected by Christians and Muslims. If the father and mother reject úÌåÉøÈä then how can they demand that their child obey a set of laws given to Jews, and that they have themselves rejected? That's hypocrisy. It's unreasonable to think that young adults can't figure that out. How can a parent expect a child to have kâ•vodꞋ for his or her hypocrisy?
 |
| 1st-century KᵊpharꞋ Na•khumꞋ, Yâm Ki•nërꞋët in background. Photographed © 1983 by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu Bën-Dâ•widꞋ. |
In one of the tiny fishing villages on the north shore of Yâm Ki•nërꞋët, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa raised this issue in discussing some hypocritical practices by some of his fellow Pharisee RibꞋis. His fellow RibꞋis charged that he was hypocritical because he took a lax position relative to the ritual rinsing of hands before eating bread. RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's reply then demonstrated a practice of theirs that was genuinely hypocritical.
•marꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, "And why do you transgress the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ of Eil through your masoret (tradition)? For Eil commanded the Saying (Shᵊm•otꞋ 20.12), 'Have kâ•vodꞋ for your father and mother,' and (Shᵊm•otꞋ 21.17), 'He that curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.' But you say that whatever thing the man shall say to his father or mother, that by making some voluntary qor•bânꞋ he shall obtain ki•purꞋ—though he has no kâ•vodꞋ for his father or mother. Therefore, by your regulations you're in contempt of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ! Oy, sanctimonious ones, Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu prophesied well about you (29.13, 33.14): 'And A•don•âiꞋ said, In response of this kinsmen drawing near Me, in their mouth and in their lips they give Me kâ•vodꞋ; yet, their heart is distant from me, and their awe of Me shall be an inculcating of the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ of men.'" (NHM 15.1-9). RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa then continues by contrasting neglect of the symbolic hand-rinsing ritual—uncontested to be a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ of men—with what really causes a man to be khol (NHM 15.10-20).
This wasn't an un-Judaic teaching. Exactly the contrary! úÌåÉøÈä teaches that ki•purꞋ requires tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, comprising repentance, restitution and a return to úÌåÉøÈä-practice. qor•bânꞋ without these elements intrinsic to tᵊshuv•âhꞋ is ineffective and vain. qor•bânꞋ never has provided ki•purꞋ for failing to show kâ•vodꞋ to a parent without tᵊshuv•âhꞋ: repentance, restitution and showing kâ•vodꞋ for that parent! Claiming "salvation" without tᵊshuv•âhꞋ is why Christians have an empty "salvation." Though we don't accept the writings of Paul as Scripture, he can occasionally make a good point just like anyone else can. And Paul (III Shaul to the Hellenist congregations in the Diaspora of Central Turkey, "Galatians" 2.17) certainly made the right point here: to claim that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa "saves" those who don't make tᵊshuv•âhꞋ (i.e. those who don't undertake to practice úÌåÉøÈä non-selectively) represents him to be a 'διακονος (diakonos; servant) of sin,' i.e., a minister of Sâ•tânꞋ—the 'antichrist'! (In Judaic parlance, this is the false Mâ•shiꞋakh.)
I'm a parent of an 18 year-old college freshman at Tel Aviv University. I can tell you that this conflict doesn't have to be. Yet, it's played out in millions of homes, in every generation, from time immemorial. Will parents never learn? Will they never remember that time in their own life when they charted their own path? Did they conflict with their parents over it? The answer to that is nearly always in the affirmative. So why can't they remember when they were in their late teens and early twenties? Why can't they remember their own need as a young adult to chart their own course? Why can't they remember their own need to be treated with dignity by their parents and their own need to receive kâ•vodꞋ from their parents? Who, more than parents, should have kâ•vodꞋ for their child and treat their child with dignity?
These are rhetorical questions. I'll tell you the unhappy answer: because the parent sees the conflict as a rejection of his or her parenting abilities, the parent interprets the diverging views as their child's judgment that the parents failed, that the child has rejected him or her as a parent and chooses to be unlike them out of spite. Often worse, the parent has become accustomed to unquestioned authority and that's forever gone.
Doesn't the child have a right to expect the support of his or her parents? Sadly, however, parents are often the last to have kâ•vodꞋ for their children. They thereby demonstrate themselves to be poor parents, unable to train up children they can deem worthy of kâ•vodꞋ and dignity. Despite a parent's refusal to have kâ•vodꞋ for his or her own children, of course, that young adult deserves dignity and kâ•vodꞋ, and should have dignity and kâ•vodꞋ for himself or herself.
 |
The tables are turned. The parent is acting like a child and the child must assume the role of responsible, calm adult. Get used to it, young adults. If parents cannot get used to the idea of accepting you as a peer rather than a child then the roles are forever reversed; it's the first, not the last, time. The only recourse for a parent who rejected úÌåÉøÈä is to now earn the kâ•vodꞋ in the eyes of the child, which the parent missed in úÌåÉøÈä, by showing the courage to own up to the mistake of their hypocrisy and embracing that same standard of úÌåÉøÈä themselves; realizing how discerning, courageous and wise their child really is; and how their child deserves far greater kâ•vodꞋ than others around them. Such fortunate parents should take great kâ•vodꞋ in their child's discernment, pioneering research and, having shed hypocrisy, the courage to practice their convictions. Truly, such a child is a bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ from
It can be less unhappy for the parent if you, as a young adult, reassure your parent that every young adult has to chart his or her own course in life. You can make the transition easier for your parent by pointing out that, in large measure, their training is playing a significant part in your ability to chart a wise course. Help make your parent feel confirmed, not rejected, by your zeal to seek out facts and truth and your courage to stand by your convictions and live your life by them. Make sure your parents know that you love them and that you're not rejecting them; but you will live your life according to the path you chart because you know it's a better, more informed and wiser path. Finally, and this is critical to your future relationship, be certain to make the point that, if your parents really—really—have the kâ•vodꞋ for you and for your judgment that you deserve, which you have earned and deserve for your hard study, research and courageous stand, then they will now demonstrate that kâ•vodꞋ for you by putting in serious study to learn what you have found.
With only one exception, kâ•vodꞋ is earned, not gratuitously given. That exception is the kâ•vodꞋ that úÌåÉøÈä commands to úÌåÉøÈä-observant families: that children have kâ•vodꞋ for their úÌåÉøÈä-observant parents—specifically because they are úÌåÉøÈä-observant. That command was given to no other and applies to no other.
|
|
| úÌåÉøÈä | Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(Recall that the
"The Saying 'ëáã [Kabeid] your father and your mother' is the fifth of the Ten Sayings. So the first five were mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ concerning Himself (May He be blessed) and His ëÌÈáåÉã. Then this, the [transitional] fifth, was about kâ•vodꞋ for one's father and mother. Then the last five spoke of the human's morals concerning himself.
So they said that the first five were on one tablet and the last five on the second tablet; as suggested in Seipher Yᵊtzirah [the ancient pre-Qabbalist "Book of Creation"] in their saying: The Ten Sᵊphirot [spheres] are nothing other than the number of Fingers: Ten—Five opposite Five—with the bᵊrit directly in the middle!
They also said that the first five parallel Tor•âhꞋ shë-bi•khᵊtâvꞋ while the last five parallel Tor•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ•alꞋ pëh. Then perhaps this what they hinted by their saying, that two tablets contrast heaven and earth or groom and bride or two groomsmen or the two olâmot—and everything returns to one place.
We find that in every case the fifth saying, kabeid, combines with the first [five], which are for kâ•vodꞋ of ha-Mâ•qomꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu. Therefore, they said, it is comparing their kâ•vodꞋ to kâ•vodꞋ of
We found further that in this saying the nations returned and gave thanks for the first sayings. As it has been memorized in Pirqâ Qamâ of Ma•sëkꞋët Qi•dush•inꞋ (31.1), Rabi Yᵊhudâh explained, by Rabâh Apitkhâ, of the house of Nᵊsiyâh, What is written—"All of the kings of the earth shall thank
•marꞋ Râvâ by Rabi Yitzkhaq, Why, from this, is "The rosh of Your speaking ë•mëtꞋ" (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 119.160), and not "the end of Your speaking"? If the end of your speaking is ë•mëtꞋ, so, too, the rosh of your speaking is ë•mëtꞋ.
In this speaking [i.e., commandment], a giving of one's wage was written explicitly in the giving of úÌåÉøÈä; but [this is] not [so] in the other speakings [commandments]. So, if in the other speakings [commandments] it is said in them, "for the sake of lengthening your days and for the sake of making you good" (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 5.16), and in the first sayings it is written, "for the sake of lengthening your days" (Shᵊm•otꞋ 20.12 [that was inscribed on the tablets]) alone, they say about this, in Ma•sëkꞋët Bâv•âꞋ Qam•âꞋ, the "Ox" chapter about goring the cow, (54.2), Rabi Khaninâ Bën-Âgul asked Rabi Khiyâ Bar-Abâ, For what reason is "good" not written in the first speakings while, in the second, "good" is written? •marꞋ him, Before you ask me 'For what cause isn't "good" said in it?' ask me if I know if "good" is said in it or not? Go to Rabi Tankhum Bën-Khanilai, who regularly went to Rabi Yᵊhoshua Bën-Leiwi, who was regularly [acquainted with] àâãä (ajâd•âhꞋ; oral teachings).
[Accordingly,] he went to him. •marꞋ to him, I haven't heard from him, but so •marꞋ Rabi Shᵊmu•eil Bar-Tankhum, the brother of the mother of Rabi Akhâ Bar-Khaninâ, and some say, the father of the mother, of Rabi Akhâ Bar-Khaninâ, "Because they [the tablets] would ultimately be broken. "Because they were ultimately broken," what [can] that [mean]? •marꞋ Rav Ashei, If so, pity and peace [i.e., spare us], lest good be split [off] from Israel.
Then the "lengthening of days" and "good" that were written in this mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ is not only in this ol•âmꞋ but also for hâ-ol•âmꞋ ha-baꞋ. As it has been memorized at the end of Ma•sëkꞋët Khul•inꞋ (142.1) and in Pirqâ Qamâ of Qidushin (39.2), •marꞋ Tan•âꞋ Rabi Eliyezer Bën-Ya•aqov, You don't have, mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ by mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ, every [one] written in úÌåÉøÈä giving its reward [lit. wage] beside it; only where resurrection of the dead depends on it. Of "respect yourr father and mother," [however,] it is written, "for the sake of lengthening your days and for the sake of making you good."
In sending off [the mother] from the nest [to collect young birds or eggs], it is written, "for the sake of making you good and lengthening days" (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 22.7)—Look at the case where â•marꞋ his father to him: "Go up to the treetop [lit. palace] and bring me young birds." So he went up and sent away the mother and took away the young birds [lit. sons] and, in returning [back down], he fell and died. Where is the good in this? And where is the 'lengthening of days' in this? However, "for the sake of your good" is for the ol•âmꞋ that is all good. And "lengthening of days" is for the ol•âmꞋ that is all long. [In other words, good and bad need not always balance in this ol•âmꞋ. Justice and proper recompense await in the eternal ol•âmꞋ.] Yet, perhaps this never happened? Rabi Ya•aqov saw the Ma•as•ëhꞋ.
So perhaps He was pondering an aveir•âhꞋ? ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, Bâ•rukhꞋ Hu, doesn't combine a wrong thought [by itself] with a Ma•as•ëhꞋ [of punishment]. So, perhaps he [died because he] was pondering A•vod•âhꞋ Zâr•âhꞋ, as it is written, "for the purpose of seizing Beit-Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ by their hearts" (Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 14.5). •marꞋ Rav Akhâ Bar-Ya•aqov, Is this the thinking A•vod•âhꞋ Zâr•âhꞋ? He, too, says thusly: If there is a reward [lit. wage] for a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ in this ol•âmꞋ, is it not that the forming of the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ will cause his uplifting to the point of pondering [the mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ].
But didn't •marꞋ Rabi Elâzâr already, the messengers [i.e., senders away] of a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ are not harmed? There "in their walking" is different. And thus was the saying of Rabi Elâzâr: "Are the messengers [i.e., senders away] of a mi•tzᵊw•âhꞋ neither harmed "in their walking" nor in their returning? There was a shaky ladder that was set to cause injury to him [not any divine judgment].
In another case, the injury was not set [down] in a binding document. It is written, "But Shᵊmu•eil asked, 'How can I go? If Shâ•ul hears he will kill me.' So
•marꞋ Rav Yoseiph , If it were not for the interpretation of "other"; for this he read like Rabi Ya•aqov Bar-Barteiyh, "He didn't commit a kheit." What did he see? There are those who say that this is the Ma•as•ëhꞋ that he saw." There are [also] those who tell another version: "A great man was seeing a distinction. leading to another topic. •marꞋ, One who misses the meaning can make no sense [lit. a mouth that excludes pearls shall lick dirt] and he wouldn't know: "For the sake of making you good," is for the ol•âmꞋ that is always good, 'and lengthening of days,' is for the ol•âmꞋ that is always long.
|
|
|
