|
| Torâh | Haphtârâh | Âmar Ribi Yᵊhoshua | Mᵊnorat ha-Maor |
|---|---|---|---|
Westerners, seeing a Muslim or Indian wearing a turban, tend to think it's strange. One of the reasons they think so is because the goy•imꞋ have alienated themselves from Tor•
 |
 Accessories Of The Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dōlꞋ |
39.28— Turbans are explicitly prescribed for the Ko•han•imꞋ. äÇîÄöÀðÆôÆú is depicted in a drawing in the Artscroll Stone Edition Ta•na"khꞋ (Appendix C, Illus. 14).
It's described as a öÄéõ in pâ•suqꞋ 30. This term is related to the öÄéöÄéú worn on the four corners of a mantle.
The same pâ•suqꞋ (30) defines the ðÆæÆø-äÇ÷ÌÉãÆùÑ of gold as an integral part of the äÇîÄöÀðÆôÆú. Indeed, the top (of three) tᵊkheilꞋët cords holding this gold nameplate in place forms a crease down the middle of the äÇîÄöÀðÆôÆú.
Contrast this white linen turban, having an inscribed gold plaque held in place by three tᵊkheilꞋët wool cords, against the crown familiar to goy•imꞋ—with its (usually seven) points.
Why do nearly all crowns in the world have points? It traces back to the claims of ancient kings to be gods, sons of the sun-god. The crowns' points were their way to depict the rays of the sun. This is found earlier in paintings and drawings of the sun-god—the same crown that the Hellenist Roman goy•imꞋ, supposedly being weaned from worshiping the sun-god, depicted on Jesus. (The same crown points are also depicted on the Statue of Liberty.)
When you think of Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh or ShᵊlomꞋoh ha-•MëlꞋëkh, think äÇîÄöÀðÆôÆú, not, lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ, sun-god.
 |
 |
40.35 – åÀìÉà-éÈëÉì îÉùÑÆä, ìÈáåÉà àÆì-àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã,
 |
| îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï / àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã |
This reads differently than the English ("enter") implies, a typical good example of why one must learn to read the Hebrew and not rely on any English translation. Mosh•ëhꞋ couldn't come to the OꞋhël Mo•eidꞋ : -ëÌÄé
ùÑÈëÇï òÈìÈéå äÆòÈðÈï; åÌëÀáåÉã é--ä, îÈìÅà àÆú-äÇîÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï
ùÑÈëÇï is the verb from which the fem. noun ùÑÀëÄéðÈä is derived and, thus, implies that the ùÑÀëÄéðÈä occupied the, appropriately cognate-named, îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï / àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã.
Thus, the original text—the òÄáÀøÄéú—of this pâ•suqꞋ implies that from the moment the ùÑÀëÄéðÈä first ùÑÈëÀðÈä in the àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã, Mosh•ëhꞋ, even when summoned thereafter, had to remain a distance from the àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã. Mosh•ëhꞋ was no longer permitted to approach the àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã too closely (much less enter). That is, he couldn't (fully) "come to" the àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã after the ùÑÀëÄéðÈä had once ùÑÈëÀðÈä in the àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã. Rather, when summoned thereafter, Mosh•ëhꞋ stood outside of the àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã to speak with
It wouldn't be until ca. 28 C.E. that, in the spirit of Eil•i•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ, Yokhâ•nânꞋ 'ha-Mat•bilꞋ' Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ Bën-Tzâ•doqꞋ ha-Ko•heinꞋ proclaimed that someone had resolved the conundrum of the absence of the ùÑÀëÄéðÈä in the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ: the Mâ•shiꞋakh was teaching that the Nexus of the Spiritual Realm ("Kingdom") of the Heavens, the ùÑÀëÄéðÈä (identical with the RuꞋakh ha-QoꞋdësh), converges in the nëphꞋësh of the person who keeps Tor•âhꞋ – so that "the Realm of the heavens has converged with us" (The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English)
3.2).
Interestingly, thereafter and to this day, while denying the original teacher, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, the rabbis adopted and promulgate his teaching regarding the ùÑÀëÄéðÈä (Presence) of é--ä among Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ despite the facts that
the ùÑÀëÄéðÈä never appeared again in the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ,
the
Tal•mudꞋ decreed that, contrary to empty and false Christian-like Charismatic claims, a "family once mixed up remains so!!!" (Ma•sëkꞋët Qidush•inꞋ 70b)
Inescapably, there can never again be legitimate sacrifices in a mortal / physical Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ! The intelligent and astute tal•midꞋ will orient to the Spiritual Realm of é--ä instead of the mortal-physical world.
|
|
38.21 – àÅìÌÆä ôÀ÷åÌãÅé äÇîÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï îÄùÑÀëÌÇï äÈòÅãËú
|
| îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï / àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã |
îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï derives from the verb ùÑÈëÇï. These terms are generally translated as dwell and dwelling simply because the verb "to neighbor" isn't widely used in English. All of the nouns and adjectives associated with "neighbor," however, are, in Hebrew, cognates of ùÑÈëÇï.
After the work was finished in fashioning the facilities and utensils for the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï, Mosh•ëhꞋ published an accounting for all of the contributors of valuables (not the world at large) to the work of
Referring to the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ of Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ in Yᵊru•shâ•
"àÇì
úÌÄ÷ÀøÅé
áÌÈðÈéÄêÀ
àÅìÈà
áÌåÉðÈéÄêÀ"
(úëìàì, ÷ÇáÌÈìÇú
ùÑÇáÌÈú, ÷î"å)
This demonstrates the antiquity of the realization that the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï and first two Bât•
Consequently, the "Third Temple," the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ of Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ in Yᵊru•shâ•
This week's pâ•râsh•âhꞋ records (40.34) that when the òÈðÈï and àÅùÑ—the ëÌÈáåÉã
The òÈðÈï and àÅùÑ were transferred to the heavenly sphere prior to the destruction of the first Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ. The account of the withdrawal of the ùÑÀëÄéðÈä, corresponding to the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊ
 |
 ëÌÉúÆì |
Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ's focus was supposed to follow the òÈðÈï and the àÅùÑ, not the earthly physical building or site. Yet, we still see today that their prayer-focus is still bottom-up, on the physical – the outside of the
The òÈðÈï and àÅùÑ—the ëÌÈáåÉã
Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ must still follow the òÈðÈï and the àÅùÑ today. The "Third Temple" already exists, and has since before 70 C.E.; indeed, since Creation. Considering the physics of timespace, the "Third Temple" has always been! Those whose focus is upon an earthly physical site and building fail to see the living Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ of Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ in Yᵊru•shâ•
This should have been a blinding flash of the obvious, since the ëÌÈáåÉã
So, if the Mâ•shiꞋakh has not come, then, the rabbis insist, there is no ùÑÀëÄéðÈä!
On the other hand, many Sages have testified over the intervening centuries, and Jews believe, that the ùÑÀëÄéðÈä continues to manifest herself among Yi•sᵊ
Focusing upon the living Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ of Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ in Yᵊru•shâ•
This realization also has urgent current political implications. An article in The Jerusalem Post points out (Michael S. Arnold, "Palestinians for Jesus?," 2000.03.03, B3-4) that the "Palestinians" are hitching their oft-declared, and historically absurd, claim that Jesus was a "Palestinian" to the Pope's impending visit to Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. Consider the excerpts from this article published in our Christianity eZine (in our Web Café).
One must distinguish between the visible ùÑÀëÄéðÈä that ùÑÈëÀðÈä in the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï and First Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ disappearing with its destruction, on the one hand, and the invisible spark of the ùÑÀëÄéðÈä which resides in every Tor•
 |
| Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ |
The last 2,000 years (roughly) should have served to wean Tor•
The restoration of this remnant of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, the fulfillment of the prophecies of the regathering of Yᵊhud•imꞋ from the far reaches of the earth, should serve to shift our focus from the simplistic understandings focused excessively in the physical world, an early step among ancient and primitive peoples, to grasp more dominantly now the actualization of the Scripturally explicit úÌÇáÀðÄéú: the living Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ of Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ in Yᵊru•shâ•
There are further, important, implications. In the times of the earthly Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ, invading rulers demonstrated that they were powerful enough to demolish the House of
Furthermore, by focusing upon the living Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ of Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ in Yᵊru•shâ•
The virtual Beit K'neset in the 'Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Quarter' web site is an aid in relating to the living Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ of Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ in Yᵊru•shâ•
2,000 years of history has proven that Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ survives independently of any earthly considerations, and that she will always return as an earthly people to her earthly home; restoring her geographic homeland of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ with Yᵊru•shâ•
|
|
This pâ•râsh•
 |
 What's left of Santorini Island. Before the eruption, this was all one island. The huge 12x7 km (7½x4⅓ mi) lagoon in the center is the caldera (NASA satellite) |
Within the past couple of issues, we suggested that, at the very beginning of the éÀöÄéàÈä, the eruption of the Santorini (Thera) volcano might have caused countless plumes of smoke to braid the skies over the Sin•
This may partly explain the òÈðÈï between Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ and Par•ohꞋ's armored corps, and even Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ's early movements in following the direction pointed by such plumes. Yet, vulcanologists assert, volcanic plumes would only have persisted a few weeks. On the other hand, these same vulcanologists agree that there were a number of Santorini eruptions, probably four, with 50 years between two eruptions.
However, the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï was established on the 1st day of Firstmonth—of the second year (40.17)! It doesn't seem feasible that the òÈðÈï associated with the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï could be from the same eruption.
 |
| Santorini-Thera Caldera – the caldera lagoon is 400m deep and surrounded by 300m (980ft) high, steep cliffs. |
Still, an Omniscient and Ultimately Logical Creator requires that His works operate according to His own Laws. One possible explanation is that the smoke refers to that of the perpetual daily qor•bân•otꞋ burned on the Mi•zᵊ
This native Florida country boy knows how smoke from a grill behaves. Anyone who thinks a tiny wisp of smoke simply twines upward never fell victim to a mischievous change of wind direction while brushing Bar-B-Q sauce on chicken.
A light øåÌçÇ out of the east would envelop the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï in the smoke of the Mi•zᵊ
For the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï to be enveloped in the smoke from the Mi•zᵊ
The miracle, then, is neither in the appearance nor the movement of the òðï but, rather, that
Lest we become smug in thinking that such interpretations of signs were unthinkably primitive for MoshꞋëh and the early Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋis, we need only look at how even more primitively many "signs" are interpreted today. Typical of this practice: a couple of years ago a school- bus was hit by a train here in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, killing some school children. Some rabbis claimed it was because mᵊzuzot in their homes were flawed, etc. No one today is in a superior position to scoff at early interpretions of the action of the øåÌçÇ as a sign.
The àÅùÑ by night was likely from the qor•bân•otꞋ on the Mi•zᵊ
|
|
 |
 îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï |
This pâ•râsh•âhꞋ begins àÅìÌÆä ôÀ÷åÌãÅé äÇîÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï
Audits of what?
Audits of the work and materials that went into the construction of îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï.
îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï derives from the verb ùÑÈëÇï). Because "neighbor" is not conventionally used as a verb in English, translators at a loss approach the meaning by rendering it as settle down, dwell, abide, and the like—for which, however, éùá (yashav, he sat, settled, dwelled) is better suited. éùá is also the verb from which îåùá (moshav; settlement) is derived.
ùëï, by contrast, is the verb from the following derive:
The îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï was the House for the ùëéðä.
So 38.21 reads "These are the audits of the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï, the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï of the òãåú (hard evidence, i.e., the House of the Neighboring-Presence where the stone tablets, etc. were kept in the holy chest).
Back then, the Yᵊhud•imꞋ had the Neighboring-Presence, the hard evidence of which was visible to all (not a select few mystics), with hard proof attesting to their experiences (neither testimony has ever been seriously disputed) backing their religious claims. This was
|
|
àÅìÌÆä ôÀ÷åÌãÅé äÇîÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï
The meaning and insight found in a passage is often dependent upon word associations. Relying upon English usually founders upon two major problems:
words that are associated in the original language are not related in the English and therefore missed (as problematic in Greek as in Hebrew), and
words that are unrelated in the original language are artificially related in English translations.
This pâ•râsh•
àÅìÌÆä ôÀ÷åÌãÅé äÇîÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï, îÌÄùÑÀëÌÇï äÈòÅãËú; àÂùÑÆø ôÌË÷ÌÇã òÇì-ôÌÄé îÉùÑÆä; òÂáÉãÇú äÇìÀåÄéÌÄéí
(These are the accountings-and-overseeings of the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï, the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï of the Evidence, which was accounted-and-overseen according to Mosh•ëhꞋ; the work of the ìÀåÄéÌÄéí).
 0350x263.jpg "Mishkan Ohel-Moeid (Timna courtyard)") |
 1136x852.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï / àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã(Timna courtyard) |
The îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï as "the Neighbor's House" was covered in a previous issue.
In the English, "the work of the Lᵊwi•
In pâ•suqꞋ 21, the English "work " has been rendered for òÂáåÉãÈä, the general term. However, pâ•suqꞋ 24 reads:
ëÌÈì äÇæÈÌäÈá, äÆòÈùÒåÌé ìÇîÌÀìÈàëÈä, áÌÀëÉì îÀìÆàëÆú äÇ÷ÉãÆùÑ;
(all of the gold, done for the îÌÀìÈàëÈä, in all of the îÌÀìÈàëÈä of the ÷ÉãÆùÑ)
Only in the Hebrew can we see that there is a difference between the service-type of work done by the Lewiy•imꞋ and the occupational-work done by the artisans working on the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï and its utensils. This is a crucial distinction totally absent in the English, for "work" is prohibited on Shab•âtꞋ, yet the Lewiy•imꞋ and Kohan•imꞋ are required to "work" on Shab•âtꞋ—without guilt.
Clearly, the two "work"s found in English are not equivalent.
îÌÀìÈàëÈä is prohibited on Shab•âtꞋ.
This is one of the reasons that the definition of îÌÀìÈàëÈä is related to the kinds of tasks involved in building the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï. This term refers specifically to a trade, or occupational employment, work with a specific mission. This term is analyzed in our glossary (see links), noting its relationship to îÇìÀàÈêÀ The logic is: all îÌÀìÈàëÈä (occupational-artison work) is òÂáåÉãÈä (work), but not all òÂáåÉãÈä (work) is îÌÀìÈàëÈä (occupational-artison work) – and only îÌÀìÈàëÈä is prohibited on Shab•
The rabbinic notion that 39 types of îÌÀìÈàëÈä are "philosophically reasoned" (logical fallacies, not logic) from Bronze Age chores of chiseling limestone, sharpening bronze chisels, loading and unloading ox-drawn carts, gathering kindling wood, carrying water and the like is foolishly simplistic and ignorantly – caught up in rabbinic mechanical thinking blissfully unaware of the underlying and paramount principles of Tor•
Nevertheless, these kinds of discrepancies can only be discovered and appreciated in Hebrew, not in the English. Most of the gems and nuggets of Scripture fall into this category. It is one reason why many Hebrew-Tor•
40.29 is one of many instances of the îÄðÀçÈä service still observed in Judaic liturgy. îÄðÀçÈä dates back to bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 4.3-5, where we learn that
Both ÷ÇéÄï and äÆáÆì each offered îÄðÀçÈä
The difference between the two was that äÆáÆì also brought the firstborn of his flock with its çÅìÆá (çÈìÈá-like intestinal fat), which he burned on an altar.
The contrast between the two clearly implies that ÷ÇéÄï, like the future Par•ohꞋ (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 45.18), ate the çÅìÆá forbidden by the Oral Ha•lâkh•otꞋ of ka•shᵊr•
For this çÇèÌÈàÈä of ka•shᵊr•
This is not evident in the English because:
the English shows no special connection between the "fat" of bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 4.4 and that of wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 3, especially pᵊsuq•imꞋ 16-17;
the English shows no connection between the "fat" of bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 4.4 and the Ha•lâkh•otꞋ of ka•shᵊr•
the English shows little connection between the peripheral "meal offering" and its main course, the sacrifice of the firstborn,
the English leaves ÷ÇéÄï's "sin" entirely unknown and speculative.
Lesson: Beware of çÇèÌÈàÈä involving ka•shᵊr•
Remember also that, before vowels were instituted, çÈìÈá—same spelling but pronounced khâ•lâvꞋ—means dairy/milk. This is the origin of the separation of çÈìÈá from áÌÈùÒÈø
Keep this lesson of îÄðÀçÈä in mind when you pray îÄðÀçÈä
|
|
The îÄùÑÀëÌÇï äÈòÅãËú is another name for the àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã
40:1— describes setting up the îÄùÑÀëÌÇï äÈòÅãËú / àÉäÆì îåÉòÅã on the first day of Firstmonth (assimilated to Babylonian "Nisan").
40:34—Then an òÈðÈï covered the àÉäÆì
îåÉòÅã, and ëÀÌáåÉã
é--ä filled the îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï. This explicit record of the ëÌÈáåÉã
Significantly, this never occurred in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊ
40:38—suggests that there was no difference between the ëÌÈáåÉã
|
|
This Ha•phᵊtâr•
For two decades, I've left the Shab•atꞋ ha-KhoꞋdësh (of 5754) for this pâ•râsh•
 |
 Har ha-• |
Every year, I research to see if anyone has any inkling that connects the logic, beyond the shallow similarity of accountings, to ôÀ÷åÌãÅé and contributes substantive meaning to our lives today – as a logical understanding should. Finally, I found something that lit up the right LED. Rabbi (Yeshiva U) Dr. (Midrash, Harvard) Gidon Rothstein mentioned, in a commentary on this Ha•phᵊtâr•
All of the LEDs lit up connecting the dots. The Beit ha-Mi•qᵊ
Why does this Ha•phᵊtâr•
As we pointed out in the Tor•
Not quite complete. That's the key. This Ha•phᵊtâr•
Because that's precisely the point in construction – of the eternal, spiritual, Beit ha-Mi•qᵊ
In our time(space) – yours and mine, today, now, this moment, "as in the days of 24.37f), goy•
We should be astonished and deliriously ecstatic at what we can look back and see, that our forbears could only dream of, and where we are in this Divine úÌÇáÀðÄéú. Yet…
Just as in this Ha•phᵊtâr•
I repeat Rabbi Rothstein's observation: "Tal•
And, logically – and paramountly, not until the last stone –
 |
| éÈëÄéï & áÌÉòÇæ |
"These pillars [7.41] were additions not included in the original architecture of the [îÌÄùÑÀëÌÈï], reminding us that the structure in the desert was a minimum, open to adjustment and expansion (as were the dimensions, since [the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊ
Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner asked: "What was the purpose of naming these copper pillars? … Radak explained that these portals were named in order to provide a positive message for those who passed between them:
He named the pillars to create a positive omen. They were at the entrance to the Temple, and he called them by names to create a positive omen. He called one ‘Yachin’, an expression of establishment, that the Temple should be established forever, like the phrase, ‘Like the moon, it should be established forever.’ ‘Boaz’ is an expression of strength, a contraction of ‘Bo Oz [strength within]’, meaning that God should place in it strength and endurance, as it is written, ‘HaShem will give His nation strength.’
Radak, Melachim I 7:21"
"But Radak’s message is hard to understand; why did these particular structural elements warrant names? We have no record of names for the vessels handled by the Kohanim, or the bricks and beams that supported this structure. What is the unique character of entrance pillars?"
Rabbi Torczyner draws the correct parallel: the mᵊzuz•
These entrance mᵊzuz•
These conspicuously parallel the Mâ•
 |
 Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid• |
"[çÄéøåÉí 's additions of the two pillars] reminds us that even when [Ël•oh•
It is exactly this lesson that is denied by the Ultra-Orthodox Kha•reid•
|
|
The Haphtâr•âhꞋ must be understood within its context. Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ ha-Nâ•viꞋ 40.1—48.35 constitutes a block of context within which each passage within must be understood. The block begins by describing a brass figure with a measuring string and a measuring rod (reed) to measure a Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ in Yᵊru•shâ•
 |
It is a refitting of existing structures as shown from chapter 44, where the
Scholars are not sure when this gate was shut. Fleming speculates (BAR 01-02.83) in the 16th, 13th or 11th century C.E. Any passer-by today can see it is certainly blocked shut. 44.2 states that it was shut because
While it is true that the 1st century Pharisee Jew and Zeus-syncretism, Jesus, dubbed "Triumphal Entry," into Yᵊru•shâ•
However, the ùÑÀëÄéðÈä of
Sages have long agreed that, in Biblical usage, this title refers to the Mâ•shiꞋakh.
In this latter sense, the only possible candidate is RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, who entered through this gate before it was shut.
No other candidate can be considered for Mâ•shiꞋakh unless he enters through this now- blocked gate – which the Muslims have further desecrated with a Muslim cemetery, to preclude any Tor•
This week's Haphtâr•âhꞋ describes the functions and duties of äÇðÈÌùÒÄéà in the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ which is to be built without hands (in the spiritual Realm of
|
|
 |
| Beit Tzayada, NE Yam Kinneret. Photographed © 1983 by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu Bën-Dâ•widꞋ. |
As we noted in the Tor•
Restoration of the Hebrew connotations underlying the Greek (through a LXX to Hebrew correlation, see NHM notes) revealed that two passages in Matityahu bᵊ-Ivᵊr•itꞋ are likely related to this prophecy. In NHM 9.20-22, "Look, a woman having had vaginal bleeding for twelve years, having come near behind him, palpated the öéöéú of his tal•itꞋ. For she said within herself, If I can only palpate his öéöéú I will be delivered."
In NHM 14.34-36, "Recognizing him, the local men sent forth into all of the surrounding countryside and presented to him all those who had evil. They requested forbearance of him that they might just palpate the öéöéú of his tal•itꞋ. As many as palpated his öéöéú were delivered."
There is a third reference to öéöéú in NHM, at 23.1-7, where RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa admonishes to keep the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ of the RibꞋis but avoid the sanctimony of many of them "All of their actions they do for the sake of appearances before men—for whom they enlarge their tᵊphil•inꞋ and lengthen the öéöéú on their tal•it•otꞋ." Traditional Christian interpretation has been to attribute the lengthening of öéöéú to simple sanctimony (and, misojudaicly, generalized to all rabbis and Jews). History documents that, contrary to modern denials from many Jews, there was an enormously successful outreach to geir•imꞋ by the Jewish community in the first century C.E. This great success in making converts was surely associated with this prophecy, perhaps leading to lengthening the öéöéú as a form of bragging about the number of convert followers a given RibꞋi claimed.
|
|
| Tor• |
Translation | Mid•râshꞋ RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa: NHM |
NHM |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
|
|
When a RuꞋakh of foolishness [i.e. idolatry] enters the heart of a man he becomes proud in heart. Whenever he isn't bringing forth pride from the thought of an action—in Ma•as•ëhꞋ or in speech—still, he can easily send forth this pride from his heart, whenever it doesn't dominate him so much, to bring forth the action. However, since he is accustomed to it in all of his Ma•as•ëhꞋ, he is already shackled in it and he cannot put it down until he comes into a state of poverty; as it is in chapter [2, Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion (24a) •marꞋ Mar: A sign of hardening of the RuꞋakh—poverty; and also in Chapter] Bameh Madliqin (Shabat 33.1): The Sages taught, They are four signs, etc. The sign of hardening the heart—poverty, etc. As it is above, in the first part from this joint (3.2).
[This] also troubles him from the next world, as is memorized in chapter kheleq (Ma•sëkꞋët Sunedrion 101.b): Rav Nakhmân said: the discourtesy within Yârâvâm troubled hime from the next world. As it is said: "And Yârâvâm said in his heart, Now the kingdom will return to the house of Dâ•widꞋ. If [this] people will go up and make sacrifices in Beit-
(Translated so far)
|
|
|